Open Thread


Discuss amongst yourselves...

Read commentsFree bias alerts

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Found this on Drudge:Farracon

Found this on Drudge:

Farraconman to make his last major address. Too, bad the word "major" was in there. I was kind of hoping he'd crawl back under the rock completely.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070222/D8NEH18O0.html

Pardon my crudity ... It's about f**kin' time.

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain

And now, today's Britney-Spea

And now, today's Britney-Spears-free Shrub Report®:

Nancy Pelosi calls for "tighter ethics", promotes Willie Jefferson to Homeland Security Committee in same breath. In the next breath, she calls the president to complain about Dick Cheney.

Speaking of the "Culture of  Corruption"…

Will the ACLU take up this case?

Italy's 61st government since WW2 is in a crisis!

Al Gore is bigger than SAGA (but not as big as Red Ryder or April Wine) in Canada!

If one dismissed Iraqi rape allegation fails, try, try again!

Damn that Bush economy!

Well, you won't be seeing cluster bombs being used any time soon by the powerful armies from Angola, Sweden, Mexico, or New Zealand.

Here's the best-value public colleges in America, according to Kiplinger.

Awww, poor wittle Wombat is all angry and pouty now that he got banned from Newsbusters. It comforts me to no end to see that I get under his fur, er, skin.

I see that the hatred of clowns is a worldwide phenomenon.

Today in Liberalism History: Happy 75th birthday to "The Swimmer"!

Roger, I see I made honorable

Roger, I see I made honorable mention in the wombats lunatic rage. Ha, ha, too good, I'll have to write home now, I'm famous -- NOT. Thanks for sharing :-D

"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

rhayes

......now that he got banned from Newsbusters.

That's the best news I have heard all day!

I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman

Roger, Iwe saw what you said

Roger, Iwe saw what you said about that rhayes person and you should be ashamed for using such bad language. We had thought that you had been taught the proper way to disagree with someone with a different view, and the use of such gutter words is beyond the pall, and you should be reminded that such behavior will be punished. (But we agree that it had to be said, or at least thought - next time don't publish, leaves a trail)

Parental Conscious

Classic LOL Shrubbster -- t

Classic LOL Shrubbster -- thanks for the wombat in flames link...

I'd like to thank hayes for reposting all your posts on the Howard Stern site, I'd missed most of them, so that was very considerate of him.

A ten post thread, six from him complaining about NB. I'm pretty sure he's also the other three "people" who responded to his primal scream that he's been banned.

I particularly liked this hat/tip to you in the longest rambling demented post to himself.

Roger the Shrubber Says:
February 17, 2007 - 17:59
LOL!!! Thx for making my day, Wombat!

I can almost see all the Libs who come here cringe, knowing that a truly-retarded douchbag like you is one of their flag bearers.

March on, little trooper! March on!

Expect to see hayes in a thinly disguised plot on Huff.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

To me, the funny part is th

To me, the funny part is that I'm the admitted Howard (not-K) Stern fan around here, but Roger apparently spends a LOT more time on SFN than I do! :)
JMR

Hey, I grew up with Howard. I

Hey, I grew up with Howard. I just don't feel like paying money to hear him, so I try to keep up through the forum. It's nice to see that some of the people that were callers to his show are just as stupid in the forums...

The guy is a trip. He doesn't

The guy is a trip. He doesn't even comprehend what he writes. Example:

Bush can't win in Iraq, Afghanistan and cant find my friend BinLaden, polls are way down so he starts another war. Then he has movie company make propaganda movies like "300 Spartans" to make us Persians look weak and he thinks american military is like the Greek Spartans! Of course Bush is chicken hawk and was too afraid to fight..He thinks he can take over middle east for oil like he did when he played risk at Yale instead of studying. His Rich daddy paid off professors so he could play games, cheerlead and cheat at rugby. What you doin after interview?"

So I respond, informing him first, of course, of his douchebaginess, then try to point him in the right direction about the Battle of Thermopylae. His response?

hmmm, the spartans fought back the persians...and interesting how bush wants to start another war with iran? roger douchebag the neocon!

Huh? He went from "propaganda anti-Persian movie" to some correlation between the Spartans at Thermoplylae and George Bush "wanting to start a war" with Iran?

He cannot even focus enough to come up with his own insult for me, just mimicking what I called him. The guy has serious, serious issues. I wish he wasn't banned. He was entertainment for us all.

Apparently, there must be some sort of ban on non-Liberals from visiting the Stern Fan Network.

What I've always found amus

What I've always found amusing about the mother of ALL last stands at Thermoplyae is that King Leonidas stayed behind with 300 Spartans and 700 Thespian volunteers

Wow... .Thespians -- man, those were the days when ACTORS were real men.

Unlike the "brave" hearts like Tim Robbins, Jake Gylenhaal, and the rest of the armchair Thespians who think it's tremendously "brave" dahling to call a press conference to denounce President Bush. And throw a tantrum if they can't get into the Viper Room.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Perhaps they were Thespians l

Perhaps they were Thespians like the actors in Star Trek who always died when a landing party beamed down to a planet.

Kirk: "Spock, McCoy, Kowalski, meet me in the transporter room". Which guy wasn't coming back?

Yep when the prop department

Yep when the prop department handed you a red shirt in that series you knew it was time to look for more work. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

Man, you made me search for t

Man, you made me search for this.

Good man, Dan. The Man. Dan the Man.

Ever seen "Galaxy Quest&

Ever seen "Galaxy Quest" ? That movie captures that phenomenon with aplomb.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)

Galaxy Quest and the Hatlo hat

'specially if said plums ({a}plomb-humor) are red. My favorite part was when Shalhoub's character said, right after initial transport and greeting Cappy, "What's wrong with them?" or something to that effect as he looked at his fellow crewmates frozen, and just slightly shivering, from shock. To which Cappy replies, "I don't know."

Gun control means using two hands and saying "Halt 3 (three) times" before firing.

[Thanks and a tip of the Hatlo Hat (scroll down just five to entry V294.20-21) to Mean Gene for the inspiration for the above tagline]

Roger, go to your room. For maybe an hour.

Roger, go to your room.  For maybe an hour.

Several points to make here to you.  First, the quality of this site is slightly higher than that of KOS, DU, or Stern, would you not agree?

And if that were true, would not extending unlimited time to the snide and shallow comments of deranged people like rhayes would be sort of self-defeating?

If that is true, then I think he had more than his run here.

I also think discussing him and his tirades is interesting.  But a wasted exercise given his obvious lack of intellect.  His contention that spewing pure Bush drivel hate filled posts was unfair grounds to ban him, I would suggest that if this site were any MSM sponsored site; such would be deleted or not allowed.

Having said that, there are plenty of ways to disagree among ourselves and with the occasional Liberal that tries to argue their points here.  I'm currently in a gun/knifefight with SomerTeeth who cannot seem to understand that cut and paste with no attribution does not make an argument.

So, he posts a telephone book.

That still doesn't fix his original sin.  But he doesn't care.  He's just as bad as rhayes; but he at least tries to debate and doesn't use really horrible language.

This is the kind of Liberal I can live with.  rhayes is not.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

LOL --Thermopylae -- The Mo

LOL --

Thermopylae -- The Mother of All Last Stands

Pelosylae -- The Grandmother of All Surrenders

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

now, jocko

Hey are youz insinuatin that Rock Hudson was not a real man?

It was news to my wife, but I was always perplexed about that one. Antonio Banderas is somehow unusual, I think. My wife says, "WHAT? He has a wife and childrun!"

Girls are always the last to find out, I figure. Go, Sparta!

I'm Spartacus. No.. I'm Spa

I'm Spartacus.

No.. I'm Spartacus.

Written by a commie. But still a GREAT movie.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Howard Fast was a commie?

Howard Fast was a commie?

I Noticed This

I noticed all of this too, Rog. Your response to him just made me laugh. And he thinks we need help? I mean it's really hard to follow his thought train because it is all over the place. It really is. Spartans=Persians=Bush=uh, uh, uh...attack on Iran! Where is this new war because as far as I know we're still only fighting the two. Could it be an undercover, underground, serreptitious war with Mexico? Or perhaps Venezuela? Could rhayes be the new Baghdad Bob? He sounds just as ridiculous. I think he sounds a lot like some 8th graders I used to teach. These kids were so hyped up on caffeine it was hard to just get them to sit and concentrate. I think a little visit to the doctor for an ADHD or ADD diagnosis and he'll be right as rain...for a liberal.

The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer.  Air Force Motto

emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.

Cluster bombs, because of t

Cluster bombs, because of their deliberately-engineered-in characteristics, basically function in part as land mines laid via air. Geneva has something to say about doing that (it's a "war crime") but everyone pretends this is "different." I'm not so sure it is -- useful as cluster bombs are -- in the land of reality, but then, I have the temerity to call mercenaries "mercenaries," so I'm clearly reality-challenged according to some folks.

And I'm betting the ACLU would take on the Jesus-costume case, they've helped Hannity & Limbaugh before because they're free speech absolutists, whatever their other political faults.
JMR

Clluster bombs were designed

Clluster bombs were designed to be used to destroy airfields and vehicles parked in close proximity to each other without having to use the "excessive force" of a similary armed single-warhead bomb.

Your land-mine equivalency doesn't fly with me. Land mines are specifically designed as anti-personnel and are often booby-trapped, cluster bombs are not. Everyone's beef with land mines is the ones that remain after conflicts that kill or injure civilians. How many innocent civilians have been killed or injured by a cluster bomb?

I think it is ridiculous for these countries to try to ban cluster bombs. If they don't want cluster bombs used on them, then don't screw with those countries that have them.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)

Part of the design was that

Part of the design was that about half, or at least quite a few, don't go off, but they're still really-unstable. Again, in my politically incorrect world, that spells air-laid land mines, and I further contend that we have fuzes that could make the vast majority of them go-off and said fuzes deliberately aren't used because of the mine-aspect nobody wants to talk about, but remember, I'm speaking from realityville...And I'm familiar with how (and where -- the University of Florida) cluster bombs were designed. If it were up to me, we wouldn't use 'em absent a major redesign. I agree that it's stupid to try to ban them, but then, I want us to renegotiate Geneva so our troops can use dum-dum bullets against enemies. This isn't about enemy troops, it's about little kids losing feet/hands to what are effectively air laid mines, whether or not anyone-else wants to call 'em that.
JMR

Keep your kids out of areas t

Keep your kids out of areas that EOD haven't cleaned up.

C'mon, that's what being a parent is all about--protecting your children from danger.

It is just not wise to spend any time in areas that have been recently bombed (cluster or conventional). Of the nearly 12,000 cases of cluster bomb incidents recorded at Handicap International (Link here) they claim 98% have been civilians. So far in my reading of their document they don't specifically mention the limits of their statistics such as whether the victims were in the bombing or whether the victims all encountered the UXOs after a bombing. Anyway, 12,000 or even 100,000 people is a pretty insignificant number..now spread that over a timeline of over 4 decades and it becomes even more insignificant. My point is that this is an even smaller issue than land mines are, which here in the U.S. is pretty much a non-issue. Is the casualty rate higher for the civilians because they don't know what the bomblets are? Are these people purposely endangering their children or themselves by going into an area that was recently bombed to plunder and pillage the bombs site? Remember the photo from the recent war in Lebanon of the kid standing next to an unexploded 500 lb bomb? I think the casualties happen mostly from activities like that, not from people going about their day-to-day business.

Or maybe I am just heartless?

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)

If it helps, imagine land m

If it helps, imagine land mine deaths as abortions instead...Maybe thousands of needlessly dead/maimed people, no matter what the cause, isn't a good thing.
JMR

It doesn't help because an ab

It doesn't help because an abortion is a purposeful and willing act. Land mine/ bomblet incidents (on civilians) are generally accidents or a result of the type stupidity I talked about above. Stay out of bombed areas. Don't put yourself or others at risk to loot a bombed area. Don't play in bombed out areas. If you see something that looks suspicious call the bomb squad.

Like I said before...the land-mine/cluster bomb 'problem' is a non-issue for 99.9% of the world's population. I'm not going to lose sleep over it because I will teach my kids that if they ever happen upon a bomb site, they shouldn't touch anything and they should leave the area and make sure it's reported to EOD. But the chances of my children encountering a land mine or a bomb site here in the U.S. are slim to none.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)

We're just going to need to

We're just going to need to agree to disagree here. Thankfully, as pointed out first by a Wikipedia footnote, the military seems to be seeing things my way on this issue, and (see warrantless wiretap-issue) I'm getting used to being eventually-right. ;)
JMR

So, artillery rounds that do

So, artillery rounds that do not explode on contact with the ground, yet later explode are considered land mines in Sarcasmo world?

Only (see above) if that's

Only (see above) if that's a deliberate part of their design, but in Geneva-not-sarcasmo world, like it or not, airplanes are held to be different from artillery pieces.
JMR

Please prove to me that any o

Please prove to me that any of these munitions with the exception of FASCAM were designed to be used in such a manner.

Please provide a COIC from an Operational Test/Evaluation that specifically stated that a desireable outcome of use would be something like "23% of the submunitions fail to fuze appropriately and can be considered a landmine" etc. 

I know that you will have no problem finding that in Conspiro-world.

Uninventing

Actually, I support no restrictions on any weaponry whatsoever (ESPECIALLY when controlled by democratic governments with civilian control over its military).  How do you plan to un-invent land mines, cluster munitions, nuclear weaponry, etc.?

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

I was reflecting on this land

I was reflecting on this land-mine/cluster bomb exchange we were having here and then it hit me...

Sarc, you're a Libertarian...and you're suggesting something be 'regulated'. What's up with that? I thought Libertarians wanted people to be responsible for themselves. Am I wrong? Is not suggesting the Geneva Conventions policing this area at odds with Libertarian views?

Anyway, it just clicked in my head while I was on my lunch break and upon reflection, I am surprised at your view on this subject.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)

No, not a regulation, a vol

No, not a regulation, a voluntarily-signed contract. Libertarians believe in contracts & the long-forgotten individual right to contract. Because we're among the few who demand it from the government, we're also (& Constitutionally) constrained to give that right to government. In this case, "we" signed a contract before I was born which has provisions I dislike (see composite bullets example, but please also see today's open-thread cloaked post about..Gasp!...actual mediabias at some point!) but just because you don't like a contract/treaty does not give you the right to violate it. This one has provisions regarding air-dropped mines, which tend to create unmarked minefields because those are thought to cause lots of civilian casualities. We should abide by these provisions not because they're suddenly "regulations" 'cuz we don't like them making an area-denial weapon less-effective, or even because the treaty is objectively "good" (since clearly I think parts of it aren't!). We should abide by all provisions -- good & bad -- because that's what we agreed to do. Simple. As Jimmy Buffett says, "say what you mean, and mean what you say."
JMR

O.K. I understand where you'r

O.K. I understand where you're coming from now. However, the U.S. is about the only country that consistently tries to follow the Geneva Conventions. Do you think Iran, NK, Syria, Lebanon, or even China will comply? If they don't (and I am certain the won't) then the contract is useless from the get-go. Another provision of the Geneva Conventions is that we reserve the right to retaliate in kind if our enemy employs any of the 'agreed no-nos' in armed conflict. To me the Geneva Conventions is a feel-good idea, but in reality it is a waste of time since our enemies are more than likely to ignore it whether they signed it or not.

You've got to remember, every other country on this planet is at a technological disadvantage to the U.S. and therefore will fight the dirtiest fight they can because they know that we want to fight fair.

The U.S. does do what we agreed to do...what about the other countries that also agreed? A contract is only good if all parties involved fully comply.

I guess we will have to disagree.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)

If we wish to claim that st

If we wish to claim that standard, we'll need in the case of these weapons to start living up to it. So far, we haven't on this subject IMO, and nothing anyone here has said convinces me otherwise. If the idea is scrapping Geneva, I'm for it, but as long as it's around it's what we agreed-to so we need to live up to it without excuses. What I'd wanted also, though, was for SOMEONE to express SOME sort of opinion about the obvious mediabias I've busted in the well-cloaked post referenced above this post. Am I right or am I wrong about TV mediabias against certain (my) ideas being manifested against Ron Paul, and if I'm right how come NB's not saying more about the subject of blatant antilibertarian bias, since it's affecting the very direction of the Republican-not-Libertarian Party? Isn't that kind of media bias sort-of why we're here?? Why the deafening silence about it???
JMR

NB's not saying more about

NB's not saying more about the subject of blatant antilibertarian bias

I don't see the exclusion (mostly, not always) of what amounts to a fringe party like the Libertarians (or the Green Party, the American Vegetarians, etc.) as media bias, It looks to me more like time management, profit motive, and who will win. Why promote a loser? I quote answers.com:

The American political system has rarely been kind
to third parties. No third party has won a presidential election in
over a century. From the point of view of the two major parties, minor
parties have functioned more as irritants or sideshows than as serious
rivals.

Don't get me wrong here, I think some of the third party candidates have some great ideas to add to the political stew, and I wish we would hear more from them.

D

Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.

You can also send faxes to your reps about immigration from Nu

That's fine, and I agree, b

That's fine, and I agree, but in this case it's totally irrelevant. I'm NOT talking about a third party at all here (unless a literally 2 decade old "sin" of running for President still taints the man somehow, as seems likely). I'm instead talking about the media shutting out a pro-life REPUBLICAN candidate because of his politically-incorrect ideas. I've shown with my "Kucinich control-group" blatant TV media bias against allowing small-l libertarian ideas into the debate, while at the same time they're blatantly trying to push socialist ideas via Kucinich. I'll ask you specifically, have you even seen Paul on TV at all this campaign, and how many times have you seen Kucinich? My answers are "nope, not even once" and "I wish I'd kept-count, because then my case here would be made even stronger than it already-is, and that's sayin' something!" The fascinating thing about it all is that even Fox News is in on the bias in this case against libertarian ideas, and yes, I've seen Kucinich on Fox a buncha times, too, with goose-egg for Dr. Paul.
JMR

I more or less agree with y

I more or less agree with you here, but I haven't seen any candidates on my TV because I haven't been looking. I cannot watch the 'news' shows at all. MSM pushing socialist ideas? That I believe.

D

Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.

You can also send faxes to your reps about immigration from Nu

Ok, thanks. BTW, I've asked

Ok, thanks. BTW, I've asked around both here and elsewhere. Lots of people, like me, have seen lots of Dennis Kucinich. So far, 0 reports of any TV sightings of Dr. Ron Paul from anybody I've asked. Not one... Goose-egg. I'd say "I rest my case," but I'm having too much fun kicking-ass on the blatant mediabias I've found. In fact, I think NB should have a new category: "Antilibertarian Bias," in honor of the massive bias I've ass-kicked in this case, but that's up to the masthead.
JMR

Sarc - when it comes to politics I subscribe to the following:

Sarc - when it comes to politics I subscribe to the following:

It is the individual's job to get their ideas out to the people.  Not the media.

I know that irks you with respect to Dr. Paul, and maybe it should.  But the reality is that in today's environment a candidate has to figure out how to get his messages out to the people; not for some organ of the MSM to figure out how to be 'fair'.

Now, having said all of that, when it comes to Libertarian ideas not being given full shift in the debate going on politically about any particular issue; would you not agree that it is the work of the Libertarian Party to recruit (e.g. 'attract') enough supporters for their ideas to fund their publicity and get their message heard?

For example, there is some threshold for federal matching funds, I think it may be 5% of the popular vote but I'm not sure.  That is of course an 'artificial' threshold; my point would be from a purely economist sense, "What is the 'natural' threshold for Libertarians to receive media attention and coverage in national elections?"  <Forget the tie to any 'Federal Matching Funds' as that is just an example of some requirement to 'participate'.  I'm not suggesting the Libertarians shoot for any matching federal funds.>

And it appears that to date, the Libertarians have not met that 'natural' threshold.

And if one just takes a rather silly example; How many Libertarians are there posting on this site consistently debating their 'take' on Media Bias?  You.

So, my contention would be that more Libertarians in the Political Gene pool would mean more attention paid to on this site to Libertarian Media Bias.

But aside from all of that...

One would have to agree that Libertarians are being discriminated against by the media.  Rather than just sit on the sidelines I am writing this to suggest both a reason for that bias and a solution.  That's not a criticism of Libertarians as much as pointing out to you that you aren't getting a big response on this site because there aren't enough of you guys coming here or maybe simply not enough of you guys.

:-)

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Once again, you seem focuse

Once again, you seem focused on the Large-L Libertarians, and once-again this just ain't about them. It's about a REPUBLICAN candidate and about obvious mediabias against his IDEAS. I'm doing EXACTLY what you and others said I should do & getting involved with the 2 big-government parties, and you're somehow-ignoring that obvious fact and instead reflexively bringing up an irrelevant party. I have my theories about why this issue isn't in the NB masthead more (and since my theories question the wisdom of the Iraq war, they're likely to cause more heat than light if injected into this issue, which I've tried to keep focused on the antilibertarian media bias I've quite amply proved). Anyway, if you truly think it's not up to the MSM to figure out how to be "fair," you might want to inform Fox News that they'll need to consider switching slogans. In the mean time, I've proved bias against my ideas whether anyone else particularly likes how I've done it or not.
JMR

You are right, Sarc; I was focusing on the large 'L'.

You are right, Sarc; I was focusing on the large 'L'.

It's my fault for not paying that much attention to the conversation.

I personally don't care how you prove your bias against your ideas.  I'd appreciate that you didn't focus on personalizing the issue so much.  I'm not personalizing the issue.

However, you are doing a much better job at posting your point of view from my POV since I bothered to discuss this with you.

Keep it up.  (as if you wouldn't)

:-)

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

When I'm doing exactly what

When I'm doing exactly what you suggested and you're ignoring it, pointing out that fact rather-sharply to you isn't "personalizing" the issue, it's...er...helping you to see the inconsistency of your statements. And it's not my bias, it's the media's bias I've proven with "Constant Coverage" Kucinich acting as my control group. The media bias I've shown seems designed to have an effect on the direction of both "major" parties, and that effect is advocacy for even-bigger government in fact -- not in election-time rhetoric.

The bias I've clearly shown in this case does not fit neatly into a NB or Mediamatters box so we can't expect people besides me to point it out, especially since people apparently don't want to think that much about it, but as I've shown, it's there -- even in the case of the allegedly-biased-toward smaller government but coulda-fooled-me Fox News. You may disagree, and I expect you to, but what I've done here is probably why the internet needs a mediabias watchdog that's focused on antilibertarian bias, since clearly Mediamatters and NB would have both tried to ignore this particular example of media bias absent my one voice. But one voice, at times, is enough, and various people I respect have told me I'm 100% right on this issue. I believe them. :)
JMR

Well, I'm complimenting you by the way.

Well, I'm complimenting you by the way.

Anyway, your point is well taken.  I had almost suggested in my original post that you start up such a site.

But then, I thought you might take it personally (joking there son).

What I am saying is that I see your point here and maybe a anti-Libertarian Idea bias site is an idea whose time has come.

I'm currently putting up some sites (nothing to do with politics really) and it doesn't cost that much to get server farm space and stuff.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

I'm glad you also see the p

I'm glad you also see the political vacuum here that needs to be filled, but in this case I'd held out a smidgen of hope that NB might fill said void because as I've shown, despite his "sins" of over 2 decades ago, the main victim of this bias (aside from the Republican party, that is!) is a Republican, and the beneficiary of the pro-Kucinich counterbias is the closest thing to a socialist the Democrats have had since that "independent" Bernie Sanders. Anyway, I'm amazed at the fear shown for Paul's small-L libertarian ideas this past six weeks by the TV media, and whether or not the NB masthead notices my work on exposing this blatant bias, I'm personally proud of it. (I'd hope they'd do a poll: "Is NB reader 'sarcasmo' right or wrong about bias against Dr. Ron Paul & for Dennis Kucinich in TV-media?" but I've never gotten 'em to do a poll.)
JMR

Hey Sarcasmo...

Please excuse this attached post ACA. Regardless of where my first double post or this post posted (continuing ongoing formatting difficulties, this time using Opera) all three (or maybe more) were meant as a response to the nearest Sarcasmo post below this post.

On a brighter note may I add that my favorite Rez casino, some 8 (eight) months after my initial requests, has moved all of their 10 cent video poker slots to the non- smoking area. I remain now 5 (five) for 5.

P.S. Tony Shalhoub's gonna benefit from another "mistake" based on last night's Monk.

wakey wakey Sarcasmo

Buddy buddy bud bud-

You got time to get us caught up here?

Buddy buddy bud bud- You g

Buddy buddy bud bud-

You got time to get us caught up here?

If the ACLU is there to do wh

If the ACLU is there to do what they claim to be there to do, they will speak up.

As of yet this case isn't on their website yet.

Sarcasmo:Welcome to the bunke

Sarcasmo:

Welcome to the bunker...

Cluster bombs do not inherently function as landmines.  Some, like FASCAM, actually serve as temporary minefields, but there are many more systems that use contact detonation with high explosive quick fuzes to attack targets such as troops in the open, armored vehicles in revetments etc.

These systems are NOT prohibited items and are in fact used in US MLRS rockets.

By the way, were US troops fighting in North Africa in WWII Mercenaries in your view?

Does anyone believe that our

Does anyone believe that our enemies would use dum-dum bullets against us?

Toe poppers?  Yes....IED lad

Toe poppers?  Yes....

IED laden corpses?  Yes...

School bus VBIED?  Yes...

But dum-dums?  Now that stretches the limit of credibility, HAHAHAHA!

Notice, however (and I'll s

Notice, however (and I'll say it again, reading is fundamental...) that I said US troops, not enemies. IOW, I want to free up US forces to use the new frangible bullet technology which has made Geneva restrictions seem particularly archaic. I never said thing-one about the enemy & what they use. So HAHAHAHA yourself. If you're found to have even one of my commercially-available deer-bullets in your rifle right now, you'd be in serious military trouble, and you know it.
JMR

BD...Our enemies would laugh

BD...

Our enemies would laugh their arses off if we showed up to a fight with dum-dum bullets. And they would laugh even harder after shooting off some rocket propelled grenades at us.

See the link above, they DO

See the link above, they DO inherently function as landmines, laid via airplane. Again, rockets might be a different Geneva-issue, but mines via planes are a no-no, even if the lawyers say otherwise.

And I've never said any nation's actual troops, in any place whatsoever, are mercenaries. Reading is fundamental. I've merely called mercenaries "mercenaries" instead of "contractors" when their main job involves a fighting/security/guns, because Mall of America security guards -- like it or not -- don't tend to carry M4s with grenade launchers.
JMR

So, the Secret Service is a M

So, the Secret Service is a Mercenary band?  After all, they perform the same functions and are paid as well as the PSD's I have sat down to dinner with in Bagdhad.

Land Mine/Cluster Bomb

Sorry but clusters are not land mines.  Land mines can be delivered via many means including air, however land mines are designed to stay in place and specifically "deny" access.  Cluster bombs are designed to destroy on impact along a large area specifically taking out a large concentrated area, i.e. airfield, concentrations of armor etc...  There are times that some of the payload does not detonate on impact and that occasionally happens due to faulty fuses etc...

The take on mercenaries, it's a pretty cut and dry definition.  If you are non state sponsored, non government sponsored entity being paid by a standing government and army to fight on their behalf, key word here is conduct offensive operations on behalf of that government or standing army, then we're talking mercenary.  If you are being paid to guard a convoy, personnel, equipment or site, well that's not offensive it's defensive, that's not even close to being a mercenary.  Just as the mall security guard does not fit the mercenary role, neither does the contractor role over here.  But if people want to split hairs and say that the contractors here are mercenaries because they are being paid to fight, then that same misnomer applies to the mall security guard. 

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

You, and the lawyers, can s

You, and the lawyers, can say "clusters are not land mines" all you want, they walk, talk, quack, etc. like 'em. AND the fuze design isn't a matter of "there are times," this is a designed-weapon including the "dud" unstable submunitions for area-denial, and if anyone would actually-read the link above where the kid loses his hand, if they're truly "bomblets" instead of land mines, how come it says: "Military personnel from user countries consider any [environment where
cluster bomb attacks have occurred] a minefield, and the claim of
disproportionate risk and harm to civilians is unquestionable
" and in a study of multiple countries claims it's 27% kids being killed/injured? Look, this is about like the debate here before (but minus the really-stupid name-calling, thanks!) where I kept saying "go get a warrant" and was finally proved right on the wiretap-issue -- in a decade I predict we'll be using something called a "cluster bomb" still, but with totally-different fuzing that prettymuch prevents this problem with "bomblets" (mines) + kids. The fuze technology exists now, and not-using it is immoral when kids are getting hurt, no matter what the lying-lawyers have managed to call the air-laid land mines for a few decades. And again, the mall security guards don't carry M4s with grenade launchers and aren't in a war zone being paid (a lot, compared to actual soldiers) to fight.
JMR

The rounds that unintentional

The rounds that unintentionally kill children are most probably defective since Cluster bombs are designed to destroy on impact. NOW what do we do?

I repeat, the dud rate leav

I repeat, the dud rate leaving behind unstable submunitions is a part of the weapon's design. This isn't like UXO artillery from WW1 or WW2, those were designed to all-go-off, these were instead deliberately designed to act & quack like air laid land mines in a very high percentage of the "bomblets," so their effectively acting as land mines (even if various military lawyers do not want me to tell the truth and call 'em "land mines") is the opposite of a defect. Killing kids afterwards may be unintentional, but it's anything BUT unforeseeable...
JMR

bomblets

Granted the bomblets are nasty little puppies. Getting the stuff to work properly is difficult enough- how exactly do "they" get them not to detonate until later and then they somehow detonate then?

Explosives can become unsta

Explosives can become unstable in various ways, but once unstable they're either an expensive cleanup problem (and a problem that suddenly starts getting treated as "mines" not "bomblets," according to the link above) or a possible injured kid. This Wikipedia link has much more about cluster bombs, but basically a "bomblet" might go off in midair, or when it hits the ground, or later (like a mine!) when it's disturbed. It's part 3 where people like me have issues. Our country is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, and (whether or not I agree with all aspects of it) that means we should actually abide by it, especially when it means fewer injured kids, by redesigning the weapon not to behave so much like an air-laid land mine.
JMR

Please prove that a desired a

Please prove that a desired aspect of the development process included a submunitions failure.

Find me a COIC from an FDT&E, IOT&E, or even a LUT that held that this was a desireable outcome.

Until you do that, you are just another Conspiro....

Yea I guess you could say I'm

Yea I guess you could say I'm outweighed by the Monitor and only having munitions experience since '83.  Sounds like you're minds is made up so there is not point in debate considering your replies.  We put out all kind of information concerning finding UXO's to the locals with the understanding of reporting them, yet there are instances where they go ahead and mess with them anyhow.  Sounds like the same mentality that if a kid does something he's not supposed to do it must be someone elses fault.  Cluster munitions immoral, how about the killing of innocent women and children with VBIED's, don't see too much outrage over the immorality of that, wonder why.....

I would however love to see the facts you have that PSC's are being funded by a standing army and conducting offensive operations.  Not sure where the relationship between having to carry an M4 has anything to do with anything, then again what would I know.......

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

I don't know what you mean

I don't know what you mean by "the Monitor" or "PSC," but I think some of the pics of "contractors" I've seen say "mercenary," and despite the emotional connotations others have with the word, to me it's just a matter of accurate description. And just because the present fuzing system in cluster bombs makes them effectively become air laid unmarked land mines says nothing whatsoever about VBIEDs (which I had yet to even mention) so it sounds like you're trying to change the subject to those. I was talking solely about cluster bombs, and I stand by every word I've said.
JMR

Please tell me exactly how th

Please tell me exactly how the present fuzing system in cluster bombs makes them effectively become air laid unmarked land mines?
What percentage fail to detonate when released?

I remain, from time to time, banned by the BBC.

I've seen so many figures t

I've seen so many figures that I have no idea what percentage fail to detonate, but I know it's enough to make militaries apparently treat them like mines, unless the Christian Science Monitor and various other media sources are wrong. Please see this link for much more about these weapons. (The good news I saw at wikipedia is the US military has seen the problem and is redesigning the weapon along the lines I suggested/predicted even as people here try to deny there's an issue.)
JMR

Of course any UXO should be t

Of course any UXO should be treated as mines. Please explain The good news I saw at wikipedia is the US military has seen the problem and is redesigning the weapon along the lines I suggested/predicted even as people here try to deny there's an issue with additional references beyond Wikipedia. What is the range of the so many figures that I have no idea what percentage fail to detonate, but I know it's enough to make militaries apparently treat them like mines, unless the Christian Science Monitor and various other media sources are wrong figures you have seen?

I remain, from time to time, banned by the BBC.

Hell, Wikipedia itself did

Hell, Wikipedia itself did that, with this, which mentioned "significantly reduced hazardous duds" on page one. Why do you not believe them when they say "The US military is developing new cluster bombs which they claim have a much lower (less than 1%) dud rate"?? (Or did you, perhaps, not-actually-read the Wikipedia entry?)
JMR

In answer to your three sente

In answer to your three sentences sarcasmo,

1. Courtesy dictates fair warning when linking to a twenty- three (23) page PDF file. I'll peruse it at my leisure.
2. What does Why do you not believe them mean?
3. Yes.

1. Sorry I didn't warn, but

1. Sorry I didn't warn, but Wikipedia-itself certainly did.

2. Exactly what I asked. Why not believe the Wikipedia entry, if not its twenty-three (23) page PDF file footnote referenced right there?

3. As I keep reminding various people around here, "reading is fundamental." See 1. for why it might have helped you this time.
JMR

1. The direct link in questio

1. The direct link in question (see my copy of your link) is not a Wikipedia link.
2. Why not believe the Wikipedia entry- not always credible.
3. Indeed- see #1

1. I didn't say it was, I s