For general comment and discussion...
As a starter if you're interested, does anyone else find protests by anti-globalization types a little odd at a G-8 summit largely about curbing CO2 emissions?
|
|
|
home blogs about forum contact donate search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Open Thread
Read commentsFree bias alerts
Related StoriesMost Emailed Stories
Related Topics | |
Comments Policy
I watched the debate last nig
June 6, 2007 - 09:38 ET by BruzillaI watched the debate last night, and then turned on Hannity & Colmes and watched Hannity's lengthy interview with Fred Thompson. That guy put every candidate on the debate stage to shame last night, and I can't wait for the first debate that he's in.
Can you clear something up fo
June 6, 2007 - 09:43 ET by GothampcCan you clear something up for me? I thought last night that Thompson said that abortion should be a state decision. Yet later in talking to Ann Coulter, Hannity said Thompson was pro-life. Is he pro-life or pro-choice?
state issue
June 6, 2007 - 09:47 ET by LionKing2 issues at hands. Just surmising from your inquiry, Thompson probably believes that states should determine whther or not abortion is legal, i.e. not a federal issue.
Secondly, on a personal level, he is probably pro-life.
Here is is voting record on
June 6, 2007 - 09:51 ET by MightyMouthHere is his voting record on Abortion:
He is pro-life.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Lion, I am pro life. However,
June 6, 2007 - 09:55 ET by bassndudeLion, I am pro life. However, if you read the Constitution, abortion is not one of the subjects retained for the federal goverment. That being said, abortion falls to the States. So strictly and Constitutinaly speaking, it is a matter for the States.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass...okay?
June 6, 2007 - 10:03 ET by LionKingbass...okay. I do not understand. I thought I said that Thompson believed it to be a states issue, not a federal issue.
If I mislead, I am a true conservative. I am for less from the federal government. I detest the Lawrence v. Texas decision because it trampled the states rights to govern itself.
For the record, I am against ALL abortion. Until someone can ever convince me that there TRULY exists a medically necessary reason for abortion, I will stick to this position.
Lion, Im with ya there.Save a
June 6, 2007 - 10:09 ET by bassndudeLion, Im with ya there.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
right with you lion king
June 6, 2007 - 12:24 ET by oorampright on with you lion king.
'06 Democrats just surrendered, vote republican in '08.
Thanks. I guess I'm trying
June 6, 2007 - 10:26 ET by GothampcThanks. I guess I'm trying to lump together different issues. I was sort of thinking that if you were pro-life that it wouldn't matter whether the decision was federal or state, that you were against abortion no matter what.
HANNITY: Yes, let me ask you
June 6, 2007 - 12:57 ET by BruzillaHANNITY: Yes, let me ask you this. There are three issues that have come up, because I've examined your record thoroughly now, knowing this interview is coming up. There are three issues come up where people question your conservatism.
One is when you checked a box in 1994 when you were running for Senate, where you — the box said, "Abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months." That wasn't your voting record, interestingly. Did you make a mistake checking the box?
THOMPSON: I don't remember that box. You know, it was a long time ago, and I don't know if I filled it out or my staff — based on what they thought my position was — filled it out.
But here's what the deal is on that. I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.
I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and...
HANNITY: So states' rights for you?
THOMPSON: Essentially, federalism. It's in the Constitution.
Wow
June 6, 2007 - 10:52 ET by OldSailor88I just read the transcript of the Fred Thompson interview on H&C. Wow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269631,00.html
The Democrat Party had better fear this man.
Hannity asked him to talk about the Democrats. He didn't want to get into it, but had this exchange;
THOMPSON: Let me try to be responsive to your question. As far as the Democrats, they are adhering, to the extent they can, to the most left- wing element of their base. You know, MoveOn.org and those folks are running the Democratic Party. And they're taking extremist positions and doing extremist things. Harry Reid is doing things that I think the American people are going to reject.
They're as near to investing in defeat of their own country as anything I've ever seen. And I don't think the American people will forgive them for that.
So they're going through that exercise. And let's just let them go. Let's just give them a little rope and see what they do. Our name-calling and carping on them right now is kind of wasted effort, as far as I'm concerned.
HANNITY: Let me focus on what you just said. They're as close to investing in defeat?
THOMPSON: Yes.
HANNITY: That's a pretty severe charge. But, I mean, if you say we lost in Iraq...
THOMPSON: Well, when you say here is the funding, but I just want you to know you've already lost, here is the life raft, but you're going to drown, then you sit back, as a politician, as they are, where is the psychology of that? Where is your mind? Where is your heart, as you see things go on?
I know that they don't want to see our young people come to bad end in their heart of hearts, but look at the position that they're putting themselves in. When you get out there in the middle of this — and we're trying, it might be a last-ditch effort, to turn this thing around so we can have some stability to give those people a shot down there before we leave, and announcing — what use is that? What good is that? What purpose is that? Except, as they say, later on, we're going to pick up Senate seats because of this. My goodness. I mean, where have we come to in this country?
If he is successful in getting this message out, the Dems are done. I think I finallly see some hope for us. I'm still wary, and I'm still watching, but I really do hope.
Old Sailor, that;s an old int
June 6, 2007 - 12:59 ET by BruzillaOld Sailor, that;s an old interview from last month. Last night's interview is at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278554,00.html
TODAY TeenInsurance
June 6, 2007 - 09:40 ET by PawpawNWhy did TODAY show do piece on SAFECO INS TEENINSURANCE from site outside a Maryland school but the story be about someone in WASHINGTON State? Do they always think they need props? Just thought it was stupid to say at Maryland school then do story & video from state all the way out. What a stretch! Did they even check to see if it was offered in Maryland?
I would like an opinion on th
June 6, 2007 - 09:54 ET by dscottI would like an opinion on the validity of the News Max claim that al Qaeda has nukes. Are these people hyping the issue or is this for real?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Relax. Just wait for the mu
June 6, 2007 - 10:11 ET by Jack BauerRelax. Just wait for the mushroom cloud on the horizon. The odds are it won't be your city anyway!
And at least Ameican citizens will be incinerated safe in the knowledge that the civil rights of the islamo-terrorists weern't abridged by tapping their cell phones.
dscott,I believe it is just p
June 6, 2007 - 11:26 ET by Dave Rdscott,
I believe it is just possible they have one, as I believe it irresponsible fantasizing to assume that every single nuclear device ever made by us, GB, Fance, The USSR, India, Pakistan, China, Israel, etc., etc., is somehow present an accounted for in someone's current inventory.
The former USSR was notorious for losing track of theirs.
There is just too many of them out there.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
dscott..it is a fact that the
June 6, 2007 - 11:42 ET by bassndudedscott..it is a fact that the former USSR is missing some so called suitcase nukes. Now depending on how they were lost, paperwork mix up at destruction, mishap, whatever, we can assume that there are a few out there, somewhere. Sold? Lost? Sitting in some retired generals basement or perhaps in the hands of terrorists, we cannot say for sure. Plan for the worst case. That is always the best. I have never been mugged, or attacked on the street, but I still dont leave home without my weapon.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Maintaining a nuclear warhe
June 6, 2007 - 12:49 ET by dabalMaintaining a nuclear warhead requires a great deal of resources and skills.
Skills that only the experienced have.
If they have old suitcase nukes, they don't work like they used to. They are nothing but dirty bombs now, incapable of reaching high order detonation.
Good luck getting them past our satellites and gamma detectors. Carrying enough lead to shield them would be...difficult, if say crossing a desert from Mexico to the USA. There's probably four or five AQ skeletons in the desert of AZ with a really hot suitcase next to them.
Another problem, should AQ detonate a nuke inside the USA, the kid gloves come off and anything in a Mosque on Friday won't be safe from us. No bullshit. It will rain lead and plutonium over the ummah until there isn't a muslim left on the planet, and even the Dems would be required by popular opinion to support it.
After 9/11, 90% of the population was screaming for the blood of AQ and the Taliban. They lost control of two entire countries in a matter of months. Imagine the sustained effort a nuke would produce...
dabal, I understand these as
June 6, 2007 - 12:57 ET by bassndudedabal, I understand these aspects of it. If they managed to get an old nuke into the states, it would have to be over the mexcian border, somewhere along the river. Someone has to carry it, and they are not light and easy to carry. Im sure the triggers are old and decayed. But the dirty aspect of the bomb is still something to consider. It may not level Dallas, but it would sure put a damper on the folks that live around there.
But, if that was to happen, I think you can write off Iran and Syria the next day. Maybe that night. Have a great big glass parking lot for Wal-Mart super centers.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Saddam and Al Qaeda
June 6, 2007 - 09:58 ET by LionKingIn case there are any doubts, here is some documentation demonstrating the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
[Note: Libs, this is NOT saying that Saddam had a direct involvement in the 9-11 attacks, so, do not twist this.]
Hey Lionking -- apparently.
June 6, 2007 - 10:04 ET by Jack BauerHey Lionking -- apparently...
I don't think these deranged moonbats should really be lecturing anyone, do you?
jack...do I have to?
June 6, 2007 - 10:09 ET by LionKingJack, do I really have to answer that?
Wow Jack. Looks like the drug
June 6, 2007 - 11:45 ET by bassndudeWow Jack. Looks like the drugs in the 60's have retarded the off spring as well as the LSD users themselves...what a legacy, uh?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I'm curious as to why you thi
June 6, 2007 - 13:12 ET by curiousI'm curious as to why you think this link demonstrates any connection between Saddam and Al Q? The main finding here seems to be the rather mundane fact that a bunch of Sunnis who used to work for Saddam now support the Sunni Al Q in their fight against those forces that overthrew Saddam (and threw them out of a job).
And Jack, I find the fact that so many so-called Republicans still think Saddam had some role in 9/11 to be the far more troubling statistic.
I find myself concerned for the future of our Republic when so many of those who are supposed to hold govt accountable for its actions are too stubborn or too stupid to accept the truth when that truth is critical of the govt they support.
curious ???
June 6, 2007 - 13:22 ET by LionKingTo me, the only question with an affirmative answer is number 3.
And to me, given that 2 is hi
June 6, 2007 - 13:33 ET by curiousAnd to me, given that 2 is highly unlikely, it is more likely that 1 is closest to the truth.
And to correct a possible misperception (and bad writing on my part): when I trash those who ignor the truth as a threat to my Republic, I mean partisans of ANY stripe. It used to be I just went after the idiocy of the left; but lately many on the right have earned my ire.
Scrolling up, LionKing said &
June 6, 2007 - 13:43 ET by SouthJersey1953Scrolling up, LionKing said "[Note: Libs, this is NOT saying that Saddam had a direct involvement in the 9-11 attacks, so, do not twist this.]" It sure didn't take long for someone (you) to go ahead and twist it. I don't think anyone thinks Saddam had ties to the 911 plot. He DID have ties to AQ,
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
I never said ANYTHING about S
June 6, 2007 - 14:36 ET by curiousI never said ANYTHING about Saddam and 9/11. I only pointed out that neither did the link that Lion posted. It only showed that FORMER Saddam officials now supported Al Q. Big surprise. Hardly news. Or of partisan interest.
And given that about 2/3 of those who voted for Bush in 2004 DID believe that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11, and that a large percentage STILL believe it, it's a little disingenuous to say you "don't think anyone thinks Saddam had ties to the 9/11 plot."
And I do deny, as did the 9/11 Commission and most objective experts, that Saddam had ties to Al Q. They loathed each other. As to whether some Sunnis in Saddam's govt might have some vague ties to some members in Al Q, that may, or may not, be true. It's just not important. Nor is it news. The ties were not operational; they had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Here is what you wrote, curio
June 6, 2007 - 15:29 ET by SouthJersey1953Here is what you wrote, curious:
"And Jack, I find the fact that so many so-called Republicans still think Saddam had some role in 9/11 to be the far more troubling statistic."
and right below where you said you never said anything about saddam and 9/11 ties, you said:
"And given that about 2/3 of those who voted for Bush in 2004 DID believe that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11, and that a large percentage STILL believe it"
Twice now you have said that 'so many republicans' think saddam had a roll in 9/11...Show me some links or other proof. I know of NO ONE that thinks (or thought) that Saddam had anything to do with the terror attack on 9/11.
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
If you've never heard that gr
June 6, 2007 - 18:53 ET by curiousIf you've never heard that greater numbers of Republicans believe that there was a direct connection between Saddam and BOTH 9/11 and Al Q, then I have to wonder about your general level of intelligence. You really ought to watch less FOX and listen to less Rush.
Just goggle Saddam, 9/11, connection, voters, polls, etc and you'll find all the data you want, though it doesn't sound like you're capable of fully understanding what you'll read and/or be able to sort out the chaff from the data.
From my own (incomplete) notes: a Pew Research poll right after the 2004 found 75% Repubs believed in the latter connection (compared to 35% Dem, though my scribble isn't clear, it could be 45%). A later Zogby poll in 9/06 found 65% of Repubs believed that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11, versus 32% of Dems. But there have been plenty of polls and newspaper accounts concerning the same disparity.
I should add that the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Select Cmtt on Intelligence FLATLY refuted ANY connection between Saddamn and 9/11 or with Al Q more generally.
I note such things because I'm concerned with the larger issue of how such falsehoods are created and sustained in the electorate. I am concerned with the long term health of a Republic in which such large percentages, in both parties, can have their beliefs manipulated so brazenly. Subtle BS I expect, but anyone with half a brain ought to have seen through the disceptions surrounding the buildup to Iraq. I did, and it was because I did that I voted against Bush in 2004, after supporting him in 2000. My type of Republican isn't a blind partisan, but a knowledgable critic of all in power.
I'm concerned with the larger
June 6, 2007 - 18:57 ET byI'm concerned with the larger issue of how such falsehoods are created
You mean the false stats you cite?
Google it don't work as proof here Rosie
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Oh crap. Which is false, and
June 6, 2007 - 19:11 ET by curiousOh crap. Which is false, and why? Goggle is nothing but a shortcut. I assume that the user has the sense to evaluate the source beneath. I've faith in my sources, what are yours? Damn luddite.
I wish I had more time to dismantle your ignorant post, but I really gotta go.
Which is false, and why?
June 6, 2007 - 19:27 ET byWhich is false, and why?
Which of what is false?
The point is that you have your assertion of polls, but have not linked any polls. Link the polls and we will look at them.
Basically i believe that polls can be deceiving.
I don't know why but i did try to locate the polls found some stories like USA today but no polls themselves. What questions were asked? How were they phrased? What conclusions were drawn from the data and why? USA today indicated that your info is correct but did not back up their assertion.
I think that if most people were polled accurately they would say that Saddam had associations with terrorists. Not that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Many of the links i saw indicated that Bush and Cheney both have denied any direct involvement by Saddam in 9/11.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I would add that a Pew/U Mary
June 6, 2007 - 19:08 ET by curiousI would add that a Pew/U Maryland study after the last election (I have the study, but its lost in the wilderness of my office) found that viewers of FOX had a greater incidence of error concerning a range of issues about Iraq, WMDs and 9/11 than did the viewers of the hated MSM. CBS, as I recall, had the second worst record. PBS was so far ahead of the pack in being closer to the truth that you'ld think it was running in a different race. And this study isn't the first I've read that found similiar findings. FOX is an opinion and entertainment channel, not a news outlet.
But I don't just read reports and studies: On any given night I tape the NewsHour, O'Reilly and Obermann and try to watch them the following morning. I'm been doing this for several months now. Though neither Obermann or O'Reilly are really news shows, their presentation of the same issues sucks badly when compared to the NewsHour. I also tape one or two MSM news shows, and the BBC. I don't always watch all of them. But when a contraversial issue arises, I try to. I've started taping Hume and Shepherd, and will, might, replace O'Reilly with one of them. I should replace Obermann with Wolf, but I can't stand to listen to the man. Any thoughts on top news shows?
More FEAR
June 6, 2007 - 23:45 ET by UnsaneWhy such overwhelming, intense, palpable FEAR of FOX News? If it is as bad as you say, the market will take care of it.
TWELVE DOWN, FOUR TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
curious
June 6, 2007 - 19:41 ET by SportPoliticsHow do you explain Saddams concern and support for Abu Sayeff in the southern Phillipines, ostensibly a wing of Al Qaeda, prior to the 03 invasion into Iraq ? How is it that one faction of radical Islamic Jihad can be supported by Saddam, yet the next moment you fools claim there can be no such cooperation ?
I don't quite understand how supporting and paying Islamic Jihad suicide bombers and their families 25,000 in Palestine is some sort of blood enemy no possible cooperation either.
As Saudi Arabia and Pakistan expelled Al Qaeda and their associates, Saddam Hussein welcomed them in.
How about the 1993 bomber of the WTC, who fled directly to Saddam's Iraq and was housed in good stead and stipend by his sons?
I'm not sure, other than the overarching causal insane left wing hatred of Bush, that your side or ideation has a remote leg to stand on.
In the end, one like yourself can merely spout some sort of insane babble such as " They would never cooperate and were mortal enemies ". Or even " there was nolinkage at all whatsoever " or " there was a truce but no cooperation" ... or any other sort of bland all encompassing denial.
I guess in the end, the truth is clear enough. Saddam was actively supporting Aby Sayeff - an AQ sister Islamic Jihad org, openly paying Palie suicide homocide bombers and their families in full jihad support- was known to have met with AQ - had a truce ongoing and no prior death dispute - had links to Khartoum Sadan with scientific exchange to AQ, and was generally expected to be cooperative with AQ in an enemy of my enemy is my friend fashion - and certainly could not be said to not cooperate with MANY other terrorist factions, including having housed THE TERRORIST who blasted the WTC in 1993 - ATFER THE FACT.
Look, curious, you obviously are not even remotely curious, and any person who took your stance in '03 before the invasion of Iraq would indeed have been a fool, and now claims all known data to be EXCLUDED via the "no wmd found" crybaby whine....
Sorry fella, those who feel there was no cooperative relationship, or none immediately possible in the very near future - ARE THE IGNORANT FOOLS.
Yes, even today, as BATHHISTS join in JIHAD alongside the AQ insurgents, your FOOLISH position is obvious for all without a tremendous case of BDS to see clearly as a fantasy of immense danger.
Do not ever believe, after the 3rd Reich's march, that lies cannot win.
Oh ya. Given Saddam's paranoi
June 6, 2007 - 13:39 ET by curiousOh ya. Given Saddam's paranoid mistrust of islamists, I doubt 3 is correct.
old saying
June 6, 2007 - 13:42 ET by LionKingKeep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
paranoid distrust ?
June 6, 2007 - 19:48 ET by SportPoliticsExcuse me LK - but curious must be another flaming lib
paranoid distrust ? Abu Sayeff funded by Saddam in southern Phillipines. Khartoum Sudan meetings and cooperating scientific exchange with AQ elements.
I guess the libs say Saddam had reason to be paranoid, even though their oft cited 911 proof commission report that wasn't a good enough investigation according to the same at other moments of whining says " they had a pact of no attack" at the very least, and talks of cooperation KNOWN - yet no evidence of FURTHER COLLUSION...
Ahh, no evidence... at least none the all encompassing 911 commission could get it's paws on at the moment ?
Did they happen to mention Abu Sayeff -- how is that for EVIDENCEof cooperation with ISLAMIC TERRORISM...
Gee, libs - golly curious - GO BLOW.
One thing you cannot deny c
June 6, 2007 - 13:44 ET by MightyMouthOne thing you cannot deny curious, the islamists and Saddam had a common enemy.. the west... including, but not limited to, the USA.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
They had common military operations
June 6, 2007 - 19:50 ET by SportPoliticsThey had common military operations:
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq.
excellent sp, do you have a
June 7, 2007 - 16:30 ET by MightyMouthexcellent sp, do you have a link for that? (for future reference). thanks.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Would you believe that Freddy
June 6, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Roger the ShrubberWould you believe that Freddy Krueger turns 58 today? Man, he's getting old.
Speaking of getting old: heavy metal is beginning to rust: Guitar God (in his mind, at least) Steve Vai turns 47 and Slayer bassist Tom Araya turns 46 today. Rust never sleeps!
Damn! Tom Araya is 46 already
June 6, 2007 - 23:51 ET by UnsaneDamn! Tom Araya is 46 already? I was just listening to some tracks off of SHOW NO MERCY the other day, in fact. Interesting that this comes up! I had a prolonged "If it isn't Slayer, it SUCKS!" stage in high school...
"NIGHT WILL COME, AND I WILL FOLLOW, ALL MY VICTIMS, NO TOMORROW; MAKE IT FAST! YOUR TIME OF SORROW, ON THIS TRAIL, I MAKE YOU FOLLOW!!!"
-Slayer, "Criminally Insane", from Reign In Blood (1986)
P.S. DREAM THEATER released Systematic Chaos today and I already have a copy. Good stuff...even if one of the songs is political (that I have picked up on)...
G-Hate -- move it to middle of nowhere
June 6, 2007 - 10:07 ET by Jack BauerIs everyone as annoyed as me that we have to go through this absurd G8 crap annually?
These leaders are supposed to be solving the world's "problems?" My God, they can't even arrange a meeting that excludes the world's collected leftist scum gathering to do what they do best.
Act out their mentally disturbed socialist and commie murder pathologies and fantasies.
Why don't these really "smart" people meet every year in the impregnable US Military base on the British territory of Diego Garcia ... A remote island in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Each dignitary gets a free St
June 6, 2007 - 10:52 ET by Roger the ShrubberEach dignitary gets a free Stealth Bomber ride!
Jack, are you saying the G-8 should redeploy to a remote island? Now... where in the world have I heard a similiar plan before....... Hmmmm....
LOL -- oh the Murtha plan?
June 6, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Jack BauerLOL -- oh the Murtha plan? I forgot about that. Has he been indicted yet?
Nope. I'm afraid he has been
June 6, 2007 - 14:37 ET by Roger the ShrubberNope. I'm afraid he has been stuck at "unindicted co-conspirator" status for a number of years now. A man as out of his prime as Murtha is, you'd have to think his best days are long behind him, and any hopes of really screwing the American people are fading fast....
George Bush attacks Iran wi
June 6, 2007 - 10:10 ET by lnthompGeorge Bush attacks Iran with Karl Rove's weather machine:
Iran orders evacuation of coastal areas as cyclone hits
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
"in a related story"
June 6, 2007 - 10:13 ET by LionKingIn a related story, Global Warming has increased cyclonic activity in the Persian Gulf especially Iran; perhaps Global Warming is not all bad.</sarc..
Perfect timing. Scramble t
June 6, 2007 - 12:54 ET by dabalPerfect timing. Scramble the BUFFs and launch cruise missile strikes from Diego Garcia against Iran. Their AD will still be working, but the chances of killing innocents would be WAAAAAY down since they're being evacuated.
Ten bucks says they don't move anyone, hope thousands die, and it generates a few million in pity donations.Is it me or does anyone else
June 6, 2007 - 10:15 ET by midnight cowboyIs it me or does anyone else find it a little ironic that the audio fizzles out on Rudy during the CNN debate while discussing his abortion beliefs? Wolfie was quick to blame it on a lightninig strike, however.....this is the same network that put a black X over Cheney's face, first denies it then says they couldn't do that if they wanted to, then says it was a technical glitch. This is also the same network that keeps their anchor girl's mic hot while she is in the bathroom with her potty talk while Bush is giving a speech. This is also the same network that had a customer service operator berate a caller to the network because they were conservative. CNN claimed that is not their policy.
The brain surgeons at CNN might think this would be fun since their stereotypical view of Christian hicks would think that cutting Rudy's mic while talking about abortion would be a sign for them. Hence damaging Rudy's viability with conservatives.
So what is it a lightning strike that caused the mics to fizzle while Rudy was talking? Perhaps it was. However given CNN's track record with Republicans, it makes you think twice. If this would have happened on the Fox debate it woudn't even be questioned.
I've heard secondhand repor
June 6, 2007 - 10:20 ET by sarcasmoI've heard secondhand reports of lightning affecting various devices, and as MSNBC says here, it actually happened twice. Others might better argue the divinity angle than I, but the coincidence seems beyond the skill-level of CNN these days...But I've gotta say, I love the mental image of McCain & Romney slowly backing away from him after Rudy's second attempt!
JMR
Coming to the public school near you by 2025?
June 6, 2007 - 10:48 ET by reelman46Neal Boortz is reporting today the
Moslem Council on British Schools’ lengthy list of demands for the
public schools (to change for moslem students of course)… The idiot
chief of the London school met at the biggest mosque with this council.
Not good. Some demands are: Un-islamic activities will be banned
(including dance classes) in all schools, during Ramadan no science
lessons on sex, no parental meetings, no swimming lessons, all boys
must be covered navel to neck and ALL girls may show only face and
hands (all girls), all contact sports in single gender groups, school
trips single sex (for ALL students), must be arabic classes, Koran must
be recited in music classes, all restrooms must have washing facilities
for moslems, in art classes no moslem can draw people, ALL children
must be taught about islam but moslems have the right to withdraw from
any other “religion” classes.
Did I mention islam is considered a religion and they are demanding
public schools change (a lot) for a religion? Of course liberals will
fawn, pander and cave only to one religion, guess which one?
Step-by-step and year-by-year look for this in your country and your
school district. They are very very patient.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D.
(theconservativecrawfish)
This is news? I mean, is this
June 6, 2007 - 11:01 ET by QueenMumThis is news? I mean, is this really something to get all worked up about? An honest production error?
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Let's not forget when Brian W
June 6, 2007 - 11:08 ET by midnight cowboyLet's not forget when Brian Williams of NBC referred to Harold Ford of Tennessee as Obama during the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS a couple of years back. I don't remember any apologies from the network being offered.
Censorship's coming here, t
June 6, 2007 - 11:04 ET by sarcasmoCensorship's coming here, too, IMO, if nobody cares about protecting the 'net from it. Control-freakery is a natural urge.
JMR
Pontification
June 6, 2007 - 11:41 ET by JimboI know that we hear all the time that the country is divided to the extent it never has been before. I think there is truth in that statement.
Since 9/11, this country has entered into a previously uncharted realm. We are in a fight for our lives, even though seemingly half of the nation chooses to ignore that fact.
In such times, the true colors of people are forced to been seen. Prior to 9/11, the left and the right were able to live in a semi-peaceful coexistence, trading shots here and there, and for the most part flying under the radar by today’s comparison.
Those days are gone. Now that the United States is in a fight for its life at the macro level, on a more micro level the conservative and liberal ways of life are as well. As the deep recesses of our brain go into survival mode, there is no choice but to take a stand on what you believe. It is during this time, when all the cards are put on the table, that it will be determined which way is the right way (no pun intended, although there should be).
I remember back to the primal concept of “fight or flight”. I can’t help but wonder if someone’s predisposition to that question manifests itself in their party affiliation.
Or…… I could just be completely wrong on this whole topic.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
I see a lot of references att
June 6, 2007 - 14:50 ET by BruzillaI see a lot of references attributing the divided nation theory to 9/11, George Bush, etc., but I think it goes back to Ronald Reagan. Prior to his campaign in 1979, the nation was pretty well focused on issues at a national level... defense, abortion, budget, taxes, etc. Looking at issues at that level worked very well for this country. But Reagan was the one who started the dreaded "are you better off now that you were four years ago?" debate, and that changed everything. That debate refocused voters from thinking about what's best for the country to what's best for themselves, and that led us to the split in the country.
The country became split afte
June 6, 2007 - 14:58 ET by florida_chadThe country became split after the 2000 election. It was close and both sides thought they won. Too bad the democrats couldn't accept defeat. When a democrat wins an election, it normal. When a republican wins, its must have been a mistake or stolen.
I wish the next election wo
June 6, 2007 - 15:00 ET by balboaI wish the next election would happen the exact same way, but with the parties reversed, so we could actually see that in action.
Hi Bal,You should have been t
June 6, 2007 - 15:06 ET by TruthMongerHi Bal,
You should have been taught history. Must have been American public education...
Why don't you look up Kennedy's "win..."
That was, what, 30+ years a
June 6, 2007 - 15:10 ET by balboaThat was, what, 30+ years ago? Different times.
true bal, but I seriously d
June 6, 2007 - 15:12 ET by Conservative Voicetrue bal, but I seriously doubt President Bush would have challenged Gore the same way Gore did. I also seriously doubt the media would have made a big deal of Gore taking it to the Supreme Court
"Different times?!?!?!?!
June 6, 2007 - 20:13 ET by TruthMonger"Different times?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"
WTF
Repubs smiled, bent over, and took up the ___________ with Kennedy - with Gore we said enough is a freaking nuff, bal...
So yeah i guess times are different now:)...for the better...
yes, different times, bac
June 7, 2007 - 01:20 ET by Conservative Voiceyes, different times, back then Democrats believed in tax cuts (Kennedy did anyway) understood the threat of communism, and wasn't run by kooks. Different times, most Americans understood the role of government and did not put up with liberalism at all, and the government understood its place as well (that is it was pretty small and conservative). Back then we had real reporters too, not these lazy no good agenda driven so called reporters today who have their article written before the research is done. Don't get me wrong, back then the media was still more liberal than the average joe...but were conservative compared today. And despite all that, Nixon decided to hold his fight for another day...because he had class. Given the same circumstances a republican couldn't challenge it in court even if he wanted to, because things are different.
going back I recall
June 6, 2007 - 15:15 ET by tumblerI worked graveyard shift those days. I was in tears and depression the night Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. I liked him, but the tragedy wasn't in fact HIS demise. It was the turn this nation had taken. Nothing sacred, ever again.
Not "different times", bal...
June 6, 2007 - 20:28 ET by RJNot "different times", bal...different class of candidate. Politics have been bare-knuckled since the beginning, but Nixon was much the better patriot than Gore.
RJ, c'mon. 1960 v. 2000? Not
June 6, 2007 - 20:53 ET by balboaRJ, c'mon. 1960 v. 2000? Not the same.
There were ammendments to the
June 6, 2007 - 20:58 ET byThere were ammendments to the constitution regarding elections during that time? It's a legal matter so what law changed? That is: how is it different in any way that is pertainent to presidential elections?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg - balboa
June 7, 2007 - 05:03 ET by SportPoliticsbotg - balboa is such a seriously stupid moron that he means Jessica Alba wasn't on his TV back then.
I'm actually amazed by how stupid he is. I'm thinking 12 years old.
How am I wrong, bal?
June 6, 2007 - 21:00 ET by RJ"Not the same?"
1) How does 40 years make it different?
2) How am I wrong when I say that the only difference is in the individuals involved?
Think i got it now RJ... Bal
June 6, 2007 - 21:07 ET by TruthMongerThink i got it now RJ...
Bal wasn't alive in the 60's...therefore they don't really exist...?
LOL!
June 6, 2007 - 21:10 ET by RJLOL!
I guess it's a matter of opin
June 6, 2007 - 21:14 ET by balboaI guess it's a matter of opinion in the end. I think the way the media works and the pressures put upon candidates, any candidate in the position Gore was in would probably contest that election. Saying Nixon wouldn't just because "he's a patriot" is hard to prove.
Wrong, bal
June 6, 2007 - 21:22 ET by RJ"Everybody is the same." You'd like to believe that, bal, in order to bolster your image of the left....but you're wrong, and here's why:
Although Nixon knew he could probably prove enough fraud to change the outcome, he said AT THE TIME (not trying to rewrite events later) that he didn't think it would be good for the country to put it through a legal challenge. That's a PATRIOT.
Gore's behavior, on the other hand, was purely political, selfish and disingenuous. He not only was willing to put the country through the turmoil, he tried to finesse a recount by cherry-picking precincts he thought would help him win.
Well, that's what Nixon said,
June 6, 2007 - 21:53 ET by balboaWell, that's what Nixon said, but he could have just easily been trying to spin things.
That's pathethic balboa
June 6, 2007 - 22:01 ET by RJThat's a pathetic defense, balboa. Even in the face of historical proof, you just can't admit that the two men are of different character. One is a patriot and the other is entirely ego-driven.
It's a particularly socialistic philosophy to believe that "all are equal and all will behave the same."
But in this case
June 7, 2007 - 05:05 ET by SportPoliticsBut in this case it's just plain balboa stupidity.
I'm just going to always assu
June 6, 2007 - 22:04 ET by TruthMongerI'm just going to always assume then that when repubs constantly do the right thing its just insincere spin and when dems constantly do the wrong thing it's really just insincere repub spin...
Was it the same balboa
June 7, 2007 - 05:19 ET by SportPoliticsWas it the same balboa when your democrat congressman rammed his **** up the male interns ***?
Was it the same when he (after re-election and years of taxpayer pension)was walking his dog - then fell over and mysteriously died while you morons railroaded an ex-emailer and called it a breach of ethics that mr two emails wasn't shut down and booted from office two years ago, while you're pushing gay marraige and Nambla and consenting choice ?
I'd bet a gay democrat could pump some poor underling kids rear tomorrow on the house floor after hours and it "wouldn't be the same" according to you.
Oh yeah - Tricky Dick was married and stayed faithful and married just like Reagan and Bush, but the CHEATER JFK was pumping pain pills and Monroe and "that was different" as well.
Let me tell you what's "different". You have to be a criminal retard to take your positions.
Look at the Nixon and Kenne
June 6, 2007 - 15:08 ET by Conservative VoiceLook at the Nixon and Kennedy election...Nixon lost, barely...but there was known election fraud. He could of easily taken it to court, but he chose to instead to not challen