InlineTurbo

Anybody who thinks Fox News is a republican/conservative propaganda channel has to work on their critical thinking skills. The media has been moving left since WWII and people have just been getting used to it. The old saying:"How do you cook a frog? Slowly", applies in this case. This isn't playing well with the ratings lately with the advent of "alternative" news sources. As such Fox decided to hedge their bet by getting commentators from both political stripes and some that are neutral. Turns out the commentators with the best ratings are conservative and they get more air time. Its called free market. Remember though that news itself should be neutral. It should not have a bent toward either party. However that isn't even remotely true. For example NY Times and CBS both caught making up news. The commentators can say whatever they want because they are commentators, but they should at least try to be truthful. However lots of them are just out to get people riled up like Begala and Carvile. There isn't much substance just trying to get people angry. Also there is Coulter and some others that attempt to do the same thing the other way. The reason Rush Limbaugh is so popular and so hated by liberals and Democrats is because he is a commentator ON the news. That and he actually backs up his claims with source material so you can check it out youself. That is he reports on their reporting. He points out their inconsistencies and attempts at sophistry. People like that because he points out stories that are complete bull and attempting to mislead people. Libs hate it because somebody is making them actually work at trying to fool people instead of just getting away with blaming the evil republicans, race baiting, scaring old people, ect. Personally I happend to like people like Tony Snow and Jerry Doyle because they are more like regular people that happen to think the media and the neo Democrats (because todays Democrats are very far left of John Kennedy) are going too far. They identify themselves as conservative, but are more concerned about common sense and their country doing well and not just US vs. Them politics. Anybody who spouts "Bush Lied", "Bush has no brain", ect. I'm not going to listen to because I know no rational discussion is going to come after. Conversely anybody who says things like "Hillary is a lesbian" or "Harry Potter is going to corrupt our kids" I'm not going to listen to either. There has to be some commons sense. Screw the politics and just do what is good for our country. Their are many good reasons for and against the Iraq war, health care, ect. They can be discussed civilly.

For another take on things: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006964

Mostly just a way for an over pampered superstar to make himself feel better. Now if he campaigned for asking our governments to lean on Africa to get rid of their massive corruption problems then I'd be all for it. You even have African people saying quit giving to their country because it is turning them into a welfare state. That and it just goes to the local dictator who takes it, spends it and keeps the people poor so that he can get more money in the future. The American people have a large heart and love to give money. If only they realized that lots of times they are just pissing it down a hole and making some middle man rich without helping the problem.

Here it was always for PUBLIC use. As in roads or schools, or something like that. Now it is a private business that can take away your land for non-public use and the only thing they have to do is prove that they can make more taxable revenue and you are out. Also people don't usually get offered "fair value." They get a lowball offer and get stuck with it. The problem is that in California and other places the cost of living is so high if some people have to move there is no possible way they can afford to buy a house at today's prices. A $15K house from 45 years ago is probably woth $500K now and the retired owners are SOL if they have to move. And I guarantee that just because you could sell the house for $500K they will probably only offer the price controlled "value" of the house which is way less than 500K. This has been happening in Chicago, California, Boston, and other areas, but now has the Supreme Court's blessing. It also goes against the 5th amendment to the Constitution, but that doesn't stop the Philosopher Kings on the supreme court.

Saw that earlier today. That would be the best case of irony ever. They need to go after the other 4 in my humble opinion too.

Wow, found an issue I agree with Ken on! Yet another ruling without a Constitutional leg to stand on. Now you know what most of us feel like when we hear of the Constitutional shredding decision of the week from the Supreme Farce. Maybe you should consider this when it comes to putting people on the Supreme Court. Notice that all of the people that side with what the Constitution "says" and not what they "feel" it should say were in the dissent. Including the hated by liberals Scalia, Thomas and Renquist. Yet another power grab by the big government camp. Glad I don't live on land that Pfizer wants. Be very afraid if you live in California.

I don't really care much about same sex marriage (except for calling it marriage as it isn't). Domestic partnerships are fine by me. Factor in some of them are scamming for benefits (especially from the university) I would love to see it be a more binding thing like an official domestic partner status. That way they realize what real marriage like contracts are about when a partner legally walks away with half of their stuff. What I do care about is 5% of the population making law when over 75% of the population is against it. If you can't pass a law through the legislature then it doesn't get passed. No backdooring it through activist Judges. Even in the PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia) happy "marriage" was voted down by over 60% of the people yet now it is considered lawful. There is a different between rights and wants. We all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is universal. I don't have the rigth to go around calling my self the King of England and asking for all kinds special privledges. Or actually I do, but nobody has to grant me this. Treating people equal should be the way things are done as a rule. Giving people special status because they are a minority is wrong and only tends to keep people down. As far as morphine goes it doesn't take away all the pain. I've been on a morphine drip before and you can definitely still feel a lot of pain. It dulls the pain and knocks you out, but it doesn't get rid of it. As to the Sciavo case we may never know what is going on. No real medical analyzis of the woman was done. No real brain scans, very few doctors who weren't selected by M. Sciavo and no rehabilitation was done. Shouldn't we have at least given her a fighting chance? At least tried therapy? At least used some of the money supposedly won to take care of her to actually take care of her and not put her to death? Oh, and one really important question. I understand pulling the feeding tube as a matter of law. But not allowing people to give her water through ordinary means is just cruel. Feeding somebody who can't do it themselves isn't exactly what we call extraordinary means of keeping somebody alive. How can this be allowed to happen to a livin human being?

The reason I say it was the state deciding is because in order for a person on life support who has hope to be terminated you have to have prior record that that was their wish. There is no prior record of this. In fact given Terrri's strong Catholic faith and testimony of friends they say that she would want to live. The only thing the court is basing its decision on is the fact that her husband (who has 2 kids with another women and tried to hide this fact) said, around 7-8 years after the fact, that he remembered a conversation that she said she wouldn't want to have extraordinary means taken to keep her alive. Terri is not on life support and is NOT brain dead. She used to be able to communicate and is responsive to her parents. She is awake and can open her eyes and her expressions change. Doctor's say with therapy (which has been denied by her husband) she could get better and may be even able to feed herself. Do you know that they haven't even taken a cat scan to see what her brain looks like? The husband won't let anybody do that. If she was so bad off why not take a scan and get everything out in the open? The doctor on record only examined her for 45 minutes and came up with his conclusion that she was PVS. Seems like you would need more data than that to put somebody to death. There are more than a few things that don't add up in this case. I don't see why she can't be fed until a new look at the facts are taken by a federal court to see if the case was mishandled. If they determine it wasn't then the husband can have his way and starve his wife to death. And yes she is aware enough to feel it. If they were wrong then her parents get to take care of her.

The husband was offered anything he wanted to let the parents take care of her. A divorce, all movie or book rights, all the money, everything and he turned it down. I agree this is a case between the parents, husband and the law. Unfortunately the state is deciding she should die on heresay from a person who rememberd the conversation many years after the fact. That is pretty weak. Also many doctors don't agree she is a vegetable. Enough that there is reasonable doubt. Her parents are willing to take care of her. Why is that so hard just to let them?

According to M. Schiavo and the New York times it is not painful and perfectly natural. If that is the case I propose this as a solution to how we handle the death penalty. If starving people to death is not painful and perfectly natural why don't death row inmates choose that over lethal injection or the chair? In all seriousness this should scare the crap out of peple. A judge in Florida and not her family has the final say on weather she lives or dies. No proof has been given that she has a living will, but that doesn't seem to matter. Why is it people go to the max to save a hardened killer from death, but it seems as those same people are now in favor of staving Terri to death. If you starved a dog or other animal to death there would be groups out for your head, but for some reason a human is different. Their excuse is that she is a vegetable. Unfortunately many doctors who have seen her have stated that is not the case. From hearing from her family and several doctors who disagree with the vegetable diagnosis this should be reasonable doubt to let her live. However despite this she has been starving to death since Friday afternoon. A long term problem from this case is that Congress subpoened her to come before them to testify and a judge rejected that outright. What does that say when we let judges get away with ingnoring a congressional subpoena? This is the second time recently that Judges have made power grabs over the congress which is esentially the people. Congress gets elected, judges don't. Judges have made abortion legal over the will of the public. Judges have made Homosexual marriage legal over the will of the public. Judges have barred the death penalty on minors over the will of the public. It seems that we are having rule by the minority. If you can't get it passed into law it seems you have another shot. Just find a radical judge to find somehow that it is constitutional and it will get imposed upon us.

Some of My ansceters came from Mexico, but they did it legally. The problem that I have is with people in PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia) and other places that get outraged when we pass laws to ban ILLEGAL immigrants from getting drivers licenses. Yes, there are Hollywood types that think it is a bad thing to deny Illegals drivers liscenses. Also they think that propositions to make English our national language are racially insensitive? To quote Edward Kennedy: "Hello?" So what they are saying that if people break into my place and threaten to rape the women I'd better kill them on my property and not after they flee through the door? I figure if you threaten somebody with bodily harm especially with a knife and 4 to 1 odds and you get your jerk kicked that is your bad luck. It is like the story that used to hang in our dojang about a guy who broke into a womans apartment to steal stuff and decided to try and rape her too. It ended with the robber calling the police to remove the woman who had a strangle hold on his nuts.

Because many of our states have voted it into law. That is how this country works. People vote things into law and we abide by them. Now it seems that unelected people can now disregard those laws and impose their personal opinion on the rest of the country. I don't know about you, but that makes me very nervous. Also I need to proofread the subject line before submitting. :P

I'm kinda confused. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the death penalty for people under 18? We can find that people under the age of 18 aren't mature enough to face execution for (premeditated) murder, but are capable of deciding whether to have an abortion without parental consent. We can ignore the facts of a premeditated murder case of somebody who was 17.5 years old and bragged about getting away with it because they were under 18. We can overturn a ruling of just the opposite 15 years earlier. All this because the majority of unelected people sitting on a bench with no accountability though so. Not because of extensive research, or an outcry by the people, but because it was their personal opinions. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...03-633#dissent2 Here is an excerpt from Justice Scalia's dissent: In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary ... ha neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

Calling Bush a Christian is like justifying the Crusades? There is a leap of logic. Well for a brainwashed leftist it isn't much of a leap because it is part of their propaganda. However to people that know anything about Christianity you just sound stupid. That is really why Bush got elected. They preach common sense and don't try and B.S. a lot. The Dems are just the opposite. Tons of B.S. and very extreme positions that are all over the map. I know both groups have their extrememe elements, but at least the Republicans have the decency of not showcasing them and letting them run the party. The Democratic convention was a freak show of political whackos. Oh, and I'm sure Howard Dean will bury the Democratic party so far into radicalism that they won't have to worry about being competative for years. You would think that they would have picked up on this by now. Common sense and doing the right thing is a winning ticket. Socialism and extremely liberal social policies are not. No matter how much propaganda that is spewed by people like Katie Couric and Chris Matthews there are people out in America with a brain who see just how far into radicalism the Democrats are sinking. Even Hillary is running to the Center because she knows that leftists don't win. Good thing there are some news agencies that will throw some of her extreme positions back into her face in 4 years. Most won't like they didn't to John Kerry, but enough will have the integrity to do so.

That is an often quoted example and seems true on the surface. One thing though that isn't talked about much are the "voting irregularities" in Chicago that got Kennedy elected. Most likely if Nixon wanted to ask for a investigation into the votes in Illinois he had a good chance of winning that election, but he decided not to because he thought it would be bad for the country to bring up the subject.

Yes, I'm doing much better than 4 years ago. It is called progressing. It tends to happen from time to time no matter who is in the Whitehouse. 4 years ago I didn't own a house or a Porsche and now I have both. Is it because of Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush or Richard Nixon? Nope. It is called hard work and dedication to do well. That is what this country is founded on.

Want some with your whine? I've posted it several times, but would some of you no WMD whiners actually go read U.N. Resoution 1441 please. It is a little more than humorous to compare this whining with what went on with the isolationists before WW2. Also it was found and put forward in reports (though not really covered in the press) that there WAS an ongoing attempt to keep their nulcear and biological programs alive for when we left. Also saying no WMDs found is kinda like saying Jimmy Hoffa still not found. Do you honestly think all that stuff was destoryed without any evidence by the good natured Sadam Hussein who could have stayed in power if he just showed us that he had destroyed the stuff? Or about the tons of "fertilizer" stored in millitary ammo dumps and "dual" use machines we found? I guess Occam's Razor doesn't apply when there are ideals getting in the way. Also food for thought: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/01/aiding_and_abbe.html

That actually looks like a recycled Ann Coulter piece. She uses irreverant humor like that to get a point across. Some poeple have no sense of Humor. Oh, and the U.S. doesn't hold a candle to killing civilians when it comes to Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others who have racked up a body count of over 100 million. Then lets not forget how many Indian girls get slaughtered every year. Then lets not forget Rwanda and other countries commiting genocide. Sorry the U.S. can't stack up to murders like that. There is a difference between being a casualty of a conflict and outright murder. But to a leftist the murderes are good guys becuase they murder for the people. While the U.S. is of course always evil.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways. :ph34r:

Oooh, a driveby poster. Post count less than 5 in the political discussion area. Try posting something with some actual content instead of a repost of something off of the DU. You posted nothing, but total conjecture of what you think things are like. If you actully looked at how things are instead of how you want them to be then you would be closer to getting it. The media did several "hatchet" pieces on Bush during the campaign. Most of which backfired and just cost them viewers. People spouting things like you posted, Michael Moore, Terry Mcauliffe, George Sorros, ect. cost Democrats voters everytime they open their mouth. They might attract one or two uninformed people, but for every one they attract they drive 2-3 more away. So keep up your strategy. Its fine by me. Then we can keep people with more adult views running the country. Personally I'd love to kick all the politicians out of Washington, but I'll listen to politicians who talk common sense any day over the crap that the left has been dishing out for the last 20+ years.

I'd sign up for it. Sounds like an interesting idea. Oh, and Driver850, love the Lacoste logo. When I first saw it years ago I thought it was Izod making a comeback. :P

Nothing like hoovering up all that the Liberal media spits out. Did you know that this whole thing was planted at a press conference by a reporter? Did you also know the division that the reporter, that unethically planted the question with a soldier, was from actually was already about 97% armored? Did you know that the reporter bragged about planting this question against the rules of the press conference? http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/...n-reporter.html "I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts," he wrote. "Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have." He also said he went to the officer running the question and answer session "and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd." http://www.tennessean.com/nation-world/arc...ent_ID=62929024 Army Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes and Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, senior members of the Army's combat systems development and acquisition team at the Pentagon, said protective armor plates were added to the last 20 vehicles of the Tennessee-based 278th Regimental Combat Team's 830 vehicles shortly after the exchange with Rumsfeld. Also of interest: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ledeen200412230852.asp Oh, and CNN conservative? I guess you can join Bill Moyers out there in fantasy land.

I see this as a numbers game pure and simple. If 95% of your perps are from one group or another then that group gets more attention. If certain groups have no history of commiting the crime and have no motivation to then they get watched less. Common sense. If it was purple martians that cause problems with hijacking unicycles from frech people then you should pay more attention to the purple martians. If there never has been an incident with green Uranians then they should get less attention, but still be spot checked like everyone else because you never know. Should you be rude or intimidating to them? No. Be more watchful around them? Yes.

Don't forget the other part of war: Breaking other people's things before they break yours. The PT requirements were fairly rigorous when I was in the Navy, but then again there is only so far you need to cary a wounded person on a ship. If a person can cary me 400 meters and then shoot the enemy in the center of mass without hesitating then I'm ok with them being in combat. If they can't then I don't care what sex they are and Charles is right they shoudn't be in combat duty. There are tons of other positions in the armed forces. Notice how some California schools are using Don't as Don't tell to try and kick ROTC off campus because it might hurt peoples feelings. http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=720

You are missing one very important point. The people still fighting us are the ones who fought along side Sadam willingly. There is nobody forcing them to fight right now. In fact every attempt was made to avoid conflict. Notice they are from his home town and are still trying to hold out for the 'old days'. From conversations with people on the ground they estimate 1 in 10 people fighting us are actual Iraqis the rest are foreigners. Kinda shoots your whole defending their homeland idea out of the water. Do you even understand the reference to the werewolves of WWII?