EvilMonkey

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 09:40 AM) This article is written tabloid-style, but Jim said what I was thinking. Quite frankly, I don't care what the Bush administration wants at this point. And even if McCain wins, it still doesn't change the fact that Congress actually should be involved - that's in the Constitution. But in any case, the next president should be able to have their own leverage, not locked into what Bush decided for them. Isn't that the President in CIC? I know that Congress needs to approve treaties, but as for specific troop levels and movements, i think that is up to the President, not Congress.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 08:27 AM) Had the headline about Obama intentionally trying to stall withdrawal been on the mark, I'd say it would be a very serious problem, and I personally would be very disheartened. Reading the piece, however, if this is the operative sentence detailing the allegation: . . . Well, then I see it as being a prudent stance. I don't care for the idea of missing 2010 withdrawal targets, and I'm sure Obama doesn't either. But if this is an alternative to Iraq (not to mention the next presidential administration) being forced into an open-ended Status of Forces agreement, etc., I don't think it's necessarily the wrong approach. Your operative sentance, at least the way that it is written, leaves itself open for all sorts of interpretation. It could also be implied "Why reach an agreement with HIM, instead wait a bit and reach it with ME, because I willbe the one in charge soon, and it would be in your interest to have ME on your side" It could also be read as every other possible combination inbetween the two.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/posto...awal_129150.htm

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 08:49 AM) Did you request it be a comedian that kills? Badum Maybe he could hire you. That joke sure did.

Your question really depends on the people you are talking about. Some people really need that time to share their memories with others who knew the deceased. Other feel that as long as people are remembered, they are not truely dead, so the wake helps to keep the memory alive. And some just can't stand the sight of a body in a casket. My family generally uses the wake to get your crying out, and then has a party afterwards to celebrate the life that the person lived. Any bad memories you may get from seeing the body in the casket would be quickly replaced by the hundreds of stories you would hear or tell. And as long as they are remembered, they are not completely dead.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 08:02 AM) Not trying to get them banned, but when what they write is ignored because they dropped an R or had the D in paragraph 3 instead of 2, it's as good as banned. The end result of the GOP strategy is you will not believe anything in the media, only what the GOP or their surrogates tell you. Then functionally you have the old TASS system. More like paragraph 13 instead of 2, if they mention it at all.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 09:28 AM) Biased conclusion based on opinion. Biased conclusion based on history. And I am allowed to be biased, I am not getting paid for my opinion.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) You'd think when they saw the giant poster behind them, they'd have figured it out before the third day of the convention. Here's an interview with the Waffle folks at their booth at the convention. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/b...bctid1790977147 I don't want to make a broad generalization here and say that the Republicans support the Muslim rumor or the veiled racism here, but it seems pretty obvious that these people who ran the convention were more than willing to turn a blind eye to it. And if this doesn't represent the mainstream of Republican politics, why did the chair of GOPAC, Michael Steele speak there? Why did Mittens Romney make an appearance for the second straight year? And Tom DeLay, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich? There's no outrage or anger here. But for all the talk I've heard about Obama's supporters alienating people on the fence by being annoying - how does this make the people behind McCain look? I have often heard from the Dem side here that the blogs don't represent the mainstream democratic party. If they don't represent them, why do so many of the prominent politicians on that side post there? You know as well as I do that they all need every vote they can get. That is why they go to these things. The convention last year frew 7 of the 8 presidential candidates. But nothing racist or derogatory ever appears on Kos. http://www.yearlykosconvention.org/about

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 06:00 PM) Or the size of his ehem... I had a customer that comes into my store every year to make color calendars for her hubby at Christmas from pictures of her. She is like a model out of Hustler, cute, but a little too much makeup and huge fake boobs, but still pretty hot. Oh, did I mention that they are naked pictures of her? The first year she did it, she brought him in with her to pick up the calendar. Something about him must be big, because it sure wasn't looks or muscles. That leaves bank accouont or, as ss2k put it, his 'ehem'.

When I left my house today at 11 Am, the water was in 6 feet from my fence. I had to go from plainfield to Momence. Dad's birthday, not missing it for anything. Along the way I crossed the Des Plaines river and the Kankakee river, both hugely swollen. Went thru many 'puddles', took several detours, but got there. Going thru the farmland was wierd seeing all those little streams or ditches turn into swiftly flowing rivers. Just got home, there is now water about 10 feet in from my fence. For the first time i am glad my backyard has a steep grade.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 09:09 AM) http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...12/1382073.aspx Feminists should be up in arms and start a protest right away.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 09:05 AM) /waiting for the obligatory lighten up post from the vast right wing conspiracy Flax was right, i condemned it in the general electionpost as a classless move.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 09:52 AM) I agree basically with what you posted. I think there is plenty of separation and most adults understand the difference. It's more manufactured attacks at the media to render them useless. Which is what every politician wants. When the politicians control what you hear and believe, they have won the battle. The GOP is almost there. So, reporters with an agenda is a better alternative? They both suck.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 08:36 AM) Not like the organizers could have ever gone to their website or anything, http://www.obamawaffles.com. This only got pulled because the media found out about it and it looked bad. And Obama only dumped Ayers, Rev Wright and numerous other people because the media found out about it and it looked bad. What's your point? The organizers sell booth space. They don't check every tiny detail of the sellers, and when a problem was brought to their attention, they took care of it.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 14, 2008 -> 07:54 AM) No it was not accurate. Based on the transcript (is the transcript accurate? Was it from an unbiased source) Yes I think it is entirely fair to report partial questions and answers, it's what reporters do. Space is limited. The choice is simple, report less questions in their entirety (and have you claim bias in which questions were omitted) or report more answers, but abridged. Tens of thousands of newspaper articles are printed every day. Some are by reporters who are not very good at their craft and some articles are very good. If finding a few examples, out of those tens of thousands of articles, that are poorly written confirms the GOP party line of media bias, fine, you believe and the GOP loves you. I prefer to keep faith in the watchdogs. But you have to love the Grand Old Party's strategy, it is brilliant. As soon as a negative article comes out, find flaws in the article and start screaming. There doesn't even have to be flaws, just find something. And if a positive article comes out about an opponent, start screaming about where's my coverage? Then everybody starts discussing media bias and ignores the story. I love it, I wish my candidates thought of it first. I'll only ask one direct question from you. Since our system sucks so bad and has such terrible bias, care to point me to a better one? Our system of what? News reporting? If that is what you are referring to, then they need to do 2 things. 1) make sure the line between commentary and reporting is clear. A huge problem today is that it is not, and you have people getting their 'news' from Hannity and Olbermann. Even alot of the talking head shows are not news but come off seeming that way. 2) report the facts. I understand the need to edit, say to fit the allotted space, but when your editing changes a story dramaticly, find more space. 'Some say' is a crutch for reporters of either stripe to get their opinions into a story when they really don't have anything to back it up. leave out descriptive words that convey your opinion or feelings, like 'His speech at the convention was a work of brilliance'. Now if they quote someone saying that, that is ok. Otherwise, that is the reporters opinion, not a fact. Every person has their own filter that they see and interpret things thru. Journalists are supposed to be able to circumvent that to get to the facts and report the facts, not report how they feel about the facts or which facts they decide we should know.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ister-mag-cover More at the link.

FYI, we managed to get a full team at the last minute, and 1 solo bowler. So we now need just one single person. Well, you can be married, but only one bowling spot is open. Anyone? Tonight the lanes were pretty dry. I didn't do so well, 169, 159, 218. I opened the last 3 frames of the third game, couldn't keep the ball in the pocket anymore.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 11:19 PM) And if I look I will find a poor reporting job that makes a Dem look bad. There are errors. But they all even out, and that is all we can ask from a free press. You want transcripts and no editing. But then the complaint will be why some transcript wasn't added. Last year someone died from drinking too much water in a radio promotion. Hundreds of people drowned last year. See, that proves that water is dangerous and we need to get rid of it. But keep believing that the world is out to get Reps and you need to circle the wagons. That bunker mentality is what they want. You and them against the world. /back to lurking. Tex, I asked you two pretty direct questions. Care to answer them?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 10:46 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080913/ap_on_...e3gICr8SmCs0NUE Nope, nobody's calling him a muslim. Nobody's playing the race card but him. Yup, pretty classless move there. The big difference though is the organizors stopped it when they found out about it. If this were a Democratric convention and 2 people had set up a booth selling Palin Pork Sausage that depicted cartoon images of her as a pig with snout and all, it would have never been pulled, Kos would have front page diaries about how good the sausage was, Randi Rhodes would pass out from complaingin that the sausage was too opiniated and wanted to push its religion on the rest of us and it would just get chuckled away as 2 vendors trying to make a buck, not something that the party or its organizers condoned.

Tex, can you look at the link I posted, see all the parts that they edited out, and think that they still gave a fair representation of palin to the public? You and I may take the time to look up the transcripts, but a lot of people who may be swayed will not go that extra distance and see if what was presented to them was accurate. I think it was a hatchet job in the editing that either was done with the intention of making her look bad, or was done by someone who was so inept that I would expect to see themout of a job very soon. You can't just cut out parts of answers you don't like and leave the rest there, that is unfair to her, and to the viewing public. Forget the media as a whole with bias. In THIS interview, do you agree or disagree that the edited version that appeared on TV makes her answers seem worse than they do when you read the tyranscript? Do you think that it is unfair and irresponsible for a reporter or editor to only show you PART of her answer to a question, leaving out important parts of the answer in the process?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 02:08 PM) ? your post doesn't make any sense. what are you getting at? He's all or nothing.

Obama's credibility gap, per The Australian. The paper, not DBAHO. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...35-7583,00.html

FYI, here are some of the pieces that were cut out ny ABC in the palin interview. Selective editing? I think it is blatently dishonest when they edit the interview in such a way as they cut off parts of her answers to make it seem that she gave an incomplete or wrong answer. Here is just one example, the bolded part is what was edited out from the broadcast. GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel? PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes. GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right? PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable. GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran? PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure. GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program. PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that. Nothing like reporting only what you want reported. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...palin-interview

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 13, 2008 -> 08:55 AM) I wonder if she thinks it's best for the country that all rape victims be charged for the cost of their rape kits/medical exams like she thought the victims in Wasilla should be? Under Palin, Wasilla charged rape victims for exam That's some progressive feminist right there. She's a pretty despicable person to suggest she'd do a damn bit of good for womens' rights when you look at her failings in that area in the past. You are of course assuming that SHE started the practice of charging for them. I suppose that when you call for an ambulance after an accident, that it comes out for free, right? Doesn't charge you for the trip, or services rendered?