In the beginning the real person was running from his enemies on a motorcycle I believe. (It's been a loooong time.) Anyway he's in a parking deck and makes a break for it an guns it. He hits the ramp at full speed and the last thing he sees is Maximum Headroom 12'.
BAMM!!! Then it's Mmmmmm,m, m, Max. I can't remember the rest of the plot.
Full Version: Media Bias thread
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
whoops, simpsons. cya.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6728
Calling the Kettle Gay
by Ann Coulter
Posted Mar 3, 2005
It's been a tough year for Democrats. They lost the presidential election, their favorite news outlets have been abjectly humiliated, they had to sit through a smashingly successful election in Iraq, and, most painfully, they had to endure unwarranted attacks on a cartoon sponge. So I understand liberals are upset.
Let go, let God . . . Oops -- I'm talking to liberals! Let go, let Spongebob . . .
Democrats tried working out their frustrations on blacks for a while, but someone--I can't remember who, but it probably wasn't Sen. Robert Byrd--must have finally told them it really wasn't helping to keep disparaging every single black person in a position of authority in this Republican administration.
So now liberals are lashing out at the gays. Two weeks ago, The New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans. There is no principled or intellectual basis for these outings. Conservatives don't want gays to die; we just don't want to transform the Pentagon into the Office of Gay Studies.
By contrast, liberals say: "We love gay people! Gay people are awesome! Being gay is awesome! Gay marriage is awesome! Gay cartoon characters are awesome! And if you don't agree with us, we'll punish you by telling everyone that you're gay!"
In addition to an attack on a Website reporter for supposedly operating a gay escort service and thereby cutting into the business of the Village Voice, another Times op-ed article the same day gratuitously outed the children of prominent conservatives.
These are not public figures. No one knows who they are apart from their famous parents. I didn't even know most of these conservatives had children until the Times outed them.
Liberals can't even cite their usual "hypocrisy" fig leaf to justify the public outings of conservatives' family members. No outsider can know what goes on inside a family, but according to the public version of one family matter being leered over by liberals, a prominent conservative threw his daughter out of the house when he found out she was gay.
Stipulating for purposes of argument that that's the whole story--which is absurd--isn't that the opposite of hypocrisy? Wouldn't that be an example of someone sacrificing other values on the mantel of consistency?
Outing relatives of conservatives is nothing but ruthless intimidation: Stop opposing our agenda--or your kids will get it. This is a behavioral trope of all totalitarians: Force children to testify against their parents to gain control by fear.
It's bad enough when liberals respond to a conservative argument by digging through the conservative's garbage cans; it's another thing entirely when they start digging through the garbage cans of the conservative's family members. (On behalf of conservatives everywhere, I say: Stay out of our gay relatives' cans.)
Liberals use these people and then discard them. Has John Kerry had lunch with his pal Mary Cheney lately? What ever happened to Newt Gingrich's gay half-sister? Did she have any further insights to impart other than that she was gay?
Already this year, the glorious story of one conservative's gay child has gotten 58 mentions on Lexis-Nexis, including seven shows on CNN (eight if you include "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren")--and none on Fox News (unless you include "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren").
The 2004 Gay Conservative Offspring story got 29 mentions on Lexis-Nexis, including in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New York Daily News, The International Herald Tribune and five shows on CNN. (This story wasn't as much fun for liberals inasmuch as they were forced to mention that the conservative had adopted the troubled, mixed-race child at age 15, contradicting their earlier claims that the conservative was a racist.) There is not a single mention of this gay poster boy in the Lexis-Nexis archives since the last sadistic mention of him in an article from October 2004. Liberals ruin a family and then moveon.org.
Meanwhile, William J. Murray, the son of prominent atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair--and the named plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that banned school prayer--came out as a Christian in 1980. There are only two mentions of it in the Lexis-Nexis archives, Facts on File and The Washington Post.
The Lexis-Nexis library for 1980 may be smaller than it is today, but it has articles from major newspapers, which the New York Times was still considered in 1980. (There are, for example, two Times stories mentioning the rumor that Ronald Reagan dyed his hair in the Lexis-Nexis archives for 1980.) No mention of the son of America's most notorious atheist becoming a Christian.
Calling the Kettle Gay
by Ann Coulter
Posted Mar 3, 2005
It's been a tough year for Democrats. They lost the presidential election, their favorite news outlets have been abjectly humiliated, they had to sit through a smashingly successful election in Iraq, and, most painfully, they had to endure unwarranted attacks on a cartoon sponge. So I understand liberals are upset.
Let go, let God . . . Oops -- I'm talking to liberals! Let go, let Spongebob . . .
Democrats tried working out their frustrations on blacks for a while, but someone--I can't remember who, but it probably wasn't Sen. Robert Byrd--must have finally told them it really wasn't helping to keep disparaging every single black person in a position of authority in this Republican administration.
So now liberals are lashing out at the gays. Two weeks ago, The New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans. There is no principled or intellectual basis for these outings. Conservatives don't want gays to die; we just don't want to transform the Pentagon into the Office of Gay Studies.
By contrast, liberals say: "We love gay people! Gay people are awesome! Being gay is awesome! Gay marriage is awesome! Gay cartoon characters are awesome! And if you don't agree with us, we'll punish you by telling everyone that you're gay!"
In addition to an attack on a Website reporter for supposedly operating a gay escort service and thereby cutting into the business of the Village Voice, another Times op-ed article the same day gratuitously outed the children of prominent conservatives.
These are not public figures. No one knows who they are apart from their famous parents. I didn't even know most of these conservatives had children until the Times outed them.
Liberals can't even cite their usual "hypocrisy" fig leaf to justify the public outings of conservatives' family members. No outsider can know what goes on inside a family, but according to the public version of one family matter being leered over by liberals, a prominent conservative threw his daughter out of the house when he found out she was gay.
Stipulating for purposes of argument that that's the whole story--which is absurd--isn't that the opposite of hypocrisy? Wouldn't that be an example of someone sacrificing other values on the mantel of consistency?
Outing relatives of conservatives is nothing but ruthless intimidation: Stop opposing our agenda--or your kids will get it. This is a behavioral trope of all totalitarians: Force children to testify against their parents to gain control by fear.
It's bad enough when liberals respond to a conservative argument by digging through the conservative's garbage cans; it's another thing entirely when they start digging through the garbage cans of the conservative's family members. (On behalf of conservatives everywhere, I say: Stay out of our gay relatives' cans.)
Liberals use these people and then discard them. Has John Kerry had lunch with his pal Mary Cheney lately? What ever happened to Newt Gingrich's gay half-sister? Did she have any further insights to impart other than that she was gay?
Already this year, the glorious story of one conservative's gay child has gotten 58 mentions on Lexis-Nexis, including seven shows on CNN (eight if you include "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren")--and none on Fox News (unless you include "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren").
The 2004 Gay Conservative Offspring story got 29 mentions on Lexis-Nexis, including in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New York Daily News, The International Herald Tribune and five shows on CNN. (This story wasn't as much fun for liberals inasmuch as they were forced to mention that the conservative had adopted the troubled, mixed-race child at age 15, contradicting their earlier claims that the conservative was a racist.) There is not a single mention of this gay poster boy in the Lexis-Nexis archives since the last sadistic mention of him in an article from October 2004. Liberals ruin a family and then moveon.org.
Meanwhile, William J. Murray, the son of prominent atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair--and the named plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that banned school prayer--came out as a Christian in 1980. There are only two mentions of it in the Lexis-Nexis archives, Facts on File and The Washington Post.
The Lexis-Nexis library for 1980 may be smaller than it is today, but it has articles from major newspapers, which the New York Times was still considered in 1980. (There are, for example, two Times stories mentioning the rumor that Ronald Reagan dyed his hair in the Lexis-Nexis archives for 1980.) No mention of the son of America's most notorious atheist becoming a Christian.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6683
'60 Minutes' Blows It on Black/White Adoption
by Larry Elder
Posted Feb 24, 2005
"60 Minutes" strikes again. Earlier this month, the program broadcast a segment on international, "transracial" (black/white) adoptions involving American-born babies.
It turns out, according to "60 Minutes," a growing number of families living out of the country now adopt American black babies. As for the reason, "60 Minutes" interviewed Walter Gilbert, CEO of The Open Door, a private adoption agency. Gilbert's agency has placed more than 200 American children in British Columbia. Many of these kids are black and are matched with white Canadian parents. Why? "Especially in Canada," Gilbert says, "people are just color-blind.
. . . We would tend to tell them [birth mothers] that our experience has been there's less prejudice. They know what they experience here."
Never mind that our unemployment rate is 5.2% versus Canada's 7.0%, or the Canadian GDP per capita is $29,700 versus our $37,800. It's better up there.
But wait, the "60 Minutes" piece grew even more baffling. Correspondent Lesley Stahl never even suggested another big reason why adoption agencies might look outside of America for parents to adopt black children. For decades, the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) and others called transracial adoptions "cultural genocide." In 1992, the NABSW issued a paper condemning "transracial" black-white adoptions between Americans, warning against "transculturation . . . when one dominant culture overpowers and forces another culture to accept a foreign form of existence," and stated that "children need to be with those who are most familiar with their culture, heritage and family system." I attempted to determine whether NABSW still maintains its official status against "transracial adoptions," but as of final editing of this article, no one from the organization returned a phone call or e-mail.
Responding to the opposition of organizations like the NABSW, adoption agencies pulled back. After all, who could understand the dramatically different "culture" of blacks better than black social workers?
Finally, in 1994 -- concerned about the alarming number of black children waiting for adoption -- Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act, which prohibits delay or denial of any adoption due to the race, color or national origin of the child or adoptive parents. Still, after the Act, the number of transracial adoptions failed to significantly increase. Why? According to the National Adoption Center, government still allows agencies to use variables to calculate "the best interest of the child." For instance, take a 9-year-old black child who has never lived with a white family. An adoption agency could argue that it's not in the "best interest of the child" to be adopted by a white family -- even when a white family wants the child!
"60 Minutes," of course, never dealt with the issue of why so many black children are waiting for adoption. Healthy black babies, like white babies, get adopted quickly. But older black kids in foster care, having been removed from their parents, often encounter greater difficulty in getting adopted. Many parents fear adopting older children since they didn't bond with them when they were young. Others fear some children may have mental or physical problems. But, given the size of the black population, for black families to adopt black children, black families would have to adopt kids at a rate four times faster than the adoption rate of white families.
Is it a healthy thing that Americans feel black children, unwanted by the birth mother, stand to have a better life in "less racist" Canada? Is it a good thing that, given the availability of black children for adoption, black social workers and like-minded whites call black-white adoptions "cultural suicide"?
Why do so many Americans -- including white Americans -- shudder at the obstacle of American racism? Because many American "black leaders" constantly tell us about the severe obstacles faced by blacks growing up in America. Listen to Rep. Mel Watt (D.-N.C.) chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. When C-SPAN's Brian Lamb asked what advice he would give to young black men, Watt said, " . . . [I]f you're honest with them, you've got to tell them, you've got to work five times as hard as your white counterpart."
Black kids wear T-shirts saying, "You wouldn't understand. It's a black thing." "Black leaders" condemn juries with no blacks as inherently illegitimate if they sit in judgment over black defendants. After all, how can a non-black understand the "black experience"? Small wonder, then, many adoption agencies discourage "transracial" adoptions. After all, haven't "black leaders" and other liberal, guilt-ridden non-blacks emphasized differences? "If you adopt her, how will you be able to comb her hair? How will she know about 'her heritage'?" (Her heritage? Wasn't she born in Detroit?)
Many white American families -- who would likely be thrilled to adopt a black American baby -- now turn to countries like Korea or China to adopt Asian babies and toddlers. Different race, different culture, even a different language -- no problem.
"60 Minutes" neither raised nor answered any of these questions. But maybe things will get better at "60 Minutes" -- once Dan Rather joins them full time.
Mr. Elder is an attorney, syndicated columnist, syndicated radio talk-show host and author of Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America. (St. Martin's Press, 2002)
'60 Minutes' Blows It on Black/White Adoption
by Larry Elder
Posted Feb 24, 2005
"60 Minutes" strikes again. Earlier this month, the program broadcast a segment on international, "transracial" (black/white) adoptions involving American-born babies.
It turns out, according to "60 Minutes," a growing number of families living out of the country now adopt American black babies. As for the reason, "60 Minutes" interviewed Walter Gilbert, CEO of The Open Door, a private adoption agency. Gilbert's agency has placed more than 200 American children in British Columbia. Many of these kids are black and are matched with white Canadian parents. Why? "Especially in Canada," Gilbert says, "people are just color-blind.
. . . We would tend to tell them [birth mothers] that our experience has been there's less prejudice. They know what they experience here."
Never mind that our unemployment rate is 5.2% versus Canada's 7.0%, or the Canadian GDP per capita is $29,700 versus our $37,800. It's better up there.
But wait, the "60 Minutes" piece grew even more baffling. Correspondent Lesley Stahl never even suggested another big reason why adoption agencies might look outside of America for parents to adopt black children. For decades, the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) and others called transracial adoptions "cultural genocide." In 1992, the NABSW issued a paper condemning "transracial" black-white adoptions between Americans, warning against "transculturation . . . when one dominant culture overpowers and forces another culture to accept a foreign form of existence," and stated that "children need to be with those who are most familiar with their culture, heritage and family system." I attempted to determine whether NABSW still maintains its official status against "transracial adoptions," but as of final editing of this article, no one from the organization returned a phone call or e-mail.
Responding to the opposition of organizations like the NABSW, adoption agencies pulled back. After all, who could understand the dramatically different "culture" of blacks better than black social workers?
Finally, in 1994 -- concerned about the alarming number of black children waiting for adoption -- Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act, which prohibits delay or denial of any adoption due to the race, color or national origin of the child or adoptive parents. Still, after the Act, the number of transracial adoptions failed to significantly increase. Why? According to the National Adoption Center, government still allows agencies to use variables to calculate "the best interest of the child." For instance, take a 9-year-old black child who has never lived with a white family. An adoption agency could argue that it's not in the "best interest of the child" to be adopted by a white family -- even when a white family wants the child!
"60 Minutes," of course, never dealt with the issue of why so many black children are waiting for adoption. Healthy black babies, like white babies, get adopted quickly. But older black kids in foster care, having been removed from their parents, often encounter greater difficulty in getting adopted. Many parents fear adopting older children since they didn't bond with them when they were young. Others fear some children may have mental or physical problems. But, given the size of the black population, for black families to adopt black children, black families would have to adopt kids at a rate four times faster than the adoption rate of white families.
Is it a healthy thing that Americans feel black children, unwanted by the birth mother, stand to have a better life in "less racist" Canada? Is it a good thing that, given the availability of black children for adoption, black social workers and like-minded whites call black-white adoptions "cultural suicide"?
Why do so many Americans -- including white Americans -- shudder at the obstacle of American racism? Because many American "black leaders" constantly tell us about the severe obstacles faced by blacks growing up in America. Listen to Rep. Mel Watt (D.-N.C.) chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. When C-SPAN's Brian Lamb asked what advice he would give to young black men, Watt said, " . . . [I]f you're honest with them, you've got to tell them, you've got to work five times as hard as your white counterpart."
Black kids wear T-shirts saying, "You wouldn't understand. It's a black thing." "Black leaders" condemn juries with no blacks as inherently illegitimate if they sit in judgment over black defendants. After all, how can a non-black understand the "black experience"? Small wonder, then, many adoption agencies discourage "transracial" adoptions. After all, haven't "black leaders" and other liberal, guilt-ridden non-blacks emphasized differences? "If you adopt her, how will you be able to comb her hair? How will she know about 'her heritage'?" (Her heritage? Wasn't she born in Detroit?)
Many white American families -- who would likely be thrilled to adopt a black American baby -- now turn to countries like Korea or China to adopt Asian babies and toddlers. Different race, different culture, even a different language -- no problem.
"60 Minutes" neither raised nor answered any of these questions. But maybe things will get better at "60 Minutes" -- once Dan Rather joins them full time.
Mr. Elder is an attorney, syndicated columnist, syndicated radio talk-show host and author of Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America. (St. Martin's Press, 2002)
'Blogger fear' in Apple leak case
A California judge said in a preliminary ruling that bloggers should not have the same protection afforded to journalists under US law.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), representing the sites, said it was disappointed with the ruling.
The case's outcome could be far-reaching for bloggers and writers.
The civil liberties group EFF had asked California's Superior court to stop Apple pursuing the blogs' sources in February.
Given that so many journalists correspond with their sources via e-mail, this would severely undermine those journalists' abilities to guarantee their sources any kind of confidentiality
Annalee Newitz, EFF
The tentative ruling serves as an early indication of which way the court is leaning and is not the final ruling, Annalee Newitz, EFF policy analyst, told the BBC News website.
"What's at stake here is whether online and independent journalists will be granted the same rights as ones from traditional media," Ms Newitz said.
She added that if the court's final decision stood, it would mean net service providers would be obliged to hand over bloggers' details in future legal cases.
"Given that so many journalists correspond with their sources via e-mail, this would severely undermine those journalists' abilities to guarantee their sources any kind of confidentiality," she said.
Just yesterday Grig was talking about controlling the internet.
Oh sure, give corporations the same rights to free speech as individuals and then do something like this. Bias? Hmmmmm..... corporate bias perhaps. Who among bloggers could afford a long legal fight? Just another example of the establishment wanting to snuff a source of info they have liitle control over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4319715.stm
A California judge said in a preliminary ruling that bloggers should not have the same protection afforded to journalists under US law.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), representing the sites, said it was disappointed with the ruling.
The case's outcome could be far-reaching for bloggers and writers.
The civil liberties group EFF had asked California's Superior court to stop Apple pursuing the blogs' sources in February.
Given that so many journalists correspond with their sources via e-mail, this would severely undermine those journalists' abilities to guarantee their sources any kind of confidentiality
Annalee Newitz, EFF
The tentative ruling serves as an early indication of which way the court is leaning and is not the final ruling, Annalee Newitz, EFF policy analyst, told the BBC News website.
"What's at stake here is whether online and independent journalists will be granted the same rights as ones from traditional media," Ms Newitz said.
She added that if the court's final decision stood, it would mean net service providers would be obliged to hand over bloggers' details in future legal cases.
"Given that so many journalists correspond with their sources via e-mail, this would severely undermine those journalists' abilities to guarantee their sources any kind of confidentiality," she said.
Just yesterday Grig was talking about controlling the internet.
Oh sure, give corporations the same rights to free speech as individuals and then do something like this. Bias? Hmmmmm..... corporate bias perhaps. Who among bloggers could afford a long legal fight? Just another example of the establishment wanting to snuff a source of info they have liitle control over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4319715.stm
Just a couple days ago y'all were in a tither over Guckert getting to ask Bush a question in a press conference. Are internet people only journalists when they have a certain political view? How much will you have to parse this to separate Guckert from "online and independent journalists"?
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of this place. It's not in the same category but I wonder if it will affect us down the road.
Some kind of regulation.
Some kind of regulation.
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 5 2005, 07:22 AM)
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of this place. It's not in the same category but I wonder if it will affect us down the road.
Some kind of regulation.
[right][snapback]60714[/snapback][/right]
Some kind of regulation.
[right][snapback]60714[/snapback][/right]
First somebody would have to have current info that actually affected something important enough for a court to want to know more. I'm afraid there are as many writers as readers anymore. One would have to be pretty prominent to even get noticed with all the conspiracy theorists blogging lately. Almost any theory can be found out there somewhere, the government would go nuts tracking them all down. (but they might well go after a couple that hit too close to home)
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 5 2005, 08:28 AM)
First somebody would have to have current info that actually affected something important enough for a court to want to know more. I'm afraid there are as many writers as readers anymore. One would have to be pretty prominent to even get noticed with all the conspiracy theorists blogging lately. Almost any theory can be found out there somewhere, the government would go nuts tracking them all down. (but they might well go after a couple that hit too close to home)
[right][snapback]60717[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]60717[/snapback][/right]
lol You're right. We can each start our own blog.
We're pretty generic. Except for lil bart I'm pretty confident there aren't any REAL trouble makers here.
QUOTE
(but they might well go after a couple that hit too close to home)
That goes without saying.
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 5 2005, 07:35 AM)
lol You're right. We can each start our own blog.
[right][snapback]60720[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]60720[/snapback][/right]
IPB has a blog system. I tried it on the other site. http://www.morallybankrupt.ca/forums/index.php?act=idx
Not much fun for me. Merely bloviating for people that only read what they agree with doesn't seem very challenging. Worse yet when their owner put in the blog system they went from an anemic 50 posts a day to around ten.
With Bart not posting and Mill pissed off I can't afford too much more of an rw exodus. The Gaps is all lefties, and nobody sticks around long just to pat each other on the back.
QUOTE
With Bart not posting and Mill pissed off I can't afford too much more of an rw exodus.
I saw barto this morning. What's up with mill?
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 5 2005, 07:49 AM)
I saw barto this morning. What's up with mill?
[right][snapback]60726[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]60726[/snapback][/right]
Dunno about Mill. Took his vote and hasn't been back since. Not even to pick up his B-day cake.
ns?
I'll be damned. I know I didn't vote. I thought it was silly. I'd never survive a vote myself.
Maybe he needed a break.
I'll be damned. I know I didn't vote. I thought it was silly. I'd never survive a vote myself.
Maybe he needed a break.
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 5 2005, 07:54 AM)
ns?
I'll be damned. I know I didn't vote. I thought it was silly. I'd never survive a vote myself.
Maybe he needed a break.
[right][snapback]60730[/snapback][/right]
I'll be damned. I know I didn't vote. I thought it was silly. I'd never survive a vote myself.
Maybe he needed a break.
[right][snapback]60730[/snapback][/right]
A break now and then is a good thing, but I really worry constantly that things will slow down because there is nobody to stir up thought and discussion. Agreement is fine, but it doesn't create a lot of posting.
I went into the Gaps shooting and that place picked up quite a bit. As the only thing approaching a righty I got it from all sorts of people. But when they drove me out their traffic went down dramatically. There's a message in that. Even the lefties need a Bart, Carol, Mill etc around. The personal attacks need to be tempered with a little bit of friendliness and comraderie.
QUOTE
The personal attacks need to be tempered with a little bit of friendliness and comraderie.
Bite my shiny, metal ass.
Bite my glorious golden ass.
And no, I didn't get it in nam. I got in the great war.
Whhhyyyyy back then we had it tough.
Whhhyyyyy back then we had it tough.
Willie hates yeeu bloose wearin' peooodle wallllllkers!
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 5 2005, 08:11 AM)
And no, I didn't get it in nam. I got in the great war.
Whhhyyyyy back then we had it tough.
[right][snapback]60736[/snapback][/right]
Whhhyyyyy back then we had it tough.
[right][snapback]60736[/snapback][/right]
In my day we didn't have no mobile phones, we had to communicate through things called "Swogs" now Swogs were like Morse Code, but this was the real one, you see Mr. Swogs invented it, but Mr. Morse nicked it. And every day I would send a Swogs to my friends before I went to school, but to get to school I had to walk dickety six miles through the snow, we had to say dickety because the Germans stole the word for twenty, anyone I must of been dickity four years old when I decided that I had been to school for too long, so instead I would walk 3 miles through the snow to get to work, I worked for a Swogs company....
QUOTE
we had to say dickety because the Germans stole the word for twenty
lol!!
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 5 2005, 09:11 AM)
Bite my glorious golden ass.
[right][snapback]60735[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]60735[/snapback][/right]
You know, if you see a doctor now you may be able to keep it from becoming gruesomely green.
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 5 2005, 06:35 AM)
lol You're right. We can each start our own blog.
We're pretty generic. Except for lil bart I'm pretty confident there aren't any REAL trouble makers here.
That goes without saying.
[right][snapback]60720[/snapback][/right]
We're pretty generic. Except for lil bart I'm pretty confident there aren't any REAL trouble makers here.
That goes without saying.
[right][snapback]60720[/snapback][/right]
Outed.
Damn.
There are hundreds of thousands of blogs out there. I've been reading a few for years. Every year or so part of the mainstream media "discovers" and covers them as if they were news. Most recently within the last month. Where they been? I don't even bother to read their take on their "discoveries" anymore.
QUOTE(lil bart @ Mar 5 2005, 11:47 AM)
Outed.
Damn.
There are hundreds of thousands of blogs out there. I've been reading a few for years. Every year or so part of the mainstream media "discovers" and covers them as if they were news. Most recently within the last month. Where they been? I don't even bother to read their take on their "discoveries" anymore.
[right][snapback]60813[/snapback][/right]
Damn.
There are hundreds of thousands of blogs out there. I've been reading a few for years. Every year or so part of the mainstream media "discovers" and covers them as if they were news. Most recently within the last month. Where they been? I don't even bother to read their take on their "discoveries" anymore.
[right][snapback]60813[/snapback][/right]
startin' your trouble already eh?
Can you guess who is wearin' the red suit? Here's one clue: it ain't me.
Me?
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 5 2005, 09:52 AM)
Me?
[right][snapback]60818[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]60818[/snapback][/right]
No no no. I'm the troublemaker and you're the nice little boy. The cherry & the gasoline can are just part of the mass deception campaign.
QUOTE(lil bart @ Mar 5 2005, 11:56 AM)
No no no. I'm the troublemaker and you're the nice little boy. The cherry & the gasoline can are just part of the mass deception campaign.
[right][snapback]60821[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]60821[/snapback][/right]
Gas can? Gas can. Gas can! gas can! GAS CAN! GAAAAAASSSSS CAAAAANNNNN!!!!
Another take on the definition of "journalists".
Apple goes to the source
March 7, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh
TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack
Apple Computer's attempts to strong-arm Web publishers into divulging their confidential sources illustrates how bloggers, Internet journalists and other online scribes remain second-rate citizens.
No significant difference exists between the news-gathering techniques used by traditional reporters and the publishers of Apple news sites Think Secret, Apple Insider, and PowerPage. But there is a tremendous legal chasm dividing them: The California law protecting confidential sources shields only broadcast media and "periodical publications"--not the Web.
Apple claims that the Web writers are not "legitimate members of the press" when revealing details about forthcoming products. Those actions, though, describe exactly what good journalists do--writing articles that serve their readers, rather than the parochial interests of a single corporation.
The ability of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to protect Deep Throat led to their famous series of Washington Post articles about the Watergate break-in and subsequently led to President Richard Nixon's downfall. At the time, Nixon's Committee for the Re-election of the President tried to compel Woodward and Bernstein to divulge their sources through a lawsuit.
Apple Computer is trying to win the argument that Richard Nixon lost.
Nixon failed. In a March 1973 decision, U.S. District Judge Charles Richey wrote: "This court cannot blind itself to the possible 'chilling effect' the enforcement of these broad subpoenas would have on the flow of information to the press, and so to the public."
Apple is trying to win the argument that Richard Nixon lost. It took its theories to a California state court on Friday and appears to have convinced a judge to require the three news sites to divulge their sources.
The eventual outcome of the case may turn on the wording of the California Constitution. It protects anyone currently or previously employed by "a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service." That shields sites like News.com, Salon.com, and Slate.com--typically staffed by ex-newspaper reporters--but probably doesn't help bloggers or the Apple news sites.
More than 30 states have shield laws, but none specifically protects online scribes. New York's statute is one of the broadest. But even that law is limited to someone "professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication."
Exact wording matters. Last year, U.S. District Judge C. Lynwood Smith ruled that Alabama's shield law doesn't protect Sports Illustrated because the statute mentions only newspapers and broadcasters. Trying to squeeze a magazine into that definition, Smith wrote, "strains the commonly understood meanings of those words."
http://news.com.com/Apple+goes+to+the+sour..._3-5601664.html
Apple goes to the source
March 7, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh
TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack
Apple Computer's attempts to strong-arm Web publishers into divulging their confidential sources illustrates how bloggers, Internet journalists and other online scribes remain second-rate citizens.
No significant difference exists between the news-gathering techniques used by traditional reporters and the publishers of Apple news sites Think Secret, Apple Insider, and PowerPage. But there is a tremendous legal chasm dividing them: The California law protecting confidential sources shields only broadcast media and "periodical publications"--not the Web.
Apple claims that the Web writers are not "legitimate members of the press" when revealing details about forthcoming products. Those actions, though, describe exactly what good journalists do--writing articles that serve their readers, rather than the parochial interests of a single corporation.
The ability of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to protect Deep Throat led to their famous series of Washington Post articles about the Watergate break-in and subsequently led to President Richard Nixon's downfall. At the time, Nixon's Committee for the Re-election of the President tried to compel Woodward and Bernstein to divulge their sources through a lawsuit.
Apple Computer is trying to win the argument that Richard Nixon lost.
Nixon failed. In a March 1973 decision, U.S. District Judge Charles Richey wrote: "This court cannot blind itself to the possible 'chilling effect' the enforcement of these broad subpoenas would have on the flow of information to the press, and so to the public."
Apple is trying to win the argument that Richard Nixon lost. It took its theories to a California state court on Friday and appears to have convinced a judge to require the three news sites to divulge their sources.
The eventual outcome of the case may turn on the wording of the California Constitution. It protects anyone currently or previously employed by "a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service." That shields sites like News.com, Salon.com, and Slate.com--typically staffed by ex-newspaper reporters--but probably doesn't help bloggers or the Apple news sites.
More than 30 states have shield laws, but none specifically protects online scribes. New York's statute is one of the broadest. But even that law is limited to someone "professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication."
Exact wording matters. Last year, U.S. District Judge C. Lynwood Smith ruled that Alabama's shield law doesn't protect Sports Illustrated because the statute mentions only newspapers and broadcasters. Trying to squeeze a magazine into that definition, Smith wrote, "strains the commonly understood meanings of those words."
http://news.com.com/Apple+goes+to+the+sour..._3-5601664.html
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 7 2005, 08:57 AM)
Another take on the definition of "journalists".
More than 30 states have shield laws, but none specifically protects online scribes. New York's statute is one of the broadest. But even that law is limited to someone "professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication."
[/url]
[right][snapback]61584[/snapback][/right]
More than 30 states have shield laws, but none specifically protects online scribes. New York's statute is one of the broadest. But even that law is limited to someone "professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication."
[/url]
[right][snapback]61584[/snapback][/right]
This is the danger of "professionalizing" journalism, or even defining it under the law.
whose internet is it, anyway?
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 7 2005, 07:57 AM)
Another take on the definition of "journalists".
Apple goes to the source
March 7, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh
TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack
Apple Computer's attempts to strong-arm Web publishers into divulging their confidential sources illustrates how bloggers, Internet journalists and other online scribes remain second-rate citizens.
No significant difference exists between the news-gathering techniques used by traditional reporters and the publishers of Apple news sites Think Secret, Apple Insider, and PowerPage. But there is a tremendous legal chasm dividing them: The California law protecting confidential sources shields only broadcast media and "periodical publications"--not the Web.
Apple claims that the Web writers are not "legitimate members of the press" when revealing details about forthcoming products. Those actions, though, describe exactly what good journalists do--writing articles that serve their readers, rather than the parochial interests of a single corporation.
The ability of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to protect Deep Throat led to their famous series of Washington Post articles about the Watergate break-in and subsequently led to President Richard Nixon's downfall. At the time, Nixon's Committee for the Re-election of the President tried to compel Woodward and Bernstein to divulge their sources through a lawsuit.
Apple Computer is trying to win the argument that Richard Nixon lost.
Nixon failed. In a March 1973 decision, U.S. District Judge Charles Richey wrote: "This court cannot blind itself to the possible 'chilling effect' the enforcement of these broad subpoenas would have on the flow of information to the press, and so to the public."
Apple is trying to win the argument that Richard Nixon lost. It took its theories to a California state court on Friday and appears to have convinced a judge to require the three news sites to divulge their sources.
The eventual outcome of the case may turn on the wording of the California Constitution. It protects anyone currently or previously employed by "a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service." That shields sites like News.com, Salon.com, and Slate.com--typically staffed by ex-newspaper reporters--but probably doesn't help bloggers or the Apple news sites.
More than 30 states have shield laws, but none specifically protects online scribes. New York's statute is one of the broadest. But even that law is limited to someone "professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication."
Exact wording matters. Last year, U.S. District Judge C. Lynwood Smith ruled that Alabama's shield law doesn't protect Sports Illustrated because the statute mentions only newspapers and broadcasters. Trying to squeeze a magazine into that definition, Smith wrote, "strains the commonly understood meanings of those words."
http://news.com.com/Apple+goes+to+the+sour..._3-5601664.html
[right][snapback]61584[/snapback][/right]
Apple goes to the source
March 7, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh
TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack
Apple Computer's attempts to strong-arm Web publishers into divulging their confidential sources illustrates how bloggers, Internet journalists and other online scribes remain second-rate citizens.
No significant difference exists between the news-gathering techniques used by traditional reporters and the publishers of Apple news sites Think Secret, Apple Insider, and PowerPage. But there is a tremendous legal chasm dividing them: The California law protecting confidential sources shields only broadcast media and "periodical publications"--not the Web.
Apple claims that the Web writers are not "legitimate members of the press" when revealing details about forthcoming products. Those actions, though, describe exactly what good journalists do--writing articles that serve their readers, rather than the parochial interests of a single corporation.
The ability of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to protect Deep Throat led to their famous series of Washington Post articles about the Watergate break-in and subsequently led to President Richard Nixon's downfall. At the time, Nixon's Committee for the Re-election of the President tried to compel Woodward and Bernstein to divulge their sources through a lawsuit.
Apple Computer is trying to win the argument that Richard Nixon lost.
Nixon failed. In a March 1973 decision, U.S. District Judge Charles Richey wrote: "This court cannot blind itself to the possible 'chilling effect' the enforcement of these broad subpoenas would have on the flow of information to the press, and so to the public."
Apple is trying to win the argument that Richard Nixon lost. It took its theories to a California state court on Friday and appears to have convinced a judge to require the three news sites to divulge their sources.
The eventual outcome of the case may turn on the wording of the California Constitution. It protects anyone currently or previously employed by "a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service." That shields sites like News.com, Salon.com, and Slate.com--typically staffed by ex-newspaper reporters--but probably doesn't help bloggers or the Apple news sites.
More than 30 states have shield laws, but none specifically protects online scribes. New York's statute is one of the broadest. But even that law is limited to someone "professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication."
Exact wording matters. Last year, U.S. District Judge C. Lynwood Smith ruled that Alabama's shield law doesn't protect Sports Illustrated because the statute mentions only newspapers and broadcasters. Trying to squeeze a magazine into that definition, Smith wrote, "strains the commonly understood meanings of those words."
http://news.com.com/Apple+goes+to+the+sour..._3-5601664.html
[right][snapback]61584[/snapback][/right]
Supreme court will have to sort it out. But not until those codgers that are currently sitting croak.
The idea that one has to make money at reporting in order to be protected from being coerced into revealing a source is too limiting.
Apple should spend it's own resources to plug it's own leaks. Period.
QUOTE(Human Ills @ Mar 7 2005, 02:11 PM)
whose internet is it, anyway?
[right][snapback]61748[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]61748[/snapback][/right]
Bigger question: whose world wide web is it?
QUOTE(lil bart @ Mar 7 2005, 02:14 PM)
Bigger question: whose world wide web is it?
[right][snapback]61752[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]61752[/snapback][/right]
The internet is bigger than the World Wide Web. Not vice versa. Unless I have been misinformed. Or are you making a different point?
QUOTE(Human Ills @ Mar 7 2005, 04:11 PM)
whose internet is it, anyway?
[right][snapback]61748[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]61748[/snapback][/right]
I've read at least 20 stories about the appointment of John Bolton to the UN. NOT ONE mentioned he was exectutive director of the Project for a New American Century.
Media bias? I've heard dozens of calls to the Washington Journal about PNAC and it's always treated like a whacked out conspiracy. You can even mention the explicit reference to the need for a Pearl Harbor type incident for an invasion of Iraq. They just ignore it. I think that's a shame, considering it's been used as the roadmap to war. That part about the Pearl Harbor type incident has been removed. It was all down in black and white. I mean the bastards signed the document! WTF do you need?
THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS. If there were they would be all over this.
If there were a Democrat counterpart to PNAC it would be all over the rightwing media.
What is wrong with Democrats? They could rip them a new assholle with that BS but they don't.
Media bias? I've heard dozens of calls to the Washington Journal about PNAC and it's always treated like a whacked out conspiracy. You can even mention the explicit reference to the need for a Pearl Harbor type incident for an invasion of Iraq. They just ignore it. I think that's a shame, considering it's been used as the roadmap to war. That part about the Pearl Harbor type incident has been removed. It was all down in black and white. I mean the bastards signed the document! WTF do you need?
THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS. If there were they would be all over this.
If there were a Democrat counterpart to PNAC it would be all over the rightwing media.
What is wrong with Democrats? They could rip them a new assholle with that BS but they don't.
Hmmmm...
"...need for a Pearl Harbor type incident ..."
"Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!"
"They attacked Ft. Sumter!"
"Remember the Maine!"
"They sank the Lusitania!"
"They attacked Pearl Harbor!"
Gulf of Tonkin Incident/Resolution.
"Restore Kuwait."
WTC II.
Any historical (some might say hysterical) pattern here?
Use of a single incident to ignite/justify a conflict (at times inevitable, at times contrived) is a long-standing if not time-honored tactic. It ain't new or even the favorite tool of right or left - it's how so many of the conflicts this nation has been involved with are made relevant to a polity that really simply would just rather not be bothered with. As Heinlein put it, "..it gets in the way beer, betting, and ...", just a way of saying the populace until aroused is rather myopic, tending to focus far more on the daily grind, than things "above their paygrade."
YMMV.
"...need for a Pearl Harbor type incident ..."
"Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!"
"They attacked Ft. Sumter!"
"Remember the Maine!"
"They sank the Lusitania!"
"They attacked Pearl Harbor!"
Gulf of Tonkin Incident/Resolution.
"Restore Kuwait."
WTC II.
Any historical (some might say hysterical) pattern here?
Use of a single incident to ignite/justify a conflict (at times inevitable, at times contrived) is a long-standing if not time-honored tactic. It ain't new or even the favorite tool of right or left - it's how so many of the conflicts this nation has been involved with are made relevant to a polity that really simply would just rather not be bothered with. As Heinlein put it, "..it gets in the way beer, betting, and ...", just a way of saying the populace until aroused is rather myopic, tending to focus far more on the daily grind, than things "above their paygrade."
YMMV.
QUOTE
(at times inevitable, at times contrived)
You got that right. I hate to be manipulated. I saw some friends eat that that up like candy without giving it a second thought. They went from not trusting politicians to giving them carte blanche'.
Why has that reference of the need for the Pearl Harbor type incident for justification to invade Iraq been removed from the Project for a New American Century website?
It's gone.
Because it's just another indication of what the plan was all along.
I read that stuff three years ago. No one even knew what the hell I was talking about. It is so obvious, sitting in plain sight and the mainstream media treats it like it's invisible. I can only assume they don't want to cover it. The story of the decade, much bigger tham Lewinski, and the mainstream press takes a pass.
They'd rather (no pun intended) do a story about irrelevant National Guard memos from 35 years ago that can easily be refuted as phony.
<shakes head, throws up hands>
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 9 2005, 11:18 AM)
You got that right. I hate to be manipulated. I saw some friends eat that that up like candy without giving it a second thought. They went from not trusting politicians to giving them carte blanche'.
Why has that reference of the need for the Pearl Harbor type incident for justification to invade Iraq been removed from the Project for a New American Century website?
It's gone.
Because it's just another indication of what the plan was all along.
I read that stuff three years ago. No one even knew what the hell I was talking about. It is so obvious, sitting in plain sight and the mainstream media treats it like it's invisible. I can only assume they don't want to cover it. The story of the decade, much bigger tham Lewinski, and the mainstream press takes a pass.
They'd rather (no pun intended) do a story about irrelevant National Guard memos from 35 years ago that can easily be refuted as phony.
<shakes head, throws up hands>
[right][snapback]62531[/snapback][/right]
Why has that reference of the need for the Pearl Harbor type incident for justification to invade Iraq been removed from the Project for a New American Century website?
It's gone.
Because it's just another indication of what the plan was all along.
I read that stuff three years ago. No one even knew what the hell I was talking about. It is so obvious, sitting in plain sight and the mainstream media treats it like it's invisible. I can only assume they don't want to cover it. The story of the decade, much bigger tham Lewinski, and the mainstream press takes a pass.
They'd rather (no pun intended) do a story about irrelevant National Guard memos from 35 years ago that can easily be refuted as phony.
<shakes head, throws up hands>
[right][snapback]62531[/snapback][/right]
More than a bit strange that the MSM should be almost silent.
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 9 2005, 08:42 AM)
I've read at least 20 stories about the appointment of John Bolton to the UN. NOT ONE mentioned he was exectutive director of the Project for a New American Century.
[right][snapback]62514[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]62514[/snapback][/right]
I read two. One had it. I rarely read about all the boards and organizations people are involved in. Even when there are direct conflicts of interest. There are plenty of left wing organizations and think tanks, not to mention phony baloney board positions that pay ex-pols to do nothing.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 9 2005, 11:22 AM)
More than a bit strange that the MSM should be almost silent.
[right][snapback]62533[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]62533[/snapback][/right]
a bit.
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Mar 9 2005, 07:56 AM)
Hmmmm...
"...need for a Pearl Harbor type incident ..."
"Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!"
"They attacked Ft. Sumter!"
"Remember the Maine!"
"They sank the Lusitania!"
"They attacked Pearl Harbor!"
Gulf of Tonkin Incident/Resolution.
"Restore Kuwait."
WTC II.
Any historical (some might say hysterical) pattern here?
Use of a single incident to ignite/justify a conflict (at times inevitable, at times contrived) is a long-standing if not time-honored tactic. It ain't new or even the favorite tool of right or left - it's how so many of the conflicts this nation has been involved with are made relevant to a polity that really simply would just rather not be bothered with. As Heinlein put it, "..it gets in the way beer, betting, and ...", just a way of saying the populace until aroused is rather myopic, tending to focus far more on the daily grind, than things "above their paygrade."
YMMV.
[right][snapback]62517[/snapback][/right]
"...need for a Pearl Harbor type incident ..."
"Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!"
"They attacked Ft. Sumter!"
"Remember the Maine!"
"They sank the Lusitania!"
"They attacked Pearl Harbor!"
Gulf of Tonkin Incident/Resolution.
"Restore Kuwait."
WTC II.
Any historical (some might say hysterical) pattern here?
Use of a single incident to ignite/justify a conflict (at times inevitable, at times contrived) is a long-standing if not time-honored tactic. It ain't new or even the favorite tool of right or left - it's how so many of the conflicts this nation has been involved with are made relevant to a polity that really simply would just rather not be bothered with. As Heinlein put it, "..it gets in the way beer, betting, and ...", just a way of saying the populace until aroused is rather myopic, tending to focus far more on the daily grind, than things "above their paygrade."
YMMV.
[right][snapback]62517[/snapback][/right]
I am going to have to agree that, logically speaking, the fact that (substitute your own term, I am tired of the anti-semite accusation)-conservatives said that a "pearl harbor'-like incident would be 'necessary' for their PNAC plans to be realized does NOT by itself prove that they had anything to do with (or allowed) 9/11 to take place.
By that dubious logic (an illegitimate teleology) dentists are the cause of the increase in simple sugar content of much of our food ('as they stand to benefit from more cavities, caused by the increased simple sugar content in our food'). Sorry, it doesn't follow.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 9 2005, 10:30 AM)
I read two. One had it. [right][snapback]62538[/snapback][/right]
Are you going to tell us which source had it?
QUOTE
I am going to have to agree that, logically speaking, the fact that (substitute your own term, I am tired of the anti-semite accusation)-conservatives said that a "pearl harbor'-like incident would be 'necessary' for their PNAC plans to be realized does NOT by itself prove that they had anything to do with (or allowed) 9/11 to take place.
I have never said that.
BUT, when it did happen, they took full advantage of it. On the foreign and domestic front. They knew exactly what they wanted before that, they just didn't know how they'd accomplish it.
9/11 was a vehicle for implementing the Project for a New American Century and to achieve that goal they had to have dominance over congress.
It couldn't have happened any better for these guys.
Every time I hear Brian Lamb mention PNAC he says it's a document form the 90s.
It is but it has been continually updated since. he acts like it's a stand alone paper.
It isn't.
It is but it has been continually updated since. he acts like it's a stand alone paper.
It isn't.
QUOTE(davis像 @ Mar 9 2005, 09:58 AM)
I have never said that.
BUT, when it did happen, they took full advantage of it. On the foreign and domestic front. They knew exactly what they wanted before that, they just didn't know how they'd accomplish it.
9/11 was a vehicle for implementing the Project for a New American Century and to achieve that goal they had to have dominance over congress.
It couldn't have happened any better for these guys.
[right][snapback]62550[/snapback][/right]
BUT, when it did happen, they took full advantage of it. On the foreign and domestic front. They knew exactly what they wanted before that, they just didn't know how they'd accomplish it.
9/11 was a vehicle for implementing the Project for a New American Century and to achieve that goal they had to have dominance over congress.
It couldn't have happened any better for these guys.
[right][snapback]62550[/snapback][/right]
Fair enough.
QUOTE(Ward @ Mar 9 2005, 10:55 AM)
Are you going to tell us which source had it?
[right][snapback]62548[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]62548[/snapback][/right]
Don't recall. It was a short bio before an article a couple days ago. I googled and read a couple just to see what the hubub was about. I certainly didn't recognize his name right off the bat.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 9 2005, 12:12 PM)
Don't recall. It was a short bio before an article a couple days ago. I googled and read a couple just to see what the hubub was about. I certainly didn't recognize his name right off the bat.
[right][snapback]62568[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]62568[/snapback][/right]
I looked through at least 6 pages of Google web search to even get that far. It was actually the PNAC website that had a list of former directors including Bolton. I lost the link though. I've tried surfing their site to get that specific page but to no avail. They have a search engine but you have to download their program.
I don't think so.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 9 2005, 11:12 AM)
Don't recall. It was a short bio before an article a couple days ago. I googled and read a couple just to see what the hubub was about. I certainly didn't recognize his name right off the bat.
[right][snapback]62568[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]62568[/snapback][/right]
Thanks. I wonder when news sites on the internet are going to be regarded as mainstream?
To be fair I was looking for a mainstream site or even a rightwing source. Rightwingers will believe that before the NYT.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.