Fybertech Forums

General Category => General Chatter => Topic started by: FyberOptic on November 06, 2006, 07:19:38 PM



Title: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 06, 2006, 07:19:38 PM
I decided to stop posting political stories and links in the normal links topic, since not everyone wants to read the stuff.

So to start things off, here's a link to that Hacking Democracy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7236791207107726851&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en-CA) documentary that aired on HBO the other day, which is apparently available on Google Video as of the moment.  This is the one which Diebold didn't want to air cause it makes them look bad.  And with good reason..!  I thought it was excellent, showing the state of electronic voting systems and giving info about the last couple of elections which I hadn't even heard.  I'm not sure if one would considered it biased at all, but even if one considered the election discussion aspects as being so, the factual info about Diebold and the machines which is the constant theme of the thing is non-partisan enough to still be interesting to anyone I'd think.  It's an hour and twenty minutes, mind you.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 06, 2006, 11:14:58 PM
109 reasons why the 109th congress needs to go (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/06/109-congress/)

Training snafu my butt (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/6/221343/779)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 07, 2006, 12:10:09 PM
Whitehouse.gov doctoring videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u2ITs4yIAE&eurl=).  And if you don't believe that guy, go watch the video he's talking about (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html#)!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on November 07, 2006, 06:46:06 PM
Anyone vote today?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 07, 2006, 07:17:35 PM
Not today, but at the early voting.  I'm also curious who else voted..!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Mage on November 08, 2006, 12:53:10 AM
I voted, but since I didn't give a darn about most of the stuff brought up, I now fear for democracy.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 08, 2006, 01:04:50 AM
So the confirmed votererers so far are Yutz, Mage, and myself.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on November 08, 2006, 01:58:48 AM
And me. I forgot to mention I voted.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Boris on November 08, 2006, 03:01:52 AM
I have in election s    past, but I'm too ass deep in school to know or care this time around.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on November 08, 2006, 03:26:47 AM
Theres a few things that I felt I had to vote on. Even if they pass I can at least say I voted. Next i'll be waiting for jury duty. Every time I vote I get called in.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: MDude on November 08, 2006, 06:36:32 AM
I thought I registered to vote earlier, but it turns out I didn't, and I have to register at least a month before voting, so I guess I'm out on this one.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 08, 2006, 10:25:28 AM
Theres a few things that I felt I had to vote on. Even if they pass I can at least say I voted. Next i'll be waiting for jury duty. Every time I vote I get called in.

Actually, from what I hear, the jury duty and voting connection is mostly a myth.  Most states supposedly pool jury candidates from various sources, including and especially drivers licenses.  Tennessee in particular seems to only use the drivers license database for such a thing.

I thought I registered to vote earlier, but it turns out I didn't, and I have to register at least a month before voting, so I guess I'm out on this one.

This happened to my younger brother at the 2004 election.  He ended up being short by about two weeks in getting his card.  He went over there anyway and had'em check the list just in case, though.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Armchair on November 08, 2006, 11:03:01 AM
I would have voted if my dad could/would find/found/findered my voter card.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 08, 2006, 01:12:52 PM
Many places let you go in as long as you had a photo ID.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on November 08, 2006, 03:17:06 PM
I haves Voted, and Voted Democrat, and they swept the board in my area. SCREW YOU REPUBLIC!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on November 08, 2006, 07:13:13 PM
I am very happy about the result of this midterm election. Everything hangs on Virginia now, to see whether or not the Macacans Democrats will control the Senate as well as the House. If they do, then "Geogre" will be a lame duck for his last two years...!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on November 08, 2006, 07:39:23 PM
Id like to see the Republicans win this one. I don't think we should be in Iraq right now but to pull the troops out would be a big mistake. The 2814 troops that died fighting over there will have died for nothing if terrorists and extremists regain control. They wont just simply "go away" when were gone. I still have yet to hear anything about the Democrats plan for Iraq except for give a timeline. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Sino on November 08, 2006, 07:44:09 PM
I think you are missing the point that PROX IS BACK HOLY SHIT.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on November 08, 2006, 08:00:00 PM
He was gone? Also I found this video that I thought was quite funny. I didn't know whether or not to post this in the regular link section or here. Since it's a politicall subject I posted it here. http://www.braxtanfilm.com/iavp.html


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 08, 2006, 10:31:43 PM
The news is saying the dems took the senate now too.  So perhaps it's appropriate to link to some funny "IN UR BASE" parodies! 

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/08/pelosi_im_in_ur_hous.html


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on November 11, 2006, 04:56:46 PM
The 2814 troops that died fighting over there will have died for nothing if terrorists and extremists regain control. 

In economic theory, that's called the sunk-cost fallacy. It's when resources are lost in a certain action without achieving a desired effect, and it is thought that the action must be continued solely because of the resources already lost. It happened in the Vietnam war, but even though we stayed the course and lost 60,000 soldiers, we still lost the war.

In addition, Nancy Pelosi does not want to impeach good old Chimpy McFlightsuit, nor do any of the other new democrats in Congress. They're too smart for that.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 12, 2006, 12:56:21 AM
Democrats plan to try and restore habeas corpus (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/11/181243/88)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 15, 2006, 11:34:17 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html

Some people are claiming that this memo implies that Faux News is looking for quotes from terrorists saying they're glad the democrats won.  YOU DECIDE?

On a related subject, Cheney requests in memo that all televisions to be tuned to Fox News when on the road (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0322061cheney1.html).  No surprise there!

Voting machines in Florida conveniently didn't count thousands of democratic votes, resulting in republican candidate winning (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001990.php)

Someone from American paid terrorists $2m to release Fox News journalists? (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/someone-allegedly-paid-terrorist.html)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 17, 2006, 08:36:25 PM
Patriot Act making it hard to get Sudafed? (http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2006/11/17#a1627)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 19, 2006, 08:48:40 PM
You can watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" on the web for the moment, it would seem!  Here's part 1 (http://www.dailymotion.com/0jam0/video/xlr9k_an-inconvenient-truth-part-1-of-2) and part 2 (http://www.dailymotion.com/0jam0/video/xlryp_an- inconvenient-truth-part-2-of-2).  Who knows how long this'll last, and despite the aspect ratio being a bit messed up (making it look stretched vertically), it's still a good movie which some of you might find interesting.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 26, 2006, 10:36:29 PM
WOO FIVE IN A ROW

14 well-described potential articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/24/17048/677).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: MDude on November 27, 2006, 06:57:28 AM
An article on secret bases, the CIA. (http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/009155.php)

And here's stuff that's being censored by the FBI. (http://www.caedefensefund.org/)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on December 02, 2006, 03:02:55 PM
16 minute trailer of "Freedom to Fascism" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937&q=freedom+fascism), covering a few topics such as why we pay taxes, the degredation of our money's worth, implementation of RFID, etc.  Overall, I give it a big "HMM" without seeing more proof myself, but all in all, I'd consider these all rather nonpartisan issues so it should be of interest to all. 

And here's the full version (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+fascism) if you're interested in it.  I have yet to watch it though.

EDIT:  Having watched it, I can say it was certainly interesting.  It gets a bit conspiracy theorist towards the end since I don't know what to believe on some of the things, like the North American Union, but who knows, really.

EDIT2:  Here's some contradictory sites in reference to the paying of income tax:  one (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm), and two (http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on December 06, 2006, 01:37:48 PM
House to work 5 days a week instead of 3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501342.html)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on December 10, 2006, 02:59:39 AM
The HotOrNot.com people are raising money to donate copies of "An Inconvenient Truth" to teachers who request it (http://istheworldtoo.hotornot.com/), because of the red tape and agendas blocking it so far, and even donated a large sum themselves towards the goal.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Buzzard on December 10, 2006, 02:14:18 PM
House to work 5 days a week instead of 3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501342.html)

Perhaps now we'll get something done!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on December 10, 2006, 03:03:25 PM
The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says.

GRRRR. This guy makes me so angry. If he even has a brain in his head he should know that his political office is important; it's not just something he does for kicks, it affects the whole nation, and if he and his family can't deal with the responsibility it brings, he should give it up to someone who can.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on December 10, 2006, 03:47:56 PM
He's just whining and dislikes the fact that he's going to actually have to work now.  I think we set a record for the least days of congress in session during Bush's two terms, so it's about time we get back on the job.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on December 10, 2006, 04:27:45 PM
That, and Bush has set a record for the president with the most vacation time (14 months! D:), so Congress needs to really kick itself in gear to make up for the dearth of work.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: HitomiBoy on December 10, 2006, 09:03:17 PM
So... who heard 40% of africans are fat? hrmm? Ya, its true. 40% of african africans are overweight. Guess those feed the starving africans programs are really feed the starving fat asses in africa who haven't eaten for a whole 3 minutes! fund.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: MDude on December 10, 2006, 10:27:05 PM
Compared to?... (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on December 11, 2006, 12:31:08 PM
Fried chicken and waterlemon goes straight to the hips apparently..!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on December 11, 2006, 05:11:45 PM
So... who heard 40% of africans are fat? hrmm? Ya, its true. 40% of african africans are overweight. Guess those feed the starving africans programs are really feed the starving fat asses in africa who haven't eaten for a whole 3 minutes! fund.

Sure, 40% of "african africans" are overweight. That 40% represents the middle and upper class. Unhealthy, high-calorie food that is available at fast-food restaurants in the big cities where that 40% lives is often very inexpensive and very tasty, resulting in fat people. I don't think that's too unnatural; it's even widespread here in the good old U. S. of A. In addition, diets in even the poorest countries of Africa consist of oils and red meat, which are also high in fat. But just because 40% are eating well, it doesn't mean everyone in Africa is fat. There's still all or the better part of 60% of the African populace, millions upon millions still, who are starving. That's the percentage we need to really look at.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on December 26, 2006, 11:59:56 AM
This isn't political, and I guess it's kind of funny that I'd post something religious in a politics topic, but it's more of a "controversial stuff" topic in general I'd say, so without making a whole new topic, I'll stick this here.

Someone put Jesus Camp on Google Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8489748536272451190&q=jesus+camp).  No idea how long this'll last, but anyone curious to see what it was about might wanna check it out, since it's really not worth the effort to even download.  It basically follows along with some extreme religious folk, which upon watching, no matter your faith, might make you realize there are some real odd ones out there..!


Having seen this before already, and since this is a topic for debatery where hopefully personal feelings don't get squarshed, I will dare say that these kinds of people put these children though no less than psychological trauma, and there's a very high chance that many of them will grow up to be abortion center bombers and various other types of "christian soldiers".  Some of them are on the verge of looking nuts already.  And most of the grown-ups there already were.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on January 04, 2007, 10:23:23 AM
Video is now gone, I don't get to see the crazies.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 08, 2007, 06:01:57 PM
Hooray first day of new congress (http://today.reuters.com/News/ArticleBlog.aspx?type=technologyNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B82x9Ksc5UNVzDjpITcIrRbi&src=blogBurst_technologyNews&bbPostId=BCOY80rfAAAaB4PToPbQUxV1BF6OfKMArAR2BDS93HTpXBDK).  Already making strides in the right direction as far as internet legislation goes.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on January 13, 2007, 01:36:56 AM
Didn't they... take the day off for a football game?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 13, 2007, 10:43:36 AM
Don't worry, they're just “demonstrating once and for all that they care more about representing the American people than the perks of power.” How better to represent America's foundation than to go watch a game based on land acquisition?

But really, have some hope in our bicameral brothers. One day off for a foosball game just says they're out of touch. I think that with their five-day workweek under their collective belt, they can still get a lotta stuff done.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 13, 2007, 12:10:52 PM
Working five days a week instead of three equates to about a hundred more days of work overall, so I'm not too worried about one day off, even though this is the first I heard of it.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on January 13, 2007, 02:38:11 PM
I just find it funny they boast about working endlessly through their first hundred hours after insulting the Republicans for taking vacation days. I bet you this is not the last day off they'll take.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 13, 2007, 04:57:23 PM
Considering that the number of days congress has been in session since Bush took over was the lowest it ever was in history as far as I'm aware, I don't think it could get any worse.  Especially now with 5 day weeks implemented, much to the chagrin of the republican side.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 13, 2007, 07:54:26 PM
I'd like to make something clear which has been bugging me for all times.

Just because a majority is held in Congress doesn't make Congress purely aligned with that political party. Also, just because a congressman is a Democrat doesn't mean that he's a straight-ticket lefty, nor does it mean if he's a Republican that he's blinded by the right. Politicians are individual people, and so they make rational decisions like individual people. They're all different, so they all think differently, which means they'll make different choices.

ALSO, politicians only want to have power. Altruism is nonexistent in our world. Politicians only try to appease people so they can keep their positions. They try to make people think that they're perfect and elicit blind trust so that they don't have to keep them happy all the time. No matter what anybody says, politicians from everywhere on the scale are prone to mistakes, corruption, laziness, and other such maladies. Just because people support a certain political party's mindset, they should never allow themselves to follow that party without judgement. Not only is it their right to question authority, it is their duty as citizens. The only way the world will truly be right is if people can have the sense to think for themselves.

That is all.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 14, 2007, 01:57:14 AM
The staggering rise in pork barrel spending that occured over the last several years pretty much shows us that most of the last congress was willing to pander to anyone or anything.  Majority republican or not, it was time for them to gooooo. 

The fact o the matter is, once you get in politics, and to that level of the playing field, you have to make choices that you might personally not agree with.  They have an image and a party to appease, which I'm sure in many cases comes to the forefront over personal opinion.  If you want to get ahead in your party, you have to be a good boy. 

Then of course there are many matters, such as those regarding technology, where these people know nothing of the subject, and just go with party lines or outside influence.  I have a feeling that this is the case with many other subjects they decide as well, but nobody's going to admit it in those cases, where as with technology it's rather obvious to somebody like myself. 

So they shouldn't blindly follow party lines, no, but the majority do, and always have.  If it were always simply a matter of personal opinion, we likely wouldn't have political parties.  If you ever watch certain political discussions, many times you'll only hear them discussing the possibilities of certain individuals, because they know they're the only ones likely to flop either way.  The majority are just sheep, on both sides, and whichever side has the majority is, fortunately or not, usually the one that's going to make the decision.  All of this shady legislation of Bush's that went through is fair enough evidence of that.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 14, 2007, 11:29:55 AM
Well, there are congressmen who vote with the flow, I can't argue with that. However, there are a lot of congressmen who question or go against party lines and who still get reelected. The people either don't care or are supportive, and the party either doesn't care, is supportive, or just can't do anything about it. Then, of course, there are those who let the lobbyists make their decisions for them, who are the ones that really need to be ousted from office.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 20, 2007, 02:26:10 AM
So, the United States' first Muslim congressman (Keith Ellison, D-Min.) was sworn in recently, and opted to place his hand on a Qur'an rather than a Bible during the ceremony. Naturally, this sparked all sorts of responses from the stoneheaded, who began claiming that Ellison would now wage jihad war on the US and try to convert it to Islam. Talk about religious intolerance! Like almost every Muslim, Ellison isn't an "Islamofascist", but I think it's safe to say that wanting to keep non-christians out of office and wanting to make congressmen swear on the text of a religion they don't necessarily believe in is fascist enough to cover for him.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 20, 2007, 02:37:57 AM
I thought I later read that it wasn't required to swear in on a bible of any sort for that position, and that it was all made up to make him look bad.  That they actually swore in on some thing related to their job instead or something.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 20, 2007, 03:23:52 AM
It isn't required to use the bible, but most do because they don't want to make people mad. Incidentally, Ellison used a Qur'an owned by Thomas Jefferson, who advocated the complete separation of religion and government. Irony!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on January 20, 2007, 11:52:33 AM
The act in and of itself is pretty arcane at this point anyway.  Most people aren't so devote in thier believes that they wouldn't or couldn't break any vow made upon any religeous tome.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 20, 2007, 12:06:24 PM
Yeah it's true, hypocrisy is alive and kickin' in this day and age.  Though that's just from the religious standpoint I guess, and is mostly symbolic.  There is still a legal binding when one swears on a bible which is what takes precedence over any other meaning these days.  A lot of these people should just not make a stink about what book they use and accept it for what it legally means, since I'm sure a lot of the other politicians swearing in on it think just as little of it as he does.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 24, 2007, 09:29:13 PM
In a CNN interview, Cheney said the administration is committed to its plan to send more troops to secure Baghdad, even if Congress opposes the plan.  Here's a link to that story (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html).

I have to say, I don't know if I'm entirely opposed to sending more troops.  In one sense, it might help fortify who we have there, and in a way, lessen those that keep getting killed.  At the same time, I thought we were supposed to be lessening our troops so we can eventually get the heck out of there, not adding more.  We need to be training their people better so that they can get on the stick.

Anyway, the debate of troops or no troops isn't even why I'm posting it.  It's the simple fact that, despite congress generally being representative of the peoples' opinion, the administration has decided that what we think doesn't matter, and they'll do it anyway.  -_-


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 25, 2007, 12:57:55 AM
Who knows what'll work in the long run over there. The Iraq Study Group report wasn't quite the silver bullet everyone was hoping for, and those people were pretty dang smart people.

I have an idea! They could monitor everybody! With every single household wiretapped, this administration would finally know the thoughts of the general public... and then continue ignoring them.

Also, Cheney was invited on some TV show to talk about himself, and he said he was "defiant". What the hell does he have left to be defiant about? Man, It's going to be a long two years.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 25, 2007, 07:31:47 PM
Ohio election workers convicted of rigging ’04 presidential recount (http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=179006).  And this is just the only one they've ever actually found.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 30, 2007, 11:43:58 AM
Apparently Cheney got 5 draft deferments, until he was too old to be drafted anymore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Cheney_and_the_draft).  And yet Kerry, who actually served, gets more grief over such things.  Not to mention Clinton.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 30, 2007, 05:40:27 PM
Yeah, i heard about that a long time ago. Before my mom's boss retired, I used to hear him call him "five-deferment cheney".


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 31, 2007, 06:38:07 PM
Like him or hate him, but Olbermann basically knocks out all 4 of Bush's terrorist plot claims from his state of the union address (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16893899/).  You'll need to use IE to launch the video.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 02, 2007, 08:42:07 PM
I was gonna put this in linkfest, but then I thought there might be some kind of discussion, and it's semi-political, so.  Texas governor forces legislation to require girls to take vaccine against HPV (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093/wid/11915773?GT1=9033). 

He kind of sidestepped the respectable way to do it, but considering it was a bunch of people with fairly stupid reasons for opposition (condoning premarital sex?  come on), perhaps it was the right thing to do.  It's obviously not free either, and will likely affect everyone to an extent, considering many will receive it for free that aren't insured.  I'm really not sure if enough people ever catch such a thing to warrant it, and it sounds like he might be trying a little too hard to pander to his lobbyists, but maybe it'll do some good.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 03, 2007, 12:37:40 PM
Fyber, that link leads to the article about the police chief giving himself a ticket.

But yeah, i heard about that. Cervical cancer isn't really that big of a threat, but i hear it does cause the deaths of about 4000 women per year. The doubt I have about the necessity of the vaccination is that most of the girls, who will have to take the shot in the sixth grade, probably won't have sex for at least six or seven years, presenting the chance that the virus will have mutated by then, requiring them to get another shot to remain protected. But oh well, who knows what'll happen.

In other news, I'm sure a lot of you have heard that there's a group of half-brained nitwits from different countries who got together and determined that there's a 90% chance that climate change has been augmented by fossil fuel burning. Now, opinions aside, let's just look at the facts. Human fossil fuel burning isn't a natural process. The earth has a system of maintaining a balance between carbon levels in the ground and air, but now that humans are burning all this fossil fuel (somewhere around 48.5 quadrillion tons per year), it's got to be causing at least a little bit of change. And the earth's chemical balances are so delicate that even a little bit of change can cause a much larger bit of change somewhere else.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 03, 2007, 03:35:39 PM
If you're talking about the same report that is making all the news, I thought they came to the conclusion that humans WERE influencing the environment.

Also I fixed that url.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 03, 2007, 05:09:09 PM
it was 90%, but the people who comprise the 10% were probably doing it to give conservatives something to argue on. How magnanimous of them...!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 04, 2007, 12:24:03 AM
Now that people are realizing that we are in fact actually causing the problem, I hear that Gore has been asked to speak in front of congress next month regarding it.

Actually, here's a link. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2596.html)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 04, 2007, 12:29:31 AM
I hear Gore also got nominated for the Nobel Peacey Prize, which is something that happies me greatly.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 04, 2007, 01:12:41 AM
A few days back I had gotten tickets when he came down to Boise. I wanted to see what he had to say but never got to go.Tickets were free so no biggie. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 04, 2007, 02:12:17 AM
I've said it before, but I pretty much suggest watching "An Inconvenient Truth" to anyone.  I think that covers his goals/opinions/suggestions more than anything.  It pointed out things I had never heard or seen before.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 05, 2007, 11:51:40 AM
I knew that our budget was in much better shape than it ever was when Clinton was in power, but this page makes you truly realize just how great (http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm).  According to Wikipedia, "Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969."

What prompted me to look for the deficit was from seeing Bush's plan to spend $2.9 trillion more on the Iraq  war (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/bush.budget.ap/index.html), despite wanting to erase the deficit in 5 years.  IMPOSSIBLEEE.

Then I found this (http://thebudgetgraph.com/view/), which is a pretty neat way to see how the money is dispersed through the government.  You'll want to do the View Poster (http://thebudgetgraph.com/poster/) part to see.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 05, 2007, 05:01:23 PM
And they call them conservatives...!

Also, I am so totally buying that poster.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 06, 2007, 03:00:31 AM
Rupert Murdoch admits to using Fox News to support the Bush agenda (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/).  Fair and balanced, indeed.  There's various links to different articles and the video in question, so you'll have to click around to get the whole story.  But basically:

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”


As I've said before, I don't rightly give a shit if there's a news channel which airs discussion programs that lean one direction or another.  Fox News however slants everything, even general news and headlines, and arranges their programming to best support that agenda, such as whenever Bush has something to ramble on about.  And all the while, they put up the guise of being fair and balanced, and adamantly try to defend this notion.  This is why they are not a legitimate news source in my eyes, because it's outright lying.

The scary part is just how many media outlets Murdoch actually owns around the world.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on February 06, 2007, 01:16:45 PM
It's a Duketastrophy!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 08, 2007, 02:46:46 AM
School sued by parents when teacher reads fairytale of two gay princes to 5 year olds (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/anger-at-gay-book-for-child-5/2007/02/08/1170524214320.html).

Who even writes gay fairytales for children, let alone reads them to a class?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 08, 2007, 06:37:51 AM
As I’ve mentioned before I come from a military family. I was in disbelief as NBC allowed a man named William Arkin to attack the military personally the way he did. What bother’s me most about this is the fact that they have done nothing.
Washington Post refuses to comment on the issue. Yet The day after William Arken writes an article whining about the hate mail he’s received and Bill O Reilly’s report on this. As he has the freedom to say this he should remember the people he calls paid mercenaries gave their lives for him to be an ass hole. Democrat, Republican aside I would hope most of you would agree that this man is indeed despicable. 

His statement:

"I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq.in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration that with opposition to war in the United States.Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order. So we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them.and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war. [This] NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for mercenary — oops, sorry, — volunteer force."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/02/demonization_and_responsibilit.html

 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 08, 2007, 07:12:50 PM
Arkin seems really detached. The people he was criticizing had their own views, and just because they're soldiers as well doesn't mean that they're for some reason not entitled to opinions or anything. They're no different than war supporters over here, except that they're over there. If in fact the soldiers were telling the American populace to just roll over and play dead and let the government and the military do what they want, then they're just as detached as Arkin. However, even if they did say things to that effect, it doesn't warrant denigration.

EDIT: God, i keep wanting to call him Alan Arkin. That'll show you how the entertainment industry has affected the United States...!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 09, 2007, 11:23:20 AM
"Damning" evidence that intelligence was skewed to indicate the connection between Saddam and al-Qaida (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence).

Not really big news there, since everyone knows they played on everyone's emotions from 9/11 to get that war going.  What I wonder about though is whether anything will ever come of it.  It seems Bush and Cheney passed enough legislation and pardons to get them both out of trouble, along with some others in their administration, so if anyone ever took the fall, it'd likely be some lower level lackies that aren't as important and were likely just taking orders.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 09, 2007, 01:32:20 PM
Of course. The war has nothing to do with Sadams sixteen UN violations, his illegal invasion of Kuwait, and many other atrosities he committed. Let's overlook the facts and blame it solely on the president. Lets forget Clinton had numerous chances to capture Bin Ladin as well. While I believe there was no weapons of mass destruction and we shouldn't be there to begin with I also believe the UN would have simply slapped Sadam on the wrist. What we should have done was deal with Iran, then focus on Iraq. Russia's supplying them with missles, and it scares the hell out of me now they have possesion of nuclear material.

Fyber that article isn't enough to convince me. Unless you can actually find Gimble's findings.   


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 09, 2007, 03:24:32 PM
The report is classified, and there's not really anything worth reading in the unclassified summary (http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/Unclass%20%20Executive%20Summary.pdf), so I reckon you'll have to take one of the many news sites reporting it for face value.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 09, 2007, 03:38:49 PM
With the media going far left these days it's really difficult to take them seriously.With Smith's death, comparing her to Marylin Monroe I doubt this will get a lot of coverage. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 09, 2007, 05:59:07 PM
If you're looking for the right wing version, Fox News has it (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb09/0,4670,IraqPentagonIntelligence,00.html), it just wasn't made very obvious.  I had to search, in fact.  Fox News is currently more interested in trying to make Iran look bad, as their top political story.

Anyway there's nothing different in their version of the story, other than them making sure to point out that Republicans don't much care about the report's findings.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 09, 2007, 06:40:08 PM
Quote
Fox News is currently more interested in trying to make Iran look bad, as their top political story.

I don't see that, honestly. If the President of Iran continues to make threats against us, and Izrael he's only making himself look bad. That's my opinion. Is testing missiles and going forward with his nuclear program supposed to make Iran look good?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 10, 2007, 12:58:35 AM
Really the worst things that Iran's leaders have said have been challenges to threats towards Iran made by the leaders of the United States, so really. Also, I don't think Iran's nuclear program has any more legs than North Korea's did, but even if it does, I'm willing to bet that it's just an attempt to try to keep the United States' middle east conflictmongering from seeping into Iran and damaging them.

And as for the "media" going "far-left", i have two things to say about this. The first one is the most simple. The income of news television stations, newspapers, and other news outlets depends on how many people receive the news, no matter where the money comes from. So, in a day and age when a conservative president with bad ideas has approval ratings in the high twenties and the American populace has tilted to the left in response, "the media" is pretty much forced to kind of put a left spin on their news so that people will still read it and they will continue to make money. The second one is that there are still plenty of conservative news outlets there and you know it...!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 10, 2007, 05:36:50 AM
Prox lets look at the facts here and you see why I don’t find Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be a sincere peace loving person. He was involved in the Iran Hostage Crisis which was conveniently overlooked as he was elected President.

One of the guidelines to be elected president of Iran is to not have a criminal record. Looks like they screwed the pooch on that one! He continues to deny that the holocaust happened, debating and even going as far as calling it a myth. He seems to have a problem with Izrael and has mentioned numerous times he would like to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

On December 12, 2006, Ahmadinejad addressed the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, and made comments about the future of Israel. He said, "Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations." He continued, "Everyone must know that just as the U.S.S.R. disappeared, this will also be the fate of the Zionist regime, and humanity will be free."

Trust inspiring words from a man of peace? Conflict mongering, I think not.




Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 10, 2007, 03:52:18 PM
First off, Ahmadinejad's involvement in the embassy takeover is what we call a "controversy" not a "fact". Second, he's an antisemite, he hates Israel, everybody knows it, stop talking about it. That bit about Israel is actually part of a larger phrase he said which in summation means "Israel will cease to exist". For clarification, he made the speech once, not numerous times, and it didn't include anything about he himself wanting to destroy Israel. That third paragraph of yours is actually that same speech, so you should be able to see how there is no intention in there.

He is a hateful crazy bastard, but he's not to be taken seriously. As for conflictmongering, that's exactly what we're doing. Some of America's politicians now are trying to initiate another "preemptive strike", and fix us up with another trillion-dollar catastrophe that people can remember us by. If that's not conflictmongering, I don't know what is.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 10, 2007, 04:28:35 PM
Iran hides our enemies. Where do you think they go when the situation gets to tough for them in Afghanastan? Straight to Iran. No intention Prox, I don't buy it. If he's the peaceful man you claim he is then why did he move to get his Nuclear program going so quickly?

I don't see that as conflict mongering. I see that as trying to keep a mad man with a nuke from launching it towards Israel. We wont know if he actually has one until it's to late. I don't want to say I told you so.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 10, 2007, 05:36:08 PM
I lol'd. Again, not a fact, but a guess. There probably are terrorists in Iran who hold the United States up as their main enemy instead of the Sunnis, but you already know Iran doesn't really like us all that much, so you should also understand that they're not about to go prosecuting those terrorists. Not the same as hiding them, you see. And if you want to go into Iran to try fatally to pick off every single pipe bomber from the millions of innocents who live there, then you're going to end up with another Iraq war, with a single letter difference.

Also, good job jumping to conclusions. I never claimed Ahmadinejad was peaceful. Read more closely next time. As for Ahmadinejad, you must think he's some kind of dumbass. He knows that the United States is one of the staunchest allies of Israel. He knows that if he even so much as stroked the button on his nuclear program, we would bomb him to hell and back and back to hell. Given that knowledge, why would he even try? Tell me, why would he even try?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 10, 2007, 05:52:18 PM
I'm honestly not sure there is a country in the middle-east which is majority Muslim that doesn't want to see Israel off the map.

But yeah, while Iran's government is just as corrupt as many of the other countries over there, and they continue to keep tensions in the region as hot as always, I don't see them posing any immediate threat.  Certainly not one that would ever warrant another war.  We've already fucked ourselves up the butt with Iraq, and Iran is approximately 3x the size.  We would not win a conflict with them at all, with our forces already stretched so thin.  An impeachment would be in order if it were even attempted, if you ask me.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 10, 2007, 06:03:04 PM
You do realize that if the President were impeached we'd have to deal with Cheney? It would be the same thing as before. If you despise Bush as you do know there would be no difference. You'd still be dealing with the same administration under a different name.They may try to sneak in Nancy but it would be just as bad as voting for Hillary.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 10, 2007, 06:19:24 PM
Nice segue there. Fyber was just making a point, that an invasion of Iran would be a very bad idea.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on February 11, 2007, 10:07:56 AM
You know Ecto's right, We'd have to deal with the entire staff.... I think we can cook something up to not have to wait for next november to get rid of Bush and his cronies.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 11, 2007, 12:22:12 PM
I do believe it's possible to impeach them both if someone thought they conspired together to do whatever act(s) you're impeaching over.  And we all know Cheney was 100% involved, if not more so than Bush.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 11, 2007, 02:17:12 PM
Theres that little thing called evidence. So your telling me right now you'd rather have Nancy as President? That would be a strain on the tax payers. "My kids need a ferris wheel in the backyard with five seats for twenty three, and nine servants for each seat at the cost of five hundred thousand dollars to the tax payers. Also I get a jumbo jet at the cost of three hundred thousand round trip, with options I don't need.Who cares i'm not paying for it but I want it."


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 11, 2007, 03:00:07 PM
Again I point out that the whole democrats = higher taxes thing is bolognie.  Take a look at that chart again about the past presidents, and notice that Clinton not only eliminated debt but gave us surplus funds.  Then another Bush came back in and ruined it. 

Also, she never requested that jet, one of her associates did so for her without her knowledge.  The real waste of money were all the days the republicans literally wasted in congress debating this frivolous issue.  How much you think that time was worth?  They simply hate her because a.) she's democrat, and b.) she's a woman.  Therefore, anything that could smear her name is worth their time.

And hey, maybe we should build some useless bridges in Alaska, like everyone's favorite republican Ted "internet tubes" Stevens did.  That's a perfect use of taxpayers dollars!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 11, 2007, 03:47:27 PM
Pelosi doesn't need anything bigger then Air Force one. She can go through the regular airports like everyone else. She probobly gets reimbursed anyway. The problem I have with her is she's a power monger.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 11, 2007, 10:47:52 PM
Yeah, Cheney has more influence over the president than any other veep in the past ever has, so there'd be plenty of ways to yank him out as well if you really wanted to.

As for Pelosi, don't gimme that shit. If you remember correctly, Dennis Hastert had a jet for his entire tenure as Speaker. However, Fat Denny only had to fly to Illinois, whereas Pelosi would have to make a trip almost three times that distance, a trip which Denny's plane couldn't make in one go. All that Pelosi's aides requested was that she have a plane that could make it without stopping for fuel. And I don't know if you know anything about air travel, but public access airlines (or plane fueling stations for that matter) aren't available around the clock. Do you think that she can afford to waste any time as Speaker of the House working five days out of seven and spending eight hours on the two days she has off to make the trip there or back? If she needs a bigger jet, she oughtta get one, forsooth.

Also, the United states takes in over a trillion dollars in tax money every year. A few hundred thousand for a jet won't put even a tiny dent in your healthcare, rocko. What will is a fucking war in the middle east. No matter how much money she has to use, she would use it where it's needed, which is one of the things that matters most in a president.

As for power, try running for president of the United States while not wanting any responsibility for the position. Tell me how it works out.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 12, 2007, 12:07:49 AM
I'm not saying she cant have a jet, i'm saying she doesn't need anything bigger then Air Force one. Same size I wouldn't have a problem with it. She's asking for a mansion with wings.This is what I see as Pelosi throwing her power around.I know a bit about air travel Prox, my father served in the air force for twenty six years. You don't think ive flown before?There are plenty of smaller cheaper air craft that can get you from point a to point b in one stop that don't cost that much and can be half the size.

As for the war in the middleast someone needs to come up with a plan other then throwing money at it. That plan shouldn't involve pulling out the troops which is one of my big concerns. The only way we could lose is if we do just that. So far i'm seeing jack damnit from either side. The only person who has anything resembling anything is Bush. I'm hearing a lot of talk about cutting funding which would put our troops over there in more danger then they are. I don't know about the troop surge but what we need is for Iraq to pull their weight so we can get the hell out of dodge. 

Also Prox, I wouldn't want the responsibilities that come with the Presedency. To much thinking makes the head hurt. 
 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 12, 2007, 12:56:28 AM
So my point stands, that she should get a jet. And no, she's not asking for a mansion with wings. Again I state that HER AIDES asked only for a plane that can get her from D.C. to San Francisco or back in one trip, whenever she needs it. And again I state that public airlines don't fly everywhere at all times, and are not always reliable on whether or not they actually fly on time, so would not be the most expedient method of travel for Madame Speaker. The accusations that she asked for a Boeing 747 or something ridiculous like that came, as Fyber kind of hinted at, mainly from congressional republicans who wanted to make her look bad.

As for the war in the middle east, I mentioned that in passing, so you didn't have any reason to expound upon it. But while I'm making passing remarks, I'd just like to mention that there's a lot of ways we can "lose" the "war" if we decide to stay there, and there are also a lot of ways we can "win" the "war" by getting out of there. Either way it's going to cost money.

About the mention of presidency, I was making that remark as response to this:

The problem I have with her is she's a power monger.

The thing I was getting at that you apparently didn't understand was that anybody who wants to become president of the United States has to want power, and in order to get power, you also have to take responsibility for that power. So, really, ambition is a good quality for a president, is it not?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 12, 2007, 01:34:08 AM
Quote
The thing I was getting at that you apparently didn't understand was that anybody who wants to become president of the United States has to want power, and in order to get power, you also have to take responsibility for that power. So, really, ambition is a good quality for a president, is it not?

I understand that quite perfectly. Doesn't mean I don't know when someones going overboard. When you said her "aids" asked about it that doesn't mean she never spoke to them about it prior. If i'm mistaken I believe I heard Democrats were also complaining about that as well so don't say Republicans are the only ones who don't like her or are trying to make her look bad.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 12, 2007, 06:18:21 PM
I couldn't tell whether or not you understood seeing as how you told me the presidency would make your head hurt. Also, of course she had to talk to them about it before. You think if you were a politician you'd staff someone who would just do whatever they thought you would want them to do without getting your dis/approval? Also, whether you're mistaken or not, democrats are mainly pissed because it's getting attention and it might make them look bad. My point still stands that the folk who made it into a political issue were members of the grand old party, specifically Roy Blunt and Adam Putnam if you need me to drop names.

In all honesty this should've just been a quiet agreement reached between the House Sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, instead of a furor that's being used to tarnish Pelosi's image. I still don't understand how or why it ever came to be so incendiary. Pelosi should have access to an aircraft that can fly her back and forth when she needs it, Blunt and Putnam are muckrakers, case closed.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 13, 2007, 12:19:51 PM
Top Cheney Aide: 2007 Is ‘The Year Of Iran,’ U.S. Attack ‘A Real Possibility’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/hannah-iran/).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 19, 2007, 03:02:51 AM
Fox News is on the case:  Barack Obama is a smoker.  He's different than all other politicians and is full of secrets.  Don't vote. (http://thorlinks.com/mediaview/3778/Fox_News_Does_It_Again)

Meanwhile, I love it when they do these things (http://thorlinks.com/mediaview/3315/President_Bush_On_Conan).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on February 19, 2007, 10:26:02 AM
*Salutes W.* God Bless you president moron, for making parodies like that possible.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 21, 2007, 12:29:10 PM
Depending on how much credit you give a gallop poll, here's an interesting one on the percentages of people that would vote for various types of people for president (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: HitomiBoy on February 24, 2007, 09:05:03 PM
95% Catholic!

Woot!

That is all.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 24, 2007, 11:57:10 PM
I got a little bit disappointed when i saw the atheist line, but i guess it's something that can't be avoided. Kind of hard to separate the church and the state in people's minds...!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: HitomiBoy on February 25, 2007, 01:37:06 AM
Being religious has nothing to do with seperation of church and state. read the constitution.

The reason why a majority would not vote for athiests is that a majority of people beleive in a God, and even Jesus, and as such, want someone with somewhat similar beleifs and morals in office, which is usually why christians (I don't think non christians have ever been in office) are elected. That 45% comes from people not really caring so much about their religion so much as their stand on the issues.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on February 25, 2007, 02:35:53 AM
Although religion deals a lot with morality, a presidential candidate doesn't have to be religious to have moral views agreeing with those of a certain religion, but if one announces that s/he doesn't believe in divinity, a good part of religious folk will clam up without considering any of that.

And politicians know this; even the non-religious ones act like they are so as to not lose any support.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: HitomiBoy on February 25, 2007, 05:53:24 AM
Which is sadly the truth, both of what you said

You don't "have" to be of similar religion to beleive the same things. I know a few athiests who are kick ass people and beleive almost all the same things I do, minus the God part. It's the "Bird's of a feather" Instinct

And politicians claim to have religion for this very reason, even if they don't act it.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on March 03, 2007, 06:35:06 AM
Carried from Links Topic:
Also best President? Clinton was an embarrassment.
I also said "In our lifetimes" Now I'm pretty sure for most of us that goes back only to Regan.  So I'll say it again, Clinton was the best president during our lifetimes.  He balanced the Budget, Gave us a surpluss instead of a debt, Didn't drag us into a war that is financially crippleing this country, not to mention is morally wrong, AND, he was about the most personable president we've had in a while, I mean he could always joke about himself, he went on late night TV and played the sax for God's sake.  The man was truely a "President of the people" Even at his worst his approval ratings were higher than Bush.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 03, 2007, 03:01:19 PM
Reagon was a personable fellow and could talk the talk, and quite possible was a genuinely nice fellow, I won't dispute that, but he still ruined the economy, making us owe more to other countries than other countries owed to us.  There's also the whole Iran-Contra debacle, of "trading weapons for hostages", which he claimed never happened, then a week later said "well, we gave them weapons, but it's not what you think..!"  But I guess if Clinton can pull his "I did not have sexual relations" thing, Reagan can have his stretch of the truth as well.

But yeah, on a scale side by side, Clinton wins for doing the post positive.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on March 03, 2007, 03:42:44 PM
The star of the media Bill Clinton, as many a democrat would lead you to believe is an outstanding human being that could do no wrong. Of course I’m being sarcastic. He plays the saxophone so that must make him a freaking saint.  You idolize the man I understand that, I however do not. I do blame him for 9/11. He had several opportunities to go after Bin Laden and chose to have an affair instead. What about the U.S.S. Cole? This happened during his term. It was an attack from AL Quida, and while yes the men responsible were tried did we retaliate? Did we do anything afterwards? Clinton yet again chose to sit on his ass. All the man did was put a bounty on Bin Laden.
Al Gore is a fucking hypocrite. I’ll say it again. The man you so admire blamed Tobacco for the death of his sister and…Oh this is just gold. What does he do, he farms the very thing that killed her. Sells it to other people. This was four years after his sisters death.  After he preached against big Tobacco. He is a hypocrite. He was also for Tobacco when he thought it would give him votes. When asked about abortion his simple response was I’d want to think about it. How can he expect to run a country when someone attacks us on our soil? I’d want to think about it is a lousy answer to give America.  A man who sacrifices his principals to get the votes is someone I’d vote for, and great use of scare tactics with Global Warming. Way to go Al.
Even if he does run can we expect him to conduct a preemptive strike when given solid evidence, or will he wait until the enemies at our door step knocking with a nuclear missile? And before this even comes up Bush didn’t "steal" the election. The people voted for the man fair and square. A certain news station got ahead of themselves basing their conclusion on exit polls.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 03, 2007, 04:09:52 PM
There are so many incorrect statements in there that it would take far too big a post to correct them all.

Watch Clinton's Fox News interview and he sets the entire record straight on what he did about Osama, what he set in motion for whoever took his place to do, and what the Bush administration totally failed to follow up on.  The Bush administration is almost entirely responsible for 9/11.

Watch Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' and he does in fact discuss the tobacco farm his family had.  Emphasis on his family, not him.  They also stopped growing it afterwards.

We have no resources for anymore pre-emptive strikes, unless you're willing to support a.) a draft, or b.) go sign up to fight yourself.  There is simply no manpower to go anywhere else.

I don't idolize any of the people mentioned, but I put them much higher than any of the republicans that have been in power the last few decades.  All of them have had scandals much worse than a blowjob.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on March 03, 2007, 06:28:22 PM
Ain't that the truth.

The U.S.S. Cole bombing happened what, two months before Clinton left office? After the Pentagon investigation on the incident wrapped up, Billy was packing his bags. In fact, the decision to not follow up on the investigation came from Little George.

About the abortion thing, would you rather have a president who didn't think about it before coming to a conclusion? Maybe it's just me, but thinking is probably a good thing...!

Also yes, as soon as Al Gore's sister died of [irony]lung cancer[/irony], his father sold the tobacco farm and later died, leaving Gore with all the money that his family had accrued from selling that junk. And he was pretty rich, too. A millionaire, even. So what he did was buy a house (twice as big as the average american house) and converted it to run on green energy, which is pretty much the thing he's spent the last few years of his life advocating. So, I still have quite a bit of respect for him, because he found a way he can enjoy his wealth and still serve as a model for his own beliefs.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 03, 2007, 06:58:30 PM
Very recently there was an article about how Gore is such a hypocrite on energy conservation, since his mansion used so much more electricity to power than a normal home.  Yet it conveniently forgot to mention how exactly he powers it.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on March 03, 2007, 07:11:23 PM
My point being is the cole bombing happened on Clintons watch, meaning both Bill and Bush are partly responsible for 9/11. As I stated before Clinton had other opportunites to take care of Bin Laden before the Cole incident. He even admits to it.
The abortion thing was simply Gore dodging the question. The house he bought which was twice as big wastes more energy then a normal house hold. I believe he has a few more big houses. As for the military question I have attempted to sign up before. Their reason for not accepting me? I had asthema growing up, still do a little bit. I was calling Gore a hypocrite befoe that article came out.  ;D


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on March 03, 2007, 09:17:37 PM
Clinton made a bigger effort to catch Bin Laden than anybody else. The fact that he did not actually catch him does not mean that Bin Laden's terrorism is his fault. That's a pretty fallacious argument, and I've heard it from more people than just you.

Also, the fact that the USS Cole was bombed during Clinton's tenure does not mean that 9/11 is his fault, sorry.

Find me all the politicians who have ever dodged a question and you'll find all the politicians who have ever lived. Nothing special there.

And about Gore's house, like I said, the house is powered by green energy. The report that he owns two or three or five whatever number houses came from Sean Hannity, who as you know can't be trusted, as he's been shown to just make stuff up before. The building actually functions not only as a house, but also contains staffed offices for Gore and his wife's business dealings, their global communications network, and their secret service agents, so I can only imagine it'd be pretty large. Like the Pelosi jet scandal, this whole issue is more of an ad hominem attack than a worthwhile argument.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on March 03, 2007, 10:05:08 PM
Personally I don't blaim ANYONE for 9/11  save the assholes that hijacked the plane.  The fact that we did or did not do anything to stop it is moot at this point, it happened, Bush ignored the warning signs, Clinton ignored them, Bush Sr. ignored them, Regan ignored them... it's been ignored since the 80's. However, if you want to blame Clinton for the USS Cole since it happened in his term, guess what, you have to ENTIRELY blame Bush for 9/11 as it happened a year into his term.  I digress though; The main point here is that Clinton as a President did MUCH more for this country than Bush did in his terms in office.

As for the 2000 election, it was proven afterwards that Gore won the majority vote, but Bush pulled his BS in Florida and stole the election.  By then it was too late as Gore had conceeded the election and the country was tired of the whole ordeal.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on March 03, 2007, 11:01:25 PM
Gore was the one who demanded the recount incase you dont remember. I'll say that there may have been a problem with the new voting machines, but as to go as far as saying Bush stole the election just shows the Democratic party are sore losers. No offense to any Democrats here. I'm sure the Republican party would be accusing Gore of stealing the election if he had won. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on March 03, 2007, 11:50:16 PM
Nice lie there. Florida state law requires a mandatory recount for elections with such thin margins as the one in 2000. Gore had nothing to do with it.

About the race itself, it was ridiculously close, and so I wouldn't call any objections marks of poor sportsmanship. Rather, they know that there were problems with the ballots, such as the incompletely punched holes or whatever, so they think that Gore might've actually won. And he might've. Of course, it's kind of pointless to talk about it now that Bush is halfway through his second term, but oh well, people will talk.

EDIT: I'd just like to add that the main reason people say that bush "stole" the election was because he was kind of hurrying it along at the end with his transitional committee, knowing that another recount might put him out of the oval office. Not the most ethical thing to do, but still, no point talking about it now that six or seven years have wasted since then.

SECOND EDIT: Further research tells me that the 2000 election was actually the closest one in U.S. history. A one percent landslide...!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 04, 2007, 12:11:51 PM
I honestly don't have much of a problem in saying that Bush stole the 2000 election, in the literal sense of the word.  There were far too many fishy circumstances going on back then for them to have all been simple coincidences.  That "Hacking Democracy" documentary showed many good examples of such.

Something that further convinces me of it, is that even though the democrats won the mid-term election all around, there were still some voting officials arrested in places like Ohio for tampering with the vote.  And guess what, they were.. dun dun dun.. republicans!  Apparently they just weren't taking a large enough number of democratic votes into consideration when they tried to rig things, because they still lost.

There are naturally going to be many untrustworthy democrats as well, I wouldn't even try to dispute that, but come on, like we didn't see the vote tampering thing coming considering the current state of the GOP.  With the stakes this time being what they were (the democrats about to kick their butts in the polls, leaving Bush with little power), and that it's so easy to cheat now with these pathetically insecure voting machines, I'd have been surprised if they hadn't played dirty.  The positive thing behind it all is that some of them actually got caught this time, where as who knows what they got away with in the last two presidential elections.

As such, I have to kind of commend the republicans that have been popping up in the news lately for leaving the GOP, due to all the scandals and crooks coming out of the woodwork.  I think there are still good republicans left, but that the corruption has taken over their party to the point that they're a small voice these days.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 04, 2007, 04:52:25 PM
In other news, and this is particularly graphic (unless you're accustomed to being in /b/), but here's a short flash video about the depleted uranium we've used as weapons (http://dulyconsider.blogspot.com/2007/03/45-billion-years-many-proud-us-depleted.html).  Take its truthfulness as you will, since I don't know how many of those infants actually have such deformaties as a result of any radiation, but depleted uranium has been shown to cause birth defects, so.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on March 05, 2007, 10:12:49 AM
That was just disturbing.  And definately something I will not watch again in the future.  I had heard DU caused some real problems, but if this video is even partially true it's definately worse than I thought.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on March 05, 2007, 11:57:26 AM
D-D-D-D-DOUBLE POSTERY!!

This will definately add credability to anti-Hillary people, but it's hillarious (http://www.atomfilms.com/film/rodham_rap.jsp).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on March 05, 2007, 05:35:28 PM
It was silly for sure, but I can't see it changing voters' minds...!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on March 05, 2007, 07:44:13 PM
You say anti Hillary as if it were a bad thing. ;D


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: LtSterling on March 09, 2007, 07:42:02 PM
Balance in the freezer section, Ben & Jerry's new right-wing ice-cream.

http://www.benjerry.com/features/americone_dream_index.cfm


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 09, 2007, 08:25:05 PM
Finally a company stands up against pharmacists who push their personal views on people by denying service. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/03/09/morning.pill.ap/index.html)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on March 11, 2007, 09:56:30 AM
I've been trying to deny service for years, my jobs never let me.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 11, 2007, 11:30:10 AM
You just need to blame it on your religion.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: MDude on March 11, 2007, 11:43:52 AM
Just have a bunch of computers send PINGs at the target of your denial.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 11, 2007, 02:21:47 PM
> ping denial

ping: unknown host 'denial'


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 12, 2007, 01:21:23 AM
lol Fox News (http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/fox_news_crazy_.html)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 14, 2007, 12:00:05 AM
lol summary of Newt Gingrich's "family values":

Forced his first wife to have an abortion;
Divorced when she was recovering from cancer;
Refused to pay child support;
Married the mistress six months after the divorce;
Hooked up with a congressional intern while he impeached Clinton for fooling around with an intern;
Divorced the second wife after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis;
Married the intern who is now the third wife.

PATTERN HERE?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on March 14, 2007, 09:10:09 AM
Divorces Third wife when diagnosed with turrets.
Marries intern 2 hours after divorce
Divorces 4th wife when she is diagnosed with the flu
Marries intern within 5 minutes of diagnosis
divorces 5th wife when she forgets to pick up smokes......


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 14, 2007, 04:23:00 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816&hl=en

Like we didn't already know that this is the kind of stuff that goes on at many such places, but I suppose it's good that at least Britain has enough balls to show it on TV.  I didn't watch the whole thing though, since you can practically watch 30 seconds and see that they hate everyone.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 19, 2007, 02:31:37 PM
lol John McCain (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/)

Classic quote:  "You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."

I understand that not every politician is gonna know the details of everything they vote on, and would probably just vote along partisan lines (not that there's any excuse to not do a little research), but things like contraceptives and STDs are basic things they teach in health class.  If he's stumbling over his own position on these things, and doesn't even know the subject matter of such a hot topic, then he needs to move along and let the next bumbling pro-abstinence politician into his spot.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 22, 2007, 12:27:50 AM
James Inhofe isn't only stupid, but after seeing this, he's just a plain old asshole (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/gore-boxer-inhofe/).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 23, 2007, 10:20:37 PM
ORLY at it again (http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220018)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on March 23, 2007, 11:04:22 PM
UGH! Why is he allowed to stay on the air?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on March 25, 2007, 02:17:19 AM
Because his show is called the No Spin Zone, which means everything on it is as fair and balanced as the network that hosts it.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on March 25, 2007, 05:34:16 AM
http://www.billoreilly.com/charts/productchart.jsp?dispid3=102 

The clothing line Democrats wouldn't touch.  ;D


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on March 25, 2007, 12:37:37 PM
I'll touch it, but only with an acetylene torch.  ;D ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on March 25, 2007, 01:52:57 PM
That was pithy of you. Actually i'm a fan of O Reilly, I just dont understand how they can continue to allow Geraldo Rivera on the air. Rivera's a dumb ass.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 04, 2007, 11:36:25 PM
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/04/fox-news-they-distort-their-own-april-fools-poll

-o-;;


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Red_Raven on April 05, 2007, 08:48:43 AM
How the hell do you get something like that wrong when the answer is right in front of your face?
Then again Fox news is known to be pro bush so they probably did that on purpose.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on April 05, 2007, 12:02:00 PM
I can already say they left three names off that list that should have been there. You can probobly guess who i'm talking about.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 05, 2007, 11:23:02 PM
Geraldo vs Bill O'Reilly, round one, FIGHT! (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/05/bill-oreillys-head-practically-explodes-as-he-screams-at-geraldo)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on April 06, 2007, 12:03:20 AM
I was seriously expecting some blood.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 13, 2007, 02:00:23 PM
I'm always referring to what a dirty'ol crook Al Sharpton is, and came across this article today on Digg (http://www.larryelder.com/ascrimes.html) which summarizes several of the things he's done, both bordering (or actually) illegal, nor ever getting an apology from him over.



Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 14, 2007, 04:47:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ZQXaXmCW4

Some fellow by the name of Jason Whitlock, despite being black himself, rips Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson a new one for the things they've done (and lack thereof).  Shit I'd even agree with the bit at the end, that this guy should be one of the leaders of the black community in this country.

pee ess:  Here's the column where he said his initial remarks, apparently. (http://www.kansascity.com/159/story/66339.html)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 26, 2007, 02:09:20 AM
Olbermann rips Giuliani about 10 new assholes for his latest remarks (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/25/olbermanns-special-comment-on-giulianis-fearmongering-how-dare-you-sir/)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on April 26, 2007, 04:45:43 AM
Rudolf the red assed mayor. He should have Al Gore as his vice, they both seem to be professionals with the scare tactics scenario.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 30, 2007, 02:16:32 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.reconstruction/index.html

If that aint proof that the entire Bush administration as well as all the lackies they've put in charge in Iraq aren't totally incompetent, I dunno what is.

In a nutshell, 7 of the 8 US-funded Iraqi reconstruction projects have resulted in failure pretty much due to total incompetence.  Nearly the entire budget appropriated for such projects has been spent.  To make matters worse, almost 1,000 people have died in working on these projects.  Such a total waste of time, money, and lives.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 30, 2007, 07:31:47 PM
An interesting read in regards to the myth that republicans lower taxes (http://www.mises.org/story/2559).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on May 02, 2007, 10:14:09 PM
Tis always funny to point out Bill O'Reilly's true character.  First a study found that he uses derogatory names more than once every seven seconds (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/02/oreilly-derogatory/), and it mentions how/who he demonizes in the process.

Then another article linked from there (http://mediamatters.org/items/200602270001?f=h_top) shows Bill with his hypocritical response of "I don't do personal attacks here", and they point out just a few of the personal attacks he's done, and recently.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on May 17, 2007, 01:42:35 PM
Republican candidate Ron Paul getting some air time on CNN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls), since he's hard-pressed to get it in many other places.

Despite his own party trying to pretend he doesn't exist due to his moderate opinions, he's the only one who voted against the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions act, and the war itself.  Plus never voted to raise taxes or pay for congressmen.  And every time I see him speak, he seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to issues at hand.  HOWEVER, he still has things I dislike, such as his stance on abortion and campaign funds and such, but so far, he's the lesser of a dozen evils quite possibly.

Though of course, he'll never get the republican nomination, so it's kind of a waste of time to point him out.  But I at least support him for the party he's running in.  As for the democrats, there's one or two I'd like to see in the spotlight (can't remember their names), but there's no way anybody will surpass Hillary or Obama for the Democratic nomination at this point, so oh well again.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on May 17, 2007, 04:32:21 PM
Oh also, I did some digging to find one of the psychological comparisons between democrats and republicans since it came up last night, and found one of'em I read once before. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20061222-000001&page=2)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on May 17, 2007, 10:19:06 PM
I must have missed it or you could point it out to me. I didn't see a comparason between Democrats and Republicans, rather a comparison between Democrats and conservatives.The word Republican is only mentioned twice.This is my favorite part:As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers.
Not only did he see many sides to every issue he changed his stand on issues every second possible. I'd also like to point out I think Mit Romney is a flip flop and Ron Paul is an idiot. To be honest I don't like anybody running on either side. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on June 24, 2007, 02:54:15 PM
I never replied to this last comment since it was rather obvious, but in that article, republicans are likened to conservatives just as democrats are likened to liberals, and as such, I found it fairly accurate in their conclusions about either party.


Anyhoo, as for current news, and no point in linking anything since it's all over the news and internet, but how about that Cheney and Bush thinking they're not part of the executive branch, and therefore not required to submit to an oversight committee?  Can we say "bullshit"?

I can only imagine how many documents will get "lost" before this administration leaves the white house, partially as a result of this lack of oversight (which is in fact required by law, though not that Bush/Cheney think they have to obey that).  Kind of like how all those Republican party emails, which were illegally being sent through the Republican National Committee servers instead of the white house's in the first place, got "lost" when they were wanted.

h8 corrupt government.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on June 26, 2007, 12:32:47 AM
Relating to my previous post, they're going to call Cheney's bluff and attempt to cut the massive executive branch funding for his office, if he's truly not part of the executive branch as he claims (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=207869).

And more on Cheney, he'll reside over his own impeachment trial (http://instapundit.com/archives2/006575.php).  This would be funny to see.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on June 27, 2007, 04:45:13 PM
lol more to the story (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4679.html).  Now they've flip-flopped and stopped trying to deny they're part of the executive branch after the threat of lost funds.  But that doesn't necessarily mean we'll be seeing an oversight committee be able to do their jobs just yet.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on June 28, 2007, 08:17:44 PM
I'd like to to point out that the Democrats are just as corupt. The Fairness Doctrine is complete crap. Gee, I wonder why Congress would want to mess with free speech?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Doctor Worm on June 29, 2007, 01:10:01 AM
Delicious irony, I must eat it!

Also, FIRST POST.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on June 29, 2007, 01:10:44 AM
AWMPH AWMPH

But yeah, calling Cheney a crooked bastard != calling the Republican party crooked bastards, you know.  There's nothing wrong with admitting people in the party you like suck ass, much as I do with people like Hillary, Barack, etc.  It's just that in the case of the Republicans at the moment, that happens to be a lot more people, all throughout government.

Like again with the Bush administration, rejecting subpoenas on their shady dealings (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-executive29jun29,1,920185.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo).

I do believe 8 members of the Bush administration are already in jail, and we haven't even scratched the surface.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Doctor Worm on June 29, 2007, 01:13:09 AM
Hey, can't let the Nixon administration beat them on jailbirds.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on June 29, 2007, 02:10:44 PM
lol Giuliani (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/28/countdown-when-all-else-fails-rudy-blames-bill-clinton/).  His campaign slogan should be "OH GOD, TERRORISTS???"


EDIT:  Normally I wouldn't link Michael Moore stuff here no mo since I'm not a big fan in general, but his healthcare attitude is spot-on in my opinion, and he made even more good points about it on CNBC (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/28/michael-moore-denied-entry-into-the-nyse/).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 05, 2007, 03:01:53 PM
Al Gore has "fallen out of love with politics" and has no intention of running for office (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/05/gore.office/index.html).  We pretty much already knew that for the most part, but I reckon that confirms it.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on July 06, 2007, 01:42:55 AM
This is a fine example of hypocrisy running on both sides. Scooters pardon was a bad move on the Presidents part. He should be in jail, and i'd like to someone wipe that grin off his face. A former president who gave 180 or more pardons before he left the White House shouldn't be opening his mouth. While Bush is getting crap for firing eight attorneys people seem to over look the fact Bill had fired 93. If this isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 06, 2007, 10:29:14 AM
As far as I know, you're allowed to fire whoever you want and hire your own particular people in your administration once you take over.  So I don't think Clinton did anything particularly wrong there unless I looked into it more, just as Bush wouldn't have been doing anything wrong by firing them, if it hadn't been for the fact that he left them employed until years after he took the presidency, and got rid of them after they were the ones to look into his shady dealings.

Meanwhile, Fox News strikes again with more FUD..! (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/05/fox-news-universal-health-care-breeds-terrorists/)  This time, universal healthcare: breeding ground for terror?  Say it aint so.

p.s. It aint so.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on July 06, 2007, 09:03:06 PM
*Votes a third party to end all debates*


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Doctor Worm on July 10, 2007, 03:03:45 AM
Enjoy your wasted vote.

Also, Fox News isn't. Then again, MSNBC and their ilk make me want to throw my remote, too. I usually try to stick to the wires.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 14, 2007, 11:13:49 AM
This isn't really political, but is a perfect example of a.) why Fox News sucks, b.) why they're all mindless assholes, and c.) why I can't figure out why anyone still watches.  The one guy even agrees with what the group is saying, and instantly turns around and disagrees with it, just long enough to badmouth the future generation of kids.  -o-;;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n44WCUKIK2Y


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 15, 2007, 05:36:01 PM
I dunno if anyone has heard about it, but Michael Moore has been flinging up a shit storm over claims that CNN was spreading misinformation about healthcare and his movie.  He went on the air demanding an apology, and being a pretty big asshole in general, instead of just talking about his movie like they brought him on to do in the first place.  He even got sidetracked at on point, rambling on about how they should apologize to him and the viewers for not paying attention to his predictions about the war.  He promised he'd put up all the "facts" when he got off the air, and sure enough, it didn't take long till on his site was a point-per-point rebuttle for all the things he claimed was wrong in their report(s).

Well, I didn't expect it, but CNN publicly responded (http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore.gupta/index.html), and it's pretty funny that they seem to be right on most of the points they make.  I didn't read all of it, but if this doesn't make Moore shut up, nothing will.  As the CNN rebuttle said, most of his complaints are likely just to stir up controversy to promote his film.

And hence, yet another reason I just dislike him as an individual.  Tis kind of a shame, since he tends to make good points about things.  It's just that he just doesn't always know how to do it in a sane manner at times.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on July 15, 2007, 10:59:48 PM
Moore is the worst kind of public figure.... screw his politics, I mean, he's just an asshole. And he'll do/say anything to get attention, true his topics usually need attention, but not like he brings it.  Honestly he's the type to say something JUST to make a stink, then fallow it up with "Oh yeah, here's a movie."  That, sadly will make people ignore the actual issue in question.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on July 19, 2007, 01:30:07 PM
Blue, I couldn't agree with you More. Moores a destructive person and like Rosie I think he's waddeling down the path to crazy town. His films are nothing but propaganda and i'll have nothing to do with them. It's not up to the government to provide us health care. The system he wants us to convert to only spends about two hundred bucks a person.Will the medical companies and doctors change their fees to suit or budgets? Not bloody likely.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 19, 2007, 01:44:22 PM
I might not care for Moore, but I still support the universal healthcare.  Our system is total garbage, paying huge amounts of money for service and medicines, all because we let for-profit companies control the entire industry.  The government takes care of our police/fire/schools/etc, so if we can do those things, we might as well do healthcare too, just like every other decent country out there is doing already.  We'd pay less in the long run in taxes than we're currently paying to these bastardly companies, who are out to make as much profit as possible for their stockholders by denying as many payments as possible.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on July 19, 2007, 02:40:57 PM
If our system is total garbage why are we rated higher then Cuba? We must be doing something right. Id rather have the choice of being able too choose my doctor.If the government ran our health care I would wonder if all doctors would be paid the same rate. That would really suck. Medical school is very expensive and I doubt it would get any cheaper if that did infact happen. Over the course of the following years we would have less people wanting to become doctors as it wouldn't be a profitable profession.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on July 19, 2007, 02:52:18 PM
I think the problem is more in the public that the doctors.  Canada has doctors, plenty of them, the universal healthcare system means higher taxes, that's why people stray from it here.  But the doctors would make no less really, as universal healthcare only covers needed procedures, and we have enough self concious people in this country that would still want cosmetic procedures that thay'd have to pay for.  But cases like me (can't afford insurance or a doctors visit but really need one) would actually be able to get the care needed because money wouldn't be such a factor in it anymore.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on July 19, 2007, 03:30:54 PM
My whole problem with the idea of universal healthcare is not having a choice. If the government gives you an option of wanting to go with Universal Healthcare as well as another company I wouldn't care.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Boris on July 19, 2007, 03:42:44 PM
Ecto states a valid fear but in the wrong way, the lack of choice comes from the fact that a middle class citizen, or a small business, could not afforad both the new high taxes for the public healthcare system and the cost of insurance or direct pay toward a more accountable private healthcare.

As usual the issue boils down to it benefiting the folks who lack the means to pay for their own now versus hurting the quality of service for those who can.

My stance still happens to fall on the "It's not my societal responsibility to pay for the private services of others." side of things, but we've been slowly losing that fight for the last... long time. (I'd launch into the whole 'any society that can vote itself money is doomed to fail' quote rant, but I won't post in this thread again for a while more than likely.)

(edit: hey Jay, ask Great Brittain how national healthcare works for retaining their doctor levels in the country. It pays so little they have to do those 'look the other way and speed along the naturalization of foreign doctors' kind of things to keep the level ballanced. It's a profession that requires a ridiculous ammount of training and certification, and when you remove the monitary insentive, you're killing a LOT of the supply. You have two choice at that point, pay them more [higher taxes in a social system, higher prices in a public one] or remove a level of difficulty required to get a lisence [Dr. Nick Riverra's Holleywood Upstairs Medical Schoo.] Or you could always accept them as long as they're certified in Mexico. Point is, it doesn't remain all roses, and there isn't an easy and good solution. Not that I don't sympathise, but I still shouldn't be gun to the head responsible for the wellbeing of others not my family or offspring.)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on July 19, 2007, 03:58:59 PM
Sadly the points are very valid on both ends, On the one side, you shouldn't have to pay for anyone else, it's not fair.  At the same time, it's also not fair that I do work for a living, and can't afford to take care of myself because the cost of healthcare and insurance are too high.  Unless I want to go with something that will only get me the bottom of the barrel coverage and still take all my money.  Basically as always it's the working class that get shafted by the whole deal.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Boris on July 19, 2007, 04:06:00 PM
I'm trying to think up a new economic system where everybody wins, but so far I'm not good at conceiving what fundamentle thing would have to change or be realised for that to be so.

((Right now I tend to like the 'keep what you do have' system better, but to be fair I know I've got it better than many...))


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on July 19, 2007, 04:12:43 PM
The fact this whole concept is based on communism ideology is actually what worries me the most about this. Notice how the part concerning communist ideology of the idea of universal healthcare isn't given major attention in the media. Another reason I don't think this could work is Congress is at war with itself. I doubt this could really be handled well.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 19, 2007, 07:14:29 PM
Universal healthcare is so far from communism that it's crazy to even make the comparison.  That's a scare tactic the opposition uses, with which they never bother to mention that we already have socialized school systems, fire, police, and all of those things we all take advantage of regularly and pay taxes for.  We also have socialized healthcare already in terms of Medicare, it's just that not everyone in the country can get it.

There's nothing stopping anyone in any of the other countries with universal healthcare from going with a private healthcare company.  Choice still exists.  It's just that universal healthcare gives those without any choice an answer.  And there's a whole lot of people that don't have any choice under the current "system". 

As I've said many a time, the key to a successful system is to allow people to file it on their tax returns to get a refund if they have private insurance.  This way those people don't pay more than they want to, if they really think private healthcare is still that much better.  There are already lots of things in place in the tax system to allow for refunds for various things, so I see this as nothing worse or more time consuming for people to have to do every year.  And it benefits them by forcing the insurance companies to lower their rates in order to convince people to use them, since there would be "free" competition.  It takes the power away from the greedy companies that regularly extort countless people every day.

Also, saying America is better than Cuba is nothing to be proud of.  We're still at practically the bottom of the damn list.  That's utterly pathetic for a superpower.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Boris on July 20, 2007, 01:39:39 PM
Ecto, some days you're doing your side more harm than good with such broad sweeping untennable statements, stick to more specific points and facts that actual reputable sources produce.

Fyber's refund idea there isn't bad in theory, but you run into notions of what an acceptable price is. If a company has to compete with the infinitely more subsidised federal system, they might run into stagnation or flat unprofitablity. I don't mind the notion here being that you would pay a higher ammount for better services though, but a lot of the proponents of social healthcare feel that is whats already wrong with our system and that would probably be swatted down real quick as the 'you're still killing the poor to serve the rich.' mentality sets in. Further, what if under the no-tax-for-private-insurance system there were not enough money to maintain the public system? You can bet your butt we'd have a tax hike somewhere else rather than the government ever getting around to cutting benefits.

Incidently, I'd wager nobody has a clue what the hell is going on in Cuba, saying that everybody has access to doctors of medicines or whatever the crap is a very spinable statement. (See my previous snarky comment of [Dr. Nick Riverra's Holleywood Upstairs medical school]) and we all no that a country with no acountable drug oversight will always have high quality not made from sheet rock pills. Beyond just spinning, though, you've got to figure a country like that is flat controlling the press that comes out of it to make its own medical system look better, and we'll probably never know most of the story until not just Castro but the whole communist party regime there dies.

As for insurance, it is an absurd game anyway, it's basically the game of saying 'no' to people for money. Co-op's arn't much better, it's the game of saying 'no' to people so you can break even. Health care is unfortuantely something everybody needs, definitely multiple times in their life. Since this stuff costs so much these days, that's a losing game long term for everybody except those who could flat pay for it themselves anyway.

I had more, but I've been staring at this post for a half hour, so I'll just let her rip.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 21, 2007, 02:36:03 AM
Honestly though I don't see anything wrong with people not being able to get the money back in tax returns, either.  If you send your kids to private school, I don't believe there's a refund to get back the taxes you pay for public school.  If you put out your own fires, and never call the cops, don't drive on the roads, don't litter, etc etc, there's no refunds.  Doesn't matter, you pay for everyone.  So healthcare really shouldn't be any different, because everybody needs it just like they need all of those other things.  And I don't really have a problem with the idea of me paying for other people to be healthy too.  A society of healthy people aint a bad thing, especially when it means more healthy workers.

By the by, the number of people with private insurance in the countries that have socialized healthcare isn't all that high; maybe around 20% I believe, depending on where you go.  One could argue "they can't afford private insurance after the tax increase", but I'd counter it with "maybe they don't need private insurance, since most everything they need gets taken care of for free". 

When you need to see a doctor about something, the last thing you want to worry about is whether you can pay for it.  Peace of mind is priceless.  With our current system, I'd bet the number of people who truly don't have to worry about possibly paying for their visit (even if they actually have insurance) is very few.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 21, 2007, 10:21:06 AM
Meanwhile, the French do something cool regarding us for July 4th (http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/article.php3?id_article=1126), and I'm fairly sure none of the news channels cared enough to run anything about it.  Guess it'd have had to have been anti-american before any of them woulda cared enough to air it.  So kudos to the French for that.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 22, 2007, 02:07:03 AM
A page to "help" you pick your presidential candidate (http://www.dehp.net/candidate/).  Mine said I should vote Kucinich.  Don't think I'll be doing that, but it was interesting to try.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on July 22, 2007, 06:48:52 AM
Kucinch, then Clinton very close behind.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on July 22, 2007, 07:40:03 PM
/me keeps posting on all different political topics every other day.

I heard some interesting factoids though.  The leading cause of bankruptcy in America is apparently medical bills.  And it also seems it's a (or presumably the) biggest cause of homelessness.  I think that's a good indication that our medical system is a pretty huge financial mess for everyone, considering how many people file bankruptcy every year, as well as how many homeless we have.

But we're all paying the consequences every time somebody files for bankruptcy, because not only does it mean no money paid for the doctor bills they ran up (that got them behind on their bills in the first place), but it includes their other bills too, such as credit cards and the like.  Companies have to raise prices and/or lay off workers and/or switch to importing or hiring from overseas.  In the case of a smaller doctor's office, enough of that could put them out of business entirely.

And just imagine all the money being spent to help and take care of the homeless every year, when a lot of those people might not even be there had they been able to just get the medical care they needed in the first place.  Worse yet, when they're found out on the street in need of medical attention, who do you think ends up paying for their care?

And I'm not entirely sure on the factual status of this one, but I heard that nobody ever files for bankruptcy for medical bills in Canada and Britain.  So yeah, just a little more reasoning on why I think universal healthcare just seems like such a logical thing to implement in my view.  It benefits everyone in so many ways that it seems that people will end up paying less in the long run.   Not just for medical issues (since the overhead for government-run healthcare is hugely reduced, and the profit margin is eliminated), but possibly for lots of other things too (like credit card rates and store prices).  Besides, a doctor should just be able to treat you without calling to see if your insurance will cover what he's about to do first.  And worse yet, possibly refuse to treat you if they won't cover it!  Such mega lame.


EDIT:  They were just telling again on the news about a group in my state that gets a ton of volunteer doctors together (over 1500 I think they said) to setup a three-day mobile health center in a field with tents and equipment and everything, and give everyone that shows up free care.  Dental or whatever you need.  I'm not sure how many times they've done it now, but it's at least twice.  They even try and help folks get in contact with the right people if they need further medical help.  But the point is that thousands of people showed up (yes thousands), most of them waiting there overnight just to get seen.  Overnight.  It wasn't close enough to my town though, plus there's the whole huge line, so oh well.  But tis just another example of why healthcare is so needed.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Boris on July 23, 2007, 04:06:49 PM
Stepping away from the issue of healthcare for a bit, (not to be an ass or anything, but I think we could go back and forth on it sixty times and get nowhere,) I wanted to bring this little nuget to the fore: Poll on factors for success in America. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20070723/ts_pew/62saypeopledetermineownsuccess)
Longtime 'play at home' viewers can probably guess my opinions, but I'd like to poll you guys first and see what you think on this particular topic.



Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on August 14, 2007, 04:55:25 PM
I mentioned this in chat but I naturally have to mention it here because it's just funny.

Basically, Fox News got caught editing Wikipedia articles (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia_is_on.html).  As you can see even by one particular change on Wikipedia itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=25221039), the word "liberal" was naturally tossed in, along with a totally different quote of what the person said. 

Now of course not ready to immediately take it for face value, I checked the IP myself of the person that did the changing (12.167.224.228), and found that it's owned by:  FOX NEWS CHANNEL FOX-NEWS73-224-224 (NET-12-167-224-224-1)

And as can be seen by the list of compiled changes made by various Fox News IPs (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=12.167.224.224-255&ip2=12.30.108.96-127), they've changed things other than their own content, such as Keith Olbermann from MSNBC, who they naturally hate because he constantly points out their propaganda on his show.  Wikipedia's policy is that you're not even allowed to modify your own content, other people are supposed to do it, so Fox News has pretty much violated that rule too.  You'd think they would be smart enough to do it from an IP that wasn't connected to them, but apparently not.

In related news, polls apparently show (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_Howard_Kurtz_examines_how_Fox_0813.html) that viewers of Fox News generally mistrust other news sources.  Guess a news organization that has a reputation for modifying events to suit their agenda (both on air and off) is the only trustworthy source?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on August 16, 2007, 02:25:28 AM
Ecto linked me this and I thought it worth posting here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyEfmDtxdhM

I've not been crazy about the current crowd of democrats in congress right now to be honest, and then they pull shit like that, and especially with an issue which I oppose.  I personally in no way think illegals should get any of the taxpayer benefits.  They're lucky we aren't shipping them all out of here, but we wussed out on that. 

But yeah, dirty move.  I pretty much have no particular liking for the entire governing body of the country as of late.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on August 22, 2007, 04:56:07 PM
Thought this was kinda interesting.  Tis a list of who owns who (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php) in terms of the news agencies.  A few years old, but no matter.

Here's a more recent list of some big boys, for anyone interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_General_Electric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_CBS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Viacom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Time_Warner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation

It's easy to say most media has a liberal bias, but most of it is obviously controlled by oil/military/etc, most of which would quite naturally have the opposite political stance.



EDIT:  Judge orders Bush administration to issue the required global warming reports that they conveniently never did (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070821/pl_bloomberg/a98_skntk5cg_1).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on August 28, 2007, 11:08:52 PM
Ever needed proof that rich people pay less taxes than everyone else?  Just ask Warren Buffet (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762041/site/newsweek/page/0/).  I think he should know.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on August 29, 2007, 07:06:47 AM
Okay, this needs confirmation, but, I'm pretty certain I just heard on the news last night that the head of the Border Patrol in Texas stated that it's not the Border Patrols job to stop illegal immigrants, nor is it thier jpb to stop drug trafficing, it is thier job to keep terrorists out of this country.  The Border Patrol does not Patrol Our borders.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on August 29, 2007, 03:47:49 PM
I dunno, they seem to catch plenty of them slipping over here, but it's obviously impossible to catch'em all. 

Meanwhile, since Fox News has just about played out their trick of swapping the republican label for democrat when a republican gets caught doing something, they decided to just not show his party affiliation at all this time (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/29/foxnews-isnt-sure-what-party-senator-larry-craig-belongs-to/).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: MDude on August 29, 2007, 11:09:34 PM
Hey, maybe from now on they just won't show anyone's party. ;)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 08, 2007, 04:51:55 PM
Hello, I'm President Bush.  Just so you know... (http://www.bordergatewayprotocol.net/jon/media/bush/#)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on September 10, 2007, 05:40:58 PM
Greatest... President... Ever.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on September 12, 2007, 10:36:32 PM
violation of rights?
http://www.dogflu.ca/06072007/22/california_may_be_forced_to_neuter_cats_and_dogs
Spaying and neutering your pets should be your own decision. forcing people to do it, and going door to door to make sure it gets done...That's just plain wrong.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 13, 2007, 03:11:17 AM
Ehh, I don't agree with forcing people to do it, but they have an animal problem.  And too many people let their animals just run free and hump everything in sight.  So I dunno, I don't really have an opinion either way.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on September 13, 2007, 03:27:32 AM
I understand the problem. What I don't like is they can take your pets away and force you to take manditory classes and charge you a five hundred dollar fine if their demands aren't met. This is something that I hope gets challenged in court. Arnold doesn't have an opinion on this yet although it seems lately he's caving in to the activists. I'm glad I don't live there but this could easily happen to any state.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 13, 2007, 11:18:29 PM
Well while the forcing people to do it may not be particularly cool, the fact is, unless you're planning to breed the animal, there's not a lot of reason to not have it done.  The majority of pet owners have no plans of ever allowing their animals to mate.  And most animal shelters won't let you adopt a pet unless they spay or neuter it first anyway.  I know people get a bit uppity when they're faced with the possibility of being forced to do anything, but it's something that most people should be doing, and probably would already be doing.  In the end, I think this would mostly only affect the people who are the problem pet owners.  Anyone seriously interested in breeding would just file for it like they do any other papers for their pets.

It's not final though, and I have a feeling it won't be.  And I don't see it going to any other states unless there's a particularly big animal problem, which most states just don't have compared to CA.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 14, 2007, 10:49:18 AM
Whoah, Bush's science advisor, admitting global warming is in fact man-made? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm)  I honestly am shocked.  And perhaps pleased that it might mean some official acknowledgement by America before long.

Hmm, it seems many in the military are shifting their donations to the Democratic party (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/military_shifti.html).  On the Republican side, Ron Paul is getting the most.  McCain is in second, then Romney, then Giuliani.  Sounds like the armed forces have a pretty good grasp of which Republican candidates are worth supporting, going by that pecking order.  In my opinion, at least.  I'd like to see a list of who got what on the Democrat side too.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 18, 2007, 10:31:25 PM
Ohio Republicans, blocking voting machine testing? (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/18/34338/6447)  I am simply so shocked and such.  Or I would be, if we didn't already know that they've been trying to rig elections in Ohio for a while now, and some even got arrested this last mid-term election for it.  And in New York too, I think.

Matter o' fact, I do believe that California has already decertified the same machines for being extremely vulnerable.

So seriously, this is all just BS.  Bank ATMs have more security and paper trail than our voting machines.  That's pathetic.  Almost every brand of electronic voting machine has been found vulnerable to something or another.  If I can't punch in my votes and then get a printed receipt I have to turn in, on which I can confirm that it did in fact pick who I wanted, and then they compare every paper vote to the electronic votes for the tallies, then it's not adequate.  Simple as that.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on September 19, 2007, 06:44:23 AM
Agreed Fyber, however isn'tthe purpose of the electronic ballot to do away with the paper ones?  I agree that the idea of a reciept and therefore a paper trail is a good one, but in that case you may as well remove the machine and just go back to paper.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 20, 2007, 12:41:07 AM
I think the point of using electronic ones was to prevent incidents like hanging chads and other screw-ups that can happen with conventional paper ballots.  But the advantage to using an electronic machine that also prints the results that the voter can see means you have double the accuracy, and a much smaller chance of trickery. 

Current electronic machines can be hacked to randomly change certain votes in certain candidates' favor (as can be seen on Youtube in many different videos), and after you make your vote on those, there's literally no way to know what it truly voted for you.  If it's both electronic and paper, you can plainly see on the paper what you voted, and they also have no more problem with hanging chads or other crap because it's a printout.  If the printout votes don't match the electronic votes, then they know some tomfoolery happened and can investigate.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on September 21, 2007, 07:04:45 AM
We should all design the Fybertech Electronic Voting Automation Hub. It wouldn't be hard really, and F.E.V.A.H. is a pretty sellaple acronym.  But it would basicly be the computer voting, with the paper printout, and maybe a coffee maker or something... some racing stripes to make it run faster, and perhaps a copy of WoW installed in every booth to help bring out voters.

"Come on out in '08 and catch the voting F.E.V.A.H."
"Only one cup of coffee per voter. WoW playtime limited to 5 minutes unless you pay for more. Hey you're getting free coffee so stop whining; you're here to vote, not play video games."


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 21, 2007, 09:42:18 PM
Meanwhile, Dan Rather still believes the story he did about Bush's military records to be entirely true (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Dan_Rather_talks_about_Bush_AWOL_0921.html), much as I have all this time.  And as I suspected, and he confirms, nobody to this day has ever proven the documents false.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 26, 2007, 03:56:33 PM
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28780


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 27, 2007, 10:08:55 PM
More info regarding Dan Rather's suit (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/27/dan_rather_suit/index.html).  Tis split onto three pages, mind you.

It seems he's not really interested in the money, as the article says, due to the fact that he's pushing past any sort of settlement so that depositions can take place.  I think this is going to be really interesting, because Bush's military records really do need to be brought back into light.  McCain opened his up to the public back when he ran in 2000, so what was Bush hiding that he wouldn't do the same?  Many people have pointed out discrepancies with what we do know about his military career, and nobody has proved the documents in the Dan Rather story false.  Not only that, but it was only one set of documents from the entire story that were in question, but the resulting shitstorm was likely to redirect attention away from the other evidence.  So it'll be nice to put scrutiny on the issue again to finally try and get to some truth.  Plus, if there's been as much government pressure towards the media as the suit claims, blowing that open to the public will be nice as well.

Seems to be a trend these days from the neocons to turn things into huge deals, to draw attention away from the actual issue.  Like how they made a huge stink over the MoveOn.org ad, to draw attention away from the war itself, when Republicans made a worse ad disrespecting a disabled army vet in order to get elected to something a few years back.  And whoever that was won based on that ad, and was then one of those involved in making a stink over the MoveOn ad.  So fuck that hypocrisy.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on September 30, 2007, 02:49:25 PM
Some interesting facts about Moveon.Org. I think these people are beyond corrupt. From just looking at the evidence it's clear that they put out a lot of propoganda. The ad on Petraeus wasn't only put out a day before his report they twisted the facts and accuse him of doing the same.They could at least list the good we are doing in Iraq. I'm surprised that John Kerry of all people condemmned this advertisement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Betray_Us_controversy

What the press says about us:

http://www.moveon.org/press/moveonpress.html

Not surprising they wouldn't list the newspapers, tv stations saying bad things about them.



Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 30, 2007, 03:27:53 PM
I dunno, I saw a couple negatives just from a glance over a couple of the press pages there, one related to Fox News (no surprise there) and another from San Francisco Chronicle.  I didn't read over all of the links though but I figure there's some others somewhere.  BILLO however loves listing his critics, because it makes drama and he can sound like the victim of the leftist plot to destroy the country.

I don't see anything in the links you listed to suggest they're corrupt though.  I think they're just a bit too liberal for my taste sometimes, which is why I don't always take such websites' news at face value, and follow any links to where they got a story from to read it for myself.  But them being so liberal is why Fox News (and mostly O'Reilly) hates them so much, since they're at the total opposite end of the spectrum, with Fox being extremely conservative.

As for Petraeus, I don't think it's very hard to see that he took a fine military career and soiled it by becoming Bush's spokespuppet for how great the war is going.  You just don't mix military and politics like that.  Every time it was tried in the past, it backfired horribly.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: MDude on September 30, 2007, 09:29:52 PM
It worked well for Theadore Roosevelt, and Ceaser, and I think plenty of other guys, but I recently, nah, I don't think it does so well anymore.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Mage on October 01, 2007, 10:54:09 AM
First off, you mispelled both those names(Theodore Roosevelt and Julius Caesar). Second off, those two used a successful military career(although Roosevelt was really only leading a volunteer group during the Spanish-American war) to assist them in gaining political power, which is not quite the same as supporting the current head of state.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on October 04, 2007, 01:22:10 AM
Oh Rudy, what will you do next to win? (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/_democratic_group_accuses_rudy_of_moneylaundering_around_california_initiative.php)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on October 04, 2007, 02:30:35 PM
Dress in drag and do the hula?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Mage on October 04, 2007, 10:16:55 PM
[soapbox]
Maybe they should do something absolutely drastic, like using their personal fortunes and influences to try improving the world we live in? And not just doing what they want under that pretext, but actually doing the right thing?

...Yeah, I didn't think so either. We're on our own, America. Let's try to make it better on a non-political level.

[/soapbox]


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on October 05, 2007, 12:20:09 AM
Don't worry, it seems Guliani might not have as much luck as he'd like (or could buy) (http://bodypolitik.org/2007/10/04/dobson-will-back-third-party-if-giuliani-is-nominated/).

Honestly though I don't see what difference it makes what the president's stand on abortion is.  Bush is conservative but he sure hasn't made it illegal, despite having a republican-controlled congress for most of his terms.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on October 05, 2007, 10:39:32 AM
Crazy Demon Skeleton has opened her mouth again (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/04/coulter-gardner/), and the words that spewed out are none too surprising considering where they came from.

I'll still never understand how she could get away with saying "faggot" at a political event and never get in trouble, where if a celebrity did, they'd get crucified by every rights group imaginable.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on October 05, 2007, 05:07:25 PM
Speaking about political events Hillary claiming to be responsible for the creation of media matters, and move on isn't getting a whole lot of attention, and it should.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on October 06, 2007, 12:25:28 AM
I don't think it's news that Media Matters and Move On are liberal sites or might have democrats backing them.  That's like pointing out all the republican officials who have gotten involved with Fox News.  Except in this case, these are just websites that the majority of people have never even heard of or look at.  In the end I don't think anyone really cares about the actual people involved, just the fact that one place is biased this way and another biased that way, and I think anyone who keeps up with this stuff already knew the biases of all of the above.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting little video on global warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oH2SO2-WbI).  Pretty much a "you're free to decide what you want" thing, but with what would be the result in various scenarios based on those decisions.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on October 06, 2007, 02:02:54 AM
I don't think it's the fact that matters, and move are liberal sites. It's the whole "our point is your point truthful or not." crap they seem fond of pulling. I was well aware Clinton was behind the two, i'm just dissapointed this isn't getting coverage the way Rush's phony soldiers remarks has gotten attention. Congress has a hell of a lot of other things to deal with then silencing a radio show host,or looking into steroid use in the wwe. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on October 08, 2007, 06:54:41 AM
I'll agree on that, Congress does have much better thingsto do, but anyone silencing Rush is a good thing in my book, that guy needs to go mute for a long time.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on October 08, 2007, 12:44:47 PM
Im not a fan of Rush. I think he's a dick and could really care less about his show. This was just an unfair attack. This shows Reids, and Pelosis true colors by defending crooks and liars who pose as soldiers.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on October 10, 2007, 03:10:42 PM
Nine congressmen won't run for re-election due to the new 5-day work week (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/09/gop-congressmen-quit-because-of-five-day-work-week/)

Current congress apparently = most productive in history (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/09/roll-call-record/), even if they have been catering a bit to the bush agenda lately.

That wacky Ann Cultist is at it again! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/national/main3358373.shtml)

Blackwater, disarming American troops? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21163806/site/newsweek/)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on October 21, 2007, 02:49:03 PM
Interesting interview with Garry Kasparov (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQYyPooETcI)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 03, 2007, 02:44:16 PM
Warnk for Guliani (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/trick-question-about-912_b_70787.html)

I already mentioned this in chat, but I got a good laugh from it, so I thought it deserved a linking.  Sean Hannity of Fox News thinks Halloween is a liberal holiday, and is teaching kids to be liberals and to knock on peoples doors asking for handouts (http://mediamatters.org/items/200711010008).  Happy Halloween, Sean!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Buzzard on November 16, 2007, 03:10:18 PM
Fox news makes me want to stab people in the face almost daily.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on November 17, 2007, 04:42:15 PM
I'll have to look for that on the fox site. Coming from media matters i'm sure they wouldn't withold any information, or make anything up. Yeah, Hannity sounds stupid for saying that.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 17, 2007, 07:06:13 PM
There was a video in the corner of the page if you want to see it from the horse's mouth.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on December 18, 2007, 04:47:15 PM
I haven't posted anything here in a while, so here's something that's no good for anyone.  FCC chairman overturns 32-year-old ban to prevent any one company from owning both a local newspaper and television station (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_ot/media_ownership).  Where's your checks and balances when all your media comes from the same source?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Mage on December 19, 2007, 04:16:12 AM
Probably in the same place as all your personal information, in the hands of people who wish to control every aspect of your life. Welcome back to Manor Farm, everyone.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on December 19, 2007, 11:12:33 AM
Solution: only get news from the interbutts.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 04, 2008, 11:19:36 AM
So yeah, Iowa caucuses, most have prolly heard the results by now, but imma post them anyway.

Republican:
Huckabee - 34%
Romney - 25%
Thompson - 13%
McCain - 13%
Paul - 10%
Giuliani - 4%
Hunter - 1%

Democrat:
Obama - 38%
Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 29%
Richardson - 2%
Biden - 1%
Dodd - 0%
Gravel - 0%
Kucinich - 0%


How about that Rudy not only not being in the top three, but being under Ron Paul, and having a single-digit percentage?  I didn't expect that one.  It'll be interesting to see how states that are less religious handle the Republicans.  I also can't say I expected Edwards to manage second place on his team, who I'd vote for over Hillary, and possibly over Obama. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 04, 2008, 07:37:19 PM
Yeah, it was a frown that Huckabee made such a margin over Romney, but to be honest, it would've been a frown the other way around too. The Democrats clearly had a tighter top three (look at that gap!), so who knows what'll happen with them. As for Giuliani, he employed the unusual strategy of... ahem, "not campaigning in Iowa", which is probably why he missed them votes.

Now I will have to sit and wait for the New Hampshire caucuses, which should be in four days unless they move them to last year and say that we missed it.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on January 05, 2008, 10:30:35 PM
Quote
I also can't say I expected Edwards to manage second place on his team, who I'd vote for over Hillary, and possibly over Obama.

I was surprised about Edwards and Paul myself. Edwards blinks alot doesn't he?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Prox on January 06, 2008, 03:24:32 PM
Amazingly, Paul managed to carry Jefferson County in the Republican caucus, which in the end was the only one which wasn't taken by Romney or Huckabee. He's just full of surprises.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 06, 2008, 05:50:45 PM
Edwards blinks alot doesn't he?

It's because the twinkle he had installed into his eye is malfunctioning.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 16, 2008, 11:59:43 AM
Separation of church and state?  Who needs it!  Let's just modify the constitution as we see fit to follow God's standards, says Huckafuck. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/15/huckabee-amend-the-constitution-to-gods-standards/)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on January 17, 2008, 01:37:33 PM
I think it's time to say chuck the huck.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Wizkid_15 on January 18, 2008, 08:24:20 AM
I agree :p


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on January 22, 2008, 11:56:09 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3601.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080121/film_nm/bush_stone_dc

A Bush movie being directed by Oliver Stone, involving Meryl Streep want us to believe it's going to be a fair project.The man is directing an Anti War commercial to be released during the superbowl. I could be wrong about this movie but I doubt it. This is coming from a guy who wanted to direct a film about Mahmoud Ahmajustahnud. I wouldn't be surprised if move on (Which was started by Hillary Clinton.) is involved with this one. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 22, 2008, 03:28:20 PM
Well there's really only two ways to make a Bush movie, and neither of them would suit everyone.  Make it look like he's a total inept failure of a president (and a businessman for that matter), and people would say it's liberally-slanted.  Or make him look like a hero in the war on terror, and people would say it's conservatively-slanted.  Going by the article, it sounds like they'll try to be fair, but there will always be somebody crying bias.

From my most objective standpoint as possible, considering Bush's job approval rating is so low anyway, I believe lower than Nixon's and the lowest for any president ever at this point, I don't think many people would want to see anything that put him in a positive light as president, cause then it'd definately look slanted.  That'd be like making a movie about Nixon which makes him look like a swell guy.  Nobody'd really want to see that.

More importantly though, why the heck is anyone even making a movie about Bush when he's not even out of office yet?  Wait about 10 years, let history pronounce judgement, and make your movie then, when the subject can be seen from a complete perspective.



Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on January 23, 2008, 04:53:52 PM
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23098129-401,00.html

While I don't always outright accept all political accusations from organizations, despite their claims of being non-profit or whatever else they may be, in this case I don't really doubt this too greatly.  I might contest the actual number, since who knows what things they're counting as lies.  But let's face it, everyone knows this administration is corrupt.  It's not a republican/democrat issue, it's about a bunch of people doing shady things who should be held accountable.  Unfortunately, they've granted themselves immunity on so many issues (big surprise) that it may never happen.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 01, 2008, 03:40:48 PM
With Edwards out, and the three Republicans being liberals in disguise this has become one difficult election. Is anyone switching sides, voting for the lesser of two evils, or just sitting this one out?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 01, 2008, 04:38:25 PM
As far as Hillary vs Barack goes, I'd probably pick the latter.  Between Ron Paul/Huckabee/Romney/McCain, that's pretty much a no-brainer for me.  Ron Paul has no chance, so one is left with McCain.  Huckabee is a religous hypocrite playing to the bible crowd, so there's no way I'd vote for him.  Romney is basically nothing but a pretty-boy, who'd act sweet to your face and then stab your back.

When it comes to McCain vs Barack though, I don't think I'd vote Republican.  McCain acknowledges climate change and wants to fix it, but he's also for staying in this war forever which I think is crazy.  We need to be dealing with our own problems right now instead of policing the world, and I think just about any Republican we'd elect, short of Ron Paul, is going to continue Bush's current policies as far as the middle east goes.  We can't afford this shit right now, quite simply.

Also, how about Romney's plan for dealing with illegal immigrants?  We let them know they're going to be exported, and give them like 30-90 days to get their affairs straightened out.  If they have kids in school, we let them finish the school year.  And maybe even stay for extended periods for some circumstances.  Cause I mean, I'm sure people who have already snuck into this country illegally and are good at hiding aren't just going to drift off into the woodwork again as soon as they know they could be sent back, am I right?  -o-;;;;  We already have a decent policy for dealing with illegals.  We ship them back when we find them, which is usually when they've done something wrong to get caught in the first place.

But yeah I digress.  In a nutshell, economy is shit, stop spending money to fix other countries we're blowing up and use it to fix our own.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 01, 2008, 05:49:38 PM
I found a really good link. http://www.votechooser.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos This just cracked me up the other day.

I wonder if Susan Storm does Romney's hair? I cant support a Republican who doesn't believe in the second ammendment, yet owns a gun? Hypocracy much?What's up with that?

Mc Cain, well what can I say other then Hell No. He's being endorsed by Leiberman who is the reason why I became a Republican in the first place.He cant even say the word z visa anymore, much less explain what it is which was his favorite topic last summer.

As far as fuckabee goes,I don't know... Like I said this is a real tough election. Huckabees a nut, and I don't think he'll last after super tuesday, Ron Paul will be done. Huckabee only has one liberal backing him (That I know of) so i'll give him that much. I'm voting, who I don't know yet.  ???


 


 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 01, 2008, 07:19:34 PM
lol I forgot to link this earlier

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/01/coulter-wants-clinton-over-mccain/

Ann Coulter tries so hard to get attention by smearing people even on her own side.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 09, 2008, 12:03:29 AM
Fox News is at it again.  They love to "accidentally" label Republicans that they don't like as Democrats, and now it's McCain's turn (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/07/fox-news-labels-john-mccain-a-democrat/).



Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on February 12, 2008, 07:16:21 PM
Hooray for shitty government.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act revision was passed (http://techdirt.com/articles/20080128/13385894.shtml), allowing more warrantless spying, as well as retroactive immunity to the telecoms for letting the government do it.  McCain voted for it, Obama voted against it, and Hillary didn't even show up.  Where my vote will go gets clearer and clearer.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Mage on February 13, 2008, 02:22:37 AM
Down the toilet, you mean?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on February 17, 2008, 10:04:57 PM
I think this time I'm going vote Pete Rose.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on April 22, 2008, 09:42:25 PM
Topic revival. I officially want to throw up now.
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 28, 2008, 11:17:34 PM
This is the one I saw originally.

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmpsUMdTH8


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on April 29, 2008, 02:05:03 PM
I figured theyd have something new as summer approaches. What you don't see behind that couch are their private jets.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 29, 2008, 06:23:00 PM
I think it's a good way to get attention to an important matter though.  I know I certainly did a double take when I saw Sharpton and Pat Robertson sitting side by side for anything when I first saw the commercial. 


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on April 29, 2008, 08:27:27 PM
At first I thought the Gingrich and pelosi one had been done with computers, then after a while I found it was really them. The thing that bugs me about these commercials is they act like "Climate Crisis" is fact. I'm all for saving the environment but nobody seem to remember a little something called "Global Cooling."


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on April 30, 2008, 03:13:44 PM
The fact that the earth is getting warmer and ice is melting and all that isn't really debated much anymore.  Even the Bush administration is finally grudgingly admitting there's a problem.  And we have commercials like this now with both liberals and conservatives talking about it.  The biggest thing that's really still debated by some, and mostly still just in America, is whether it's man-made or not.  And I find it a bit hard to believe that we could pump billions of tons of crap into the atmosphere over decades and not expect consequences.  We already saw that we're capable of destroying the ozone layer.  That alone should have been proof enough to skeptics that man is indeed capable of altering the planet.

Despite any of that though, we pollute way too much.  There's lots of advantages to fixing that problem, regardless of any climate issues.  My town has its share of large factories, and the air here plain stinks sometimes (quite literally), and likely causes lots of respiratory problems for people with asthma and such.  It's just silly in my opinion not to try and reduce emissions now that we have the technology to do so, regardless of the climate problem.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Mage on May 01, 2008, 03:16:29 AM
Personally, I'm of the 'Climate change is going to happen anyway, we just accelerated the process' crowd. And quite through caring, too. Let humanity go extinct, we'd do the world a big favor.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on May 01, 2008, 03:19:47 AM
I agree that we can altar the planet. I’m not ready to blame everything on man kind just yet. The New York Times tried using the same scare tactics Al Gore likes to use to convince us Global warming is a threat when they were covering global cooling way back in 1895. They switched from cooling, to warming, then to cooling, as the temperature rose or lowered over a hundred year span. It wasn’t just New York Times either. Global Warming really isn't anything new.

Each newspaper that printed on it back then had their own apocalyptic predictions. Now if you’ve noticed we’ve gone from global warming to climate crisis in a matter of months.  I just cant buy this impending doom story from a man who received a D and C+ in “Natural Science.” I'm also not saying we shouldn't do anything to bring down the emissions, or fix the pollution either.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on May 01, 2008, 06:54:53 AM
I'm pretty sure Global warming is now a well proven fact, also that humans had a hand in this one, since the Earth constantly warms and cools over millions of years, the changes get more or less drastic, here's the thing, humanity is just seeing the beginning of it, if an ice age did kill the dinosaurs, then either we're heading for some hot/dry times, or aome really cold frigging times.  Either way, it's not for another million years or so, we'll all die of cancer first.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on May 01, 2008, 11:31:06 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/30/oreilly-invade-iraq/

ORLY fails at reality as usual


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on May 01, 2008, 01:54:41 PM
This just made my day. How do you expect to run the country when you cant even work a simple coffee machine? Ha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C9bkuJliMY


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on May 29, 2008, 04:08:49 AM
Score one for us.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/19-year-old-gamer-becomes-mayor-of-oklahoma-town/1215787


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 04, 2008, 02:18:11 PM
lol Jon Stewart makes Karl Rove, O'Reilly, and some other Republican puppets look like the hypocrites they are (http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html).  Using their own footage.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 06, 2008, 10:35:51 AM
Comparison of the top words used by both parties (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/04/us/politics/20080905_WORDS_GRAPHIC.html).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 06, 2008, 07:28:01 PM
Fox News repeating 2004 all over again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c)

This isn't exactly political, but I know some people accuse Dan Rather of being liberal and all that, so I reckon I'll put it here.  Anyway, Dan rips on modern media for pretty much just being after money instead of news these days (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHYR12doXg).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Buzzard on September 07, 2008, 12:33:49 PM
Despite any of that though, we pollute way too much.  There's lots of advantages to fixing that problem, regardless of any climate issues.  My town has its share of large factories, and the air here plain stinks sometimes (quite literally), and likely causes lots of respiratory problems for people with asthma and such.  It's just silly in my opinion not to try and reduce emissions now that we have the technology to do so, regardless of the climate problem.

This is what I've been trying to explain to people for a long time. Regardless of whether we're screwing up the environment, all the crap we put into the air can't be good. If we can get cleaner energy and be more environmentally friendly, where's the harm in doing it?


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on September 07, 2008, 03:11:25 PM
In the meantime I don’t see what the big deal is about drilling short term for natural gas until we can switch to alternative energy sources. Oil companies store the stuff in huge amounts which means it could be released for use within a year. It burns cleaner then oil, and we have a large supply of it.
With new technology being developed every day we have much more cleaner, safer ways of pulling the stuff out. Natural gas itself is real cheap, I don’t mind paying a little bit more in the future because were not giving our money to the middle east. Instead of giving them billions of our dollars every year we can use that money to fix the economy as well as the environment. The only thing standing in our way is Nancy Pelosi who thinks she’s the new Captain Planet


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 07, 2008, 05:17:17 PM
EDIT: Oop, you said natural gas, not oil.  Let me edit.

Yeah, that T. Boone Pickens guy wants to use our natural gas for transportation.  But apparently the key to doing that is to stop using it for everything else.  I know he has a big stake in wind power, but if he wants to make a bunch of profits off of clean energy, then more power to him.  As for how we'd actually go about using the natural gas for transportation, that's a whole nother story.  I don't know what would be involved to run vehicles off of it.


Anyway, on a funnier note, Conan sent Triumph to the RNC.  I got quite a few laughs from it, and I normally don't find Triumph quite so funny..!

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKwesxb83c4)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eneq0jcMlTw)


And more news on Sarah Palin's avoidance of all media, and the campaign's bullshit excuses for it (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-media-a-2.html).  Translation: "She doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground, and we can't let you ask her any questions that would make you realize that."


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on September 11, 2008, 12:38:42 AM
The word Flip Flop has been thrown around a lot lately. Remember when there was that big issue about cows farts putting out more methane gas then cars or whatever the heck it was? The same people telling us cows are bad, are now telling us to eat less meat. One day a week, then carry on from there. Now if Cows are killing the planet, wouldn't eating them be saving the world?  ::)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink



Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 12, 2008, 09:59:09 PM
McCain trying to cover up Palin's earmarks (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/mccain-palin-view/).  I wonder what he'll say when confronted about how like 7 of his 8 advisors are lobbyists, yet part of his platform is that he's going to stop lobbyists and special interests from controlling congress.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on September 12, 2008, 10:15:44 PM
Demo-Cat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZaHDtgReI)
Pre-publican (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzAjefO8cDQ&feature=related)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 21, 2008, 09:45:51 AM
Welp, they're already trying to neuter the debates (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin), to give a newbie like Palin a better chance of not coming off as a complete inexperienced moron.  I guess Putin, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, Chavez, etc etc, would be equally polite and easy on her if she ever became in charge, you know.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on September 21, 2008, 12:47:15 PM
Quote
I guess Putin, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, Chavez, etc etc, would be equally polite and easy on her if she ever became in charge, you know.

Unless of course you were to talk to them without pre conditions, and refer to Iran as just a small country that's not a threat. That's to bad their neutering the debates, I want them to give Biden every available chance to open his mouth and say something stupid like "Raising taxes is the patriotic thing to do.It's neighborly" 

A list of Obamas earmarks. That's a lot of millions to add up there. I dont know if the $15 million to Trinity United are included in that list. I wouldn't be surprised if you added up all these numbers theyd come out to be equal or more then Palins. None of these guys can really throw stones at eachother when it comes to pork spending.

http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=172&p_created=1205426026&p_sid=TNlxoC-i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MSwxJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on September 21, 2008, 08:33:20 PM
The difference being, 9000 people to something like 20,000.  Sure they've both spent money, but it goes more to HOW they spend it as opposed to how much.  With so many fewer people, Palin should have spent a lot less, especially for how rural her constituancy is.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 23, 2008, 09:21:04 PM
Palin had a hard time showing up at the office, only having done so 15% of the time apparently. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13736.html)


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on September 28, 2008, 10:28:40 AM
Maybe McCain did pick a good running mate for him, because he has a bad attendance record too (http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_31898/title_McCain-Has-Worst-Attendance-Record-in-Washington/).

Here's some fact checking about the debate (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080927/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debate_factcheck_7). 

The newest SNL skit of Tina Fey as Palin (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/).


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on October 02, 2008, 01:08:42 AM
In case some kind of tomfoolery goes down that prevents you from being able to vote (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Report_cites_partisan_manipulation_in_voter_1001.html), check out provisional ballots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot).  Might not make any difference, but if they tried to "purge" me for some bullshit reason, I'd cast a provisional one anyway.  To cause them extra trouble if nothing else~!


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: Bluejay on November 05, 2008, 08:56:50 AM
We all know it by now... Obama won the election, I'm just posting it here cause... I can.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 06, 2008, 12:01:16 AM
We baracked the vote amirite.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: FyberOptic on November 08, 2008, 06:22:52 PM
A kind of unexpected interview of Al Gore by Kevin Rose (previously on Tech TV, now creator of Digg.com, etc) (http://current.com/topics/77022282_digg).  Even covers a Manbearpig and Futurama question.


Title: Re: Political Pigpin
Post by: ecto on February 12, 2009, 04:23:50 AM
This is Chuck Shumer. He doesn't think Americans care what goes into the stimulus bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw