| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
I'll cut 'n' paste too. :) Arbitron shocker: Franken beats Limbaugh Boy, talk about burying the lead. In its Monday profile of the new liberal talk radio network Air America, the New York Times spent so much time dwelling on the financial woes that have reportedly plagued the start-up company that it wasn't until the 15th paragraph that readers learned this bombshell: Talk radio novice Al Franken's new Air America show beat conservative kingpin Rush Limbaugh in New York City where the two go head-to-head every weekday afternoon from noon to three o'clock. That's according to preliminary Arbitron rating estimates for April. Heard in New York on WLIB-AM, whose ratings were virtually non-existent prior to switching over to Air America's programming earlier this year, Franken and the rest of Air America's 10 a.m-to-3 p.m lineup grabbed a 3.4 rating among listeners age 25-to-54. By contrast, Limbaugh who has been the most highly rated political talk show host in America for the last decade, and who is heard in New York on talk radio powerhouse WABC, lead the station to just a 3.2 rating. There's more (although the Times forgot to mention it): Among listeners 18-to-34, Franken and WLIB won in a knockout, garnering a 2.9 ratings share compared to WABC's dismal 0.4 showing. -- Eric Boehlert |
is that worse than being too naive to seriously consider such an operation might actually be in play? i'm sure i'm not the only one with suspicions. |
Here's a scary tidbit: Rush says Democrats have no souls. This comes on the heels of right wingers like Ann Coulter saying that democrats are treasonous and Mike Savage saying that the sedition act should be reinstated. Now, why is that scary, and not just loony, you ask? I think the shitstorm is coming, no matter what happens in the election. Call me paranoid, but it seems that the groundwork is being laid to make a Rawanda style genocide or Stalinist style pogroms to happen in the US. If it was some kook in the wilderness saying liberals were treasonous and democrats have no soul, I'd think nothing of it. But these are established conservative figures, with tens of millions of listeners and readers. And they keep saying these things...over and over... |
spunk listened that garbage but I cant imagine him actually believing liberals are soul less. |
|
what gets me is that tidy little talking point about how we don't support our troops by badmouthing the president. HEY! IT'S A FUCKING ELECTION! ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO LAVISH PRAISE UPON YOUR OPPOSITION? ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO WITHDRAW COMPLETELY? it's fucking ridiculous. show me the precedent for a "wartime" president running unopposed so that the troops would feel better supported. why doesn't someone come back with a response like that? |
|
|
I'd be more inclined to support our government if they allowed our media (hrm... is this enforced censorship or what?) to view the actual happenings. I remember the day this whole mess (in Iraq) started. I was just getting off a break and heading back to the department when a man stopped me, looking for American flags. "I'm a pacifist and all, but I want to show my support for our troops." Bullshit. Waving a flag doesn't prove anything. |
soooooooooooo.... we're bleeding hearts.... AND we're soulless? |
Unless it's a magic flag! |
|
Scumbags Scumbags |
O'REILLY: Finally, the ACLU -- we talked about this yesterday and I -- and, you know, I have to pick on the ACLU because they're the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now. There's by far. There's nobody even close to that. They're, like, second next to Al Qaeda. From the June 2 broadcast of FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor: O'REILLY: "Talking Points" wants you to know that we are rapidly losing freedom in America. Judges are overruling the will of the people, and fascist organizations like the ACLU are imposing their secular will. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3 - 2 to reach a compromise with the ACLU to remove the cross |
|
Bleeding hearts... soulless... why not? It's a difficult angle that may be very exciting to watch. |
what's next? officially change the name from Los Angeles to LA? God forbid! There's a goddamn reference to Angels in the city name! Holy Crap, Athiest Warriors and Fundementalist Christians alike! Up and down the coast of California are cities named for Saints! Christianity and Polytheism in one! The horror! suck a shit covered prosthetic goat's penis. |
|
What do you do with members of a terrorist organization? You hunt them down and kill them, right? So what should we do to members of the ACLU? So, according to O'Reilly they're "almost" terrorists. According to Savage they're insane seditionists. According to Coulter they're treasonous. And according to Rush they have no soul. What does that all add up to? |
To the neo-cons, if you're not standing up for Christianity all the time, you're against them. |
Bobby stood up and said: "I have four questions: 1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore? 2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden? 3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to destroy civil liberties? 4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" Just then the bell went off and the kids were sent out to play. Upon returning, Mr. Ashcroft said: "I am sorry we were interrupted. I will now answer any questions you have." A little girl named Julie stood up and said: "I have six questions: 1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore? 2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden? 3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to destroy civil liberties? 4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? 5. Why did the bell ring 20 minutes early? 6. Where is Bobby?" |
|
Cooking the books on terror The State Department finally admits that its report on terrorist activity since 2001 -- which showed improvement under Bush -- was marred by bad data funneled to it by other White House agencies. Sound familiar? - - - - - - - - - - - - By Joe Conason June 11, 2004 | Did the Bush administration manipulate statistics to exaggerate the president's success in the war on terrorism? For George W. Bush, the public perception that he can protect the nation from terrorists is among his last remaining strengths in recent polls that show him losing the confidence of most voters -- and the White House is naturally determined to preserve that advantage. Now administration officials are admitting that an official government report, which featured data showing a remarkable decline in terror since 2001, is marred by bad numbers and inaccurate conclusions. Nobody has confessed to massaging the numbers for political gain, and nobody ever will. But under pressure from congressional and academic critics, administration officials announced Thursday that substantial errors marred the accuracy of the State Department's report on terrorist incidents and perpetrators -- and that its hyped conclusions must be substantially revised. Under a mandate from Congress, the State Department issues an annual report titled "Patterns of Global Terrorism" that is widely regarded as authoritative by diplomats and experts. Although the report's interpretations have always been subject to argument over the past two decades, particularly in its designation of "state sponsors of terrorism," the underlying facts cited in its pages have rarely been disputed. On April 29, the department released the report's 2003 edition with considerable fanfare. Presenting its optimistic findings at a special press conference were Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Ambassador at Large J. Cofer Black, the former CIA official who serves as the department's coordinator for counterterrorism. While acknowledging that terror continues to take a terrible toll, Armitage emphasized that the United States is fighting back with a worldwide coalition of allies. "Indeed," he said, "you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight." The "evidence" he cited was certainly impressive, and came complete with colorful bar graphs and charts. According to the report's summary, the number of terror attacks dropped last year to its lowest level since 1969 and had fallen by nearly half since the dark days of 2001. The report suggested that the American-led coalition has struck back very effectively against al-Qaida and its radical Islamist network. Perhaps Armitage, Cofer and the bureaucrats who issued the report believed that it was sound. But as it came under closer scrutiny, the findings quickly fell apart. The moment of truth came on May 17. A sharp Washington Post opinion piece by Princeton economist Alan Krueger and Stanford political scientist David Laitin sliced "Patterns 2003" to shreds. Their review showed that the "number of significant terrorist acts increased from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003," or 36 percent, and that "the number of terrorist events has risen each year since 2001, and in 2003 reached its highest level in more than 20 years." The professors accused the government of concocting a misleading picture by combining the statistics for all "terrorist" acts, whether or not they were "significant." The number of "nonsignificant" terrorist incidents dropped -- but as the professors noted drily, that fact is itself "nonsignificant" and was used to create a phony statistic. By the State Department's own standards, its conclusions were false. The same day, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell complaining about the terror report. As Waxman pointed out, the analysts who compiled the data on "significant terrorist events" had closed their books for 2003 on a curious date. Instead of including every incident up till Dec. 31, they had included none that occurred after Nov. 11. That decision, which supposedly reflected printing deadlines, rather conveniently excluded several deadly incidents -- notably the multiple deadly bombings in Istanbul that killed dozens and wounded hundreds on Nov. 15 and 20. To the State Department's credit, its response to Waxman's criticism was swift and candid by administration standards. The statement issued by spokesman Richard Boucher credited the Los Angeles Democrat and noted that the department itself "did not check and verify the data sufficiently." While the department's revisions aren't ready yet, Boucher also noted that "our preliminary results indicate that the figures for the number of attacks and casualties will be up sharply from what was published." Still, a careful reader of Boucher's advisory might notice that the State Department sought to spread the blame for this unprecedented, deeply embarrassing fiasco. Without excessive subtlety, the State spokesman pointed toward other agencies: "The data in the report was compiled by the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which was established in January 2003 and includes elements from the CIA, FBI and Departments of Homeland Security and Defense." The new TTIC and the Department of Homeland Security, of course, are Bush creations that have been staffed and organized by the White House. Less publicized are the conclusions reached by the Congressional Research Service, whose analysts were asked last winter to determine the total number of al-Qaida attacks during the 30 months preceding 9/11 and the number since then. The answer was that only four attacks were attributed to al-Qaida before 9/11, and only one during the immediately preceding 30 months. During the 30 months that followed 9/11, the best estimate is that al-Qaida perpetrated 10 attacks. It remains to be seen whether the State Department holds a press conference to announce the bad news when the revised edition of "Patterns of Global Terror 2003" is ready for publication. Or whether the news media, suddenly intoxicated by coverage of the Reagan burial, will find the time to report the unflattering facts. |
Army intelligence will soon be allowed to spy on US citizens again... |
|
|
ann coulter challenged. |
|
Maybe her statement goes with the stereotype that so many jews renounce their faith. So by her standards, David Cross is also an anti-semite. And lets not forget Krusty the Klown. I believe O'Reilly has been likening him to Goebbels as well. They don't do a whole lot of research before they slander people these days. |
look at his new internet video, "Coalition of the Wild-eyed" its more of an attack on himself, in more ways than one. They show all these attacks on Bush, all in the context of an attack ad on the Democrats, and at the end Bush says "its a time for positivity". An attack ad about Bush being positive. And 75% of Bush's ads so far... have been negative. Oh lordy lordy thats funny |
Now here they are doing the same thing, lying about it, and no apologies. Fucking hypocrites. in other news: Just when you thought you were done, they pull you back in Boy, those guys are gonna be PISSED. Funny that the military just discharged about 700 people for violating "don't ask, don't tell" but they're doing this. |
we would be so fucked don't mind me, it's just that kind of day |
Drudge cracks me up. Developing.... |
|
That was great! Emotions are welling up inside me right now... |
Now this is just a slap in the face to the public. You'd have to be pretty naive to accept this excuse. If spunk is around maybe he can clear this up, in the army, isnt it generally that there are at least TRIPLICATES OF EVERYTHING????? |
A documentary about Fox News. Watch the clips |
listen to the Nader/Dean debate |
Funny how Republicans look at Zell Miller as some big coup. HA! Take him! and while you're at it, take Lieberman too! Democrats give Ron Reagan prime time speaking slot Kerry aide: Late president's son to address stem cell research Kelly Wallace Sunday, July 11, 2004 Ron Reagan will speak in prime time at the Democratic National Convention on the importance of stem cell research, a senior adviser to presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry told CNN on Sunday. The Kerry adviser, who did not want to be identified, said the appearance of the younger son of the late former President Ronald Reagan came about after "overtures were made by both sides -- friends of both." The adviser did not say on which night Reagan, 46, will speak. The four-day convention kicks off July 26 in Boston, Massachusetts. Ron Reagan, a self-described liberal whose political views were often at odds with his conservative Republican father, has said publicly that he does not support President Bush's re-election. Reagan raised eyebrows during his father's burial service in June when he said in his eulogy that his father "never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians, wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage." Many observers thought the remark was aimed at Bush, who often speaks publicly of the role faith plays in his life. Reagan later told CNN that he did not set out to take a dig at Bush, though after so many other people made that connection, "I began to think maybe I was. I just didn't know it." Bush has limited the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, citing moral and ethical concerns about performing experiments with fertilized human embryos. Proponents of such research insist those restrictions interfere with efforts to develop new treatments for a variety of diseases, including Alzheimer's, which slowly killed the former president. Former first lady Nancy Reagan has also called on Bush to reverse course on his stem cell policy. A Bush campaign official said it was not surprising that a liberal would be speaking at the Democratic National Convention, and noted that Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia would speak at the Republican National Convention, which begins August 30 in New York City. The Kerry adviser said Reagan's appearance at the convention would communicate to the American people that the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Sen. John Edwards "won't put ideology in front of sound science and let politics get in the way of what is best for the American people." The adviser also said Reagan's speech would have "big appeal" to independents. But the Bush campaign official predicted that the remarks by Miller -- who supported key parts of Bush's agenda -- would resonate more with independents. |
delay of election should there be a terrorist attack? |