And off in the distance, we see a tiny glimmer of hope, and my faith in the system is temporarily renewed. (For an instant...)

Supreme Court Affirms Detainees' Right to Use Courts
By David Stout for the NY Times.

The Supreme Court ruled today that people being held by the United States as enemy combatants can challenge their detention in American courts — the court's most important statement in decades on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

The justices declared their findings in three rulings, two of them involving American citizens and the other addressing the status of foreigners being held at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Taken together, they were a significant setback for the Bush administration's approach to the campaign against terrorism that began on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote. She and seven other justices held that the detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a native-born United States citizen seized in Afghanistan in 2001, was invalid for constitutional or statutory reasons. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from that basic position.

Justice O'Connor wrote that the campaign against terrorism notwithstanding, "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

In the Guantánamo case, the court ruled, 6 to 3, that federal courts have the jurisdiction to consider challenges to the custody of foreigners. The finding repudiated a central argument of the administration.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/politics/28CND-SCOT.html?hp

Supreme Court Affirms Detainees' Right to Use Courts
By DAVID STOUT

Published: June 28, 2004

WASHINGTON, June 28 — The Supreme Court ruled today that people being held by the United States as enemy combatants can challenge their detention in American courts — the court's most important statement in decades on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

The justices declared their findings in three rulings, two of them involving American citizens and the other addressing the status of foreigners being held at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Taken together, they were a significant setback for the Bush administration's approach to the campaign against terrorism that began on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote. She and seven other justices held that the detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a native-born United States citizen seized in Afghanistan in 2001, was invalid for constitutional or statutory reasons. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from that basic position.

Justice O'Connor wrote that the campaign against terrorism notwithstanding, "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

In the Guantánamo case, the court ruled, 6 to 3, that federal courts have the jurisdiction to consider challenges to the custody of foreigners. The finding repudiated a central argument of the administration.

"Aliens at the base, like American citizens, are entitled to invoke the federal courts' authority," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. "United States courts have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens."

The dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

And in the other case involving an American citizen, José Padilla, the court ruled on what at first glance was a technical issue: that Mr. Padilla filed his habeas corpus petition in the wrong court. A 5-to-4 majority said he should have filed in federal court in South Carolina, since he has been held in a brig in Charleston, rather than in the Southern District of New York.

The majority said, too, that the proper target for his case is not Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld but, rather, Cmdr. Melanie Marr, who is in charge of the brig. "This rule serves the important purpose of prevent forum shopping by habeas petitioners," the majority held.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion, joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justices John Paul Stevens wrote an emotional dissent that was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Stevens wrote that there was ample precedent for finding that the Southern District of New York, where a material-witness warrant was first issued for Mr. Padilla, was the proper court to take up the case, and he lamented that the majority seemed to sidestep the main issues.

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society," Justice Stevens wrote. "For if this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

The American Civil Liberties Union called the rulings historic and said they embodied "a strong repudiation of the administration's arguments that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts."

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, "reaffirms that even in a time of war, the president does not have the authority to act as a tyrant."

Although the cases of Mr. Hamdi, Mr. Padilla and the Guantánamo detainees all arose from the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and weighed national security against personal liberty, they were considerably different from one another in circumstances.

Supreme Court Affirms Detainees' Right to Use Courts

Published: June 28, 2004

(Page 2 of 2)

The Guantánamo case involved foreigners: about 600 men of various nationalities seized in Afghanistan and Pakistan during operations against the Taliban; 16 of the detainees, all maintaining their innocence, filed suit. Their case, Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, named for the detainee Shafiq Rasul, was argued before the justices on April 20.

Besides the basic issue in their case, there was a secondary but still vital question involving the status of Guantánamo Bay itself.

Since a 1950 Supreme Court case has been interpreted to mean that enemy combatants held outside the United States have no right to habeas corpus, the detainees had to show through their lawyers that Guantánamo Bay is functionally, if not formally, part of the United States.

On the one hand, a long-ago treaty with Cuba said that it retained sovereignty over the base. On the other hand, the treaty also said that the United States exercised jurisdiction and control.

In any event, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the detainees — a position that the Supreme Court rejected today.

The majority noted that the 1950 case cited by the administration involved German citizens captured by United States forces in China, then tried and convicted of war crimes by an American military commission in Nanking, and finally imprisoned in occupied Germany.

In contrast, the Supreme Court majority noted today, the Guantánamo detainees are not only held in territory arguably under United States control but they also have not had their guilt or innocence determined, unlike the Germans of a half-century ago, and have been held without formal charges.

Justice Scalia's dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, was as emotional in tone as was Justice Stevens's dissent in the other direction in the Padilla case. The majority's holding in the Guantánamo case was so reckless as to be "breathtaking," Justice Scalia asserted.

Justice Scalia went on to declare that the majority's position needlessly upset settled law, and was particularly harmful in a time of war. "The commander in chief and his subordinates had every reason to expect that the internment of combatants at Guantánamo Bay would not have the consequence of bringing the cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs," he wrote.

As for the Hamdi and Padilla cases, although they both involve American citizens, the similarities largely end there. For one, Mr. Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, where the Bush administration contends he was fighting for the Taliban. (His father asserted that he had gone to Afghanistan to do relief work.) Mr. Padilla was arrested at O'Hare Airport in Chicago.

Their cases, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03-6696, and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, No. 03-1027, were argued together on April 28, having reached the Supreme Court by opposite paths.

Mr. Hamdi's lawyers were appealing a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond. That court held last year that Mr. Hamdi was entitled to challenge his detention by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. But the Fourth Circuit dismissed his petition after holding that the government had provided ample justification for classifying him an enemy combatant.

In the Padilla case, the government brought the appeal to the Supreme Court in hope of overturning a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York City. Citing a law passed by Congress in 1971 to prohibit the detention of citizens without explicit authorization by Congress, the Second Circuit found that the president was without authority to detain Mr. Padilla, despite the Congressional resolution authorizing military force after the Sept. 11 attacks.

This is from the June 21, 2004 program.

Stewart: "Mr. Vice President, I have to inform you: You're pants are on fire."

Cheney said he never stated that it was "pretty well confirmed" that meetings had taken place between Saddam's Officials and Al Queda members. The Daily Show dug up the Meet the Press coverage from December 9, 2001 that proves otherwise.

As a blogger and "traditional" journalist, I always hesitate to throw the word "lie" around unless I can validate my statement. How wonderful that we live in an age where I can present my case and back it up with evidence all on one interactive medium (for those that have quicktime, anyway...)

I also had the luxury of having the Daily Show With Jon Stewart to do my homework for me.

Here's the Complete Video Clip of the contradicting statements as presented within this larger daily show clip. (The larger clip also contains footage of the Shrub and Rummy making excuses for their past inaccurate statements.)

Here'sa tiny clip of Cheney denying he ever said the meeting was "pretty well confirmed.
(Source: CNBC)

CNBC: "You have said in the past that it was quote "pretty well confirmed."

Cheney: "No, I never said that. Never said that. Absolutely not."

Here's a little clip of the Meet the Press footage
where he clearly did say just that such a meeting was "pretty well confirmed."
(Source: Meet The Press, December 9, 2001)

Cheney: "It's been pretty well confirmed, that he didn't go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior Official of the Iraqi Intelligence service."

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from the June 21, 2004 program.

These should be up by 1pm CA time today. (Uploading now.) I've got to run.

Here's the interview with Stephen F. Hayes, the guy who wrote The Connection, the new book claiming that there's a connection between 911 and Saddam.

Turns out that his book is based on a single report by none other than Douglas Feith -- the Shrub's Undersecretary of defense, and one of the most notorious members within the Administration known for helping companies he used to work for to cash in on the Iraqi Gold Rush. (See the Bill Moyers Story all about it.

Bill Moyers On The Insider Business Deals Between Shrub Administration Officials And Iraqi Reconstruction Companies

Specifically, between Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense and several companies (many related to his "former" business associate Marc Zell), including: Zell, Goldberg and Company, Diligence, New Bridge Strategies, Barber, Griffith and Rogers, SAIC (courtesy of current Shrub Administration Official and former SAIC Senior Vice President Ryan Henry), and The Iraqi International Law Group.

Anyway,
Here's the interview in two parts.

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from the June 14, 2004 program.

Colin Powell was on Meet the Press apologizing for this last weekend -- the Shrub Administration released a War On Terror update report that had 8 pages of errors and retractions and lots of other questionable material throughout.

(Colin said he wasn't a "happy camper" having to apologize for it.)

The Shrub's Bogus Terror Report (Small - 9 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

I'll be linking to them over the course of the day. But here's the directory where you can look for them (whether I've linked to them or not)

Update 11:30 pm - didn't get to this today. Not sure when I will get to it because I'll soon be offline for a couple days. But I'm going to try to generate some more clips before I go.--lr

I tend to have about a 2-4 day lag in uploading something and linking to it. Sorry.

http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/

There's also an interview with Tim Russert in there in the May directory....

I had just signed up for a PayPal account too, and was in the process of verifying my bank account. Now I think I don't want to get involved with these guys.

Mark Perkel learned this the hard way, when PayPal gave his account "limited" status after deciding it didn't like some of the content on his website. Furthermore, right before it shut down his account, it reversed a deposit that one of his clients had transferred to his PayPal account, but it did not return the money to his client's bank account after removing it from Perkel's bank account.

According to PayPal's User Agreement, (It's probably the Accessible Use policy regarding adult material that he violated.), if it chooses to make your account "limited," (PayPal has the authorization to do so at any time based on its own discretion), it can and will hold the funds in your PayPal account for 180 days.

Turns out that money is in limbo until Perkel writes PayPal in a secure email on its website and asks for this to be done explicitly. This is despite the fact that he asked them to do so over the phone. (And why wouldn't they have already done so anyway? - if they were reversing the transaction, when the money left Perkel's account, it should have gone back to where it came from.)

PayPal claims that they hold the money for 180 days to "protect ourselves from potential reversals" to the accounts. But there's a free speech issue here - why is PayPal going around making judgements about it's customers' websites anyway? Who's going to be next? Is your PayPal account something you don't want to keep too much money in at any one time, since they can freeze your account and hold it up for 180 days?

These are the questions going through my mind after listing to this MP3 of Marc Perkel talking to Paypal.

If you're listen to the MP3, and in a hurry, the relevant portion is at about 6 min 50 seconds into it. But if you've got a minute, listen to the whole thing. It's pretty interesting.

So Perkel may have violated their user agreement, but closing his account without giving him a chance to take his money out, and then holding on to not only the money he had in his account, but the money his client had transferred to him the day before the account was closed doesn't seem right.

Marc's started an anti-paypal website, to let people know about his experience, but I'm not telling you to boycott these guys necessarily. I just want you to know about this so you can make your own decision. Maybe there's a perfectly good reason why PayPal works for you. Fine.

(This MP3 might also have some great samples in it for you Dee Jay/Audiophile types. Don't say I didn't tell ya :-)

Here's some information for anyone who is interested in the news story about PayPal and their lawsuit settlement over freezing customer's accounts:

PayPal settles customer suit

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.com.com/PayPal+settles+customer+suit/2100-1038_3-5233490.html

Last modified: June 14, 2004, 4:38 PM PDT
By Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Print story E-mail story Your take

PayPal has reached a preliminary settlement with some customers who accused the eBay unit of illegally freezing their funds.

The company on Friday said it will pay a total of $9.25 million to settle the federal class-action suit, $3.4 million of which will pay lawyers' fees and costs.

PayPal admitted no wrongdoing in settling the claims, which were filed in 2002 as part of two federal class-action suits that also alleged other customer service deficiencies.

Those two cases were merged, and a third case, pending in California state court, will be dismissed if the settlement agreement is approved.

"In this agreement, PayPal does not acknowledge that any of the allegations in the case are true," PayPal said in an e-mail to customers. The unit "entered into the settlement agreement to avoid further costs of litigation and to devote resources to more productive areas of our business."

An attorney for PayPal customers called the settlement a win not only in securing a financial reward, but in changing the way PayPal does business.

"I think we got it right," said Daniel Girard, a partner with Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo in San Francisco. "The settlement provides for cash recovery and also for a series of changes to the operating procedures at PayPal."

Between June and September 2003, while the litigation was still pending, PayPal released $5.1 million in frozen customer funds, Girard said. As part of the settlement, PayPal agreed to change the way it handled dispute resolution.

PayPal acknowledged that the settlement included an injunction mandating certain changes to the company's procedures, but maintained that the modifications had come about independent of the litigation.

"PayPal has always been looking for ways to improve customer service," said company spokeswoman Amanda Pires. The litigation "didn't really change the way PayPal has been operating. We have improved our customer service as part of our normal course of business."

PayPal claims 45 million member accounts around the world.

The settlement was the product of mediation, begun early last fall, before a court-appointed special master. Within a week, the parties plan to file the preliminary settlement with the U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., for approval.

The case involves PayPal customers who used the service between Oct. 1, 1999 and Jan. 31, 2004. European Union residents are excluded.

PayPal said it will publish the allocation plan in July or August. Customers will be informed of settlement terms within two months of the court's preliminary approval.

Here's the text from the website in case the link goes bad:

http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm

PayPal Sucks - Closed my Account - Keeping my Money

I'm in the process of building my PayPal sucks site and this blog entry is the first step. It's the art of being an asshole. I'm sure I'm not the only one that PayPal has ripped off and probably won't be the last - but I will be the one they remember the most.

I got an email today from PayPal that they are closing my account. The reason for closing my account is that they claim they don't like the content of my web site - specifically my site on Sexual Issues where I have my Men's Guide to Escort Services - a guide to interacting with hookers, The Nerd's Guide to Sex - a guide teaching men how to properly have sex with women, and The Shy Girl's Guide to Becoming a Whore - a women's guide to surviving the Bush Ecomony.

So - because they didn't like my web site content they not only decided to cancel my PayPal account - but to also keep my money for 180 days. And - I had transfered my money out of PayPal yesterday - but after closing my account today they reversed yesterday's transaction and are going to steal my money.

The people at PayPay are real mother fuckers. But I to am an asshole and I don't get mad - I get even. Whenever I get screwed by someone I use my talents of being a real prick to turn the tables on them and make them feel the heat.

PayPal claims that according to their End User Agreement that they have the right to close down my account for any reason whatsoever - without any form of recourse - keep my money for 180 days - and there's nothing that I can do about it. Well Paypal you on wrong about that because there's a lot to do about it.

I am a person who values free speech and fights hard against censorship and the Corparations like eBay who owns PayPay who think they can come in and tell ME what I can say on the Internet. Well I say - fuck you PayPal! I will not only keep my right to FREE SPEECH but I will use that right to expose you for what you really are.

Now - for those of you who are reading this - you probably don't entirely grasp the details of what I'm talking about. You think - this is PayPal - they have to be more ethical than that don't they? I say - yes they do. So I called them on the phone about it to get them to explain it to me in their own words. And I RECORDED THE CONVERSTATION IN THIS MP3 FILE SO YOU ALL CAN HERE IT FOR YOURSELF!

First things first. The file you are listening to is edited. But the important content is unaltered. I removed about 20 minutes of on hold messages so that you wouldn't have to sit through the wait time. The rest of it is everything that was said between me and PayPal.

What really fun about this is that I got them to say just exactly what they did to me and how they ripped me off and how they aren't going to do anything to fix it. What you hear is a real life detailed experience that I had and what PayPal's end user agreement really means to you - so that if you are thinking about doing business with PayPal - or you are already a PayPal or eBay customer - you might want to reread that user agreement and see if this is really what you want to be agreeing to.

In the recorded conversation - after getting them to plainly explain how they are screwing me - I anounce to them that I have recorded this phone call - and that I'm going to put it on the Internet. All of a sudden it is them flipping out and screaming about their rights - but - there's nothing they can do about it. You see - I'm not the only one who has no choice. When I dialed up PayPal - the very first thing their machine said was, "This call may be recorded." So - I recorded it. Listen to the squeal about their rights - but I don't give a fuck about their rights because they don't give a fuck about my rights.

The big corps think they hold all the cards - but there are things that we consumers can do to fight back. After all 0 this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not of big corporation who think they can enslave us and walk over us any time they want to. I want this web site to be a turtorial about how people like you and me can stand up to these motherfuckers and show them that the People rule. And we do that by taking money out of their pockets.

Now - there are plenty of other people out there with similar stories of being censored or otherwise ripped off be PayPal and the comment section is open for you to tell your PayPal story. Go ahead and put in links to other PayPay sucks sites and tell us who is better. It's time that the online community organized to move away from unethical corporations like eBay who owns PayPal and find services who will play ball with us on OUR TERMS.

And - I want you to let PayPal know that you saw this web site and let them know what you think aboiut it. Here is an Email Form to tell them - you saw it hear - you listened to the recording - and what you think about it.

One think to keep in mind is - PayPal is not a bank - nor do you have the protection that banks offer. They are also not a credit card company. They act like they are a fiscal instution but Master Card and Visa aren't playing moral police with me. And as you can see - if they decide to take your money - they just take it. Even if you transfer your money out of paypal the day before they close your account.

Also - if you are going to link to this page - don't use the blog url. Use this URL instead:

http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm

Here's another PayPal Warning Site I found.

Other PayPal Sucks Sites:

http://www.paypalsucks.com/
http://www.internationalterrorist.com/paypal.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/05/18/0128201.shtml?tid=126&tid=153&tid=172&tid=93&tid=95&tid=99
http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/12148
http://www.tcj.com/messboard/ubb/Forum1/HTML/007500.html
http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2003/Mar/0040.html
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/02/23/pay_pal/index.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/paypal.html
http://www.aboutpaypal.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paypalperil/
http://www.outofthedark.com/CorporateWars/PayPal/index.html
http://www.ygoodman.com/paypal.asp

What is PayPal?

PayPal is an online service that allows you to email money to other people.

----------------------

Why is my account access limited?

Your account access has been limited for the following reason(s):
# Jun. 13, 2004: In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy, we have closed your account. Your funds may be held for 180 days from the date of your last transaction. After 180 days, you will be able to access your funds by requesting an online bank transfer or, if applicable, a check from PayPal. Please update your address or bank information as we cannot be held responsible for checks issued to an incorrect address. We do ask that you please remove reference(s) to PayPal from your site.

(Your case ID for this reason is PP-040-853-646.)
Posted by marc at June 13, 2004 07:59 PM | TrackBack
Comments

i feel for u mate.. i had my paypal account closed, and by the time i was able to come back to the civilized world to do anything,(was out in the outback) my money, my account all gone.The reason they gave me was inactivity on my account so they took it to themselves to close and wipe my money clean.Your reasons was more obsecure.. wat does an online content (what u write on the net) has anything to do with paypal?

screw them real good!
Posted by: ixnay at June 13, 2004 09:11 PM

Large corporations are all, repeat, all crooked. You will need a website the size of Siberia to contain all the "so and so sucks" information. Let me suggest:

CORPORATIONS SUCK

They are Re-animated Companies. They take a company that has been sold (aka dead) and artificially re-animate it with money from absentee stock-holders. These Frankenstein's Monsters are ruling the world. Nice, huh?

They are evil incarnate. Whaddaya gonna do?
Posted by: Dancho at June 13, 2004 09:49 PM

the URL to the MP3 is 404, bro.

Drew
Posted by: drew niese at June 13, 2004 10:01 PM

As far as the reversal of transaction goes, I think you have a legitimate right to complain.

But I don't think you can call foul as far as PayPal's closing your account is concerned.

From the "User Agreement for PayPal Services":

"This User Agreement ("Agreement") is a contract between you and PayPal, Inc. and applies to your use of the PayPal™ payment service and any related products and services available through www.paypal.com (collectively the "Service"). If you do not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, please do not use or access our Services.

You must read, agree with, and accept all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the Privacy Policy, which include those terms and conditions expressly set out below and those incorporated by reference, before you may become a member of PayPal. We strongly recommend that, as you read this Agreement, you also access and read the information contained in the other pages and websites referred to in this document, as they may contain further terms and conditions that apply to you as a PayPal user. Please note: underlined words and phrases are links to these pages and websites. By accepting this Agreement, you also agree that your use of other PayPal websites and Services will be governed by the terms and conditions posted on those websites."

One of the links is the "Acceptable Use Policy", and one of the examples of prohibited services/sites is "information sites or directories that provide links to adult sites or escort services".

PayPal isn't telling you what you can and can't say on the internet. They're not shutting your site down. Private companies *do* have the right to dictate what their services can and can't be used for.

PayPal didn't close your account because of something so arbitrary as "they don't like the content of your web site". They closed it because you broke terms of usage that you had agreed to when you signed up for their services in the first place.
Posted by: MadBlue at June 14, 2004 03:49 AM

Never, NEVER keep a large balance with Paypal. Damn, 6 months sure seems like a long time to keep somebody's money! That's a helluva float! Whatever happened to 30 days, 60 days, even 90 days? Okay, so 6 months go by and then what - They make your money disappear for inactivity like that poor Aussi who was outback!?
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:14 AM

Hey, that recording was funny as hell. Well, obviously, congress has to legislate laws to protect the consumer against paypal/ebay. I never use paypal when I put something up for auction on ebay. Hey, just imagine, ebay just closed my account for a bullshit infraction. That means that they probably would have frozen my paypal account too.

How's that song go... Alicia, Alicia...la la la la
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:35 AM

I don't buy keeping the money for 6 fucking months to cover potential complaints. I mean, what if they had already sent you the money; how would they cover their complaints then?
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:43 AM

If PAYPAL is acting as any merchant account, they reserve the right to hold funds to handle claims. As a businessman I am not totally bothered by this, if you agree to it. But, I do believe the owner of the account should earn ALL the interest from those funds. Now, I'll go listen to the tape.
Posted by: X-FREEPER at June 14, 2004 06:14 AM

"PayPal still faces probes by the FTC and other states regarding how it does business, including procedures dealing with times when product is not delivered after payment is received, and PayPal's account-freezing policies."

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Mar/gee20040310024206.htmw
Posted by: Babylonian at June 14, 2004 07:51 AM

Mark, I was reading one of your err... other sites...lol....hey, I don't mean to burst your bubble but...BUT... the reason those escorts were telling you that you are so good in bed is because...err.......u were PAYING them and they wanted a tip plus more business in the future.
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 07:57 AM

While less than ethical, what PayPal did was perfectly legal. You agreed to their license agreement in the beginning, obviously without reading the whole thing (but honestly, who does?).

As for tape recording you conversation with PayPal... you're gonna wind up in serious shit. That's recording a phone conversation without expressly telling the other party that the call is being recorded is a felony. If they want to, they can sue you to hell and back if you post that conversation on the internet (like you did). If I were you, I'd get rid of it--it's evidence against you.
Posted by: Mance at June 14, 2004 10:35 AM

No, I think that since Paypal's own recording said that the conversation would be recorded puts Mark in the clear.
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 11:17 AM

Unfortunately, that's not true. The recording said that it is possible that the call may be recorded, but PayPal is required by law to notify all customers of such a recording. IF you argue semantics with a judge, it's not going to help you.
Posted by: Mance at June 14, 2004 01:14 PM

Dude... you got your Paypal logo right there on your site. Gotta get rid of that...
Posted by: Dancho at June 14, 2004 02:55 PM

your blog on Reagan must have offended Paypal.
Posted by: celery at June 14, 2004 05:51 PM

I don't have a problem with Paypal canceling his account, because they're notorious for not dealing with immoral (to them) stuff. Marc's site does push the comfort level (though I find it informative and hilarious, but that's just me.) And, anyway, that's their right. They can do business with whoever they want. And I can do business with whoever I want. No one's forcing people to use Paypal. Plenty of alternatives out there.

But I do have a serious problem with their holding his funds. They should freeze his account, so that he can only move his funds out, and do nothing else. But tying up his cash is, in my opinion, severely unethical. Not sure what can be done about it, though, except spread the word and cost them business. Worked for me. I avoid Paypal whenever possible now.

So--anyway. I'm starting up an Internet business later this year, and need reviews on digital currency, since Paypal is out. Was out a long time ago. I've heard this happen to lots of people. Anybody use e-gold or its competitors? What did you think?

And, yeah, I was wondering about the legality of taping people without their consent/knowledge. Anybody know the relevant statute? What kind of trouble has Marc got himself into?
Posted by: curt at June 14, 2004 05:58 PM

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND
INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

I guess there are states that have a two party notification law..but most states require single...and since you consented at the beginning of the conversation...when they asked...not that there seemed to be a choice offered to you of a press 1 if you consent, or press 2 if you do not...seems to me when they announce it they are just telling you they are and you have no choice.
The recording of the call was good...
Posted by: minerva at June 14, 2004 08:14 PM

Marc, that was the most enjoyable hour I just spent, reading your page and listening to that recording.

Its time big business gets back to basics and realizes just where they get these big bucks from..US. The people. Our little pocketbooks feed their big executive salaries and its time they felt the pinch, just as we have to.

I am cancelling my PayPal account today. Not that my little amount will hurt them, but spreading the word will. I realize that PayPal was bought by eBay, but new auction sites are opening up daily. Competition is good!!!

And to anyone who wants to go the 'moral route', go right ahead! I've been with Ctyme hosting for two years and nothing on Marc's site bothers me at all. AND, I'm a 60 year old lady, widowed and mother to a wonderful young man. If it doesn't bother me, it shouldn't bother anyone!!

You go, Marc!!
Posted by: Nightwalker at June 15, 2004 03:13 AM

Enough paypal already.

You know, after everything the White House has put this country of ours through, Cheney, despite it all, is in Florida perpetuating the lie that there was a link between Al Qaida and Sadam Hussein! This clown makes me want to puke!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_terrorism_1

Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam

Mon Jun 14, 8:00 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer

ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said Monday that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."
Posted by: richard at June 15, 2004 04:09 AM

Paypal closed my account because i received one payment from adult sponsor. I dont put paypal logo or watsoever on my websites and they closed it, leaving $2,800 in it. And they will not restore my account anymore. Paypal sucks! I will not recommend to my friends.
Posted by: Justin at June 15, 2004 05:45 AM

Unbelievable. PayPal doesn't like YOUR free speech, and gets all whiny when you expose their idiocy.

Ass soon as I drain my account, say buh-bye, Pay-former-"Pal"...
Posted by: gino at June 15, 2004 06:19 AM

Hold the account for 180 days for reversals? Yeah Right!

I got ripped off on eBay, payed with Paypal. Suppose to come in 3 days (express). After 7 days didn't show up. Seller's eBay account NARU'ed. Couldn't contact seller so I filed a Buyer complaint to reverse the transaction to get a refund of my money. After a week of Paypal "investigation", Paypal said they couldn't refund my money because there is NO FUNDS in the account! Why coundn't they reverse it?!?!
Posted by: Mr. A at June 15, 2004 11:35 AM

That's because the person closed it of their own volition, so there is no waiting period for reversals. On accounts that have been limited for some reason or another, they install this waiting period because they believe that people who have done something to warrant a closing might have trouble with reversals.
Posted by: Mance at June 15, 2004 03:12 PM

"This call may be recorded."

Not a complicated concept!

"May" implies a grant of permission; "might" implies the possibility of something occurring. (If I say you MAY use the phone, that is very different than saying you MIGHT use the phone. One conveys my approval for your engaging in that particular activity; the other conveys my assessment of your future activities.)

Marc's right, PayPal's wrong, and they (to be frank) are more fucked than Anna Nicole Smith if they think holding funds for 6 months is REASONABLE.

In the age of electronic banking, 180 days is an ETERNITY, and completely indefensible.

In my opinion.

;)

Here's footage of the June 3rd eviction of "Bushville," an encampment of 30 homeless families on the outskirts of Jersey City, NJ, who wished to make a statement about the Shrub's policies and how they are slowly killing American families with the lack of affordable housing in this country. They feel that he is wasting billions of dollars on this senseless war in Iraq while millions of families across the country are wasting away.

The Fall Of Bushville (Quicktime - Small - 29 MB)

"The poor in this country are dying under the policies of George W. Bush, and frankly we can't afford to be invisible. Our lives are at stake here as poor and homeless families across this country and George W. is responsible for that and we can't allow it to continue because our very lives are at stake."

Also mirrored here in my own archive. (For safekeeping)
(Note: this won't be up for a few minutes)

The Fall Of Bushville (Newsbrief)

Man oh man am I pissed. The greatest 60 minutes ever got bumped tonight while they all got together to kiss Reagan's butt for 60 minutes. Damn.

Listen to the show that was supposed to air tonight:

"An FBI whistleblower says that the unit translating information from terrorism suspects deliberately slowed the process; America's power elite and Yale's Skull and Bones Society; the frailty of fingerprint evidence."

That FBI translation story and the skull and bones story better air next week!

Somewhere in the afterlife, Reagan is laughing...

Update 6/5/04 - No, nobody got a clip, and, seemingly, nobody cares.
I also heard Clinton say a couple days ago during some publicity for his book that he "liked" daddy Shrub. So it could have all been in fun anyway.

Hey did anybody grab the clip of Clinton getting pushed by daddy shrub at the WWII Memorial last weekend? This is all I heard about it.

Thanks!!

lisa

Bush I pushes Clinton by kos Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:22:31 EDT

Hmmm, I wasn't watching the WWII Memorial ceremony, but apparently there was a bit of jostling around. Reef the Dog reports in the Open Thread comments:
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43's face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don't know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I'm not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.
I wonder what happened...

Here is the complete thread of:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/29/162231/064

Bush I pushes Clinton
by kos
Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:22:31 EDT

Hmmm, I wasn't watching the WWII Memorial ceremony, but apparently there was a bit of jostling around. Reef the Dog reports in the Open Thread comments:
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43's face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don't know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I'm not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.
I wonder what happened...

Misc ::

Display:
Bush I pushes Clinton | 190 comments (190 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
That was crazy (none / 1)

I saw that as well. I wonder what that was all about.

by BryanRI on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:26:42 EDT

description (none / 1)

Can someone who saw it describe it in more detail? Did Bush I look angry? What was Clinton's expression when he wagged his finger? I hope someone tells us what he was saying. Maybe the mic was on.

Don't understand NY politics? Try The Nor'Easter
by jd in nyc on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:45:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

I saw it (none / 0)

before it happened I was gawking at Clinton there chatting with W, didn't notice Bush I at first because his back was toward the camera a bit. Then they were laughing a bit about something, and Bush I shoved Clinton like you might shove a brother making a good natured joke about you. However, the little group broke up at that moment with W walking off in that "opportunity" sort of way one dodges out of a conversation at a party.

- pyrrho
by pyrrho on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 01:05:08 EDT
[ Parent ]

I think we're reaching a bit here (3.50 / 2)

I saw it also. I thought it looked like good natured banter between members of the Club of Presidents. Bush I has always appeared a bit awkward. I think he probably made a playful physical guy contact, but with a bit more force than he intended. End of story.

by rusrivman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:45:12 EDT
[ Parent ]

If Clinton wagged (none / 0)

his fucking finger in my face, I'd shove him, too. Both are very belligerant body language. But I wonder what Jr said to provoke Billy's finger wagging.

George's classmates on his performance at Harvard, "...completely out of his depth." (and two decades of drug and alcohol abuse haven't helped any.)
by NorCalJim on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:46:59 EDT
[ Parent ]

If I were standing face to face (4.00 / 2)

with Dubya, I'd wag more than my finger in his face. Good for Clinton! I hope he was threatening Dubya, something along the lines of, "I've got more CIA pull than you do as president, and when I'm through making phone calls you won't even have time to clean up the empty beer cans before you leave the WH!" After which, Poppy said, "yeah, we'll see who's got more CIA pull, asshole," and he pushed Clinton.

"And Orwell's hell, a terror era coming through. But this little brother's watching you too" -Zack de la Rocha, Voice Of The Voiceless
by Subterranean on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:55:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'll put my money... (3.50 / 2)

on the Clenis. Can we get the Bush twins to hold the "Round x" signs?

by Roastbeef on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:27:37 EDT

Hmmm (3.50 / 2)

Maybe you have the players wrong. Knowing Bill, he might have "gone a round" with the Bush twins, and Grandpappy found out. ;)

by ElitistJohn on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:00:26 EDT
[ Parent ]

ROFL! (none / 0)

Were there any threesomes?

by davybaby3 on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 01:38:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

I wonder if we'll ever know ... (none / 1)

or if we'll ever see the picture shown again on the news ...

If we do, I bet Olberman will be the one to show it ...

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:27:53 EDT

or... (none / 1)

or Jon Stewart

by runchadrun on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:28:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0)

I was thinking 'news' ... but since Stewart tells it like it is better than the 'not-fake' news programs ...

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:31:11 EDT
[ Parent ]

Daily Show (none / 0)

Anyone know when they're coming back? This is a HORRIBLE time to be in reruns.

Maryscott O'Connor -- Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.
by Maryscott OConnor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:09:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Probably Monday or Tuesday (none / 0)

I can't remember them ever being gone for more than two weeks, except maybe after September 11, and that's how long it's been. Memorial Day may push it to Tuesday, but I doubt it'll be much longer.

It better not, anyway. I'm going through withdrawal pains over here.

It's not that I disagree with Bush's economic policy or his foreign policy, it's that I believed he was a child of Satan sent to destroy the planet Earth. -BH
by Ben Grimm on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:34:38 EDT
[ Parent ]

This is normal... (none / 0)

...they took a break this long at the same time last year. Look for them to be back Tuesday.

Do not adjust your mind, it's reality that is malfunctioning.
by Alumbrados on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:34:43 EDT
[ Parent ]

Faithful Tivo says... (none / 0)

June 1. Just started watching the reruns again and nearly fell off my couch when McCain came out and started looking under the cushions for that chart that Rummy forgot.

by sujal on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:15:37 EDT
[ Parent ]

Ot, but most relevant (3.00 / 4)

In honor of this holiday I share with you Sir Karl Popper :

A few reasons why Karl Popper is obscure and unknown while the totalitarian philosophers he debunked (Karl Marx, Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, etc) are still widely known with easily available literature is that the people who would use us, much like hitler used the masses. is because we want to trust our leaders, however time and time again we are disillusioned.

"Most of all, those early Americans understood that liberty is fragile. To give any distant body of elites the power to tax and spend to stay in power promises corruption and a Leviathan government more interested in concentrating power for itself than in protecting the rights of its citizens."

Plato asks: "who should rule?"
Popper asks: "how can we minimize the damage a ruler can do?"

"Bertrand Russell described this study, with its companion volume on Plato, as ' a work of first-class importance which ought to be widely read for its masterly criticism of the enemies of democracy, ancient and modern. His (Popper's) attack on Plato, while unorthodox, is in my opinion thoroughly justified. His analysis of Hegel is deadly. Marx is dissected with equal acumen, and given his due share of responsibility for modern misfortunes. The book is a vigorous and profound defence of democracy, timely, very interesting, and very well written."

"The vital question is not 'Who should rule?' but 'How can we minimize misrule?"
-Sir Karl Popper "The Open Society and Its Enemies"

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*
by thor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:31:35 EDT

Popper (none / 0)

He surely should be added to the wiki.

by filchyboy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:36:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

Popper Debunked Aristotle? (none / 0)

Where does Popper debunk Aristotle? I don't remember him doing this anywhere. If it's in "The Open Society" -- and I do not recall any attack on Aristotle in that work -- I'm not sure any attack on the perfectly sane political views of Aristotle could amount to a debunking.

by lysias on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:02:45 EDT
[ Parent ]

I think Popper's allergy... (none / 0)

...to historicism (as he uses the term) caused him to bristle at the mechanistic cycle from monarchy through aristocracy and democracy back to monarchy that can be got out of the Politics.

The necessity and inevitabilty of it would strike him as dangerous, and an entry point for totalitarianism.

He does go upside Plato's head, big time.

And as for what he did to Hegel -- when Sir Karl was done, you coulda sent what was left of the old Prussian fraud home in a manila envelope.

Patria est ubicumque bene. "Their 'Homeland' is wherever they can turn a buck." Cicero, Tusculan Disputations.
by Otis Noman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:34 EDT
[ Parent ]

aristotle (none / 0)

NFNB aristotle definitely errs on the side of the programmatic in his Poetics, too. Worthy of critique, though perhaps not in this forum.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:30:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

Soros is a big admirer of Popper (4.00 / 2)

In his book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Soros has quite a bit to say about Popper and his ideas. Apparently Popper is for him the pre-eminent 20th century philosopher.

Simuilarly, an obscure right-wing pholospher named Leo Strauss apparently inspired the neocons. See this month's Harpers. Both sides have their "modern" philosophers for intellectual propping-up.

Popper is as sound as Strauss is suspect. For a philospher, Popper is remarkably humble and pragmatic. He doesn't get taken in by messianic ideas, and his intentions are simple and noble. He is also very readable. Strauss, like so many ideologues whose thinking is really quite reprehensible once you understand it, goes to great lengths in his writing to obfuscate what he's actually saying so only his true disciples will be able to figure it out.

I think that's a basic distinction between liberal vs. reactionary behavior -- the willingness, or lack thereof, to come clean and say what you mean, openly -- and be judged by it. Do your ideas, clearly and brashly stated, stink? It should be a test every news pundit has to pass.

"The universe is a sphere whose center is wherever there is intelligence." -Thoreau
by samizdat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:16:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

as much as like Soros (none / 1)

I'd much rather Deleuze be the philosophical base of the next left. We'll I suppose their is room for more then 2...

American Dynamics || from the land of the free, politics by design
by Abe on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:04:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

wicked! (none / 1)

The terrorists are already deterritorialized, so we had better step up.

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:28:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Frightening stuff (none / 0)

20 years ago I read a critique of liberal arts departments by John Sawhill. His thesis was that in 1953 liberal arts departments and colleges (the source of rigorous and creative thinking)began the gutting of their first rate minds in an rush for corporate money in applied science departments.

Last night I was doing a survey of Straussian teachers throughout academia and found that much of the vacuum in those departments has been filled (I suspect, intentionally) by the Staussian movement. Those of us who are concerned about the education of our best young liberal minds need to attend to this and start to push for a new strain of genuinely rigorous intellectual persuit. On their brilliance and rigor, no one can question the merits of the Straussians. The direction of their thinking and teaching is another matter entirely, and something to be very concerned about.

by tikkun on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:13:10 EDT
[ Parent ]

Come again? (none / 0)

On their brilliance and rigor, no one can question the merits of the Straussians.

Actually, the merits of the Straussians can most certainly be questioned, and it frequently is criticized, at least in some (and hopefully most) quarters of the humanities.

"You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound
by machopicasso on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:56:29 EDT
[ Parent ]

cf, "Wittgenstein's Poker" (none / 0)

Popper sets up two-dimensional "straw" philosophers throughout the history of philosophy, and knocks them over with a one-dimensional argument. He shuddah stuck with falsification theory and science.

by Mekiah on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:30:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Popper's Not The Best (none / 1)

Popper's an interesting case, but far from the best that modern philosophy can offer. He & his students did a real hatchet job on Thomas Kuhn, after The Structure of Scientific Revolutions came out, and they pretty pretty much knocked the wind out of his sails. So, while the idea of a paradigm shift went on to become one of the major memes of our time, the hard work of making his insight rigorous and useful has never really been done.

What makes Popper really culpable here is that he claimed to be a defender of science, and a severe critic of the Platonic idealist strain in philosophy. But when Kuhn came along with a scientific approach to understanding how science works (history of science as an empirical study), Popper and his circle lambasted him, saying that science couldn't possibly work that way--arguing from how they thought it had to work. They really took a fundamentalist-style approach to defending science, rather than using science self-critically to understand science.

What really ticked them off, for example, was the idea that not just history, but sociology (horror of horrors) might have something significant to say about how science works. How dare a still-underdeveloped "soft" science presume to tell us something about how a crowning "hard" science like physics is or should be done? Better by far to simply rely on their armchair speculations.

In short, Popper's much better within the narrow bounds of Big-P philosophy than he is in integrating it into the rest of the world.

A far better approach (to politics as well as philosophy of science), IMHO, derives from William James, whose work in psychology and philosophy influenced each other profoundly. He is much more consistent than Popper in opposing totalitarian tendencies. This includes being much less cartoon-like in characterizing those he disagrees with.

Let's put the information back in the information age.
by Paul Rosenberg on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:15:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Kuhn is not a scientist (none / 1)

He is a historian of science and a sociologist. And much of his Structure of Scientific Revolutions just passed Sir Karl Popper by, which is unfortunate because I believe Popper is, after Wittgenstein, the most important of 20th century philosophers.

Kuhn was describing science as it happens at the average graduate school or industrial lab. For the most part in those places you are not acting in the classical inductive model - gathering evidence and then drawing conclusions. Instead you are working through an assigned problem governed by the conventional assumptions of your field. In Kuhn's terms, now sadly debased, you are working within a paradigm, solving problems in that paradigm's own terms. Results that don't fit are generally dismissed as failures of technique, it is not your job to push back at the frontiers of science, it is your job to find a more efficient catalyst to do something or other.

In Popper's world every scientist is Einstein. In reality there have been tens of thousands of MS theses that were the result of some Professor assigning some hapless Grad Student to study the effects of adding C to B as compared to the old method of adding A to B. Most science is cookbook science, and only rarely, and by rare people, does the recipe book get torn up and re-written. Resulting in the consequent Paradigm Shift.

There are reference books that actually track how many references to a particular book or article are made in peer reviewed journals. Back when I was running the BAKER Document Delivery Service at UC Berkeley (about 87-90) Kuhn was the number one cited source in the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index), but I suspected then and I suspect now that most of those people actually never read the book but instead lifted the incredibly cool term "paradigm shift" and cited Kuhn as cover.

But enough rambling. Read Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies" (and note it does not attack Aristotle openly) and Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". They are among the most important books of the 20th century.

by Bruce Webb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:53:21 EDT
[ Parent ]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT (3.00 / 2)

Now that's what I'm talking about! That's an image I want to see. Daddy physically protecting Junior! Prove's whose the man. I'd bet GW was praying for God to smite Clenis just after that.

Link Anyone?

$7 Trillion in Debt, 2.6 Million out of work, and they're worried about a few thousand gay marriage Licenses?
by Steven R on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:35:03 EDT

Staged? (none / 1)

Is this some attempt by Poppy and Poopy to cause some kind of mini-Wellstone memorial to make the Democrats look bad?

by JamesB3 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:37:00 EDT

Who looks bad? (none / 0)

How come you think Clinton looks bad when Bush 41 loses his temper and pushes him?

Maybe daddy was taking credit for building the memorial that Clinton approved?

"I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."
by SteinL on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:41:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Media will make Bushies look good. (none / 0)

by JamesB3 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:47:07 EDT
[ Parent ]

No f'n way they can, (none / 0)

a single-handed shove is jesting. Two-handed is a challenge, and a threat. This is Poppy losing it.

"Never mind the trick, what the hell's the point?" Joseph Heller, Catch-22
by wozzle on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:07:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Ummm (none / 0)

The "liberal" media will find a way.

by jfern on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:22:16 EDT
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't surprise me if... (3.66 / 6)

Clinton said something like "you're gonna get beat worse than your Daddy did" to George WPE.

How do you define security?
by PSoTD on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:42:33 EDT

We've got to get a copy of this! (none / 1)

Someone must have a recording of this thing on TIVO or something. I'm dying to see it!

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:43:25 EDT

C-SPAN will re-air (none / 0)

the dedication ceremony circa 8 o'clock p.m. Eastern time, according to its schedule.

-- Bush is such an Adam Clymer!
by rhubarb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:48:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Republican? (none / 0)

Again with that sig! You do know there's a Democrat running against Musgrave, don't you? Or is this some subtle form of trolling I'm not familiar with?

http://www.stan2004.com/

¡Viva Democracy for America!
by ubikkibu on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:52:33 EDT
[ Parent ]

So what there's a democrat? (3.50 / 2)

OK, so there's a democrat running. Big deal.

Faust is more progressive than Matsunaka, and, because of the low turnout in the primaries, could potentially have a better shot at unseating Musgrave than Matsunaka. The GOP is not going to give that seat up without a huge fight.

I'm not a partisan; I'm looking to see the best person in office, regardless of what party they're in.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:12:37 EDT
[ Parent ]

I don't consider myself a partisan per se (none / 0)

BUT, there is an urgent need to get dem majority in congress (doable but challenging). If for nothing else than to have a damage control contingency in the inprobable event that bush somehow gets (re)elected.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:27:44 EDT
[ Parent ]

I agree with that in general ... (3.50 / 2)

... but why are y'all bothering to take shots at this guy for his sig line? Leave the poor guy alone - he supports a moderate republican. So what? It wasn't even the content of any his posts.

by AdamW on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:05 EDT
[ Parent ]

I understand... (none / 0)

what you're getting at, and I'm hoping for the Dems to take control of the Senate. That's possible.

The dems are not going to get control of the House this year; I don't think there's any possibility of it.

Furthermore, what's the worst case here? Faust loses, but beats up on Musgrave, while ignoring Matsunaka. OK, well that's good for the Dems, isn't it, because now Matsunaka has a better chance at winning.

Or, Faust beats Musgrave. Well that's good too, isn't it? (1) Faust is a progressive (2) Matsunaka probably has better chances against Faust, a novice, than he does against Musgrave, who's got the entire GOP party establishment all the way up to Bush behind her.

This is a win-win for progressives.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:35:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

I will agree with you on that (none / 0)

if faust beats musgrave in primary than the race is a far site better for it. so why not support BOTH of them? And I'm not beatin you up or anything but it'd be sweet victory to reclaim the district from a rabid conservative.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:08 EDT
[ Parent ]

limited resources (none / 0)

I've got limited resources.

If Faust loses, I'll support Matsunaka. In the meantime, I'm not letting Musgrave take even her primary for granted.

Most of the politically active people in CO that I've talked to (or got info from indirectly), even some high profile Dems, think that booting her in the primary is the best bet. No one turns out to vote in these things, you don't have to motivate very many people to vote for you to win.

Furthermore, if we get rid of Musgrave in the primary, we can concentrate on getting rid of worse people like Tancredo.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:50:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

House Taken by Democrats? (none / 0)

It's too soon to say whether the Democrats can take the House. But even Republicans are seriously concerned in the under-the-radar shift accompanying Bushit's screwups and his public lying against the mounting evidence that he's serail war criminal.

Roublicans in Congress do have to worry about an electorate is looking also at those who helped Bushit lie the US into Iraq.

It's also those huge tax cuts and the threats to social programs (other than corporate welfare) and jobs.

Too soon to unequivocally assert that the Democarts can't take the House this year. Sorta along the lines that the Democarts would retain control as result of the 1994 mid-terms.

A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain
by jnagarya on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 06:25:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

You beat me to it. (none / 0)

At first I thought maybe another dem was running against musgrave but nay. Unless he wants musgrave outted in primary? Or maybe he's one of those DispairDems that think no Dem will ever win in CO CD4 so better to support a non-rabid Republican.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:13:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

or maybe ... (none / 0)

... he's not a democrat, and just is choosing the person he sees best fit for the job. I know it's really hard to believe there may be independents who come to DailyKos, but try to imagine it.

by AdamW on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:29:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

you've got a point (none / 0)

yes he might not be a Dem and that's okay. But I do feel there is a group within the democratic party I like to call DispairDems and I haven't had a chance to use that term in a sentence and couldn't pass it up. :)

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:45:47 EDT
[ Parent ]

Or maybe... (4.00 / 5)

... I want Musgrave out and the best person in.

Being a democrat doesn't automatically make you the best candidate.

I also give Faust credit for having some balls. The Dems had to beg and plead with a dozen different people for six months before they could find someone who was willing to run. All of the people they approached before Matsunaka were afraid of Musgrave.

Faust was willing to go out on a limb on his own. That's admirable.

All of this lame Demo-partisanship is no better than the lame GOP-partisanship. Party partisans are the downfall of this country. Start voting for the right people, not people who have the "right" party name. (rolling eyes)

Or, maybe you can explain why I should be a Democrat-partisan in this race. Because so far all you guys have said is "there's a democrat running..." as if that means anything. Zell Miller is a democrat too.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:54 EDT
[ Parent ]

Look at Faust's website-- (none / 0)

From Bob Faust's website, he supports re-introducing an Equal Rights Amendment which includes sexual orientation. And he supports a national universal healthcare program. On these positions, Faust appears to be to the left of Kerry. In the unlikely event Faust gets elected, he appears likely to vote with the Democrats on many issues. Maybe it's about time some Republicans emerge to challenge their party's extreme social conservatism.

by bernalman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:31:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

A vote for ANY Repub is a vote for Tom Delay (none / 0)

Thats why any Dem is better than any Repub.

Its because our system is NOT one of proportional representation. ALL of the power in the House goes to whichever party has the majority and elects the Speaker. Moderate republican? Only when their vote doesnt really count. If it comes down to a party line vote they will go with their leader every time and that guy happens to be Tom Delay.

SO, sure, in a best of all possible worlds I might agree that some Repubs are better than some Dems. But that isnt the system we are faced with here and to pretend otherwise is to give one more vote to Tom Delay.

Steven Kyle
by sck5 on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:30:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Then get rid of Delay (none / 0)

Then work on getting rid of Tom Delay, don't become a blind partisan.

If you don't care about the issues or voting for the best person, then why bother to follow politics at all? Just put your blinders on and tick the box next to every democrat's name on election day, then go back to watching your sitcoms on TV.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 15:17:18 EDT
[ Parent ]

How patronizing (none / 0)

So if someone disagrees with you on tactics then they watch sitcoms? Puhleez.

And I AM working to get rid of Delay - That is exactly my point. I just think that there are more ways to do that than just one.

It is because I DO care about the issues that I would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of him. And if this year that means going into the booth and blindly voting the straight Democratic line, then sign me up. No apologies for that from me. Three and a half years of Bush have made me reconsider the idea of voting against Dems because I dont quite like everything they say.

Steven Kyle
by sck5 on Mon May 31st, 2004 at 04:30:52 EDT
[ Parent ]

But clearly... (none / 0)

you are not concerned about the issues if you are ignoring the candidates and just concentrating on party lines.

Zell Miller for President!

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 11:30:17 EDT
[ Parent ]

What makes us better than repubs (none / 0)

.... if we vote strictly on party lines.
I would vote for an Arlen Specter type in heartbeat, over a Zell Miller type.
And as much as it would be great to control the Senate / H of Rep. I would much rather prefer a number of moderates (irrespective of their party)
than a bunch of blind partisans. Look at the repubs now that they control everything,
they have turned into yes men for this administration and the repub leaders. They only care about the R or D attached to someone's name.
They vote for the party, no matter if they really agree with the policy.
And lets be honest, there are plenty of Democrats who have crossed party lines.
Just being a Democrat is not enough. What we need is to have a majority of moderates in the House / Senate.
This way no matter who the controlling party is, we have level headed people who care about the public good ABOVE towing the party line

by avagias on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 12:35:25 EDT
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

This is exactly what I'm getting at. We need to elect people who share our values, not simply worry about what letter is after a politician's name.

I still don't understand why I get shouted down for supporting someone who shares my values, is electable (and in a better position than the Democrat), is going against one of the worst people in Congress, BUT has an "R" after his name...??

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 12:39:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

Pictures: (4.00 / 5)

Is this it? They look pretty playful, though Clenis' finger is a bit intimate in the second one :)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/capt.jwe12505292029.world_war_ii_memorial_jwe125. jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/capt.jwe12605292028.bush_world_war_ii_memorial_jw e126.jpg

Santa Kerry: http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/lthumb.dcn10305291915.kerry_dcn103.jpg

$7 Trillion in Debt, 2.6 Million out of work, and they're worried about a few thousand gay marriage Licenses?
by Steven R on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:46:55 EDT

During's Bush 43's speech ... (none / 0)

Bush 41 leaned over the Clinton and said something but Clinton didn't look to amused and didn't reply.

Maybe Clinton was joking with Bush 41 about their "Jennifer's" ...

by politizine on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:50:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

Is Clinton (none / 0)

giving him the finger?

George's classmates on his performance at Harvard, "...completely out of his depth." (and two decades of drug and alcohol abuse haven't helped any.)
by NorCalJim on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:52:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

I looks like Sr. had Cataract surgery (none / 0)

From the pictures, those thick, black shades indicates Sr. had recent Cataract surgery. not uncommon at his at - now 80 yrs old.

When recovering, people have depth perception problems, as the one eye (they do it one at a time) is going through an adjustment period.

I've seen people do funny things with that problem.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:57:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

41 auditioning for the Matrix?? (none / 1)

Those shades!! Hang a trenchcoat on him and he'd be trying to spin through the air to kick Bill!

Visualize Whirled Peas
by Hoya90 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:03:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

Clearly (none / 0)

The second photo is obviously taken when Clinton told HW to pull his finger. It's a timeless gag.

CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.--Ambrose Bierce
by Manix on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:20:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

WTF is there to laugh about? (none / 0)

The photos of all them laughing together gave me the creeps and reminded me of something I read in an authentic conservative's column (Charley Reese) just yesterday:

"And I'm perfectly willing to concede that virtually all heads of state are evil, differing only in degree. It's so tempting for heads of state to play the great game as if the human beings far below them were merely chess pieces on a board."

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040524/index.php

by rodean on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 08:34:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

It could have been worse (3.88 / 17)

Daddy could have thrown up in Bill's lap ....

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:47:44 EDT

my guess (none / 1)

W probably said something to Clinton about not being a veteran, Clinton probably said at least I, having not served, was never AWOL from the Air National Guard. Pure speculation it makes sense given the nature of the event.

by abe ferlman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:48:44 EDT

The "Wimp" Factor (none / 0)

Anyone got a scan of the Newsweek cover from the late 80s featuring Bush Sr?

Here's MoDo from 2002:

"When Newsweek published its 'Fighting the "Wimp Factor"' cover about Bush senior when he was running for president in 1987, he was so angry he refused to talk to the magazine again until he had a meeting with the editors and the publisher, Katharine Graham. Mr. Bush even knew the precise number of times the word 'wimp' appeared in the article.

"In his memoir, Bush Junior wrote: 'My blood pressure still goes up when I remember the cover.'"

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:49:33 EDT

Well (none / 0)

He kinda had a right to do it. Its what cost Dukakis the presidency. And dislike Sr as much as you want he really was a legit war hero. And a fighter pilot at that (quickest way to die in that era with hte possible exception of bomber crewman).

My other Drunken ravings| Friends dont let idiots run countries
by cdreid on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:39:13 EDT
[ Parent ]

Bush Sr abandoned his crew to their deaths (none / 1)

And dislike Sr as much as you want he really was a legit war hero.

No. He really wasn't.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm

[...] there were two men who knew Bush very well and could have spoken about his loyalty to the men and women in uniform.

Unfortunately, very few people have ever heard of them and neither Radioman 2nd Class John Delaney or Gunner Lt. Junior Grade William White are able to speak. They are on the bottom of the Pacific off the coast of a tiny island where their pilot, Navy Lt. George Bush, sent them when he made his first parachute jump.

http://www.rense.com/general47/hero.htm

What really happened? It was the pilot's job to hold the plane level and slow it down so the crew could get out. Most certainly, the radioman was helping the gunner with his chute when Bush panicked and left the plane. Then the plane rolled into a dive giving the crew no chance. This story went through the fleet and all the Avenger pilots I knew were shocked at what they heard. I heard speculation of a Courts-Martial.

Bush was very young. By his own admission, he reacted under stress. It is terrifying to have the cockpit fill with smoke. Possibly, he can be excused for reacting to fear and accepting it as another war time tragedy - but he has been glorified on the History channel, a book is being published, and worst of all, an aircraft carrier is to be named for him. This is unbelievable!! Bush performed badly and was certainly no hero.

At least no-one was killed by Bush Jr's skipping drills for a year.

by Raven on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 05:49:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm a pretty partisan democrat (none / 1)

And actually get a little gleeful at attacking repub hypocrasy. But those two links contradict themselves and each other repeatedly. You have to have one standard for everybody and its wrong to lower the standards because you 'want' the other guy to look bad. This strikes of freeper "clinton/mena/drug dealin/vince foster" trash frankly.

My other Drunken ravings| Friends dont let idiots run countries
by cdreid on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 07:03:57 EDT
[ Parent ]

Not Quite True (none / 0)

At least no-one was killed by Bush Jr's skipping drills for a year.

Except maybe a few young men without congressional daddy's who were sent to war in his place.

"If you aren't completely appalled, then you haven't been paying attention."
by Savage on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 10:26:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Lets get some basic facts straight (none / 0)

Bush was not a fighter pilot, he was flying an Avenger, a torpedo bomber TBF/TBM Avenger: Grumman Torpedo Bomber

From that site, a basic history of the Avenger, we get this:

"George Bush
Undoubtedly, the most famous man to fly an Avenger was George H.W. Bush, later the 41st President of the United States. He joined the Navy in 1942, and became the youngest naval aviator ever in June, 1943. He flew Avengers with VT-51, from USS San Jacinto. On September 2, 1944 he was shot down over Chichi Jima. While Bush parachuted safely and was rescued, neither of his crewmen survived. Bush earned a DFC for delivering his bombload after his TBF had been hit. "

There are some unanswered questions about the crew not making it out of the plane. But a DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross) is a big deal. On the other hand there is a great deal of difference between flying fighters and flying torpedo bombers.

by Bruce Webb on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:52:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

well, the Bush's... (none / 0)

...are pretty well known for staging "candid moments" when they know there's alot of press around. Pushing President Clinton has to be good for shoring up a few points among the didiots, and I honestly cannot believe that Bush I would be that physcial with a near-stranger unless provoked or instructed to do it.

by zoweee on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:55:01 EDT

"Near Stranger?" (none / 0)

Meeting at three Presidential debates, in the transition briefings, and probably several more times? Clinton beat Bush I, and that isn't something the old man would forget.

by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:00:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

bit of an over-reaction there (none / 0)

but yeah: "near stranger." It's not like they go hit the pizza buffet at Friendly's together or anything. There are people I've met any number of times for business and yet don't know a thing about. Merely discussing non-personal matters at length really doesnt convey any sense of fraternity... and I certainly cant think of a valid reason to slug any of those business associates at a veterans memorial service in front of TV cameras.

by zoweee on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:07:27 EDT
[ Parent ]

Transcript of event... (3.95 / 20)

Just copied from a secret source...

[BUSH 41, BUSH 43 and CLINTON standing in a cricle]

BUSH 43: (to Clinton) Well, look who's here. Hey, I'm still trying to get the stains out of the carpeting in the Oval Office.

CLINTON: (wagging finger, playfuly, in 43's face) Now, now, lil' Georgie, don't go gettin' all mouthy without your puppeteer present.

BUSH 41: (upset) I'm not his puppeteer!

CLINTON: (laughing) You? Of course you're not his puppeteer! You're invisible! Has 43 even said hello to you today?

BUSH 41: (shoving Clinton in anger) Why you...

BUSH 43: Has anyone seen Dick Cheney? I haven't seen him in more than a week and, frankly, all of this is making me nervous...

CLINTON: (regaining footing, laughing) Was that a gust of wind?

BUSH 41: You just wait until Babs gets ahold of you...

BARBARA: (walking up) Georgie, have you seen your father?

BUSH 43: No, mom, I haven't. Have you seen Cheney? I'm nervous.

BUSH 41: Babs, I'm right here!

BARBARA: No, I haven't seen Dick. If you see your father please tell him I want to go. Being around all of these old people in wheelchairs pollutes my beautiful mind.

BUSH 43: Will do, mom.

BARBARA: (turning to Clinton) And if you make one more derogatory comment about my boy, I'll whup your ass.

CLINTON: (laughing) You can try, but remember, I'm married to Hillary.

BARBARA: (laughing) Good point. Bye-bye, Georgie. (walking away) Now where did your father go?

BUSH 41: (shrinking until he only eight inches tall, in a aqueaky voice) I'm right here!

[END TRANSCRIPT]

by Bob Johnson on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:56:52 EDT

gave ya a 4... (none / 0)

Pretty funny. Poppy calls her "Bar," though, not "Babs."

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:25:03 EDT
[ Parent ]

When Did Poppy Have a Stroke? (none / 0)

Marching Towards A Landslide
by BrooklynBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:57:24 EDT

My guess is he has (3.75 / 4)

had a few small ones. The forgetfulness, lost in the instant at hand tho it deals with issues absolutely central to his core reality... Bar had to remind him a few months ago in interview iwth Zahn what years he ran (as the candidate) for pretzeldent.
My take was, when she delivered the years '88 and '92 (ever the governess), he still was a tad clueless, but fakes well after a lifetime of, what else? faking it. That was a big clue.

The weepiness he has evidenced... I'm guessing he also is losing the suppression ability. Little stress factors cause bigger responses. They will keep him closer to home between now and election, evoked often as pretzelfather, trading on his service (of course there are three stories as to the WW2 incident with his plane and all come from him) etc., I remain convinced not all people even knew which Bush they voted for in '00 and others jsut voted for the name.

What else, oh, FOX a little while a go called the incident: "playful shoving".

I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:19:57 EDT
[ Parent ]

They were probably just kidding each other... (4.00 / 3)

...on the square!

by Charles V on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:14:46 EDT

Are you really . . . (none / 0)

on the level about that?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:24:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm ... (none / 0)

plumb sure he is.

by MonkeyBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:27:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

C'mon... (none / 0)

...be straight with us now!

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:34:48 EDT
[ Parent ]

Isn't there . . . (none / 0)

a rule about this?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Precisely the (none / 0)

right angle to take.

"Never mind the trick, what the hell's the point?" Joseph Heller, Catch-22
by wozzle on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:53:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Whoah! Whoah! (none / 0)

No need to be so obtuse about this!

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:56:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Now there's (none / 0)

an acute observation!

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:37:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Let's be (none / 0)

a little complementary.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:16:47 EDT
[ Parent ]

Well, it's (none / 0)

the plane truth.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:45:10 EDT
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0)

but we have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise things get two dimensional.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:03:14 EDT
[ Parent ]

Now... (none / 0)

...you've broken my sphere of thought.

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:41:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

There's a parallel argument here.. (none / 0)

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:43:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

unit values (none / 0)

if only there were a measured response from the GOP.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:48:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

unit values (none / 0)

if only there were a measured response from the GOP.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:48:23 EDT
[ Parent ]

the very fact (none / 0)

that you're having this conversation shows that you've all lost your moral compass.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:18:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

Does this have to (none / 0)

be so protracted?

-- Bush is such an Adam Clymer!
by rhubarb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:41:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

No but I've decided (none / 0)

to let it slide. Rules can be so restrictive.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:45:06 EDT
[ Parent ]

aoeu (none / 0)

You're going off on a tangent now.

Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is...a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial...discrimination.
by TealVeal on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:57:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0)

I saw the sines a while ago.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:12:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Oh no ... (none / 0)

... It's axiomatic that we must have this discussion.

by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:49:55 EDT
[ Parent ]

theoretically, yes (none / 0)

but let's not all run like lemmas off the cliff, now.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:13:29 EDT
[ Parent ]

When talking to people (none / 0)

Who have had strokes or cataracts, you have to watch for the sines

Try a better browser www.mozilla.org
by doug r on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:16:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm wracking my brain ... (none / 0)

... to field a rejoinder for the group to appreciate. It's not ringing true though.

by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:33:07 EDT
[ Parent ]

YOU LOOSE! (none / 0)

the topic is secret Masonic keywords.

by MonkeyBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:18:20 EDT
[ Parent ]

no, you lose (none / 0)

how're we supposed to keep them secret if you go shouting about it, huh?

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:23:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

I beg your pardon (none / 0)

I am most certainly not loose . . .

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:33:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

was there (none / 0)

a point to that?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:39:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

don't question (none / 0)

just get in line.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:48:23 EDT
[ Parent ]

This has gone (none / 0)

flat.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:09:34 EDT
[ Parent ]

when... (none / 0)

you're in this yard, stick to the subject

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:02:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

sorry ;-) (none / 0)

n/t

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:02:41 EDT
[ Parent ]

The long and the (none / 0)

short of it............;-)

I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:18:39 EDT
[ Parent ]

I just saw it on FOX News... (none / 0)

Gotta hand it to FOX, 24 hours a day they are doing real news (I don't want to get into an argument about their slant, whenever a story is breaking, I go to FOX News). The announcer described it as a "playful shove," but the image didn't look very playful. He shoved Clinton pretty damn hard.

by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:15:47 EDT

Isn't it the truth.... (none / 0)

wrt FOX News. They ahve covered the Saudi siege and hostage taking fully today. I jsut strip out the demogoguery and take in the bones of the news.
Works for me.

I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:25:33 EDT
[ Parent ]

wow, me too (none / 0)

I was just thinking today how pathetic CNN and MSNBC are on weekends with their People in the News and Headliners and Legends crap. Since when have Tom Hanks or Billy Graham been in the news, anyway?

Then today, sure enough, there's this Saudi incident, and only Fox is on with the story.

Do any US satellite providers offer BBC news channels (not BBC america)? I'm sick of U.S. networks and Time Warner cable.

by dirtgirl on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:33:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

I spoke too soon (none / 0)

I should have known not to post compliments of Fox News... they're now doing a story about some missing college girl.

by dirtgirl on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:37:24 EDT
[ Parent ]

Weekend before Iowa Caucus (none / 0)

cnn and msGOP were dark, on one of the biggest news events, that only comes every 4 years.

On sunday afternoon, I was looking for viedo of HoHo and Carter in Plains, so I broke down and turned on Fascist News, and all they were doing was attacking Judy, in the sickest ways.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:50:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Some PBS (none / 0)

Channel 54 in San Jose.

If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?
by Mimikatz on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:42:01 EDT
[ Parent ]

Holy shit (none / 0)

That's the first I heard of that today. Haven't had the TV on, and from your mention finally went to msnbc.com.

Every time I turn around things just get worse over in the middle east.

Nice guy or not, if we're at war and I get to choose the guy in the foxhole next to me, I'll pick Kerry. At least I know he's gonna watch my back.
by Steve4Clark on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Losing money + Money Laundering (none / 0)

I saw a clown for the Watimes on C-span and he confessed how they still are subsidies by the Moonies, and that in 20 yrs of operation, they've never turned a profit.

If was reported in the diaries, within the last 10 days, how Fox's ad rate is still lower then cnn, due to demos, and how overall, cnn still has a bigger bottom line.

cnn goes, largely dark on the weekends, as does msGOP, because the data shows it's a money loser.

But murdoch is willing spends his money, takes the lose, in order to get his wingnut message out.

That's why I laugh when apologists say corporations are amoral and they would do liberal radio or libeal tv if it was profitable, that corps aren't griding an axe, they're only motivation is profit.

But It is kinda weird. I love the Simpson, X-Files and various shows over the years (Ally, 70s Show, party of five) on Fox and that money now goes to financing Murdoch's and O'Lielly's Terrorits Organization.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:45:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

Agreed.... (none / 0)

I generally call CNNs public comments line once or twice a week to complain about their repetitive weekend programming.

And it would be another thing if the programming was good...

Then I call another time to complain about the complete unimportance of the majority of Larry King's guests, and how he is unable to conduct a meaningful interview any more. And the fact that they should just go to CNN International overnight, instead of all the replays.

Tim

Don't waive your rights with your flags.
by ttagaris on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:41:17 EDT
[ Parent ]

Seriously... (none / 0)

Why don't they just go to CNN International? Why just replay canned news? CNN sucks.

In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.
by Asak on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:43:27 EDT
[ Parent ]

alt.news (none / 0)

When are we going to get The Economist Channel?

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:50:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

C-SPAN ? (none / 0)

This sounds like the sort of thing C-SPAN would have taped, as well. Any chance they'll be reairing the event later tonight? Their schedule page isn't opening right now.

If anyone hears or reads when/if C-SPAN is replaying the event, please post a message here. Unless this clip becomes something the news starts showing over and over again, of course. Cool?

I'm &y and I approved this message.
by abw on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:15:52 EDT

Sir Karl... (none / 1)

Strauss, like so many ideologues whose thinking is really quite reprehensible once you understand it, goes to great lengths in his writing to obfuscate what he's actually saying so only his true disciples will be able to figure it out.

Correct, and much like Samual P.Huntington of "Clash Of civilizations" fame from which the pnac crowd (and we know who they are) are pushing their Bushco agenda on the sly. Circle of elites w/in elites. Closed society of wealthy power freaks, whom want more power, and will use* America to get it.

use of the term use* here is in the neg sense as in using someone for your selfish gain.

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*
by thor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:35:23 EDT

John L Lewis story (none / 0)

These kinds of things can have a deadly serious political effect. Reminds me of one of the signal events at the formation of the CIO, originally a committee inside the AFL. At the 1935 AFL Convention (I think it was) John L Lewis punched out "Big Bill" Hutchinson, President of the Carpenters and avowed foe of industrial unionism. When upbraided by AFL official, Lewis said "He called me a foul name." It sent a signal that Lewis and the CIO were serious and electrified workers throughout the land. I know it's not his way perhaps inadvisable with an older guy, but it would've been bracing to see Clinton punch his lights out.

by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:33 EDT

would the secret service (4.00 / 2)

break it up, or let them go at it ??

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
by sunzoo on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:46:24 EDT
[ Parent ]

Reservoir Dogs (none / 0)

41, 43, and Harlem Bill each have their own Secret Service. 41 is taken out by Bill's Secret Service. Then 43's Secret Service takes out Bill and his Secret Service. A dying 41 grabs a gun from a fallen agent and empties it into 43.

by Maynard G Krebs on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:08:44 EDT
[ Parent ]

43 = Mr. Pink (none / 0)

n/t

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:16:13 EDT
[ Parent ]

No! (none / 0)

Mr. Pink is the only one that lives!!

I've got no patience now. So sick of complacence now. Time has come to pass. Know your enemy! -Rage Against the Machine
by Aventinus on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:52:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

besides ... (none / 0)

given the slow political death the last few months have given us, wouldn't Mr Orange be more apropos?

"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth! It is wise and terrible."
by section29 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:20:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

No way! (none / 0)

Steve Buscemi is very cool. 43 is, well, not very cool.

Mr. Pink is smart. 43 is, you get the idea...

Also one of the best things about Reservoir Dogs is that you find yourself rooting for Mr. Pink to a large degree. At least I did. Maybe I am psycho.

by destiny6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:16:41 EDT
[ Parent ]

That would leave Cheney in nominal control as (none / 1)

well as actual control. Halliburton would be the first corporation with a cabinet post: Secretary of Looting the Treasury

by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:40:38 EDT
[ Parent ]

SECRET SERVICE (none / 1)

The SS would have grabbed 41 by the scruff of the neck and placed him out of harms way.

Then the SS would have beat the crap out of dubya while back-slapp