Great Sift. Below is an interesting post regarding the application of Bohm's principles to political discourse (By NetRunner / Daily Kos)

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/Bridging-the-Great-Divide

Of course he's liberal, but nothing he said in those links was wrong.

The 2nd link had it right...

"Bill Moyers is, as Dan Rather would say - a partisan political operative, cloaked in the auspices of a journalist taking tax money from the public against the will of the majority."

...my point all along.

And last time I checked, Fox news and the reactionary "new media" aren't taking over. Huffington Post, CrooksAndLiars.com, and Daily Kos each have more hits per day than Free Republic, National Review, or Michelle Malkin. Huffington Post gets more hits than MM, NR, and Freep combined times 3. Slate.com, which is definitely to the left of Fox, gets more hits than MM, NR, and Freep combined, but half as much as Huffington Post. TheDailyShow.com gets 10 times as many hits as billoreilly.com. This is all from Alexa.

The miracle is there's any center/right-of-center content at all. Coming full circle, 20 years ago Moyers wouldn't have to deal with any resistance. The ratings/numbers aren't a big deal, sensationalism versus truth.

Thanks for writing. I appreciate your willingness to debate and/or offer an alternative point of view to my alternative point of view. haha!

I find it absolutely hilarious that you find those 10 statements so offensive to call "troll". Just because he's not ultra left wing, doesn't mean he's a troll.

The last thing this site needs is MORE liberal bias over-sampling by banning anyone with an opposing political view. If you want that the Daily Kos and MoveOn are where you should be. Actually, even the mere thought of such a ban is disgusting in my free opinion.

"you're all stupid, horrible people for believing things I disagree with."
I've gotten this from the liberals on this site more times than I can count. Ban them all?

I feel less and less welcome on this site every day.

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.

So am I! I like the new pic.

could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

I can't seriously believe you don't know the common definition of a liberal: fiscally reckless and socially liberal (aka nuts). No one knows what 'classical liberalism' is except you, me, and Ron Paul.

"Social liberal" is a dangerously vague term. Ending Drug Prohibition could be considered socially liberal, but so could something absolutely insane, like open borders, and there's all sorts of wiggle room for questionable things like affirmative action (as a libertarian, you'd oppose it). Wouldn't "conservatarian" explain what you're saying you represent, a la fiscally conservative and socially (more) liberal? Your conservative side? You don't have to "prove" anything, I'm jess sayin' I'm not seein' it, and that's fine.

srsly. i've mentioned i don't know how many times, to you, that this is why i'm a libertarian, not a democrat. and yet you persist in treating anyone either socially or fiscally the same, when they actually have nothing to do with each other.

Do you really expect me to go down the list and fine tune each post so that every sifter of the many, many who oppose my POV feels good about it? For that personal touch, anyone who wants to discuss things more in depth is free to visit, as you have.

I used to be a libertarian and I've kept what I liked about it. Don't know if you've noticed, but generally Americans don't care about large-L Libertarians (or much of what any 3rd party says) or many small-L libertarian ideas. While I was a card-carrying Libertarian, I figured if any LP idea suddenly sounded good to the American population (ending Drug Prohibition, getting rid of IRS) one of the two major parties would steal it and claim it as their own. If I had my druthers (whatever they are) the two major parties would be Libertarian and Republican, but that's another rant.

and you can just call ppl by their fuckin' names, dude.
we all know what obama's middle name is. can't think of any reason anyone should give a shit.

Well, obviously YOU care!

my middle name's paul. do you care?

A-Ha! Do you know what Ron Paul's LAST NAME is? That's right. PAUL! It's all so clear to me now!

Yeah, I'm joking.

we all know who the president of iran is. just grow up, use ppl's fuckin' names? only you and jay leno think that shit's funny, and namecalling is essentially an ad hom attack as well.

Well, if for some reason Bush 43's middle name resembled "Hitler", you don't think the looney lefties would use that against him? Newsflash: for 8 years they've called him Hitler anyway, and a whole slew of unprintables, and the so-called "unbiased" mainstream media (long may they die) fuels it.

yeah. even worse when it's about something they didn't even get to choose - their name. should i really have to explain shit this silly, to you?

No, but here's what you should explain to me, why as a libertarian, you give a damn about hurting the feelings of a Jewicidal iranian tyrant, or saddam or dildo chavez, now in the process of starving his country with price controls. I mean, is that really what keeps you up at night? Name games with B. Hussein Obama? (he can legally change his name, if he wishes). How about O-Bam's disastrous tax-raising schemes or his frightening level of naivety in dealing in world affairs? As a fiscally-conservative libertarian, you should be terrified of this guy, and the broad.

>> anytime you'd like to address your original false accusations,
>> instead of burying them in new ones, you let me know.

> I'm not sure what the "false" accusations are as they have yet to be challenged.

oh come on, man! i make direct challenges all the time.
start with my rebuttal on the obama clip, where i said:
"how about quoting us a line from this, shroom..."

You have to understand the subtle dynamic at work with the Obama speech. On the surface it sounds like he's appealing to reason; what he's really doing is slipping in digs at Whitey, (including his own grandmother) knowing Whitey has no equal time forum to respond. That's what I hate about liberals and "race talk", it's not really a "dialogue" they seek, just more chances to blame others for their problems. As you claim to be a libertarian, I don't know why you're quick to defend someone advocating the OPPOSITE of personal responsibility and more Big Government "solutions".

and on the freeway protest clip, i listed many direct challenges.
you ignored them, and went off on some jim crow horseshit.

Oh, that. Well, my point was, if the original charge was 'gerrymandering' then so what, both parties do it and is it really something to be upset about? If one were a bona fide member of a 3rd party I could see it being offensive, but otherwise... srsly, if two thieves take turns robbing your house why only get upset (outraged) at one of them?

The response I got moved beyond that to accusations of (surprise) racism, always with the racism. So my Final Answer in essence was, why bother? Every time a group of 3 or more Black folks get pissed because they can't have their way they cry "Slavery!" and pretend it's the Jim Crow South all over again, as if there'd been NO progress or things made right by Whites since the Civil War. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone White or Black to play these kinds of games; they trivialize the real Civil Rights movement, which acheived its goals decades ago.

You casually wrote off all of the great things Republicans have done for Black Americans because they happened before last week...if you won't acknowledge which party freed the slaves, then accept the other party is the one that tried to keep them slaves, and ironically, continues to do so today, only the chains are mental.

As per the gerrymandering post (which only has 19 votes) is it of great importance to you that the Dems are the ones running 'a Black Guy'? As the Dems like to claim, Black conservatives "aren't really Black." It's shameful that any party is so race and gender obsessed, even tho it helps my side.


and calling the site "liberalsift"? if it's too "liberal" for you, gtfo. srsly. i wouldn't dream of going to any site, that had a more conservative viewership, and then blame them for wanting to talk openly.

I'm the only conservative that pipes up around here, and from time to time I've expressed gratitude for being able to do so. When I was banned a few folks who don't like me also welcomed my return. And while I believe you wouldn't go to townhall.com and attack the columnists there, many liberals and libertarians do. I'm sure there are conservative hawks who post at Daily Kos. So really, who's blaming whom? I don't want people to not post because they disagree with me, and let's face it, most do. Bush is unpopular, the war is unpopular, but popularity is not what it's about.

I'M not blaming anyone for posting as they do, or for posting what they want, even if they're not creative enough to go past Olbyloon's latest Countdown To No Ratings rant.

When I like a sift, I upvote it on its merit, even if I disagree 100% with the submitter.

whoopdee-fuckin-doo.

I didn't explain these points to gain sympathy any more than you want your posts treated with kid gloves. I'm just letting you know that I know what's going on. I think the challenge is that "angry knee-jerk reactions" is where a lot of these sifters start with their cockamamie sifts, and then expect a full discourse on American History they never learned to justify any possible opposing point of view.

The old joke goes, "Liberals welcome all points of view, until to their horror they discover there are other points of view."

Do you think posting a video of "angry" Black people marching in one kollij in one state is supposed to make the world tremble and viewers believe anything they say just because they're "angry"? I'll bet 90% of those doofs marching had no idea what they were matching for, they were marching because their friends were marching, or to meet girls, or worse yet, because Professor Marx offered credit to anyone who went. I don't have to know every little detail, I know enough about human nature.

> the sifts I submit are apolitical 98% of the time.

i would upvote honest, socially- or fiscally-conservative sifts. shit, dude. i'd welcome fiscally conservative ones with open fuckin' arms. saw plenty of good ones while ron paul was setting fundraising records.

Apolitical.

but not o'reilly, dude. c'mon. he's an embarrassment. look at the work of conservative intellectuals like margolis, and tell me you can't see the difference.

O'Reilly is current. What liberal is going to read margolis (or download her picture)?

Actually, people bagging on O'Reilly have posted more of his clips than I have.

now, since you mentioned snacks, it just so happens i have some ben & jerry's in the freezer. so i'm going to update my bio pic now...

I was about to recommend Colbert's Americone Dream but I see you've found it. Happy snacking!

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.
could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

Is it true that the Clinton campaign released an ad with modified video to make Obama look more black and have broader features?

The Daily Kos shows the Clinton campaign's doctored ad here.

The Clinton campaign said the ad the Daily Kos has isn't the same version the Clinton campaign ran, but the Daily Kos finds that the ad is identical to the one on the Clinton website. This graphic shows the steps they took to alter the debate footage.

So, yes, they did it and then they lied about it. Kos says: "Classy outfit, those guys."

My blogroll (which I barely visit anymore, because I've gotten really burned out on blogs) are:

Bad Astronomy
Balloon Juice
Crooks & Liars
The Cunning Realist
Daily Kos
The Disgruntled Chemist
Effect Measure
Feministe
Feministing
Fire Dog Lake
Geekologie
Greatscat!
Huffington Post
Hullabaloo
James Wolcott
Jesus' General
Liberal Oasis
Mahablog
Majikthise
Mike The Mad Biologist
Pharyngula
Quizlaw
Sadly, No
Think Progress
Talking Points Memo (and other TPM sites)
Wonkette (better since Anna Marie Cox left)

Could you guess I'm a liberal?

Read more about it here.
STOP HOUSE RESOLUTION 888 !
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/4/884/00472/895/430331

House Resolution Promotes Fake "Christian Nation" Version Of American History

Is House Resolution 888 a big deal, meaning - does it have a chance ? Well, consider that, on December 11, 2007, the soft Christian nationalist "Christmas Resolution", House Resolution 847 passed on a vote of 372-9.

So, this new resolution - which I'd characterize as "hard Christian nationalist" might just have a shot because Democratic Party politicians are terrified of being tarred as "anti-Christian" and they lack the political advisers who can tell them how to effectively deflect such attacks. So, they tend to vote as, at least, "soft" Christian nationalists regardless of their personal religious views.

Introduced by Congressman Randy Forbes December 18 in the US House Of Representatives, H. Res 888 claims to be about ""Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith."

Actually, the resolution is packed with lies - American history lies to be specific.

Chris Rodda - who just joined the Daily Kos and without whose diligence we wouldn't know about this story - tells me she suspects that the following four part "resolution" that follows the dozens of history lies packed into H. Res. 888 has been designed to pave the way for some sort of legislation that would advance fake history in some devious or crafty way and I wouldn't be surprised. Here's part 2 of the "resolved" section of H. Res. 888 :

No wonder Kucinich hardly gets any time. the debates are fixed.
from http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnns-las-vegas-post-debate-analysis.html (visit the link to get the embeded hyperlinks

CNN's Las Vegas Post Debate Analysis-- A Clinton Reunion

UPDATE: Even The New York Times and Daily Kos are reporting on the imbalance in the CNN post debate analysis... Now, that's bad!

It's hard to have a bad debate performance when:

** The audience is planted in your favor
** The questions are planted in your favor
** The questioners are your supporters
** The after debate spin room includes 2 former staff members and 1 current campaign analyst

The post debate was as Clinton-friendly as the actual debate.
The CNN debate may have been pre-planned and censored every step of the way, but CNN did not have to worry about a Clinton-friendly environment in the post debate.

CNN took care of that when hired the debate analysts.
Two of the three debate analysts worked for the Clintons.

David Gergen worked for 18 months as a Clinton advisor in the White House.

Another panelist, James Carville, is a longtime Clinton advisor.
Even Daily Kos had an issue with CNN, pointing out that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter and was included in the post debate spin on CNN.
Carville has raised money for the Hillary campaign. He works for CNN as an analyst even though he also works on Hillary's campaign.

Only the third analyst, former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts, has never worked for the Clintons.

No wonder the Clinton Campaign said they will win the national election in a landslide yesterday.

UPDATE: The New York Times is flaming CNN and the Carville controversy. "Mr. Carville praised Mrs. Clinton’s performance along with the other panelists... And he was pointedly critical of Mr. Obama’s debate performance."

Previously:
Finally, Democrats Find a US Marine They Can All Support
CNN Pre-Planned & Censored Every Question at Dem Debate

UPDATE: NewsBusters has more on the CNN debate fallout.

UPDATE 2: Doug Ross has more information on the "6 Plants" at the CNN democratic debate.

UPDATE 3: Dan Riehl wonders, "Who is CNN fooling?"

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is as anti-semitic as possible by the very definition of the term, and also a forgery. You've been fooled.

You said something about a documentary. I've just posted the trailer to a documentary on the Protocols of Zion -- http://www.videosift.com/video/Protocols-of-Zion-Documentary-Trailer. In the comments section I've posted a link to the full documentary that I've just learned Fedquip has posted.

Like I said -- you've been fooled.

By the way, that very disturbing site you sent me in the above post and your earlier comment in my profile (this one: http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/10/protocols-of-zion-in-modern-english.html) has direct links to several hardcore racists like David Duke, former grand poobah or whatever of the KKK. Nice work, kiddo!



Constitutional_Patriot wrote:

-----

The wikipedia article you linked to doesn't show this as a hardcore anti-semitic document, and claims that it's not a hoax, however there is someone on there according to the history of the entry that keeps trying to purvey it as such. It's claimed that it's not anti-semitic, but is a doctrine for ultimately achieving world domination. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but if anything it correlates with some of your past comments and I didn't know about it until you sparked my interest in the subject. I think it's definitely a topic of discussion and maybe a documentary or two might help to focus the light on the document and it's validity.

-----


Wrong, wrong and wrong again. That's plain crazy what you just wrote.

Re DailyKos: I've heard of the Daily Kos but it's hardly "extreme far left," ie. Stalinist/Maoist. It's merely a run-of-the-mill USian liberal website. 'Left-wing' and 'liberal' are not interchangeable terms.

The article you will find at that site you refuse to read references the original content on Ron Paul's racism -- which you asked for.

I've also noticed that's the second time you've insinuated that I've altered a wikipedia article for the sake of my argument. For the record, I've never edited or written an entry at wikipedia. The very suggestion is, quite frankly, beyond the pale.

I don't read the daily kos, it's full of a lot of extreme far left BS.

The wikipedia article you linked to doesn't show this as a hardcore anti-semitic document, and claims that it's not a hoax, however there is someone on there according to the history of the entry that keeps trying to purvey it as such. It's claimed that it's not anti-semitic, but is a doctrine for ultimately achieving world domination. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but if anything it correlates with some of your past comments and I didn't know about it until you sparked my interest in the subject. I think it's definitely a topic of discussion and maybe a documentary or two might help to focus the light on the document and it's validity.

2.
I like the thumbnails; Firefox gets very CPU-hungry when I have too many vids open. The thumbs help a lot.

People always grumble about a change..give em a week. In this podcast, Kos of the Daily Kos talks about how people went nuts when he changed a header from black to green...