Translation: Total Ownage of the left.



"Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.

The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia "a brilliant and compelling extremist" -- while dismissing Thomas as "Scalia's puppet."

More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia "one smart guy." In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," adding, "I think that his opinions are poorly written."

When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: "Who's that black woman always standing with George Bush?" Never mind! He's probably arresting her.

In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from "Gone With the Wind," a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.

Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice "doesn't bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position." (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)

Democratic consultant Bob Beckel -- who ran Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states -- said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to the job."

When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report -- something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.

Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of "racism" with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting."

AC "Why Our Blacks are Better than Their Blacks"

Yeah, feel free to slap that video in the face of anyone who ever says Peter Schiff is awesome and/or infallible.

The Krugman predictions of stagnation and disinflation were right, crackpot predictions of Weimar/Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation were dead wrong.

I'm a bit curious how Schiff spins his utter fail.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Peter Schiff *Failboat.com.org

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Definitely one to mark down:

Schiff says we'll have a crash of our economy driven by hyperinflation by the end of the year, or maybe in 2010.

Krugman (who unlike Schiff is a Nobel prize winning economist) also predicted the problem we're having now, and says if we don't do something even bigger than an $800bn stimulus, we're in for a deflationary problem, just like the Great Depression.

Clearly, someone will be proven right, even if disaster ensues.

Flim-flam artists like Schiff should know better, if the problem now is because Greenspan made the interest rate too low in 2002 then the real problem is that our current 0% interest rate will cause a new asset bubble that will collapse, so he should allow for a much longer period of time for it to gestate, like say Obama's second term, 2014 or so.

But that wouldn't get him on the TeeVee machine to throw bricks at Democrats as often.

Peter Schiff *Failboat.com.org

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Definitely one to mark down:

Schiff says we'll have a crash of our economy driven by hyperinflation by the end of the year, or maybe in 2010.

Krugman (who unlike Schiff is a Nobel prize winning economist) also predicted the problem we're having now, and says if we don't do something even bigger than an $800bn stimulus, we're in for a deflationary problem, just like the Great Depression.

Clearly, someone will be proven right, even if disaster ensues.

Flim-flam artists like Schiff should know better, if the problem now is because Greenspan made the interest rate too low in 2002 then the real problem is that our current 0% interest rate will cause a new asset bubble that will collapse, so he should allow for a much longer period of time for it to gestate, like say Obama's second term, 2014 or so.

But that wouldn't get him on the TeeVee machine to throw bricks at Democrats as often.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory.
The notes in the study indicate that the map is based on NIMA/USGS data. This data is publicly (though not necessarily freely) available. This brings me back to my original comment on the map. If this is simply a projection based on topographic maps (as the notes from the study itself seem, to me, to imply), how is it honest for the video to say almost nobody could have known about the location of radar gaps?


You seem to be missing the point. Even if you were to somehow find out the location and range of the radar stations from NIMA/USGS, you still wouldn't know for sure where the gaps in coverage were. And you wouldn't know if there was other radar networks you were unaware of.

Even a so-called coverage map would only be an estimate. If my house was in a rural area, how would I know if I had cell phone service without actually having a cell phone to test it?

Seems like a lot of potentially fruitless work for a suicidal terrorist with box cutters to be planning for. Why bother messing with the transponder anyway? You've already succeeded if you actually managed to seize the plane using only box cutters. Seems like you wouldn't want to waste any extra time in the air and get to your target. But somehow the hijackers knew where the gaps were and coordinated the hijackings with precision.

I guess it's possible for air traffic controllers to be aware of locations where radar coverage is low and expect poor quality responses, but still this wouldn't necessarily be a consistent problem. And not something they would be focused on too much anyway as long as the plane was responding to commands.

The bottom line is none of this was investigated. So maybe the video is making a valid assumption based on what we do know. So how is it honest for you to say he's lying and hinge your whole criticism on one detail that you don't even know yourself to be false.

Unless you got something else?

>> ^marbles:

The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory.

The notes in the study indicate that the map is based on NIMA/USGS data. This data is publicly (though not necessarily freely) available. This brings me back to my original comment on the map. If this is simply a projection based on topographic maps (as the notes from the study itself seem, to me, to imply), how is it honest for the video to say almost nobody could have known about the location of radar gaps?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
"This" is this video. I'll give you one example of dishonesty/ignorance (I'm not sure if they're stupid or lying in this case). As they're showing the map of radar gaps they claim that the locations of the gaps are widely unknown, even to air traffic controllers. If that's true, how is some random dude from Youtube able to show us a map of them? Either the map is made up or he's full of shit about it being a big secret.


Here's the quote:
How should Mohammed Atta and his associates have known the most intimate details of military and civilian radar coverage in the U.S. - details, widely unknown even to air traffic controllers in charge on 9/11? And how should they have known by minute, when their individual plane had reached such a 'radar gap'? Finally: Why didn't the 9/11 Commission even mention this issue?

The video lists the map source in the bottom right hand corner. The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory. The study notes there is "no common integrated air picture" between the FAA and DoD and recommended actions to take to form a "seamless and common air picture".

pdf: http://i-cns.org/media/icns/2002/11/Session_E2-4_Bussolari.pdf
scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18663172/T8-B16-Misc-Work-Papers-Fdr-5202-Briefing-Slides-Surveillance-Implications-of-911-MIT-Lincoln-Lab

If you honestly have questions like this, then you should ask them instead of forming opinions from true ignorance.

Got anything else?

The cinema is so shit its not funny and if you are seeing more than 40 films a year you might as well get a HD projector and decent surround sound system it will be infinetly better than what a cinema can offer.

even though technically a cinema should be able to do things better they muck it up getting sound levels wrong , focus wrong , marks on scree, idiots in room with you WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WANT TO WATCH A FILM IN A ROOM FILLED WITH PEOPLE you don't know !? , noisy food , uncomfortable seats , adverts before film , trailers that show whole fucking plot of future films , anti piracy bullshit messages , waiting in-line for a ticket , 60% of the seats in places that are a detremnt to the viewing angle and the sound.

for $3500 you can get a home system that avoids all the shit of the cinema and delivers things to a higher quality than what would happen on average when you see a film at the cinema.

Granted you might just "enjoy the cinima" for no real objective resoins purely its an engraind thing you have done from a young age and then regardless of all the shit you will probably enjoy it more than a home cinima , and there are definelty some cinimas around that actualy have a degree of charm and add something to the exsperance , but if you are talking about your average multiplex cinima when a new film is out or when its normaly operating the cinima is utter wank.

sorry if you read all that !



Cinimas drive me mental every now and again I fall for the trap and go along thinking oh hay this time it might be ok and every time there is always some shit.

If sum one said you can see a film for free at a cinama or pay £2 not to see it and you had to chose I would pay £2 not to see it.



>> ^budzos:

I came close to that pace in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, seeing 75+ movies theatrically in each of those years...
Drive is showing in the local VIP auditorium, which charges a premium for nicer seats (basically leather recliners) and reserved seating. You can also have a beer in the licensed lounge beforehand, and have drinks delivered to your seat, as it's age restricted to 19 years and up (the legal drinking age here). You can usually count on less miscreants being at those screenings than say the Friday midnight screening of Transformers 3 that I attended in a town that is, shall we say, closer to the airport. However, you still can't count on actual conscientious comportment. In fact I would say most of the most eggregious cases of talking or what I call cinema calisthenics have occured in VIP screenings. Not to mention the actual screen is garbage and I always forget to check but I'm pretty sure they leave the 3D lens on at all times.
I'll probably go see Drive tonight or tomorrow night, and keep my fingers crossed. Because I do really want to see it, and I haven't seen a movie for at least a month.
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^budzos:
I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).
I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.

As someone who sees something like a hundred movies theatrically per year, I definitely feel your pain. There's nothing worse than having your theatre-going experience ruined by some no-good douchebag who thinks it's okay to talk, or to text, or to generally be an asshole in the theatre. But it is possible to have a good movie-going experience. Sometimes it's even in your control -- one big tip is to be willing to move, which seems obvious but a lot of people aren't willing to do it, for whatever reason. Obviously this doesn't work when the movie is packed, but otherwise, even just moving a couple of rows away from a talking douchebag is generally far enough to be able to enjoy the movie again.
There's also some theatres that, for whatever reason, seem to attract a certain group of people. Figure out what these theatres are, and avoid them. Then of course, there are going to be times when you're going to have a bad experience no matter what. But, to me at least, the good experiences make up for the bad ones.
And see Drive. That is a seriously good movie -- probably one of my favourites of the year so far.

I came close to that pace in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, seeing 75+ movies theatrically in each of those years...

Drive is showing in the local VIP auditorium, which charges a premium for nicer seats (basically leather recliners) and reserved seating. You can also have a beer in the licensed lounge beforehand, and have drinks delivered to your seat, as it's age restricted to 19 years and up (the legal drinking age here). You can usually count on less miscreants being at those screenings than say the Friday midnight screening of Transformers 3 that I attended in a town that is, shall we say, closer to the airport. However, you still can't count on actual conscientious comportment. In fact I would say most of the most eggregious cases of talking or what I call cinema calisthenics have occured in VIP screenings. Not to mention the actual screen is garbage and I always forget to check but I'm pretty sure they leave the 3D lens on at all times.

I'll probably go see Drive tonight or tomorrow night, and keep my fingers crossed. Because I do really want to see it, and I haven't seen a movie for at least a month.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^budzos:
I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).
I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.

As someone who sees something like a hundred movies theatrically per year, I definitely feel your pain. There's nothing worse than having your theatre-going experience ruined by some no-good douchebag who thinks it's okay to talk, or to text, or to generally be an asshole in the theatre. But it is possible to have a good movie-going experience. Sometimes it's even in your control -- one big tip is to be willing to move, which seems obvious but a lot of people aren't willing to do it, for whatever reason. Obviously this doesn't work when the movie is packed, but otherwise, even just moving a couple of rows away from a talking douchebag is generally far enough to be able to enjoy the movie again.
There's also some theatres that, for whatever reason, seem to attract a certain group of people. Figure out what these theatres are, and avoid them. Then of course, there are going to be times when you're going to have a bad experience no matter what. But, to me at least, the good experiences make up for the bad ones.
And see Drive. That is a seriously good movie -- probably one of my favourites of the year so far.

Our foreign policy is too screwed up. This CBS News story talks about how a huge number of Christian Americans (70 million?) feel they are compelled by God and the Bible to support Israel against all of its enemies. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml

I wish all support for Israel was dropped by the US. If private citizens want to fund Israel's defense, then go ahead. But they should be required to publically declare any support they have for Israel so that any terrorists can specifically target them, and not blast us in their collateral damage causing attacks. Right now Americans are being threatened by people such as Al Qaeda forces because the whole of the American country is defending this minority faction of Americans who are die-hard Israel supporters.

Why do we all need to protect these pro-Israel people??? Let them fend for themselves. That's their belief system when it comes to everything in the world. Everyone must be self-reliant, free market, and so forth. But when it comes to defending Israel, they want all 300 million Americans to support it, and will take our tax money to do it. They are hypocrites!

2:30-2:38

I can name a country: Argentina, 2002. They had a turn-around of more than 23% by basically taking the advice of the IMF and doing the exact opposite. Default, debt restructuring, let the fucking investors take some pain for change. Then again, they were not trapped in a monetary union with economic behemoths (by comparison) like Germany and France.

@berticus Ahhh I see, not all of my memories, just the ones I'm most confident about because of some emotional significance I've attached to them.

You'll have to forgive my indignation, when you say I don't know my own mind you're attacking my integrity. Statements like "Yes, your (referring to me) memory really is that faulty," and "you will be completely wrong about where you were, who you were with, and what you were doing when the attacks happened," imply that I'm either being dishonest with you or with myself.

You can deflect responsibility for those comments to your whining about confidence not being related to quality of the memory that was formed but a study that shows fault with memory doesn't prove that my memories or anyone else's are false to the degree that you subscribe to; namely "completely wrong about where you were, who you were with, and what you were doing when the attacks happened."

I was a junior in high school. I graduated in 2002. My parents NEVER let me stay home from school and I was in the journalism room (213???) working on something (I'm not exactly sure what but it had to do with circulation since that was my responsibility). I also remember after watching the attacks and thinking something like "Well no one is going to give a shit about our news from last week NOW." And I can't be certain about the names of everyone else who was there (3 other students), my adviser was there because she never left us alone in the room.

Also, I know who I lost my virginity too, I know where I celebrated my last birthday, I know who I went to my HS prom with, and I know what your background is on the degregation of memories in the human mind.

This is so much bullshit, everyone outside the US partiot haze knew all this "intelligence" was crap, in 2002. Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors said it again and again: No evidence of WMDs or even WMD intent. And Powell is simply lying when claiming the UK accepted the intelligence, they admitted as much in the Downing Street memo. This is all bullshit from Powell. Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and Rove didn't "accept" the intelligence, they fucking ordered it.

From www.washingtonsblog.com:

... Dick Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay.

In fact, 5 war games were scheduled for 9/11, including games that included the insertion of false radar blips onto air traffic contollers’ screens. Specifically, on the very morning of September 11th, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one “live fly” exercise using REAL planes.

Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony — see transcript here or http://www.spiegltech.com/media/McKinney2.rm">video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html">official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that on 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft posing as hijacked airliners.

On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that “Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an ‘inject,’ is purged from the screens”. This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers’ screens as part of the war game exercises.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were moved up to September 11th by persons unknown.

Now here’s where it gets interesting … Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y]

(this testimony is confirmed here and here).

So even if 9/11 wasn’t foreseeable before 9/11, it was foreseeable to Dick Cheney – who had been attacking democracy for nearly 40 years – as the plane was still 50 miles away from the Pentagon.

>> ^Kofi:

I did some googling. It is probably a misleading youtoobs title. Maybe first video of this acoustic location thingy. I saw a paper from 2002 so def known. Anyway, way cool video. Nature totally blows me away. Shame this kind of stuff fuels intelligent design arguments


Nice, thanks for looking into it. How about an upvote

I did some googling. It is probably a misleading youtoobs title. Maybe first video of this acoustic location thingy. I saw a paper from 2002 so def known. Anyway, way cool video. Nature totally blows me away. Shame this kind of stuff fuels intelligent design arguments