Politics

The joke is on us...

Jack — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:20:00 GMT

The link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNs7Zpqo98

So, I've been saying, since he won, that it's hilarious that Al Franken is in the Senate. It's hilarious that the Democrats managed to gain a super-majority by electing a comedian.

What I didn't realize, is that I was right on so many levels.

Watch this video. Now, I don't necessarily agree with much of Franken's politics, and when he used to be on Air America he was lame, bitter and unfunny. But watch the video. We know from his sad performance on Air America, that this guy is far from perfect. He's also a professional comedian. He's also the most junior senator in DC (for now). He's also a liberal douchebag. And yet, he manages to speak to a group of people more coherantly than any politician I've seen in the past 10 years.

Is this seriously where we find ourselves as a nation? Are we at a place where ANYBODY you choose, even a relatively mediocre comedian, is more competent and thoughtful than anybody we have in office? Seriously?

Ed Schultz: A Retard

Jack — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:32:00 GMT

The link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b0_1249853108

Just for the record, in case this gem is eventually lost from Liveleak. Peter Schiff is a Republican from Westport, CT, who wrote a book totally accurately predicting the current recession. He wants to run against Chris Dodd.

Ed Schultz is hosting a show in MSNBC, and, apparently, is a total fucking retard. He talks over Schiff for the entire interview, keeps trying to trap him into soundbytes, and generally runs one of the worst interviews I've ever seen.

Realization: I watched that entire interview, and didn't realize who Ed Schultz was. He was just somebody I didn't recognize, doing one of the worst, most infantile interviews I've ever seen. Then I realized, he was one of the Air America, AM760 dipshits who I used to listen to from time to time, when I felt like seeing how they couldn't be Rush Limbaugh.

He's literally a cut-rate liberal Rush Limbaugh, and MSNBC felt he needed a show.

Can we please stop pretending Fox news is the “biased” news channel? MSNBC has Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, all doing regular shows. Are you fucking kidding me? Was Hugo Chavez not available, guys? Did the budget run out on the Mao Zedong ressurection machine?

Changesurfer Radio!

Jack — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:52:00 GMT

Dr. James "Angel Eyes" Hughes

The link: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/csr20090808/

What to say on this?

First off, it's totally sweet how much stupid there is. The interwebs are truly a sea of it. Hussain sends me a random link, and even though I know there are a million more just like it, I get to spend a few quality minutes with it, enjoying it on its own lunatic merits. As I was telling my folks the other night, they're like snowflakes. It might seem, from a distance, that they're all the same. But when you look closely, you'll see that each internet lunatic, each expulsion of stupid, is a unique treasure all its own. The stupid crystallized in a subtly different matrix, the “tea bagger” falls just a beat after the “astro-turf” and it's an entirely new experience.

So, yeah, “Changesurfer Radio.” Good work on that name, nobody thought the word “change” had worn out its welcome in, say, mid-September 2008? But anyway, Dr. James Hughes feels that there is a disturbing trend towards fascism in the modern American right. Or he's just quoting a lot of what some chick had to say on it. Honestly, I didn't really pay that much attention, I mostly skimmed his podcast and established two key facts:

1) He's a fucking loon.
2) I felt like writing a response to him.

Since his stupid blog moderates posts, and he's a far-leftists, I know he won't post what I wrote on his site. So, I'll post it here.

Please try to be less of a lunatic, or at least more conscious of your own lunacy.

Of all the madness in this podcast, the part I most enjoy is invocation of fascism. It's utterly ridiculous on many levels, but I'll cover the two most critical:

1) The GOP is currently the proud owner of a super-minority in the Senate, a minority in the House and has lost control of the White House. It's especially fitting that they managed to officially attain super-minority status by losing a seat to a comedian. This is the political party that you're worried is going to march you off to a death camp? Never mind the fact that your characterization of them is cartoonish hyperbole. Even if you were right and they wanted to kill you, they lack anywhere near the political capital required to do so.

But hey, maybe you're onto something... It was crushing inflation and poverty that Hitler rode into power. Maybe you've realized that Obama's policies will fertilize our political landscape for just such a situation. And here I thought you had confidence in Obama...

2) Even if we assume that your jackbooted carricature of the American right is correct, they're still not fascists. Now, I know... You're a simpleton-who-wishes-he-wasn't, and like all of your ilk, you've replaced the word "bad" with the word "fascist" and the words "bad politician" with "Hitler" because you think this makes you look like your prattling is founded in real historical understanding and research.

It's so ridiculous, there's a wiki page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

So, no, the Republicans are not fascists, they're not hinting at being fascists. The word you're looking for is "theocrats."

This is not a good word. In fact Iran is a theocracy, and I've been told that they're a very, very scary bunch of evil folks. So it's not a good word. But then, it lacks the punch that "fascist" has with the buzzword-centric crowd you appear to run with.

Anyway, in closing, and speaking of buzzwords, watching you and Rush Limbaugh bandy "astro-turf" around, in a pitiful "realness competition," is one of the most humiliating things I've had to endure in American political discussion. Are we seriously going to argue over whose grassroots are more capable of genuine photosynthesis? Really?

You're an idiot cheerleader. While that in no way discredits the political views you espouse, it does discredit you personally, along with your crazy, crazy eyes.

Seriously, you look (and act) like some sort of malfunctioning Keith Olbermann cloning program. You guys should have a love child, and then in 2044, he could run for President as the candiate of the Ultra-Communist++ Party. Just be sure to get a good quality photocopy of his birth certificate.

Do we really need the 1st Amendment?

Jack — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:27:00 GMT

The link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32314240/ns/politics-cq_politics

Do the conservative outbursts help or hurt the Democratic process?

What can even be said about this? For eight years liberals ran around shrieking at any Republican or ideological conservative they could get within shrieking range of. The mainstream media had nothing bad to say about it.

Now, less than one year into Obama's first term, and already we're wondering if people REALLY need to have the right to free speech. These conservatives are just disruptive. They're false, manufactured grass roots movements. Only liberals can have grassroots movements. Only liberals can dissent.

Another link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32329508/ns/politics-white_house/?gt1=43001

Conservatives are disrupting town hall meetings. Why, golly, it's so bad, the police are forced to remove some of them. Fuck you. During Bush's eight years, if a liberal gets pulled out of a public event for verbally attacking the speaker, it's fascism, Bush silencing free speech. When a conservative gets the same treatment, it's the natural response to somebody yelling at a respected politician.

Hussain points out that when Kathleen Sebelius was confronted by angry conservatives, she gave a big shout out to free speech, and said the protestors had every right to state their mind. So he respects her for taking the high road. Fuck Hussain. This is the same trick the liberals have been using since the first hints of an Obamaboner formed in their pants. The Democrat figurehead gets to trot out, take the high ground, refuse to attack Sarah Palin's kids, refuse to silence the opposition, refuse to do the dirty work, knowing that without even having to ask them, the MSM will rush in and handle it. They'll rake a teenager over the coals, wonder if conservatives shouldn't be silenced, etc. etc. etc.

It's just a fucking embarassment.

Says some Democrat hack douchebag: “What’s legitimate dissent is something that provides for constructive dialogue in advancing the discussion on health insurance reform.”

Nice. It's now up to this fuck to legitimize dissent. I shouldn't be surprised. This is nothing new. Liberals have always believed that dissent was something they did. What conservatives do is “bullying” or “attacking.” They used to pretend that this was justified because they're the “minority” so only they can dissent. Now that they run all of Washington, and their cronies in the MSM bully anybody that excuse is gone. But don't worry about that. They'll just tell you what's legitimate dissent.

Thanks guys.

"Skip" Gates is the James Lipton of Negroes

Jack — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:58:00 GMT

The link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32209525/

I wasn't going to post anything on this, but it's just gone too fucking far.

Let me start off by saying that Henry Louis “Skip” Gates jr. is a race baiting douchebag, who has risen to considerable success and power based solely on the fact that he's an erudite black racist. He's the James Lipton of Negroes. He fawns over the work of actual talent, gets his smeg all over the words of real black authors and poets, and because he's a poncey voice of modern liberal guilt poltics, he gets a nice house.

And, yes, as we know, sometimes the front door of his house gets stuck, and then his driver tries to shoulder it open, and somebody thinks it's a break in, and the cops come, and Gates freaks out on them, spends four hours in jail, charges are dropped, all the race baiters freak the fuck out, Obama sticks his foot in his mouth, etc. etc. etc. We know this.

And we also know that the accused racist cop isn't a racist, and actually teaches racial sensitivity classes for his department, and Gates was so far out of line that even the rabidly liberal Daily Show had to mock him and Obama for being a pair of indefensible race-baiting twats.

So, that happened. But did the race-baiting twats take their lumps, and crawl back to their fancy Cambridge manse and shut the fuck up for a couple weeks?

Of course not.

Instead, they said “look, this cop may have been innocent, but we're bigger than the 'facts.' Go find me the last cop in Massachusetts to say the word 'nigger' and get him.” And, hey, that's Justin Barrett, a National Guardsman who was probably just expressing confusion over why his racial sensitivity training would tell him that all black people are awesome and wonderful, when Henry Louis Gates jr. is clearly an arrogant, entitled, racist twat who should die.

So, that's how it works. When the race-baiters are shown up, they just go find somebody else to rake over the coals. It's not about right and wrong, it's about them keeping their agenda front and center.

"An individual preaching hate has no place in our society," [Boston Mayor] Menino told the local television station.

Seriously dude? You're going to banish this guy from society because he said a single WORD? That doesn't make you racially sensitive makes you an authoritarian lunatic. It makes you draconian, reactionary and stupid. It's a WORD. ONE WORD. Can you not see that?

The race-baiting bullshit needs to stop. It's just a ploy to keep black people marginalized and scared, so they never truly join society, and thus never deny the race-baiters the source of their power.

Let's get ourselves straight here... People are going to use racist words. Let's not freak out about it. As long as everyone can get a job, raise their kids, and live their life, we're doing pretty good. And let me point out that blackness hasn't stopped Henry Louis Gates jr. from getting a job, it's actually the only reason he even has one. The fact is, people like to use accurate words when they're mad at other people. If they're mad at a fat person, he's a “tubby fuck.” If they're mad at a skinny person, he's a “fuckin beanpole.” And if they're mad at an arrogant, poncey, race-baiting twat, they call him a “loudmouth nigger.” It doesn't mean they want to lynch black people. It just means that a black person you don't like is a “nigger.” Just like a black person you do like might be “Ray.”

We don't need to keep ripping open old wounds over this shit. Let's call people crackers, or niggers, or whatever, and not have a goddamn hissy over it, and move on. Yes, we've got some history to work through. And yes, some people are still full on racists (mostly black people). But if we're going to disengage from this shit, we're going to need to let some shit go.

It's like you just got into a brawl with somebody. If you can't just let him get in a “faggot motherfucker” as you go your own ways, you're going to be punching each other forever. Just give him a “punkass bitch” back, and move on.

It's infuriating and disappointing. The race-baiters know that Obama's election is a nail in their coffin. It's official now, a black man can accomplish ANYTHING in this country if he puts his mind to it (and has the fawning adulation of the entire mainstream media at his back). It's encouraging that even Jon Stewart knows a race-baiting douchebag when he sees one, but we've still got a long way to go in burying these goddamn people. They can still ruin people at their whim, and blather their lie all over the media.

Logic

Jack — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:20:00 GMT

The link: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=352443

The Backstory: Glenn Beck tells a story about meeting Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters on a train. Beck then appears on The View and gets torn up by them, and accused of being a “lying sack of dog mess.”

Let me get this out of the way immediately... I realize that this story doesn't matter, that Glenn Beck isn't a saint, and this whole thing is completely ridiculous. I'm not really concerned with Glenn Beck getting treated fairly. What I am concerned with, is two things:

1) I can't fucking STAND disorganized thought. I can't stand it. Watching that segment of The View is just the most frustrating thing in the world. I don't care what the topic is, I don't care what argument is being made, I cannot stand it when people can't communicate properly, and instead just make assertions at each other in increasing volume.

The View idiots keep telling Beck he's a liar. Ok, what did he lie about? It's never clear. He lied about who approached who? If seats were reserved on a train? Whether or not Barack Obama is a physical manifestation of the divine? It's ridiculous. Don't just blurt out “you're a liar” in different ways, and with differing levels of theatre. Say “you said x, which you know is not true, you are a liar.” They don't do that. They just say he lied. Over and over. Loudly, and especially when Beck tries to talk.

Then, add in Glenn Beck. He's sitting there like an asshole, stammering, letting them attack him, and not forcing them to have any clarity. If somebody says “you're a liar” you should respond by saying “oh? What exactly did I lie about?” You don't just sorta act affable and mildly retarded, and then answer all their questions in the way that most supports their point, and try to apologize for things you didn't say.

2) Logic, consistency, structure and honesty are the keys to a just and fair society. Not “correct“ political views. It infuriates me, especially as we go through a nomination to the SCOTUS, that this country has completely lost track of the value of objectivity. Or even the concept of objectivity.

These View women are (with one carefully selected and token exception) liberals. They're the champions of the “rule of law,” not like Dick Cheney, the waterboarding criminal, for example. But look at how they operate... They accuse Glenn Beck of lying. It's totally unclear what they think he lied about, but they say it repeatedly, and vehemently. It's like some bizzare Kafka-esque court hearing. We don't really know what the charges are, what the evidence is, just that Glenn Beck is guilty.

Now, as it turns out, Beck is not guilty of any of the vague accusations made against him. To be fair to them, I don't necessarily think that The View women did this on purpose. I think they're used to wandering around, having things prepared for them in advance, and never really noticing how many little people are working to make them comfortable. I'm sure they fully believe they didn't ask for special treatment on the Amtrak train. But even so, even if Beck really had lied, notice how little interest they have in making the issue clear. They don't bother to make it clear how Beck lied, what the proof of it is, or structure anything to show the truth of their accusations. They just loudly accuse, and rely on the fact that they're good liberals, and he's an evil conservative, to make the point. They're little better than screaming chimps.

This is a celebration of ignorance. This is what tyranny is made of. We will never agree on politics, that's understood. But during the course of our disagreements the one common ground we do have is logic, and structured reasoning. If we must disagree, let's do it in a clear, consistent, intellectually honest fashion. Let's not just shout louder, and then if that fails, bring more friends to shout louder.

I remember, when I took Philosophy 101 in college, they explained how a series of postulates lead to a conclusion, and the only way to disprove the conclusion was to disprove a postulate, or demonstrate that one postulate didn't lead to another, etc. etc. I can remember wondering how this was not completely obvious, and what sort of moron you had to be to need it explained to you. Apparently, though, these are the sorts of morons that constantly invade our television screen, and lumber around Washington DC like a pack of overdressed mongoloids.

As I said in number 1, I can't even stand to watch illogical, unstructured, ineffective arguments happen. No matter the topic, watching to people communicate ineffectually is frustrating. It ups the ante that The View women are also ideologically disgusting to me, but that aside, it's still offensive to me how little interest they have in making reasoned, supported arguments. This is just another example of the petty tyrant that lives in the heart of the American liberal. Logic and structure are tools that help us assure that the truth is being told. People who love the truth and want to see it served will also love logic and structured thought. They will find it uncomfortable to allow anything of import to be said without a logical foundation, and solid, objective justification. They will not be comfortable with making loud, repeated, baseless accusations.

We, as a nation, spend so much time demonizing those who hold different political views than us. This is (of course) encouraged by the same media assholes who spray The View across our screens. As much as I disagree ideologically with the American left, I am far more scared of stupidity, mob mentality, and general ideological zealotry. Tyranny doesn't arise from any specific political system. It arises from people who have a contempt for logic, truth, honesty and fairness. This is exactly the sort of person that Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters are. The fact that we tolerate, and even celebrate them, is an embarassment to us as a people. By teaching us that truth lies in repetition and volume, rather than in reason and objectivity, they do their small part to deliver us into tyranny.

It's a small thing, but it's a sign of the times. They are the enemy.

Fire is Racist

Jack — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:58:00 GMT

The link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124035774411441127.html
Bonus link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_firefighters_lawsuit

So, first the summary: New Haven had an advancement test for their firefighters to officer positions. When the test results came back, the top scorers, those who qualified for advancement, were all white, except for a single latino. Predictably enough, New Haven threw out the results of that test, concluded it was biased, and made no promotions. This case is now before the SCOTUS.

Now, for the cherry: Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff, had trusted a test of merit. He had been a firefighter for 11 years and was determined to become a lieutenant. All applicants were given three months to prepare for the exam and provided with a detailed reading list. Mr. Ricci is dyslexic, so he paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes, made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group and participated in mock interviews. He gave up a second job in order to study long hours. His work paid off: He came in sixth among the 77 candidates who took the exam.

So, what are we saying? We're saying that when taking a written test, being black is more of a disadvantage than not being able to read.

Now, folks, I live in America. I'm well aware that it's not racism if it's against white people, and it is racism if it's against black people. I've fully internalized that, and I love it like fat kid loves cake. But here's the thing: these people are saying that black people are worse at reading than dyslexics. Is that not racist against black people? I'd say that's a grave failure to ERACISM!!!

Let's enjoy the verbal gymnastics in the second article: Kennedy often frowns on racial classifications, yet he is not as opposed to drawing distinctions on the basis of race as his more conservative colleagues.

I'm sorry, “drawing distinctions?” Is that the word(s) you were looking for? Or are those the two words you had to use, because the one accurate word isn't allowed? The word you're looking for is “discriminate.” As in “discrimination.” As in “racial discrimination.” As in “throwing out the results of the test because the people who scored highest aren't black is total fucking racial discrimination, you filthy racist fuck.”

Now, to be fair, I ran the odds on this, and based on a cursory guesstimation, assuming equal chances for all test takers, the odds of the top 15 scores out of 77 all being white, is about .2% (based on another article that says 30% of New Haven firefighters are black). So, it's unlikely. But, I see that and raise you this:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/departments/index.shtm

The relevant line is the one where it says that there are 30,185 fire departments in the United States. If every single one of those departments administered a test that had a .2% chance of “going wrong,” and conversely a 99.8% chance of “going right,” the odds of NONE of them “going wrong” is about 5.69e-27, or about .0000000000000000000000000569%. Which is effectively zero.

Or, put differently, if 30,185 fire departments administered tests with a .2% chance of them “going wrong” you'd expect to see about 91 of them do so. And hey, let's assume that they only test every 10 years. And lets further assume that half of them don't even bother to test, because I'm making a point about how easy this is. You'd still see 5 fire departments getting test results like this EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

But hey, we all know math is racist.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn't offer a suggestion as to why this is happening, besides the simple statistical inevitability of it. Allow me to post yet another quote: Dennis Thompson, lawyer for the International Association of Black Professional Fire Fighters, said the court should side with New Haven. "Diversity is essential to the performance of the fire services," Thompson said after the argument.

That's right, folks. Diversity is essential to the performance of fire services. You can't put out a fire unless your hip hop dance crew has a sassy white kid, a gritty black kid, an edgy asian kid, and a mui caliente latino kid. Or... Maybe you can't set the roof on fire without that. I'm not sure... It's definitely someting about diversity and fire.

Let me be forthright with you here: I don't really think diversity is important to putting out a fire. I just don't. The fire doesn't need somebody that understands what it's like to not fit in. The fire doesn't speak spanish. The fire can't connect with you over a shared love for the song stylings of Luther Vandross. Fire is really just the rapid oxydization of material, it's not socially conscious. Contrary to what you may have seen in the movie Backdraft, it's not any kind of conscious.

But, in case it's news, “diversity” is the “get out of having an actual argument free card” of non-white America. Anybody, but especially non-whites, can say “diversity” and then you have to do what they say. Take Dennis Thompson, for example. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume he's black. His last name is Thompson, and he's a lawyer for the International Associate of Black Professional Fire Fighters. I feel good about my odds. So, let's assume he's black. He's a black lawyer. His job is to go into court, and make convincing, legally based arguments in favor of his clients. What he came up with, is a shout out to diversity.

That's what happens when you take a bunch of people, and convince them that their best shot at success is preferential treatment and claiming victim status. They go into a test, one where white guys are studying 13 hours a day, and they figure the city will make sure that at least some of them will get the job, cause, hey “diversity.”

That's what it comes down to folks. It's not just that affirmative action is racist, and wrong on that basis alone. It's that it's a concept that tells us that black people are so stupid, they're not even as good at written test as dyslexic whites. It teaches them to depend on favoritism, and not on their own ability to excel.

Black people are taught, from day one, that the whole system is against them, and that their only chance is that the government will make the racists treat them right. Who's going to put in 13 hours of study a day with that sort of pessimism programmed in? Nobody.

But, hey, whatever American left. As long as they keep voting for you, who cares if they succeed? Heck, it's a lot easier to pick them up on voting day, when they all live in one nice, neat project, right? You fucking racists.

Redacted for your protection

Jack — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:48:00 GMT

So, this morning my mother (who is in town visiting) informed me that she saw an article which suggested that guns were a better investment than stocks. When I arrived at work, and my browser came up with MSNBC, I saw the link pictured at right.

Curious, I clicked the link and was taken to this url:

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/?fpn=guns%20a%20better%20buy%20than%20stocks

Note that it actually has the text on guns in the url. Now, the mutability of web content both makes this story interesting, and also makes it somewhat untraceable and shitty, but believe me when I say, following that link went to the MSN MoneyBlog page, and that page didn't have a single mention of the word “gun” in it.

That's odd, right? They've got a link on the homepage to an article about guns being better investments than stocks, but then following that link has no mention of guns...

When I google “guns a better buy than stocks” I find the actual article:

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2009/04/16/guns-a-better-buy-than-stocks.aspx

Already archived... With an April 16th posted date. If I go look at the MoneyBlog, I see that the front page has posts from April 15th through today (the 17th). So this article didn't just fall off the front page due to its age. It's not on the page for some deliberate reason.

Carville, Begala and Zimmerman

Jack — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:12:00 GMT

The link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/24/carville-begala-temporar_n_83174.html

So, from the Huffington Post, quoted in its entirity for hilariousness:

Okay, this is interesting. I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.

Incredible. One little event that gives countless insights into the utter corruption of the MSM.

Obviously, when it's the Democrat's primary, CNN is concerned about unduly influencing the results with partisan commentators. The rest of the time, no problem.

The first question I have to ask: If Hillary happens to win the Democratic nomination, will Carville, Begala and Zimmerman be banned form commenting through the end of the Presidential election? I think we all know that's not going to be the case.

So that gives a little insight into CNN's outlook, and the outlook of the MSM in general. It's proof that they're aware that their commentators have a bias, that this bias can influence the outcomes of elections, and that they think it's acceptable to silence voices in order to remove bias.

So what does this mean?

They know their commentators have a bias: The MSM loves to keep up a facade of impartiality and objectivity, but everyone outside the far left fringe knows they're just the propaganda wing of the Democratic party. The only question is whether you find this bias disgusting (as I do) or you just think they're telling the truth (as my parents do). Regardless, this move by CNN is a tacit admission that they know they're not impartial or objective. Instead, they employ partisan hacks to do their commentary. And these aren't just left leaning people. They aren't just former Democrat staffers. These guys (Carville and Begala) were primary figures in Bill Clinton's run for President. That's how far from impartiality and objectivism CNN is. They employ people who are probably the two biggest Clinton cheerleaders in the entire world. It's literally as close as they could get to letting the Clintons themselves comment on the Clintons.

They think it's acceptable to silence voices in order to remove bias: The left's double standard on free speech is incomprehensibly stupid. When an arm of their own party is silencing a viewpoint that's “interesting.” When anybody else fails to trumpet their views from the rooftops, that's “Orwellian censorship and shredding the Bill of Rights.” Or whatever hyperbolic stupidity they come up with at the time. Imagine the outrage if this move was made during a national Presidential election. In the end, just one more example of the utopia the left has planned for us. One where your freedom of speech will be protected by silencing anybody who doesn't promote free speech. The left doesn't value free speech, it's just a rhetorical tool to them. Your rights exist so long as they can use them they're useful to lib speechwriters.

In any case, the precedent has been set at CNN. Let's all chuckle as they discard it in time for the Presidential election.

James McHaney...

Jack — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:22:00 GMT

The link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1203072senate1.html

So, just to be sure it's clear, anybody associated with a Republican who gets caught for soliciting gay sex, big news. Lots of stories about Bob Allen, a McCain supporter, who solicited gay sex from an adult. Not nearly so much coverage of a staffer for Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell. Not even when he describes having anal sex with a 13 year old boy as “hot.”

Now, granted, this is merely a staff member, while Bob Allen is/was a state rep, but he wasn't trying to have anal sex with a 13 year old boy.

Republican gay sex scandals: huge news.

Democrat gay sex scandals: not news.

In fact, how dare you pry into their private lives?