birdog1960

hmmm....how bout threatening fillibusters on every senate vote with any chance of opposition victory thus setting a new threshold for all votes at 60? you want gridlock? this is the new norm for the senate. wow!!! bitter much? how's the american dream workin out for YOU?

ah, statistics....if you read the original wsj article it states that nearly $1 billion had been spent this election cycle by anonymous groups (as of late oct). $87 mil from afscme represents about 30% of the total for democrats meaning that less than 30% of the total spent by anonymous groups was in support of dems. whoever is paying the bills for this , it is bad for democracy, america and particularly bad for the disenfranchised (ie the average citizen on average wages). do you really want elections decided by anonymous special interests, regardless of what side they're on? this election shows that this is more likely to happen now than ever before.

biggest and most depressing observation i had in this election was the impact of the invisible money, made possible by scotus. here in the virginia 9th, we saw a 14 term congressman go down to a fellow that lives outside the district. and it happened in the presence of a barrage of tv and internet attack ads funded by groups with unkown funding sources. rick boucher was an extremely popular congressman with the general population and big coal, voted against health care but was blamed for supporting cap and trade and portrayed over and over as an obama scut boy. i think va 9th was a test market for the ability of this newly allowed anonymous money's influence to be a game changer and it payed off big. there's much more of this to come...and the big winners will be big money.

it might be that mike singletary knows a thing or 2 about linebackers...he seems to have heard of him

you mean you wouldn't trade our roster, gm, coaches and owner for theirs?

and why is that? is kc so much nicer than buffalo?...no, it's the owner! wilson coulda made a play for pioli but he was satisfied with a marketing man at gm...that's all you need to know about his committment to winning.

and you think it's not relevant?...kc has an owner that appears to understand what is needed to win in the 21st century.. he went out and got a highly respected football exec for gm who brought in a good coaching staff (and fired an asst coach that we thought was a perfect hc for our team). the bills propaganda site even mentioned kc as a model of what the bills are trying to do this week but they refuse to spend on management and coaching talent in order to really imitate them. even if this isn't kc's year (and i'll bet they make the playoffs), they are miles ahead of the bills in developing a contender.

it was wilson who let gogalak go to the giants without a backward glance. didn't want a bidding war with the nfl..remember how that worked out?. direct the weenies at that biggest weeny owner around..

the market seems unconcerned...haliburton is flat and was even up a fraction a couple minutes ago. wonder what the street knows that we don't. i still don't understand how oil and gas prices stayed relatively flat through all of this..millions of gallons of oil lost, a huge clean up liability and the halting of new off shore drilling and it had no significant influence on price? seems more than a little suspicious.

unfortunately this mindset has overtaken the populace. it was previously limited mostly to pols. right and wrong are relative to risks and reward. if you can get away with it (or even if you can't but the profits are likely to be greater than the fines) then it's ok even if it's immoral and/or unethical.

wow, i guess you're on the email list for conservative talking points. i hadn't noticed that an event from 1995 was dredged up. reading npr's rebuttal from yesterday and reading the transcript, it's apparent that she didn't wish aids on helm or his grandchildren. she was trying to make the point (admittedly, awkwardly) that helm's opposition to aids research could cause "innocent" (read nongay) people to become infected. she later apologized (i don't believe williams ever has). apparently during the discussion conservative commentators including the late tony snow joined in criticizing helms for his stance.

so now you're comparing all muslims to pit bulls and thugs in a back alley. yup, i'd consider that racist. no idea where you'd get 1-3% extremist number but i guess it would depend on your definition of extremist. if "known to have participated in terrorism" was a qualification then this is a gross overestimate. and if the definition means "fundamentalist" i would bet that at least 1-3% of american christians would fit that definition.

and i could cite a video of a an ira bombing or the oklahoma city bombing or a hate group rally or lynching (but i won't since that would be in bad taste). i don't believe that showing those would make the point that everyone should be wary of christians anymore than this video justifies the fear of muslims.

sorry, disrespecting a football player that nearly everyone considers a bust with objective data to support that contention and disrespecting an entire religion based on personal, emotional feelings are 2 very different things.

not at all. she exhibits the same decorum on fox as she does on npr. williams seemed to me to play to his audience thus the coarseness on fox.

except that his primary job, the one he got fired from, apparently stipulated restraint from such inflammatory rhetoric. npr fired him for not abiding by their standards. if he was required to breach those standards at fox then he should have resolved the conflict by quitting one job or the other.

no, just confirming the fact that a fundamentalist murdered an abortion doctor. no stereotype from me but i admit it exists. and if i was a reporter and objectivity was in my job description and i believed that stereotype, i would think it wrong to publicly admit it. even when objectivity isn't required (like at fox) i'd hold my tongue in the unlikely event that i wanted to keep that job

and others likely agree but if you were a reporter for fox and said this (albeit truthfully) do you think you'd have a job there at the end of the day?

i think it's an apt analogy. the murders and bombings at abortion clinics are done in the name of religion. the terrorists don't wear uniforms and are inconspicuous and there has not been a highly visible outpouring of anger from fundamentalist christian groups to stem the threats. how do you think it would play for sanjay gupta to go on cnn and say he gets scared when he runs into a group of fundamentalist christians?

i'll bet tim mcvey looked a lot like you or even me. pretty sure he called himself a christian. was from lockport. what did you do to stop him. are you actively trying to break up american hate groups capable of similar terror? do you think we should have profiled all western ny christians after oklahoma city?

and of course that's what it's all about. that's how fox and it's acolytes "win": good pr and monetary gain. never mind objectivity, respected analysis, finding the truth and disseminating it. those things are unimportant. if we can win the pr and money battles, we can shape opinion regardless of the truth. thanks rupert, now i get it.

you're better off without the extra carbs... you may continue cooking

and 9/11 was over 9 years ago. do you recognize some statute of limitations for racism/religous discrimination? what is an appropriate amount of time to blame an entire culture for the actions of its extremists?

that's what i thought.

so it would follow that it would be ok for a british newsreader to say that hes uncomfortable getting on an aer lingus flight full of people wearing crucifixes because of the existence of the ira?