idrankwhat

With a 600% increase in ethanol production it's not just "big oil". Big Ag. That's a double dip isn't it? Didn't they reap the farm bill last week?

Reminds me of a similar string of accusations: Has WMD's (altered to) Has WMD related programs (altered to) Has WMD related program activity (altered to) Wanted WMD's Any justification in a storm I guess.

what does that say about the people who voted him in? That they were apparently "left behind" and probably went through the same education program as this person. http://www.break.com/index/kelly-pickler-on-game-show1.html

Maybe we should get everyone on YouTube to sign party loyalty oaths before they're allowed to ask questions

I waiting for someone to blame it on a Clinton "insider" From CNN: "Buildings close to the storefront campaign office on Main Street were evacuated, including local campaign centers for Clinton's Democratic presidential rivals, Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards.

For the R's I wanted to ask "What does "conservative" mean these days?" And for both the D's and the R's I would like to ask "which lobbyist job will you be pursuing while in office?"

Typical irresponsible interview that I come to expect from those types of shows. He was rude and antagonizing. She was nervous and obviously expecting to be treated poorly. I only watched half of the interview but he drove her towards limiting the discussion to Guantanamo and she was too flustered to remember to stick to the bullets he listed at the top of the interview, namely the secret CIA prisons, spying on Americans, etc. She's got plenty to back up her claims. Too bad she let him get to her. But that's what that interview style is all about. You take control of the discussion, steer it towards a minor point that you feel that you have control over, step on the interviewee any time they appear to be getting back on track or if you're running short on time, try to make them look weak, end by stating your own points and then feign respect as you cut to a commercial. A good interviewer talks less than the interviewee and tries to make them feel comfortable and welcome. They ask a question and then let the person answer it. But if you're not really interested in the answers you're likely to get then a respectful Q and A won't work.

I know this is piling on but....

Looks the the story has finally made it back to the US from across the pond. This just in 18 minutes ago. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/21/cia.leak.mcclellan/index.html Looks like the book isn't finished yet. I wonder how well the story will flow after they redact 399 of the pages

If we're going to rehash this stuff, this was always one of my favorites. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushbong.htm

He says: "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice-president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself." She says: Current White House press secretary Dana Perino said the meaning of the excerpt was unclear. I say: Would it be rude to ask Ms. Perino "WTF do you mean "it's unclear"? It can't possibly get much clearer

To phrase it more appropriately, business continues to thrive in spite of unethical values and deceptive practices. I think you may be confusing symbiosis and parasitism.

Were there any specific marketing practices that you were referring to or are we just talking about aggressive or questionably legal tactics in general? IMO, I don't think we're better off because singular and powerful interests can game the market to their advantage. The best example I can think of is Microsoft. If their marketing practices had been fair then they wouldn't be as dominant in the industry. That means that they probably would have been forced to release an operating system that works well and is secure by this point. Also, guerrilla marketing by industry through their lobbyists and their disproportionate influence in Washington lawmaking give us things like weak mileage standards for automobiles and prescription drug plans that insure that citizens pay the highest prices possible for their prescriptions. $0.02

Why in the world would you have a televangelist? Nevermind. I don't really want to know. Read YOUR post to me

No way man. It's all fun until someone gets shot in the face.

Why in the world would you have a televangelist? Nevermind. I don't really want to know.

Yea, the oxy and the advertisement length reference was towards his show, and I don't know how it compared. I really didn't pay that much attention other than to laugh out loud when I heard it. Overblown, overbearing, arrogant windbags have a tendency to draw that sort of attention to themselves when they're busted as a hypocrite. Works just as well for Rush as some of your more high profile televangelists.

And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we'd be stuck with cigar and oxycontin ads for 48 minutes of the nightly "News®" hour Ok, I've read it a few times. Took a couple of sips of coffee and read it a couple more times. Ok, I give. What?

And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we'd be stuck with cigar and oxycontin ads for 48 minutes of the nightly "News®" hour

Probably, but I'll bet we provide the targeting for both.

I don't know about global expenses, but I'm guesstimating that if we here in the US continue to invest in alternative energies at the current rate that it will take us about 240 years to reach the level of our current "investment" in Iraq.

I'm not loyal to Clinton. He and his mate are too deeply seated in the status quo business party for my taste. I just sound like a loyalist because it was during his term that I became COMPLETELY disgusted with the Republican party and their witch hunt during the 90's and became much more vocal about it. Politics was never pretty but they brought it to a new low. And then to turn around and praise/defend Bush's infractions as acceptable or even comparable by comparison is just insane. Clinton's screw ups, at least those which he was accused of, were of no real consequence. Bush's screw ups have been to the detriment of nearly the entire globe and we'll be literally and figuratively paying for his mistakes for decades. And you're absolutely right, most of the hatred for the Bush administration is the result of how it handled things post 9/11. We HAD the world's support. He threw it away in favor of a premeditated region building exercise that has resulted in breaking the bank, pissing on the Constitution and Geneva conventions, creating more enemies, pissing off our allies, damaging our military, the list goes on. Trying pin the blame for that on Clinton is a bunch of crap.

That looks like a personal grudge list that Halperin wrote and Media Matters pretty much smacked down his first talking point. Besides, talking about what the media ISN'T going to cover doesn't indicate a bias. The list of what they're not going to cover or cover but not to your political liking can be tailored to meet any agenda. I could create a similar list of things like WTO or World Bank protests that are extremely poorly covered, poor coverage of the Sudan genocide, the way the media simply repeated White House talking points in the lead up to the Iraq war while ignoring everything else, the way that Israeli's and Palestinians are portrayed, etc. Actually, I guess I was wrong. Talking about what the media won't cover does indeed indicate a bias, just not the one that's thrown about as "liberal"ly as others.

Here's another nice little read for ya. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheney's_Energy_Task_ForceRead it in its entirety now. That reminds me, why is it that Scalia hasn't been kicked off the bench yet? I guess actual impropriety doesn't hold as much weight as the appearance of impropriety. Also, this was always one of my favorite maps to bring out during the "it's not about oil" discussions. http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf

It seems that the four to five US administrations may have thought that it was best to befriend Pakistan in order to have an ally in the region, even if that meant giving them the bomb. There's new book out called "Deception" that chronicles it. I've heard a couple of interviews with the writers. I'm currently looking into this angle on the same story. "He soon discovered, however, that senior officials in government were taking quite the opposite view: they were breaking US and international non-proliferation protocols to shelter Pakistan's ambitions and even sell it banned WMD technology. In the closing years of the cold war, Pakistan was considered to have great strategic importance. It provided Washington with a springboard into neighbouring Afghanistan - a route for passing US weapons and cash to the mujahideen, who were battling to oust the Soviet army that had invaded in 1979. Barlow says, "We had to buddy-up to regimes we didn't see eye-to-eye with, but I could not believe we would actually give Pakistan the bomb. http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2188777,00.html