« Blockbuster Investor Call Notes | Main | TiVo Netflix RSS Reader »

Comments

Eric

Yes, redistricting is not popular by democrats in California because they have a majority in both houses. In 2000 after the last census they drew the new districts but some had 1 state senate seat to 1 assembly seat while others had 1 senate seat to 2 or 3 Assembly sets. As Arnold said "it was the politicians choosing the people not the people choosing the politicians"

Just like Texas

Reed is a Dem but his track record shows he will give to causes he thinks are worth supporting.

While I agree that the way districts are drawn up here has to change, I did not like the proposed plan. I'm up for other ideas for sure.

Basically put the Democrats are trying to keep a stranglehold on both houses in Sacramento, the Republicans are trying to pry it out of their hands and then there are some people who see the current way as illogical and just want it changed.

Also keep in mind the very rich will often hedge their bets and give to both parties. Not that I think that's appropriate.

Todd Plants

The folks above are right, in this particular instance, the redistricting measure would have had the effect of favoring Republicans.

Democrats often support these kinds of measure though because they are roughly "good government." Having a non-partisan disctrict drawing commission is probably theoretically better than politicizing it in the legislature.

Probably shouldn't read to much into Hasting's shifting political allegiances from supporting any single issue-based initiative.

Hunter McDaniel

Had Prop 77 passed, the biggest gainers would have been moderate Dems like Hastings, who currently get taken for granted by the far left. It's not hard to understand why he would support it.

Tony

Arnold is a very moderate, almost liberal, Republican in many ways.

Prop 77 was opposed by the majority of BOTH parties, because it takes away their cushy redistricting ability that keeps them employed.

This prop would only "favor" Republicans in the short term, because Dems have the majority in the state senate...but in the long run, it would have benefited the people.

Several other Arnold supported props were voted down, after the opposition spent HUGE numbers spreading outright lies and falsehoods about them. The overriding theme was "anti-Arnold"...not against the propositions themselves. It's sad, really.

Here's an excerpt from a Sacramento Bee columnist (Weintraub) about Prop 77:

"A few days ago we received a slick, full-color mailer at our house that would have scared me to death if I hadn't already known the truth.

"Powerful forces are trying to rewrite the constitution for their own political advantage," the piece warned in large type. "Tell the power-hungry politicians to keep their hands off!" The card labeled Proposition 77 a "political power grab" that would "help one party [it didn't say which one] gain an advantage." The new district lines, the piece said, would be drawn "without elections, without any accountability."

Those claims are not just distortions. They are lies. Under Proposition 77, the new lines would be drawn using a strict set of criteria banning the use of incumbents' addresses or partisan voter data, including past election results. And the new lines would be subject to an automatic referendum - exactly the opposite of what the mailer claimed.

The real insult is that the warning about "power-hungry politicians" was paid for by - you guessed it - power-hungry politicians, and mailed by the California Democratic Party. While Proposition 77 has been endorsed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, against the advice of many of his Republican Party colleagues, it is also backed by Common Cause, TheRestOfUs.org and CalPIRG, three very independent, grass-roots groups that have been fighting for years to put the job of redistricting in the hands of an independent commission. Some power grab."

Full article: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/columns/weintraub/story/13807170p-14648369c.html

The Punisher

Well, as others have stated, the "problem" is adhering to the Republican and Democrat stereotypes. Arnold is NOT a Bush Republican. Tony's entry spells it out pretty well.

The defeat of Prop 77 will cause 2005 California voters to be considered the biggest pack of idiots in American history by future historians.

As much as I like democracy in general, Gerrymandering is one of the more vile inventions of Western democratic tradition. It's basically a state legislature locking itself or its party into statehouse seats by carefully drawing the shapes of the districts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

It's such an obvious conflict of interest there almost has to be something unconstitutional about it, although I am not aware of anyone challenging it on that basis. It's like putting pedophiles in charge of day care. And given the folks in the California state legislature right now, that's an insult to pedophiles. Seriously, we have some of the most useless scumbags ever to hold office here in California. I would not want Arnold's job dealing with that pile of human atrocities. The whole reason we had these propositions was because the Legislature was acting like eternal d*ckheads.

California was handed a rare oppurtunity to take the redistricting process away from the last people in the world who should possess it, and they turned it down. Maybe the approach with the judges is not perfect, but it's BETTER than what they have now.

And I use "they" despite being in California. I feel very alienated from my fellow Californian today. Tuesday was a triumph for the forces of propaganda, lies and ignorance. If I were Arnold, I'd tell California to go collectively f*** itself, resign, and move to Chicago, taking every bit of business I could convince to go with me.

SeishiZero

"The defeat of Prop 77 will cause 2005 California voters to be considered the biggest pack of idiots in American history by future historians."

Hyperbole much?

The very Republican state of Ohio defeated a similar measure on Tuesday. Idiots have no ideology.

DiversiGuy

Reed Hastings lost his post on the State Board of Education. This happened because he pissed off Mexicans by opposing Mexican-language instruction in schools. He was already an enemy of conservatives.

Supporting Prop 77 would help throw out a lot of idiot Democrats (and Mexicans) in our state legislature.

Reed mentions a multi-decade effort to 'improve' California.. perhaps getting booted enlightened Reed to the challenge posed by Mexicans and their Democrat enablers.

The defeat of 77 does illustrate that Californians probably shouldn't be allowed to vote any more. Our districts are incredibly static in regard to which party controls them. Perhaps this is our punishment for voting in term limits for the legislature in order to toss out corrupt Black Willie Brown.

Wolf

"Mexican-language instruction in schools"
What's this Mexican language you're talking about DiversiGuy? I've never heard of it.

Just look at the reviews on Netflix and you will see political bias. Examples: check the "Fahrenheit 9/11" reviews. The main page is all 1-star reviews, even though the movie's average is 3.6. Meanwhile, "FahrenHYPE 9/11" (widely regarded as crap) shows two 3-star reviews, two 4-star reviews, and two 1-star reviews, with an average rating of 3.4. You can't trust average ratings, unless Netflix members are idiots. IMDB gives "Fahrenheit" a weighted average of 7.8 over 10, whereas "FahrenHYPE" gets a weighted average of 4.8 over 10. There's something fishy there. And you can see this trend on many other movies and documentaries that are political and/or morally offensive. Netflix black-balls any movie that opposes their corporate culture. Just look up Noam Chomsky, a wildly popular radical MIT professor who speaks @ sold out auditorious on a regular basis. It's absurd to think that ordinary working people would oppose his message. Only the elite and their dupes have any legitimate disagreement with Chomsky's devastating critiques of economic oppression and media brain-washing. But if you rely on Netflix to filter your movies, you end up with corporate-friendly tripte which reinforces the status quo.

"What's this Mexican language you're talking about DiversiGuy? I've never heard of it."

The language they speak in Mexico, commonly known as SPANISH. The language of Mexicans, being synonymous with "Mexican language." I bet you're the type of guy who corrects USA citizens who call themselves Americans. BUT CANADIANS AND THOSE SOUTH OF THE BORDER ARE AMERICANS TOO!!! Thank you for your rubbing our noses in your politically correct BS.

Wolf

"Thank you for your rubbing our noses in your politically correct BS."
Oh please, I hate politically correctness, I was merely pointing out you are probably are the kind of moron that likes to ask "What part of Mexico is Honduras?" LOL!!!

"Netflix black-balls any movie that opposes their corporate culture"

And you know this how? Oh that's right, you're the paranoic professional victiim. I almost forgot.

"check the "Fahrenheit 9/11" reviews. The main page is all 1-star reviews, even though the movie's average is 3.6. Meanwhile, "FahrenHYPE 9/11" (widely regarded as crap) shows two 3-star reviews, two 4-star reviews, and two 1-star reviews, with an average rating of 3.4. You can't trust average ratings, unless Netflix members are idiots. IMDB gives "Fahrenheit" a weighted average of 7.8 over 10, whereas "FahrenHYPE" gets a weighted average of 4.8 over 10."

The difference is that in order to rate a movie on Netflix, one must be a PAID subscriber. On IMDB, in order to rate a movie one must be a registered member of IMDB, but that's free of charge. Therefore, those who have paid subscriptions with Netflix are more likely to be people who work for a living whereas some of those who vote on the IMDB are quite likely to be a bunch of left wing freeloaders of society. :-) <---just a hunch

DiversiGuy

Mexican-language is primarily a derivative of the language spoken in Spain, with some added vocabulary from the various tribal languages spoken by the undiluted Indian populations of Mexico, and with about 500 years of langage drift. At some establishments, such as Bellagio, you can tell that Mexican-language is spoken because they will denote it with a Mexican flag, rather than Spain's.

Spanish is not Mexican, in the way that Cockney is not American.

you suck

"On IMDB, in order to rate a movie one must be a registered member of IMDB, but that's free of charge. Therefore, those who have paid subscriptions with Netflix are more likely to be people who work for a living"

What absolute crap. As if IMDB voters don't work for a living. And as if Netflix doesn't have its share of non-workers posting their opinions (retirees, students, stay-at-home parents).

"whereas some of those who vote on the IMDB are quite likely to be a bunch of left wing freeloaders of society."

There are plenty of right-wing free-loaders, like Rush Limbaugh who lived on unemployment watching Tv and eating junk food, leeching off his ex-wife for several years - a fact he once made the mistake of admitting on his national radio show. As for the rest of your argument, it's crap. The reviews on the main pages are often not representative when the subject is political. Even popular movies do not get representative reviews on the main page. "American Beauty" has two 1-star and one 2-wtar review at the top of the page.

I think this highlights the fact that those who write reviews don't generally represent popular opinion. Not that IMDB members are free-loading liberals or that Netflix fixes the reviews. I would like if Netflix added the option to SORT ratings based on newest, oldest, higest rating, lowest rating, most helpful, least helpful, and perhaps karmic rating based on the reviewer's history. It takes forever to find the bad reviews for, say, "Batman Begins" (an over-rated piece of crap). Whereas "Eyes Wide Shut" is flodded with negative reviews from morons like you.

Being a worker automatically makes someone a Republican. Actually, the opposite tends to be true. Working-class and poor people are overwhelmingly Democrat. The elite and their dupes are Repugnicans.

"The difference is that in order to rate a movie on Netflix, one must be a PAID subscriber. On IMDB, in order to rate a movie one must be a registered member of IMDB, but that's free of charge."

I find the ratings on IMDB far more accurate (except for big budget crowd-pleasers like "Batman Begins"). It's also easy to find the negative reviews, whereas Netflix makes you sift through hundreds of over-rated reviews.

Freddy P

The racist and hateful sentiments expressed here are appalling. Is this representative of the greater Netflix community, or just a vocal minority? I wonder if Blockbuster or Greencine has as many haters...

Freddy P

The racist and hateful sentiments expressed here are appalling. Is this representative of the greater Netflix community, or just a vocal minority? I wonder if Blockbuster or Greencine has as many haters...

Also, IMDB is international. People from all countries are welcome to share their reviews and opinions. Netflix is a closed system. So it inevitably shows the failings of American education, media brain-washing, and deluded views espoused by our politicans and celebs. You get more accurate coverage of the USA by other countries. And you get more accurate reviews when everyone is allowed to speak. Netflix censors and controls speech both in the critique of movies and their service.

"Spanish is not Mexican, in the way that Cockney is not American."

Indeed. But don't try convincing morons like Wolfe of that fact. To him, Mexicans speak Spanish and there's no such thing as Mexican language. And no, I don't think Honduras is part of Mexico, Wolf. I do think you're an idiot who can't grasp common speech without lots of idiotic non-sequiturs. It would be a surprise if countries thousands of miles apart spoke exactly the same language, even if they were colonized by the same people. Languages morph and evolve, idiot. Mexican spanish is not spoken in Seville. Nor is Seville Spanish spoken in Barcelona. etc.

Hunter McDaniel

My son started a Spanish immersion program in first grade. When we moved to Colorado and transferred him to a similar program here, his classmates and teachers told him he had a "Cuban accent".

"What absolute crap. As if IMDB voters don't work for a living."

I wasnt generalizing about ALL imdb users.

"And as if Netflix doesn't have its share of non-workers posting their opinions (retirees, students, stay-at-home parents)."

I'm well aware of that fact as well. (And I do prefer the reviews posted in the IMDB instead of the ones posted in Netflx.)

"Being a worker automatically makes someone a Republican. Actually, the opposite tends to be true. Working-class and poor people are overwhelmingly Democrat. The elite and their dupes are Repugnicans."

And there YOU go, generalizing. Don't you know anything beyong simplistic bumper sticker logic? The fact of the matter is that the majority of rich/elite people in this country are registered Democrats. NOT all of them, but a majority of them.

Lets take the Senate for example:

I give you the top ten millionaires in the US Senate and their net worth:

John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009

Can anyone name which party eight out of ten of them belong to?

It's not the 1930s anymore, guy. Time to find a new songbook.


As for working class:

"The redoubtable and unpronounceable Ruy Teixeira, Democratic poll analyst par excellence, has been rooting around in the raw data newly released from the 2004 exit poll and has come up with one morsel that should cause Democrats everywhere to gag. It's not just that John Kerry got clobbered by working-class whites, whom he lost to George W. Bush by a hefty 23 points. It's not just that 66 percent of these voters trusted Bush to handle terrorism, compared with just 39 percent who trusted Kerry. It's that 55 percent of white working-class voters trusted Bush to handle the economy, while only 39 percent trusted Kerry."

http://www.prospect.org/web/view-web.ww?id=9240

"The result was a catastrophic desertion of white working class voters from the Democratic Party. The average white working class vote for the Democrats in 1960-64 was 55 percent; in the Nixon elections of 1968-72 and in the Reagan elections of 1980-84 it was 35 percent, a staggering 20 point drop in support from their key constituency."

http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=69


"There are plenty of right-wing free-loaders, like Rush Limbaugh who lived on unemployment watching Tv and eating junk food,"

Living on unemployment checks is not freeloading. Its something that belongs to you. Soemthing that you contribute to when you were/are working.


"leeching off his ex-wife for several years - a fact he once made the mistake of admitting on his national radio show"

Liar. He made no such admission. And why? Because it isnt true. You must be mixing him up with someone else.

Don't you know anything beyong

Typo

Don't you know anything beyond

"The racist and hateful sentiments expressed here are appalling. Is this representative of the greater Netflix community, or just a vocal minority? I wonder if Blockbuster or Greencine has as many haters..."

Republicans/Conservatives are always full of hate for Democrats, Liberals, working class, poor people, the environment, women, blacks, gays, hispanics, asians, and non-republicans in general. They have so little respect for the rest of humanity, they rig elections so that appointed presidents can send us to war for fictitious reasons. Why? For the wealth and glory of the elite weapons manufacturers and oil magnates. World domination. Same old dream. You will find repubs rationalizing a status quo where poor people have no health care, affordable housing, quality food, and other basic necessities. Why? Because they are so out-of-touch, like Alan Greenspan, they think "nobody needs social security or other safety nets." Afterall, rich fat cats like them don't need it. Thus, it's "bad for America" in general. Pathetic losers. Anyone who votes Repub ought to be shot to death.

"leeching off his ex-wife for several years - a fact he once made the mistake of admitting on his national radio show"

"Liar. He made no such admission. And why? Because it isnt true. You must be mixing him up with someone else."

He did make the admission. Read Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", as well as many others which have pointed out Rush Limbaugh's hypocrisy. Like every other Repub, he's a moral hypocrite who's glad to take corporate welfare and other government subsidies to the rich, then rail against the poor black mothers trying to raise 3 kids on a pathetic welfare check. You're a big fat idiot, just like Rush Limbaugh. You deny the truth, rather than investigate it. You're another Bill O'LIEly, telling bald faced lies with no credibility whatsoever. The show aired on May 10, 1995. It's been cited in numerous places. Only a dumb Repub like you would deny it ever happened. FOOL.

Before his overnight success, Rush Limbaugh lived as a shut-in, leeching off of his wife, with no job and no income, watching TV all day, sitting on the couch, and eating junk food by the ton. His wife had to nag him to mow the lawn and go down to the unemployment office. Mr. Rugged Individualist, who pulled himself up by the boot straps and worked his fingers to the bone to get ahead. All of the Repub mouth-pieces on radio and TV have the same story. Bill O'Liely is a hypocritical coward who's never muttered one word of truth in his whole life. Ann Coulter is a psychotic bitch with no credibility who thinks America should bomb all muslim countries back into the stone age and force them to convert to christianity. That was tried several hudnred years ago, Ann. Focking moron. The only good Repub is a dead Repub.

"Living on unemployment checks is not freeloading. Its something that belongs to you. Soemthing that you contribute to when you were/are working."

It wasn't unemployment. It was welfare. His wife had to nag him to get the check, because he'd rather just sit around all day watching TV and eating junk food. Too lazy to even mow his own lawn, until the neighbors complained and his wife nagged him some more. Pathetic.

"It's not just that John Kerry got clobbered by working-class whites, whom he lost to George W. Bush by a hefty 23 points. It's not just that 66 percent of these voters trusted Bush to handle terrorism, compared with just 39 percent who trusted Kerry. It's that 55 percent of white working-class voters trusted Bush to handle the economy, while only 39 percent trusted Kerry."

Considering the fact that more than 50% of the population didn't bother to vote and many more were illegally "scrubbed" from voter rolls by Bush's brother Jeb, that's totally meaningless to say that Kerry had less vote. The people who don't vote are more socialists and libertarians who hate both parties. So let's stop the spoon-fed lies that working class people are leaving the democratic party. That's just the usual Republican spin doctoring and lies.

George W. Bush = Election-Rigging Fake

Also, Rush praised Reagan as the greatest President in history. Only trouble is that Rush never voted for him. Why ever not? "I would've had to go stand in line, and I didn't want to do it." Reagan was reallly the greatest PR campaign in history. No other president accomplished so little and took credit for so much... Like the Iran hostages - a scam where Reagan supporters behind the scene DELAYED their release to coincide with the election. (Documented by numerous insider sources, but ignored by the mainstream press - see "Orwell Rolls in His Grave".) How would you like it if YOU or a loved one were held hostage for months or years give Reagan/Bush a photo op? That's the Republican way. Take credit for every good thing that happens, even if there's no credible reason, and and blame the outgoing administration for everything bad.

I guess you never read about the scandal of Bush's administration FALSELY accusing the Clinton people of vandalizing and sabotaging equipment. It never happened, but Fox News, WSJ, NY POST, and Washington TIMES railed at Clinton for months. That's the pattern that we see again and again. Take credit for all good things that happen. Blame the old guy for everything bad. And most people are so stupid, they fall for this again and again.

Anyone with a brain should have suspected a staged event with the Iran hostage release, tearing down the Berlin Wall, the dramatic capture of Saddam Hussein after Bush gave up on finding Bin Laden... One staged event and photo-op after another. Republicans are all ineffective and worthless leaders who serve the ruling elite without any pretense about helping poor and middle class people. The democrats aren't much better, but they at least have pretend to care about the other 90%. Republicans only care about feathering their nests and screwing the poor.

LET US SORT THE REVIEWS

(And I do prefer the reviews posted in the IMDB instead of the ones posted in Netflx.)

So why do you attack IMDB and say that their ratings are skewed by an unspecified number of unemployed liberals? IMDB's reviews are better than Netflix, because they are not censored, not limited to ignorant Americans, and not limitd as to length. I also enjoy being able to SORT reviews based on various criteria. Netflix doesn't allow any type of sorting. They put the 3 "most helpful" and newest reviews on the main page. Everything else is like a needle in a hay-stack when a film gets more than 20-30 reviews.

I always look on IMDB first, because their reviews can be sorted. Netflix's reviews are largely worthless, because you can't format them according to your preferences. Nobody will ever be able to find the 30 people who hated "Batman Begins" out of 392 reviews. Unless they want to spend hours digging. It would be very simple for Netflix to allow sortable ratings based on preferences and a drop down menu. But they seem to prefer to live in the dark ages, ignoring innovations like sortable reviews.

I also use Amazon to get reviews for movies. Again they allow you to sort reviews, while Netflix doesn't. If you want a good overall picture of a movie, start by looking at the negative reviews, and work your way up. If there aren't many 1-star reviews, you have probably found good movie.

It would improve Netflix service greatly to let people sort reviews. The current system becomes useless when there's more than a few pages of reviews. You can't easily focus on negative reviews or positive reviews, most or least helpful, newest or oldest, reviewer most like you, most prolific reviewer, most helpful reviewer... Their site could be 100 times better, if they just copied what IMDB and Amazon do, and ADD some new features of their own.

Are you listening, Netflix?
Let us sort reviews based on:
1. Highest rating
2. Lowest rating
3. Most helpful
4. Least helpful
5. Newest first
6. Oldest first
7. Random order
8. Most helpful reviewer
9. Most prolific reviewer
10. Most prolific rater
11. Reviewer most like me
12. Most rated reviews
13. Least rated reviews

Anything along these lines would improve the NFLX service VASTLY over its current state. Currently, reviews are gradually lost amidst an avalanche of new reviews and popular old reviews. Thus, most of the reviews are never read or rated by most users. That's crappy. Even randomly sorting the reviews for every page view would be a better system.

DiversiGuy

I'm confused... Are social safety nets bad, or good? Or does it depend on Rush Limbaugh?

(And I do prefer the reviews posted in the IMDB instead of the ones posted in Netflx.)

"So why do you attack IMDB and say that their ratings are skewed by an unspecified number of unemployed liberals?"

Most people take part in ratings. Because all that involves is a push of the button. Whereas writing and posting a review takes time. If you'll notice, there are more people rating the movies than writing reviews (this also goes for all the products on Amazon. There are more people rating each review than there are reviews)

__________________

"Considering the fact that more than 50% of the population didn't bother to vote"

You're ASS-UMING that the 50 percent that didnt bother to vote, if they would bother to vote, most or all of that 50 percent would have voted for Kerry. The fact of the matter is that the 50 percent you cite, chances are is that they would have followed the same pattern of the 50 percent that DID vote.


"and many more were illegally "scrubbed" from voter rolls by Bush's brother Jeb,"

Jeb can only scrub voters from the State of florida. Not nationwide. And it was only thousands. Not milions.

http://namyth.com/?pg=politicsforumf911


"The people who don't vote are more socialists and libertarians who hate both parties. So let's stop the spoon-fed lies that working class people are leaving the democratic party. That's just the usual Republican spin doctoring and lies."

That's a fact. The socialists and Libertarians are tiny parties with small memberships that can barely get anyone to vote for them. The reason why Republicans have been winning elections for the most part for the past ten years is because the working class is voting for them.

""Liar. He made no such admission. And why? Because it isnt true. You must be mixing him up with someone else."

He did make the admission. Read Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", as well as many others which have pointed out Rush Limbaugh's hypocrisy. Like every other Repub, he's a moral hypocrite who's glad to take corporate welfare and other government subsidies to the rich, then rail against the poor black mothers trying to raise 3 kids on a pathetic welfare check. You're a big fat idiot, just like Rush Limbaugh"

1) Maybe you should pay attention. Al Frankens book talks about Rush going on welfare for a short period of time. What I called a lie is the part where you argued that Rush leeched off his ex-wife.

2) It was you that refered to Rush going on unemployment, not welfare: "living off unemployment" is YOUR words.

3) Try to find a better source than Al Franken's book. He has long since admitted that it is a humorous book that makes up details. One of which was the "leeched off his ex-wife" part.

___________________________

"Also, Rush praised Reagan as the greatest President in history. Only trouble is that Rush never voted for him. Why ever not? "I would've had to go stand in line, and I didn't want to do it."

Irrelevant. I too never voted for Reagan. (reason: I was too young to vote)


"Reagan was reallly the greatest PR campaign in history. No other president accomplished so little and took credit for so much... Like the Iran hostages - a scam where Reagan supporters behind the scene DELAYED their release to coincide with the election. (Documented by numerous insider sources, but ignored by the mainstream press - see "Orwell Rolls in His Grave".)"

Man, you are DELUSIONAL. I mean this is real tin foil hat type stuff. This sort of thing has long since been disproven. Can everyone see the type of person that represents liberal thinking?


"I guess you never read about the scandal of Bush's administration FALSELY accusing the Clinton people of vandalizing and sabotaging equipment. It never happened, but Fox News, WSJ, NY POST, and Washington TIMES railed at Clinton for months."

Oh, I read about it, and guess what? It DID happen. The GAO was called in to do a report on the damage done to the White House. Problem was that they studied only the structure of the White House. There was no investigation of the damage done to the WH interior offices by the departing Clinton administration. It seems that GAO only investigates exterior not interior. So the GAO did a second investigation and they found tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage done by the outgoing Clinton staffers:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf

http://www.impactnet.org/html/wh_trashing.html

"Report confirms vandalism as Clinton left White House

Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 09:30 JST
WASHINGTON — Vandals damaged keyboards and glued shut desk drawers as the Clinton administration moved out of the White House last year, and someone made off with a large presidential seal, the investigative arm of Congress said on Tuesday."


"Anyone with a brain should have suspected a staged event with the Iran hostage release, tearing down the Berlin Wall, the dramatic capture of Saddam Hussein after Bush gave up on finding Bin Laden..."

Everyone with a whole brain can see that you are quite the delusional one.

Gee Mike. Why do you hate politics? ;-)

Mexican

What the hell are you guys talking about? I guess we don't speak English, we must speak "American."

I am Mexican, and I speak SPANISH. Each country adds some own words, but it doesn't change the language.

If this were the case, each spanish speaking country would just speak "Peruvian" or "Venezuelan"

First off, many voters do not vote on the issues. Many actually vote on "who they can relate to," or "Who they'd like to have a beer with."

This is why people will argue for Bush, but not have anything to back up the argument except for either repeating what Bush says himself (not much) or getting pissed off at you.

(You find any of this information in any Social Psychology book).

Also, talking about rigging the election. There isn't any actual "proof" about this, but there is some very interesting info about it. I took a political science course this past semester, and the professor showed us about 15 states where Kerry either "won" the exit poll for the state or he had only lost by 1-4%. The actual results show Kerry losing each state he won (about a 7-12% vote sway) or for the ones where he lost, he lost by about (4-7%) more.

Just thought it was interesting that this happened in so many states.....

Ho hum. I'm a Republican, and get tired of the way anti-repubs (can't classify them all as democrats, since they aren't necessarily all democrats) never seem to notice this one thing:

You're busy bashing us for being racists, generalists, etc etc etc. But if you scroll up and look on these comments, how many generatlizations are you guys making here? Heck, substitute "republican" with some racial epithet and you could be writing Klan speeches.

Hatred knows no political party. It's just that anti-republican hatemongers are convinced that their rabid antipathy somehow shows enlightenment. Go ahead, bash my party if you wish. Just don't pretend that you yourself are not a bigoted hatemonger easily the equal of anything you wish to assign to the Republican party's entire membership.

As for myself, I don't hate the anti-repubs posting above... I just pity them, for they are bigoted beyond the ability to even see it in themselves.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsors

Third-Party Netflix Sites