There's more good news for chocolate lovers. Scientists have found that eating dark chocolate appears to improve the function of important cells lining the wall of blood vessels for at least three hours. The study, involving 17 healthy young volunteers who agreed to eat a bar of dark chocolate and then get an ultrasound, found that eating dark chocolate seemed to make the blood vessels more flexible, which helps prevent the hardening of the arteries that leads to heart attacks. But experts cautioned that the weight gain from eating a lot of chocolate probably would cancel out the apparent benefit.
Dark chocolate is rich in flavonoids, which act as natural antioxidants -- chemicals that combat the damage oxygen does to the body. However, that does not mean that chocolate binges will ward off a heart attack, experts warn. Cacao, the plant that chocolate comes from, has for centuries been used for everything from medicine to currency. Although enjoyed worldwide, until recently it was considered a treat that provided fat and calories but no substantial nutritional value. Studies recently have indicated that it releases the happy chemical seratonin in the brain. However, during the last few years, studies have suggested -- much to the delight of chocoholics -- that it is rich in flavonoids.
The latest study, conducted by cardiologists at Athens Medical School in Greece, set out to test whether chocolate affected the functioning of the so-called endothelial cells in the walls of the blood vessels, which are believed to be affected by oxygen damage and are considered a mirror of the overall health of the cardiovascular system. The scientists, who presented their work Sunday at Europe's most important cardiology conference, gave 3.5 ounces of either dark, bittersweet, chocolate or fake chocolate to 17 healthy volunteers.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/29/2004 7:23:43 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#11
Going back to the quiz and playing around a bit, I found out what kept me from a perfect 40 score: my "NO" vote on banning pornography, and my "NEITHER" vote on the question of whose views are more extreme, Jocelyn Elders or Pat Robertson.
For what it's worth...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/29/2004 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#12
How appropriate that Jesse is a big "0"! Also, I disagree that a 40 would equal Reagan. That would mean that his views would strictly align with the correct answers to all the questions. If memory serves me, Reagan never compromised social security and medicare or cut the programs mentioned in the questions.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
08/29/2004 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The problem with that test is there are more than two political stances. Big media pushes the two party system in this country. I got a 32 but I classify myself as a (right leaning) libertarian.
I the Catholic side of me on (especially on question 11, I said need rebuilt cities AND more prisons) kept me from the 40. That and my non-opposition to deficeit spending (which puts me in line with the Gipper) - deficeits are OK as long as they are eventually resolved by cuts.
One I don't see a liberal/conservative difference for is: 19. Deceptive political campaign commercials should be banned. (FYI I said no - which marked me as a conservative - I guess liberals tthat are pure free speech types must be closet conservatives according to this poll).
Both sides want the other side's ads banned, so when you say "Deceptive" it draws different pictures in people's partisan minds. Conservatives see deceptive ads as those full of untruths, like the Bush=AWOL (completely unproven), whereas Liberals see the swift vets ads (even if they are factually correct like the latest one about Cambodia) as "Deceptive".
Posted by: Matt ||
08/29/2004 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I got an Incomplete because I did not take it....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/29/2004 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#21
..I came up with a 31 - not in bad company, I'd say*S*
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/29/2004 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I scored "36"-identical to badanov and close to sock and frank. Pretty much where I thought I'd be, though I am surprised OS is more "right" than us four. Good job, OS, now you will inherit the John Birch, Barry Goldwater moniker. ha, ha
Posted by: rex ||
08/29/2004 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Ooops I didn't pay close enough attention - it's Dan who is the "extreme" rw moniker winner, not OS.
Posted by: rex ||
08/29/2004 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Even taking a pretty libertarian line through the questioning I got a 34. I'm surprised that Bob Dole is considered to the Right of me, though. I wonder how they picked the people to represent the various scores.
#25
38 out of a possible 40. They set the "quiz" up to show extremes of thinking (the possible answers make that obvious). I didn't even answer one of the questions, since I didn't agree with either choice.
Wonder how people would score if at least some of the questions had "Who gives a rat's ass?" as a choice?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/29/2004 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I disagree that a 40 would equal Reagan. That would mean that his views would strictly align with the correct answers to all the questions. If memory serves me, Reagan never compromised social security and medicare or cut the programs mentioned in the questions.
Actually Reagan was pretty conservative, more so than he is given credit for. We have selective memory about his "conservativism" nowadays. The neocons have wrongfully claimed Reagan as their one of their own and therefore Reagan is being painted these days as a social liberal hawk than he actually was. Remember it was Reagan who contemptuously used the image of a "cadillac" welfare mom to great advantage to support cuts in welfare spending. And he only gave amnesty to the 4 million illegal immigrants, because he was trying to cut a deal with a Democrat dominated Congress to bring in stricter employer-of- illegals penalties and stricter border control. Reagan actually believed that the Democrats were serious about amnesty being a one time only thingie. Also, though Reagan spoke favorably about deficit spending, he was still fighting behind the scenes with the Democrats to make domestic spending cuts. He spent alot in defense and space exploration because he inherited a broken military and a demoralized nation from Carter. Keep in mind Reagan was also a big proponent of state autonomy and small federal government. And recall it was Reagan penalized the UN for its blantant anti-Americanism by refusing to pay UN dues. So I'd say Reagan is definitely more RW and "less compassionate" than people today remember him to be.
Reagan proposed that spending be reduced to below baseline levels. In his first budget plan,he proposed cuts of $41 billion for FY1982, or about 5 percent of baseline outlays. His second budget for FY1983 proposed an additional cut of 5 percent.3 He targeted both discretionary and entitlement programs for cuts, including health care, welfare, food stamps, student
loans, housing, and education. Reagan did not get all the cuts he wanted, but he did push for subtractions from the baseline, not additions as Bush has pushed for.
Posted by: rex ||
08/29/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2004 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#35
A slight OT:
Is anyone else watching the C-SPAN coverage of today's anti-Bush march in NYC?
Some lowlights:
Big mob of fat lesbians ululating terror-mom style.
An obese 50 something woman marching topless.
An old guy in a barrel.
A dragon float set on fire by blackshirts and hosed down by the FDNY.
Another nut with a sign declaring (I kid you not) "The End is Near" just like a MAD Magazine cartoon from the 50s.
Cameras cutting away constantly because of obscene signs, audio blipped or shut down because of obscene chants.
My question: Where did Karl Rove get the dough to pay all these idiots?
#39
LOL AC! I'm turning C-Spam on right now. I can't wait to see this!
Posted by: Charles ||
08/29/2004 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Wow. Just turned on the C-SPAN coverage of Moonbat Central Control.
For those of you too young to remember, this is what the Sixties were like, except now there's no blood in the streets.
Yet.
.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/29/2004 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#41
They are either saying "Fuck and Suck" or "Boston sucks" I can't figure it out. And what's the deal with the flag draped coffins? Are they trying to impress the Paleos?
#42
LGF is running not one but several live threads on the coverage.
At this point, many of the marchers are going openly totalitarian by chanting "No more GOP." They are closing in on Central Park to confront the police there. Can the blackshirt terrorists overthrow rule of law and hijack the park for their own purposes? This is the showdown.
#50
Sweeeeet political quiz, sock. I scored on "the border of right-conservative and libertarian." [90% economics per the former and 50% personal issues per the latter]
Posted by: rex ||
08/29/2004 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#51
31
I've got no problem being between Jack Kemp and Bob Dole.
#53
Like all pop psych quizzies, fun but incomplete (according to Myers-Briggs, my husband - of almost a quarter century - and I should have loathed one another on sight; according to another one whose name escapes me, I don't exist). Twenty - because there were a bunch of questions that didn't provide the right answer - and slightly left in the Centrist box.
But neither questionnaire asked, "What would you do if they wanted to put a black tent on your daughter?" or "What should be done to those who believe Jews need human blood to make Passover matzahs/Purim pastries/holiday bread?"
Gentle: Did you leave any questions unanswered because you don't know one or both of the choices? Did you choose your answers with reference to your own country, or to America? Both of these could change the validity of your result. Although I think that a lower number does seem to track well with your age, status, and general tone of your coments here (outside of your hateful attitude toward Jews and Israel, which likely are the result of the propagandist streak in your education and society. I suspect you have never personally made the acquaintance of a Jew, or even a Muslim Arab Israeli, in order to form your own opinion.)
#55
Lucky - got a link for you: MoCoLoco (Modern Contemporary Design) - you were talking, no make that emoting (heh), about composition and there are interesting things to be seen here which might offer inspiration. Cool runnings...
#61
.
I got a 26. Butâ¦.. Iâm with trailing wife. Here are some problems I had with the survey.
1. Executive v/s Legislativeâ¦I based my answer on: what if Hillary was in the white house? I trust the legislative branch more because it can not be completely corrupted by one (or more) tyrant-wannabe(s).
2. CIA v/s Peace Corps. Trust them for what? To be nice people who only think nice thoughts. Iâd bank that fewer Peace Corps people have ever had an occasion to slit a throat in a dark alley. What am I trusting them to do? If the survey said, âwho do you trust more to protect you from terrorists,â then Iâd vote CIA. But they didnât ask it that way, now did they?
3. Team v/s Owners. You guys gotta be kidding me. While I know that many professional athletes are jerksâ¦most of them are good boys and girls who live good lives. Yet many of the owners are just a bit too cushy with mob interests for my taste.
4. Entitlements.. I lost points because I think we do need some environmental legislation. Do I support the loony ones? No. But I do support laws preventing lazy businessmen from dumping their waste into the nearest river or ditch. So sue me.
5. Prisons and Rebuilding. It wasnât phrased as an either-or question. So why wouldnât both would be helpful?
6. Iâm not for abolishing public radio altogether. That doesnât mean that I donât think current public radio is a total propaganda machine â because I do. Iâd like to see it reformed into REAL public radio, rather than propaganda radio. It needs to be restructured â not abolished all together. Iâd love it if we could have a free source for all points of view to get airtime. That itâs not like that now doesnât mean that it is not possible for it to be good!
7. Elders/Robertson â disliking both of them hardly makes me âa liberalâ. Iâm a believing/wants to practice it- Christian â but Pat doesnât speak for me.
So I guess Iâm one of the folks that they hope will sway to Kerry. Good luck. I think heâs the sorriest thing in town. And contrary to cool opinion â I think Bush has been a great president. If Iâm a bellwether of Kerryâs chances for successâ¦we are in good shape in Nov.
I know that nobody is going to read these comments a day late. But, for reasons unclear, I feel compelled to write this anyway.
#62
Well many conservatives (like myself) find out some issues they are closer to Libertarians. Like privacy and taxation. So much so that I registered as a Libertarian though I vote for the candidate not the party and usually split my vote.
#63
But, for reasons unclear, I feel compelled to write this anyway.
Here's the reason. You are in denial that you are a liberal deep inside, and felt you needed to "justify" your choices aloud. Unfortunately your arguments for answering the way you did were even more self-revealing.
You are a liberal and if it was an Edwards/Hildabest ticket instead of Kerry/Edwards, you'd probably vote Democrat. Likely you voted Clinton 2 terms in a row.
It's not a big deal that you are a liberal, except that it worries me Kerry is the Republican's best "weapon" to keep the WH in 2004.
Posted by: rex ||
08/30/2004 2:01 Comments ||
Top||
#64
rex, you really can be a jerk -- unnecessarily most of the time. There isn't anything wrong with being baseline liberal, as long as one thinks through the issues, and always factors in reality! Its those darned fairy tale inhabitants now busily shouting their way down the streets of NYC that concern me
B, thank you for clarifying some of what I'd been thinking, too. And see, I read your post! I generally try to check out what happened after I went to bed :-)
#65
Well, sorry, #64, for answering B's question honestly, albeit bluntly. Why get your panties in a twist over honesty? Sheeesh. I don't have a problem with you guys being liberal.
My point was that as a traditional conservative, I worry about the future of the Republican Party if our Presidential candidate's biggest advantage for attracting voters like yourself is the dis-likeability factor of the Democrat's candidate and the fact that some freako ME terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers. Those reasons are not very re-assuring re: continued support for our party since we "lucked out" this time around due to things beyond our control.
Posted by: rex ||
08/30/2004 2:53 Comments ||
Top||
#66
trailing wife - thanks! It's nice to know that posting wasn't in vain :-)
Sock Puppet..."vote for the candidate" I always believe that if you find your friends are in 100% agreement with you, then you are their friends - not the other way around.
rex...yawn..I'm sorry, were you saying something. If I have more time tomorrow, I'll give it a read.
Tehran, Aug 29, 2004 (BBC Monitoring via COMTEX) -- Minister of Industry and Mines Eshaq Jahangiri in a meeting here Saturday [29 August] with visiting Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jesus Perez stressed economic cooperation between the two states.
The ministry's public relations department quoted Jahangiri as calling the bilateral relations as cordial and expressing Iran's readiness to expand cooperation in investments and trade between the two nations.
Manufacturing agricultural machinery and marine equipment, road building, as well as cooperation in oil, gas and petrochemicals sectors are all grounds for closer cooperation, he added. He also referred to the future trip to Iran by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, expressing hope that "cooperation agreements will be finalized and signed during his trip to Tehran." Jahangiri said primary areas of agreements are support and promotion of joint investments, removal of double taxation, as well as commissioning banking and shipping projects.
Perez also welcomed closer economic and trade ties between the two nations. "Currently there are ample grounds for cooperation in trade, scientific and commercial areas," he added. Perez, heading a politico-economic delegation, arrived here Saturday evening.
Hugo Chavez won Venezuela's recent recall referendum with more than 57 per cent of the official result.
Chavez, a former paratrooper colonel, failed in 1992 to take Venezuela in a coup. He became a folk hero during his two years in prison, and claimed to have launched the coup to rid Venezuela of its "corrupt oligarchy." He won the presidency in 1998, campaigned for a constitutional convention, and was re-elected under the new constitution in 2000. Chavez is a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro and an opponent of the US-led war in Iraq. His country is the world's fifth biggest crude exporter and supplies 13 per cent of the oil consumed in the United States.
Source: IRNA web site, Tehran, in English 1825 gmt 29 Aug 04
BBC Mon ME1 MEPol grs
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/29/2004 7:13:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
(2004-08-23) -- Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry today donated several of his own medals to South Korean gymnast Yang Tae-young, who fell short of an Olympic gold medal this week due to a judging error.
"That young man's uneven parallel bar routine is seared...seared in my memory," said Mr. Kerry, who is also a U.S. Senator. "Since I had these medals just lying around the house--the ones I earned in Vietnam--I thought it would cheer him up."
The Democrat candidate said he personally delivered the decorations to the South Korean Embassy in Washington.
"The embassy was closed, so I tossed them over the fence," he said. "There were some ribbons or some medals...I don't remember. Anyway, ribbons and medals were absolutely interchangeable in the Navy."
A spokesman for the Kerry-Edwards campaign said the altruistic act demonstrates that Mr. Kerry is not the kind of man described in the new book by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Posted by: Zhang Fei ||
08/29/2004 12:53:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good post...headline had me going there for a bit...
#2
:-) Good post
lucky he was Korean. If he was Vietnamese he might gotten chased around a hooch and shot in the back
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2004 7:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I snorted my coffee when I read that comment, Frank. But on a serious note, one thing about Kerry's service that I don't question is the decision to shoot that VC in the back. Fair fights in a war are a stupid idea. Actually, fair fights anytime are stupid.
#4
Shooting unarmed wounded folks in the back while they are running away from you is usually considered bad form or in some circles cowardly. Tells you all you need to know about John F. Kerry.
#5
War's an ugly business. I can't say I could blame Kerry for doing what he did in the heat of action, whilst the blood was up. But I would fault him for praising himself for conducting what seems to have been an honour-free act.
#6
5430, if you are ever in combat, especially with an adversary like the VC, killing a wounded soldier assures he won't be back to try to kill you. Fighting fair only gets you killed.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/29/2004 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I agree with BD and Deacon - I would've shot him too, but think putting yourself in for the award after is the criminal act - what a poseur
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2004 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
A5430: Shooting unarmed wounded folks in the back while they are running away from you is usually considered bad form or in some circles cowardly.
Actually, it isn't - what is bad form and a war crime is shooting someone after he's surrendered. Enemy troops, wounded or not, have no right to flee. They only have the right to surrender. They can fight, and take the potential consequence of getting killed. But they have no right to run away.
Even shooting prisoners of war isn't a sign of cowardice. The Imperial Japanese Army and the Wehrmacht did a lot of that, but no one has accused them of being cowardly. What is cowardly is running away from the scene of battle even as other elements of one's unit stand firm.
#9
I dont think Kerry shooting an armed VC in the back while the VC was fleeing is bad - he (the VC) could have easily turned around and fired another round if the launcher was loaded.
However doctoring the after action report to inflate the number of enemy he faced and their actions shows Kerry's character more then most.
Returning to the thread -- Are you sure it wasn't a North Korean? We know how Kerry loves those communists.....
#10
Well said, Frank. War isn't for the squeemish. I had a buddy in the 1st Cav in Nam and we were talking when he got back (he was wounded 3 times and only got one PH) and he was talking about his last patrol. He wanted a pair of Ho Chi Minh sandals but wanted the real ones, not the fakes you could buy in Saigon. Anyway, on his last patrol they were in a fire fight and killed a few VC. He got an authentic pair of sandals. A woman sitting next to us asked him why he could only get them on a patrol and he told her he took them off a dead VC. She was shocked, not that he had killed a VC but that he had taken the sandals. She said, "How could you take that poor man's shoes?". We looked at each other and I said, "Hell, lady, he didn't need them. He was dead". She called us both bloodthirsty bastards and stomped off. We laughed our asses off. She didn't have a clue.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/29/2004 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief, see article.
#12
Why let an enemy run away so he can fight you again at a time and place of his own choosing? I will never hold it against J F'in' K, much as I despise him for other things, for pursuing an enemy and killing him, wounded or not. When you fight, you fight to win. End of story.
Posted by: Dar ||
08/29/2004 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Deacon Blues: A woman sitting next to us asked him why he could only get them on a patrol and he told her he took them off a dead VC. She was shocked, not that he had killed a VC but that he had taken the sandals. She said, "How could you take that poor man's shoes?". We looked at each other and I said, "Hell, lady, he didn't need them. He was dead".
This isn't a particularly new practice. Read "All Quiet on the Western Front", written by a former front line soldier in the Great War, Erich Maria Remarque.
#14
CrazyFool: I dont think Kerry shooting an armed VC in the back while the VC was fleeing is bad - he (the VC) could have easily turned around and fired another round if the launcher was loaded.
Armed or unarmed, the enemy is not allowed to flee. He has the right to surrender and to have his personal safety guaranteed after his surrender, but that's it. Kerry was perfectly within his rights to shoot an unarmed combatant as he was fleeing. But not after a surrender.
However, the Geneva Convention does not. Having just returned from BCT, one of the training days cover the Geneva convention (yes, just the high points). It is illegal to shoot a wounded enemy soldier or one who is running.
Do I fault Kerry for his deed? No. Perfectly natural.
I fault him for not being able to keep his mouth shut about his _own_ violation of the 'laws of war'.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
08/29/2004 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2004 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#18
JR: However, the Geneva Convention does not. Having just returned from BCT, one of the training days cover the Geneva convention (yes, just the high points). It is illegal to shoot a wounded enemy soldier or one who is running.
This can't be right. This must not be the one that we ratified. I know for a fact that some of the new provisions were deliberately worked up to tie our hands after the Vietnam War.
#19
I'm with Gentle, let's level the playing field.
All soldiers in Western armies must be smacked in the head with a ball-peen hammer 20 minutes before combat.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2004 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Looks like you are the ones who do not value freedom of speech.
I've never been told to shut up before.
Huh!
And you thought Arabs liked to control women.
If you live in a glass house, don't throw bricks at the houses of other people.
#22
Gentle: I've never been told to shut up before.
Huh! And you thought Arabs liked to control women.
Do you live in an Arab country? Have you ever talked back to your husband about his other wives?
As to being told to shut up, everyone tells everyone to shut up in this country. It's par for the course. If you can't take being told to shut up, you should depart for more salubrious surroundings, such as the Democratic Underground.
#27
Gentle, dear, please remember that there is a difference between the playground and the battlefield. And be grateful, as am I, that you've only seen one of them ... and pray that you can say the same on your deathbed.
The more violence these radicals cause in the streets of Manhattan the more votes Bush gains. To all the imported leftists...show your true colours on national TV.
Protesters poured into Manhattan's streets by the thousands Sunday to protest the war in Iraq and demonstrate against other Bush administration policies on the eve of the Republican National Convention. Marchers planned to chart a circular course through the security-laden city to the convention site at Madison Square Garden and then back south again. "Today, we send our message," said Leslie Cagan, a leader of United for Peace and Justice, which sponsored the march, expected to be the largest demonstration of the convention week.
The group had sued to force the city to allow a rally in Central Park -- a bid rejected last week by a state judge. City officials said the event would damage lawns in the park. Unfolding in sweltering heat and humidity, the march followed several days of protests by an array of activist groups, with more than 300 people arrested so far. "We are the majority of this country. The majority of this country opposes the war," said filmmaker and vocal Bush critic Michael Moore, who addressed thousands of people gathering 10 blocks south of the convention site. Nearby, spectators poked their heads out of apartment windows along Seventh Avenue. Some demonstrators batted an inflatable, 6-foot globe. One sign echoed Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam-era remark: "How do you ask a soldier to be the last person to die for a lie?"
The most rancorous demonstration was on Friday, when 264 people were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct in a protest bicycle ride that snaked through the city near the convention site. Saturday was far calmer, with 25 people arrested in convention-related incidents, bringing the total for the three days to 311, police said. But the past three days were a mere prelude to demonstrations planned for Sunday.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/29/2004 7:38:19 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So true...the only thing these Brown Shirts are missing is the book burning.
#2
So true...the only thing these Brown Shirts are missing is the book burning.
They're still at the stage of trying to get them banned.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/29/2004 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why are they using the 250,000 number? I saw 100,000 also quoted and tens of thousands quoted. Given the population of NY why is that number significant. We all know NYC is majority Democrat. BFD These clowns aren't going to protest at their own convention. No story here.
#4
"We are the majority of this country. The majority of this country opposes the war," said filmmaker and vocal Bush critic Michael Moore, who addressed thousands of people gathering 10 blocks south of the convention site.
Insert the word "idiot" right before the word majority and the above statement becomes 100% accurate.
#5
The news story will be if al-Qa'ida is able to blend in with these wild mobs of radical outcasts and inflict on New York yet another deadly terrorist attack.
That should make the protesters feel really good.
This time around maybe some of the trouble makers in the streets will buy it as well as normal people.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/29/2004 21:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The best part was at the end where Michael Moore gave a speech. Saying: "We respresent the MAJORITY of Americans." Michael Moore may represent the majority of the hollywood liberals, but he does not and will NEVER represent the MAJORITY of AMERICANS. Most Amercians find him, his fairytales, and the Hollywood crowd repugnant. I love it when the RNC people call them (Demonstrators) Democrats and they try to deny it. I saw a LOT of Kerry/Edwards sign amongst that crowd. Wonder who is advising them, giving legal counsel, or financial backing to these groups?
First Lady Laura Bush is ripping Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry for his "absurd" claim that President Bush should have instantly left a classroom after being told a second plane had hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, instead of listening to children read for seven minutes. "I think that's a ridiculous allegation by John Kerry — it's absurd," Mrs. Bush told The Post. "And I think what my husband did was perfectly appropriate. I think it was the right thing to do in front of the children. I think it was the right thing to do in front of the press that were there. And while he was there for those seven short minutes, his staff was getting more information. They didn't have any more information than what [chief of staff] Andy Card had told him when he came into the room."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/29/2004 7:20:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think it was the right thing to do in front of the children. I think it was the right thing to do in front of the press that were there.
The First Lady repeats herself.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/29/2004 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Laura Bush is GWB's greatest "secret weapon" to win over the hearts and minds and votes of undecided independent voters based on their profile per the Zogby poll posted earlier today.
Profile of undecided voters=mainly middle aged, white, college educated, affluent males.
Laura plays well to that profile of voter. She's smart, classy, and definitely easy on the eyes.
Faced with the choice of trading in Laura, a national treasure, for the mouth-y mouse-y mutt a.k.a. Therezzzzza Heinz Ketchup...Laura wins hands down. Well, duh.
Posted by: rex ||
08/29/2004 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
Who are the undecideds in the 2004 vote?
There are only about 2.6 million of them, but they could hold the future of the nation in their hands. They are the undecideds, voters who haven't firmly made up their minds between George W. Bush and John Kerry. If this year's election is as close as expected, they are likely to decide it. They are still open to either man, a penetrating new survey shows, but they have two main complaints: They don't like President Bush's war in Iraq, and they simply don't like Senator Kerry. Said Kurt Trachte, 47, a construction worker from St. Charles, Mo.: "I massively want Bush to lose, but I don't like Kerry."
Yet nearly 9 out of 10 say they're certain to vote - although most plan to wait until the final days, if not hours, to decide. In perhaps a bad omen for Bush, more of the undecideds voted for him in 2000 than for Democrat Al Gore, indicating that Bush hasn't persuaded them to stay with him after four years in office. Some 58.7 percent voted for Bush in 2000, while 24.7 percent voted for Al Gore.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
08/29/2004 08:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"In perhaps a bad omen for Bush, more of the undecideds voted for him in 2000 than for Democrat Al Gore..."
This makes no sense. You would think that undecided people tend to remain undecided until the last minute out of principal.
#3
In the last ten days I've had 8 calls inquiring on my voting 'habits'. Got to find out how my name got on the list, other than I'm a registered independent. Each time they start the script, I simply tell them I cast a secret ballot in November and hang up. Just don't understand all the trouble we went to in order to obtain a secret ballot only to blab about how you're going to vote to some stranger on the phone line. Maybe that's just me.
Posted by: Don ||
08/29/2004 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Don: I've been getting automated "push-poll" phone calls regarding the economy and "the importance of restoring Democratic control of Congress" (as if it's their natural right).
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/29/2004 13:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Actually I don't think the overall description of the undecided in this poll is not that far from the truth. Some of the descriptor categories seem somewhat whimsical, but those type of questions were likely to put the people at ease with "fun" questions[astrology signs, dog vs cat owner, etc]. Zogby's interpretation of poll results seem skewed at times as well. But if you set aside the 2 things, just looking at the responses, I am not surprised by the profile of the independents, nor am I surprised about the positives/negatives of GWB/Kerry as perceived by this sector of voters.
Here's the profile of the "independents":
-They are more likely to be men
-They tend to be married
-They are largely white
-They are between 30 and 49 years old
-They tend to be well educated
-The higher the income, the more likely to be undecided[this is surprising because Kerry=higher income tax rates]
-The closer to the city, the more likely to be undecided
-They live more in the East, 33.5 percent, and central Great Lakes region, 31.2 percent. They are scarce in the South, 16.9 percent, and the West, 18.4 percent.[strange-I thought Easterners would be definite Kerry/Democrat Party decided voters]
-They reject party labels
-They are more pro-life than pro-choice, more pro-gun than gun control,are against gay marriage
-Only 13.1 percent had seen Michael Moore's anti-Bush film, Fahreheit 9/11 but 27.4 percent had seen "The Passion of the Christ"
-The key reason for the unhappiness with GWB is the Iraq war; 46.6 percent list Iraq as Bush's biggest failure.
-A solid 66.9 percent majority likes Bush as a person and 57.3 percent would rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry (though Bush doesn't drink alcohol)
- Bush's record as commander in chief commands their respect. Asked to name his most significant accomplishment, 45.7 percent say his leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; but only 20.2 percent say the war in Iraq
-- 46.5 percent say Bush shares their values; only 11.8 percent said Kerry does.
- 72.3 percent say they identify with a private-sector philosophy
- 46.7 percent choose protecting the country at all costs, while 28.2 percent choose seeking international alliances and better understandings between cultures
-Kerry's most formidable obstacle is that 51.6 percent say they don't like him, and 76.4 percent hold an unfavorable opinion of him
These areas might seem to favor Kerry according to Zogby:
-55.2 percent want a president who keeps his religious values out of public business
-48.4 percent consider themselves pro-environment and only 21.7 percent consider themselves pro-development.
- 31.8 percent will decide after the debates; 36.6 percent will decide during the last week of the campaign
It boils down to GWB being associated with an unpopular Iraq War versus Kerry's personal dis-likeability factor.
The debates seem very important to the independent voter sector, so let's hope Kerry comes across wooden and GWB comes across articulate, but not Karl Rove scripted. GWB is a much better speaker, IMO, when he speaks from the heart and does when he seems like he was coached by others.
Also, what seems important as to how independents cast their votes are the unpredictable events as they come up the last week of October re: Iraq or Kerry lies exposed. I think the current FBI investigation re: the mole in the DOD, depending on how it plays out, [whether it was influence peddling to affect foreign policy or just "peeking"]has the potential to be very negative for GWB, since the Iraq War is his achilles heel anyways.
Posted by: rex ||
08/29/2004 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
GW41- Should have been a great president. Something got lost in the shuffle. But I think he would of been fine to hang out with. And he would have tolerated a smirph like me gracefully.
Clinton- Big man on campus guy, the easily lead all want to hang with these guys, be in the in-crowed. I soon tire of their ego and wouldn't want to spend any more time with him than I had to. And he wouldn't want me around long as I wouldn't laugh at his jokes or do his dirty work.
Gore- Are you kidding me. Just a punk trying to be a BMOC. Thats why Clinton let him hang around. Like all of Clintons team, weak and sorta freaky. So I could never hang out with such a puke. And he wouldn't like me at all. As I would be out of his percieved class.
Leiverman- An OK guy. Hangs out with flakes though. I could hang with the guy but he would have to lose his friends. And I would tell him that and that would make him uncomfortable with me.
Cheney- "Can I hang out with you Mr Cheney, Sir? And can I tell Teddi to go fuck off." He would tell me to get my act together first. He would know some guys who could get me all straightened out. He'd get right on it and I'd be a better person.
JfingK- He wishes he was as BMOC as Clinton. Pretends to be and hopes everybody thinks it is so. I would love to hang out with the twerp as long as I could have some of the drugs Teresa is ingesting and the Shushi is fresh.
"Fresh Lucky? Tadashi is on staff and we fly in the most wonderful catch every morning. Frightfully expensive, you know, but one must do what one must do, Oh and Lucky, see all my stuff? Imported!"
Kerry wouldn't like me much as I couldn't pad his resume.
Edwards- I'd be sued, he'd have a broken nose. Wouldn't take long. He'd own everything I have. I'd soon slice the tires on his big MB. I'd get caught. Life would be bad.
G43- I bet he puts on a killer BBQ, Ice cold beer in big ice filled galvinized tubs and a place to sleep if I get to toasty. All in good spirits and jovial companionship. The music would be just a tumbl'n tumbleweed. He would tolerate me graciuosly much as his dad would have. I would feel welcomed at the next Ho-down too. But he'd tell me to mind my manners and remember the other guest, that I should mingle around and don't forget tommorrow is Sunday and make sure I wear clean cloths, ya know, "cowboy-up some Lucky."
"Sure boss. it's gonna be a purty morn'n, think I'll keep the fire goin alnight."
EFL - Al-Guardian
America's biggest Olympic hero yesterday accused George Bush of exploiting the Athens Games for his own political advantage in the run-up to the presidential election. Carl Lewis, who won nine Olympic gold medals in athletics in a record-breaking career, condemned Bush for using the presence of Iraqi and Afghan teams in Athens in a television advertisement to boost his chances of re-election.
Criticising Bush for linking his foreign policy with the two countries being allowed to compete here, Lewis said: 'I felt that was disingenuous. It is funny that we boycotted the 1980 Games [in Moscow] in support of Afghanistan, and now we're bombing Afghanistan,' he told the Athens News yesterday. 'Of course, we've invaded Iraq and are in there and are using it for political gain. It bewilders me, and I understand why the Iraqi players are offended. 'To support the players or the community is fine, but for political gain I disagree.'
*snip*
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2004 7:05:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I always figured Lewis for a tool but dang...
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
08/29/2004 7:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Shut up and run.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/29/2004 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
or walk. He's a little long in the tooth, now. :)
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
08/29/2004 06:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why is this just now showing up?
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
08/29/2004 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It went to the holding tank for awhile. We've had problems with trolls lately.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/29/2004 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't follow Fred, what's up?
You didn't take me for a troll did ya?
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
08/29/2004 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Not you. All posts meeting the criteria go to the holding tank. Most get passed through, a few get dumped.
After Gentle's three posts yesterday -- one on women having their periods, one reiterating the blood libel, and another one, the subject of which I've forgotten but in the same category, I've come to appreciate the holding tank even more.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/29/2004 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
thank you for sparing us
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2004 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Why does this article end up talking about boxing? Instead of sticking to the subject at hand this journalist just rambles on about whatever he happens to be thinking about.
#7
It wasn't about that!
It was about the status of women in Quran & the bible.
That was just an example Fred.
That is not fair.
Why didn't you post them?
#10
Gentle, Fred is fair. If you want to see "not fair" for comparison, read the New York Times.
Posted by: Tom ||
08/29/2004 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Gentle, have you actually read the Bible, so as to be able to judge if the article was correct? (Nb: "Bible" is capitalized, as are all proper names of things and people. College students are held to a higher standard in these matters.)
Liberalhawk, I found your answer to my legal question in the sink trap. Thanks lots! (Ok Fred, I had wandered rather off-topic there. Sorry!)
via BBC (of course, who else?) - EFL
By Asit Jolly - Sunday, 29 August, 2004, 02:10 GMT 03:10 UK
Sikhs from all over the world have begun arriving in the holy city of Amritsar, northern India, to commemorate the 400th year of the Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, on 1 September. That's pretty old, I guess.
The holiest Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple, will be the centre of celebrations that are expected to attract more than 4m visitors to Amritsar, in the northern state of Punjab. 4 Million. Do these guys know how to party, or what? I wonder how many thousands you have to go thru before you find one more distant than 1st cousin?
There is a distinct air of festivity in Amritsar's Old City, which surrounds the Golden Temple, also known as Harimandir Sahib - a site as sacred to Sikhs as Mecca is to Muslims. Whoa! And we know how holy that is, eh?
1 September 2004 has a special significance for the Sikhs. Oh boy, more!
It was on this day, exactly 400 years ago, that the Guru Granth Sahib - a textual compilation of the teachings of the Sikh Gurus - was brought to the Golden Temple by the fifth Sikh guru, Guru Arjan Dev. Awright, delivery, too! Ok, I'm in.
...more...
Since we've now been drafted into the Holy Stuff world, I thought I'd post this for the Sikhs. Besides, they get to carry daggers, have the best beards, by far, and a serioushatthinggoingon. Happy Guru Day, my Sikh Bros. Get it on - but watch those daggers and party safe!
Posted by: .com ||
08/29/2004 1:45:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder when the scheduled religious riot is due? It's sort of pro forma for gatherings like this.
#2
4 million daggers, religious fervor, hindu and muslim enemies...sounds like a party!
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2004 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I like their headgear: neatly folded and sharp creases, not like others we know and see.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/29/2004 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I was in India two years ago and a local business contact, a Sikh, took a co-worker and I to a Sikh festival, the Gurupurjab (sp?). I linked some of our pics to Rantburg afterward in the comments to a previous Sikh new article (I don't have them up on a site right now, though).
It was a rolling good time, crazy crowds, elephants, bands and some kids demostrating their sword and spear skills. Apparently there are "clubs" of a sort that teach that sort of thing. I got the impression the clubs were like a combination of the Boy Scouts and Karate School, mixed together.
Very cool, and the crowds were very friendly to us. What we found strange was that they kept recognizing us as Americans, yet India is crawling with European tourists (we never ran into any Americans other than our group in six weeks, but Europeans all over the place). We weren't dressed differently so much from the Europeans though. At least to my eyes, lol.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
08/29/2004 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
All the Sikh people I have met here in the US were nice folk. It sad they have been oppressed in India in the past. I often wondered about the dagger thing in high school. We make having a knife a crime on school property and these folks (men) must carry one as part of their religion. Yes they carry it hidden so you don't even know they have one here in the west. That should just freak the LLLs and moonbats out. Imagine that, they carry "concealed weapons"! "Oh humanity!"
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
