The News Headlines thread

[Lazario]

Which isn't true. Voter fraud is what made him President.

Huh? What? Voter fraud made Obama president?

Please don't say you have fallen for the 'Acorn' crap. That's paranoïd stuff they talk about on Fox News. No, you're way too smart to believe that.

You don't at least think it's possible, since you've been the one most vocal about our waking up to the fact (supported by several Bill Maher videos)
that the Left have been taken over by international corporate interests. Knowing how corrupt they are, why wouldn't they stoop to voter fraud
if for no other reason- to even the playing field? They're just as corrupt as the right, but they play fair while they allow the public to go on thinking
they're still liberals at heart? I won't say you're wrong (because I have no personal stake in sounding like I'm right), but something in that sounds fishy.

Now it's true that Obama has (unfortunately!) not done much about those practices and even continues to use the unconstitutional powers that were accumulated by Bush. But that's not why the "tea party" people are calling him a facist. They could care less about that; they didn't care about that when Bush was in power. They call him a nazi because he wants to fix health care. It makes no sense at all.

I'd say the leftwing had very good, empirically funded, reasons to call Bush a facist and a nazi. You only have to take a look at Guantanamo Bay again. Calling Obama a nazi because he wants to change health care or because he wants to raise taxes on millionaires, however, makes no sense at all. The underlying reason is, indeed, racism.

But which rich people - if Obama could raise their taxes - would actually have to pay? Wouldn't this hurt the rich people (non celebrities) who wanted him to get elected?
How do they squirm out of paying the higher taxes, in the fantasy-world scenario in which the rich actually feel the stress of living like normal people do?

But the torture films are a part of our culture, like all movies they try and reflect the issues and mentality of the time they're made in. At the very least, I can say these "extreme" survival and torture films aren't helping people. Where horror films used to be cathartic,
now they're just boring and excessive. I know that movies aren't really to blame.

Well, we do live in a time where our political leaders and news outlets downplay torture.

Well, there's only so much a film can teach the audience about torture anyway. And whatever that is, I'd like to think we learned it years before Bush stole office.
Exploitation films like I Spit on Your Grave, The House on the Edge of the Park, and Last House on Dead End Street glorified torture as early as 2 decades before Bush.
The trend got out of hand years ago and it hasn't stopped yet. Whatever we would have learned, we learned from Hostel and Wolf Creek.
But do you think that was the end of it? Hell no. People got so desperate to keep the trend going, they dipped into actual Nazi plots and the Spanish Inquisition.
Because they're spineless opportunists with almost nothing to say. And naive enough to think there might be actual
ultra-intelligent mastermind killers kidnapping people, chaining them up in dirty basements and abandoned warehouses, giving them lectures before
poking them with dozens of various weapons of miscellaneous size and shape. Oh, and in some of the movies- the kidnappers are children.
That's what the subgenre became. I use past-tense in the hopes that it's almost over finally. Of course, then last year in the Friday the 13th remake,
they had their Jason Voorhees re-write character kidnap a potential victim. Even no-nonsense 80's slashers
who never kidnapped anyone have to make the audience believe they're going to torture people before killing them...

[ajmrowland]

The wave of Hate that Obama has more to do with him being President in this day and age then him being black.

That's what some people want to believe. True, a lot of people aren't happy with him as President -
but that's because they've invented him being a socialist and a scary liberal when in reality he couldn't possibly be less of either one.
Almost no one hates him because he's a complete disappointment. Don't fool yourself into thinking that's reason number one.
That would imply that most people actually gave him a chance to begin with and I think you know that isn't true.
People hated him with a passion before he became President and I know you know that.
And since he has, look at people like Glenn Beck and millions of other people saying he hates white people.
Are you telling me that has anything to do with Obama's policies or lack thereof, or things he's done and lack thereof?

Yeah, I understand that. I remember vividly the campaign speeches. I just never really knew that many republican voters.

And I wouldnt put it past some people to expect an instant solution to our problems that can be cooked in a microwave in about 4 minutes. though, like you said, the hate already existed and evolved into apparent disappointment. Those people cant seem to remember how much easier it is to destroy a government than two rebuild.

Anyway, why do I get the strange feeling that the people overreacting to this are mostly white people? I betcha that's the reason somebody said that over the loudspeaker; to see WHITE people overreact.

Interesting twist of the knife... but I disagree again. It would take a very clever person to come up with that idea.
And hardly the kind of person who would dare to break-in to WalMart's control room (or whatever) and do what this guy did.

Until I see a black guy who's offended by Song of the South with good reason, I'll have a hard time believing that people aren't too paranoid about stuff like this. I know there are still deliberate racists out there-and this jackass could be one- but there are those who just pull stupid pranks without thinking about the consequences just to get a laugh.

[Goliath]

You don't at least think it's possible, since you've been the one most vocal about our waking up to the fact (supported by several Bill Maher videos) that the Left have been taken over by international corporate interests. Knowing how corrupt they are, why wouldn't they stoop to voter fraud if for no other reason- to even the playing field?

I wouldn't call it "waking up". I've known this for years, and the corporate take-over of the Democratic Party goes back to at least the end of the 1980's, when the DLC was founded to shift the party more to the right. (This was an answer to the party being out of the White House for 12 years.) Since then, the left has slowly moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital. This fundamental underlying problem with America's political system is never discussed in the mainstream media. It takes a comedian on a pay-for channel to discuss it.

I don't rule out the possibility that there was election fraud. Everything is possible --in theory. But you say it like it's a fact, when there aren't even any clues leading into that direction. At least with the 2000 election, there were a ron of clues pointing to voter fraud. Hundreds of black people were scrapped off voting lists (responsibility of Katherine Harris, who 'happened to be' also Bush's campaign manager). Remember the people protesting in the Senate, trying to get a Senator to sign their objection? (As seen in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.) Then there were the angry mobs in Florida who hindered the personell who were ordered to do the recounts. Those mobs turned out to be organized by the RNC.

Where are the clues when it comes to Obama? Were are the protests? The protests only began *after* Obama was sworn in --more than 2 months after the election. Why did McCain immediately admitted he lost? Because his opponents got nothing on him. There is no proof and there are not even hints. So to say he got the presidency because of voter fraud, is way out of line. You may be diappointed by him, or angry with him, because of his (lack of) policy, but if you stick to the facts, you got a better case against him.

But which rich people - if Obama could raise their taxes - would actually have to pay? Wouldn't this hurt the rich people (non celebrities) who wanted him to get elected?

This is not an answer to the point I was making. I was talking about the difference between the left and the right in calling the president a 'facist' and a 'nazi', and what the underlying motives are. The "tea party" people who carry around the signs with Obama with a Hitler moustache, don't really know what 'facism' even is. They'll say Obama is at the same time a facist and a socialist and a communist --which is impossible, of course. But interestingly, it's exactly the same things Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are saying. Their accusations have no merit (like the 'death panels' claim). They just don't accept a black man is president, and because it isn't socially acceptable anymore to say that, they make up other bullshit reasons.

Now about what you said: Obama has said he wants to raise taxes for people making over $ 250,000 a year. He wants to raise taxes for them to 39%, the same rate it was under Clinton, and still ridiculous low when compared to the rest of the world, and compared to what the rich used to pay in the past. Remember that under the Republican Eisenhower the top rate was 90% and in those days, the rich did *very* well.

I'm not saying that no rich people and corporations supported and donated to Obama. This is a fact. But still, he got a record in small donations from regular people. Many, many more than John McCain. Obviously, Obama is not a liberal and he will not instate liberal policies. The rich can deal with a 39% tax rate, like they could under Clinton.

Well, there's only so much a film can teach the audience about torture anyway. And whatever that is, I'd like to think we learned it years before Bush stole office. Exploitation films like I Spit on Your Grave, The House on the Edge of the Park, and Last House on Dead End Street glorified torture as early as 2 decades before Bush.

You're missing the point completely. What you're talking about, is fiction. But what I'm talking about, is political leaders justifying, even cheering the use of real torture, on real people. It's completely against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the Human Rights treaty --everything. You can't compare that to a movie.

[Lazario]

We're on the same side, so I'm ignoring all in the first two sections.

Well, there's only so much a film can teach the audience about torture anyway. And whatever that is, I'd like to think we learned it years before Bush stole office. Exploitation films like I Spit on Your Grave, The House on the Edge of the Park, and Last House on Dead End Street glorified torture as early as 2 decades before Bush.

You're missing the point completely. What you're talking about, is fiction.

Yes. You're right. Because the news article you replied to when I said that was about the psychologist who thinks young people are becoming violent because of things like movies.

I know what you were basically trying to say but I see no reason for me to derail from my original point. Otherwise, why would you have responded to a post about technology and movies desensitizing the public? What you said didn't even have anything to do with citizens. You accused and implicated the Bush administration in torture. Not the rest of America.

My point was about the movies all along.

[disneyboy20022]

Funny Moment on last night's Celebrity Apprentice with a couple of girls mistaking the former govenor Blagojevich for Donny Osmond



http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/03/22/rod-b ... ook-alike/

Must be a Hair thing

[disneyboy20022]

ugh....and what I believe to be the start of a Civil Cold War in the USA has unofficially....triggered...

http://www.examiner.com/x-19632-Salt-La ... ealth-care

[Lazario]

ugh....and what I believe to be the start of a Civil Cold War in the USA has unofficially....triggered...

http://www.examiner.com/x-19632-Salt-La ... ealth-care

From the article:

"According to the lawsuit: "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage."

Some parts of the new law will begin in as little as six months. These include: adults under 26 years of age would be kept on their parents’ health care plan. And sick children could not be denied health care coverage. Many benefits from the plan would not begin until 2014, and at that time most Americans will be required to have health insurance."



Hmmm... ... ...

[blackcauldron85]

Married at 9, divorced at 10: Girl's memoir
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35961722/ ... ?gt1=43001

I'm so glad that she got out of the marriage. I hope that the under 18 marriage ban legally happens- no one should be forced into a marriage, and a kid definitely shouldn't have their childhood taken away.

[disneyboy20022]

I thought this was an Oops too close to the microphone incident

Biden Drops the F-Bomb??!!!

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.acti ... 4978125172

[Goliath]

Really, who the fuck cares whether or not a grown man says the f-word? American media need to get the fuck over themselves.

[Goliath]

United States covering up reality in Honduras

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/EK7f3 ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/EK7f3 ... nl_NL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

While assassinations of opposition members, disappearance of political opponents, illegal detention and torture of activists of the coup-resistance are rampant in Honduras under the new regime of Perfiro Lobo, the Obama-administration not only turns a blind eye, but wants to make the world believe that the Lobo-government is legal, democratic and respectable.

Although none of the conditions that the US set for recognizing any new government, after president Zelaya was removed from office by a military coup in June 2009, have been met, the Obama-administration has whole-heartedly accepted Lobo as the "democratically elected" leader of Honduras, despite the fact that there were no international observers during the election, the opposition boycotted the election, there was (and still is) no free press allowed and the regime inflated the turnout numbers to legitimize the "winning" party.

Yet another third-world right-wing (fascist) dictatorship that gets the full support of the US. It feels like Ronald Reagan is in power again.

The Honduran people have protested and demonstrated since June 2009 and have been brutally crushed by the coup regime, but they always demonstrated peacefully, urged to do so by ousted president Zelaya. I hope that news about the demonstrators in Thailand and Kyrgyzstan reaches them and gives them the courage to go violent, too, and oust the coup government by brutal force.

[blackcauldron85]

Disney-related news!

Welcome to America! Travel Promotion Act Signed into Law
http://www.laughingplace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=73974

Why it'd help just California (unless I missed something) baffles me, though.

[Lazario]

Yet more proof that Republicans are pure evil:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sex_ed_wisconsin

[Goliath]

Yet more proof that Republicans are pure evil:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sex_ed_wisconsin

When it comes to issues like sexuality, they have the same mindset as the Taliban.

Sex = BAAAAAD!
War = GOOOOOD!

[Disney's Divinity]

In Wisconsin, children under age 17 who have sex with each other can be prosecuted as juveniles. Seventeen-year-olds who have sex with one another can be convicted as adults of a misdemeanor.

What. The. F.

This is so insane. It's like people don't even consider anyone below the age of 18 to be a living human being, with a mind and rights of their own. To me, sexual education shouldn't be about what the parent wants anyway--it should be about what the person (the human being) in the classroom deserves to know. Besides the fact that the law allows parents to keep children out of the classes if they disapprove (and thus should not anger anyone--only the conservatives who want to shove their mythic hope for abstinence down other people's throats would've been in an uproar), I just think that by the time you're 14, you should have some right over your own life and whether you want to take a sex-ed class. Just because you don't have job and can't afford to buy a car, does not mean you're brain dead. (btw, I'm 22)

And they can't even have sex among themselves? Insane. The statutory rape idea is one thing, but I think it's sick to say that a 17 year old and a 17 year old should be criminalized for having sex with each other. Damn.

[ajmrowland]

Once again, they skillfully avoid the real problem........that sex isn't a problem.

[disneyboy20022]

On some Lighter news....some chairs of Captian Picard from Star Trek are for sale...any takers



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_ ... e_for_sale

After reading it....if you wanted your own Star Fleet and are filthy rich....this is your chance

[Lazario]

In Wisconsin, children under age 17 who have sex with each other can be prosecuted as juveniles. Seventeen-year-olds who have sex with one another can be convicted as adults of a misdemeanor.

What. The. F.

This is so insane. It's like people don't even consider anyone below the age of 18 to be a living human being, with a mind and rights of their own. To me, sexual education shouldn't be about what the parent wants anyway--it should be about what the person (the human being) in the classroom deserves to know. Besides the fact that the law allows parents to keep children out of the classes if they disapprove (and thus should not anger anyone--only the conservatives who want to shove their mythic hope for abstinence down other people's throats would've been in an uproar), I just think that by the time you're 14, you should have some right over your own life and whether you want to take a sex-ed class. Just because you don't have job and can't afford to buy a car, does not mean you're brain dead. (btw, I'm 22)

And they can't even have sex among themselves? Insane. The statutory rape idea is one thing, but I think it's sick to say that a 17 year old and a 17 year old should be criminalized for having sex with each other. Damn.

And as usual, it's because of one big reason...

America allows the law to be decided by the religious beliefs of SOME people. It's like Separation of Church and State never existed.

[jpanimation]

America allows the law to be decided by the religious beliefs of SOME people. It's like Separation of Church and State never existed.

You hit the nail on the head. The far-right is full of religious zealots that try to push only THEIR views into policy. While I'm somewhat religious, I hate organized religion, and this is one of the reasons why. Separation of Church and State was to keep the intolerant government from interfering with church but now its the intolerant church interfering with government. If you don't separate of Church and State, then you get people like Ahmadinejad running a country on their religious beliefs.

I'm just sick of the American culture thinking violence is more acceptable then sex. Sex is a natural way of feeling pleasure and expressing your feelings, murder isn't. When a nipple gets a movie an R rating or celebrities make public apologies for having infidelities, you know their is something wrong with our culture. I don't think its morally right to cheat on your wife/husband/partner but I also don't think it's any kind of crime or any of our business.

Polish leader, 96 others dead in Russia jet crash
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_plane_crash

Between the miners dying and this, it's been a bad week

[ajmrowland]

The worst part is I live in Wisconsin. I'm no longer a minor, but a lot of ppl I know are.

And there's no real use in having this law, because kids are still gonna do it, and the smart ones will not get caught. For it to be a police matter is really inappropriate.