Stephen Joseph

YES!!! I WONT LOSE THIS TIMMMEEE!!!!!

I claim a news roundtable on Sunday Mornings with me, Marney, Tyler, and ohhh Ripper. Marney and I are allowed lots of guns

Of course they'd slam him for suggesting it. Bad Fuel Policy helps them (Demos) in this election. And OPEC isn't that effective anymore. Every Western Nation has been increasing their reserves very quietly, and foreign competition makes the cartel not as powerful as it used to be... Technological innovation. Making busting up cartels easier by the decade

I concur EDIT: Well, France did try to give Germany their Jews before the whole damn Holocaust really got started...Maybe could be some rag near Vichy?

I've finished the intro. Remember, the PPV is this Sunday Everything due Saturday at Midnight. If it ain't to me or in gcf when I post it, sorry.

As long as I'm not in, I'll be thankful I'd far much better in the "Most Hated"

Dames, Goodhelmet and I didn't create TSM to have the thesmarks.com moderating fiasco(read: SK and mod Nazi's) happen all over again. Look, Tom and I don't get along, but he's done a respectable job, a job that is alot of work, very thankless, and pays shit. Same goes for the other mods. But, I do see a two-tier system, and I think people on both sides are being inflexible, intolerant, and letting their personal feelings and others personal attacks get to them. Now that's a lesson I learned the hard way. So what I'm saying here is perhaps we need to tone down the combativeness on both sides, mods and posters. You'd certaintly get farther with an understanding, clearly thought out suggestion and a clearly thought out non-antagonistic response. There are ways of disagreeing that aren't combative. I don't like FS, but his beginner's guide was a very good step. Perhaps Nik he did overstep bounds and acted arrogantly. There's no reason for you to not have taken a higher road though and ignored the presumed arrogance. The problem isn't the actions of the mods and posters, its how they're relating to each other. I'll go back into board obscurity now. sjp

Sarin is a chemical nerve gas agent pretty much banned by the world. It's not nice, and in decent quantities can kill thousands, tens of thousands, pretty easily. Sarin was used in the subway attacks by a Japanese Cult in the mid-90s. It was used ineffectively, as proper use would've killed alot more people than it did. A good-sized explosion of sarin (say a chemical plant storage facility would probably kill off a medium city) I'll find a source for that, but they exposed such on Sixty Minutes 3 months ago, specifically referencing Pittsburgh and plants outlying it.

There's a very simple solution to the middle east 1) Promote Alternative Fuel Research already in progress 2) Wait till 2008, when the first fuel cell cars are produced 3) Wait till 2010, when they're in mass production. 4) Consumer oil dependency is gone then, over time industrial dependency would be reduced too 5) Then we don't care about oil. I'm glad Unger was banned, and I'm at the point where I'm sick of Cartman too. I am all for the US backing out 50 miles into the desert and letting these people kill each other off until reason/sanity/and lack of food and water might actually make them appreciate our presence. I am sick of apologists I am sick of sides using it for political gain. Let's win the war by doing it right. We're not spending millions on smart bombs to miss and hit a 'children's hospital' As far as I'm concerned, they need satellites to broadcast right? Take those offenders out (the radical ones) Bomb the damn mosque where that cleric is. No more of this 'peacekeeping' bs. Fight a war.

No one nominate me... Out in the first round last two times not again...

Best.Quote.Ever

Email me a copy at [email protected]

Credit: News.Independent.Co.Uk See text in bold. I told you so. Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban' By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 07 May 2004 Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it. The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival. Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001. In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax. But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it." Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office. But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression. Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution. >

BX rules. I read your first post and was wondering about you and Mike being in the same "club." I then scrolled down to your second post -- good job. Oh, and while we're at it, might as well shake up the Conservative Brigade -- who's in, and who's out? All fall in line for col. kkk... Better than the liberal bridage... Sure...lead on KKK

Rob's the freaking man. I hope Thursday serves to reward him more. What's better than 1 million dollars and the girl? two million dollars and the girl. Rupert is George (from AI) Nice guys that we root for. But neither deserved to win

I'm sure if you looked you could find a) counter to stat argument (probably not likely) b) opinion pieces from well, more popular people than us, supporting you c) specific examples of fox being well out of touch Specifically, look at what Murdoch has said. He, owning Fox News, could by his own biases be presenting himself as off the mark and thereby you can make a case...its anecdotally based, but its far more convincing (but still wrong *smiles*) than just your opinion. That would win you at least some begrudging acceptance here.

Well, pretty much everyone believed in the WMD, so it wasn't false justification more so than just bad intelligence. That's very difficult to pin on the President negatively.

Production is done through a subsidary. Distribution is done through Disney They're supposed to be independent business units. Why? By producing the movie, Miramax gets a stream of profits for Disney Disney, by having someone else release the movie, gets the profits but not the political baggage associated with a moore film

My point is this: While people don't like me, they take what I say seriously because I bring facts I do not believe people take your posts seriously unger, because they're personal feelings without being backed up. Should you ever want to convince anyone else of your position, you should bring facts. That is being an effective speaker. <--not a flame, but genuine advice

Umm, most of the American population is white, so therefore I'd assume most of the AF is white, and thereby it would make sense that those pictured are primarily right. I love stats

Dubwiser, That's a way too personal attack in the CE folder. Things get heated, bu there's no reason for that

Who the hell would want to go to Pittsburgh

Okay. In order to do research you need Stable Data. That doesn't exist yet, hell, most of the 2000 census isn't finalized in their numbers yet. And its info based at most from 5 years ago. Not Ten. 9 to 5 years ago. This is the nature of scholarly research. When I make a claim, I back it up. I fail to see you cite anything other than your own observations.

For PRODUCTION, NOT DISTRIBUTION

then you're completely blind to the truth. Properly researched statistics don't lie. EDIT: And GMU is a LIBERTARIAN school, we don't like either conservatives or liberals. So none of that BS. Credit: MarginalRevolution.com Surprise! Fox News is Fair and Balanced! Accusations of media bias are common but are typically based upon nothing more than subjective standards and anecdote. A brilliant new paper by Tim Groseclose (GSB Stanford, currently visiting GMU) and Jeff Milyo (U. Chicago, Harris School) pioneers a more promising approach. Since 1947, the interest group Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) has tracked how Senators and Represenatives vote on key issues and they have used these votes to rank politicians according to their liberalism. In the 2002 session, for example Ted Kennedy received an ADA score of 100 and Phil Gramm a score of 0. Political scientists are familiar with ADA scores and have come to rely on them as a measure of ideology. Groseclose and Milyo have found a way to compute ADA scores for media outlets as if they were politicians. What they did was to examine the Congressional Record for every instance in which a politician cited a think tank. They then did the same thing for newspapers, network news shows and other media outlets. By matching newspapers with politicians who had similar citation records they can impute an ADA score for the media outlet. Joe Lieberman, for example, has an ADA score of 66.3. Suppose that in his speeches he cites the Brookings Institution twice as much as the Heritage Institute. If the New York Times has a similar citation style then the New York Times is assigned an ADA score of 66.3. (The method is slightly more complicated than this but this gives the right idea.) Note that Groseclose and Milyo do not have to determine whether the Brookings Institution is more liberal than the Heritage Institute all they need to know is that the Times has a similar citation style to Lieberman. Ok, what were the results? It turns out that all of the major media outlets, with the exception of Fox News: Special Report are considerably more liberal than the median member of the House over the 1993-1999 period. Moreover, although Fox News: Special Report was to the right of the median house member it was closer to the median member than were most of the other media outlets. (Interestingly, all of the liberal media outlets were less liberal than the average Democrat and Fox News is less conservative than the average Republican - thus there is a sense in which all media outlets are less biased than is the typical politician.) Here are the ADA scores of various media outlets along with some comparable politicians. Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.) 66.3 New York Times 64.6 CBS Evening News 64.5 USA Today 62.6 NBC Nightly News 62.5 Los Angeles Times 58.4 Ernst Hollings (D-SC) 56.1 ABC World News Tonight 54.8 Drudge Report 44.1 Arlen Spector (R-PA) 44.0 House Median 39.0 Senate Median 36.9 Olympia Snowe (R-Me) 36.0 Charlie Stenholm (D-Tex) 29.3 Fox News Special Report 26.4 Source Paper: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc