This is too good to allow quietly slide down the topic threads in my opinion.

Gio- Could you post the link please?

Fanta-

Congratulations, excellent cut and paste job with no point (again). Okay, so Canada lost 129K jobs... your point being? Is this top secret information you believe nobody else can find online but you? The very least you could have attempted to do here was blame Bush for it. Must have been a very boring, lonely, Saturday night for a certain non-Canadian to post job loss statistics.

Would you at least say there is potential conflict of interest here? Does this senator and her husband have something to gain in the event this legislation passes? Uh huh. So much for Obama's new tone in Washington.

You're absolutely correct for a change, nobody is talking about banning "conservative" talk radio per se- just regulating it and creating unfair advantages for those in the industry who can't can't compete on their own merits. Affirmative action for radio.

This may or may not be a "new liberal concept" (since you omitted a source to back up this assertion). The fact remains, it's being pushed by liberals/democrats now.

"Why would anyone be afraid of hearing alternative viewpoints?"

Perhaps it's not fear, but choice? Contrary to popular belief, people have heard liberals on the radio before and have made the choice to turn them off (as indicated by their multiple failures).

In all "fairness", what is preventing the likes of "Air America Media" from purchasing/airing Rush Limbaugh (other than no money)? They're the one currently pushing this adenda, let them lead by example then. What are they afraid of? What's one little "conservative" talk show surrounded by a whole gaggle of liberal ones? Afraid they might get increased listenership? Fear of increased ad revenues? Scared of making a profit and not relying on the government for help/intervention? Afraid it be proven again that liberal talk radio is a failure?

"As heard on the Bill Press Show on Thursday, February 5, 2009:
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) spoke with Bill about the possible return of the Fairness Doctrine in some form.


BILL PRESS: So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep."

http://billpress.com/- (Liberal talk show host). Check out this site if you want to see how whiney liberals really are about this issue.


What a coincidence... her husband Tom Athans was cofounder and is CEO of liberal radio network "Democracy Radio", "progressive","TalkUSA Radio Network", AND the VP of "Air America" now known as "Air America Media". All failures.

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

(Edited to add... and parton of prostitute)

OOOps... silly me. I made a mistake. I seem to have accidently omitted the word "mammalia" between "ALL" and "females" the above quote (in keeping with your chimp topic). Tsk, tsk, how in the world could that happen? Probably distracted by your photo again. To clarify futher, I would include "for natural reproduction". Thank you for not embarrassing/puting me to shame with your intimate knowledge cloning technology and of fish (E.G. Salmon)reproductive methods/techniques to correct me.

Aweeee shucks Lynann, I aims to please maam. Apparently it doesn't take much to amaze you; However, I shall accept your compliment none-the-less. Thank you.

"Are you inferring something about the role of females outside chimp society as well?"

No. In order for a species to continue they must procreate. The basic role of ALL females is to be a semen receptacle. Aside from the mating ritual, different species have different roles in regards to hunting/gathering and alpha status. Take lions for example, the female hunts/kills the prey... yet the male eats first. Conversely, the Praying Mantis, a large, dominant female who consumes her semen donor after mating.

As per "pseudo psychology" one would logically ask why you posted this type of topic to begin with? Your comment "Maybe someone should do a decidedly unscientific inquiry here of posters, their styles and their size. Humm a mingle2 poster and a chimp? hehe" obviously stated to generate replies/attention. The mind reels with speculation of your other possible motives. Hoping the males here might fight over you? The tight corsette in your photograph to draw attention to yourself? (BTW- I freely admit, your only technique that has worked on me). Posting a myriad of mundane topics using the "quanity is better than quality" strategy to fend off the female competition?

"What's the matter Bee? No female mating calls coming your way"? I would ask the same basic question (Bee= Lynann and female= male)of you. You're the one who took the time to reseach and post this topic, yes? Ok, so I have a weakness for women in tight fitting corsettes with cut and paste obsessions, and limited critical thinking skill sets. Being the gentleman I am, there's no need to thank me for subsidizing another one of your topics by posting. Keep the faith, chances are you might find a beta male eventually.

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2008) — "Female chimps are more concerned with having sex with many different males than finding the strongest mate, according to researchers."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204509.htm

It appears that regardless of the males technique and/or status in the troop, they're all getting their wicks dipped.

"One common hypothesis suggests that such calls enable females to advertise their sexually receptive state to mates, which in turn incites competition amongst males. According to this idea, the successful female ends up with the strongest partner and achieves the highest quality offspring. However, the new study found no evidence for such male-to-male competition, nor any link between hormonal state and calling activity."

Maybe someone should do a decidedly unscientific inquiry here of posters, their styles and "attention getting, copulation calling" techniques. Is it possible for a "chimp" to "doth protest too much"? Methinks so.

Hmmm a mingle2 poster and a chimp? hehehe

Interesting article you posted Lynann. One of the observations I have- is that regardless of the technique (physical or political) exhibited by the male chimps, they're still the leaders of the troop. The role of the females speaks for itself in the above posted article. As not to further rub sodium chloride into your self-inflicted wound... I shall bypass on any Freudian banana references .

Yawn... further evidence Obama has no idea what he's doing.

The EU (European Union) has told Obama to go back to the kiddie pool in regards to trade (which he's doing).

"Last night Mr Obama gave a strong signal that he would remove the most provocative passages from the Bill."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5655115.ece

In foreign policy, India has told Obama to go somewhere else to shoot hoops in trying to broker a peace settlement over Kashmir (which he'll do as well).

“You kill a chicken to scare a monkey,” Mr Mohan said at a recent seminar in New Delhi on US relations with South Asia. “We killed the chicken and the monkey got the message.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a545f3b0-f1f9-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html

Just keep the apologies and the excuses a'comin.

More PERSONAL responsibility and less UNFAIR foreign trade would be good I believe. Learning the difference between a "want" and a "need" would be my first choice though.

I suppose one must first believe this country is in a mess to begin with. Looking at it from my own personal perspective, I'd say things have never been better. Years of hard work, education, and fiscal conservative values are now paying off. All my basic needs are satiated and it's mere semantics in terms of "wants" now. An analgonous comparision, Bill Gates vs me. He has a house, I have a house. He has food, I have food. He wears clothes, I wear clothes. In terms of "needs", Bill Gates doesn't have anything I don't. He may have a giant plasma tv with the screen size of a movie theater and I may have a little 6" black and white- we still see the same basic images. If I WANT the same kind of tv as Bill Gates, there are only four legal ways I know of to obtain one. Work to earn money and save it to buy one, learn how to build one and build it myself, wait for someone to give me one, or have the government make giant plasma tv's an entitlement.

The answer is simple. You have a fiat currency backed by nothing. You have irresponsible people who are spending more money than they have. Politicians and individual citizens alike with a sense of entitlement. You have a segment of society that does not produce or contribute and are subsidized. You have a system that rewards incompetence and irresponsibility, whislt punishing those who succeed. Easy credit provided to people who don't have the ways or means to pay it off. Unfair "free" trade polices. Lastly, forgetting basic economics and what made this country prosperous... opting for the path of least resistance.

Being rich in thoughts and insight, it appears I'll have to subsidize this topic to keep it afloat.

My thoughts/input, as per requested are the following:

"But the rich don't spend as much of their income as the middle class and the poor do -- after all, being rich means that you already have most of what you need". I'm trying to think of what the rich have in regards to "needs" that I don't have (not being "rich"). Food, check. Clothing, check. Shelter, check. Everything else would be a "want". Class envy rearing it's ugly head again.

While the top 1% reap 20% they also PAY double that percentage in Federal taxes.

"The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 -- the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts".

"Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- in federal income taxes".

http://townhall.com/Columnists/LarryElder/2008/10/09/in_defense_of_the_rich?page=full

"The CIA is in and out of Pakistan and have foiled terroristic attacks bcs Pakistan is where the terrorists went into hiding into the foothills and mountains".

Yes, that is what we've been told. We were also told by intelligence agencies/analysts that there were WMD's in Iraq as well. We know the CIA also engaged in a drug smuggling ring called "Air America" (not the liberal talk radio station) during the Vietnam War and a role in the Iran-Contra incident. We also shouldn't forget little CIA experiments like "Project MK-Ultra".

" I understand the US government and military are considered "baby killers by you", but really are they in comparison to the terrorists themselves??"

Granted, one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter/patriot. Three innocent children were murdered by Obama, mere babies. The best example I can provide is "educator" William Ayres, my dear presidents friend/assiociate/colleague. Guilt by association? If that charge couldn't stick to Obama, it certainly can't stick anywhere else. Bin Laden and other so-called "terrorists" have stated that if we leave the middle east, all attacks would stop. There is no valid reason (only idle speculation) not to heed his suggestions.

Realistically, there is no way to stop people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the perceived greater good, EVER. You are suggesting that our government/military try to stop people before they MAY commit an act of terrorism? Sounds like something from Orwell's book "1984" or from the movie "Minority Report". Using that logic, I submit you and just about everyone else here are potential terrorist suspects then. You possess items in/around your home/apt. that may be used in making terrorist weapons (IED's). Gasoline, dishwashing soap, drain cleaner, and sugar to name just a few. Does that give the government/military the right to execute you (like those in Pakistan)? Absolutely not. To indulge briefly in my newly adopted liberal conspiracy theories (along the lines of rigged voting machines in 2000)... How do we know that these people that blow themselves up and killing innocents weren't operating under the influence of the CIA's MK-Ultra project? We don't.

It is my belief that those engaging in this "holy war" (from "our enemies" perspective) operate under an almost completely different set of beliefs and value sets. Those not directly responsible for the act we consider "innocent victims" while they may consider them (of the Muslim faith) as martyrs who shall receive their rewards in heaven. There is no disputing that we are the invaders/infidels in this conflict. Pakistan did not attack us.

The people who committed the actual acts (the suicide bombers) are dead and there is nothing we can do about it. Their mission was accomplished. In regards to "pre-crimes", try looking at it from this perspective- Todays US postal worker perhaps tomorrows next mass murderer?

Anyway, back to topic...

Obama (the babykiller) has now been called upon to cease drone attacks in Pakistan by the Pakistani PM Gilani.

http://cgi.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/28/davos.pakistan.pm/index.html?iref=nextin


According to another a source the Obama administration denies these drone attacks even took place.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090123/wl_afp/pakistanafghanistanunrestusmissilehouse_20090123193140

"The US military as a rule does not confirm drone attacks but it and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operating in Afghanistan are the only forces that deploy drones in the region".

Obviously one administration is lying and there is strong evidence to indicate that it's the Obama one.

"I want to put on record that we do not have any agreement between the government of the United States and the government of Pakistan," Gilani told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an interview at the World Economic Forum."

Obama lied, innocent people in Pakistan died.

As a neo-liberal, I felt compelled to prove it (in real life) earlier this evening. A neighbor down the road had a large sign in his front yard for the past 2 years that said "President Bush- Bring our troops home NOW". Noticing the sign was still up, I decided to update it (since it was obvious he wasn't going to). Fortunately, I was able to obtain a few Obama bumperstickers. The sign now reads "President Obama- Bring our troops home NOW". It'll be interesting to see if that sign is still up tomorrow.

The mind of a hypocrite works in amazing and weird ways indeed. If I've only been rude to women, that only means you lied about your gender then. You've just been too... well... less than intelligent to comprehend it. Oooops, I'm sorry, I should have realized you might have had a serious hormonal imblance with the mustache in your photograph. I apologize. I hope you understand that it is VERY weird and creepy when you know when someone is online and/or seem to "disappear" (unforunately, some of us have to work to support the likes of you and have a life away from here). If it's any consolation, that really should comfort the females here knowing that you track the comings and goings of other males (unless you are a female) here... soley for their protection, uh huh.

Thanks for the laugh, if you're seriously attempting to compare yourself to a coyote (obviously you're not a country person either and have no clue about their hunting tactics). There are only two analgonous comparisons I can think of to validate this claim that you someone of your intellect might readily understand. The bumbling Wile E. Coyote from the Road Runner cartoons or "Sparky", a dog from Southpark.

To show how much of a gentleman I am towards females, I'll be kind and gracious to allow you get the last word on this matter before I get back on topic.

It's ok. If Fanta feels the need to lash out, with libelous lowest common denominator, off topic, innuendo, he's free to. I can handle his personal online comments/attacks and him personally with no problems what-so-ever. Like always, will assume the high road, proving once again that some people are just simply smarter and better (possess more class) than others. At least one of us knows how to choose his battles wisely. "Aquila non capit muscam"

How do we know they all weren't innocent is what I'm asking? We don't. I don't recall reading about a trial that had proved them guilty by a jury of their peers based on a preponderance of the evidence before executing them. Do you? Taking the lives of the PRESUMED guilty along with the innocent? I'm sorry but it's just a little flippant to shrug ones shoulders and say "Oh, well... they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time". Where is the humanity? The compassion for our fellow human beings?

Thanks for the link hon! I stand corrected. After reading the article I should compliment you on a fantastic job of selective editing.

You left out little things like "...US drones on Friday slammed into PRESUMED militant dens in Pakistan killing 15 people, including three children and at least four civilians, officials said".

"A senior security official told AFP three children were among the dead."

Obama the babykiller. "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"? Obama baby count is now 3.

"Pakistan has repeatedly protested to Washington that drone strikes violate its territorial sovereignty and deepen resentment among the 160 million people of the nuclear-armed Islamic nation". Violation of international law.

"As you know I am not going to comment on those matters," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters despite being repeatedly pressed to discuss the reports". So much for an open/transparent government.

I really could kiss you right now Winx- for finding me a source to validate my earlier allegations. You are really a dear! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I know you've repeatedly have said "I have nothing to say" to me; However, I still would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your outstanding particiption on this topic. I keep saying to myself "nobody cuts and pastes as good as Winx". My compliments! It is a lovely, very informative, story indeed. Could you be a real dear and post the source, date, and the evidence backing up the claims it was a Taliban and Al Qaeda hub? Who were the "officials" that were quoted? Thanks hon, you're a sweetie!

You mean to tell me that you're really one of my liberal friends in disguise? So your posts were some form of loyalty test for me? I think I understand now. I really hope I passed the liberal litmus test. I renounced that total tard Bush and all Republicans/conservatives already. I've spoken out against any and all things they stand for. Blame them for all current and future woes of the world. What can I do to make you and other of my new liberal buddies believe me? We believed Mayor Maron Barry of Washington D.C. when he said he was set up by re-electing him after he was convicted. We believed and then forgave Bill Clinton when he lied under oath by not removing him from office. I forgive you for lying to me about being a "right-whatever" and being judgemental/hypercritial of my posts.

Sean Hannity? That empty suit at FIX news? The parrot that sat on Bush's shoulder? Oh, I get it now . It was just a joke to see how I would react comparing me to that rePUNKblican mouthpiece. Did I react emotionally enough? I need the validation from others like yourself to feel better about myself.

"You can put complete sentences together!"
"Your thoughts, whether one agrees with you or not, are coherent to a certain extent!"
"You are capable of sarcasm!!!"

I can't can't apologize enough for above list of my shortcomings. I'm very sorry ! I know (and have seen) may of our fellow liberal friends have a difficult time with spelling and sentence structure here. As not to make them feel sad and inferior I will work on lowering my typing skeells. In the name of fairness and for the sake of equality, I can try also promise to try to make less sense in coherent more often. Can I at least cut and paste really long stories that support my devotion to liberal beliefs to make myself at least appear smarter than I really am? Or really short posts with a ton of emoticons? Once again, I'm really sorry! I just want to fit in and be accepted by my neo-liberal family. My sarcasm is now exclusively reserved for my Repubimicile enemies only. Any neo-conservative, skin head Bush lover better watch out. I will give him/her a strong symbolic verbal thrashing the likes Clarence Thomas has never seen.

To show solidarity (like in a union) with my liberal bretheren in the burining desire to fit in, I have just cancelled my MENSA membership in protest. That'll show them to act all smart and stuff. I know as a liberal, I should "know thy enemy", but I haven't been able to find out what Sean Hannity's IQ is yet, maybe someone could help me find out? Please? Pretty please?

I've freely admitted that I was under the influence of "the dark side" at one time. I've broken the spell and need... Nay, entitled for other liberals to accept and embrace me as one of their own.

Lastly, my real name isn't even close to "Sean". Keeping with my Roman heritage, love of Latin, and my liberal beliefs and sensitivity, I'm changing from my Christian slave name to the Greek name "Rectus Kissius". Kinda like what "Prince" (the pop singer) did changing his name to some kind of symbol.

P.S. Obama lied, innocent people in Pakistan died

It appears those against the recovering drug addict, blowhard, Rush Limbaugh are for/support the likes of "The Lion of the Left" and "unabashedly liberal", Bernie Ward (formerly of KGO 810 AM San Francisco) then.

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


Uhmmmm... I really don't know how to say this, but in case some of you didn't know... the "unabashedly liberal" Bernie is currently on a 7+ year "vacation" for distribution of child pornography. Thanks, but I think I'll keep the recovering drug addict over the child pornography distributor. Moral relativism kinda sucks, eh?

Speaking of former liberal talk show hosts, did Al Franken ever pay his back taxes?

Is "Air America" still broadcasting?