Trent

That just looked like those guys were editorializing about what actually is a news story that seems to have come from the editors of the LA Times and the journalist who acquired the tape. The story is actually out there and even some lefties are concerned with the Khalidi connection...http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/17/151133/172 (this is editorial too, but interesting) Oh, hello again!

I'm still not really sure what your point is. This sounds like an accident that took place during a heated moment for the officer. I never said the poor deceased guy did anything wrong. I think it was a tragic accident and the officer fired on what he thought was a threat. Given the circumstances, I can see how that happened. It would have been good if it never happened or if everyone survived or if those guys hadn't run or committed the crime in the first place. Oh, hello again!

Several of the articles I've seen said the editors of the LA Times. Can you link to something that says "dipshits in Kansas" or something like that? Oh, hello again!

Since it was Bush that made gas prices so high, we should give him credit for them being so low now!! Guys? Guys? No? Oh, hello again!

Why would the editors say they had something like that? Especially the editors of the totally unbiased LA Times.... Oh, hello again!

So they set out to kill an innocent guy then? That's the rule, not the exception? What exactly do you want to say? Oh, hello again!

I actually wasn't sure what you meant. I hope you weren't being douchey to me for it. I try to keep my spelling and junk pretty legible for you. I hope that a court of law has proven that they were out to disenfranchise people. How else could you possibly believe that??? I STILL don't think that asking people to prove they're qualified and registered to vote is unreasonable. Oh, hello again!

Yes, but he has balls of steel and will call the bad guys out!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZjpCK02s3A Oh, hello again!

I don't know... I only heard bad disco and 80's music on my dad's old AM radio-having car. Is your definition of "fair and balance"... MSNBC? Because I think it's best to just let people choose what they want to listen to or see than to have the government decide. Oh, hello again!

I think that's a little different than dictating what kind of programming you have to do. Well, we're now AT that "wider level". Talk radio (which is mainly AM) is a very very small spectrum of what is available to people in almost every corner of the country. You're more likely to have satellite TV in the middle of nowhere than access to an AM signal. I think the concept is outdated and is primarily partisan now. Oh, hello again!

That doesn't read quite right. So they couldn't come up with fraud before they changed the law or after? I think their law is pretty fair and "common sensical". http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/ If voting is to be seen as one of our sacred rights, some measures to make sure we are eligible are reasonable. Oh, hello again!

And if you can't afford to keep the license, you lose it. If you can't afford to stay open because no one likes your programming, you change it. If you don't like what's on, you change the channel. If the FCC wants to assign frequencies and ensure that no one is stealing them or overpowering them, or even saying dirty dirty words. Great. I really don't think you want them dictating the content of what is on those frequencies, do you? One more layer of government regulation that we do not need. Again, people wouldn't have any problems with it if it weren't the case that AM radio is predominantly conservative. Oh, hello again!

That's nonsense. If no one listens, it doesn't sell. They go out of business. Do you think that people listen to AM Talk Radio because there's nothing else on? Unlike the concert on the street, they have 100's and 1000's of other frequencies they can listen to depending on where they are. No one has to hear it and everyone can avoid hearing it if they want. Having the government dictate what media says is a bad idea. I expect many people only think it's a good idea in this case because talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Oh, hello again!

McCain seems to have a better grasp on General Aviation as a whole. Being a pilot will do that. If he keeps on about privatizing ATC, that will be bad but I think he can be convinced that it isn't a good idea. Here's AOPA's questions and answers to both candidates: http://www.aopa.org/feature/election08/index.html?WT.adv=adv3 Oh, hello again!

Radio is business. They should put on what they want and if it doesn't sell, move on. Why should government dictate what we hear? That's crazy to me. Sure, this means we'll have to put up with some dumb programming (not like TV doesn't have that in spades already), but it's business. If the NEWS media would do it's job, it wouldn't be a problem. I know that many claim that major news media (outside of radio) isn't biased so what is scary about the "fairness" BS is that it seems it'd only affect what many see as the counterpoint to the mainstream media that they DO feel is biased. Oh, hello again!

I'm sure he thought he was defending his life at the time. I'll bet there were things he could have done differently. It's a tragedy. Oh, hello again!

In my response, it is the state. I don't really think Syria is ignorant of what is going on inside its borders, nor do I think they're not aiding it in some way. But that's just my opinion. Oh, hello again!

This is really a tragedy. It's terrible. Just out of curiosity, were you looking for a discussion about this? If so, I really don't think the officer wanted to kill an innocent man or that seeing someone with what could be mistaken for a rifle in the dark would constitute getting "trigger happy". That doesn't change that it is horrible that it happened. Oh, hello again!

Just to play along with the metaphor here... if we were helping Mexico fight China, we'd probably be aware of what we were doing and would expect China to be none too pleased with it. If we had any tactical foresight... we would expect retaliation. Oh, hello again!

Don't worry, they'll get him with that "fairness doctrine" thing soon. Oh, hello again!

I can't either, and yet they do it. Voting is a right to the people that meet the criteria. Having to show you meet that criteria should go without saying. I asked in another thread and will probably not get an answer... why are people against showing ID to vote? If you can make the effort to register to vote, you can make the effort to get an ID. It took me 5 minutes to go into a DPS, prove my ID and citizenship, and get my license renewed. Oh, hello again!

Sorry man, you're not going to find many here who will agree with you. That "common sense" legislation that the left loves to say they support does not apply to things that may hurt their chances of getting in office. The problem here is that people could register to vote in any district by claiming they sleep on some bench somewhere in it. Forget multiple vote fraud, think about how some motivated, biased, get-out-the-vote types could register a bunch of transients in a battleground district then bus them in to vote. That might put a little sway in a tight race. I'm all for every citizen voting, so long as they can prove they are a citizen and are who they say they are. Many people are against that though for some reason. I've always wondered why. Oh, hello again!

He used to go by Barry when he was younger and in college I think. It's a pretty normal thing to do to choose a little pet name for someone on the other side... just think back to all the names the left used for Bush. Oh, hello again!

If you say so. I can criticize the people I vote for and still be happy that I made the better of 2 choices I didn't want in the first place. Alaska squeezed tax out of oil companies using their resources to make money. The companies passed that increased cost along to all of us, and the results went to Alaska. That's a good way for Alaska to make money, but still a bad idea especially if scaled nationally. Maybe y'all should make another topic about this red herring that Bill threw into a thread titled "Ted Stevens GUILTY on all 7 charges". I'd be more interested to know, in this thread, if you think that guilt or innocence magically appears when a judge makes a ruling. Oh, hello again!

So... I can't say anything unless I saw it, but if I DID see it, I'm highly likely to be wrong? Okay. So courts don't convict innocent people ever? The guy on trial didn't do it until the judge says he did? Guilty people never go free? At least I know now... Oh, hello again!