I posted this yesterday and thought it was strange. I also said the US press wouldn't pick it up and I have heard or seen anything about it.

http://austriantimes.at/news/General_News/2009-10…

British nuclear expert dies in 40-metre plunge

By Thomas Hochwarter

Police are investigating after a British nuclear energy expert involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme fell 40 metres to his death from a UN building in Vienna.

You're right, BIG — the media won't bother with that story, when they have important things like the Obama family's official portrait unveiling to deal with.

The Baucus Bill is finally written and we are starting to see the really nasty stuff in the bill. I saw a list of the nasty stuff in HR3200 a few months ago with direct quotes and page numbers from the bill. I can’t seem to find it now. Does anyone have a link to a site that shows all the nasty stuff in these two bills that includes page numbers and direct quotes from the bills themselves? I have the full text of the bills, but 1200 & 1502 pages is a lot to go through.

p.s.- We should have open threads more often.

Non political link: Human Tetris on Skateboards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwvc6fmXmuY

Happy Friday.

You're driving down a sretch of highway and you see Highway Patrol parked behind a sign waiting to catch speeders. A mile farther down the highway you see an oncoming driver who is obvsiously speeding. Do you flash your lights to warn him of the HiPo?

Posted by mr2trucker

2009-10-23 10:15:47

Nearly the entire text of these bills is bad stuff. That's why the Dems don't want anybody reading or talking about them.

I find it's worth the time to go over the text and at least read sections that seem to stand out. You can really brutalize the libs by finding parts of the bill that they haven't prepared talking points for and hammer them with it.

For example, the provision in HR3200 that mandates the government walking into hopsitals and shutting down perfectly good imaging devices until an arbitrary usage percentage is achieved for no good reason. I smacked the resident libs around with that for weeks and they never even attempted to respond.

Is Palin's endorsement of a third party candidate in NYC over the Republican candidate a sign that she's going to make a third party run in 2012, or is it just a sign that she's going to support people she finds ideologically pleasing, regardless of party affiliation?

Is Palin's endorsement of a third party candidate in NYC over the Republican candidate a sign that she's going to make a third party run in 2012, or is it just a sign that she's going to support people she finds ideologically pleasing, regardless of party affiliation?

Posted by President_Friedman

2009-10-23 11:31:43

I don't think she's made up her mind about a 2012 Presidential run. I think this is more about getting true conservatives into the Federal Gov't. Your comment about "party affiliation" is somewhat humorous as I have yet to see a Democrat more conservative than Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.

Thanks goodness for an open thread!

Posted by President_Friedman

2009-10-23 11:31:43

I think it's a warning shot across the bow of the GOP, and a low-risk, high-reward play for her.

If Hoffman wins with Palin's endorsement over what's-her-name with Newt and the NY GOP behind her, it will be a huge blow to the Republican establishment, as well as Palin's in for getting involved in 2010 and setting her up for 2012.

I highly doubt Palin goes third party. She doesn't have the personal wealth or political machinery for a national campaign, and if she's perceived as Ross Perot to Obama that gives him a second term with a split vote, she really will be the most hated person in America.

I think she wants to take over the party and run as a Republican. Being the only Republican that's shown leadership and a willingness to go straight at Obama, you would have to say she's on track.

Interesting comments by T. Boone Pickens before Congress:

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINN2149238…

Really Mr. Pickens, we are entitled to Iraq's oil?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-10-23 11:49:00

Great analysis. I tend to agree, but am not 100% convinced that Palin isn't 'loose cannon' enough to try a third party run. I'm still undecided on Palin, and will be until she has a policy platform, but as a party leader she can't do worse than Newt & Co.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-23 11:54:42

I don't think we're entitled to Iraqi oil (only because we really are the most fair minded and moral country in war that the world has ever seen), but it does show a serious lack of diplomatic leadership from the Bush and Obama administrations that we didn't get any kind of favored status in the oil lease auctions that were held there recently.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-23 11:54:42

It doesn't surprise me that T. Boone Pickens is switching directions. His wind farms create more environmental destruction than a coal plant with no filters.

Do you flash your lights to warn him of the HiPo?

Posted by President_Friedman

2009-10-23 11:06:24

It depends on what the posted speed limit is. If its 55, and its a clear, dry day, with not a lot of congestion on the road, i'm probably flashing my lights.

It's Friday. The end of the news cycle. Does anyone think that Mao Tse Dunn is going to get thown under the Obama bus? I found what she has said to be even more disturbing than Van Jones, but she is very close to the President and none of the alphabet networks has run with her Commie comments.

Does anyone think that Mao Tse Dunn is going to get thown under the Obama bus?

I think that bus passes right by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at around midnight on Saturday nights.

Something I have been wondering for a while…

Is there a problem with the "users online" counter at the top right? How can there be 259 people online right now and none of the threads can get more than about two dozen posts per day?

Am I missing something?

Posted by TheBaud

2009-10-23 12:39:42

Speaking for myself, I don't log out of Rightwing news. So I am sure that number reflects people logged in and they can stay there for a long time until the system kicks them out. But this is just my speculation and maybe one of the monitirs can give you a better explanation. My counter now says 271.

Posted by BIG 2009-10-23 12:46:06

Thanks, BIG. That has been bothering me. Some other sites I post on have similar counters, but they count people that are actually there. They also seem to manage to get a lot more posts.

Anyway, just curious.

I have also noticed that some long time regulars are no longer posting here. I miss Stan's input. But people come and go from blogs for their own reasons and if the number of hits here go down, I would hope that John Hawkins would poll us to maybe find out why. I think many are sick of the trolls and the lack of management of them. I like playing with trolls, so I don't see this as a problem. But they can muck up a good conversation, so I do see the otherside of the coin. I would also like to see more posting here since I have dropped out of almost all the other boards that I use to post to.

I use to be a regular at LGF. But the last few times I checked in there, the topics were different than they use to be and I don't like the changes there. When the C&F logo came down, that was probably when I should have left.

As long as there is an open thread, I want to clear up something that I've ran across on a few backchannel communictions with other RWN posters: I am not, nor have I ever been, nor do I have any desire to be, a moderator at RWN.

Posted by BIG 2009-10-23 12:57:12

Sorry to hear about the regulars that no longer post. Were the trolls the reason they left? And if by trolls, you mean D-Vega, whats_up, and realpolitik, I feel as you do. You discredit them by allowing them to post. Their own words do most of the work for you.

LGF went downhill fast, but I never posted there. I have been known to drop a line at MichelleMalkin, GateWayPundit, and AmericanThinker (though not with this handle) and heard lots about RightWingNews. I expected more posts and more actual discussion. Maybe it can be imporved.

British nuclear expert dies in 40-metre plunge

By Thomas Hochwarter

Police are investigating after a British nuclear energy expert involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme fell 40 metres to his death from a UN building in Vienna. — posted by BIG

This reminds me of the woman who was found dead in her Wash DC government office during the Clinton administration. Her job had something to do with the Chinese. That story never went anywhere either.

What happened to the Preview button?

Why no more Q&A threads? Even though they are not as long as before, they would still get more comments than most posts here.

Why no comment section in the Linkiest post? At least there would be some sort of open thread consistently.

Why not more sports-related posts, given it's the middle of football season and the baseball playoffs?

Posted by jules1

2009-10-23 13:07:43

I don't think that this one is going to go anywhere either. He died in a UN building while he was investigating Iran's nuke program. The world powers don't want anything to get in the way of Iran getting the bomb.

On another front, Debka is reporting that the Taliban and AQ are getting close to the main body Pakistani nukes. I am sure if they take them, it will be Bush's fault for not sending in troops to protect them. Afterall, it will take President Obama six months after they take them to make a decision on how to act.

What happened to the Preview button?

That appears to have been a feature of the MovableType application through which John was managing this blog. The preview function disappeared when he switched over to WordPress. I miss both the preview function and the fuller set of html commands that were available under MT.

Why not more sports-related posts..? –D-V

Not sure…I haven't been around for awhile. Was there a post about Favre this year? :)

Posted by BIG

2009-10-23 12:12:54

Dunn is leaving at the end of the year. She only signed for an interm basis and said that she would be done after 2009.

Not sure…I haven't been around for awhile. Was there a post about Favre this year? :)

Posted by jules1

2009-10-23 13:58:15

Is that guy still playing? I thought he retired, oh wait he came back, then retired…

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-23 14:05:17

If that is the case, she should leave now. What is the point of having an open Commie in the White House when there are some many closet ones already there?

Is Mark "Dirty" Sanchez of The Jets over-rated? Or just too green?

How can there be 259 people online right now and none of the threads can get more than about two dozen posts per day?

Sockpuppets for cretinous, groundhog and frankie the child molester probably amount to at least 250 of those accounts.

Dunn is leaving at the end of the year. She only signed for an interm basis and said that she would be done after 2009.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-23 14:05:17

Right! And no member of the Obama Administration would lie about a thing like that, would they whats_up>

Could you be any more naive?

Anybody in the RWN community know how long it should take to run a virus scan on a 40 gig hard drive with about 14 gigs of free space? I've been running a Panda scan on another computer here for over 3 hours now and it says it's only 37% complete! I know this isn't necessarily the place for computer expertise, but it's certainly the place to go for opinion on everything.

Posted by TheBaud

2009-10-23 15:31:53

We will see at the end of the year wont we Baud.

We will see at the end of the year wont we Baud.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-23 16:36:13

At the end of the year, when this loser is still there, both you and Obama will be making excuses for her lie, while you lecture us on some obscure Republican that did this years ago to justify your deliberate lie.

Afternoon! Regarding sports threads, I think it has to do with the cross-posters using their time to be serious. For myself, I generally do 2 serious posts in the AM, then something in the PM which might be more light hearted, but, I do my cross posting in the AM.

I've tried to do some Sunday football threads, but, since they tend to no really go anywhere, I gave them up.

Preview is a lot easier with MT then WP. The plugins that do that are not always stable with WP, and can really build up the database fast, since the preview is often held in the cache.

Maybe will do Q and A next Friday.

That might be a bit long for the scan, RWNreader2. With Spyware Doctor, it is usually done within 2 hours for a full deep scan, though, I probably only have about 20GB of 160 used.

Captain Hadley, you are trespassing on private property.

Actually, TR, I was around when M@rrtha first reeled her ugly her head around here, and was quite vocal at the time to her personally, using the words, "you are contributing nothing here. Piss off (or something to that effect) Beyond that, I thought the surest way to get a troll to go away was to ignore it.

Regarding sock puppets, if someone has been banned and are coming back in violation of the rules, well I certainly don't support that (and never have). Hawkins makes the rule. He bans you, then you should take a walk. Whether you like it or not. I would say the same thing to any sock puppet: be a man, (or woman) and grow up. It has nothing to do with you being you being a strong critic of me in the past. I can take it. I guess I never saw the people you were claiming to be sock puppets as obvious returning banned posters. So that's why I never made a stink with any of the people who you claim to be sock puppets.

While I hate to see that Stan got banned, as I often agreed with his assesment of the issues (if not of his fellow posters), I do think he has long been in violation of the rule against excessive flaming, and over the last few months he has hurt the quality of debate here more than he has helped it.

I have no idea why ninerdog would have been banned, he barely even posted around here anymore. Dammit, I was needing to get a recipe from him for how to make green chile stew.

And TR, if that's really you, I'm pretty surprised you would show up here after all the times you pledged, on your honor, that you'd stay gone if ever banned. While I agreed with (what I think are) Hawkin's reasons for banning you, I did believe you to be a man of your word.

Is Mark "Dirty" Sanchez of The Jets over-rated? Or just too green?

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-23 14:40:04

Who Dat?!!

I do think he has long been in violation of the rule against excessive flaming…

Posted by President_Friedman 2009-10-23 18:36:37

Again, I need to ask something here President_Friedman. What do you consider excessive flaming? Is it worse than that showed daily here by Liberals? Is it worse that RealPolitik talking about sex with children?

What did this person do that you consider to be excessive. I ask for two reasons: That I am not above loosing my temper and do not want to suffer their fate. And that I want to see what it takes to get banned around here. It seems some people can say little to nothing and get banned, while others enjoy special priviledges and can say whatever that want.

And I am also quite surprised at the amount of indignation throw at the person that returned from being banned (sorry, I forget his name and his post was deleted). A few weeks ago, I was questioning a person that admitted that he had been banned and simple made a new name and returned. Tom_pinko_Delay and others were posting that day and no one seemed to care. This person did the same? So what is the big deal?

We have talked about this plenty of times.

"trolls", whatever they are, don't lead to less comments, they lead to more comments. I should know.

"flame wars", whatever they are, are the things that kill threads. Because no one is in the mood to see trades of insults back and forth.

But a good argument that has some semblance of civility? Those are gold and it is what made RWN great.

The other thing is that there are too many posts from too many people. So the individual post traffic gets diluted, and you see some threads with 1-5 comments. I am not really that interested in commenting on the same topic in three different threads. Unless its a juicy one.

While I hate to see that Stan got banned, as I often agreed with his assesment of the issues (if not of his fellow posters), I do think he has long been in violation of the rule against excessive flaming, and over the last few months he has hurt the quality of debate here more than he has helped it.

I completely disagree. I do agree with Stan on a wide variety of issues and I never noticed any incivility on his part. Until now, I didn't realize that he was banned but this excessive banning by John is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

The problem is the trolls. Like many here, I used to enjoy baiting them and watching them run off into rants but that enjoyment is now gone. I believe RWN has slipped in the quality of the posts purely from the trolls. If this is intentional by John then I think he is being foolish. It's one thing to encourage more postings but eventually, people get tired of these nutjobs and leave.

I also think RWN is taking on too many daily topics.

I've also been busy on other projects and I'll be commenting less often here. I'm also getting my news from other sources.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-10-23 22:06:17

was he banned? And a good site Nixon frequents is Gateway Pundit, the man who helped expose Van Jones.

Stan wasn't banned. He left to go to AT. He was tired of Mratha posts being allowed to stay…

ninerdog left but wasn't banned to Nixon's knowledge.

"trolls", whatever they are, don't lead to less comments, they lead to more comments. I should know.

Only in the short term. Over the long term rampant trolling vastly reduces the number of comments as people who would normally contribute to debates choose to do so less and less because they know that soon a troll will show up to screw up the thread. The only ones left are the newcomers (most of whom stay for a short time then move on to other interests) and so-called "drive-by" commenters who drop in to leave a short comment then leave.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of total troll extermination. Even if such a thing were possible (which, if the entirety of the internet is any suggestion, it isn't) it would make threads a lot less fun. Too much trolling can wreck a good thread, but just enough trolling keeps things from getting boring.

What we really need is to get rid of certain trolls while preserving others. The word "troll" is actually quite appropriate here because it allows for a historical parallel. In old Scandinavian culture there were two types of "trolls". The brutish, unintelligent "Jætte" trolls of Norwegian culture and the more civilized and human-like "Vitterfolk" trolls of Swedish and Danish culture. The same thing is true for internet trolls. There are the more civilized internet trolls who will at the very least attempt to engage in real debate, even if they don't do very well. These are the trolls that need to be kept around. On the other hand you have the "brainless brute" internet trolls, such as Realpolitik, Jack_Schite, Hoggo, and the infamous M@rtha. These trolls don't even try to debate and instead act more like overgrown children. They don't argue, they throw temper tantrums. They don't respond to criticism, they jam their fingers in their ears and scream "LALALAI'MNOTLISTENINGLALALALALA!". These are the ones that kill threads and spark flame wars. People know that debating them isn't worth the trouble because whatever you say to them bounces harmfully off a solid wall of ignorance and stupidity they've constructed around themselves, so instead they just throw insults at the troll in a misguided attempt to make it leave.

And I am also quite surprised at the amount of indignation throw at the person that returned from being banned (sorry, I forget his name and his post was deleted). A few weeks ago, I was questioning a person that admitted that he had been banned and simple made a new name and returned. Tom_pinko_Delay and others were posting that day and no one seemed to care. This person did the same? So what is the big deal?

Posted by TheBaud

2009-10-23 20:18:59

For awhile, TR, the person in question, acted as a self-appointed troll policeman and sock puppet exposer. He was extremely over zealous in this pursuit, going on and on about the trolls were breaking the rules by being after they had been banned, or just by blatant trolling in the first place. I thought some his claims of sock puppetry were specious, but to me the bigger issue is the ridiculous hypocrisy being shown by him. As President Friedman mentioned, TR said that if he was ever banned, then he would never come back. And yet, here he is. Is he a man of his word? It would appear not.

TheBaud, I do not recall that person who admitted that they were a returning banned poster, but I have quite clear and consistent with regards to following the rules set here by Hawkins. If you are banned, then good bye.

Is he a man of his word? It would appear not.

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay

2009-10-24 11:05:26

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but…

STFU & DIAF.

Posted by jasamc

2009-10-24 11:17:48

We see the true conservative colors coming out, when it is one of their's breaking the rules is okay, thanks for clearing that up jasamc.

"but this excessive banning by John is leaving a bad taste in my mouth."

agreed. I don't think Stan should have been banned, I was just saying that he had, IMO, broken the site rules by constantly and visciously flaming other posters. TR had said that Stan didn't do ANYTHING against the rules, and with that I disagree. But I doubt that is what got Stan banned. More likely it was his public encouragement for TR to come back here and start posting again. Niner's banning is the one that really confuses me. But since John doesn't comment on these things, we probably won't ever know for sure.

We see the true conservative colors coming out, when it is one of their's breaking the rules is okay, thanks for clearing that up jasamc.

2009-10-24 12:43:35

Considering the number of liberal trolls that return to this site after banning (with your blessing), you have no right to comment on this issue.

We see the true conservative colors coming out, when it is one of their's breaking the rules is okay, thanks for clearing that up jasamc.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-24 12:43:35

F&CK YOU WU, thanks for painting ALL conservatives with that completely uncalled for attack. You can kindly GFY and the horse you road in on, you whiny little prick.

If what you are saying is true, mighty, then why is it that now we have the least amount of trolls in years, but there are less and less comments?

And the one common thing that will get you banned, whether lib or con, is making it personal with Mr. Hawkins. Stan did that at times, and so did TR. So did Huckupchuck.

Lastly, Mr. Teach, a football thread on Sunday is too late. Friday is the day.

If what you are saying is true, mighty, then why is it that now we have the least amount of trolls in years, but there are less and less comments?

Because the damage is already done and it's going to last. Rampant trolling doesn't just ruin good threads, it discourages people from commenting at all. And it takes a good long while for that discouragement to wear off.

Besides, I'm not so sure there are less comments. We certainly have a lower number of comments per post than in the old days, but we also have a lot more posts per day than we used to. That, after all, was the whole point of recruiting guest posters, so John could get more content on the site. The result is that the same pool of commenters is being divided by a much larger number of posts, making it appear that the number of comments is dropping.

You claim you were a critic of M@rtha, but those of us who have been around a bit know better. The only one on the left who actually came out publicy and condemned him was Vega….. The ONLY problem you have with me is that I'm an ideological enemy. Your past behavior has shown that were I on your side, you would be silent.

That is simply wrong, TR. And you can verify with Good Ol' Boy, who would remember the comment I made to Martha after the very first time she was banned: "Rest in pieces." And while yes, it's true that we are ideological enemies, the real problem I have with you is that your are a bully who can't follow the rules.

Finally, you know guys I do realise that in the past I was on the record condemning those who came back after being banned. But you know what. People change their minds.

In other words, you are not a man of your word. I'm going to try and stop engaging you now, TR, because the best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore it. But, by continuing to post here, you only prove to everyone that you are a baby, a liar, and quite frankly a loser – if this is such a 3rd rate blog and Hawkins is such a hack, then why are you spending so much time trying to take him down? And please don't respond with the claims that he messed with your world. If you have taken your banning like a man and just walked away, none of that escalation would have happened. That much is obvious to everyone.

Oops. Just read your comment, D Vega, two minutes after doing a Football open post :)