| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2000/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19673 Activity:high 60%like:19693 |
11/9 http://cnn.com: bush +437, Gore +1391. Gore - Bush = Gore + 954. 9:02am. 38 of 62 counted. Mostly smaller and a few mid sized ones left. \_ [typo corrected, sorry] \_ When they say +XXX, does it mean that they miscounted by -XXX during the first count? I find that rather troubling. \_ I find your jumping to conclusions troubling. No, +XXX simply means XXX is added to current tally. \_ Seems to me your answer is just a restatement of what I just said. Also, you seem very sensitive. |
| 2000/11/9 [Uncategorized] UID:19674 Activity:nil |
11/8 [Ridiculous non-political mostly-geekish stuff purged]
-motd pro-politics god
\_ fuck you. this is the motd.
\_ Fuck you, this is RICE!
\_ Yes. It is. And your point is? |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:19675 Activity:nil |
11/8 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/11/08/politics2207EST1052.DTL&type=election For those who don't read the wallog. It's about the 19,000 ballots thrown out in Palm Beach Florida. |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Computer, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19676 Activity:high |
11/8 Miffed at the latest attack on him from Vice President Gore,
George W. Bush accuses the vice president of stretching the
truth.
"He's the man who said he invented the Internet," Bush gibed,
echoing a common joke at Gore's expense.
Now let's kill the joke.
A) Gore did not claim to have invented the Internet. In an
interview with Wolf Blitzer in March 1999, Gore said:
"During my service in the U.S. Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
\- i think this is still bogus. when you are handed a list
of things to fund and you check off a bunch you like,
that is a far cry from "taking the initiative to
create". a more reasonable politician would have said "i
am a staunch supporter" or "lobbyied my colleauges"
etc. if someone brought you a human genome sequencing
project to you cong cmte and you decide to fund them, it
is no more your initiative than it is your money. --psb
\_ I read an article a few weeks ago where many of the
internet pioneers like Vint Cerf credited Gore. They
didn't mention any other politicians, but said that
Gore was instrumental in getting funding for R&D on
the internet. I think what Gore should have said was
he took the _political_ initiative in creating the
internet. Obviously the man is a politician and not
an engineer and I think it is reasonably clear that
he was claiming credit for his political work not
anything technical. -!orignal poster
\_ Gore's statement was not well-worded, but the mockery of
it is completely inaccurate. -tom
\_ Welcome to American politics. All public figures
screw up. The better lines get remembered. Tough
shit. And I saw the clip where he said this and
he made it clear the internet as a concept was his
idea. "I saw all these different research and
educational and other big computer places that
couldn't talk to each other so I...". Something
along those lines. The real thing is out there if
you care to find it. In context.
\_ motd formatting !god was here
\_ But Gore invented pants!
\_ URL PLEASE! Stop making blatant accusations and assumptions
without providing a URL, regardless of the source. Without
a URL, I am able to discredit all comments ever made about
pants, but if you provide a URL, even a GeoCities one, well,
then I'll just sit down and shut the fuck up.
\_ you are an idiot.
A) Gore did not claim to have invented the Internet. In an
interview with Wolf Blitzer in March 1999, Gore said:
"During my service in the U.S. Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
project to you cong cmte and you decide to fund them, it
\_ that doesn't sound very different from I invented the internet.
\_ And I dare say it was deliberately meant to sound that way,
while supposedly giving him a way of weasling out now.
So he deserves all the flak he gets on it.
\_ Obfusication is an art. Gore learnt from the
master Bill "I prefer Double-D's" Clinton.
\- i think this is still bogus. when you are handed a list
of things to fund and you check off a bunch you like,
that is a far cry from "taking the initiative to
create". a more reasonable politician would have said "i
am a staunch supporter" or "lobbyied my colleauges"
etc. if someone brought you a human genome sequencing
project to your cong cmte and you decide to fund them, it
is no more your initiative than it is your money. --psb
\_ I read an article a few weeks ago where many of the
internet pioneers like Vint Cerf credited Gore. They
didn't mention any other politicians, but said that
Gore was instrumental in getting funding for R&D on
the internet. I think what Gore should have said was
he took the _political_ initiative in creating the
internet. Obviously the man is a politician and not
an engineer and I think it is reasonably clear that
he was claiming credit for his political work not
anything technical. -!orignal poster
\_ I read the same thing and Vint Cerf recollection
of history is flawed. The internet began in the mid
60's (before Gore was elected to any office) when
the DOD and DARPA asked BBNPlanet to "wire the
world". Gore had some minor role in converting
ARPAnet to NFSnet, but the DOD created the internet.
Some visionary general who wanted to defend America
and ensure its survival in a nuclear war created the
Internet. Not a weenie socialist named Gore.
\_ Under the leadership of Democratic President
Lyndon B. Johnson.
\_ Despite the leadership of LBJ.
\_ Gore's statement was not well-worded, but the mockery of
it is completely inaccurate. -tom
\_ Gore's lying. He BS'ed and someone called him.
You are just apologizing for Gore cause he's
a socialist just like you are and you are
afraid that conservatives will let the people
continue to think for themselves and that the
people will figure out that you are wrong.
Half of them already have.
\_ Welcome to American politics. All public figures
screw up. The better lines get remembered. Tough
shit. And I saw the clip where he said this and
he made it clear the internet as a concept was his
idea. "I saw all these different research and
educational and other big computer places that
couldn't talk to each other so I...". Something
along those lines. The real thing is out there if
you care to find it. In context.
\_ motd formatting !god was here
\_ all hail |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:19678 Activity:high |
11/8 Perhaps the electoral college should be changed to give each
candidate the number of electoral votes proportional to the
percentage of popular vote they win in that state. This would
make things a lot more exciting and the outcome of this
election wouldn't hang on a few thousand votes in FL.
\_ Why? Fuck that, use the popular vote.
\_ Fuck the popular vote. We live in the United
**STATES** of America, not the Undifferentiated Blob of
America. We don't want something like the following
happening: I was in IL for '96 Senate election.
Repub. won _every_ county; except, that is, Cook County
(where Chicago is) which is so huge and so
pro-Demo. that the Demo. won the election.
\_ More exiciting. Ties will be more common, making the
houses' role in elections important.
\_ with the advent of the whole internet thing, we'll
all hopefully be able to go back to a popular vote
system using email. a big important factor will be
security and preventing tampering with the system.
\_ "a big important factor will be security and
preventing tempering with the system." G'duh. And
you advocate this over e-mail? Please don't
procreate.
\_ Actually, voting over the internet has the
potential to be much more secure than voting
like we do now. -crypto grad student
\_ After reading some articles by constitutional lawyers, I think
that the Electoral College works well a designed. The founding
fathers wanted to ensure that large centers of population in a
few states did not dictate federal policy for all states. I'm
still amazed by the effectiveness of the constitution and of
the foresight demonstrated by the founding fathers.
\_ Can you explain a little bit more as to how one (Electoral
College) leads to the other (large centers of population not
dictating federal policy for all states)? It's not
apparent to me.
\_ Candidates would only need to visit big cities to win
the popular vote, ignoring the backwater hick-states
One problem I have with Electoral College, is that when
pupular election, I will feel that my vote always matters.
I am in a state clearly leaning one way or another, I
don't feel that my vote counts, whereas if it is a
popular election, I will feel that my vote always matters.
\_#t, esp. in CA. The only way individual CA votes mattered
in this election was that they tipped the popular vote,
which is meaningful, yet irrelevant to the EC president
selection system.
\_ CA wasn't the best example. It was getting sort of close,
and Gore had some last minute worries about CA.
You have new mail. |
| 2000/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:19679 Activity:high |
11/8 Time to forget Florida and just give Bush & Gore each a partner
from the WWF and let a tag-team grudge match decide the winner.
\_ Let them duel for it, as great men did in ages past. (a la
Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton)
\_ that would be really exciting. Or a western style
showdown. or maybe even pitting them gladiator style
against each other.
\_ Western style showdown would be cool. Showdown
at the Dade County Corral. It may not be a fair
contest though since Bush is a reasonably good
marksman who has a permit to carry a concealed
firearm (AFAIK).
\_ well we can just give Gore a knife, since knives
are more deadly than guns. -tom
\_ In some situations. This wouldn't be one of
them. Thanks for taking that out of context,
though. You can give yourself a twink point
now.
\_ Tom that ruled. - tom #1 fan!
\_ Yes give them knife and sword so they can
settle it like gentlement. |
| 2000/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19680 Activity:nil |
11/8 Was President Lincoln a Democrat or Republican?
\_ President Lincoln founded the Republican party.
\_ This is technically incorrect.
Lincoln was the first republican
presidential candidate, but the
party was founded by someone else.
\_ That's right. See
http://www.rnc.org/2000/gophistory
\_ Why did all the southern states vote Republican when
Lincoln trashed them up so badly?
\_The Southern States have traditionally always voted
Democratic until recently. The Southern Democratic states
have always been the traditional bastion of Democratic
conservatism, and it's also traditionally been the place
of getting voting blocks. However, the new Democratic party
has become, in essence, too liberal. The result is the slow
and eventual decay of the Democratic party to be replaced
by the Republican party. In fact, even though they were until
recentely Democratic, they were at heart conservative socially.
The South has just recentely shown its true colors.
\_ The South switched after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act
of 1965. White Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party
in droves after that, just as LBJ anticipated they would.
\_ The south and the north have really changed
from the civil war days. Back then northerners
cared about liberty and freedom. Now they
just want to turn America into a big welfare
state like europe.
\_ Back then, Republican party was the more liberal party.
\_ Back then, the concept of "liberal" and "conservative" are
quite different from modern concepts. You have to remember that
in those days America was mainly agrarian. The Republican party
was the party of Industry and Commerce, while the Democratic party
was for the agrarian farmer (both big and small). In a sense, the
two parties have merely evolved with the times. You can see why
Republicans supported abolishing slavery while the Democratic party
for the most part didn't. Agrarian economies require large forces
of manual labor, and the system in place at the time was slavery.
By abolishing slavery the south was afraid it would destory their
socio-economic system (which actualleally didn't).
\_ That's why the Southern economies are booming and vibrant,
especially when compared to their wealth then.
\_ Texas and Florida have strong economies. Most of the other
states don't have enough people to need a industrial economy. |
| 2000/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:19681 Activity:very high |
11/8 Business-as-usual vote fraud in Florida:
http://www.herald.com/content/archive/news/elocal/digdocs/072105.htm
This poor woman isn't even dead and got her vote stolen.
\_ How come our election sounds more and more like fraud-filled
elections in some third-world countries?
\_ Because the Dems get caught more often now and the internet
allows wider reporting. See Dornan vs Sanchez.
\_ You mean Republicans, right?
\_ No. Classic Chicago Mayor Daley. Go pick up a history
book instead of a Leftist pamphlet off the ground on
Sproul. Re: Sanchez, a white chick who changed her pasty
white name to Sanchez to run for office, had 2000+
non-citizens (aka illegal aliens) voting for her. Enough
to steal the election and subvert the law. Don't be a
stupid propoganda spewing thoughtless clown. Go read a
god damned book or just pay attention to what's been going
on around you. Damn, even Nixon let it go in 1960 rather
than torture the country after he was robbed. Gore can't
have the decency Nixon had??
\_ yeah, and we know that nobody who ever wrote a book
had an agenda. i like books too, but your statement
is absurd at best.
\_ Oh yeah, The Republicans are all boy scouts and honest
and brave and trustworthy and the The Democrats are all
lying cheating scumbags. Thanks for setting me straight.
\_ You're ducking again. I never said that. Don't put
words in my mouth or on my keyboard. Obviously, you
have nothing to say but spew and personal attack and
no URLs or anything to back up any of your positions.
The truth is that you really don't have a real
position on anything. Just mere _feelings_ which is
nice and warm and fuzzy and all that and I'm glad
you've such a strong faith in your unfounded beliefs
but some of us require more than your feelings to be
convinced. --Nader'04!
\_ Nixon was cheated by Joe Kennedy and he let it go. Gore
lost (after fighting the good fight) and he can't let it
go because he is much less of a man than Nixon. (Yes,
I'm assuming that Bush will win FL, because if he
doesn't a thousand years of darkness started
yesterday).
\_ "Thousand years of darkness"??? Where are you getting
this crap, Revelations?
\_ Uhm, duh. It's a quote. Grow up.
\_ Gore is less of a man than Nixon? Are we talking
about the same Richard Milhouse Nixon who claimed
that he would achieve "Peace with honor" in Vietnam?
The Richard Nixon who resigned in disgrace? And
it won't be one thousand years, at most it will be
40 because that's about how long the Supreme Court
judges the next President appoints will be around.
That said, how you could possibly believe the
judges Bush would appoint would do anything other
than try to revert the country to the '50s (i.e.
the 1850s) is beyond me. I guess that Bush
supporters share his deep intellect.
P.S. If you dig slavery and isolationism, why aren't
you a Pat Buchanan supporter?
\_ I'm a Nader supporter. Now then, back to the
issue at hand which you clearly want to avoid.
If Gore had any decency he'd accept the final
tally of the recount and not drag this through
endless court proceeding. End of story. You're
so typically 'Gore'. You represent everything I
hate about politicians like Gore and why I voted
for the better man.
\_ Actually, I don't support any of the
candidates. What is this better man, decency
bullshit anyway? Dude, if Nixon conceeding
the vote makes him such a decent and good
man, explain why he later turned into such
a fuckhead! You're so typically 'Nader'.
You represent everything I hate about Green
party members and why I abstain from voting
because all the candidates suck.
\_ Figure it out yourself. Read Nixon's own
words. You'd *never* find a Gore thinking
stuff like this:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/neal/neal09.html
As a Gore slave, this is about something you
wouldn't understand: the best thing for the
country. Something more important than
Gore's ego. --Nader'04
\_ It's commonly thought Nixon didn't challenge the
Chicago results because he didn't want an
investigation to turn up Republican cheating
downstate.
\_ Commonly thought? By whom? URL please. I
provided one with full quotes. Let's see a URL
with more than "sources say".
\_ You'd rather believe "Nixon says" than
"Sources say"? I eschew your political
naivete. --!above poster |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:19682 Activity:moderate |
11/9 Is HL:Counterstrike all that? Worth getting? I haven't played FPS
since Quake2 and am itching for some shmucks to frag.
\_ http://Gamers.com has the exclusive.
http://www.gamers.com/s/feature/001107-counter/index
\_ when are they going ipo? if u hear 'soon' too many times
its not going ipo. |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:19683 Activity:nil |
11/9 Maybe they're Pat's votes after all....
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment110900c.shtml |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic, Reference/History/WW2] UID:19684 Activity:nil |
11/9 It's amazing how many political figures use the word "liberal"
interchangably with "communist freak". All you have to do is
look it up.
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism,
orthodoxy, or traditional forms
\_ Liberals in America are communist freaks. |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:19685 Activity:moderate |
11/9 dpetrou, are you gay?
\_ are you up for some hot gay sex with him?
\_ give the guy a break, its the first non-politics entry
\_ dpet, is <DEAD>partita.rem.cs.cmu.edu<DEAD> Bach's Partitas? |
| 2000/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19686 Activity:nil 80%like:19688 |
11/9 http://cnn.com *UPDATED 12PM*: bush +346, Gore +1343. Bush = Gore + 787. 53 of 67 counted. Mostly smaller and a few mid sized ones left. \_ [typo corrected, sorry] \_ When they say +XXX, does it mean that they miscounted by -XXX during the first count? I find that rather troubling. \_ I find your jumping to conclusions troubling. No, +XXX simply means XXX is added to current tally. \_ Seems to me your answer is just a restatement of what I just said. Also, you seem very sensitive. \_ We just have a lot of troubled souls in CSUA. \_ You mean Gore voters don't you? |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:19687 Activity:high |
11/9 In regards to the presidential race, check out ~dpetrou/petition.
\_ Don't be stupid. We don't have grade school "do-overs" in this
country because some morons can't read. In fact, I find it
frightening that anyone would seriously consider as valid the
opinion of someone so stupid they can't figure out how to punch
out a ballot properly. There *is* a minimum requirement in this
country to vote. You must be able to poke the right hole and only
one hole. If you can't do something *that* simple your
\_ look, even aspo, an otherwise intelligent individual, can't
figure out that he's been poking the wrong hole all along
\_ What if we have a legally enforced 'do-over'?
vote gets tossed out. Give it up. This is a Gore pipe dream.
\_ The ballot form looks reasonably clear to me. - Gore supporter
\_ The other equitable, but probably not legal, option would be
to take the ballots which selected multiple candidates and
give each candidate selected a fractional vote.
\_ That's not fair, then Gore would win.
\_ then i would want to switch my vote from nader to bush if they
get to do that crap.
\_ it would be hillarious if there were three rounds of,
"Okay, now whoever wants to switch votes, do so now"
{deleted a few older threads to save space, not to censor them} |
| 2000/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19688 Activity:nil 80%like:19686 73%like:19693 |
11/9 http://cnn.com *UPDATED 12PM*: bush +369, Gore +1372. Bush = Gore + 781. 55 of 67 counted. Mostly smaller and a few mid sized ones left. \_ [typo corrected, sorry] \_ When they say +XXX, does it mean that they miscounted by -XXX during the first count? I find that rather troubling. \_ I find your jumping to conclusions troubling. No, +XXX simply means XXX is added to current tally. \_ actually, yes it DOES mean that. \_ Seems to me your answer is just a restatement of what I just said. Also, you seem very sensitive. \_ We just have a lot of troubled souls in CSUA. \_ You mean Gore voters don't you? |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19689 Activity:kinda low |
11/9 5 secs ago: Bush +405 with 6 counties to go.
\_ most of the remaining counties (except one) favor Bush.
\_ in a recount who favors who is pretty much irrelevant as
they are looking at changes in the total to say +405
\_ assuming no error in the remaining counties, you can do
the math.
\_ but the +405 bush is assuming no error in the remaining
counties. So who is ahead in which county is pretty
much meaningless.
\_ doesn't this feel like that last 40 seconds of a game, but
the other team is ready to challenge the call?
\_ can't, there is no instant-reply booth. So the call
on the field stands. Plus it's under 2 minutes.
\_ aren't lawsuits a form of instant replay?
\_ No. not in the NFL rulebook or USA rulebook (Constitution) |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Industry/Startup] UID:19690 Activity:kinda low |
11/9 Suppose I form a company and somehow convince one or several VCs
to give me money. Like say $5 million. They will write the check
in the name of my company. But I then turnaround and give myself,
as CEO of the company, a $5 million dollar bonus. And then declare
the company bankrupt. Is this possible? I know it's unethical, but
what's to prevent me from grabbing the money for myself after I get
it. Is this legal?
\_ You'll be signing a contract 2 inches thick. Figure it out.
\_ Yes, it is, but you will have the shareholder majority vote behind
you to defend it, which is highly unlikely after VCs are through
with you. You can also count on getting sued. -muchandr |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19691 Activity:high |
11/9 If Bush wins the recount, Gore should have nothing more to say.
If Gore wins the account, I think we will have a crisis.
\_ That's what you said 8 years ago about Clinton and we now
have the best damn economy in the world.
\_ Thanks to Alan Greenspan, a Republican
\_ And Ronald Reagan's tax cut in 1981 that allowed
businesses to expand and thrive.
\_ And Ronald Reagan's victory over Soviet Communism
\_ And the Internet Revolution (by Al Gore)
\_ Yeah. Al Gore the author of TCP/IP, UDP,
FTP, HTTP, BGP, OSPF, RIP, RIPNG and
countless RFCs and Internet Standards.
Sustanining Member of the IETF!
\_ Please post the article where Gore
actually says "I invented the Internet".
I mean the actual quote. Not where
other people says he said he invented
the internet but where he actually
said it. Oh, of course, you can't
find it. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FUCKING
EXIST.
\_ Wow. Then when I saw that on a taped
interview, it was a fabrication of the
VWRC that controls the major media? Is
there a controlling legal authority to keep
the VWRC from completely taking over the
media? What's the world coming to?
\_ If Bush wins the recount, Gore will still demand a revote in 4
counties.
\_ And while we're at it, let's cleanup the vote tally and check
how many non-citizens voted *then* do a revote. Welcome to
office, President Bush.
\_ Thanks prodictivity growth in the service sector for the first
time since yermama was skinny. -muchandr
{deleted a few older threads to save space, not to censor them} |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:19692 Activity:nil |
11/9 In the CSUA, which do you think will have the more popular support?
Communist Party? Hippy Party? The Gun-Toting, NRA Party?
\_ Party at yermom's house |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19693 Activity:kinda low 60%like:19673 73%like:19688 |
11/9 http://cnn.com *UPDATED 1PM*: bush +419, Gore +1800. Bush = Gore + 403. 58 of 67 counted. Mostly smaller and a few mid sized ones left. \_ [typo corrected, sorry] \_ When they say +XXX, does it mean that they miscounted by -XXX during the first count? I find that rather troubling. \_ I find your jumping to conclusions troubling. No, +XXX simply means XXX is added to current tally. \_ actually, yes it DOES mean that. \_ Seems to me your answer is just a restatement of what I just said. Also, you seem very sensitive. \_ We just have a lot of troubled souls in CSUA. \_ You mean Gore voters don't you? \_ Where is your money right now? Gore Presidency -- $5 Bush Presidency -- $7 \_ Stock Market. I'm a long term investor. I'll ride out any storm ;-). \_ Ever since Bush started his campaign, my stocks have been losing money! forking shyt \_ you should have been into "drugs." \_ from CNNFN: "The comments from the Gore campaign this afternoon accelerated the selling," Clark Yingst, market analyst at Prudential Securities, told CNNfn's market coverage. Still, Yingst also linked the losses to concerns about slowing economic growth that have plagued the markets for months. |
| 2000/11/9 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:19694 Activity:nil |
11/9 lewd, informative, idiotic MOTD back -- motd restoration god |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Uncategorized] UID:19695 Activity:nil |
11/9 Congratulations to Dusty Baker, National League Manager of the Year.
\_ "Year," of course, referring to just the regular season. |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Computer/Domains, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:19696 Activity:kinda low |
11/9 When you telnet to elaine.stanfurd or tree it uses some
sort of rotating dns alias. How does one set that up?
\_ One has multiple address entries for the same hostname.
Look for "DNS Round Robin" -muchandr
\_ Just list all the addresses and let BIND do the rest.
http://ocf.berkeley.edu also does this. |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:19697 Activity:nil |
11/9 I know this is unlikely (and not related to current election), but
what happens if there is a tie, either in the popular vote within a
state (barring voting irregularities, inconsistencies, ballot
stuffing, etc) or at electoral state level?
\_http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/toc.html
\_ I think that it goes to the house. |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19698 Activity:kinda low |
11/9 That "recount" is just more commie "fuzzy math". Bush already won!
\_ it's called obeying florida law, moron. the existence of a
recount has nothing to do with party politics. the way it's
handled is a different matter. |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:19699 Activity:kinda low |
11/9 What's the purpose of Lockeed Martin advertising their shit when
people can't buy their shit? Is it to convince people that defense
contract is good?
\_ recruiting employees and stock investors?
\_ There are commerical companies that do buy their shit
aside from government contracts. That applies mostly to
the satellite divison over at Lockheed. Management is
pushing for on that commercial side since the Cold War
is old news. Unfortunately, this has created alot of
angry employees b/c the satellite people tend to get
preferential treatment as an entire department while
everyone else just sort of gets fucked up the ass.
-- Lockheed Martin unhappy employee.
\_ j, is that you? |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:19700 Activity:nil |
11/9 Is the number of senate seats or house seats per state dependent
on the population of the state? - reformed ex-commie
\_ no. yes.
\_ house -> based on population (min. 1 per state, otherwise
every ~ 600K people +1 seat)
\_ Does that mean we have > 1000 seats in the house?
\_ I think its 435 seats, but I could be wrong.
senate -> two per state
Every state has a equal say in the Senate, in the house
its based on population. Madisonian Checks and Balances.
\_ is it a fixed 435 house members no matter what size of the
country?
\_ No. The house was much smaller when there were only 13
states. |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19701 Activity:nil |
11/8 http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0011/call a35 46 |
| 2000/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19702 Activity:nil |
11/9 Congress and Supreme Court issue order for nation-wide presidential
run-off election:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/election.president/index.html |
| 2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:19703 Activity:high |
11/9 Is Bush better for stock market? Republicans give tax cuts and
better business incentives, while Gore will tax us to death.
But then the gridlock will allow the markets to run more freely.
So which is best for the stock market?
\_ Well, I can tell you this much: when Gore's people announced that
they were going to demand a hand recount of some/all of Florida,
the market tanked 60 seconds later.... The market just wants a
stable government. The rest is BS.
\_ Republican's traditionally increase federal outlays - receipt
difference. Just look at the numbers on the annual budget
reports published by the government (you can figure out the
presidents that go along with them). As a result, Republicans
increase the incentives to invest in government bonds rather
than the stock market. If history repeats itself, Gore would
be healthier to the stock market than Bush.
\_ quick errata: In the past the the (outlays -
receipts) difference tends to increase under Republican
administrations and decrease under Democratic ones.
\_ Bush is better, neither is ideal.
\_ BUSH == inflation, unemployment
\_ That statement evaluates to FALSE
\_ True if he presidess like the sr bush.
\_ Not true. 1992 was a small correction. There is
always a correction when we switch from a wartime
economy to a peacetime economy. The people just
couldn't see that.
\_ that applies to clinton as well. he only looked
good as a president b/c of the sudden explosion in the
internet economy, he just happened to around when it
really took off, as predicted before '94.
\_ I'd like to hear exactly what policies Clinton enacted
that brought about prosperity, other than keeping
Greenspan, a Republican appointee, in office.
\_ The president is the gatekeeper to what spending
bills get passed or not. During Clinton's term,
the annual deficit reduced each year to help
drive down interest rates on federally issued bonds
and increase market capitalization of the stock
market. It was the complete opposite during the
Bush and Reagan years. There were also several
telecommunications bills but those were bipartisan.
\_ This is nice. What bills? Please name them.
\_ BS. Clinton only vetoed bills that he felt
went too far in preserving the freedoms that
the founding fathers gave us. The republicans
in congress and the Alan Greenspan kept
Clinton and the Democrats in check. Besides
Clinton was too busy getting it on.
\_ Nice try. But if you want to sound more
intelligent than a little child, you're
going to have to do much better than shoot
off the hips generalizations like that.
Numbers: In 1994 corporate income tax to
the federal government totalled $140
billion compared to $184 billion today.
Given inflation and a dramatic increase
in economic activity in the last decade,
that's not much of an increase (in fact
I would hazard to say it may have gone
down). I'd have to do more research but
at least I went to the trouble of getting
REAL information unlike you. Just because
you're too damn lazy, I'll post the damn
URL for you.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/cfs/index.html
\_ And Clinton gets credit for this
because...?
\_ You cannot approve federal outlays
without the president's signature
or an overriding majority. Much of
it's probably a mutual comprimise
between Democrats and Republicans
but you can't blaim Clinton for
being a "tax and spend commie".
Federal outlays decreased during
his time.
Federal outlays increased while _/
congress was friendly to Clinton.
Federal outlays decreased because
of congressional restraint, not
Clinton.
In the years 1994 to 1995 (before the Republican congress was
elected) spending rose from $1.51 T to $1.79 T, while revenues
increased from $1.38 T to $1.48 T. As you can see the spending
deltas rose significantly under Clinton's watchful eye. The
spending delta was much worse in Clintons' first two terms (see
the chart in [1]). (Chart [1] is quite interesting, as things
were *much* worse under Clinton's watch than under any one else).
Part of the problem was Clintons' tax increase which reduced
tax revenues between $60 B and $79 B in his first two years in
office. This coupled with increased spending (on the order of
1000 spending bills a year) lead to the deep deficit shown in
[1]. (See [2] for more information).
The statement above about stock capitalization is completely
wrong. Stock capitalization increased because of increased
individual investment in the stock market. Increased individual
investement was caused primarily by the tax cut enacted by
congress in 1997. The increased individual investment lead to
increased individual income which resulted in the largest
increase in federal revenues, from $543 B (1994) to $1.45 T (1999).
As pointed out above corporate tax revenuse did not increase
nearly as much. It sill resulted in a inflation adujsted (based
on the chart in [3]) increase of about $35 B.
These increased revenues combined with steady federal spending
($ 1.75 T in 1999 which is less than $ 1.79 T in 1995 even before
inflation adj) resulted in the reduction in the deficit. Steady
spending was due in no small part to the reduction in spending
bills passed by congress (around 300 per year under Republicans).
Clinto did nothing to reduce the number or content of the spending
bills; occaisionally he did not sign a given bill, but that just
saved more money.
The statement that the lower deficit lead to lower interest rates
is also wrong. Lower interest rates were enacted by the Fed to
keep inflation/deflation in check (which might have been
caused by the extra capital generated by the tax cuts). The lower
deficit was caused by rather than causing lower interest rates.
[1] http://policy.house.gov/documents/leadership/socsecraid.htm
[2] <DEAD>www.ncpa.org/pd/monthly/pd496f.html<DEAD>
[3] http://fintrend.com/ftf/html/1990sI.html
\_ You've used the "F" word! Don't bring _F_acts into this! It's
unfair to the Clinton/Gore crowd!
\_ I was asked. My analysis could be wrong, and I gladly invite
someone to point it out.
\_ My work is never done. -someone |
| 5/17 |