| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/1/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11801 Activity:nil |
1/15 Iraq war, looking at Saddam capture photo, we went to war
against a homeless person.
\_ dude, don't be a dumbass. he lived in several palaces.
\_ we turned a dictator into a homeless person.
\_ heh that is such a cool concept. I hope we do the same
in N Korea, Libya, Iran, Cuba, and all the countries
that oppose our superior Western views.
\_ Oh, I forgot, the people of Iraq value living
under a leader like Sadam. They'll elect
somebody just like him in the upcoming elections.
\_ khadafi is our bitch now. hopefully the rest will
follow his lead. |
| 2004/1/16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:11802 Activity:nil |
1/15 Here is the question which always bothers me: how caucuses
is choosen?based upon its monetary contribution to its party?
\_ no, these are joe-average people. pretty much anyone who is
on the party lists and willing to sit through 8 hours of babble
and bullshit before the vote is allowed to if they're a citizen
of the state. |
| 2004/1/16 [Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:11803 Activity:nil |
1/15 In the same vein as the "hear hear" discussion below, is it
"no shit" or "know shit?"
\_ no shit, sherlock.
\_ I believe this term had the inflection of a sarcastic "no shit?",
in its original form. E.g. Bob: "It's raining" Joe: "No shit?"
As in, "not telling me shit?" "not shitting me?". Over time it's
become acceptable as a declarative "no shit", without the need for
the sarcasm, meaning "duh, I already knew that dumbass" (or sherlock,
which retains the sarcastic edge). |
| 2004/1/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11804 Activity:high |
1/15 If minority of wealthy people own a huge percentage of the wealth in
the US, then woludn't it make more sense for them have a bigger
percentage of tax?
\_ How much bigger? Serious question here. How much more should rich
people pay in your opinion?
\_ perhaps are you suggesting a hefty property/wealth tax in liu of
income taxes? One important function of gov't is protect property,
and so one could easily argue that those with the most for the
govt to protect should be paying the lion's share of the govt
expenses.
\_ Only because they earn more, but it would not make sense to charge
them more per dollar, just more dollars because they're making
more dollars. And you're confusing "wealth" with "high income
earning". They are not the same thing. A wealthy person with low
or no income should be paying the same taxes as a poor person with
low or no income: zero.
\_ And we suddenly race back to serfdom! So those not making an
"income" shouldn't be contributing to the common defence simply
because they've got theirs? Grow up.
\_ They pay in other ways such as property taxes, death taxes,
utility taxes, bridge tolls, sales taxes, and a million
other fees. Get an education and grow up yourself. When
you're less ignorant you can come back and discuss adult
topics with us.
\_ One rhetorical technique really bothers me: the term
"death tax". Calling it that makes it seem cruel and
unfair, but you can't tax a dead person. Call it what it
really is: a tax on recieving an inheritance.
\_ Yeah, but it's been obliterated by Bushco, so is it
worth talking about? Yay inherited plutocracy!
\_ Don't forget, this death tax was only on assets
exceeding 2 mill, which hardly sounds excessive.
I can understand pegging this to inflation, but
doing away with it entirely seems excessive since
that will need to be made up in other ways.
\_ Yeah, the whole process leading up to it has
been utter bullshit. It's greed, plain and
simple. Inheritance tax has an interesting
history, and is a deeply anti-monarchic response
(and rightly so).
\_ How much bigger?
\_ This contradicts what people consider 'fair' in non-tax contexts.
This reminds me of a truly amazing article in the Daily Bruin I
read the other day where someone was complaining how unfair it
was that Schwarzenegger wasn't willing to tax rich people in
California more, to solve the budget problem... Then in the same
breath the person complained how the Federal government has this
progressive scheme of taxing states, where California only gets
back 76% or so of the revenue they give up to the Feds (which
apparently is also very unfair). It seems he saw no contradiction
in what he was saying, or maybe he didn't want to be principled
but favored any tax scheme which gave him the biggest slice of
the pie possible in the current political climate. -- ilyas
\_ The analogy is false. "States" don't suffer from the
problems of poverty, people do. There's no reason the
state with the highest cash flow should pay proportionally
more than other states. (You can't call California the
"richest" state since right now our state government is
actually the poorest.) California also has more poor people
and more need for social services than, say, Wyoming. -tom
\_ I think California is passing the 'suffering'
from this progressive taxing scheme the feds have onto
the residents just fine. Who is to say the Feds have a less
optimal income redistribution plan than you do? Maybe it's
worth it to take away from some social services in CA and
optimal income redistribution plan than you do?
give to social services in MA, etc. The analogy is not false.
\_ If the other states are getting more for pork-barrel projects,
then it's logically consistant. If it's to subsidize poor states
then he is a hypocrite.
\_ Well, even if it goes exclusively to pork, you are still not
in the clear. You have to prove that _your_ method of income
redistribution is better than this other one. I think it's
better to simply agree on whether progressive taxation is
fair or not first, and worry about the specifics of how
it gets spent later.
\_ You're missing the point. Taking more money from
California because it has the highest cash flow is not
"progressive taxation." California is billions of dollars
in the hole--"rich" people who lose money during a given
year pay no taxes that year. California has no earnings,
just a budget. -tom
\_ Bzzt! California has 'earnings'. They're called taxes.
Just because CA spends more than it takes in doesn't
mean it isn't doing well. That's called overspending.
If I made a million dollars last year but spent 1.5
million on toys for myself do you think I shouldn't
have to pay taxes on that million?
\_ If you spent the 1.5 million on charity projects like
education for all children and health care for the
poor and elderly, then you'd have a 1.5 mil deduction
million on toys for myself do you think I shouldn't
and not have to pay any taxes. It's not like the
state is buying itself sports cars.
\_ Exactly right. -- ilyas
\_ California is *NOT* the richest state in terms of average
per capita income. And if you look at the distribution scheme
fair or not first, and worry about the specifics of how
it gets spent later.
have to pay taxes on that million?
\_ Exactly right. -- ilyas
you will see that the money goes to politically favored states
and is taken away from those the Republicans want to punish.
Poverty and wealth have nothing to do with it.
\_ All methods of income distribution are unfair to someone. That is
one of the core problems with any tax system. No matter what you
do someone will say it is unfair to them. And they'd be right. The
only real question is not "fair or unfair?" but "who do we screw?"
In the U.S. we screw wealthy people by charging them more money but
not providing more services for their tax dollar. We then screw
them again when they want to leave their wealth to other family
members so the money has been unfairly taxed twice. I was going to
balance my comments by saying how we screw poor people but I can't
think of anything that isn't some form of "we don't give them enough
money from wealthier people".
\_ I disagree. I don't think forming societies is an inherently
losing proposition for someone. I also think there is one
notion of fairness that is 'right.' -- ilyas
\_ That's an interesting opinion but not meaningful and does not
bear out in reality where historically no matter what the tax
system has looked like there is always a group that
justifiably feels screwed by it while others remain silent.
If you can find that one correct notion of fairness that the
rest of us can agree on, A Universal Fair Tax Truth, then you
should run for office. I'd vote for you in a split second.
\_ Well, I think 'feeling screwed' is not a good yardstick
for universal fairness. Maybe someone is unusual
and would feel screwed with any scheme that didn't give him
losing proposition for someone. I also think there is one
notion of fairness that is 'right.' -- ilyas
justifiably feels screwed by it while others remain silent.
If you can find that one correct notion of fairness that the
rest of us can agree on, A Universal Fair Tax Truth, then you
should run for office. I'd vote for you in a split second.
the whole world on a platter. I don't claim to know how
to approach universal fairness, but I have a feeling it
exists (even if it's not as elegant and simple a concept as I
\_ Actually he is getting more for his money. Our education
system, our infrastructure, our millitary, our police, etc.
ALL are needed to help keep him rich. Third world
countries are not conducive to getting rich.
would like). -- ilyas
\_ Well, i'm not sure your vague "feeling of existence"
is such a good basis for your claim that a
notion of universal fairness exists.
\_ You're probably not wealthy enough to know that our tax system
is so deliberately laden with loopholes that the very richest
pay far far less of their income in taxes than you probably think
\_ They may be too ethical to play shell games with companies.
But that doesn't mean they don't exist for those with
less scruples.
Is moneybags using more gov't services than regular guy?
Maybe he is getting more value from the military. What is fair?
that they do.
\_ Compare a regular guy making 40k, gets taxed 20% = $8000.
Then there's moneybags making $400k, gets taxed 5% = $20000.
Is moneybags using more gov't services than regular guy?
\_ I thought it was Spock who said, "The good of the many,
outweighs the good of the few, or the one." Live long and
prosper - even with high taxes.
it gets spent later.
Maybe he is getting more value from the military. What is fair?
\_ Noblesse Oblige?
\_ Actually he is getting more for his money. Our education
system, our infrastructure, our millitary, our police, etc.
ALL are needed to help keep him rich. Third world
countries are not conducive to getting rich.
\_ No, actually, my parents are fantastically wealthy and I know
that your concept of "the rich pay nothing! it's all full of
holes! the poor pay more!" is a crock of shit. They pay more
every year in absolute and percentage terms than any middle
class or poor person will pay in a lifetime. You're not
wealthy enough to know what the rich really pay, you just
repeat the noise you read on http://moveon.org.
\_ I disagree. Jean-Luc Piccard once said the life of a few is
worth sacraficing for the benefit of the many. Or maybe that
was from a Vulcan, I can't remember.
\_ No, Picard never said this. He was not a utilitarian. What
he did say in one episode was that he refuses to let
arithmetic decide such matters.
\_ I thought it was Spock who said, "The good of the many,
outweighs the good of the few, or the one." Live long and
prosper - even with high taxes. |
| 2004/1/16 [Health, Computer/HW/Memory] UID:11805 Activity:nil |
1/15 ecstasy and pot users read:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine_health/report-24750.html
\_ So you heard about what happened to the last study that supposedly
proved Ecstacy was bad for you, right? Completely debunked and
shown to be be based not just on biased research but on completely
bogus research. That's not even mentioning how bad science reporting
typically is, or how its usual tendency towards simplification is
amplified whenever illegal drugs are involved. This study, even
from the simplistic description in the article, sounds fatally
flawed. Fact is, no substance in excess is good for you. The
two substances most likely to kill you, alchohol and cigarettes,
are legal and taxed. The drug war is hypocrisy of the worst sort
and has become a self-perpetuating industry powered by the prison
lobby and other assorted interests.
\_ The op isn't saying they should be banned. If you don't
care whether there are negative effects--inside your own head--
from drug use, feel free to continue sticking your head in the
sand.
\_ For what its worth: a med student friend who has done
e a few times will not do it again after learning about
the physiology of its affects on the brain.
\_ op here: I made no statement about anything. Why are you so
incredibly defensive? If you're willing to take the risk, you
are welcome to. No one will miss you later. The info is there
so those not willing to take such risks may be informed of the
possibilities. Everyone who smokes or drinks is 100% aware of
the risks. Why would you try to hide similar information about
the substances you're addicted to (psychologically if not
physically)? When you first share drugs with a virgin do you
really tell them the drugs are perfectly safe? I hope not.
At best it is unlikely and unproven. At worst you are setting
them up for a seriously fucked future in the name of pushing
your own political agenda and addictions. No one *needs*
'recreational' drugs. It is a choice that should be made with
all available information on the table. --op
\_ this article is very poorly written. Anyone reading this really
should just ignore the reporter's distinction of cannabis-->
short term memory impairment and X --> long term memory impairment.
Without clarifying his definitions of STM and LTM, it's pointless.
It also fails to clarify possible issues with (anonymous?) internet
survey methodology, and further fails to even mention cofactors,
drug-interaction effects on the results, and other such issues
which _need_ to be addressed. I have no clue if the researchers
addressed these issues. If not, the research is shitty. If so,
the reporter did a shitty job. -nivra |
| 2004/1/16 [Finance/Banking, Finance] UID:11806 Activity:nil |
1/15 Any tips on not getting your financial aid reduced (FAFSA app) due
to your parents owning a home?
\_ have yourself declared a ward of the state, join the military
or go to jail. Otherwise you are out of luck. My wife, age 25,
was still considered "dependent" on her parents when she went
to medical school. And their home ownership did get her dinged
for less financial aid.
\_ She was considered dependent because she never supported
herself (> 50%) not because her parents owned a house.
That's her fault.
\_ So you want to cheat the system and screw poor student out of their
money while you rich fucks steal it from them? Well, aint that just
the same god damned story throughout the ages! Fuck you white boy!
\_ I am !=op but all I see are unclaimed $ for "disadvantaged"
people and not enough for middle-class people just because
they own a home it is automatically assumed they can pay for it
or carry the debt-load for the next 5-10 years.
\_ Take out a second mortgage! That's what you're supposed to be
doing! Not soaking the poor! I put myself through school
with no loans. I have no sympathy.
\_ not many people sleep around for tuition money
\_ I'm not pretty enough to get paid to fuck strangers. I
worked my way through school and it wasn't that workfare
crap where students get overpaid for doing nothing on
campus. |
| 2004/1/16 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:11807 Activity:high |
1/16 How do you allow remote root logins on FreeBSD? I can ssh in as a
user but not as root.
\_ Same as any system, edit your sshd_config.
\_ How do I restart sshd on FreeBSD4?
\_ reboot!
\_ kill -HUP sshd
\_ There isn't a script?
\_ Not in FreeBSD 4.x. In 5.x the netbsd rc.d
system has scripts. BTW, why do you need/want
a script for something so simple?
\_ I was just wondering if there was a script.
For example /etc/mail/Makefile does this.
\_ Sheesh, no, go write one. ps | grep ; kill -hup
\_ why don't you do it the traditional way and ssh, then su?
\- thats not always reasonable. ssh is used for more than
isn't that hard.
\_ why don't you do it the traditional way and ssh, then su?
interactive logins ... e.g. scp etc. --psb
\_ /etc/ssh/sshd_config |
| 2004/1/16 [Reference/Tax] UID:11808 Activity:nil |
1/15 Related to the post below, one of my friends from Singapore says
the government tries to mold the society using strict laws and tax
incentives. For example, he says that well educated people have
tax incentives for having kids whereas the less educated people
(this is supposedly aimed at the Malaysians and others) have penalty
for having kids. Is this really true, and if so, is it ethical?
\_ What you have to understand about Singapore is that their
situation is much different than ours. They're a very small
nation surrounded by some not-so-peaceful-nations. Their
survival depends having well educated people and a stable
society so they develop laws centered around that. And like
Israel, they also have a required National Service for men.
\_ Ethics isn't the issue. What sort of society do you think is going
to do better in the long term: one which penalises the uneducated
masses and promotes education or one which does the opposite such
as ours? Governments don't have ethics or morals. They have goals
and self interest. Never make the mistake of thinking of any
government in human terms. Governments are not people.
\_ Ah, the lucky ducky arguments... |
| 2004/1/16-17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11809 Activity:nil |
1/16 Yellowcake found: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/15/international1719EST0714.DTL \_ Hmm, 2 lbs of unrefined ore containing 1% uranium. The guy at the enviornment ministry says: "It could be from anywhere in the world," Call me when this one hasn't been debunked after a week. \_ Yeah, but the guy who actually knows something says he's sure it came from Iraq. I'm not saying this somehow ends the yellowcake controversy. It's just another data point. \_ Of course. We each have our agendas. |
| 2004/1/16-17 [Recreation/Pets, Computer/SW/Security] UID:11810 Activity:nil |
1/16 The Fish That Threatened National Security:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03362/255283.stm
\_ Petty tyrants can arise in even the smallest domains (and no, I'm not
talking about the fish--I'm talking about airport security).
\_ story sounds fishy (hah!) People routinely take pets through
passenger screening at airports. Maybe the TSA folks were being
particularly annoying at LGA. -- Someone who works airport secy.
\_ the newspaper probably fact checked this
it doesn't appear they've printed a retraction for the last
three weeks, anyway
to me it just looks like overzealous and mistaken TSA there
\_ The TSA allows pets on the plane, and they will not x-ray them:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1036.xml
\_ If you want to smuggle something through, having a cute cat
probably helps -- I had my cat, who was drugged beyond belief
and when they made me take him out all the TSA people stood
around and ooohed and aahed and petted him. -chialea
\_ The TSA recently destroyed a very expensive flight case of a
friend of mine who travels for business. Apparently the goons
at the TSA didn't understand the latching mechanism and so
used a crowbar on the joints instead. He has a claim in but
it may take a VERY long time to get any money out of them, knowing
the feds.
\_ Did your idiotic friend understand the big sign that says to not
lock stuff or they'll have to break them open? Did he take the
very simple precaution of unlatching it for them or opening his
stupid mouth to explain at some point or whine like a stupid
bitch afterwards and file his paperwork? Are *you* the friend
with no clue? Frankly, I'm glad they busted open his case. I
would've done the same thing just to teach him a lesson.
\_ I am not the one who posted the above, but somettimes a case
has to latched just to keep the content from spilling out,
esp. if you put too much stuff in. The above post does not
say the latch was locked. This would be like someone breaking
a closed door without trying to turn the knob. |
| 2004/1/16-17 [Computer/SW/Languages] UID:11811 Activity:nil 66%like:12251 |
1/16 http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/killerquiz -John \_ Posted a few months ago. Still fun. |
| 2004/1/16 [Reference/Tax] UID:11812 Activity:nil |
1/16 Related tax thread. I bought this up before and I couldn't find a
single convincing argument against it. Everybody pays a base tax
for all gov't projects and services. Those who use that particular
gov't service should pay more for the simple reason that they use it.
E.g., everybody pays some base amt to build a bridge. But the
people who drive across it pays more in the form of a toll. Same
for education. Everybody pays for public education. But people
with a lot of kids in public schools should pay more. You get the
idea. I think this "pay more tax the more gov't service" you use
is the only way to get the state and federal deficits under control.
\_ this is one of the stupidest things I've seen on the MOTD. -tom
\_ The problem with "pay-more-use-more" is that it may be in the
state's best interests for people to use services even if they can't
afford to pay more. What if people 'oops' and have another kid but
can't afford to send him/her to school? What about an indigent
drunk bum? They use tons of services and theres no way they can pay
\_ There is a mechanism for this already, it's called garnishing
wages. Yes, sometimes someone would die or something or otherwise
be unable to pay, which will result in some deficit. However, I
have this impression the resulting deficit will be far, far more
manageable than now.
\_ Saying you'll garnish their wages is no different from plain
old regular income tax. If you just blindly increase their
tax, what happens if they can't afford rent or food? It seems
like you're just advocating making the tax code way more
complicated in way that will make taxes over all much more
regressive.
\_ the base tax that everybody pays should be enough to cover
these things. I'm not suggesting that the homeless pay for their
homeless shelter. That's stupid and unreasonable.
\_ Schools are a good counterexample. Families have children typically
long before their earnings peak, yet educated children will have a
better chance of higher earnings and greater contribution to society.
Hence it makes sense to give young families help to grow with help,
so they can then help others later.
That being said, the school systems in many places suck now, so it's
not such a good example any more.
\_ what you are suggesting isa regressive tax. The poor end up paying
a much higher percentage of their income to pay the taxes. And it
doesn't take into account that the wealthy get a lot of advantages
out of having functional government services. For instance our
infrastructure and education system have MADE the country one
where wealth is so attainable. Make those paid by regressive
taxes and it won't be the case. Do you really want to live in
a third world country?
\_ I think the issue is this 'base amt' that I'm suggesting. If
this base amt is enough to pay for 2 kids in public school, and
you pay more if you have more than 2 kids, why would that
destabilize society? It would make people think twice about
having 5 kids.
\_ You are still making a regressive tax. And in this case
the poor are maying the same amount (or more) for the
same services, services that end up improving the life of
the rich more. Think about how hard it would be to
have the industrial base the us has if we didn't have
say, roads.
\_ China had the same thing. The US called it a violation of
human rights.
\_ progressive tax >> flat tax >> regressive tax
As much as conservatives like the principle of an overall flat
tax or regressive system, I believe the majority support an
overall progressive tax system -- just not as progressive as the
liberals would like it. Your proposal is for a regressive tax
system: a fair sounding idea, but not humane in practice. What
do I mean by humane? People (conservatives and liberals) believe
if you're rich, you should pay more than the poor person. Humane
people want to provide a safety net for the poor or those who
run into unexpected circumstances -- thus, the rich, having the
extra buffer to pay, do pay.
\_ To OP: If I want to beat you up and take your stuff because I
think you're a dumbass, should you pay more because you're
using the protection provided by the police? :)
Seriously, though, I think a flaw in your proposal is that many
things are difficult to charge for fairly. For example, there
is a class of goods often referred to as "public goods" in
economics which benefit everyone beyond just the user. Some
classic example beyond police protection and the military are
roads, schools, enforcing environmental regulations, and
emergency services. I don't think your system would work for
many public goods.
\_ You're ascribing a level of rationality to the libertarian motd
that simply does not exist. They figure they'll protect
themselves from criminals with their gun collection, fight off
invaders with the local militia, and that all environmental
concernes are part of a vast liberal conspiracy to undermine the
free market. Roads? who needs 'em?
I'll just drive an SUV over the decaying dirt strips that used to\
be roads. Schools? Fuck 'em. I learned PERL from a book, not
a school, and look what a useful member of society I am!
\_ You are ignoring where a majority of Federal expenditures
go - Medicaid and Social Security. These are
unconstitutional bureaucratic monstrosities that
misallocate funds and whose industries basically extort
rent from the economy. This nation survived quite well
for 150 years without an income tax and socialized
medicine and retirement. Our system has devolved
into capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor.
Its obvious we are failing the poor.
\_ Do you have any idea what the poverty rate was
amongst the ederly before Social Security? Social
Security is the most successful povertly elimination
program ever invented. And no way is the "majority"
of federal expenditure on Medicaid and Social Security.
A plurality perhaps, not a majority. |
| 2004/1/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29749 Activity:nil 66%like:11783 |
1/14 So those mortar shells turned out not to be chemical weapons
at all, why didn't our triumphant anonymous motd post a retraction?
\_ you are a bitter liberal
\_ you are a sheep! -!op
\_ You're all sheeple!!! -- crazy guy on cable access
\_ O'Reilly's interview on ABC's Good Morning America (March 18, 2003)
"Here's, here's the bottom line on this for every American and
everybody in the world, nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't
know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But
let's see. But there's a doubt on both sides. And I said on my
program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein
and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation,
and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?
But I'm giving my government the benefit of the doubt. . . ."
.... now, do you recall when he apologized? What? You DON'T?
BECAUSE HE NEVER DID. AND NEITHER WILL THE REST OF THE ASSHOLE
REPUBLICANS.
\_ I wasn't aware O'Reilly posted on the motd. Why don't you
call his show to complain. I don't have to apologise for what
a media and entertainment figure has said. None of them speak
for me and I hope none of them speak for you.
\_ "Where the debate is, is why haven't we found huge stockpiles
and why haven't we found large caches of these weapons? Let's
let the Iraqi Survey Group complete its work." -Colin Powell
\_ Wouldn't it be funny if the survey group said "you know,
we couldn't find anything!" and Powell voluntarily took
the blame and resigned?
\_ there is no point to drill on this. we all know Bush just want
to get Saddam, and there is no rational reason behind it. God damn
I wish my tax dollar could be better spent.
\_ What's to retract? The original URLs all made it very clear that
the shells were being sent for testing. When are you going to
ask that Dean open his records from his time as Governor? What is
he hiding? My favorite so far is his energy commission which held
secret closed door meetings with leaders from the energy industry
from which he formed his energy policy... just like... Dick Cheney!
\_ Because the claims were touted as "look, WMDs may have been
found!" with a small clarification much later "oh they need to
do a little testing." In a case like that you should have the
the decency to correct yourself later.
\_ This is barely worth replying to since in your own statement
you make it clear it was "may have been" as if that's such a
strong statement. If the primary crime is saying "may have
been", there is no need for later clarification that testing
is required. The "may have been" directly implies testing
is required and I think it was nice of the journalists to
state the implied outright instead of making us guess. You
are so full of hatred that you'll take the most reasonable
and non-inflamatory statement such as "may have been" which
we all agree was in the same article as "requires more
testing" and turn it into some twisted bit of evil. You're
really lost and out in the hinterland on this one. There are
lots and lots of valid anti-Bush anti-Iraq-war things you
could go off on. This isn't one of them.
\_ The original point is valid. By caging your claims with
a unheeded qualifier you are confusing people. There have
been tons of stories about "WEAPONS FOUND" (hey remember
those Trailers Of Death?) all of which are touted loudly
as "see, he had them" with a small disclaimer near the
end. There is little or no retraction later by the same
touters when the stories are proven false. This means that
people who don't follow these stories closely get the
impression that weapons were actually found. After all
they keep reading stories about weapons being found,
and repatition DOES lead to people believing rumors.
Claiming otherwise is dishonest.
\_ "People who don't follow these stories closely" are not
my concern. They're the same people who don't vote or
don't care about any of this stuff anyway. The rest of
us are perfectly aware of what is going on. If you have
a beef with how the media reports the news, then you can
join the rest of us on the conservative side of the
country. We've been complaining for decades. Welcome
aboard!
\_ Last I checked Dean's energy policy didn't cost $150 billion.
\_ So it's ok because he was from a small state? So Cheney's
crime wasn't that he did the same thing as Dean, just that
it cost more? If Dean was from a big state or did this as
a member of the federal government then it would be bad? So
a bank robber who gets away with $20 at gun point is ok but
if the bank had more cash on hand that day and it was $1000
then it would be really terrible? Blind, blind, blind....
\_ There is no okay here. There is, however, better and
worse. Dean's energy policy not only didn't cost an
unfathomable $150b, it also did not do so by explicitly
lining the pockets of those who provided input. If you
cannot see how what the Bush admin did was worse than this,
you'll need to start carrying a white cane yourself, so's
we can see that you can't see.
\_ Again, your only defense is that Dean had a smaller
budget to fuck up. His process was *exactly* the same
and it is the *process* that Cheney was being attacked
for (and rightly so IMO). Dean should suffer the same
criticism. Once in office do you think he'll suddenly
change his style or continue as he did as governor?
\_ Right! Dean and Cheney both had suspect processes!
Both needed to fix those! Cheney's processes
resulted in outlandish profits for his croneys!
Dean's processes resulted in no outlandish profits!
Ergo: Cheney is worse than Dean!
\_ Ergo, Dean was dealing with a smaller budget but
his process was equally bad and as president will
be dealing with the exact same budget cheney is
dealing with and will fuck it up exactly the same
way. Ergo, indeed. My ass. Take off the
blinders and learn some basic logic, troll boy.
\_ Remember to vote for your lizard, so the other lizard
doesn't stay in office.
\_ take me to your lizard!
\_ Anything to change the subject. You forgot to mention
that Clinton got a blow job.
\_ And took millions in campaign contributions from
Chicoms for missiles technology.
\_ No facts! No anti-Clinton facts on the motd you hater! |
| 2004/1/16 [Uncategorized] UID:29750 Activity:nil |
1/15 Are grapes and blueberries related in genus/kingdom whatever? |
| 2004/1/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:29751 Activity:nil |
1/16 Strange. I merely asking how Caucus in Iowa is selected, yet that
question is censored. Can someone clarify on that? Thanks.
\_ you posted the question around 8pm yesterday. The motd censor
logged in around 3am, and decided to delete the 1/14 threads,
your thread, and the blueberry thread. Why? beats me. He's
got something against caucuses and blueberries, I guess.
\_ would someone tell me what make a person caucus? or
no one really knows? |
| 3/15 |