10/8    http://www.automotive.com/news/25/7265
        Summary of a study: Drivers of Gas Guzzling Large SUVs
        Support Bush, Kerry Finds Votes Among Drivers of Small
        Import Vehicles
        \_ Wonder if my Outback counts as a Gas Guzzling SUV?

10/8    Bush was asked to name three mistakes he's made. He can't
        name one. He's had the hardest job in the world for almost
        four years and he cannot name a single mistake. Is he
        the Second Coming of the Messiah?
        \_ Actually, as much as I loathe bush, I thought his answer was
           pretty clever.  He claimed his biggest mistakes were various
           appointments who he didn't want to embarass on TV.  Of course
           I'm positive that
           1) he didn't think of that himself and
           2) it's Rove's message to anyone who might consider showing
              disloyalty to the chimp in chief that they are about to
              become Bush's biggest mistake.
           What would any of you have said (assuming you had actally drunk
           the neocon kool-aid and wouldn't way the war)?
           \_ There aren't any "neocons" on the motd.  It's a made-up phrase
              to sound like "neo nazi".
        \_ you are Bush's adviser.  What would you advise him?
        \_ Republicans just don't apologize.  This makes them dumb AND evil.
        \_ Haha, this is one of those classic annoying interview questions.
           Bush spent most of his answer defending the Iraq war so I guess
           that was one of his mistakes.
           \_ Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time!
        \_ Other than Ashcroft, I can't think of a single mistake.
        \_ Again with O'Reilley on the Daily Show:  Bill pointed out that
           these people (Bush, et. al.) are highly insulated and get a lot
           of sycophantry; couple that with an almost maniacal belief in
           everything they say and do, and what you have is a President who
           very literally cannot see the mistakes he's made.
           \_ All Republicans are stupid/evil drones straight to the top.
              All Democrats are enlightened and good people who sensitive to
              the needs of terrorists and others around the world.  Seriously,
              the question was an obvious setup straight from the DNC fax
              machine.  It would have been blitheringly stupid of any
              candidate to name 3 mistakes.  It would be front page news the
              next day and he'd get beat over the head forever.  What about
              John Kerry?  Was voting for unilateral disarmament in the 80s
              a mistake?  Was voting against the first Gulf War *after* the
              UN had passed a war resolution a mistake?  Was making shit up
              about Vietnam war crimes a mistake?  Has John Kerry ever made
              a mistake?  Please name 3.
        \_ _Bush_ hasn't made any mistakes because he doesn't make any
           real decisions (except in what to say when the reception dies to
           his remote control during a debate).  And he's not qualified to
           comment on Cheney's mistakes... so what's he gonna say?

10/8    Poor Kerry, he didn't use my speech text on Iran, and his sucked nuts.
        \_ Kerry's Iran answer was great!  4 more weeks!

10/8    Anyone recommendations on a decent 64-bit linux distro?
        \_ There aren't very many, and the ones there are seem immature.
           Yer hozed.
        \_ SuSE 9 isn't half bad. Several of our customers are
           using it and seem to like it. RH EL 3.0 is okay as
           well.

10/9    All of Karzai's opponents boycott the election and cite fraud.
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216608.htm
        No wonder Bush is taking credit-- that's how democracy works in
        Bush country.
        \_ Republican-sponsored vote fraud:  Good enough for America,
           good enough for Afghanistan!
           \_ I could tell you that an imperfect election process is better
              than dictatorship but I suspect you'd disagree.  I'm already
              walking the IHBT line by even responding.
              \_ It's that simple, isn't it? Either you're for an imperfect
                 election process or you're for the Taliban. What about
                 taking the time to hold a reasonable election?
        \_ Is this from the same ABC that put their left wing bias on paper
           and published it?  Try a URL from a reliable source.
           \_ Which, the Australian Broadcast Corporation (this) or the
              American Broadcast Corporation?  'Cos I got both.
              http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=151668

10/9    Kerry Vs Bush.  Round 2.  The NYT reports Kerry destroys Bush again.
        Bush is incoherent, ducks important questions and clueless.
        Kerry nails him on the hard questions and demonstrates stature.
        http://tinyurl.com/4lfus (nytimes.com)
        And here's the new map from another independent source.  Kerry wins!
        http://www.electoral-vote.com
        \_ the NYT opines, not reports in this case.  this is an opinion
           piece.
        And here's the new map from another independent source.  Kerry wins!
        http://www.electoral-vote.com
           \_ It's the NYT times.  The whole paper is a giant opinion piece.
              Putting a report in the opinion section is arbitrary but
              often reserved for more well known people with an axe to grind.
              \_ Right. Anyone who reports anything negative about the Pres.
                 must be part of the liberal press konspiracy.

10/9    Here's a cool Photoshop project. Kerry speaks while a monkey gets
        mad in the debate setting. Someone please make it so that I can
        distribute it.                                  -distributor
        \_  The major networks all beat you to the punch.  See it here:
            http://www.cspan.org

10/9    Does *anyone*  believe Bush's lie about drugs from Canada?  I'm sure
        there are morons in St. Louis who believe that Bush is protecting
        them from Evil Canadian drugs, but does anyone on the motd actually
        not see this as a shameless giveaway to the drug companies?
        \_ Bush told a bald faced lie: ..
           Bush told the truth: .
        \_ I laughed at loud when Dubya said he was against Canada-imported
           drugs to protect us from dangerous drugs.
           The true answer, obviously, is that cheaper Canadian drugs
           would impact U.S. drug company profits significantly, and
           Republicans are wont to take actions that reduce profits from
           U.S. companies in any business, since they believe, supportably,
           that this is un-American.
           It's what my O'Reilly-loving younger brother says:
           Of course the Republicans know the real reasons and they are plenty
           good, but it's necessary to play the political game.
           \_ Speaking of whom, I saw Bill on the Daily Show, and my respect
              for him actually went from none to grudging.  He's a smart guy,
              and I really can't wait for him to quit Fox and write a book
              about his experiences there; I think he knows he's being paid
              to be an actor on (nearly) state-supported TV.
           \_ No you moron.  The real issue is that as soon as we start
              importing drugs en masse from Canada, Canada will stop getting
              drugs from pharmaceuticals companies for the current price, and
              there will be a single worldwide price.
        \_ Right, blame the evil drug companies when in fact the US taxpayer
           subsizdizes the worlds (eg. Canada and Europe's) drug consumption.
        \_ The world is better of without those Candians. -G.W.B.
           \_ Yes, your HS brother represents all Republicans.  Can I quote my
              19 year old half sister for the Democrats?  BTW, what is Kerry's
              plan for Iran?

10/9    http://csua.org/u/9ea (latimes)
        So basically Sinclair broadcasting is going to preempt one quarter
        of the nation's television programming days before the election to
        run an anti-Kerry film.  Can you imagine the shitstorm if a
        "liberal" broadcaster tried to do this with, say, "F9/11" or
        "Going Upriver?"
        Also, note that the film itself was made by Carlton Sherwood,
        a Vietname veteran and former reporter for the Washington Times who
        is also the author of a very positive book about the Reverend
        Sun Myung Moon.
        \_ This will make up for about 1/10th of 1% of the free media that
           Kerry gets every day.  I'm shedding a bitter tear.
           \_ Yeah, like http://factcheck.org
              \_ Uh, what?  Please explain how this is not a no-sequiter.
                 \_ For you, anything: pp is saying that the only media
                    out there really supporting Kerry is the website that
                    checks all of its facts and speaks the truth.  In other
                    words, the first responder was full of it when he suggested
                    that Kerry was getting tons more free "media" than the
                    President.  (You know, the guy who can call a press
                    conference any time he feels like it.  The incumbent.)
                    \_ Bush cannot call a press conference at any time.  It
                       takes a lot of time and effort for Bush's handlers to
                       program chimpy.

10/9    Conservatives control the House, the Senate, the President, and two
        Supreme Court Justices.  How do they still manage to come off as the
        victims of some huge liberal media conspiracy?
        \_ The control of the media by foreign liberal elements is well
           documented.
           http://csua.org/u/9eg
        \_ In case you didn't notice, members of the House, Senate, Presidency,
           and Supreme Court neither write newspaper articles, nor do they
           read the network news on the air every night.
           \_ OP knows.  He's just a troll.
        \_ A little piece of news for you - most Congressional Republicans
           are not conservative.  The conservatives embody a relatively
           small minority of the Congressional Republicans.
           \_ So true. Most Congressional Republicans are part of the New
              World Order Illuminati/Masonic conspiracy to kill our unborn
              children, take away our guns and sell us into bondage to the UN.

10/9    http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom ("Bush is stupid" comic)
        \_ Everyone who thinks Bush is stupid already reads this.  This is
           like telling us to read http://johnkerry.com for honest candidate
           and policy evaluations.

10/9    Remember Bush's Dred Scott reference during the second prez debate?
        I thought it was just another malapropism. Turns out it was Bush's
        secret handshake to pro-lifers, who believe they are the new
        abolitionists: as the Dred Scott case was to slavery, so Roe vs.
        Wade is to abortion (so they believe). Holy fuck: the president
        said on national TV that if re-elected, he will make abortion
        illegal by appointing Supreme Court justices who will overturn
        Roe vs. Wade. Now, since most CSUA members are men, most of
        whom don't fully appreciate that the simplest and crudest way to
        control women is to control their bodies, let me repeat: HOLY FUCK!
        \_ WTF?  Dred Scott is a secret handshake protocol from the elders
           of zion and elvis transmitted to their bigfoot warriors on earth
           who are waiting to take over the chocolate factories around the
           world when GWB sends the signal?  You're a fucking nutcake.
           \_ Face facts: apart from secretly transporting Jews out of Nazi
              Europe in WWII, there is no holier historical cause greater
              in the eyes of the public than the Abolitionists. No one likes
              to see themselves as the villains, so anti-abortionists see
              themselves as being the new Abolitionists, saving fetuses from
              the clutches of corrupt and liberal mothers on an Underground
              Railroad of bombed abortion clinics and John Brown-like
              assassinations of pro-choice doctors.  Bush tapped into that
              belief by referring to Dred Scott.
        \_ Indeed, Bush is definitely a right-wing pro-lifer. Being
           a Malthusian I whole-heartedly am pro-abortion. However, how
           does one "make abortion illegal" through loading the court
           with conservative judges? It would violate stare decisis.
           An easier method of making abortion illegal would be to pass
           a constitutional amendment.
           \_ Wow, there are Malthusians in the 21st century?  You really
              aren't kidding?  Heehee!  That's so awesome and quaint!
              Are you a Green too, by any chance?  Malthusians and Greens
              are two great tastes that taste great together.  -- ilyas
                \_ What's the political philosophy that advocates mandatory
                   ex post facto abortions for the stupid?  -John
                \_ Malthus was correct -- See Easter Island.  He just didn't
                   know about fossil fuels artificially (and temporarily)
                   extending the max population of humans.  At the current
                   rate, we will have 250 billion people in 100 years, that's
                   impossible to sustain, so nature will control our numbers.
           \_ Heh -- you obviously don't know very much about how the law
              works.
              \_ On the contrary, I know very well how the law works. Care
                 to explain how it is easier to overturn a previous decision
                 than to make a constitutional amendment? Dred Scott wasn't
                 techically overturned. Without a proper writ of cersiarori
                 it would be difficult to "overturn" a previous decision.
                 And you couldn't flippantly bring a case to court challenging
                 the legality of abortion. Since it is legal you can't
                 bring a suit to federal court for someone having one. Anyone
                 with a semester of CivPro would tell you that would be
                 a failure to state an action. It's obvious that YOU don't
                 know much about the law, nitwit.
                 \_ Your reading comprehension also seems to be severely
                    lacking.  Train harder, grasshopper.
                    \_ Your lack of substance is rather shocking, try harder
                       trollboy.
                       \_ You're shocked by lack of substance on motd?  Now
                          I have reason to doubt your intelligence.  Poor boy.
                 \_ The point is not the overturn of Roe v. Wade but decisions
                    made on other cases that would render Roe v. Wade
                    meaningless.  If the current Partial Birth Abortion issue
                    were decided by conservative justices, they could very
                    effectively lay the groundwork for determining that
                    all abortion procedures are barbaric, cruel, and
                    murderous; this would make it easier to pass legislation
                    banning all of the current surgical abortion procedures.
                    Would abortion be illegal?  Of course not; you just can't
                    have one based on the current technology.
                    \_ Yes, understood, all very fine and all. In other words
                       the op was either very misiinformed or lazy or both
                       in his assertion. The point is that overturning
                       Roe v. Wade would require both legislation of some
                       sort and willing jurists, and one shouldn't merely
                       go about gesticulating about the end of the world
                       without some comprehension of the facts.
                       \_ The Pres. supports the current PBA legislation.
                          The USSC hasn't decided on the issue yet.  If
                          four of the justices retire, and that set does not
                          include Thomas and Scalia, and Bush is allowed to
                          install four conservative judges before the issue
                          is decided, then the groundwork mentioned above
                          will be laid.  The op is saying that Bush is
                          using language designed to inform anti-abortionists
                          that he is planning to do exactly this.  The only
                          thing the op made a mistake on is assuming that
                          the Pres. wouldn't dare make a position like this
                          public.  The rest of us knew that already.
        \_ Roe was among the worst USSC decisions ever.  It has zero
           \- which other decisions would you
              put in that elite group? --psb
           Consitutional basis and most court observers, from both political
           sides, found it completely absurd.  In fact, Roe is a good
           example of what the Court was originally designed to guard
           against.
           \_ Yawn.
           \_ Noise: 99%. Signal: 1% (you spelled Constitutional correctly).
              Would you like to try again with more substance or a URL?
              \_ Do you have *any* idea what they based the decision on?  I
                 know because I read it but you wouldn't believe me if I told
                 you.  Go read the decision.  It is truly ridiculous and
                 very bad law.  I *very firmly* believe in abortion rights,
                 but basing them on something so weak is down right stupid
                 and begging to have them taken away later when the USSC
                 gets a clue or enough of the country figures it out and
                 puts a constitutional ban on it.
                 \_ The constitutional basis of RvW *is* kind of a stretch.  I
                    could see them saying you can't force a patient or doctor
                    to answer any question about a suspected abortion, but to
                    say making the procedure illegal violates privacy is
                    really grasping.  Nevertheless, I (and most Americans)
                    want to preserve the status quo. -!pp
        \_ Abortion, as exists today, is a euphemism for eugenics.  The
           vaulted feminist Sanger, like many (most?) leftist
           heroes, was an inveterate racist.
           \_ Soooooo, the only fetuses being aborted are non-aryans?

10/9    Regarding that Dyson dude on TV with the vacuum that doesn't lose
        suction- what's the technology that keeps the dirt away from the
        filter?
        \_ Well I wrote a well thought-out reply but some douchebag overwrote
           it.  I was sort of right in that there can be no bag and that
           airflow causing the dust to settle might be the mechanism.  A little
           googling produced:
           http://workingfromhome.allinfoabout.com/dyson_pt4.html
           So the airflow is designed to increase centrifugal force and stick
           the dirt to the side of the cannister.