12/23   Dear jrleek and emarkp, now that we know you're hardcore
        Republicans, I'm wondering if you can give us some inputs
        so that we can understand you better.
        1) Was it a right decision to go to war in Iraq?
        2) Do you support the war in Iraq and why?
        3) Is privatizing SS a good thing, and why?
        4) What do you think about the Patriot Act?
        5) What do you think about the US policy?
        \_ Actually, I've got some of my own questions to liberals:
           1) Why do you think "tax and spend" is a good policy?
              \_ My god, man!  Are you really that brainwashed?  Taxing
                 is how governments raise money, and spending is what happens
                 to that money.  I can see saying that the government should
                 do less of both by being smaller, but to say you're against
                 both is eqivalent to being an anarchist.  Hell, even
                 libertarians admit having an army is useful.  Perhaps you
                 want an all-mercenary army paid for by donations from
                 corporations?  What the fuck?
              \_ because all the service we demanded come with a price.
              \_ why do you think "cut tax and spend" is a good policy.
                 The tax-and-spend label is STUPID, and you know it.
           2) Why did John Kerry vote for the war if he was against it?
              \_ he voted authorize the war, he assumed that Bush will go to
                 war would be last resort.  at the time, we need a threat
                 of force to back up our demands.
              \_ Have you read the resolution?  It was an authorization of
                 force in the event that all diplomatic recourse fails.  It
                 required that they be consulted again after such diplomatic
                 attempts failed.  Bush himself said that the resolution was
                 not a march to war, but a tool to leverage diplomacy.  He
                 lied to you, me, Kerry, and everyone in this country.
           3) Why should illegal immigrants get visas? Should we encourage
              breaking the law?
              \_ We could erect an American version of Great Wall equiped
                 with Machinegun tower.  Then again, California's agreculture
                 depend upon these slave labors, so, you make the call.
           4) Why do you continue to waste your energies on useless protests?
              They accomplish nothing and only serve to cause mainstream
              voters to be wary of you.
           5) Why do you continue to lose power in government? What do you
              actually plan to do to reconnect with the majority of Americans
              who obviously you don't represent?
           6) Why are you so against the average American? Yes, they might
              not be as sophisticated as you or has gone to the best schools
              or believe in what you view as outdated religions. Yes, they
              might be close minded. Does that mean they deserve your scorn?
              Don't you think it's important to talk to the average American
              and find out what their concerns are instead of calling them
              "Reddies" and mocking them? Do you actually believe that gets
              you any voters?
              \_ we are being hated because these "average americans" supports
                 our leader that does bad things.  We are worried because
                 eventually we will be, unfortunately justifiably, being
                 hurt and killed for the policies those "average americans"
                 support.  We are desperate to want to tell you the world
                 is not black and white.
           7) Why are you so vitriolic against people who have different
              general values than you do? Shouldn't you be the inclusive
              party? I find it somewhat ironic that you claim to be open
              minded but attack anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.
              \_ i thought conservative were the one who invaded another
                 country because they worship differnt god than we are.
              \_ Coming from the party of Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh,
                 Buchanan and Robertson, this is really a hoot.
           8) Why are you so against nuclear power? It's probably the
              most viable and safest alternative to fossil fuels. Why do
              you automatically connect nuclear weapons to nuclear power?
              \_ First of all, fuck you and your red herring about nuclear
                 weapons.  Second of all, I am a liberal who is not against
                 nuclear power and neither are a good sampling of my liberal
                 friends.  Third of all, I think you're wrong about it
                 being the best alternative in the longrun.  I believe that
                 new technologies will allow us to actually use solar
                 in a cheap, efficient way by the middle of this century, and
                 that nothing is going to be able to really compete with
                 hydrocarbons for the next decade or two on a large scale.
                 the sheer numbers of reacctors that would have to be
                 built would be staggering.
              \_ if you don't mind store nuclear waste in your backyard,
                 then, go ahead.  Nuclear power is not safe nor economical
                 if you consider the cost of dealing with waste.
                 \_ People always make this argument and it is always
                    stupid. You don't want a coal mine, a refinery, or
                    a windmill farm in your backyard either.
                    \_ Personally, I think having a nuke plant, a coal mine,
                       a refinery or a windfarm in my backyard would all
                       be pretty cool, but I guess I have unusual tastes.  I
                       live near a refinery and although I know it's not
                       healthy, I really love the smell, especially mixed with
                       salt air.  And for the record, I consider myself to be
                       pretty much a liberal.
           \_ Wow, do you actually believe what you are saying? Or are
              you just saying it for the sake of argument? I am not
              the op, and there are things about the democratic party
              I don't like, such as their view on death penalty,
              immigration, etc, the list is long. But overall I find
              them much in line with my belief than the republican
              party and what they are trying to do. I'd prefer a
              middle ground, but what I dislike about the democratic
              party and their policy far pales in comparison to my
              disgust with the lies and corruption that is current
              with the Bush administration. So you believe NOT issuing
              visa to illegal Mexicans is more important than waging
              an unjust war? While we are on the topic of social
              security, do you know what the effect of dumping
              billions of dollars into the stock market will do to
              Bush and Cheney and most republican's portfolio? Do you
              think they give fuck when it crashes down like it did in
              2000 and people on social security is out of money to
              feed their kids?  There are things I do agree with the
              republican party, like welfare, crimes, and things like
              that, but what I disagree far outweighs what I agree
              with them. I find it hard to believe people would value
              their $xxx in tax return more than the innocent lives of
              people in other country. But I guess this is what is
              expected, after all, republican's "survival of the
              fittest" is all about themselves. If country X cannot
              defend themselves against an US invasion, then they only
              have themselves to blame. Well, just don't go fucking
              cry about it when the orphans in Iraq grow up and
              retaliate.
        \_ Now that you've decided to start your own bizarre motd crusade
           targeted at two individuals I'm wondering...
           1) Why the hell you don't just email them.
           2) Why you've decided to single them out among all the republicans
              on the motd.
           Aside from emarkp's formerly itchy delete key, I find him and
           jrleek to be among the least loathesome of the motd conservatives.
           I'd still like to know who that fucking swiftboat troll was.
        \_ 1)2)3) yes 4) it's just great 5) spectacular.
        \_ Actually, I didn't see jrleek respond to that thread at all.  At any
           rate...
           1) Yes
           2) Yes, see #1
           3) Yes, for many reasons including: a) higher expected rate of
           return, b) ending a governmental ponzai scheme, c) owning the
           account so that if you die early you can pass it on to your
           children.
           \_ Of your reasons, c) seems to be the only one that holds up under
              scrutiny.  Could you explain some of the factors that would
              contribute to a)?  Also, could you explain how a private ponzi
              scheme based on people throwing their money at the stock market
              and praying is an improvement over the current state of affairs?
              -dans
           4) Some of the scariest legislation ever, yet necessary IMO.  I'm
           glad that it requires regular congressional oversight.
           5) Eh, I think foreign policy is doing well, but I'm not happy with
           the expansion of Medicare, nor with both parties throwing our
           borders wide open, nor with the energy policy (we need to free
           ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and fossil fuels in
           general if we can). -emarkp
           \_ I think Bush should get more credit for the hydrogen fuel cell
              funding.  I think this is a great investment in improving the
              way energy is bought, sold and used which is beneficial for the
              economy, the environment and energy security, and that Bush
              has gotten hozed as far as credit goes because most liberals
              are blinded by hate and most conservatives(present company
              excepted) are neandrathals about energy policy.  I let out a
              big war whoop when I heard that in the SOTU address. Also, I
              believe that Bush's support of the national nanotechnology
              initiative will pay off in the longrun in energy policy.  The
              technology required to have a sound energy policy has not
              yet been invented.  I don't think energy policy is anywhere
              near Bush's weakpoint.  -liberal
              \_ Hydrogen is a neat energy STORAGE technology, but it is not an
                 energy SOURCE.  On its own, hydrogen fuel cells actually make
                 our energy dependance worse because they require a lot of
                 electricity, much of which comes from fossil fuels.  If we
                 ever switch to renewable, non CO2 emitting energy sources for
                 our electricity production, THEN hydrogen will be great.
                 The problem is that's very pie-in-the-sky and simple things
                 like improving fuel efficiency could make a lot of difference
                 right now, but are not being pursued for political reasons.
                  -liberal, who knows science
                  \_ I never implied otherwise.  The point of the research is
                     to make hydrogen practical in situations where the
                     internal combustion engine presently dominates,
                     particularly cars.  If cars were on hyrdogen, first of
                     all it would take away a major urban concentration of
                     pollution, and second of all it would mean that we
                     could gradually move off of fosil fuels, with cars reaping
                     the benefits the whole time.  The automotive applications
                     alone make it worth it.  And when you keep pointing out
                     the obvious fact that hydrogen is storage technology and
                     not an energy source, and hence implying that everyone
                     around you is totally ignorant, you just end up looking
                     like a jackass.
        \_ FOr #3, why is it never mentioned this is OPTIONAL????
           \_ because even if it is optional, it's a raid on the funds
              of the system.  As is, the system's viability is continually
              extended because our economic growth exceeds the extrememly
              conservative assumptions built into SS's metrics.  The money
              you put in now is not the money you will receive later.  SS
              is not an investment.  It's an insurance policy with a guaran-
              teed payout.  The question is not whether or not to privatize
              it.  It's whether we have it or not.
        \_ I might be interested in talking about this at a later date,
           but I don't have time now.  What makes you say I'm hard core
           republican?  I always kinda considered myself a right leaning
           libertarian.  Of course, I don't agree with emarkp on
           everything either. -jrleek