Politics Domestic 911 - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:911:
Results 301 - 450 of 667   < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2018/03/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2006/1/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41505 Activity:high
1/24    [ Preserved b/c this thread is still active ]
        Domestic eavesdropping opponents have been using the misquote from
        Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security
        deserve neither".  http://csua.org/u/er9 [nyt]
        Now, this is a misquote, and the difference between the quote and
        the misquote is substantial and relevant to the debate.  However,
        I don't recall any popular media calling the protestors on the
        misquote.  Why is this?  Does the press not know the quote is wrong?
        Do they simply not care?
        \_ Isn't this entire thread an attempt to ignore the larger issue?
        \_ What I wanna know is, did "those who sacrifice freedom for safety
           deserve neither" motd guy participate in the rally, or it just
           some place like http://democraticunderground.com that's spreading the
           misquote?  (anyway, http://CNN.com says it's a "paraphrase")
           \_ Good for CNN.  "Paraphrase" is unfair to the substantial
              difference between the quote and the misquote, but that's
              still better than NYT and CBS, who just ignored the error
              \_ the substantiveness of the difference between the paraphrase
                 and the exact quote is debatable as well
                 \_ only if people who can't comprehend english are debating.
                    \_ not in my view
                       \_ Is f(g(x)) ~= f(x)?  Only for very few f() and g().
                       \_ you're entitled to your view even if it makes no
                          sense. welcome to america.
                          \_ but it does make sense, so ...
        \_ http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm
           (what Mr. Franklin actually said, and his mouth moves too)
        \_ http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605
           Actually is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
           a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
           That still seems pretty close to me.
           \_ IOW, the quote is silent on whether it's ok to give up liberty
              for non-temporary safety.  (And indeed much of government is a
              trade-off between liberty and safety.)  Now, did Bush buy
              temporary or non-temporary safety with the eavesdropping?
              Hence my claim that the difference is relevant to the debate.
              \_ Also, the quote is silent on whether we should enact Daylight
                 Saving Time, abandon the gold standard, or legalize gay
                 marriage. However, while it would be a stretch to say that
                 the quote proposed any of the latter, it's a reasonable
                 extrapolation to say that the quote discourages sacrificing
                 liberty for any kind of safety, especially in light of a lack
                 of any further written material by Franklin in opposition.
                 More to the point, however, what he's really saying is that
                 cowardly people who would compromise with tyrants should be
                 done away with. Or, in common parlance, snitches gots to
                 be capped.
                 \_ This is a childish distraction, not a real point.  He is
                    clearly talking about liberty and security, not any of
                    the red herrings you bring up.  You *may* be correct when
                    you say he was really talking about the larger issue of
                    compromising with tyrants (although I personally doubt it,
                    it isn't an unreasonable interpretation), but the rest of
                    your post about unrelated issues is useless.  Misquoting
                    the man to make some political point shows a great deal
                    of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.  Which of
                    those is worse is left to the reader to decide.
                 \_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserves
                 \_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserve
                    neither" equivalent to "People who trade dignity for a
                    long-term relationship deserves neither"?  Both statements
                    long-term relationship deserve neither"?  Both statements
                    may be true, but are they equivalent?  You do understand
                    2 true statements may still not be the same.
                    \_ My bringing up the admittedly ridiculous examples I did
                       was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of drawing
                       conclusions from omissions in the man's words. As the
                       quote says that giving up liberty for temporary safety
                       is not to be done, and since Franklin never followed
                       that up with a caveat or exception, it is reasonable to
                       draw the conclusion that he would have had a similar
                       distaste for giving up liberty for non-temporary safety.
                       \_ No.  Giving up liberty for non-temporary safety is
                          called government.
                          \_ You're assuming that the liberties that you
                             purport to have given up in exchange for safety
                             were actually in your possession to begin with.
                             \_ Ref state of nature, Locke, and the social
                       \_ If he never followed up with any further statements
                          on the subject we can only conclude he had nothing
                          more to say on the matter.  Anything else is jumping
                          to unfounded conclusions.  By your reasoning, the
                          opposite of your assumption could also be said and
                          it would be an equally unfounded conjecture.
                          \_ *shrug* Invent a time machine or consult a
                             medium and ask him yourself, then.
                             \_ Well, you are the one trying to impute extra
                                meaning to Franklin's quote.  We're saying
                                he said what he said, and reading anything
                                more into it would be unjustified.  If you
                                go back, this subthread started with "IOW,
                                the quote is silent on...".
                                more into it would be unjustified.  Looking
                                back, this subthread started with "IOW, the
                                quote is silent on..."
                             \_ ?  I'm saying we can't know.  I'm not making
                                any assumptions about what he meant.  We'll
                                never know unless there's some other written
                                document somewhere clarifying.  Why do you
                                think I'd need a time machine for anything?
                 \_ Is "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
                    payment of $5k for a year deserve neither" equivalent to
                    "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
                    payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve neither"?
                    payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve
                    \_ Your analogy assumes the quantification of the
                       unquantifiable. Or, as WSB put it, "There are no
                       honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative
                       merchandise... for quantitative merchandise."
                       \_ Which part is unquantifiable?  This PP's analogy
                          uses only quantifiables so you must mean the phrase
                          "temporary" from Franklin's quote is unquantifiable?
                          Or you mean "essential"?  Please explain.
                          \_ Comparing two quantities ($100K and $60K) is
                             easily done. Comparing two qualities (liberty
                             and safety) is not.
                             \_ Hmm, ok, then you disagree with Franklin?
                             \_ How about comparing 'safety' and 'little
                                temporary safety'?
           \_ The original quote also says "essential liberty." One may
              argue that essential liberty includes the liberty to
              communicate, but that liberty does not cover CLEARTEXT
              communications, ie the gov. can't (1) forbid you from using
              public-key encryption or (2) force you give them your private
              key, BUT they can listen to you conversation if you do it in
              the clear.
              \_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dans
              \_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dan
                 \_ Why? Communicating in cleartext is basically the
                    same as talking in public. One must assume that
                    as soon as the communications leaves the confines
                    of one's own home, it is available to everyone.
                    If you don't value the privacy of your communication
                    to the level necessary to take precautions against
                    eavesdropping, you have assumed the risk that the
                    your communications will be intercepted.
                    I'm only asking whether it is an ESSENTIAL liberty
                    to communicate in cleartext. I can accept that it
                    a nice to have liberty, but I cannot accept that
                    it is essential.
                        \_ Only recently has it been possible for ordinary
                           people to encrypt phone conversations.  Are you
                           saying that the government had the ability to tap
                           phone conversations for the last 100 years without
                           a warrant? Why would the courts disagreee with that?
                           \_ Many different ciphers/codes have existed as
                              long as phones have been around. Arguably OTP
                              has also existed since at least WW2. If you
                              value your privacy enough you should use the
                              state of the art cipher system for the era in
                              which you are living. Yes it slow, yes it is
                              inefficient and hampers communication, but
                              that is the price of secure communication.
                              It is not just the government that has had the
                              ability to tap and record phone conversations
                              for decades. Private industry has this ability
                              as well.
                              I am not arguing for an interpretation of search
                              under the 4th amend. I am arguing that cleartext
                              communication is not an essential liberty as
                              used by Franklin.
                              long as phones have been around. It is not
                              easy to have a two way conversation but it
                              is doable. If you value your security that
                              much, then the inconvenience is worth it.
                              NOTE: I am not arguing for an interpretation
                              of search under the 4th amend. I am arguing
                              that cleartext communication is not an essential
                              liberty w/in Franklin's use of that term.
                              In addition, my assertion also applies to all
                              forms of communication, including letters.
                              I think that the term essential in this context
                              would not cover the liberty to mail letter w/o
                              them being subject to review by the post office.
                              It is not an ESSENTIAL liberty that one have
                              the ability to send letters in the clear.
        \_ This quote is more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs to support
           things like right-to-own-machine-guns.  If the media doesn't point
           out the exact quote when it's used by Charlton Heston, is it an
           artifact of the right-wing media?  -tom
           \_ URL with Charlton Heston or nutjob, media, and the quote please.
              \_ not quite all your parameters, but close: -!tom
                 yes, I know it's not a misquote
                 here's Mr. Heston, and he doesn't misquote too
               \_ http://www.twelvearyannations.com/id28.htm
                  (Aryan Nations World Headquarters)  -tom
                  \_ Well, Aryan Nations isn't "libertarian nutjobs" or
                     Charleston Heston, and a self-promotional web site
                     isn't a popular media report.  Otherwise you're dead on.
                     \_ You're a moron in several different ways, but primarily
                        because it's not the newspaper's job to correct the
                        people it's quoting, except when it's editorializing.
                        When it's just a news story, you report what was
                        said, you don't say "Charleton Heston said that
                        those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither,
                        but the actual Benjamin Franklin quote is 'those who
                        would give up essential liberty for safety...'".
                        That's simply not the job of a reporter.
                        And if you want to split hairs between the Aryan
                        Nation and libertarian nutjobs (I really don't think
                        the difference is significant), you can find similar
                        misquotes at
                        and plenty of others.  -tom
                        \_ Your claim was specific.  You said "This quote is
                           more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs...".
                           Despite your rude bluster, you still have not
                           substantiated your claim.  2 tries, and you still
                           haven't found "libertarian nutjobs" who use
                           "this quote".  You also claimed Charlton Heston
                           misquoted Franklin.  Again, a specific claim, and
                           you have not backed that one up either.  OBTW, CNN
                           said the protestors "paraphrased" Franklin.
                           \_ Uh, so freerepublic doesn't count as
                              libertarian nutjobs?  -tom
                              \_ Absolutely not.  Nutjobs?  Yes.  Libertarian?
                                 No, no, no, no, no!  The freepers are a bunch
                                 of uneducated loud mouthed morons that all
                                 clear thinking people across the political
                                 spectrum wish would go away, but they are
                                 definitely not libertarians.  Please get the
                                 bare basics right before posting.
                                 \_ Geeze, you really are nitpicking.
                                    OK, how about
                                    (The Libertarian Enterprise)
                                    (Liberty For All)
                                    (Radley Balko, Cato Institute)
                                    Give it up, already.  -tom
                                    \_ That was my first post in this thread.
                                       My nit isn't your quoting, per se, it
                                       is your gross misclassification of the
                                       freepers which makes me think you've
                                       either never read what they have to say
                                       and are just repeating what you've been
                                       told or worse, you have read the
                                       freeper junk and can't see they aren't
                                       libertarians at all and thus have no
                                       idea what a libertarian is.  I really
                                       don't care what libertarians might have
                                       misquoted Franklin.  Not my game.
                                    \_ But Tom, where is "this quote" in any
                                       of your links?  You specifically said
                                       "this quote".
                                       \_ Search for "liberty for safety." -tom
                              \_ You specified a particular quote.  Also,
                                 while the freepers are certainly nutjobs, not
                                 even they'd tell you they are libertarians.
                                 Strike 3.
                     \_ 0 for 3 isn't bad.  it could've been worse.
                        \_ I don't know, he keeps trying.  Seems to be
                           going for a solid 0 for 10.
        \_ again, i think the real issue is not rather one should allow
           domestic eardropping or not.  The real issue is that as it is
           right now, no one really knows the scope of domestic spying,
           no check and balance is in place.  So, in case of wrongfully accused
           or that such program has being targeted for political purposes,
           no one can turn the case over.  It is all depend upon Bush Co
           to decide who is 'terrorist' or not.  Bush can easily use this
           mechanism to spy on Democrat Party Committee.  This is just like
                                \_ IC! DEMOCRAT__*IC*_ PARTY!  You scoundrel!
                                   You petty traitor!  You villain!  *IC*!
                                   Why are you and Karl Rove always torturing
                                   us with your vicious little RepubiKKKan
                                   smears on the motd and your official
                                   publications?!  *IC*!
                                   \_ Sounds like it's time to up the dosage
                                      *again*, man.  Or cut back..waaaaaay back
                                      on the caffeine.
           Watergate except it is now legal to do so.
           \_ This may be a case of it has always been legal to do so, not
              it is now legal to do so.  The situation is different from
              Watergate b/c the wiretaps in Watergate were conducted for
              purely domestic purposes.  Here the wiretaps are ostensibly
              conducted for foreign affairs purposes. The distinction may
              become impt, b/c the Pres. has far more power to act in
              foreign affairs than in domestic affairs.
              \_ regardless, there should be a check-n-balance mechanism
                 in place.
                 \_ Arguably the const. disagrees with you. The BoR may
                    not apply to executive power during a time of war,
                    when hostiles have been operating on American soil.
                    \_ So any President, on nothing more than their own
                       whim, can claim anyone is doing something
                       related to a "foreign" power, without any evidence
                       whatsover, and declare all Constitutional rights for
                       that person invalid? And no court or legislature
                       has any recourse? Is that your contention?
                       \_ There are limits to the executive power, BUT
                          those limits arguably only exist either (1)
                          during peacetime or (2) during wartime when
                          enemy forces are not operating on US soil.
                          This is clearly not peace time and this is
                          a wartime scenario where the enemy is engaged
                          in operations on US soil, therefore the BoR
                          may not apply.
                          \_ What events will signify the end of the war?
                             We defeated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and
                             occupy Iraq and have a puppet government in
                             Afghanistan... Aren't we on a never ending quest
                             to save my girlfriend now? I mean, when will the
                             "War on Terror" end, and if it isn't ending
                             anytime soon, doesn't that mean the President
                             will have expanded powers for decades?
                             \_ I find it interesting that the balance of
                                government branches issue is so important
                                yet does anyone here not understand that
                                the President has always had the ultimate
                                power since the mid 1900s?  Without anyone
                                else's say so they can start a nuclear war.
                                Is that ok?  If so, then why don't we trust
                                the office holder with lesser responsibilities
                                than all human life on the planet?  I'm not
                                arguing for/against, I just find the reasoning
                                that "super power over life and death with no
                                checks" is ok while "omg, they're going to
                                listen to me talk sexy to my gf!!!" is not.
                                \_ Just because the President was given one
                                   important power due to military neccesity
                                   doesn't mean that he has unlimited power
                                   to do anything.
                                   \_ Actually the Pres. does have unlimited
                                      power to do anything he wants in wartime
                                      IF habeas is suspended. [ I know that
                                      habeas hasn't been suspended, BUT if
                                      it were, the Pres. would have the power
                                      to do anything he deems necessary in
                                      order to protect the republic. ]
                             \_ The conditions that signify the end of the
                                war are clear in my post. The Pres. authority
                                to violate the BoR will end when there are
                                no longer any foreign hostiles engaged in
                                operations on US soil. Perhaps this will take
                                decades, perhaps it will take longer. I do
                                not know, but I feel that AQ et. al. pose
                                such a threat to civilization, that any and
                                all means must be used to vanquish them.
                                Re "saving my gf": I disagree, despite the
                                                   lack of domestic terrorism
                                                   since 9/11, there is no
                                                   proof that AQ et. al. are
                                                   no longer carrying out long
                                                   term operations w/in the US.
                                                   Until such proof is avail.
                                                   the emergency exists. Such
                                                   proof can be made available
                                                   by the worldwide destruction
                                                   of militant islam; thus we
                                                   do not have to rely on an
                                                   assertion of proof via the
                                                   executive branch.
                                \_ More people in the United States have been
                                   struck by lightning than died in domestic
                                   terrorist attacks in the last decade. I
                                   think you severely overreacting to a very
                                   minor threat and giving up our liberties
                                   because of a very minor problem. Your
                                   paranoia and fearfulness over a tiny
                                   problem are not worth tearing up the
                                   minor threat and are giving up our liberties
                                   because of your paranoia and media generated
                                   hype and fearfulness.
                                   \_ If you receive anal pleasure 100 times
                                      in a year, it's no big deal.  If you
                                      receive it 20 times in a morning, you
                                      might have problems.
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41486 Activity:moderate
1/23    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007276.php
        Who to believe?  Can you start tapping and then have 72 hours to get
        retroactive FISA approval (URL 1), or does the attorney general need
        probable cause before even beginning to tap (URL 2)?
        Note Gen. Hayden today went with URL 2.
        \_ But they wouldn't have even done #1
           \_ URL 2 says you can't do #1 without the attorney general
              establishing probable cause first.
              \_ URL 2 is disingenuous..  "We don't actually know how to fill
                 out a warrant application, so we shouldn't have to" is a
                 _stupid_ argument.
                 \_ The core of the argument is that Gen. Hayden went outside
                    of FISA to do "reasonable basis" wiretaps (calls going to /
                    coming from suspected Al Qaeda members / affiliates),
                    whereas FISA required "probable cause" (we have a credible
                    source or evidence obtained through other legal means that
                    person x has committed or is committing a criminal act)
                    required to even begin wiretapping.
                    Note that, if you go outside FISA, you need very little
                    other than some NSA person saying that one end of the call
                    may be coming from an Al Qaeda member / affiliate.
                    "reasonable basis" << "probable cause"
                    link:tinyurl.com/bkvuf (nytimes.com)
                    \_ Unfortunately there's that pesky little thing called
                       the constitution.
                    link:tinyurl.com/bkvuf (nytimes.com)
                       \_ Then you go back to:  They could do it outside of
                          FISA becuse the resolution passed by Congress gave
                          Dubya the power, and also through his role as
                          "unitary executive" (a power granted by the
                          Constitution according to Dubya's people).
                          \_ "could".  That's the claim.  The congressional
                             research service said they can't.
                             \_ Thanks for pointing that out.  Here's the URL:
                                http://tinyurl.com/9nosv (Wash Post)
        \_ [ I have not yet taken Crim Pro, but from what I understand ]
           The USSC has held that a wiretap is a search w/in the meaning
           of that term under the 4th amend. Thus a warrant to wiretap
           cannot issue w/o a showing of probable cause. The probable
           cause showing must relate to the time the search is INITIATED;
           evidence found after the search cannot generally be used to est.
           probable cause.
           The FISA procedures allow the AG to request the warrant upto 72
           hrs after the tap is started, BUT the AG must still prove that
           probable cause existed at the time the wiretap was initiated.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap - the relevant USSC
           \_ People need to start saing that Dubya is usurping "probable
              cause" for unreasonable searches in the 4th Amendment, and this
              will promptly throw out Dubya's "unitary executive" and
              Congressional authorization arguments.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap:
           The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power
           runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it
           doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of
           the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power.
           If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the
           Pres. will probably win this under either Curtis Wright or
           Youngstown. Curtis Wright "one voice" in foreign affairs is
           probably the better argument b/c in ever case the purpose of
           the wiretaps were to stop terrorism by international forces,
           which is a foreign affairs issue.
           \_ Well, if it goes to the Supreme Court, then I think that's it.
              4th Amendment, "probable cause", Dubya violated it, game set
              \_ I talked to my Con Law prof about this and the real problem
                 is getting standing to bring a 4th amend. claim. Unless the
                 AG screws up really badly, defendants will not have a factual
                 basis to claim that their 4th amend. rights were violated.
                 [ The ACLU has filed a suit saying that the named plaintiffs
                   were likely to be tapped, but this is probably not enough
                   to show actual harm necessary to get standing ]
                 \_ You can ask your prof what they think of this with respect
                    to the notion that you can't get plaintiffs with standing
                    because, by nature of the program, you can't find out if
                    your 4th amendment rights have been breached.
                    I.e., you can have unlimited secret wiretapping because you
                    can't find anyone who knows if they've been wiretapped.
                    Your prof can either say "Too bad" or "Perhaps SCOTUS will
                    recognize the Catch-22 and review the case".
                    \- some people are concerned about the standing issue
                       int eh case of the ACLU suit but theirs is not the
                       only suit. a law prof whose name i do not recall but
                       is possible from gerogetown is representing a muslim
                       professor who allegedly said some crazy stuff and was
                       was suspected to have phone conversations with various
                       unsavories located in AFGANISTAN was smacked down and
                       he should pretty clearly have standing, but he is not
                       a very sympathetic defendent ... that might end up
                       being a case where there would have been probably
                       cause but the govt just didnt bother with the
                       warrants. the BURGER court certain carved into
                       the exclusionary rule so that trend may continue.
                       remember the constitution says the govt cant do
                       warrantless searches but it doesnt mandate the
                       exclusionary rule ... the court could conceivably
                       have said "we will sanction the fellow who obtained
                       the tainted evidence" or the unjustly seearched
                       party has a right to sue the law enforcement body
                       that violated his 4th amd or 5th amd rights for
                       money damage rather than a right to suppress the
                       \- update: the other suit is being led by the center
                          for constitutional rights. their clients have a
                          pretty good case for standing but may be less
                          sympathetic ... e.g. have made anti-american
                          public statements etc. but their claim is also
                          that the lawyers of these people who are american
                          citizens were monitored. i have to go now.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap:
           The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power
           runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it
           doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of
           the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power.
           If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the
           Pres. will probably win this under either the Curtis Wright or
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41483 Activity:moderate
1/23    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html
        "The general said three NSA attorneys provided independent opinions
        that the [eavesdropping] program was legal."
        \_ Major shock: the NSA thinks it's OK to wiretap without a warrant.
           Good enough for me!  -tom
        \_ "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my
           professional judgment that we would have detected some of the
           9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have
           identified them as such ..." -Gen. Hayden
           but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless wiretapping?
              but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless
           \_ I think the daily show (or was it colbert report) put it best:
              we already had all the facts about the plans and identities of
              the 9/11 guys before 9/11.  The problem is that they were lost
              in a sea of too much intel.  How would collecting even more have
              solved that?
        \_ For a horizon of a few weeks, the President has essentially
           unlimited power during wartime, at which time he
           is expected to advise Congress of his actions.  Bush advised
           the Senate Intelligence committee about the wiretaps very early on.
           unlimited power during wartime, but is expected to ultimately advise
           Congress of his actions.  Bush advised the Senate Intelligence
           committee about the wiretaps very early on.
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41482 Activity:nil
1/23    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23208381.htm
        "President George W. Bush rejected charges his domestic eavesdropping
         program was illegal on Monday, while other administration officials
         said the war on terrorism has made the federal law on electronic
         surveillance outdated."
        So which is it? Is it against a law that the administration wants
        revised, or is it within the law (which would imply that the law is
        timely and supports the Pres.)?
        \_ Dubya said it's legal, from a resolution Congress passed.
           His people are also saying the power of the unitary executive
           also makes it legal.
           Gen. Hayden said that three NSA layers wrote independent opinions
           saying it was legal.
           \_ Uh, Dubya asked congress to include the US on the list of
              countries in the afghanistan resolution.  congress said no.
              he wanted it in the patriot act.  congress said no.  dubya
              said "fuck congress".
           \_ So if it's legal, why are his people saying the law is outdated?
              \_ I think it's because of "URL 2" indicated in new post above.
2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41438 Activity:nil
1/19    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561226/posts
        "Asked whether the president 'should have the power to authorize the
        NSA to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists
        without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in
        the U.S.?' - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes.
        ... Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for
        blowing the NSA's cover 'traitors,' while just 27 percent agreed with
        media claims that the leakers were 'whistleblowers.'"
        \_ those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.
           \_ misquote.
           \_ This is the year I finally break down and buy a gun.
              \_ Good luck if you live in SF...
                 \_ Where I'm moving, it's practically illegal to not own
                    a gun.  The apocalypse is coming, and I'm gonna be ready.
           \_ Americans don't mind sacrificing the freedom of "suspected
              terrorists", as long as they're not one or a close friend of one.
        \_ "...a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found...."
           Try harder, young freeper_troll.
2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41437 Activity:nil
1/19    Can someone provide a URL for:  "the NSA was basically wiretapping
        everyone, not just suspected terrorists, and running a massive data
        mining operation on it."  All I'm getting is Russell Tice saying
        "could be in the millions [of Americans] if the full range of secret
        NSA programs is used", and the key word is "if".
        \_ This was given as the reason for why FISA wouldn't work; because
           they were following from Al Qaeda guy to everyone he called to
           everyone they called to everyone they called, etc.  I mean, with
           guilt-by-association, everyone's a suspected terrorist.
           \_ url please.  I want to understand what "basically" means.
           \_ Do people understand that the issue is not rather government
              can wire citizens or not, but rather, a check-n-balance
              procedure is in place to prevent abuse and provide a channel
              for those who are wrongly accused?
        \_ http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/24/nsas_domestic_datami.html
           (original NYT article costs money now)
           \_ Thanks, full article:  http://tinyurl.com/bb2f4 (chicagotrib)
              I think the source for the NYT article is Tice.
              \_ Admittedly, there is a bit of conjecture in my statement...
2006/1/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41381 Activity:low
1/15    The Dirty Dozen
        \_ "In the 1980s, millions of outraged Americans succeeded in bringing
           about a singular achievement -- ending South Africa's racist
           apartheid policy.  There is little debate as to how this was
           accomplished:  Where international sanctions, public condemnation
           and diplomacy fell short, a nationwide American divestment campaign
           triumphed. "  Is this true? They cite no evidence.  I recall my
           parents boycotting various products because of South Africa, but
           I don't recall ever hearing about one of those big companies
           actually divesting.  Does anyone know anything about the accuracy
           of their claims?
           \_ Google south africa apartheid divest
              This was one of many pages I found on the subject. More research
              left to you, the reader.
2006/1/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41301 Activity:low
1/9     Attention Trollers:
        It is now illegal to post messages anonymously that annoy others via
        the Internet.  Basically, it's already illegal to annoy someone
        anonymously via telephone.   However, someone added "communications
        that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet" to the
        existing law.  See HR3402 Sec. 113.
          [click "Text of Legislation", then #6]
        http://tinyurl.com/dfw9t (cornell.edu)
        http://csua.org/u/ejy (news.com)
        Yes, it is still legal in most cases to "annoy" someone
        non-anonymously via telephone and Internet.
        \_ You're annoying me.
        \_ Annoying?  The whole net would collapse if that was ever taken
           \_ Apparently the law requires a prosecutor to prove "intent to
              annoy," which sounds laughably difficult to me.
              \_ but you're wrong.  -tom
                 \_ But isn't that what makes proving a libel case so difficult
                    in an American court?  The need to prove "intent to cause
                    damage?" (aka reading defendant's mind)
                    \_ No, libel has no bearing on the situation.  The
                       difficulty with libel suits is that true statements,
                       or statements of opinion, are not libel, so you have
                       to show that the statement is based in fact (as opposed
                       to saying "he's an asshole," which is a matter of
                       opinino), and that the person saying it reasonably
                       should have known the statement was false, and that
                       people reading the statement could reasonably believe
                       it was true.
                       "Intent to annoy" is easy; any reasonable person
                       could see that, say, repeatedly sending explicit mail
                       to someone after they've explicitly told you not to,
                       or subscribing them to hundreds of mailing lists, or
                       whatever, is intended to annoy.  -tom
2006/1/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:41294 Activity:moderate
1/8     Re: Abramoff.  Transcript of Howard Dean on with Wolf Blitzer, CNN.
        "There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one,
        not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a
        Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every
        person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal.
        There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any
        money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure
        that's true."
        \_ I hope Howard Dean knows what is he talking about.  I vaguely
           remember Abramoff also paid lavish trips for Democrats as well.
           \_ Replubican lies.
              \_ How would you know?  Do you have special insider info?
                 Like everything else, this will be investigated, maybe a
                 few people will resign from one or both parties and nothing
                 will change because politicians are corrupt.
                 \_ sheesh. take a chill pill.  My point is that Republicans
                    have been spreading the message that Abramoff paid $$ to
                    Dems.  And that's the reason why he "vaguely remembers"
                    \_ You didn't have a point if you wrote "Republican lies".
                       That isn't a point.  It is partisan noise.
                       \_ I expanded it in the pp. make sense now?
                 \_ Do you think that politicians everywhere are corrupt?
                    I do not. Why are politicians in some other countries
                    less corrupt? Could we perhaps figure out why and reform
                    our system to be more like theirs?
                    \_ I think all career politicians are corrupt.  What county
                       did you have in mind where they are less so?
                 \_ I am a democrate.  but i just don't think Abramoff is so
                    stupid that he only oil up Republicans.  And Democrats
                    are not exactly clean neither... just that they are not
                    nearly as blatant as Republicans under Bush's reign.
                    \_ I think all career politicians are corrupt.  What county
                       did you have in mind where they are less so?
              \_ "Democrats' Travel Costs Linked to Lobbyist" [Washington Post]
                 Is this a Republican plant?  Reading Dean carefully, do paid
                 trips show up in FEC reports?
                 \_ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7723344/page/2 has a lot more
                    "Clyburn said in an interview he had never heard of
                     Abramoff at the time, and provided a copy of a letter
                     showing he was invited by the nonprofit foundation."
                    The sum total of both trips was ~$4.5-5k airfare and a
                    $227 hotel bill per Congressman.  This is proof that
                    Abramoff paid for "lavish trips."  It sounds like first
                    class plane travel, and a nice night in a good hotel, but
                    "lavish?"  And I don't know about you, but I don't think
                    a $5k first class plane ticket buys much influence in
                    Washington these days.
                    Certainly, Dean was careful with his language, and these
                    were not filed with the FEC. However, "Both Clyburn and
                    Thompson filed House disclosure reports showing the
                    [nonprofit] group paid for the travel."  Apparently,
                    these reports are now incorrect, but they were filed b/c
                    at the time, Clyburn and Thompson "weren't told the
                    foundation that invited them never put up the money."
                    Considering the point of lobbying is to direct money to
                    the congressmen in order to curry favor with them, not
                    telling the congressman that you gave them money doesn't
                    curry much favor.
                    Clyburn and Thompson may turn out to be Democratic
                    sleazeballs.  Who knows?  But $5,000 of disclosed money
                    received doesn't swing the pendulum of corruption from
                    red to purple.
                    \_ Hey, my post was only in response to the quick
                       "Republican lies" claim above.  -pp
                    \_ Direct quotes from the congressmen or staff:
                       "The invitation was signed by a chairman of the Joint
                        Chiefs. What was I supposed to believe?"
                       - The letter said the Congressional delegations would
                         "be paid for by the nonprofit N.S.C. Foundation, and
                          they will not involve any cost to the US government."
                       Thompson staff:
                       "He received an invitation from a nonprofit group to go
                        down and visit the islands. It was a legitimate trip.
                        And once he returned from the trip, he complied with
                        House rules and filed the required ethics forms."
                       \_ Man, the spin is coming hard and fast now.  Do you
                                \_ point A
                          even read your *own* source?  The letter was signed
                          by Thomas Moorer, who was the *former* Chairman of
                          the Joint Chiefs.  Hello, "former", as in 1970 to
                          1974?  Meaning Moorer was a private citizen at the
                          time of the invitation.  Since the writers of the
                          article knew Moorer was only the former Chairman,
                          and they didn't call Clyburn on it, you have to wonder
                          why not and where their bias lies.  As to point 2,
                                \_ point B.
                          as the WaPo article said, "Greg Hilton [the director
                          of the group] understood at the outset that the
                          expenses would be covered by 'the private sector'".
                          Hilton was later told that the government would
                          cover the costs, but barring more evidence, it's
                          hard to say if Clyburn was told specifically if the
                          trip were covered by private or public funds.
                          \_ You're absolutely right. We should impeach and
                             fire all politicians who took money from
                             Abramoff, regardless of political affiliation.
                             If that ends up being more Dems than Repubs, fine.
                          \_ A+B: your own biases and paranoia are showing
                             through. You don't address the points, but rather
                             attack the news source as being biased. Oh, yes,
                             and you accuse pp of "spin" when the whole post
                             is pretty much direct quotes.
2006/1/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41292 Activity:nil 80%like:41288 80%like:41289
1/7     Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping CNN?
        \_ http://tinyurl.com/dnbqq (Alternative Press Review)
           Looks like the Administration may have been wire tapping
           lots of media critics.
2006/1/8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41289 Activity:nil 80%like:41288 80%like:41292
1/7     Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping the motd?
2006/1/8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41288 Activity:nil 80%like:41289 80%like:41292
1/7     Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping the media?
2018/03/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2006/1/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:41274 Activity:high Entry has been invalidated. Access denied.
2006/1/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41240 Activity:nil
 1/5    Grep for 'socialist motherfucker'
        http://tinyurl.com/asus3 - danh
2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41224 Activity:kinda low
1/4     Hey, why pass laws at all when you have a king?
        \_ What's the big deal? He's only going to ignore the law if he wants
           to ...
        \_ Another reason to block alito.
        \_ URL tinyfied to please annoying, anal retentive motd block warden:
           http://tinyurl.com/bdj8g  -John
        \_ I would like to hear Bush supporter's point of view on this one.
           Please enlighten us.
           \_ I'm not a Bush supporter but I can guess: Protecting the American
              People! War on Terror! Liberty! Freedom! 9/11! Liberty!
              Freedom! Terrorists! Freedom! Liberty!
           \_ If you believe in an strong executive then it follows that
              the inherent emergency power of the executive is subject
              only to those limits explicit in the constitution. As there
              are no applicable limits (the eighth arguably does not apply
              as torture is not used as a punishment in this context), it
              is within the executive's discretion to employ torture. This
              view also implies that the executive's decisions are above
              court review except in cases where there is direct conflict
              with the text of the constitution.
              [ Note that there is a "fifth freedom" view which says that
                even the constitution is not a limit on the executive's
                power when the survival of the republic is threatened.
                BUSHCO does not seem to publically adhere to this view. ]
              \_ Who does adhere to that view? (There is nobody to
                 review if said survival is sufficiently threatened.
                 By some accounts, sodomy threatens the republic...)
                 \_ While I do not know of any prominent figures
                    who publicly endorse the fifth freedom view,
                    I would argue that people like Amd. Poindexter
                    implicitly accept it.
                    For the sake of argument I will say that the
                    majority of America has implicitly acquiesced
                    to the fifth freedom view. I think that the
                    framers conception of the CinC power or other
                    limits on the executive power cannot be reco-
                    nciled w/ the fact that 1st strike is basically
                    entrusted solely to the President's discretion.
                    If the President chooses to exercise this cap-
                    ability, there will realistically be no review.
                    This to me suggests that the modern Presidency
                    has practically unlimited powers.
                    In day to day terms, it probably means the
                    while the President can't shoot you in broad
                    daylight for being a democrat, he probably
                    can deploy any covert means against you for
                    the same w/o any real review.
                    \_ "Stroke of the pen, law of the land.  Cool!"
                    \_ First strike and other military defense issues
                       I think fall under the general head-of-military
                       designation. For Iraq, Bush was sort of pre-authorized
                       to decide on war, and the same situation exists for
                       the nukes I guess. Some of the smaller operations
                       might be weaseled around by questioning the
                       definition "war". Anyway, I don't think we
                       are at a point where the Constitution does not
                       at least in theory grant US citizens protection
                       versus military operations, covert or not.
                       I suppose if they did their job well enough then
                       practically the question would not come up.
                       \_ I agree that the modern interpretation
                          is that the CinC power encompasses the
                          ability to deploy the nuclear arsenal.
                          but my point is that the framers prob.
                          did not intend to vest a single man w/
                          the power to unilaterally decide the
                          fate of every living thing on the
                          What if the President exercises this
                          power in circumstances (objectively)
                          not constituting a threat to the repu-
                          blic? Who really will be left to reve-
                          iew the decision? What remedial action
                          can really be taken? I think that the
                          answer is that no one will review and
                          no remedial action is available. This
                          to me means the President possess uni-
                          lateral discretion to wield almost abs.
                          power as the CinC.
                          From this one could argue that under
                          this power, the President could deploy
                          less than abs. force against arbitrary
                          targets w/o any limits on his power.
                          From this one could argue that the Pres.
                          could deploy less than abs. force w/o
                          limits on his discretion under the same
                          Re Pre-authorized: If the President has
                          been preauthorized to act under certain
                          conditions, what happens when he acts
                          outside of those conditions? Will there
                          really be a Congressional hearing? If
                          not, then Congress has basically given
                          him unlimited discretion.
                          \_ Why wouldn't there be a hearing? They can
                             impeach the president. He could mess things
                             up pretty royally before then, perhaps
                             irrevocably, but it doesn't really nullify the
                             separation of powers except in the apocalyptic
                             sense. Basically he could destroy the other
                             branches of government. Maybe Nixon, instead of
                             resigning, could have started WWIII instead. But
                             outside of war, I can't see that the distinction
                             is noteworthy. The power to destroy isn't the
                             same as absolute power.
                          no remedial action is available.
                          If the President possess unilateral
                          discretion to wield almost absolute
                          power via the CinC power, is it real-
                          istic to say that there are limits on
                          his ability to deploy less than this?
                          not, then the President has been pre-
                          authorized to act in any situation and
                          Congress has implicitly given him abs.
                          power (one wonders if Congress can do
2006/1/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41198 Activity:very high
1/2     It's the demography, stupid.
        \_ Wow, what in inchoerent racist screed.  I salute you sir.
           \_ What's racist and/or incoherent about it? Did you have
              difficulty understanding it?
              \_ Just off the top of my head, the equation of Western genes
                 with Western culture.  --!pp
                 \_ Except it doesn't do that.
              \_ Just pulling something out at random: "Radical Islam is what
                 multiculturalism has been waiting for all along."  It reads
                 like Ann Coulter or Joseph McCarthy, but less coherent. --!pp
                 \_ You haven't answered my question. And what is wrong with
                    that sentence? You seem incapable of formulating an
                    explanation of your ideas.
                    \_ Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that
                       you're not just trolling.  Probably a bad assumption,
                       but anyway...an example of an equally specious argument
                       from the other side of the political spectrum would be
                       something like, "Abortion clinic bombings are what
                       Christians are all about."  Even that doesn't really
                       do it justice, since at least in that case some of
                       the bombers were (nominally at least) Christian.
                       [I said something much more imflammatory after this
                       in response to your last sentence, but then I realized
                       that was a bad idea and self-censored. ok tnx]
                       \_ You're not really doing a good job explaining
                          yourself here but from what I can tell you are
                          misinterpreting the article. As regards that
                          sentence, it refers to the possibility that
                          "multiculturalism", in equally accepting other
                          cultures, is susceptible to accepting a culture
                          which, in the author's opinion, is "bad" ('radical
                          Islam'), and which he notes is not politically
                          correct to judge and talk about as such. Note that
                          I could come up with various criticisms of the
                          article myself but yours aren't valid IMO. The
                          author knows that attacking multiculturalism (and
                          Muslims... since he implies that the "radical"
                          and intolerant brand of it is large and becoming
                          more widespread, even in Europe) is against the
                          mainstream and will antagonize people like you.
                          I'd like to see you actually explain yourself
                          however instead of dumbly shouting racism in
                          response (which the author also expects). The
                          two main "asshole" opinions of his are 1. "western
                          culture" is superior and should be acknowledged
                          as such and 2. "Islamist" culture should not
                          be tolerated. While these cultures are associated
                          with certain races they do cross racial boundaries
                          as is mentioned.
                          \_ I'm not the person who shouted racism.  Give it
                             a rest.
                       \_ There was a specific accusation of racism.  Please
                          post example(s) from the article to substantiate
                          the characterization of "racist screed".  If there
                          are no specific example(s), please retract the claim
                          of racism.
                       the bombers were (nominally at least) Christian.  It's
                       not that the article is difficult to understand, it's
                       that it's not saying anything of substance or
                       trying to construct any kind of coherent argument.
                       It's just a rant.  Political arguments can be more
                       than just opinionated rants, ya know - or did you learn
                       Rhetoric 101 from Michael Moore?
                          \_ If you hadn't noticed, I said "!pp" in my first
                             post.  I didn't say anything about racism - the
                             article is too incoherent to express an idea
                             that well-formed.  It's possible to talk to more
                             than one person on the motd, ya know.
                             \_ 1. That some post-4 was signed "!pp" does not
                                not imply that the unsigned post-2 was also by
                                the same or some other "!pp".  2. Nevertheless
                                you are in a thread branched off the claim
                                that the quoted article as "racist screed".
                                3. "Racist" has a specific meaning, and
                                incoherence or speciousness does not mean
                                racism.  4. I take it that no one is able to
                                defend the original claim that the article is
                                \_ I take it that you're not able to counter
                                   the claim that the article is incoherent,
                                   and based a combination of strawman and
                                   ad hominem argument.
                                   \_ Please present examples of ad hominem or
                                      strawman arguments from the article.
                                      \_ I already did.  Do I have to spell it
                                         out for you even more carefully?
                                         \_ You didn't mention why you thought
                                            it was ad hominem or strawman.
                                            \_ It sets up an argument against
                                               a concept called
                                               "multiculturalism," but doesn't
                                               define it in any meaningful
                                               way, other than perhaps guilt by
                                               association with a conservative
                                               buzzword that is used as a
                                               hammer to beat liberals (see
                                               also "political correctness").
                                               I guess it is left as an
                                               exercise for the prejudices of
                                               the reader, but this nebulous
                                               definition then allows him room
                                               to assign all kinds of supposed
                                               motives to a movement which he
                                               has not defined.  It's the old
                                               "Liberals love terrorists,
                                               you're a liberal, therefore you
                                               love terrorists" argument.
                                               \_ Are you reading the same
                                                  article?  The one I'm half
                                                  way through and still reading
                                                  focusses on demographic
                                                  math, not knee jerk
                                                  conversative vs. liberal
                                                  bullshit.  It seems like you
                                                  stopped on page 5.  Down
                                                  here at 60 of 71 screens,
                                                  I've got 55 extra screens of
                                                  demographics I don't think
                                                  you bothered reading.
                                                  \_ So I can write whatever
                                                     bullshit screed I like,
                                                     so long as I attach a
                                                     bunch of demographics to
                                                     the bottom of it?
                                                     \_ So you didn't read it.
                                                        Ok thanks for letting
                                                        us know.
                                                        \_ What sort of
                                                           rational argument is
                                                           it that assigns
                                                           beliefs to a group
                                                           while providing not
                                                           a shred of evidence
                                                           that this belief
                                                           exists?  His
                                                           argument is based
                                                           entirely on quotes
                                                           from one English
                                                           baroness, hardly
                                                           a government
                                                           authority nor a
                                                           good standin for
                                                           the "liberal
                                                           bogeyman his entire
                                                           article is ranting
                                  He does mention some poll purporting that _/
                                  like 60% of Muslims in Britain would like
                                  Sharia. (can't be bothered to look at article
        \_ Thanks.  I had forgotten about the 2020 Project.
        \_ Looks like jblack finally figured out people won't delete his
           links if he posts the direct link instead of the freeper discussion
        \_ Looks like the hosting service censored it.
           \_ I'm guessing it was the Mark Steyn article of that title:
              \_ The WSJ editorial page!  Shocking.
                 \_ While WSJ is one fine newspaper, which counts me as
                    as a daily reader, it's editorial page has been pure
                    trash as long as I can remember.   - motd stock fanatic
        \_ "There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and
            French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will
            they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names
            and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European
            races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the
            peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to
            pluralist, liberal democracy?"
           Ah, the old "pure" Germans, French, and Italians fallacy again.
           Run, little fearmonger, run!
           \_ Nicely pulled out of context.  He's talking about culture, not
              DNA based racial characteristics.  But you knew that.
              \_ so why did he keep mentioning about "races"?
                 \_ because, duh, those "races" already have the modern
                    western democratic culture he's talking about.
                    \_ huh?  if the key thing is culture, why does he
                       mention about races?  he needs to make up his mind
                       what he thinks the crisis is.
                       \_ Are you being purposefully dense? It's specifically
                          about the influx of Muslims from Algeria et al who
                          allegedly resist western culture. If it makes you
                          feel better, try coming up with a better word to
                          differentiate the predominant "native" populations in
                          those countries. "Races" is proper usage even if it
                          triggers little kneejerk alarms in your mind.
                          \_ Races is the right word, and racist is the
                             proper description of the author.  Why are you
                             so against the use of the term "racist"?  Do not
                             let the PC cops define what terms you can or
                             cannot use.  You should be proud of being a
                             \_ Who said I was against the use of "races"?
                                Learn to read. Look how stupid you are.
                                \_ Where did I say that?  Are you stupid?
                                   \_ Wow, you made so many edits to your
                                      post I replied to an earlier revision
                                      and now you claim you never said it.
                                      It's in mehlhaff's archive. And I never
                                      stated my own position on the subject
                                      so have no basis to call me racist.
                                      But all you're concerned with is
                                      winning your little motd battle.
                                      Why should people be proud to be
                                      racist BTW? And again, this whole
                                      useless diversion is completely beside
                                      the point; you haven't shown that
                                      anti-radical-Islam is racist. I'm
                                      done with this thread.
                                      \_ Yes, I haven't finished writing,
                                         and you started spewing invectives.
                                      \_ So, what does "self-extinction
                                         of the races" has to do with anti-
                                         radical-Islam?  Extreme Wahabism
                                         is a problem that stretches all
                                         the way to Indonesia and the
                                         Phillipines, and is a global
                                         problem and threat to many,
                                         including the 90% of muslims who
                                         do not subscribe to it.  Do tell us
                                         how would a mis-characterization
                                         of it as a threat to the survival
                                         of the "European races" help?
                                      \_ Yes, I haven't finished writing,
                                         and you started spewing invectives.
                          \_ And similarly, racist is a proper description
                             of the author.  Why are you so against use of
                             the term "racist"?  It's not necessarily bad,
                             depending on what races you belong to.
                             so against use of the terms "races" and
                             "racist"?   Do they trigger little kneejerk
                             alarms in your racist little brain?
                                         \_ As I understand it the point was
                                            1. multiculturalist tolerance
                                            allows it to grow, 2. demographics
                                            indicates it may become the
                                            dominant Eur. culture. That's where
                                            the "races" come in (under the
                                            suggestion that these groups aren't
                                            acculturizing to western standards)
                                            Unfortunately we have to spend
                                            pages of motd on the irrelevant
                                            subject of racial purity.
                                            \_ As I understand it, the
                                               author is just using extreme
                                               Islam to spread fears and
                                               push his right wing agenda.
                                               What's the point of mention-
                                               ing New Zealand and
                                               Australia's birthrate, for
                                               instance.  Do these countries
                                               have a large muslim
                                               population?  I don't think so.
                                               \_ Oddly enough, a friend is
                                                  dating a Persian chick from
                                                  Australia.  Anyway, 2.3%
                                                  Muslim in Australia.  Muslim
                                                  population growing by 40% a
                                                  year, versus 5.7% for Aus.
                                                  population as a whole.
                                                  Projecting that growth rate
                                                  linearly (so this is obviously
                                                  a simplistic and wrong
                                                  calculation), in 10 years
                                                  ~1/3 of Aus. will be of the
                                                  Muslim faith.
                                               Another example:
                        "Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the
                         living room in rural China--and next thing you
                         know an unknown respiratory disease is killing
                         people in Toronto, just because someone got on
                         a plane. "  Talk about being irrelevant.  It's
                         so obvious that the author just wanted to do
                         some "liberal"-bashing, throwing in jabs against
                         environmentalists, feminists, etc. I don't
                         understand how anyone reasonably intelligent
                         can fail to see through the facade unless he
                         has his own agenda himself.
                                               \_ Oddly enough, a friend is
                                                  dating a Persian chick from
                                                  Australia.  Anyway, 1.6%
                                                  Muslim in Australia.  Muslim
                                                  population growing by 40% a
                                                  year, versus 5.7% for Aus.
                                                  population as a whole.
                                                  Projecting that growth rate
                                                  linearly (so this is obviously
                                                  a simplistic analysis), in
                                                  10 years ~1/5 of Aus. will
                                                  be of the Muslim faith.  I
                                                  am too lazy to do the research
                                                  of NZ, but if Kiwis and
                                                  Islamic Kiwis are similarly
                                                  (un)fecund, the results should
                                                  not be so different.  Thus is
                                                  the power of compounding.
                                                  Perhaps you shouldn't be so
                                                  sure of things you are so
                                                  sure of.
                                                  \_ I question your 40%
                                                     a year figure.  Source
                                                     \_ Mea culpa.  I misread
                                                        in haste.  It was
                                                        actually "40% in
                                                        five years, while the
                                                        Australian population
                                                        as a whole grew by 5.7%
                                                        in the same period."
                                                        So it will be 2.9% in
                                                        10 years and 4.8% in
                                                        20 years.
                 \_ Since when is German/French/Italian a race?
                    \_ Would you deny they are ethnicities? Why wouldn't they
                       be races? dict race
                       \_ Is Chinese a race?  American?  How about Nigerians?
                          Is that a race? (Ob. I happen to know a family of
              \_ Ya know, being smug doesn't help you win arguments.
              \_ Less pulled out of context than his Toynbee quote. Toynbee
                 would have had no use for the shrill Mr. Steyn:
                 "We intend to modify the violence of the fight, and to
                  prevent the weak being trampled under foot." -AT
              \_ Then his point is doubly worthless, since the great unwashed
                 masses that stream into Europe and America are greater
                 converts to secular capitalism than most native Europeans.
                 \_ That's an interesting claim.  While I can see a claim
                    that *some* immigrants are more capitalistic than the
                    existent population, I have trouble believing all or
                    even most would be more capitalistic.  Do you have a
                    reference for the claim, or is this just invention?
        \_ I agree with this article.  For instance, the Great Chinese
           Civilization is superior to the backward cultures you find in
           Southeast Asia, or the stone-age buddhist cult culture you
           find in Tibet, or the violent Islamist culture in northwest
           China.  We should always civilize them and not become
           lazy and primitive like their backward cultures.
                               -gcc (Great Chinese Chauvinist)
        \_ Some of the "facts" listed in the article are total bullshit,
           for example the claim that the Club of Rome book Limits to Growth
           predicted oil, natural gas, etc., would run out in the 1990s.  The
           Limits to Growth said no such thing.  They just said that you cannot
           grow consumption of a finite resource indefinitely, and they
           theorized that many extracted resources would run out within 100
           years ... Which is 2070, not 1990.  They identified as oil as the
           years ... Which is 2070, not 1990.  They identified oil as the
           first resource to no longer be able to be extracted more quickly
           (peak).  All they did was take the current reserves of each
           resource, multiply it by 5 to account for new discoveries and
           apply a yearly growth of x% and see how long the resource will
           last ... Limits to *growth*.
           \_ Apparently this is a common mistake re the Limits to Growth.
              See "Plenty of Gloom" (Economist 12/18/1997) for example.
              Your own characterization of Limits of Growh is equally
              misleading.  In fact, the Limits of Growth presented 3 possible
              scenerios.  Scenerio 1 assumes status quo and presents the 550
              billion barrel quantity.  Scenerio 2 doubled that to 1.1T
              barrels, and scenerio 3 5x'ed the 550B barrels.  So in fact it is
              true that 1 scenerio of the 3 presented in Limits of Growth
              predicted the exhaustion of oil in 1990.  Obviously scenerio
              1 is wrong.  Current world reserves is around 2T barrels I
              think, so scenerio 2 is probably off.  I think scenerio 2 calls
              for exhaustion of oil by 2015.  The jury on scenerio 3 is still
              out.  Fortunately we should all still be around to see even
              scenerio 3 of Limits of Growth vindicated or discredited.
              Again, I must say I find the general level of mischaracterization
              of information (and sometimes outright deliberate deception)
              both else where and on MOTD to be disappointing.
              \_ OBTW, given the existence of Fischer-Tropsch et al, scenerio
                 3 is almost certainly also incorrect.
              \_ Come to think of it, a claim that Limits of Growth predicted
                 the exhaustion of oil in 1990 is strictly true, and a claim
                 that Limits of Growth "said no such thing" is completely
                 false.  Shameful.
2006/1/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41191 Activity:nil 88%like:41188
1/1     Wild predictions for 2006
        http://tinyurl.com/ckllp (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ From USAToday founder, actually: http://tinyurl.com/7uooe
2006/1/1 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41188 Activity:nil 88%like:41191
12/1    Wild predictions for 2006
2005/12/29-2006/1/1 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign] UID:41167 Activity:nil
12/29   http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/dunne/episodes/scandal.html
        More proof that justice = power + privilege.
        \_ Why did you post this in a new thread when it's mentioned not
           a page down?
           \_ because those that have power + privileges deserve
              more attention on motd?
        \_ heh, I read the article as "Her lavish estate in Virginia's
           exclusive Hunt Country was a refuge for the shy woman and
           her beloved penises."
2005/12/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41138 Activity:high
12/24   Surprise, surprise.  The Dartmouth student Homeland security agent
        visit story is a complete hoax.
        \_ Man, and we were having so much fun screaming "secret police".
           Thanks for ruining Christmas.
        \_ Karl Rove is an evil genius!  This "22 year old kid" was clearly a
           KR plant set in place as part of a nefarious plot between him, the
           MBDSA, the greys, Elvis, *and* Bigfoot all in cahoots to convince
           the American public that uhm, something evil!  But we on the motd
           have seen through this thinly veiled plot to destroy our freedoms
           and will not stand for it!  We shall let the world know that KR and
           the greys are still out there working with Halliburton to take over
           the world, one no-bid contract at a time!  Thank you motd, for
           bringing this story to the light of truth!
           \_ MBDSA?
              \_ Damn it!  Now they're going to have to kill you.  Dummy.
                 Those who know, don't tell.  Those who tell, don't know!
              \_ Moscow Bilingual Deaf School Association?
2005/12/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41135 Activity:kinda low
12/23   Anyone have better pics? http://tinyurl.com/7sl9s
        \_ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Wafah+Dufour%22
        \_ so why isn't she veiled like a good Muslim?
2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41093 Activity:nil
12/20   Sigint specialists respond to extra-legal NSA orders.
2005/12/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41086 Activity:very high
12/20   Suspicious motd silence on Bush's "It's good to be the king" argument
        for his NSA decision^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawbreaking.
        \_ I thought we covered this a few days ago.  Who exactly are you
           suspicious of anyway?
           \_ Well, remember that TIA project? Well, #$@#$#$@#132323 NO CARRIER
           \_ Ask Bork about his video rentals..
        \_ MSNBC covered it. That makes it a lot more mainstream:
        \_ Hah hah.  There's been suspicious silence on the motd on any good
         news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while.  There was no mention of
         the Iraqi election for instance.
         \_ having an election is insignificant.  It is mainly for the show
            for USA domestic audience anyway.  It is just another one of
            those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with "transfer
            of soverignty," etc, etc.
           news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while.  There was no mention
           of the Iraqi election for instance.
           \_ having an election is insignificant.  It is mainly for the
              show for USA domestic audience anyway.  It is just another one
              of those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with
              "transfer of soverignty," etc, etc.
              \_ A free election of a parliment, with roughly 70% turnout is
                 insignificant.  Okay.  Thanks for letting us know where you
                 stand.  Please sign your posts in the future so I can know
                 which ones to ignore. -emarkp
                 \_ Please don't derail this with an Iraq flamewar.  ok tnx.
               \_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a dubious
                  claim.  Iraq is still under occupation.  I think that any
                  civil structure that comes to form while we are there will
                  be, by design, fragile.  What Iraq ultimately becomes will
                  not take shape until/unless we leave. --scotsman
                  \_ Free as in speech.  There were real elections with real
                     candidates, and the people turned out in droves.  The
                     kind of thing people were saying would never happen.
                     Yes, the final state of the country won't be known until
                     they stand on their own, but it is a huge thing that
                     happened and a great beginning for the newest democracy
                     on the planet. -emarkp
                 \_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a
                    dubious claim.  Iraq is still under occupation.  I think
                    that any civil structure that comes to form while we are
                    there will be, by design, fragile.  What Iraq ultimately
                    becomes will not take shape until/unless we leave.
                    \_ Free as in speech.  There were real elections with
                       real candidates, and the people turned out in droves.
                       The kind of thing people were saying would never
                       happen. Yes, the final state of the country won't be
                       known until they stand on their own, but it is a huge
                       thing that happened and a great beginning for the
                       newest democracy on the planet. -emarkp
                       \_ Elections are easy. Governing is hard. -ausman
        \_ I don't know... I just think this is so blatent that I am just
           want to see how Bush is going to get out of this one.
         \_ So blatant?  Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of the
            US who are associated with Al Qaeda?  That's your definition of
           \_ So blatant?  Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of
              the US who are associated with Al Qaeda?  That's your
              definition of blatant?
              \_ With people outside of the US that Bush et al have said are
                 associated with Al Qaeda..  Do you know the 4th amendment?
                 Do you know what FISA is?  There are legal mechanisms to do
                 what they wanted to do.  They have decided those legal
                 mechanisms don't apply to them.
                 Adding to this:
                 Dem gays is a "credible terrorist threat"..  mmhmm...
              \_ Between US citizens, in violation of both the Constitution
                 and the law Congress passed to cover it. Bolton using the
                 NSA to spy on political opponents inside the State Dept.
                 The DIA spying on anti-war groups, including The Quakers
                 and the Catholic Worker. And this is just the stuff that
                 has come out so far. I am sure there is more.
               \_ Oh come off it.  This is no worse than having ~500 of your
                  political opponent's FBI files.
                 \_ Oh come off it.  This is no worse than having ~500 of
                    your political opponent's FBI files.
                    \_ You mean that "scandal" that was investigated by an
                       independent prosecutor that resulted in no charges...
                       Okay, fine.  Join me in a call for an independent
                       prosecutor here.
                     \_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated" is
                       \_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated"
                    \_ Yeah, because that's precisely the same as trying to
                       stop terrorism.
                       \_ Wow.  Way to miss the sarcasm.  You must be _this_
                          tall to post to this thread.
                    \_ They are both despicable, yes.
      \_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants as
         Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.  Go Dubya!
        \_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants
           as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.  Go Dubya!
           \_ You're talking about this? http://csua.org/u/edz (LATimes)
              "Neither presidents nor Congress have ever acted under the
               belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war
               before the U.S. can engage in military hostilities abroad."
              Prof. Yoo, just because no Congress has taken a President to
              task for abusing the War Powers does not grant every Pres. the
              right to do so. It's a pretty justification, but it's still not
              borne out by the Constitution, which means it's only as good as
              your ability to stay ahead of the Congressional lynch mob.
              Also, your speculation on the idea of Congress becoming the
              initiator of wars is disingenuous-- no one's suggesting that
              the Pres. doesn't have the authority to start conflicts, just
              that he then must continue to obey the laws of the US even
              after the start of conflict. We do not have a military
        \_ http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000328.htm
           Congressmen calls for investigation and censure.
           \- Where is Karl Rove in all this? [re: presidential summons
              of nyt editors etc]
2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41084 Activity:nil
12/20   Ok, Canadian Liberals like Islamists?
2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Religion] UID:41075 Activity:nil
12/19   This hadn't been foremost in my mind recently, so I'd forgotten
        about it, but this article reminded me of some of the things
        to be angry about. (The Strange Case of Chaplain Yee)
        \- not to be confused with the Celebrated Case of Judge Dee
2005/12/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41073 Activity:moderate
12/19   http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
        No abuses of the patriot act my ass.
        \_ No talk of abusing your ass!
        \_ I'm pretty anti-US PATRIOT act, but that's pretty damn mild.  They
           "visited" him.  Oh noes!  They didn't detain him, arrest him,
           confiscate his stuff, or anything like that that I can see.  It
           sounded like "you a terrorist?  ok, just checking, our lame computer
           algorithm said you might be.  be good, ttyl."
           \_ "The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism
               for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism,
               filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address,
               phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited
               at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the
               Department of Homeland Security, the professors said."
              It doesn't scare the hell out of you that he got a visit from
              DoHS for checking out a copy Mao's Little Red Book? What would
              scare you, a 4am door-knockdown and unlawful detention?
              \_ This should piss off conservatives since it's such a sensless
                 waste of taxpayer money.  Of course that would be if any of
                 them actually believed in anything but power.
              \_ I agree.  I can't believe that first they ARE monitoring and
                 second that they would visit him?  What exactly was the
                 purpose of the visit?  To check if he is a terrorist?  How is
                 that not a violation of the kid's civil rights (undue search
                 and siezure?).
                 How long before it turns into secret police and arrests? -!pp
                 \_ That's unreasonable search and seizure, and asking him a
                    few questions is neither a search nor a seizure. Also,
                    the 4th mostly only applies to searches of your home;
                    they didn't search his home did they?
                    This doesn't scare me one bit. The gov. has been doing
                    this sort of thing for decades. Better they monitor
                    everything, than they not monitor. If you don't like
                    monitoring, then don't do things that will be flagged
                    by the filters.
                    \_ Man, I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.
                       What causes their filters to flag you? If you're
                       serious, I seriously hope you get visited for something
                       you consider innocuous. They say a moderate is a
                       conservative with an illness in the family or a
                       liberal who's been mugged; maybe a good Q&A session will
                       cure you.
                       \_ I expect to be visited every single day, so
                          it won't bother me at all if and when they do
                          visit. In fact, I expect to be incarcerated
                          for extended periods w/o being charged or
                          tried. I expected this even before 9/11. I
                          live here in full knowledge of the possible
                          drawbacks b/c I think there is no other place
                          in the world that is even this good. Yes, the
                          const. says that this sort of thing shouldn't
                          happen, but no piece of paper can stand in
                          the way of society.
                          \_ So you've accepted that you live in a police
                             state.  I'm happy for you but I'm not willing
                             to throw out what makes this country great.
                             Everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) has something
                             to hide.  That's why freedom matters.
                             to hide even if it isn't that big of a deal.
                             That's why freedom matters.
                             \_ I guess the differnece between us is that
                             \_ I guess the difference between us is that
                                you think there is something left to throw
                                out, and I think that is is already gone
                                out, and I think that it is already gone
                                and can never be regained w/o giving up
                                all of the benefits of science/technology.
                                I would like the words of the BoR to mean
                                something substantial, but I accept that
                                the very nature of civilization prevents
                                the very nature of modern civilization
                                prevents this.
                                \_ you're a moron.  -tom
                                   \_ Thank you.
                                   \_ You always add so much to the motd.  Keep
                                      up the good work!
                    \_ Yes the government obviously has a large interest in
                       monitoring what I read/think.  We wouldn't want any
                       dangerous opinions getting around.  Sarcasm aside,
                       using a terrorist threat to completely destroy our
                       civil liberties is worse than the occasional terrorist
                       attack.  I would rather loose 10k people a year to
                                                \_ "lose".  if you "loosed"
                                                   that many people each year
                                                   to terrorism there'd be a
                                                   helluva lot of terrorists
                                                   running around loose.
                       terrorism rather than deprive 300 million people of
                       \_ I don't think terrorism will destroy our civil
                          liberties, b/c I think they were lost at the
                          start of the cold war. I also do not believe
                          that these liberties can be effectively regained
                          in a technological society.
                    \_ "If you don't like monitoring, then don't do things
                        that will be flagged by the filters." <- This is
                        hilarious! So, if the filters include "Harry Potter"
                        books, and you happen to be a fan, you have to
                        abstain reading those books in fear of being
                        "monitored" and "visited"? What a load of crap.
                    this sort of thing for decades. Who cares? You don't
                    wan't to be monitored, don't do things that will cause
                    their filters to flag you.
                        \_ You can argue about how the world OUGHT
                           to work or you can accept the reality of
                           how it does work and get on w/ your life.
                           The price of retrieving any piece of info
                           is the fact that the gov may ask you about
                           it. If you are not willing to pay that price,
                           don't obtain the information.
                           \_ Or I can stop replying to trolls.
           \_ This was my first thought.  However, the abuse is not in the
              visiting, it's in the broad net cast by the listening.  Consider
              that they correlated a travel history with an interlibrary loan
              of "The Little Red Book".  Unless the man has some previous
              terrorist ties, this looks a lot like abuse to me. -emarkp
        \_ Possibly a hoax. See
           \_ Updated update.  The reporter stands by the story and is trying
              to get the student to come forward.  Same URL.
              \_ Cool! Keep the updates coming! -pp
              \_ If the kid is smart, he'll go about his life and not help make
                 some reporter win a prize.
2005/12/13 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41004 Activity:nil
12/13   51 Terrorist Suspects Crossed Border Illegally
        \_ posted by jblack
2005/12/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40959 Activity:nil
12/11   Welcome to 12/11 (fuel depot explosions)
        \_ BBC, which as you may recall is a real news site, so far
           mentions that it's an accident.  -John
           \_ news.bbc.co.uk says "Police believe it was an accident", but
              earlier I was reading other news.bbc.co.uk links that said
              they weren't talking about it.  I'm not sure what to make of
              that.  They were scared it might be terrorist related, and now
              they've found evidence that suggests it was an accident?
              The BP oil refinery accident of Mar 23 2005 in Texas City, TX,
              occurred when workers were starting a machine used to increase
              gasoline octane ... at 1:23pm on a Wednesday.
              This fuel depot accident occurred 6:03am local time on a Sunday
              morning ... could have been an automatic process I guess.
              \_ Anytime something major goes kaboom in a non-neutral Western
                 country the initial reaction is always to consider
                 terrorism as a likely possibility.  -John
                 \_ These bastards don't seem to hold back for neutral
                 \_ Yeah, I will give that the longer an incident like this
                    goes without a credible (video evidence) claim of
                    responsibility or a repeat incident, it becomes more
                    reasonable to say it was an accident ...
        \_ fyi, for posterity, I compared the BBC diagram of the accident
           area (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4517962.stm and found
           the location on <DEAD>maps.google.com<DEAD> (http://csua.org/u/e99
2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40902 Activity:high
12/7    http://CNN.com:  "Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat"
        Oh oh, you know the guy probably wasn't a genuine terrorist if they
        lead with a line like that.  Just compare the lead to the other
        major web sites' (foxnews.com too) if you don't know what I'm
        talking about. -jctwu
        \_ You're kidding me, right?
        \_ You're kidding me, right? --scotsman
           \_ Did you check the other web sites yet?
           \_ Did you check the other web sites yet? -jctwu
              \_ Uh, yes.  Plus a news.google check.  If anything, fox's is
                 less descriptive of the actual circumstance than all the rest.
                 I think, perhaps, I don't know what exactly you're complaining
                 about. --scotsman
                 \_ Re-read the original post.
                 \_ Re-read the original post. -jctwu
                    \_ Comparing CNN's leed to
                       http://tinyurl.com/79ebc (news.google)
                       makes them look in pretty good company.  There seem
                       to me to be three classes of headlines here:
                       "Man made bomb threat, shot dead by air marshalls"
                       "Shots fired on Miami Plane"
                       "Air Marshalls kill crazy person"
                       CNN and many others are in the first group, International
                       feeds are in the second, and Fox and a number of other
                       papers are in the third.
                       papers are in the third. --scotsman
                       \_ Okay, here it is, for the largest web sites:
                          Man Shot Dead at Miami Airport (WP)
                          Air Marshal Shoots Passenger (NYT)
                          Marshal Shoots Suspect After Jet Lands in Miami (LAT)
                          Deadly Confrontation (MSNBC)
                          Air Marshals Kill Erratic Passenger (Fox)
                          Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat (CNN)
                          4 of 6 make factual statements
                          2 of 6 also make claims which assign responsibility
                          in addition to factual statements
                          \_ Uh.  You're insane.
                          in addition to factual statements -jctwu
                          \_ Uh.  You're insane. --scotsman
                             \_ Uh.  I don't think so.
                             \_ Uh.  I don't think so. -jctwu
                                \_ Okay, who do you think is being "assigned
                                   responsibility"? --scotsman
                                   \_ "It's the crazy dude's fault he got
                                      himself killed."
                                      himself killed. -jctwu
                                      \_ "Erratic" is accurate and does not
                                         imply blame.
                                         \_ Okay, that one I had trouble with.
                                            I'll revise that from 4 of 6
                                            and 2 of 6 to 4.5 of 6 and 1.5 of 6
                                   \_ "Air Marshals Kill Erratic Passenger"
                                      assigns blaim to the air marshal, while
                                      assigns blame to the air marshal, while
                                      "Air marshal kills man who made bomb
                                      threat" assigns blaim to the passenger.
                                      \_ Uh..  No.  No it doesn't.
                                      threat" assigns blame to the passenger.
                                      \_ Uh..  No.  No it doesn't. --scotsman
                                      \_ As pp wrote, I had trouble with
                                         "erratic" since it can be interpreted
                                         as factual, so I'll give it a half
                                         point. -jctwu
                                      \_ I interpret them the completely
                                         opposite way. (And it's spelled
                          \_ You missed this one:
                             "Air marshal guns down man at Miami airport"
                             \_ That's "Deadly Confrontation".  If you went
                                to all the sites earlier (now some of the
                                stories have moved/etc.), you would have seen
                                they're all the lead titles on the front-page
                                of those web sites.
                                of those web sites. -jctwu
        \_ Lessons learned: always do what armed law inforcement tells you
           to do.
           \_ ^law enforcement^*  (box cutters don't count as "armed")
              \_ The air marshals are law enforcement, and are armed.
                 \_ Someone doesn't know csh syntax. -pp
           \_ it didn't really help that Brazilian dude on the London subway
              \_ It's not law enforcement's fault that the Brazillian
                 dude didn't look white. - magneto
        \_ "his wife tried to explain that he was mentally ill and had
            not taken his medication."
            \_ A female accomplice of a suicidal bomber can very well say the
               same thing in that situation.
               \_ I agree.  It's a tragedy if everything unfolded as Homeland
                  Security is claiming.  It's fucked up if HS or one of the
                  air marshals isn't telling it quite like it is.
                  air marshals isn't telling it quite like it is. -jctwu
                  \_ Okay, http://CNN.com is now /not/ reporting that crazy dude
                     reached into his bag, but that he approached the air
                     marshals aggressively after refusing to put his bag
                     down.  Yippee, 0-day newz p0wnz m3.
                     harhar, since then, the http://CNN.com story has changed
                     from the original, to no bomb found, to now his luggage
                     was exploded (implying there may have been a bomb but
                     we'll never know), and back to the original story that
                     he reached into his bag.
                     he reached into his bag. -jctwu
                     \_ Uh, dude.  Exploding the luggage in question is standard
                        procedure for suspected explosives.  Whether there
                        were or weren't explosive present isn't in doubt
                        afterward.  They know what they explode it with and
                        can tell whether other/more explosive material was
                        present.  Take a nap.
                        present.  Take a nap. --scotsman
                        \_ I know all that, "Take a nap"-dude.
                           In terms of spin, "No bomb found" has a much
                           different connotation than "luggage exploded" with
                           a cool picture of a bag exploding.
                           The former is also much more relevant.
                           The former is also much more relevant. -jctwu
                           \_ You're throwing a lot of epithets at CNN et al
                              over things that are endemic to the 24 hour
                              news cycle.  If you're just discovering this,
                              then more power to you, but seriously it's not
                              a big deal.  If you take issue with it, take note
                              that <random event> happened and read about it
                              the next morning. --scotsman
                              \_ Do you know what an epithet is? -jctwu
                                 \_ You're calling them out on their
                                    journalistic cred, and sounding
                                    like an idiot in doing so.  You've
                                    called them spinners and compared
                                    them unfavorably to Fox.  What
                                    would you like me to use instead
                                    of "epithet"? --scotsman
                                    \_ Just say I called them out on their
                                       journalistic cred, not "throwing a
                                       lot of epithets".  Congratulations
                                       you found the words. -jctwu
                                       \_ Because you're such the journalism
                                          critic...  I called them epithets
                                          because they don't rise to the
                                          level of "criticism" or "allegations"
                                          \_ So, did you bother to look up
                                             the word yet? -jctwu
                                             \_ Jeff, I know what "epithet"
                                                means.  This ceased being
                                                amusing long ago.  Goodbye.
                                                \_ Ben, why did you name me?
                                                   There's a reason why
                                                   I didn't sign.
                                                   This became an issue for me
                                                   the moment you said "Take
                                                   a nap", and then continued
                                                   with "throwing a lot of
                                                   epithets" and then "sounding
                                                   like an idiot".  I'm not
                                                   the one who started with
                                                   the personal attacks, and
                                                   I'm not the one who broke
                                                   the anonymity.
                                                   For those following this
                                                   thread, please note that
                                                   scotsman and I did not
                                                   sign our names until after
                                                   after the "Jeff, ..." post.
                                                   the "Ben, ..." post.
                                                   \- i personally also think
                                                      that is a peculiar use
                                                      of "epithet". --psb,
                                                      pater andron te theon te
                                                      \_ shrug, I'm sure
                                                         scotsman is a good guy
                                                         but we may have both
                                                         gotten a little
                                                         carried away, and
                                                         probably just wasted
                                                         our time more than
                                                         anything -jctwu
                                                         \- so no DUEL?
2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40877 Activity:nil
12/6    GOOG is with the terrorists:
2005/11/28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40744 Activity:kinda low
11/26   A friend of a friend is being deported based on some truly jive-ass
        bs.  Thank you for defending us from this terrorist, Office of Homeland
        \_ If that story is true and without omissions, it seems like the
           department of homeland security has nothing on him. Why is he being
           deported? I have heard of non-citizens being arrested for posession
           AND sale of marijuana and other drugs. The worst thing that happened
           to those particular people was a probabtion period (after basically
           walking away a few times) without being deported.
        \_ Your friend's friend's problem is the 3 years probation he served.
           He ran afoul of the IIRAIRA passed in 1996 to streamline the
           deportation of aliens.  The IIRAIRA defines as aggravated felony
           any crime with a sentence of a year or more, including probation,
           and it made the deportation of aggravated felons mandatory.
           If you want to blame someone, blame Clinton.  The IIRAIRA
           came from a commission established by Clinton and chaired by
           Barbara Jordan.  I'm also surprised Huck is unaware of all this
           after having consulted some number of lawyers.
        \_ I fwd'ed this to my immigration lawyer friend ... who knows
           maybe he'll take the case for free. - rory
        \_ Warning to everyone with a green card, if you want the
           protections of being a citizen, you need to actually BE a
           \- and dont be an enemy combatant.
2005/11/21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:40678 Activity:nil 60%like:40682
11/21   The Conspiracy Against the Taxpayers
2005/11/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40631 Activity:low
11/17   "I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political
        environment ... people sometimes lose their cool, and yet ... you can
        ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith
        ... the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the
        President of the United States or any member of this administration
        purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of
        the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
        -VP Cheney (Nov 16, 2005)
        "Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to
        disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say
        that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's
        irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did ...
        patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn't bother
        me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their
        positions and playing politics."
        -President Bush (Nov 17, 2005)
        \_ I'm looking for the interest here.
           \_ ok ok, I took out Dubya.  shorter now.
        \_ He added "I am not a crook"
        \_ Dude, isn't the like "how can we use this to hit iraq" post-9/11
           meeting like on record?
           \_ I don't know, can you produce it?
              \_ "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on
                 September 11, we had a choice to make.  We could decide that
                 the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those
                 planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after
                 al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would
                 be done ... Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to
                 say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of
                 terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different
                 kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have
                 imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein
                 still in power." -Sec State Rice (Oct 16, 2005)
                 \_ How is this the "'how can we use this to hit iraq'
                    post-9/11 meeting"?
                    \_ Okay, what's the meaning of "this" in "how can we
                       use this"?
                 \_ We hit the trifecta! -GWB
2005/11/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40608 Activity:nil
11/15   Big news: Bob Woodward knew about Valerie Plame before any other
        journalist, and was not told by Karl Rove or Scooter Libby:
        \_ but Libby's still a liar and obstructor, right?
           did you also know that Woodward is anti-Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald
           was informed of the conversation w/Woodward a week after the
           \_ Yup.  Woodward is a slime - apparently he's appeared on many
              talk shows denouncing the investigation without acknowledging
              his involvement.
        \_ Cool! Another official who revealed classified information to
        \_ More to the point, will they jail Woodward if he refuses to name
           his source?
           \_ He did name his source to Fitzgerald + Grand Jury + senior
              WaPo managers - and they all won't be talking about it.
              \_ Why wouldn't Fitzgerald talk about it? Seems to me that
                 he would like to get that person on the witness stand
                 and cross examine them.
                 \_ By "talk about it", I think he meant "to the press".
2005/11/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40605 Activity:nil
11/15   Bruce Willis offers $1 million bounty for terrorists:
        \_ I thought the U.S. gov't had a 20 million bounty on Bin Laden
           already.  I could think of better ways for him to spend a million
           dollars if he wants to help kill terrorists.
        \_ A reality version of Die Hard?
2005/11/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40597 Activity:moderate
11/15   Newsweek poll  http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
        "Would you support the use of torture ... if it might lead to the
        prevention of a major terrorist attack, or not?"
        Yes 58%   No 35%
        "What if the use of torture ... makes it more likely that Americans
        will be tortured by our enemies? ..."
        Yes 36%   No 57%
        Americans support torture if it might prevent a major terrorist attack
        ... yet do not support torture if it could lead to U.S. troops getting
        tortured ... Therefore, SECRET TORTURE FACILITIES!</troll>
        \- I'd like to see the results for "Would you support torturing an
           anti-abortion protestor who has planted a TICKING BOMB in a
           \_ most pro-lifers do not support bombing of these clinics.
              (no one is in the abortion center at the time of the bombing)
        \_ "What if the torture would only be used on individuals with different
            religious beliefs/race than your own?"
                \_ Did everyone here see the "amazing stories" story in the
                   1980s about the broke couple who gets a visit from a man
                   who gives them a box with a big red button.  He tells them
                   if they press the big red button "someone they don't know
                   will die", and they will receive $100,000.  They agonize
                   about pressing the button for a long time and finally
                   decide they need the money so they press the button.  Like
                   magic the man shows up with a suitcase full of cash
                   immediately, and takes the box with the red button back.
                   When they ask where the box with
                   the red button is going, the answer is "To someone you
                   don't know"
              \_ Bullshit.
        \_ "What if the torture would only be used on individuals with
            different religious beliefs/race than your own?"
            \_ Did everyone here see the "amazing stories" story in the 1980s
               about the broke couple who gets a visit from a man who gives
               them a box with a big red button.  He tells them if they press
               the big red button "someone they don't know will die", and they
               will receive $100,000.  They agonize about pressing the button
               for a long time and finally decide they need the money so they
               press the button.  Like magic the man shows up with a suitcase
               full of cash immediately, and takes the box with the red button
               back.  When they ask where the box with the red button is going,
               the answer is "To someone you don't know"
               \_ Yeah, I really liked that.  I thought it was 'The Outer
                  Limits', though.
                      \_ I think it was Twilight Zone, and the ep name was
                         "Button, Button".
                  \_ I think it was Twilight Zone, and the ep name was "Button,
                     \_ Yeah I probably mixed up the name of the show ...
                        Those 2 shows were very similar.
                            \_ They were all pretty much the same basic
                               concept.  That was around the same era where
                               "V" was such a big deal.  I remember *really*
                               liking that show (and, of course, "Something
                               is Out There").  That was a great era of
                               television, in some respects.
                        \_ They were all pretty much the same basic concept.
                           That was around the same era where "V" was such a
                           big deal.  I remember *really* liking that show
                           (and, of course, "Something is Out There").  That
                           was a great era of television, in some respects.
                           \_ Along with "Tales from the Darkside"
                              \_ Was that the show with that idiotic Crypt
                                 \_ Tales from the Crypt.
                                    \_ Ah, right, that makes sense.
                                           Damn, so between 85 and 90 there
                                           were, what, 5 shows of that general
                                           type?  At least 6 if you stretch out
                                           to 95 to catch "The New Outer
                                       Damn, so between 85 and 90 there were,
                                       what, 5 shows of that general type?  At
                                       least 6 if you stretch out to 95 to
                                       catch "The New Outer Limits."
                             \_ Freddy Kreuger was in V.
                                \_ Right -- Willie, the semi-retarded alien.
                                   \- what was the movie that takes place in
                                      france that involves a guy paying
                                      somebody else to take his place in an
                                      execution (by the nazis?) or something
                                      like that? the tenth man or something
                                      name like that? famous movie. may have
                                      been a short story too. you may also
                                      wish to see the famous TROLLY PROBLEM.
                                      \_ Err, I'm thinking of the mid-80's
                                         scifi epic miniseries with Mark
                                         Singer about lizards that come to
                                         earth in the name of peace to steal
                                         our water, our women and our
                                         environmentalists.  I don't...I don't
                                         think France was directly involved.
                                         Englund played a mostly sympathetic
                                         but rather meek alien that ends up
                                         defecting to the human side or
                                         \- i'm not thinking of what you are
                                            thinking of.
                                            \_ yes, I sort of got that sense :P
        \_ I find it funny that this political troll has turned into
           a discussion on sci fi shows.
2005/11/11 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40544 Activity:nil
11/11   Terrorist attack in Oakland Chinatown?
        \_ Go ahead.
           \_ I mean was that what happened this morning?
              \_ A quick look a google news just says there was a big
                 fire at a supermarket at about 6am.  Maybe arson, I doubt
                 it's terrorism in the normal sense.
        \_ Are you asking for one or asking if one happened or will happen?
           The magic 8-ball says, "it can not be determined at this time".
2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40522 Activity:nil
11/9    Congresswoman: Three Al Qaeda Caught in U.S. After Crossing
        Border with Mexico
        http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519110/posts              -jblack
        \_ Go fuck yourself.
           \_ So are you annoyed about the Freep-link as an IP address
              thing, at the article, or are you just jblack hater guy
              \_ I suspect he's just off his meds.
                 \_ And you can go fuck yourself as well.
                    \_ How would you know if I can or not?  Get back on your
2005/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40502 Activity:nil
11/8    Weldon to reveal new 'Able Danger' details
        Able Danger still receiving near zero media coverage.
        In 10+ years of following politics I have rarely seen anything
        like this in Wash DC.
2005/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:40495 Activity:low
11/8    Oops, looks like the person who leaked the CIA secret prisons info was
        a Republican senator.  Guess that "investigation" won't be going
        anywhere after all.
        \_ If it's McCain, it might go somewhere.  Oh wait, McCain just said
           he hadn't heard of the sites at all before the Post story.
        \_ Frist is backing off already...  Gee, think the man has any
           credibility left?  -aspo
        \_ everyone's a schadenfraudester.
        \_ Hey, the Dems can still call for it (and they should--of course the
           Repubs should as well). -emarkp
        \_ "Hey, we're gonna get the guy who blew the whistle on our secret CIA
           torture scam!" wtf??
        \_ Yes, it is more important to stop the leaks than to find out more
           about the US secret prisons. Trent Lott says that it was a
           Republican senator because VP Cheney told them about the prisons
           during a luncheon. Makes you wonder what they say over nightcaps.
                \_ That's when they talk about the horse molestation chambers
        \_ s/'secret prisons'/'torture chamber'/g
2005/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Military] UID:40490 Activity:moderate
11/8    Cruise Ship Escapes Pirate Hijack Attempt
        Ship's Passengers Recall Pirate Attack
        What kind of cruise ship is it that can outrun speedboat?  Or, what
        kind of lame speedboat is it that can't even catch up with a cruise
        ship!!??  And what kind of lame pirates would use such a speedboat?
        \_ "two 25-foot inflatable boats"  I suspect that heavily loaded
           inflatable boats are not that fast.  Probably better
           acceleration, but lower top speed.
           \_ Still, they can't outrun a 440-foot-long, 10,000-ton cruise ship?
              That's still lame.
              \_ They probably didn't outrun, per se. With no way to board or
                 stop the ship, when the cruise ship set out to open sea, the
                 pirates probably just gave up.
                 \_ Modern luxury liners can hit almost 30 knots.  Some lame
                    Somali rustbucket may not make that much.  -John
                    \_ The rigid inflatable boats the US Navy uses have
                       a top speed of 45 knots, but a cruise speed of
                       only 30 knots - and that's a boat the US military
                       uses. I'm gonna guess the speedboats were faster,
                       but not much faster and have a shorter range.
                       \_ Once again, khat-addled Somali thugs.  Have a look
                          at link:tinyurl.com/9mynz -- "speedboat" is an
                          optimistic description.  -John
                          \_ They went 100 miles offshore in that?
                             \_ Look up Thor Heyerdahl.  Where there's a will
                                there's a way.  Some of the slow freighters,
                                private yachts or tankers modern pirates
                                take are well worth it.  Anda cruise ship
                                will not deviate course because some random
                                blip is near it--it will probably just try
                                to avoid ramming.  -John
                       \_ The more I think about it, the more surprised I
                          am that the thugs got that close. A radar blip
                          from something on an intercept course within 10
                          miles of me? If I can't talk to it, I run from it.
                          A possible terrorist strike would be my primary
                          worry, especially 100 miles out on a ship full of
                          American/European tourists.
        \_ Even more lame is that, why did the pirates fire their guns when
           they approach the cruise ship if their speedboats aren't that fast?
           They should have quietly approached and climbed up the ship before
           waking up everybody with gunfire.
           \_ The problem is that there is no easy way to "climb" up the ship.
              The ships are built for easy access to docks not to those at
              sea level. The shooting was probably out of frustration.
              \_ The article says they were trying to disable the ship
                 with their shooting.
                 \_ It's like shooting BBs at a elephant. You need to know
                    where to hit and then get lucky hitting it.
                    \_ Eh, not so much with RPG's.
              \_ I thought climbing up ships from sea level are pirates'
                 specialty.  Isn't it their main way of hijacking ships?
                 \_ Most piracy deals with much smaller, slower ships. Small
                    frieghters, fishing boats, that sort of thing. Built much
                    lower and substatially easier to access.
           \_ These guys are primitive thugs.  Like op, they probably thought
              "speed boat _must_ be faster than cruise ship."  -John
        \_ Per /., it looks like the cruise ship used a sonic weapon to
           deter their pursuers:
        \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_range_acoustic_device
           very cool.
2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40482 Activity:nil
11/7    16 alleged terrorist arrested in Australia:
2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40476 Activity:moderate
11/07   So psb and all other experts in Constitutional law, I just
        read Section 2 of the Constitution and it seems pretty
        clear that everyone in the American legal system is entitled
        to a trail by jury. How did this get overturned? When did
        the Executive gain the right to run its own alternative (kangaroo?)
        court system?
        Section. 2.

        Clause 1:

        The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
        arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
        Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ...
        and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
        Citizens or Subjects.

        Clause 3:

        The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
        Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said
        Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any
        State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress
        may by Law have directed.
        \_ Just about the same time the supreme court has refused to hear
           and/or sent back down the cases to lower courts where in the cases
           where American citizens are being held without trial.  The exec-
           utive and judicial branches of the government are both at fault
           here.  Unfortunately, we are in danger of loosing our most basic
                                                        \_ "losing"
           and fundamental civil rights if the supreme court chooses to ignore
           logic and support the bush regime on this.  If so, its only a matter
           of time before we have American citizens who are "suspected terror-
           ists" being held without council, trial, or indictment and with
                                        \_ "counsel"
           the new position on torture, they will be tortured too. -mrauser
        \_ SCOTUS will be considering the constitutionality of military
           tribunals (vs. application to be tried in the U.S. court system) for
           terror suspects who are not U.S. citizens.
           SCOTUS has already decided that all U.S. citizens (including those
           designated terror suspects by Dubya) can be tried in the U.S. court
           system.  (Previously, the Bush administration had asserted the right
           to indefinitely bar a U.S. citizen from accessing the U.S. court
           system, if designated by Dubya as a terror suspect.)
           \_ How does this explain Jose Padilla who is a US citizen "captured"
              on US soil, but has not been officially processed via the courts?
              \_ See: http://www.chargepadilla.org
              \_ I made a mistake actually.  For U.S. citizens, SCOTUS decided
                 that /some judge/ (even just a judge on a military tribunal)
                 needs to look at the case of a U.S. citizen designated as a
                 terrorist / enemy combatant.  I was wrong when I said U.S.
                 court system.  My bad.
              \_ I made a mistake actually.  For U.S. citizens, SCOTUS has
                 already decided that /some judge/ needs to look at the case
                 of a U.S. citizen designated as a terrorist / enemy combatant.
                 I was wrong when I said U.S. court system.
                 I was wrong when I said U.S. court system.  My bad.
        \_ Art 3 Sec 1 and Sec 2 cl 2 may answer your question. The original
           and appellate jx of the Fed Cts is determined by Congress as per
           Art 3 Sec 1 - it can refuse to set up Fed Cts or to give them any
           jx over cases involving terrorists and choose instead to vest this
           jx in Military Cts setup by the Exec, which I believe is the case
           Although the USSC's original jx is determined by Art 3 Sec 2 cl 2,
           notice that Congress can regulate and strip the USSC's appellate
           jx. Congress has not restricted the USSC from hearing appeals by
           terrorists yet, but conceivably it could.
           As it relates to the jury trial right, a terrorist probably has
           the right to trial by jury, but note this may not be the same
           trial by jury right as in regular fed ct (12 ppl, unanimous ver-
           dict may not be a requirement) and it is not clear to what level
           the fifth and sixth amend. protections would apply.
           I think the BIGGER issue is whether the writ of habeas corpus
           can be used by non-citizens to challenge their detentions - note
           that Hamdi does not answer this b/c he was a citizen. The other
           problem is whether the writ can reach those held in Afghanistan
           or somewhere else that is more than 100 miles from the nearest
           Fed Dist. Ct. This is the bigger issue to me b/c under certain
           circumstances the Exec. may have the pwr to strip a person of
           US citizenship w/o following due process.
           Fed Dist. Ct.
           \- in addition to PADILLA and HAMDI, you may wish to follow HAMDAN
              v RUMSFELD [which the USSC just agreed to look at, and ROBERTS
              has just recused himself ... that is the OSAMA CHAUFFER CASE].
              an older case [ww2] is Ex parte Quirin. in re: the checks and
              balanaces issue, YMWTGF: "constitutional trifecta".
2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40440 Activity:nil
11/4    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html (findlaw.com, Dean)
        "Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick
        Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to
        penetrate that firewall. ...
        Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be
        so foolish as to crack a deal. ...
        Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as
        possible, so as not to hurt Republicans' showing in the 2006
        \_ Any incentive for Libby to do that?  It's going to be his ass
           regardless and Bush & Co is abandoning him...
2005/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Consumer/TV] UID:40439 Activity:low
11/4    "Senate Sets 2009 Digital TV Deadline"
        "The move to all-digital will free valuable radio spectrum, some of
        which will be allocated to improve radio communications among fire and
        police departments and other first responders."
        What I don't understand is: why don't they make the first responders
        go digital instead?  It'll impact fewer people, and the first
        responders will surely appreciate clearer reception.
        \_ because first responders, when the shit hits the fan, probably
           prefer equipment with known behaviour where all the bugs are
           either worked out or well understood.  all-digital may sound
           better, but I wouldn't want to be stuck with 1st gen gear in
           an emergency wondering if it was goign to wig out on me.
           Let the debugging cycles happen in the consumer market.
           Also consider this, the big thing is not the digital but
           the freeing up of radio spectrum that may be more useful
           to first responders (police, fire, ems, sar).  For instance
           certain frequency bands perform better for low-power usage
           (such as a handheld radio or even a car mounted unit) than
           say for high bandwidth high power usage (d-tv), and vice
           versa.  Also, you still run a digital signal over that
           versa.  Also, you can still run a digital signal over that
           "older" frequency band should you want (and someone makes
           the gear, etc).  We can get into a discussion of trunking
           as well if you want.
2005/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40432 Activity:nil
11/4    Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514509/posts           -jblack
        \_ http://zapatopi.net/afdb
2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40415 Activity:nil
11/3    Osama bin Laden, new media star:
        "If I have learned one enduring lesson from months of reflection on the
        words of Osama bin Laden, it is that the best defense against World
        War III is neither censoring nor silencing him but reading what he has
        actually written and countering his arguments with better ones. He has
        left a sufficient record that can, and should, be attacked for its
        deficiencies, its lapses, its contradictions, and, above all, its
        \_ Good project.  For whatever reason, Americans rarely get good
           translations of what's actually being said in Arabic.
            \-The time has come for [or came a few weeks ago for the CSUA]:
                  "Stupidity carried beyond a certain point
                   is a public meanace."
                         --(somewhat ironically) Ezra Pound
              \_ No man hath stupidity enough that is not matured and ripened
                 by and made fit for God by that stupidity.
           \_ And the Arab media carries everything we say faithfully?
              \_ Nonsequitur.
2005/11/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40398 Activity:nil
11/1    Kind of ironic that the American Gulag is in Eastern Europe:
        "The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important
        al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according
        to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement."
        \_ while(bushinoffice())reasons_to_impeach++;
           \_ so the actual impeachment would never happen...
              \_ Of course not, you think a republican congress would ever
                 impeach a republican president?  there is no way.  It might
                 happen if democrats win the house in '06, but still unlikely.
2005/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40350 Activity:nil
10/31   Some stories you may have missed last week in the media's masturbatory
        speculation on Rove:
        UN Oil-for-Food scandal report released:
        Iran President calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map"
           of Iraq is way more than the money funneled to Saddam Hussin
           during UN Oil-for-Food program, right?  What is the big deal
           about this?  Are you looking for a justification for the war?
           \_ Only two American companies made money during the FFO scandal.
              The Provisional Government gave money to mostly American
              companies. You Es Eh! You, ese!
           \_ I'm not looking for "a justification".  The UN is a corrupt
              organization, and this is an important report.
              \_ The Bush administration is a corrupt organization.
                 \_ Really?  The official investigation has produced a single
                    indictment.  The UN investigation shows corruption
                    \_ Why hasn't the Senate investigation into the use of
                       WMD intelligence (which was promised to occur after
                       the 2004 election) been started yet?
                    \_ Yes, really. The foxes are guarding the henhouse:
        \_ you know that the money squantered by the provisional government
           of Iraq is way more than the money funneled to Saddam Hussin
           during UN Oil-for-Food program, right?  What is the big deal
           about this?  Are you looking for a justification for the war?
           \_ Only two American companies made money during the FFO scandal.
              The Provisional Government gave money to mostly American
              companies. You Es Eh! You, ese!
           \_ I'm not looking for "a justification".  The UN is a corrupt
              organization, and this is an important report.
              \_ The Bush administration is a corrupt organization.
                 \_ Really?  The official investigation has produced a single
                    indictment.  The UN investigation shows corruption
                    \_ Why hasn't the Senate investigation into the use of
                       WMD intelligence (which was promised to occur after
                       the 2004 election) been started yet?
                    \_ Yes, really. The foxes are guarding the henhouse:
2005/10/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40334 Activity:nil
10/29   Excellent collection of easy to understand points by Fitzgerald
        http://csua.org/u/dv7 (someone's blog)
2005/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40332 Activity:nil
10/28   Liberal CIA trying to bring down Heroic American President:
2005/10/28-11/5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40329 Activity:nil
10/28   Contractors Plead Guilty to Illegal Donations to Texas Democrats -jblack
2005/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40322 Activity:nil
10/28   Libby indicted, Rove not.
        \_ yet.
        \_ Note no one's been indicted for the actual leak yet.
           \_ The leak law is very narrowly written.  It's entirely possible
              that the leaking was done with malice and violates the spirit of
              the law, but it will be too hard to get a conviction to they
              don't indict for that.  Perjury is somewhat easier to prove.
              \_ Note, though, that the investigation is not over.  The people
                 named in the indictment is an impressive list.  If any one of
                 them end up indicted as well, this will be the story for the
                 rest of Bush's presidency.
                 \- i guess it takes more than invading a country on false
                    pretenses, torturing people, letting osama get away,
                    not really caring about well connected companies looting
                    the public coffers.
        \_ Let's be clear on what he was indicted for.  If you read the
           document only real two charges stand up and they are based on
           hearsay. 1)  Libby said Russert "asked" him about Plame, Russert
           in his testimony said this never happened.  In fact, Russert
           himself disputes the facts as they are laid out in the indictment,
           saying publicly he never received any information on Plame at
           all from Libby.
           2) Libby testified he qualified to Miller his statement about
           Plame with the phrase "that's what reporters are telling us".
           Miller disagreed in her testimony.
           Just he said she said, all pretty underwhelming.
           in his testimony said this never happened. 2) Libby testified he
           qualified to her his statement about Plame with the phrase "that's
           what reporters are telling us".  Miller disagreed in her
           testimony.  Just he said she said, all pretty underwhelming. -jblack
2005/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Health/Disease/General] UID:40316 Activity:low 92%like:40315
10/29   http://csua.org/u/duq [gothamist.com]
        "The whole city smells like maple syrup" - anyone know what's going on?
        \_ There's a section of pathway in Lakeside Park where there's a burst
        \_ There's a section of pathway in Merritt Park where there's a burst
           of maple syrup smell.  I'm almost positive it's from a tree.  Either
           from the bark or the leaves.
        \_ Perhaps there was a big pancake breakfast at the homeless
           shelter, such that the usual bum/urine smell was covered over
           by the new sweet smelling bums.
           \_ I just got back from NYC and had few little bum/urine/puke/
              garbage smelling experiences. Unlike the mission, where I get to
              smell it everyday... I'm told that east coast cities smell less
              than SF/SOMA because it rains more there, but I'm thinking that
              there's more to it. Anyone have any crazy hypothosis?
              \_ California pee more odiferous. It's the cheese, man.
                 \- it may just be colder.
2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Health/Disease/General] UID:40315 Activity:nil 92%like:40316
10/29   http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/10/28/maple_sugar_smell_mystery.php
        "The whole city smells like maple syrup" - anyone know what's going on?
2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40313 Activity:nil
10/16   DeLay's prosecutors lack a key document
2005/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40301 Activity:high
10/27   Looks like the Fitzgerald indictments might not turn out the
        way the Democrats had hoped:
        http://www.csua.org/u/cached/dua (redstate.org)
        \_ http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/cia.leak/index.html
           "Sources: Prosecutor focusing on Rove in CIA leak probe"
        \_ "This sounds fishy   By: Buckland"
        \_ "Pobable indictments for Vallerie Plame, Joseph Wilson and one as
            yet unknown high ranking Congressional Democrat."
           LOL. This is a classic pipedream from the party faithful. It
           only gets better if the Scooby team foils the Dems' evil schemes.
           \_ More likely a troll.  Whatever it is, it gave me a laugh.
              \_ Hey, rightwingers can have a sense of humor -- who knew?
                 \_ Erm, I'd expect more a lefty going undercover...  Do you
                    understand what a troll is?
                        \_ Yes but trolls usually aren't that funny.  The
                           original article is.
2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40183 Activity:nil
10/19   Excellent summary of Myths vs. Facts re Plame and Joe Wilson
2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40171 Activity:nil
10/18   22 indictments? Is it really possible?
        \- if this is true, i may start beliving in intelligent design.
           but that post is from oct 5?
2005/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:40078 Activity:moderate
10/13   http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003576.htm
        Bush learned his lesson about appointing incompetent cronies
        to head important government agencies, right? Oh shit, no he
        \_ Michelle Malkin should not be cited as an authority on anything.
                \_ Fortunately there are dozens of others saying the same
                   thing all over the internet.
2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40000 Activity:nil
10/6    Looks increasingly like US has had its first suicide bomber.
        OKC Ch 9:OU Suicide Bomber Attempted Stadium Entry/5 Others
                Involved, Ticket to Algeria Found                       -jblack
        \_ Oh, you mean aside from those dozen-odd guys who rammed a bunch
           of planes into things a few years ago?  -John
           \_ I assume he meant "home grown."
        \_ This is a much more complete run-down, with links for all his
           facts. http://www.zombietime.com/oklahoma_suicide_bombing
        \_ they are now saying it was remote controlled and, though this
           is old news, the guy tried to buy ammonium nitrate
2005/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39996 Activity:low
10/6    "Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in
        voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops
        may use against terrorism suspects ..."
        http://csua.org/u/dn2 (Wash Post)
        \- anybody know the list of senators voting against defining the
           limits? i see powell spoke up too.
           \_ http://csua.org/u/dn4 [senate.gov]
        \_ how about just abide by Geneva Convention and allow International
           Redcross inspect the suspects?  we don't need new law here.
           \_ Then why is the White House opposing it?
              \_ because White House want to use 'all means necessary'
                 to extract information from those so called 'terrorist.'
                 \_ ^want^needs^
                    \_ want, not need.  everyone can say they 'need' the
                       information.  And if you put things to perspective,
                       Nazi Germany was a much more real threat to US
                       security then than so-called terrorist to US today.
                       \_ You misunderstand. I'm saying that the CinC
                          must have the option of using any and all
                          means, including torture, first strike, &c,
                          that he deems are necessary to defend the
              \_ All government bodies object to restraint on their power.
           \_ The geneva convention doesn't apply to non-state actors
              who refuse to abide by its rules. It also doesn't apply
              to the type of conflict we are involved in.
              NOTE: There may be other reasons to avoid torture (ie. it
              is not effective).
              \_ The Geneva Convention very explicitly applies to anyone
                 whose status is unknown.  -tom
                 \_ Tom is correct on this, the anon parrot quoting White House
                    talking points is wrong. -ausman
              \_ The fun part is that nearly everyone detained by the military
                 in Iraq is by definition an "unlawful combatant." Heck, if
                 the military were able to operate legally within the US,
                 it would be the same unless they they are wearing some form
                 of ID signifying them as members of an opposition armed force.
                 \_ Such form of ID would be called a uniform, as required by
                    the Geneva Convention in order for someone to be covered.
                    \_ Once again, you are wrong.
                       "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons,
                       having committed a belligerent act and having
                       fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
                       any of the categories enumerated in Article 4,
                       such persons shall enjoy the protection of the
                       present Convention until such time as their
                       status has been determined by a competent
                       tribunal."  (Geneva Convention Article 5).  -tom
                       \_ It is you who are wrong. Given that you
                          agree that Covention 3 governs, start w/
                          Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 states that the Convention
                          Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 which states that the
                          "shall apply to all cases of declared war
                           or of any other armed conflight which may
                           arise between to or more of the High Contr-
                           acting Parties"
                          Clearly this provision does not apply to
                          terrorist who are not "High Contracting
                          Parties."  Unless you can show me where
                          AQ, &c. signed on to the convention.
                          Perhaps you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2
                          cl 3:
                          "although one of the Powers in the conflict
                           may not be a party to the present Convention,
                           the Powers who are parties thereto shall
                           remain bound by it in there mutual relations."
                          Clearly this provision does not apply to terrorist
                          who are not "High Contracting Parties."  Perhaps
                       you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2 cl 3:
                       "although one of the Powers in the conflict may
                        not be a party to the present Convention, the
                        Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
                        bound by it in there mutual relations."
                          This contemplates organized state action, not
                          decentralized terrorist action.  But even
                          assuming that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause,
                          and that we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we
                          find that
                          (1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part
                              of the armed forces of a Party in conflict
                              b/c they aren't part of the armed forces
                              of any country.
                       disorganized terrorist action.  But even assuming
                       that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause, and that
                       we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we find that
                       (1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part of
                           the armed forces of a Party in conflict b/c
                           they aren't part of any armed forces.
                          (2) does not apply b/c at least requirment (b)
                              is not met
                          (3) does not apply b/c they are not members of
                              the regular armed forces
                          (4) does not apply b/c they do not accompany
                              armed force in any manner of speaking
                          (5) does not apply b/c the Party in conflict
                              has no crews, masters, pilots, &c.
                          (6) does not apply b/c they do not respect
                              the laws and customs of war
                          Having dispensed w/ that, lets us look to B,
                          Having dispensed w/ that, let us look to B,
                          where we find that this provison doesn't apply
                          There are two major problems w/ the solace
                          you find in Art 5, first there should be some
                          doubt of which there is none (see above).
                          Second, the protection only lasts until a
                          competent tribunal - such as a US military
                          tribunal - makes a determination re Art 4
                          status. Once the tribunal makes a determin-
                          ation that the person does not fall w/in
                          Art 4, the protection afforded by the conv-
                          ention ends.
                          NOTE: This does not imply that I believe
                                that torture should be used, only
                                that there is no legal barrier to
                                its use against non-citizen non-
                                state enemy combatants.
                                that my understanding is that
                                there is no legal barrier to its
                                use against non-citizen enemy
                                its use against non-citizen enemy
                                combatants not formally associated
                                with any state and not held w/in
                                the jurisdiction of a US dist ct
                                (if the person is w/in the jx of
                                a US dist ct habeas and 8th amend.
                                relief may be available - hamdi
                                does not answer that question re
                                \_ So someone who is a Pakistani
                                   or Iraqi citizen, who is
                                with any state.
                                (it is an open question whether
                                habeas relief is available in
                                such a case).
                                a US dist ct habeas relief maybe
                                available - hamdi does not answer
                                that question re non-citizens).
                                \_ So someone who is a Pakistani or Iraqi
                                   citizen, who is detained
                                \_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.
                                   Is the Geneva Convention legally
                                   binding under U.S. law anyway?
                                   I.e. supposing that it could be
                                   shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
                                   directly responsible for an order
                                   that was in clear violation, is
                                   there any actual legal way to
                                   convict him of some crime?
                                   I would guess that for people in
                                   uniform this would be covered in
                                   the UCMJ, but what about civilians?
                                   \_ The Covention is not self
                                      executing (it cannot be
                                      executing (ie cannot be
                                      enforced directly in US
                                      cts). Part 6, Art 129
                                      executing. Part 6, Art 129
                                      states that
                                      "[t]he High Contracting Parties
                                       undertake to enact any legi-
                                       slation necessary to provide
                                       penal sanctions for persons
                                       committing, or ordering to
                                       be committed"
                                      breaches of of the Convention.
                                      In order for Rummy to be puni-
                                      shed, he would have to be con-
                                      victed under any applicable
                                      fed law executed to enforce
                                      the Convention. This is assu-
                                      ming that Bush would not use
                                      his pardon pwr under US Const
                                      Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
                                      victed under the applicable
                                      fed law. This is assuming that
                                      Bush didn't use his pardon pwr
                                      under Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
                                      under US Const Art 2 Sec 2 cl
                                      The preferable method to deal
                                      with something like this would
                                      be to impeach him pursuant to
                                      US Const Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil
                                      officer") b/c the Pres. pardon
                                      pwr does not apply to impeach-
                                      ment ("except in cases of
                                      One completely useless alt. is
                                      to pursue an action in the ICJ.
                                      \_ "to enact any legislation
                                          necessary..." Right, but
                                         does such legislation exist
                                      \_ "to enact any legislation necessary..."
                                         Right, but does such legislation exist
                                         on the U.S. lawbooks?
                                         \_ I believe (but am not
                                            100% certain) that fed
                                            laws re torture, &c.
                                            exist that cover these
                                            violations - note that
                                            new laws specific to
                                            the Convention may not
                                            be needed if adequate
                                            legislation already
                       either.  Perhaps you find solace in Art 5 cl 2
                       "should any doubt arise as to whether persons
                        having committed a belligerent act and having
                        fallen into the hands of the enemy belong to
                        any of the categories enumerated in Art 4,
                        such persons shall enjoy the protections of
                        the present Convention"
                       Note that this is conditioned on the status of
                       such persons being "determined by a competent
                       tribunal." Even if you can prove that there is
                       some doubt, there is no reason to 2d guess the
                       determination of a US military tribunal re
                       whether someone falls w/in Art 4.
                                with any state.
                                \_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.  Is the
                                   Geneva Convention legally binding under
                                   U.S. law anyway?  I.e. supposing that
                                   it could be shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
                                   directly responsible for an order that
                                   was in clear violation, is there any actual
                                   legal way to convict him of some crime?
                                   I would guess that for people in uniform
                                   this would be covered in the UCMJ, but
                                   what about civilians?
                                       In order for Rummy to be pun-
                                       ished, he would have to be
                                       convicted under the applicable
                                       fed law.
                                      Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil officer")
                                      b/c the Pres. pardon pwr does
                                      not apply to impeachment.
        \_ did they regulate that interrogators should only ask suspects
           nicely, using words like 'Please' and 'thank you', and house them
           only in 5-star hotel equivalent living conditions?
           \_ No, but they did declare the squallor of your apartment a
              violation of the Geneva Convention.
2005/9/28-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39913 Activity:nil
9/28    http://csua.org/u/djq (andrewsullivan.com)
        Re CPT Fishback
        "[Rumsfeld said:] 'Either break him or destroy him, and do it quickly.'
        ... The scapegoating of retarded underlings like Lynndie England is an
        attempt to deflect real responsibility for the new pro-torture policies
        that go all the way to the White House."
2005/9/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39879 Activity:high
9/26    A few more bad apples:
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1490301/posts
           \_ The third post is the best.
        \_ http://csua.org/u/dii (LA Times)
           "[CPT Fishback] wrote that Army guidance was 'too vague for
           officers to enforce American values.' He concluded that violations
           of the Geneva Convention were 'systematic, and the Army is
           misleading America.'"
           \_ if USA is not subject to international jurisdiction, this
              thing will happen.  If you guys recall, even those who
              are responsible for May Lai only got a slap on the wrist.
              My favorite story is IR655.  They actually got metals for
              shooting down an airliner.
        \_ Doesn't he know there's a war going on?
           \_ That's just great. We should disband the Army and use harsh
              words when our enemies invade. I totally lost faith in our
              military. All those people they have helped mean nothing when
              they are misleading America! For shame!
              \_ Did you read at all about the taxi driver who was beaten
                 to death in Afghanistan?  The totally innocent, not a
                 terrorist, taxi driver.  How many more taxi drivers are we
                 torturing?  Laws aren't there just to protect the guilty.
        \_ this is not few bad apples.  This is systematic abuse that is
           directed by people all the way to the top (recall Pentagon decided
           that Geneva Convention doesn't apply to war on terror?)
           \_ Your sarcasm filter is set too low.  Of course it's not a
              few bad apples.  Of course it goes to the top.
           \_ And the Geneva Convention should apply to non-state actors
              who do not adhere to it b/c WHY? The executive needs the
              fifth freedom in order to properly deal with the enemies
              of the republic.
              \_ You're one sick monkey.  How 'bout you sign up and go over
                 there?  With statements like this, I bet you'd fit right in
                 with the other PUC fuckers.
              \_ The Geneva convention is irrelevant here, except for the
                 fact that it provides for the protection of civilians when
                 possible, which we can argue about.  However, last I checked,
                 the US was a civilized country, and civilized countries do not
                 condone, defend or justify abuse of prisoners of any sort.
                 There is no argument about this.  This is not torture to find
                 the location of the bomb that'll go off, or punishment, it is
                 wrong, I don't care what sort of scumbag is being abused.  I
                 don't think this is a case of the military or the US "system"
                 or whatever being fundamentally fux0red, but there is no
                 excusing this at all.  -John
                 \_ Well said!
                 \_ When rights are accorded to prisoners in the context of
                    war it is b/c there is an implicit understanding that
                    those same rights will be accorded to our own who are
                    captured.  When this implicit understanding is no longer
                    true, there can be no claim of rights - as they reserve the
                    the right to use any and all means against the republic,
                    so too must the republic reserve that same right. The
                    extent to which this right is exercised is a matter solely
                    for the discretion of the executive.
                    \_ Or in other words, the "they started it!" defense.
                       Sorry, it doesn't fly; we are signatories to the
                       Geneva Convention and our treatment of prisoners of
                       war must be subject to those rules, even if we
                       think our opponent wouldn't afford us the same
                       protection.  -tom
                       \_ Conventions only apply amongst those who
                          actually sign the convention. The provisions
                          of the convention do not apply to non-parties.
                          The non-state actors who currently oppose the
                          republic are non-signatories and therefore
                          have no claim to rights under the convention.
                          Furthermore, the geneva convention only applies
                          to conventional warfare, not this current type
                          of conflict.

                          \_ The present Convention shall apply to the
                             persons referred to in Article 4 from the
                             time they fall into the power of the
                             enemy and until their final release and

                             Should any doubt arise as to whether
                             persons, having committed a belligerent
                             act and having fallen into the hands of
                             the enemy, belong to any of the
                             categories enumerated in Article 4, such
                             persons shall enjoy the protection of the
                             present Convention until such time as
                             their status has been determined by a
                             competent tribunal.
                             [Shocking news, Gonzalez/Rumsfeld ignore this
                             provising.  -tom]
                             provision.  -tom]
                    \_ No, being a civilized country and adhering to absolute
                       standards of civilization is not at the discretion of
                       the executive.  Look up "moral high ground".  -John
                       the executive.  Are you saying that "the executive"
                       knows of and condones (or even orders) this sort of
                       thing?  Note that we are not even talking about Matt
                       Gonzalez' "torture is OK in some circumstances" memo,
                       but random abuse.  Or are you saying that the executive
                       doesn't have a clue what the armed forces under its
                       command are up to?  I am curious.  -John
                       \_ My view is that the executive branch needs unlimited
                          pwr to defend the republic - the means which they
                          choose to employ are at their sole discretion. If
                          they choose to condone this conduct, then so be it.
                          If they choose to prosecute this conduct, then that
                          is okay as well. If they don't know and they choose
                          not to find out b/c they have something more impt.
                          to do that is okay as well.
                          I also reject the view that there is something
                          special about civilization that compels us to act
                          in a particular way w/in and w/out. Inside the
                          walls of civilization I agree that there must be
                          civilized conduct, but outside, in the jungle,
                          if civilized conduct is a liability then those
                          charged w/ the protection of civilization must
                          be free to dispense w/ civilized conduct.
                          \_ You're right, so as you're outside the walls of
                             my civilization, let's have GUN DUEL.  -John
                             \_ Not sure if a gun duel is legal. How about
                                a StarTrek phaser duel? Is that legal?
2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:39780 Activity:nil
9/21    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050921/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
        Karzai actually demands an end to US-led operations. How dare he
        talk to us like that! Looks like we need to put in a new puppet ruler
        \_ just promise Karzai that we will not 1. interfere opium production
           and 2. demand to share profit derive from opium sales should be
2005/9/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39670 Activity:nil
9/14    Tom Delay: There's simply no fat left to cut in federal budget.
        \_ Isn't this the guy who's pretty clearly been taking bribes?
           \_ Apparently he's decided to go into comedy. " Asked if that
              meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr.
              DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority
              we've pared it down pretty good.""
                \_ Yes, I'm sure his campaign donors are being rewarded
                   as "efficiently" as possible.
2005/9/14-17 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39666 Activity:nil
9/14    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050913/od_nm/philippines_imelda_dc
        Imelda Marco is ok with being guilty but she will not allow the
        government to sell her precious jewelries.
2005/9/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39630 Activity:nil
9/11    It's 9/11. Where is Bin Laden? Why isn't anyone talking about 9/11
        and Bin Laden?
        \_ We have taken care of that issue after we invaded Iraq, don't
           you remember?
        \_ Who?
        \_ Give Bush at least twice as long as it took us to defeat the Nazis.
           Oh wait, he won't be President anymore then.  How old is bin Laden?
           Maybe natural causes aren't too many decades away ...
        \_ Mission Accomplished!
2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39593 Activity:nil
9/9     remember , it's going to be 911 on sunday
        \_ early happy birthday, devo
2005/9/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39471 Activity:nil
9/3     "(Al Qaeda leader Osama) bin Laden, nice and dry in his hideaway,
        must be killing himself laughing [at the Bush Katrina disaster]."
        \_ Why would you make light of the suffering of others?
           \_ Because its not as much fun when it happens to you. :(
2005/9/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39415 Activity:nil
9/1     New Orleans will be rebuilt...
        Where it was: .
        On lots of new fill dirt:
        Farther inland:
        As a shadow of its former self: .
        It's best as a land fill:
        \_ It'll never be rebuilt.  I just realized today that the levees will
           be a terrorist target from now on if it is.
           \_ There are no terrorists. GW Bush eradicated them, and created
              a magnet for terrorists in Iraq so that instead of coming to
              to the US, they go to Iraq. The fact that there hasn't been
              a single attack in the US means GW Bush's plan is working. You
              liberals should look around and have the guts to admit that
              Bush's doing a swell job.
              \_ I think Dubya's plan was that Iraq would be stable by now and
                 we'd be out of there.  And that we would have found the WMDs.
                 And Osama would be captured, dead or alive.  Something like
                 that.  Well, at least we found out Saddam didn't have WMDs.
                 I think all the non-old people are also supposed to have
                 private accounts, too.
           \_ We already know it will be rebuilt b/c Ben Sisko lived
              there as a kid.
              \_ Yes, but it was never mentioned where that New Orleans was.
           \_ And why didn't the Ts blow up the levees before?
              \_ Because there are easier targets out there.
              \_ Possibly because no one thought of it.  The whole world knows
                 about it now.  I don't know about the energy necessary, but if
                 a fertilizer truck bomb could breach the levee, I can't
                 imagine that they could ever rebuild.
                 \_ Do it enough and the residents of NO would evolve into
                    amphibious beings who could survive on raw seweage ... it
                    might be the key to saving the human race!
2005/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39380 Activity:high
8/31    Ok, I thought blaming Bush for the levees breaking was stretching
        things a bit, then I run into this:

        "It appears that the money has been moved in the presidents budget
         to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose thats
         the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees cant be
         finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that
         this is a security issue for us."

         Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish,
         Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004
        \_ Parish is a dissent and will be going to Guantanamo Bay soon.
                \_ Idiot! "Parish" is the Lousiana term for district/county;
                   and "Jefferson" being the name of the Parish.
                   \_ Hence further proof that Liberals are idiots.
                      \_ Illogical. If you see a stupid American, does that
                         mean all Americans are stupid? No. Your statement
                         is proof however that _you_ are an idiot.
                   \_ Mr. Parish is also "a dissent".
2005/8/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39338 Activity:nil
8/29    Whistleblower on Halliburton no-bid $7 billion contract demoted
        http://csua.org/u/d6t (LA Times)
2005/8/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39258 Activity:nil
8/24    See, Dubya's administration isn't totally fucking things up:
        "Al-Banna has been accused of carrying out one of Iraq's deadliest
        suicide bombing ... the Jordanian government and al-Banna's family said
        he carried out a different suicide bombing in Iraq ... The Homeland
        Security memo ... said al-Banna was carrying a valid Jordanian passport
        and valid work visa [when he previously tried to enter the U.S. at
        Chicago O'Hare]. But the Customs agents believed the passport was
        falsified, and ultimately rejected al-Banna's entry after secondary
        security screening and questioning ..."
2005/8/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39222 Activity:moderate
8/23    It's Pat:
        Pat Roberson calls to have Hugo Chavez assassinated. Gee, prominent
        public relig figure calling for "death to <head of state>" ... what
        does that remind you of? I like the line "This is in our sphere of
        influence, so we cant let this happen" ... gee, I wonder if people
        in Venezuala talk about "American Black Helecopters". And I wonder
        if Hugo Chavez is a bigger theat to America than activist judges".
        Any bets on who the next ambassador to Venezuala might be?
        \_ Jesus for Oil..
           \_ I'm willing to make that trade.
        \_ Huge Chavez is a clown. -- ilyas
        \_ Hugo Chavez is a clown. -- ilyas
           \- So? Who would you rather have as your ruler, Hugo or Pat?
              \_ Well, I was gonna say you, Partha, but then I remembered you
                 would feed me ankles first into a woodchipper. -- ilyas
                 \- in spite of your psb-persecution complex, you'ld
                    probably be pretty low on my reeducation or beyond
                    reeducation, convert to fertilizer list. --psbpot
                    \_ I don't know, Partha, you haven't seen me with a lot
                       of money. -- ilyas
                       \- ok i'll keep my options option to have your
                          bones scraped with a rusty file.
              \_ When Pat ran for President in the 80s I distinctly remember
                 him saying that one of his first acts as President would be
                 to nuke the USSR.  So I'd rather have Chavez.
        \_ We need to keep our mullahs in line ... Maybe Venezuela should
           ship off Robertson somewhere, say Egypt.  I love the automatic
           assumption that Venezuela's oil belongs to us because it is in
           our "hemisphere" ... Isn't it property of the people of Venezuela?
           \_ But they are Brown and Catholic, therefore subservient to
              Anglo-Saxon Jesus.
           \_ Heh, yeah, it Belongs to the People. -- ilyas
              \_ No, actually, it's properly owned by PDV, which is at least
                 majority- if not entirely owned by the government of
                 Venezuela, which is, at least pro forma, a democracy, so yes,
                 it Belongs to the People.  If you want to argue that
                 knocking off that fucker Chavez is a good thing due to
                 geostrategic interests (and, well, because he's a fucker)
                 then that's entirely different (this is what I think we
                 should have done with Saddam and couple of other places if
                 we were honest about it).  However, there is _no_ argument
                 that Venezuelan (or any other) oil supplies "belong" to
                 anyone other than whoever's got the drilling rights to
                 them.  -John
                 \_ I am fairly sure the oil in Venezuela belongs to Chavez.
                    Personally, I am in favor of knocking off Chavez _last_
                    among the world's head-of-state fuckers because, hey,
                    at least he's funny. -- ilyas
        \_ Let's see... Chavez is aligned with Iran, Ven. is becoming
           a client state of China, and Chavez provides extensive
           military support to the FARC narco-terrorists.
           Without oil Venezuela = Zimbabwe.  I'd say pat is exactly right,
           but shows poor judgement to say such things in public.
                    \_ Fair enough.  Nonetheless, the point isn't who it
                       belongs to, rather who it doesn't, i.e. us.  And
                       careful, Partha "the Mulcher" is watching.  -John
        \_ Let's see... Chavez is aligned with Iran, Ven. is becoming
           client state of China, and Chavez provides extensive
           military support to the FARC narco-terrorists.  I'd say
           Pat is exactly right.  Without oil Venezuela = Zimbabwe.
                       \- still crazy after all these years ...
                 *Boredcast Message from 'john': Thu Oct 13 15:47:45 1994
                 ||ok...straw poll:
                 ||If anyone on soda was to become the evil dictator of a small
                 ||country, who would it be?
                 ||(assuming I get to be chief of the secret police)
                 *Boredcast Message from 'alanc': Thu Oct 13 15:48:30 1994
                 ||Probably psb
        \_ I am pretty sure that this is an act of terrorism as defined
           by the Patriot Act. I won't hold my breath waiting for him
           to be arrested.
        \_ Let's see... Beaner is aligned with Turbin, Venezuela is becoming
           client state of Chink, and Beaner provides extensive
           military support to the Turbin wearin terrorists.  I'd say
           Pat is exactly right.  Without oil Venezuela = Bin Laden.
           Fuck immigrants, blacks, and Jews.                   !jblack
           \_ "Can anybody understand what this duck is saying?"
        \_ Pat in 2003:
           "How dare the president of the United States say to the duly
            elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.'"
2005/8/16-20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Science/Physics] UID:39143 Activity:nil
8/16    Once again, the onion news story sounds no sillier than the reality:
        "Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about
         gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This
         fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a
         theory in crisis."
        \_ The differential equation on the screen is awesome.
           \_ What does it read?  It's too small for me.
              \_ dx/dt = 1 Cor. 1:10
                 \_ Sweet...
                 \_ Haha!  This shows how silly the Evangelical "scientists"
                    are.  Gravity is related to acceleration, which is dv/dt
                    not dx/dt.
                    Oh shit!  I forgot that this is The Onion!
                    \_ tom's axiom 1
        \_ What Newton said, in his own words:
           \_ Makes sense to me.  That's why people say he came up with the
              "law of gravity" versus "a theory of gravity".  Not saying that
              a theory is a full explanation, but at least it's more in that
2005/8/16-20 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39137 Activity:nil
8/16    http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html
        The innocent Brazilian killed in the tube shooting was a total fuckup
        by police.  No baggy jacket, no jumping over the turnstile, no running
        until he saw a train was about to leave, probably no order to stop.
        \_ But you've got to admit, he did have the audacity to not look white.
           \_ And he wasn't one of the good shades either.
                \_ Okay, I'll bite -- What's a "good shade"?
        \_ my problem is that London police doesn't suffer any consequences
           as result.  There are *NO* incentive for them to be careful
           before they unload all the rounds into one's head.
2005/8/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39126 Activity:low
8/15    For the Able Danger pusher a few days ago...
        \_ This is the first I've seen about the source for the story.  I wish
           I'd known it was that shaky from the get go.
        \_ I actually saw this first, even the right is getting
        \_ Only Democrats have credibility problems.
        \_ It seems that there are 2 separate questions.  One question is
           whether the 9/11 commission reasonably ignore the Able Danger
           information.  The above links argue that it was reasonable.  A
           second question is whether Able Danger did have intelligence on
           Atta and the Brooklyn cell.  I'd hate for the 2nd question to be
           ignored in our rush to discredit Weldon.
           information.  The above links argue that it was reasonable, since
           the commission was not presented with information that highlighted
           Atta.  A second question is whether Able Danger did have
           intelligence on Atta and the Brooklyn cell.  I'd hate for the 2nd
           question to be ignored in our rush to discredit Weldon.
2005/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39109 Activity:nil
8/13    How Chinagate Led to 9/11
        Gorelick 'MemoGate': It Just Got Worse
        \_ From CHRONWATCH? Wtf? I despise the Chron for having an utterly
           loathsome editorial style, but this guy is beyond the pale even
           for all that. Man, I wish I had all the time in the world....
2005/8/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39102 Activity:nil
8/11    The 9/11 Comissiong in Mortal Danger
        Did DoD lawyers blow the chance to nab Atta?
        Was Berger after Able Danger documents?
2005/8/9-11 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39074 Activity:low
8/9     Conservative Christian group pickets military funerals:
        \_ They're not conservative Christians.  They're nuts.  These are the
           "God hates fags" people.  They protested on 9/18/2001 saying that
           \_ They can be all 3.
           not enough people died, and that if any rescue workers found anyone
           alive they should be left to die.  They're just plain nuts.
           \_ Amazing. Your contortions remind me of the communists who
              try to both justify Stalin and distance themselves from him
              because they can't face the connection between their belief
              system and pure evil.  Are you going to claim that Jerry
              Falwell is not a leader in the American Christian conservative
              movement?  Are you going to deny that the Bush whitehouse still
              treats him as a friend after he came out in support of the
              terrorists after 9/11?  I'm not saying that all or even most
              conservative christians are evil, but if you deny that there
              are *some* among you who support terrorism and genocide you
              are a liar and a hyporcrite.
              \_ Is Jerry Falwell one of those TVangelists?
                                - conservative christian
                 \_ "And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But,
                    throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal
                    court system, throwing God out of the public square, out
                    of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some
                    burden or this because God will not be mocked. And when we
                    destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God
                    mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the
                    abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the
                    lesbians who are actively trying to make that an
                    alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American
                    Way, all of them who have tried to secularize
                    America, I point the finger in their face and say
                    'you helped this happen.'"  -Falwell
                    I don't care that he apologized later to cover his ass.
                    The man literally sided with the terrorists *right* after
                    9/11, and I've actually seen him on cspan as a VIP guest
                    at the Bush white house since then.
                    \_ You don't seem to understand this quote.  He's not
                       "siding with the terrorists" here.  He's saying
                       something which is a long tradition in Christianity,
                       which is that wickedness rejects the protection of God.
                       He didn't say the terrorism was God's will.
              \_ "Don't you associate some of those above with liberals.
                 We don't want them on our team."  -- ilyas
                 \_ Who are you quoting here, yourself?
                    \_ I am quoting Liberal Team Management.  I guess it was
                       a little ambiguous.
                       \_ You do realize that was a very silly joke, right?
                          \_ There is this old jungle saying in Russia:
                             "In every joke there is a grain of a joke."
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ There is this old saying in America:
                                "We are here to help ilyas, because in every
                                russkie, there is an American trying to get
2005/8/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38994 Activity:kinda low
8/2     International Police Chiefs Group issues Shoot-To-Kill Guidelines
        for Confronting Suicide Bombers:
        \_ The exact text from the document:
           "Lethal force is justified if the suspect represents a significant
           threat of death or serious injury to an officer or others. ... An
           officer need only determine that the use of deadly force is
           objectively reasonable under the circumstances."
           Sounds good to me!
           Do not wear bulky clothing on warm days, do not carry backpacks
           with protruding wires, do not run from people holding guns yelling
           stop (who may be plainclothes officers) and board public transit,
           be aware if your apartment building is under surveillance, avoid
           looking nervous, and be more careful if you match a profile.
           \_ Turban = terrorist hat, so avoid wearing in public.
              \- for sikhs (as opposed to muslims) wearing a turban is close
                 to non-negotiable rather than a fashion statement. have there
                 been any turban-wearing terrorists in the west [a sikh fellow
                 assassinated I GANDHI, i dont know if he was wearing a turban
                 at the time ... i would certainly assume so, given the back-
                 ground.] --psb
                 \- Why dont we ask good sikhs to wear white turbans and bad
                    sikhs and terrorists to wear black turbans --alig
                    \_ And we can make *our* towelheads wear american flag
                       turbans (though perhaps we should make the liberal
                       ones wear a pink moon or something on their sleeves
                       for easier, uhm, identification....)
              \_ As long as you don't resist arrest, you're fine.  The Shoot-
                 To-Kill guidelines applies only if the suspect resists arrest,
                 as in the Britain case.
                 \_ Getting arrested isn't fine though. They can still push you
                    to the ground, kneel on you and shout at you etc. And
                 \_ Getting arrested isn't fine though. They can still push
                    you to the ground, kneel on you and shout at you etc. And
                    they can chain you to a chair in a cold jail cell with
                    flimsy clothes and a roomful of weirdos, and when you
                    get out the cash might be gone from your wallet.
                    to the ground, kneel on you and shout at you etc.
                    And they can chain you to a chair in a cold jail cell with
                    flimsy clothes and a roomful of weirdos, and when you get
                    out the cash might be gone from your wallet.
                 \_ Are you quoting from the official document, or are you
                    talking more about your personal opinion?
                    Please also note that witnesses do not remember hearing the
                    plainsclothes police identifying themselves as such to
                    the dead innocent guy from Brazil.
                    \_ The guy who took a running jump over a turnstile the day
                       after a bombing.  He may have been innocent, but he
                       earned his Darwin Award.
                       \_ After being followed by suspicious looking guys
                          since you left your apartment who pull out guns
                          when you head down into the train station?
                          Anyway, are you quoting from the official document
                          or is it more about your personal opinion?
                          We were talking about the shoot-to-kill guidelines
                          from the Intl Police Chiefs Association.
                          \- the line about how to stop a SUICIDE BOMBER:
                             "destroy his brain instantly, utterly" is pretty
                             cold! the sort of line CHURCHILL would be
                             proud of.
                             \_ This line is not new, police snipers are
                                taught to hit the motion centre of the brain
                                taught to hit a certain portion of the brain
                                (the thalamus I think) which enables motion
                                when killing people holding hostages. -- ilyas
                                \_ Thank god you don't have a gun, you seem
                                   to be very unstable sometimes.
                                   \_ Hehehe. -- ilyas
                                   \_ BWWWAHAHAHAHAHA!        -mice
                                \- i think the idea of instant death/head shot
                                   iswnt new, but the line is what is new.
2005/8/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38972 Activity:nil
8/3     Watch freepers rant and rave about the liberal MSM and it's reporting
        of the death of an Iraqi Major General while in U.S. custody
        http://csua.org/u/cwq (Post)
2005/7/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38820 Activity:nil
7/25    Not going to investigate the leak, but the committee will be
        investigating the leak investigation!
        http://csua.org/u/cu2 (boston.com)
2005/7/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38792 Activity:low
7/23    Oopsiedoodle!
        "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell
        Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is
        still subject to formal identification. We are now satisfied that he
        was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005. For
        somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one
        that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets. ... The man emerged from
        a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police
        surveillance ..." -Scotland Yard
        "He spotted the plainclothesmen who were following him and fled into
        the nearby Stockwell subway station, one stop from the Oval station
        that was the scene of one of Thursday's explosions."
        "Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase
        a man into Stockwell Tube station from the street ... Police challenge
        the man but he apparently refuses to obey instructions"
        "He apparently tried to get on a train before he was, according to
        witnesses, shot five times in the head by an officer with an automatic
        "... that officers had ordered the man to halt and had opened fire only
        after he failed to obey. But none of the witnesses reported hearing
        any warning."
        "Another cousin, Aleide Menezes, said in an interview with Brazil's
        national radio network that Mr. Menezes understood English well and
        would have understood the officer's instructions. Other relatives, in
        television and newspaper interviews, said the family was Roman
        Catholic and that Mr. Menezes had nothing to do with Islam."
        \_ He would've been 'connected' to next week's.
        \_ It apparently depends on what the meaning of "challenge" is in
           this case.
        \_ "This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for
           which the terrorists bear responsibility." according to BBC.
           Yeah blame it on the terrorists!!!
                \_ The terrorists made the cop fingers extra itchy.
        \_ It's sad, just like the vigilantes who sat on/asphyxiated some
           poor loon on airplane flights after 9/11.  We don't know (yet?)
           why he ran, but as easily as for being a Bad Guy it could have
           been that he is your garden variety illegal immigrant or that
           the plain-clothes SAS officers looked like an intimidating mob
           bent on some vigilante justice.
2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38782 Activity:low
7/22    Not bombers or insurgents, they're terrorists.
        \_ Total garbage. Don't waste your time reading this shit.
           \_ I don't know, it is one opinion from someone actually there
              in Iraq. I don't agree, but I don't think it is garbage.
2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38768 Activity:kinda low
7/22    Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) says that we shouldn't rule out bombing
        Mecca if the terrorists nuke us:
        [ Go Crazy! ]
        \_ Wow, they like to make 'em crazy up in Colorado.  It's just too bad
           Hunter Thompson was never elected sheriff of Aspen.
        \_ If I was a Muslim who believed that there was nothing more important
           than Mecca, then I would be working hard to make sure my country
           was building up a big arsenal of nukes.
        \_ Paul Harvey said something similar a week ago.
           http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2005/06/no-one-ever-accused-paul-harvey-of.html - danh
           - danh
           \_ Yes but Harvey is not an elected representative of the people of CO
              (or anywhere else AFAIK).
        \_ The reason this is stupid is nuking Mecca is not a terrorist
           deterrent.  Terrorists couldn't give a shit about Mecca.  If
           anything, the destruction of Mecca will help them.  Actual Muslim
           states might care, but it's unclear how much extra pressure this
           kind of rhetoric puts on them. -- ilyas
           \_ If nuking xyz _was_ a terrorist deterrent, would you do it?
              \_ Would I nuke something as a deterrent?  Do you know what a
                 deterrent is? -- ilyas
2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38765 Activity:moderate
7/22    Plain-clothes police shoot bombing suspect dead at Tube station:
        Hey, I'm for stopping terrorists as much as the next guy, but
        plain-clothes cops putting five in the guy at close range? I mean,
        way to get your man and all that, but... plain-clothes cops?
        \_ "Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News
            the man had been wearing a 'bomb belt with wires coming out'."
            Please give your preferred method for dealing with terrorists
            wearing bomb belts running into crowds of people.  Also, what
            does it matter what the cops were wearing?  They gave warning.
            \_ Peace. I don't know what the solution is, and I'm sure the
               cops acted within reason. Still, plain-clothes cops creep
               me out, especially since I was searched by one in Tijuana
               once. I mean, how the hell do you know they are who they say
               they are.
               \_ Probably the poster before you is worried as he is a tall
                  Asian guy who wears a backpack to school/work and takes
                  BART and is anti-establishment - but doesn't wear bomb belts
               \_ Probably op is worried as he is a tall Asian guy who wears
                  a backpack to school/work and takes BART and is
                  anti-establishment - but doesn't wear bomb belts.
                  op probably doesn't need to worry, though.  If the guy
                  was innocent and just didn't understand English, this will
                  come out eventually - but it sounds like he wasn't innocent.
                  I'm not ignoring that it could be a 'spiracy and they had
                  one "passenger" say he had a bomb belt and the other
                  "passenger" say he was wearing a thick jacket.
        \_ Haven't you played Max Payne? Sometimes plain clothes cops
           armed w/ dual Desert Eagles or Ingrams are the only ones
           who can properly deal with the situation.
           \_ PAYNE!!!
           \_ You can't wield dual "desert eagles" in the game, it's duel
              berrettas (sp?).  I have eaten the flesh of fallen angels!
           \_ You can't wield dual "desert eagles" in the game, it's dual
              berettas (sp?).  I have eaten the flesh of fallen angels!
              \_ In Fall of Max Payne, I thought they fixed it so you
                 could. What would have been really k3wl is dual shotguns
                 reloaded Terminator style a la Marathon 2!
        \_ I think we've been underreacting.  Time for some overreacting.
        \_ I'm kind of amazed at the fact that every time something like
           this happens, we hear about mass fear of repraisal attacks.  It
           kinda comes across as "I'm cool with Muslim terrorists blowing
           up 50 people on a subway, what worries me is that some redneck
           will throw an egg at my house." I hope these are the words of a
           few idiots and not the general feeling. http://csua.org/u/ct2
           \_ They've got a point, and it needs to addressed, if only by
              the police issuing a reassuring statement. We can support
              tracking down terrorists AND be worried about overreactions
              at the same time.
        \_ How many times have we heard about a suicide bomber blowing up
           a bus or train or whatever full of innocent people and everyone
           thinks "Why couldn't the cops do something to protect us?".  Now
           we have a story about cops blowing away one of these bastards,
           probably saving at least a dozen lives, and people are UPSET? WTF?
           It will be *really* obvious if the guy was a suicide bomber or
           not ... If not, then it's a tragic mistake.  If yes, then the cops
           are heroes!
           are heroes!  Besides, it's a win-win situation ... The suicide
           bomber gets to become a martyr with his 72 virgins and the
           people who actually want to live don't die in the process.
           \_ They've got a point, and it needs to addressed, if only by
              the police issuing a reassuring statement. We can support
              tracking down terrorists AND be worried about overreactions
              at the same time.
           \_ Don't you know who it works? When the cops kill an innocent
              it is overreacting and police brutality - not an honest
              mistake during the performance of what must be one of the
              most difficult civilian jobs.  When the cops kill a terrorist
              it is overreacting and police burtality - obviously the
              cops let their bitter hateful anti-muslim retribution rage
              overwhelm them and were blinded to the fact that maybe this
              was just a misguided youth how could be brought around to
              the love peace dope lifestyle with enough love peace and
              \_ You're an idiot and you overwrote my post.
2005/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Recreation/Food] UID:38756 Activity:nil
7/21    My reading on London bombing 2:  Terrorists screwed up this time.
        Detonators went off, but explosives didn't.
        Yes, it is indicative of high vulnerability if they can get chemically-
        based detonators exploding in rucksacks at three subway trains and a
        bus AGAIN, even with all the security, two weeks after the last attack.
        \_ Also a higher possibility of copycat or amateur hour.
           \_ Uh, Al Qaeda _is_ largely a "copycat" organization.  Now watch
              out for the disappointed-looking bearded guy sitting behind the
              backpack.  -John
           \_ Especially that it's again three in the subway and one on a bus.
           \_ Probably this was just engineered by Rove to get him off the
              front page.
              \_ We all dance like marionettes to the flick of Rove's chubby
                 \- when you hear the price they paid
                    i'm sure you'll come and join the masquerade
                    one by one and two by two
                    past eight by tens in shattered frames
                    the players try to leave the room
                    frantic puppets on a string
                    and all the while the music sings
                    and still sometimes remember
                    the masquerade's forever
2005/7/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38744 Activity:nil
7/20    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1702411,00.html
        FYI, looks like they found the actual mastermind of the London attack.
        Hint:  It wasn't the rich Egyptian biochemistry Leeds University grad
        student who had just submitted his dissertation and happened to rent
        his apartment out to one of the suspected bombers.
        \_ It was Charles Clarke, seeking to ram through his ID cards?  -John
        \_ Go Scotland Yard!
2005/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38684 Activity:nil
7/18    Which angry conservative/libertarian deleted the Plame threads?
        Did the http://abcnews.com poll upset you?
        \_ Why do you assume it wasn't a liberal.  Restored. -emarkp
           \_ The assumtion was made because the threads were deleted after
              someone posted the http://abcnews.com poll.  Wasn't that pretty clear?
           \_ You're both wrong, a moderate deleted it.    -me, moderate
2005/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38681 Activity:very high
7/18    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia
        Above is the original http://CNN.com story and Novak's follow-up column from
        two years ago.
        If we assume that Rove, Libby, et al. are all innocent, it would appear
        that the main people to blame are Novak and his unofficial CIA source.
        Novak said, "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson
        was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of
        undercover operators".
        This is technically not true -- Plame was a NOC.  The view of Novak's
        unofficial CIA source was that Plame worked in the U.S. most of the
        time as an analyst, and that Plame was also well known in Washington
        (probably gossipped about on the "cocktail circuit" as Joe Wilson's hot
        wife the CIA agent), so she therefore wasn't covert.
        This was a mistake by Novak and his CIA source, even with all of
        Novak's excuses, since the CIA did erect an entire front company for
        Plame and the _official_ CIA source told him not to use her name.
        Novak considerably broadened the number of people who knew of Valerie
        Plame the CIA agent:  from people on the DC cocktail circuit, to anyone
        interested in the WMD controversy in Iraq -- which means a whole lot
        of people on the left and right.
        Again, I am assuming Rove, Libby, et al. are all innocent.
        (I am purposely going to ignore the http://CNN.com story's lead sentence:
        "while [Novak] learned the identity of a CIA operative from
        administration officials, there was 'no great crime' and that he was
        not the recipient of a planned leak".)
        \_ The public ain't buying it:
           \_ What does the poll have to do with the post?
        \_ Where is it proven that Plame was NOC at the time (or recently)?
           The Washington Times says that she was "outed" a decade ago:
           \_ The Washington Times is a mouthpiece for the GOP.
           \_ It can't be proven (by anyone here), but when the CIA asks the
              DoJ to launch a criminal investigation, I defer to their
              knowledge of the situation.  And, really, washington times?
                                           \_ Oh shut the fuck up.
                                              \_ You think WT is a reputable
                                                 news source?  Leave now.
              \_ This is the same CIA that said there was WMD in Iraq?  And
                 did you defer to their knowledge then?
                 \_ We don't know what the CIA said about Iraq's WMD.  We know
                    what the President said they said.  And the inquiry into
                    that transaction, which was supposed to happen, still
                    \_ I'm not the guy you're reponding to, but Duelfer's
                       report pretty much says the CIA screwed it all up.
                       There was also supposed to be an investigation into how
                       the Administration used the CIA's screwed up
                       intelligence, but that investigation didn't happen.
                 \_ The President deferred to the CIA's judgment that WMDs were
                    in Iraq, or at least, that's what the story is.
           \_ Please read the sentence, "Novak considerably broadened ..."
              \_ Which adds nothing.  Where is it factually stated that Plame
                 was NOC at any recent time before Novak's column?
                 \_ It's likely not.  It would be dangerous and possibly
                    illegal to state that openly.  See Blitzer's interview
                    with Wilson.
                 \_ No, it responds to the statement, "says that she was
                    'outed' a decade ago".  As for "proven", it's not yet
                    proven, but the preponderance of evidence is that it is
                    so.  This is addressed in my second post beginning,
                    "The CIA's asking ..." later in this thread.
           \_ The Washington Times says Reverend Moon can cure teh gay. Ah,
              the joys of owning your own paper.
              \_ How do you know he can't?
                 \_ It's likely not.  It would be illegal to state that openly.
                    See Blitzer's interview with Wilson.
                 \_ 'Cos the first three mass weddings didn't stick.
           \_ sfchron response to this claim: "But the CIA didn't hesitate
              to forward the leak allegation to the Justice Department for
              possible prosecution. She operated a front company based in
              Boston and sometimes traveled overseas posing as a private
              energy analyst, yet she also had a desk at CIA's Langley
              headquarters. Some fellow agents who knew her as Val P. in
              training recall her proficiency with foreign languages and an
              AK-47, but she said her work as a spy was unknown to friends
              and neighbors."   http://csua.org/u/cqu
              \_ Oh yeah, sfchron.  That settles that argument.
                 \_ Washington Times and NY Post have long, well-earned
                    reputations for being rags. The SF Chron has a horrible
                    writing style (and I hate it), but no one questions their
                    journalistic integrity.
                    \_ What?  No one questions the SFComical's journalistic
                       integrity?  The other two have well-earned reputations
                       as rags?  I've barely read the NYP or WT but I've read
                       the SFComical for years.  Who exactly are these people
                       that share this 'commonly accepted public perception'
                       with you?  Is there some web page I can find somewhere?
                    \_ Yeah, uh, that's pretty funny.  SF Chron is even worse
                       than the LA "we only dig dirt on republican candidates"
                       Times. -- ilyas
                       \_ On what do you base this criticism of the L.A. Times?
                          \_ LA Times went on record when Davis was running for
                             governor saying they don't dig dirt on governor
                             candidates.  However, they sent most of their
                             reporters to dig dirt on Arnold during the recall.
                             This was a fairly big issue in LA at the time.
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ Can you find the URL?  Even without the URL, I
                                can tell you that what probably happened was
                                that Davis's faults were all self-evident (look
                                at the damn budget deficit), while Ahnold's
                                escapades were all plausiably deniable ("oh,
                                escapades were all plausibly deniable ("oh,
                                it's all gossip and probably just happened when
                                he was young and defining himself, and even if
                                it were true, hey, it's Ahnold!"), so they
                                sought to make his groping more evident to
                                voters ("Yes, you are really electing someone
                                who at the very least is a groper.")
                                -L.A. resident and frequent L.A. Times reader
                                who voted for Arnold anyway
                                who voted for Arnold anyway, and will vote
                                Ahnold out at the next opportunity since his
                                performance has not been adequate (please don't
                                ask me to compare to Davis -- it's like
                                different varieties of "bad")
                                \_ Does the blatant hypocrisy of that paper
                                   not bother you one bit, or do you just
                                   not believe me?  -- ilyas
                                   \_ When the topic is Ahnold's groping, my
                                      opinion is that they did the right thing.
                                      Like I wrote before, Davis's faults were
                                      plain to all voters.  Yes, I voted for
                                      someone I was pretty sure was a groper,
                                      and I knew that at the time I voted.
                                      I did so because Davis's failures could
                                      not be excused.
                                      When the topic is "blatant hypocrisy of
                                      that paper" in general, I dispute that
                                      there is a "blatant hypocrisy", but
                                      put the L.A. Times at the high-end of
                                      professional journalism.
                                      I consider myself a voracious consumer of
                                      all major Internet-accessible news
                                      outlets and referenced original sources
                                      (cia.gov) for the last five or so years.
                                      I've also been paying attention to the
                                      left- and right-wing blogs and forums.
                                      I, like Bill O'Reilly says he does,
                                      call things as I see them, preferring
                                      to identify things as accurate or
                                      inaccurate portrayals of the truth of
                                      the matter rather than "left-wing" or
                                      Of course, I could be totally wrong about
                                      the L.A. Times, just like I think
                                      O'Reilly doesn't get it right in many
                                      fundamental ways, but at that point it's
                                      just a matter of how solid your argument
                                      and facts are versus the other person's.
                                      \_ I think there are multiple levels of
                                         hypocrisy here.  That LA Times covered
                                         Arnold's faults but not Davis' at the
                                         time of the recall is one problem
                                         (that Davis' faults were 'plain to see'
                                         is not really an excuse for a paper).
                                         But LA Times also did not dig dirt on
                                         Davis when Davis himself was running
                                         for office!  And more, they claimed it
                                         was a matter of policy for them not to.
                                         The violation of their own stated
                                         policy is also hypocritical. -- ilyas
                                         \_ My contention is that Davis's
                                            problems had been well publicized,
                                            which made them widely
                                            They already dumped a shitload on
                                            Davis -- they just hadn't done so
                                            on Ahnold yet.
                                            Anyways, can you find the URLs?
                                            I occasionally find myself blaming
                                            a news outlet for some apparent
                                            problem but later realize that I
                                            misread what was written.
                                            \_ They were never plain to me.
                                               What were they, in your eyes?
                                               \_ $x billion budget deficit,
                                                  I forgot whether x was 21
                                                  or 40.
                                                  I assume that was why
                                                  Davis was voted out in
                                                  such a big way -- that other
                                                  people saw this ...
                                            \_ The important person here is
                                               former LA Times reporter Jill
                                               Stewart.  See for instance:
                                                 -- ilyas
                                               \_ Thanks.  I was reading that
                                                  exact URL between when you
                                                  posted Jill's name and when
                                                  you posted the URL.
                                                  This sums up my argument
                                                  though:  The L.A. Times staff
                                                  has a bias against gropers
                                                  being elected governor of
                                                  California.  This bias is
                                                  excusable in my book.
                                                  (Also, I know this undercuts
                                                  my position, but I had been
                                                  pretty pissed about the
                                                  groping articles coming out
                                                  two weeks for the election,
                                                  but I've since changed my
           \_ Your links says: "Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA
              officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a
              Moscow spy"  Umm... Russia intelligence may know about or have
              guesses about a great number of our secret operatives, as we
              likely have similar knowledge or guesses of theirs.  Neither
              party knowing that information is the same as "public knowledge."
           \_ Please read the sentence, "Novak considerably broadened ..."
           \_ The CIA's asking the DoJ to conduct a criminal investigation
              is the strongest evidence that Plame was NOC at the time.
              C'mon -- you have a special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald,
              bugging Dubya, Cheney, Rove, and Libby after all.
              Here is a non-anonymous column written by a former CIA agent:
              "A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became
              a non-official cover officer.  That meant she agreed to operate
              overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport.  If
              caught in that status she would have been executed."
              This is weaker than the fact there is an investigation going
              on now, but stronger than as if it had come from an anoymous
              \_ You know, Johnson was doing well until he started bashing
                 \_ Let's ignore what Johnson wrote about Bush and focus on
                    the topic at hand:
                    What do you think about the truth of the claim (that Plame
                    was NOC for a while and was still NOC when Novak published
                    his column) itself?  Do consider that there is an ongoing
                    investigation with a grand jury and testimony from VIPs
                    taking place right now.
                    \_ Well, should I ignore what Johnson wrote about Plume's
                       NOC status also?  Are Johnson's claims re Plume credible
                       after his partisan rant?  Do I trust the CIA to know
                       more about its employees than about Iraq?  Is the CIA
                       Justice referral more motivated by politics?  My
                       answers: yes, no, yes, don't know.
                       \_ While you answered four questions you volunteered
                          yourself, you forgot to answer the question that's
                          the topic at hand in this particular thread:
                          "What do you think about the truth of the claim (that
                          Plame was NOC for a while and was still NOC when
                          Novak published his column) itself?  Do consider that
                          there is an ongoing investigation with a grand jury
                          and testimony from VIPs taking place right now."
                          \_ What's the evidence that she was or wasn't a
                             NOC at the time?
                             \_ Search this thread for "strongest evidence".
                                It's in the post right before you say,
                                "You know, Johnson was doing well until he
                                started bashing Bush."
                                \_ And I asked "Is the CIA Justice referral
                                   more motivated by politics?".  "Don't know,"
                                   I answered.  BTW, I see that you are
                                   abandoning Johnson whom you were originally
                                   touting as evidence.
        \_ Ah, but Novak called her an "operative" in his column two years
           ago. Now he claims he just knew she was an "analyst." If so,
           why did he call her an operative, when he good and well knows
           the difference. Novak is lying to try and cover for Rove.
2005/7/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:38669 Activity:nil
7/16    Rove: "I've already said too much."
        http://csua.org/u/cqf (Yahoo! news)
        \_ Yeah? So? The President has been doing whatever he pleases and
           nothing touches him or his staff. What's the point for fighting...
2005/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38621 Activity:moderate
7/14    Why do politicians I want to like keep trying to alienate me?
        http://csua.org/u/cpl (c|net)
        \_ A) Because you're part of a block the doesn't vote much.
           B) Hillary has been trying to pretend she has religious right
           C) Because politicians rarely know what they're talking about.
           D) All of the Above
        \_ The party of social liberalism, eh? -- ilyas
           \_ as a libertarian, wouldn't you agree with op in this case?
              \_ What, that Hillary is being venal and betraying the
              \_ What, that Hillary is being unprincipled by betraying the
                 'principles' of her party and trying to
                 appeal to religious conservatives in a calculated attempt
                 which also involved Rvt. Graham?  You don't need to be a
                 libertarian to agree. -- ilyas
                 \_ forget the politics.  I was asking about policy.  That
                    less legislation of business and markets the better. In
                    this case, the legislation is targetting morality.
                    \_ Of course I agree.  I rarely agree with the democrats,
                       this is just one of the first times I disagreed on
                       social issues. -- ilyas
                       \_ huh? I can't parse that.  You rarely agree, yet
                          this is one of the first times you've disagreed?
                          \_ Well, it could conceivably make sense as a claim
                             that social issues don't come up much, but that
                             would also be an odd assertion.
                             \_ It makes sense because economic issues are more
                                important to me than social issues. -- ilyas
                       \_ First times?  Ilyas, you need to google Tipper Gore
                          and the PMRC.  Democrats are definitely not new to
                          playing the morality-police game.
        \_ "Rockstar, like many video game developers, usually encourages
            so-called mod amateur programmers who create modifications for
            popular games, which often give players access to special areas,
            missions or abilities."  Like many?  Say what?
2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38604 Activity:moderate
7/13    There's a lot we don't know yet about the CIA flap
        \_ We do know that this guy is a National Review hack, however.
        \_ If you don't know what "being obtuse" is, here it is.
           [restored by !poster.  fuck off, deleter]
           \_ I deleted my own post because I didn't think it was as accurate
              as I would have liked.  It's maybe about 80% "being obtuse".
        \_ A lot of those questions have been answered.  For instance
           Judith Miller was drawn into the case via phone records.
        \_ I stopped reading when he didn't acknowledge that the signed waivers
           were coerced and thus not authentic releases.  What's the strongest
           evidence of this?  Matthew Cooper didn't spill until he got an
           explicit release from Rove, and at the last minute too.
           \_ I don't think this true.  Karl Rove's attorney has denied
              that Rove has contacted Cooper recently.  Rover did sign
              a blanket waiver a while ago letting any reporter discuss
              all this crap.  I think it's not really clear why Cooper
              suddenly said Rove is his source, it could be for
              a variety of reasons, maybe he just didn't feel like going
              to jail for 18 months to protect Karl Rove. - danh
           This is an opinion piece supporting Rove which dodges essential
           facts like the above.
        \_ FUD from the National Review. How uncharacteristic of them.
2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38575 Activity:nil
7/12    London Bombing: Further Proof We're Winning
        \_ I wanna see you people tell the British that we're "fighting them
           there so we don't have to fight them here"...
           \_ Maybe if the Brits arrested people who openly called for the
              overthrow of their own government they wouldn't have been bombed.
              Here's a nutty idea: fighting them there doesn't matter if we're
              inviting them over here.
        \_ This is even dumber than the Freeper links you keep posting.
           It is all one ad hominem rant vs. Senator Kennedy. Where do
           you find these pearls of Conservative "wisdom"?
2005/7/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38567 Activity:high
7/12    Today's White House press briefing
        "Let's let the investigation take place, and let's let the
        investigators bring all the facts together and draw the conclusions
        that they draw, and then we will know the facts at that point."
        Translation:  Dubya buys time for Roveian general to execute on GOP
        plans, with expectation that Rove will come out fine anyway since the
        base doesn't really care.
        In case you didn't figure it out yet:  Dubya's current and future
        position is he will only be firing people for illegal acts with
        convictions, not for merely being "involved" in the Plame affair as
        a previously reported position.
        \_ I call flip-flop on them!
        \_ From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
           (My quotes are going to be partial for emphasis.  See the page above
           for the full context.)
           Q: has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent?
           McClellan: if someone leaked classified information of this nature..
           McClellan:  the President believes leaking classified information is
           a very serious matter
           It's fairly clear that McClellan was saying that anoyone in the WH
           who leaked classified info would be gone.  It doesn't appear that
           Rove did that.
           \_ Why would you say that it doesn't appear that Rove didn't leak
           \_ Why would you say that it doesn't appear that Rove leaked
              classified info?
              \_ Because saying "You know the reason he got that job is because
                 his wife is in the CIA" may not have revealed classified info.
                 \_ But that isn't what he said. He said his wife was a
                    CIA operative. Pretty clear cut what that means.
                 \_ Because the CIA is in the habit of calling for
                    investigations by the DoJ just because...
                 \_ that sounds like a leak of classified info to me.
                    I guess it depends on what the meanings of "leak" and
                    "classified" are.
                    "I did not leak classified info to that man, Mr. Cooper!"
                    \_ Is being in the employ of the CIA classified?
                       \_ When it is, yes.  You're deliberately being obtuse.
                            \_ huh?
                               \_ When the person's affiliation needs to be
                                  secret, it's classified.  You're an idiot.
                          The CIA requested an independent investigation.  It's
                          been ongoing for 2 years. if there was no there there
                          don't you think it would have been wrapped up with a
                          bow by now.
                          \_ I'm not being obtuse, you're being a dumbass.
                             We'll find out at the END of the investigation if
                             he violated the law.  If he did, he should be out
                             of there.  If he didn't, shut the fuck up.
                             \_ Yawn. The man's guilty. This is just what he's
                                been caught at. I say hang 'im.
                             \_ The END of the investigation... in 2010? 2020?
                             \_ Uh, I hate to be a nancy about this, but you
                                should write, "If he did, I should shut the
                                fuck up.  If he didn't, you should shut the
                                fuck up."  Are you an undergrad?
                                \_ Actually, no.  I'm no lefty partisan, but I
                                   also don't want someone who would leak
                                   classified info in the WH.  So if he's found
                                   to be guilty, I'll join the chorus demanding
                                   that he be fired.
                                   \_...but until then, Shut the Fuck Up?
                                      \_ Yeah, let's all stfu until the
                                         investigation is over.
                                         \_ Can't we complain about the
                                            previous pronouncements that Rove
                                            had nothing to do with the Plame
                                            affair, and that it was ridiculous
                                            to suggest that?
                                            \_ He never said he had nothing to
                                               do with it. Just that it was
                                               a ridiculous suggestion. Maybe
                                               he means the whole situation is
                                               worthy of ridicule.
2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38519 Activity:nil
7/10    Rove's attorney linked to money launderers in hilarious fashion:
        \_ Beautiful. I'm sure it's hard to find good, honest representation,
           but, Shirley, you'd think they could try a little harder.
        \_ Check the top post on tpm.  someone in the gaggle rediscovered
           their balls.
           \_ Scott McClellan makes Ari Fleischer seem honest and forthright,
              although I have to feel some sympathy for the "white house
              press secretary."  It must really suck to have to speak publicly
              for these jokers.
              for these jokers. -lewis
              \- why do you feel "sympathy" for them again?
                 \_ Sort of the same "sympathy" I would feel for, say, a
                    Kamikaze pilot.  Gee, sucks for him.
                    \_ But do you feel sympathy with the imperial stooge back
                       in Tokyo who lies to justify sending the kamikaze
                       pilot to his death?  That is Scott McClellan, not the
                       \_ Our very own Beltway Bob.  Little weasel.
                       \- right, i feel more sympathy for the troops and some
                          of the mid/high level military.
        \_ TalkingPointsMemo has become *the* must read blog out there. Joshua
           has broken more political scandals than the Washington Post over
           have broken more political scandals than the Washington Post over
           the last six months.
2005/7/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38512 Activity:nil 66%like:38536
7/10    Real lesson of Vietnam
        http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070405.html    -jblack
2005/7/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38506 Activity:nil
7/9     Rove is nailed.  Wonder if any major news media will pick this up
        during the week.
        \_ Rove can become the focus of the investigation.  Fitzgerald will
           be asking, "Did you know Plame was CIA at the time?" "Undercover
           CIA?" "Did you know you can't expose people in this class?"
        \_ Rove was already known to be disgusting and people still voted
           for Bush. I guess as a politician it pays to have a scumbag
           for an advisor who can do the dirty stuff and take any and all flak.
        \_ Nailed? "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used
           Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative" ... "'A fair
           reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed
           was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's
           identity...'"  I'm not defending him, but he's hardly "nailed."
           He may become so in the future, however.
                \_ gwbush should make him a supreme court justice so
                   he can declare the original law unconstitutional
                \_ csua motd lawyers please correct if needed, but
                   i think just because you didn't mean to break the law
                   is never an excuse.
2005/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Religion] UID:38478 Activity:nil
7/7     About time American Muslims made statements like this:
        \_ From the same site: "(San Francisco Bay Area, 9/11/01) - Joining
           Muslims around the country, the San Francisco Bay Area based Islamic
           Networks Group is appalled by and strongly condemns the terrorist
           attacks in New York and Washington."  The American Muslim community
           is simply not the problem.  As Thomas Friedman pointed out yesterday,
           however, we're still waiting for a fatwa from any international
           muslim leader condemning Bin Laden.
           \_ Further proof that even a broken clock (i.e., Friedman) can be
              right twice a day.
2005/7/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38468 Activity:high
7/7     Isn't it amazing that Timothy McVeigh's 1 bomb killed 168 people in
        open space, but 4 bombs in the London tunnel killed 1/4 of that? Thank
        god Al Qaeda isn't compenent enough to build McVeigh-strength bombs.
        \_ there's nothing complicated about a truckload of ANFO.  Al queda
           could easily do the same thing.
        \_ Al Qaeda didn't use any bombs on 9/11.
        \_ It's pretty tricky to get a Ryder truck on the subway.
        \_ The IRA set of a truck bomb (with ~1 ton of fertilizer) in the
           City of London in 1993.  That was on a Saturday morning, and only
           1 was killed.  (I actually went to a meeting near Bishopsgate the
           day before the bomb went off.)  In comparison, the McVeigh bomb
           had ~3 tons of fertilizer, and it was set off on a Wednesday
           morning.  The McVeigh bomb killed 168 people.
           \_ I heard the IRA used to call the police to give out warning for
              evacuation between when a bomb was planted and when it would go
              \_ Actually, the IRA would call and warn for evacuation and
                 sometimes there was no bomb. I was in Covent Garden for one
                 of these. My fellow employees explained this happened
                 frequently. The truth was planting actual bombs was a losing
                 affair for the IRA. Causing a disturbance without the negative
                 vibe from actually injured/killed people was working for them
                 pretty well. It's still FUBAR if you ask me but quite
                 different from my perceptions when all I knew about it was
                 what I learned from the news. -- ulysses
              \_ The London police was in the middle of evacuating the City
                 when the bomb went off.  I am not sure if the information
                 source was an illicit informer or back channel.  The IRA
                 even used to apologize when their bombs accidentally kill
                 \_ If you set off a bomb it doesn't "accidentally" kill
                    children.  Sorry, buzz.  A random terrorist bombing kills
                    people big and small.  Fuck the IRA pretending they
                    are better than any other terrorists.
                    \_ The IRA kills a lot fewer people by accident than
                       the US Air Force does. Fuck the Air Force pretending
                       they are better than other terrorists.
                       \_ Be careful Jim. They are watching liberals like you.
                          \_ Oh boo hoo, I am really fucking scared of idiots
                             like you, Mark. Call the FBI and tell them I
                             said something bad about the Air Force on the
                       \_ Oh fuck you with a broken broomstick.  If you can't
                          understand the difference between war and PUTTING A
                          go choke on a broken-glass sandwich.
                          \_ The Air Force deliberately puts bombs in the
                             middle of civilian places all the time. Why
                             is that okay, in your book of moral relavancy?
                             Was firebombing Dresden a war crime or not?
                             I am sure the IRA killed far fewer civilians
                             per bomb attack than the Air Force does.
                             \_ [insert "Dresden was transit hub for German
                                troops" vs. "Dresden was cultural center"
                                debate here]
                             \_ Very simple.  The US Military wears
                                uniforms, and operates by the rules of war.
                                Terrorists do not.  This is why you extend
                                Geneva to soldiers but not terrorists.  This
                                is why civilian casualties in war is a different
                                animal from terrorist casualties.  There is
                                also the matter of intent.  The US Military
                                doesn't want to harm civilians, and is going to
                                extraordinary lengths (unheard of throughout
                                history) to avoid harming civilians, even if
                                this means putting its soldiers under extra
                                risk.  Terrorists harm civilians as a goal.
                                There is a difference in law between
                                manslaughter and first degree murder for a
                                reason.  Finally, learn to fucking spell.
                                  -- ilyas
                                \_ yeah, this is why we use napalm.  to
                                   avoid civilian casualties.
                                   \_ Napalm has its legitimate war use.
                                      But of course you never bothered to
                                      read or study the lengths at which
                                      the military avoids collateral
                                      damage. Your frame of thought is
                                      one life accidently killed is too much.
                                      I hope one day you are a plane with
                                      Al-queda when it dawns on you that this
                                      is a numbers game.
                                \_ I disagree. Mass civilian casualties was the
                                \_ Bullshit. Mass civilian casualties was the
                                   stated intent of the firebombings of Dresden
                                   and Tokyo. And we are discussing the IRA,
                                   which went out of its way to avoid civilian
                                   casualties, too, not some mythical
                                   "terrorist" bogeyman you dreamed up.
                                   Deliberate targeting of civilians is
                                   always a crime. And killing civilians,
                                   except in self-defence, always should be.
                                   The War in Iraq was in no sense a war
                                   of self-defence.
                                   \_ Wait.  The IRA went out of its way to
                                      avoid civilian casualties when it
                                      planted bombs?  That's a new one on me.
                                      What do you suppose the purpose of those
                                      bombs was for?  What was the intended
                                      target? -- ilyas
                                      \_ Knee-jerk uninformed "US army = teh
                                         ghei baby kilerz" b.s. aside, he's
                                         actually right--the IRA's main point
                                         was to show "hey, look what we can do,
                                         whenever we feel like it."  Civilian
                                         casualties, like at Hiroshima, were an
                                         "oh yeah, by the way" sort of thing.
                                         Unlike ETA, which wants to kill
                                         civilians.  And Dresden _was_ part of
                                         a deliberate campaign to both disrupt
                                         strategic communications and terrorize
                                         people--a legitimate but regrettably
                                         uninformed and ill-conceived goal at
                                         the time.  Do yourself a favor and
                                         ignore the "everything the US does is
                                         terrorist" trolls.  -John
                                      \_  http://csua.org/u/cn0
                                          See table 2.
                                          The IRA targeted the British
                                          Army, RUC and UCR, mostly.
                                          http://csua.org/u/cn1 (PBS)
                                          Okay, this analysis is biased,
                                          but it gets to the heart of it.
                                   \_ The problem is terrorists don't kill
                                      enough people with their bombs. The
                                      US and its allies was able to kill
                                      hundreds of thousands in a single
                                      bombing run. It's like that quote:
                                      "Kill a man, and you are a murderer.
                                      Kill millions of men, and you are a
                                      conqueror. Kill everyone, and you are
                                      a god."  Or Stalin: "one death is a
                                      tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"
                                      In order to be legitimate, they'd need
                                      to wipe out large chunks of cities
                                      on a regular basis.
                                          The IRA targetted the British
                                          military and RUC, mostly.
2005/7/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38461 Activity:low
7/7     "We will find them. We will bring them to justice." -- Bush
        \_ "If [Osama bin Laden] thinks he can hide and run from the
           United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken."
             -- Bush, 9/15/01
           "I don't know where he is.  You know, I just don't spend
           that much time on him"
             -- Bush, 3/13/02
                \_ Oh this oft-quoted comment taken out of context.
                   You libs ever read the ENTIRE speech? Look it up!
                   You may find the 2nd half a little more interesting.
                   \_ It wasn't a speech. It was a press conference.  He
                      says OBL has been marginalized which is highly debatable.
                      He said that we have a strategy and it's working.  Do
                      you believe that?  And if so, please explain it to us
                      so that we too can support this strategy.
                      \_ I'm sure your years of military/CT service will
                         help you with your Monday morning quarterbacking.
                         The truth is, these numbers are tiny. The enemy
                         is elusive and unable to directly fight.
                         \_ And of course we gathered our friends and allies
                            and took a systematic, worldwide approach to
                            tracking them, their money, and their associates.
                            Oh, wait.  No.  We invaded Iraq instead.
                   \_ The second half says that there are more important
                      things like 1. our soldiers are well supplied, 2.
                      our strategy is clear, and 3. our coalition is
                      strong. Well, Bush failed on all three. So how
                      is that "more interesting"?
           "[Osama bin Laden is] either alive and well, or alive and
           not too well, or not alive."
             -- Rumsfeld, 10/7/02
           \_ He forgot the "zombie - neither living nor dead" option.
              \_ Osama the Undead! Maybe he could be the last boss in
                 the next Resident Evil game.
                 \_ Osama bin Zombie!
                        \_ Send more special forces!
2005/7/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38417 Activity:high
7/5     James Wolcott talks sense on the "Freedom Tower" design.
        \_ I think this article is better: link:csua.org/u/clz (NYTimes)
        \_ I don't really understand this criticism.  "An impregnable tower
           set against the outside world."  What exactly are they supposed to
           erect, an inviting vagina in heat?  "Freedom Tower" is the stupidest
           name ever though. -- ilyas
                \_ No, "Freedom fries" is the stupidest name ever.
                   \_ Freedom Fries Tower
           \_ In the rush to make the world's most inviting terrorist target
              "bombproof," they've managed to make it incredibly ugly.  Thus
              it is a telling symbol of the state of our current national
              psyche.  That is the argument, at least.  I guess whether you
              buy that depends on whether you think architecture reflects on
              the society that produces it.
              \_ I do think it's ugly (or at least could be better), but I
                 don't understand the phrasing of the criticism.  It sounds like
                 the objection is to the very notion that it ought to appear
                 impregnable. -- ilyas
                 \_ It is a sign of cowardance to try and build an impregnable
                    fortress. The real worls is a dangerous place.
                    fortress. The real world is a dangerous place.
                    \_ I agree. A cheaper, more aesthetic solution is to
                       deploy an active missile defense system where the
                       missle (hidden behind the glass building) launches
                       to strike unidentified targets that are flying low
                       and coming towards the new tower.
                    \_ That's pretty stupid.  If you know it's going to make it
                       a target you should strengthen it.
                       \_ I think the argument is more sophisticated than that.
                          The argument isn't that the tower shouldn't _be_
                          impregnable.  It obviously has to be secure, given how
                          much of a target it will be.  The argument is that it
                          shouldn't _appear_ impregnable, because it sends the
                          wrong 'aesthetic message.'  I happen to disagree with
                          that. -- ilyas
                          \_ Why?  A good contrast is the Statue of Liberty,
                             which sends a very welcoming message, and is
                             generally seen as a positive symbol of America's
                             greatness.  Do you really think that the
                             architectural equivalent of an Abrams Tank should
                             be a symbol of America?  Just like the Twin
                             Towers, this building will have strong symbolic
                             value whether we like it or not.
                             \_ I hate to point out the obvious, but people
                                don't work in the Statue of Liberty. -- ilyas
                          \_ The point is that trying to build an impregnable
                             signature tower is horribly misguided; there's
                             nothing you can do, architecturally, to protect
                             against a 747 full of fuel ramming into your
                             signature building.  Perhaps you can build it
                             so the building won't fall down, but you're
                             still talking about thousands of dead and massive
                             business resumption costs.  The proposal is
                             horribly ugly, and in addition is completely
                             unnecessary, as vacancy rates in lower
                             Manhattan have skyrocketed since the attacks;
                             no one wants to work there anyway.  -tom
                             \_ I don't really understand.  Building anything
                                conspicious in a major metropolitan area in the
                                US will render it a target.  Given that something
                                like that is a target, you have to take security
                                measures.  Are you proposing either that
                                nothing conscpicious be built or that if
                                something is built it not be secured?  The mind
                                boggles. -- ilyas
                                nothing conspicious be built or that if
                                something is built it not be secured?  Ugliness
                                is one thing, but clearly, the criticism here
                                isn't just that the thing is ugly.  -- ilyas
           \_ I think it looks like a big toothpick, and that's okay -- except
              for the base, and that's a big except.  Kind of makes sense they
              hid the ugliest part several clicks in, huh?
              http://csua.org/u/cm0 (nytimes.com)
              \_ Ugh.  Gotta wonder how many cavity searches and retinal scans
                 you'll need to go through to get to work every day in that
                 \_ It looks like an anal probe.  Someone I know said it looks
                    like NY flipping the bird, maybe that's what they were
                    going for. -- ilyas
                    \_ Or an old-fashioned syringe and hypodermic needle.
                       \_ Freedom Tower as Rorschach test?
        \_ anyone have a url for the original Libeskind design?
2005/6/30-7/4 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38372 Activity:low
6/30     "We need scarier troops! Call the Americans!" (in Haiti)
         \_ Why does the UN think American troops can suppress the armed gangs
            in Haiti?  We can't even do that in Iraq.
            \_ Wow. That's so astute. Your years of military training, or
               serving in a guerilla army must lead you to that conclusion.
               I guess you forgot Operation Uphold Democracy.
               \_ What about Operation Enduring Clusterfuck?
                  \_ What about it? When's the last time you went mountain
                     climbing daily?
                     \_ We have created an ever better training and breeding
                        ground for terrorists, says the (America hating) CIA:
                  \_ We will withdraw from Quagmire when the Quagmirians are
                     ready to clusterfuck themselves.
2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Academia/GradSchool] UID:38319 Activity:nil
6/27    Not sure what to major? Now you can have a degree in
        Homeland Security in University of Connecticut
        \_ "Students spend five weeks of the 20-month program at UConn's
           main campus in Storrs. The rest of the program will be done online."
           Online... what kind of credibility can that possibly have. -mrauser
2005/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:38301 Activity:nil
6/24    Media watchdog group hassled by police:
2005/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38299 Activity:high
6/24    Well, we wouldn't want our documentary to come to any conclusions
        we don't like....
        \_ don't you just hate it when documentary producers go in with
           an agenda of supressing the African lion's evil, man-eating,
           eco-system destroying predatory aspects?  Such bias.
2005/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38286 Activity:nil
6/24    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/veterans.budget.ap/index.html
        With support like this...
        \_ What the hell?  So they increase the budget to make up for the
2005/6/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38202 Activity:moderate
6/19    Defend this:
        \_ Why DO you hate America?
        \_ Why do you hate America?
        \_ Why would anyone defend this? -conservative
           \_ You'd be surprised.  Or maybe not.
        \_ You're sounding like a terrorist.
2005/6/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic] UID:38171 Activity:nil
6/16    Red Cross joins AI:
        \_ What are they talking about?  The report last year?
           God, freepers are unintelligible
           \_ I think he is saying that the Red Cross has joined
              Amnesty International in stating that the prison
              conditions for terror suspects is less than humane.
              \_ And is there some new story?  Or is this moaning about
                 the report from last year?
                 \_ I think it is just moaning. The best thing to do
                    is to ignore the weirdos (on both sides) and hope
                    they will get bored and go away.
2005/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38159 Activity:low
6/16    The Man Behind the Attack on Guantanamo -jblack
        \_ Any publication that has Horowitz in its nav bar...
        \_ Typical Republican smear job. I am surprised they didn't
           accuse him of murdering Vince Foster.
           \- I killed Vince Foster ... just to watch him die. --bclinton
              \_ I think that should be -hclinton
        \_ mmmmmm, I can taste the bias.  Delicious. -mrauser
        \_ I love the Lawyer's Guild is a Communist Front
           charge. Even McCarthy didn' go that far.
2005/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38157 Activity:low
6/16    Questions for anti-terrorist experts. Richard the Shoe Bomber tried
        to detonate the bomb by lighting up a match. Doesn't this strike
        to anyone as just inconsistent with what we know about terrorists?
        I mean, if you're a REAL Al-Qaeda member, wouldn't you have received
        advanced trainings from wacko but intelligent Al-Qaeda members
        who would teach you how to light up a damn fire? What kind of
        Al-Qaeda are you if you don't know how to use a match? Secondly, why
        the heck would you use a match when there are much easier and much
        more reliable ways to detonate it, including using a tiny toy-rocket
        lighter, fluid lighter, flint, and others that you can buy from REI?
        Lastly, how much can you pack explosive power in your shoes, which
        I presume is at most 12"x0.5"? That doesn't seem like a lot, or at
        lease enough to bring down an entire plane. If you're a REAL
        Al-Qaeda, wouldn't you use something bigger and much more effective
        than just punching a hole in the window?
        \_ There is no "REAL" Al-Qaeda.  It's not a highly-structured network
           throughout, like the IRA--it is ethnically and culturally
           heterogenous, revolving around a fuzzy set of ideas.  How do you
           become Al-Qaeda?  You say "I'm a member of Al-Qaeda."  That's part
           of the problem--Western countries initially tried to approach it
           as an organization rather than as a phaenomenon.  So while you may
           have several hard cores of various degrees of professionalism,
           there are also loads of more amateurish "members".  -John
           \_ therees also a practice of having the skilled bomb-makers
              produce the bombs, and getting much more easy-to-come by
              volunteers/martyrs who only need enough training on how to
              set themselves off. Needless to say these people aren't the
              sharpest tacks.
              \_ 'Shoe bomb'?  -John
        \_ Doesn't it strike you as odd that he would "light up" in plain
           view of other passengers who could stop him? If he went to the
           restroom, then blammo. I think he wanted to get caught.
           \_ Exactly. There are so many facts that make this case weird and
              yet the government is still able to tie him to Bin Laden.
2005/6/15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38140 Activity:nil
6/15    If I buy or rent movies like Control Room, Outfoxed, Bush Family
        Fortunes, Fahrenheit 911, The Corporation, Rebels With a Cause, and
        other similar DVDs from Amazon or Netflix will I eventually get on
        the Republican black list database that they use so successfully
        against their enemies from the Nixon "dirty tricks" era?
2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38021 Activity:nil
6/7     Amusing article on how the out of control guard urine
        splashed the Koran of a GITMO inmate:
        http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05158/516835.stm - danh
        \_ "Deep Throat, if you're out there please save us."  Amen.
2005/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37984 Activity:low
6/6     [From 6/3]
        And I really love the "guard's urine came through an air vent" rather
        than "a guard urinated through an air vent ..."  It's the urine's
        \_ No dumbass, a guard peed near an air vent.  See:
           \_ "I tried everything I could to keep my pee from going into the
              vent.  Took three steps back.  Went around the corner..  It was
              like a pee magnet, that vent."
           \_ I was commenting on the wording in the report.  It's a common
              sort of passive construction that's so absurd it makes me laugh.
           \_ Yes, and a wind "blew" his urine accidentally into the vent,
              landing on a prisoner.  Duh!!!!1! God bless.
                \_ Moonie filth.
2005/5/31 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37909 Activity:nil
5/31    "Respectable" Terrorists"
        (W. Mark Felt aka "Deep Throat" sounds like a stand up guy!)
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1414117/posts   -jblack
        \_ [ip address replaced for the thousanth time, and for the thousanth
            time, fuck you.]
         \_ If it bothers you that much, just nuke his stuff until he
            complies or until you get shouted down.  He's probably just
            trying to piss you off, you know.
        \_ Fuck you jblack. Go back to your Red Neck Virginia state.
2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37801 Activity:nil
5/23    "After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out
        of their way to script this. They purposely interfered with the
        investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could
        control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going
        to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out.
        They blew up their poster boy." -Father of Pat Tillman
        http://csua.org/u/c5u (Post)
        \_ I like this quote:
           ``Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore,'' he said. ``Pat's dead, and
           this isn't going to bring him back. But these guys should have been
           held up to scrutiny, right up the chain of command, and no one has.''
        \_ "Pat isn't with God.  He's fucking dead.  He wasn't religious.
           So thank you for your thoughts, but he's fucking dead."
           -Pat Tillman's youngest brother, at his funeral
2005/5/22-25 [Consumer/CellPhone, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37798 Activity:low
5/20    At $20-30 a month (plus the VoIP box), why would anyone use
        VoIP? I can get regular phone service for only $15/month.
        And if I use Universal Lifeline, it's only $9/month. I just
        don't see any compelling reasons to use VoIP. In addition
        VoIP doesn't work when there's power outage, and if your
        internet is hosed (which happens more frequently than phone),
        then you're totally hosed.
        \_ The VoIP box is free, dummy. You get a rebate for it if you
           sign up for the service. Also, it takes five minutes to
           setup a VoIP line. You have to pay about $75-$150 to setup
           a phone line through Ma Bell and wait for them to install
           the extra line.
        \_ it's more compelling for long-distance call
           \_ especially for international calling.
              \_ Where can I get the rates for comparison?
        \_ Well for me I would have to pay ~$59 for a phone with unlimited
           long distance in WA.  I dropped the unlimited long distance
           and got vonage and I now have two lines which cost ~$45 total.
           \_ any comment on quality, features, problems, etc?
           \_ Can you please break down your prior phone cost ($59) to
              stuff like basic service, carrier fee, FCC fee, tax, etc etc?
              And then do the same with VoIP cost break down? I looked at the
              following and they don't give me a break down and I'm afraid of
              stupid catch they might put in the last minute like
              "Special 911 Fee" or something like that. They NEVER tell you
              these things when you sign up:
              Also can you use a calling card on top of it? Thanks.
           \_ I'm suppose to be paying only $29.99 for Verizon cell phone.
              After I added text messaging ($2.99), 1000 extra minutes ($4.99),
              it becomes ~$37. But my actual bill every month is $47. I don't
              know what it is about cell phones but they have really weird
              special fees and tax. Fuck phone companies.
              \_ It is not the phone companies fault. It is the government.
                 \_ Yes and no: it's the govt.'s fault that the fees exist;
                    it's the cell phone co.'s decision whether to pass the
                    fees on to the user or not, and it's the cell phone co.
                    that's purposefully not tell you about those fees when
                    they advertise prices for their services. --erikred
        \_ Have a look at Asterix--it's pretty stable, and a friend of
           mine has it replacing his entire phone service--there are a lot
           of VoIP nodes that are open.  -John
2005/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37785 Activity:high
5/20    So we've solved the koran flushing problem.  Okay,
        how about the slightly broader torturing innocent
        people problem?
        \_ Start a new thread, dumbass.
           \_ Okay.  Here ya go.
        \_ So who's innocent again?
           \_ According to AI, roughly 90% of the people we round up.
              Did you read the NYT article: http://csua.org/u/c4s
              \_ Oh yes, I've read it.  I've read people call things "torture"
                 that I wouldn't call torture.  And then there's the question
                 of determining innocence without interrogation, etc.
                 \_ You mean the stuff that doesn't cause death or major organ
                    failure? Some whiners actually call that torture!
                 \_ I remember there was a news article that the prisoners
                    called female interrogators stripping, rubbing their
                    breasts against their backs, sitting on their laps, and
                    commenting on their apparent erection torture.  Gee, where
                    can I get training to become a failed terrorist?
                 \_ Preach it brother! Interrogation is a wonderful tool that
                    should be used more often. And what does not kill them
                    makes them stronger, so we're helping them. Another tool
                    we should use is trial by fire. God will save them if they
                    are innocent.
                    \_ I remember there was a news article about someone
                       complaining about being raped.  Gee, where can I
                       myself raped?
        \_ well duh, that's obvious.  Get the foes to fight like a real army,
           wearing uniforms and all that.
           \_ Do you know that we do roundups.  Go into a community gathering
              and grab 50 people because 1 we want _might_ be there.  There's
              no 4th amendment in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Hell, there's no due
              process at all with the people in our prisons there.  We defeated
              the army that wears uniforms.  The people attacking us now are
              regular Iraqis who we went there to "liberate".  Yes yes yes,
              there may be some foreign influence, but they need the support
              of locals to operate.  And when we do shit like this, it doesn't
              help make them not want to support those foreign elements.
           \_ Just because they act like psychotic thugs doesn't mean we
              should.  Ever heard of the moral high ground?  And I believe op
              said "innocent", like that Canadian dude we delivered to the
              Syrian mukhabarat or whatever they're called because they
              aren't so restrictive about genital-clamping people with
              similar names as suspected terrorists.  -John
        \_ I think one aspect of this mess that's often ignored is the treatment
           of American citizen prisoners in American prisons.  All this stuff
           that generated international outrage -- that's the stuff that
           happens in American prisons every day, and passes mostly without
           comment from American media. -- ilyas
           \_ Prove it.
              \_ This is fairly well documented, you can stroll over to
                 http://aclu.org, for instance.  In fact, much as I am not fond of
                 some of the stances ACLU takes, I have to give them credit
                 for immediately linking prisoner abuses abroad with prisoner
                 abuses at home. -- ilyas
                 \_ Okay, I'll check it out.  Thanks for the pointer (though
                    perhaps not for the news).
2005/5/16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37703 Activity:high
5/16    Newsweek lied and people died.
        \_ Lied?
           \_ Yes, lied.  They claimed that the military confirmed something
              that they didn't confirm.  Now they aren't even retracting their
              \_ They claimed that the military confirmed something that they
                 will no longer confirm...
              \_ So where were you when the New York Times was hyping the war
                 in Iraq with hundreds of lies about Saddam's huge arsenal of
                 \_ You do understand that a mistake by one news organization
                    does not justfiy another mistake by a different
                    \_ I'm not defending Newsweek.  I think they fucked up and
                       they should own up to it.  However, I think all the
                       right wing blustering and rage about it is pretty silly
                       given that we got into a useless war on track to cost
                       more than Vietnam in constant dollars based on a huge
                       tissue of lies that was printed in the NYT amongst
                       many others.  Don't hear much blustering and rage about
                       THAT.  It seems like lies are perfectly all right as
                       long as they justify your desired ends.
                       \_ Well, I don't think NYT lied, nor did Newsweek.  They
                          made mistakes, but so does everyone.  The best they
                          can do is to own up to their mistakes and correct
                          their processes so that future mistakes are less
                          likely.  Also, I find it somewhat sad (if it is
                          true) that there is only "right wing blustering and
                          rage".  We should all be upset about the Newsweek
                          error, just as we should all be upset about errors
                          in NYT and elsewhere.
                          \_ Okay, what was Newsweek's mistake?  They got this
                             tidbit from a "knowledgable source", one they had
                             used before.  They asked two DD officials for
                             confirmation.  The first declined to comment.  The
                             second said another part of the article was wrong,
                             but didn't question the part about flushing the
                             Koran.  So newsweek ran it.  This sort of thing
                             used to be called journalism.  Two weeks later,
                             their source backs out and the pentagon gets
                             pissed.  Something's fishy. --scotsman
                             \_ Good journalism requires at least two sources
                                for a story.
                                \_ Sounds to me like they thought they had two:
                                   Their source, and the official who read the
                                   story and didn't object.  It wasn't a
                                   positive assertion that "yes, this is in an
                                   upcoming report from an investigation", but
                                   it certainly seems they checked it out.
                                   It just really smells too much of shoot-the-
                                   messenger for me.
                                   \_ I'm not sure "no comment" and "That
                                      sounds like something I heard once"
                                      count as confirmations.
                                      \_ What about "I've reviewed your piece
                                         and you can't print this [other
                                         unrelated part]"?
                                         \_ That would be confusing 'not
                                            denying' with 'positively
                                            \_ Which, in an admin that funnels
                                               all FOIA requests through the
                                               white house, seems a line that
                                               needs to be crossed.
                                               \_ This would be the "it's good
                                                  enough because doing more is
                                                  hard" standard?
                                                  \_ Which is why they
                                                     apologized, but haven't
                                                     \_ Newsweek retracted.
                                                        \_ Indeed.  Sigh.
                                                  \_ We should apply this
                                                     standard to more things.
        \_ And how did people die from Newsweek's lie?
           \_ do you even watch any news?
              \_ Oops!  I read about the Quran flushing and the riot, but I
                 missed the news that it was a Newsweek lie.  -- PP
              \_ Watching the news is a big mistake.  Reading the news isn't
                 much better but at least print media sometimes pretends to take
                 it's job seriously. --!pp
              \_ You missed the riots and deaths?
                 \_ Those were terrorists, not "people"!
                 \_ The Afghani government claims that the riots there had
                    nothing to do with the Koran story. Don't know if there
                    were deaths elsewhere.
                    \_ (not a troll, really) Afghani == currency.  Afghan ==
        \_ American Newsweek writers didn't know how inflammatory "flushing
           Koran down a toilet" was compared to getting nekkid CIA officers to
           sit on detainees laps - otherwise they would have done more vetting.
        \_ Newsweek already killed Admiral Boorda.
        \_ I posted a long quote from Gen. Myers stating that the US
           definitely placed Koran's on the toilet, but can't confirm yet
           whether any actually were flushed, but some asshole stomped it.
           You and the whole Powerline/LGF crowd are going to look pretty
           stupid when it turns out Newsweek was correct.
           \_ Where is the quote?
           \_ The post may have just been overwritten.  Why don't you
              repost or post a link?
              \_ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/05/mil-050512-dod01.htm
              \_ http://csua.org/u/c31
                 Important stuff is at the very bottom.
                 Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Myers is saying though.
                 What do other people take that last paragraph to mean?
                 \_ For the most part he seems to be denying the Newsweek
                    report.  I have no idea what he was trying to say here
                    though:  "There are several log entries that show that
                    the Koran may have been moved to -- and the detainees
                    became irritated about it, but never an incident where
                    it was thrown in the toilet."
                    \_ Yeah I take that to mean that the Koran was moved
                       to the toilet, but not flushed down it, though it
                       is not entirely clear that he meant that.
           \_ "They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and
              they cannot confirm yet that there were ever the case of the
              toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they
              still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard
              to be ripping pages out of a Koran and putting in the toilet to
              stop it up as a protest.  But not where the U.S. did it.
              ...  That's still unconfirmed; it's a log entry that has to be
              confirmed.  There are several log entries that show that the
              Koran may have been moved to -- and the detainees became
              irritated about it, but never an incident where it was thrown in
              the toilet." -Gen. Myers
              Okay, so there are logs that say the Koran was moved "to" the
              toilet, which means to me on the seat (open or closed) or on top
              of the water reservoir.
              The point of debate is not about stomping on or putting Koran's
              "on" the toilet, the latter point the military concedes there are
              logs about.  The issue is flushing Koran's down the toilet, for
              which the military says there are no logs showing this.
              \_ So they were "really disrespectful" but not "ludicrously
                 disrespectful"?  The WH puts out a statement saying that
                 Newsweek is hurting America's image.  I say America is
                 hurting America's image.
                 \_ You don't get people killed because of Korans moved "to"
                    the toilet.  Flushing Korans is another thing.
                    Anyways, like I wrote earlier, American Newsweek writers
                    just didn't understand how inflammatory this was, or they
                    would have vetted it more.
                    \_ As noted above, the afghan gov't said that the report
                       was incidental to the violence.  Not a cause.  People
                       are pissed.  at us.  enough to blow up themselves and
                       innocents to get to us and those who are linked to us.
                       And you say it's because newsweek printed an article...
                       \_ Let's put it this way:  If Newsweek's anonymous
                          Pentagon source didn't back down and Gen. Myers said
                          "Yeah, we actually do have logs of our guys flushing
                          down Korans", then the U.S. military would be blamed.
                          \_ Y'know what.  The US Military is already blamed
                             because we are OCCUPYING THEIR COUNTRY.  Because
                             we are holding people thousands of miles from home
                             in a legal limbo.  The status of the qu'ran in a
                             gitmo prison is just another speck on our filthy
                             \_ The one point I can agree with you on is that
                                Dubya's administration has committed many more
                                serious mistakes than Newsweek has.
                 \_ How many other surfaces are there in a military latrine
                    where one can put a copy of the Koran?
                    \_ Well, the issue is whether they did it on purpose to
                       piss off the prisoners.
                       \_ Is it?  I thought the issue was the location of the
                          of the Koran.  The Myers quote made no mention of
                          the state of mind of the military guard(s).  Never
                          been in a military prison latrine before, but I'm
                          not coming up with many better locations to put a
                          copy of the Koran than on top of the can.
                          \_ Why did they bring one there in the first place?
                             \_ Ah, that's a different question.  I don't
                                think I've seen any reference to *who* brought
                                Koran into the toilet.  Was it a guard or a
                                prisoner?  But once the book is in the toiilet,
                                where else better should you put it?
                             \_ Every prisoner gets a Bible, Koran, or whatever
                                holy book you want.
                                \_ Would they give free Playboy subscriptions
                                   if you said you worshipped Hugh Hefner?
                          \_ What is inferred is that the state of mind of the
                             prison guards was as you stated:  They were
                             innocently placing the Koran on the john because
                             it seemed like a good place.
                             But Myers didn't say that explicitly.
                       \_ These are supposed to be diaries of interrogations
                          remember. It makes no sense to respectfully place
                          the Koran "near" the toilet as an aside in an
                          interrogation interview. My guess is that they
                          threatened to flush them as a way to antagonize
                          the "interviewees." But that is just a guess.
                          the "interviewee." But that is just a guess.
                          \_ I don't know, the pentagon guys didn't say
                             the Koran was "moved to the toilet" during
                             interrogation, just that it was moved there.
                             You're assuming this was during
                             interrogation, but it's also possible
                             that a gaurd may have picked up a Koran to
                             get it out of the way and just used the
                             toilet tank as a convinent place to put it
                             down.  Heck, I read my bible on the can, and
                             rest it on the tank sometimes.  I can see a
                             gaurd doing this with a Koran inadvertantly.
                             It's a possibility.
                   \_ I assumed that it was in a cell that had a toilet in
                      it, like most jails.
                      \_ Apparently, some prisoners are kept in en suite
                         cells, and others are kept barrack-style, presumable
                         with an attached communal latrine.
                          \_ I don't understand this logic.  Regardless
                             whether it happened, if the military denies
                             it, then they mustn't be blamed?
        \_ This is hardly the first time this claim has been made:
2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37637 Activity:nil 57%like:37626
The uncensored messages below this line is a SIMULATION of what motd would
look like if it was run by moonbats with an overblown sense of their own
\_ What the fuck is a moonbat?  It's self apparent that it's not funny so
   what is it?
   \_ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moonbat&r=f
2005/4/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Recreation/Dating] UID:37238 Activity:moderate
4/18    Can we please stop it with the political correctness already?
        \_ who's being politically correct?
           \_ the City Commission on Human Rights.
              \_ how is defending someone's rights over popular objection
                 "politically correct"?  -tom
                 \_ Allowing a man to define himself as a woman is politically
                    \_ It's also politically stupid, ergo being politically
                       correct is equivalent to being politically stupid.
                       Anyway, the constitution doesn't provide for equal
                       protection of stupidity. No matter how man fags try
                       to tell you otherwise, sex is a "physical" attribute.
                       \_ This is true for most people, but not everyone.
                          There's a whole range of transgendered people,
                          including some who were born with ambiguous gender
                          and some who take hormones and have had a lot of
                          surgery.  The actual sex-changing operation is a
                          pretty small part of the whole process, and I'm not
                          sure we should define people's gender based on that.
                          Of course, I'm not sure we should let them pick
                          arbitrarily either, but it's not as unreasonable
                          as it sounds.  Keep in mind that, in a civic sense,
                          gender doesn't make that much difference anymore --
                          gender doesn't make too much difference anymore --
                          nowadays it's pretty much marriage, affirmative
                          action, and bathrooms, and the first two seem to
                          be on their way out.  --liberal
        \_ This is great! So can I define myself as a Native American so I
           can benefit from affirmative action?
           \_ It worked for Ward Churchill.
              \_ touche -pp
        \_ Awesome, so now I can saunter into a woman's dressing room in
           a store and claim I'm a woman. 50 years of civil rights and
           look at the progress we've made!
           \_ Well, unfortunately for you, that still only applies to
              (a (woman's dressing room)), rather than to
              ((a woman's) (dressing room)).
2005/4/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Military] UID:37192 Activity:moderate
4/14    So the media have all but ignored the Minuteman Project.  There are
        claims now that the Mexican Army are escorting mexicans to other
        parts of the border to cross, but there's pretty much zero coverage of
        this.  Why isn't this being investigated?
        \_ Almost as importantly is the lack of coverage that these
           illegals costs in range bombing time.
        \_ It's 24 miles worth of border and they have caught about 200
           people so far. Of course the Border Patrol is pissed off because
           the Minutemen, the activists watching the Minutemen, and the
           reporters following everyone are setting off alarms and messing
           with their own tracking. The Minutemen succeeded the first day
           when they got their 15 minutes of free press.
           \_ You obviously don't understand the project.  The number of
              illegals crossing the border in that section has dropped
              dramatically.  That's a success.
              \_ Errr...You aren't really *that* dumb are you?  Umm...maybe
                 you are...
              \_ Because it doesn't extrapolate out nicely. 500 volunteers
                 over 24 miles compared to paying X professionals over the
                 1950-odd mile Mexican border? Toss in Canada and you've
                 got a bit of a budget problem.
2005/4/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37145 Activity:nil
4/11    Bad Ass Sikh keeps terrorist body as souvenir:
        \- See also KPS Gill
2005/3/30-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36988 Activity:nil
3/30    A critique of libertarian thought:
        \_ This is from a conservative perspective that the vast majority
           here are not going to be in tune with.  It also mischaracterizes
           libertarianism on a number of fronts.  Most egregiously when it
           suggests that libertarianism somehow has "contempt for
           self-restraint".  He approaches the real problem when he suggests
           that most libertarians don't realize how easy it is to infringe on
           another's rights (I'm fond of pointing out that this is especially
           true in densely populated areas), but the article is mostly
           pandering to the "drugs and porn are bad" crowd, muddled thinking,
           and the putting up of a utopian straw man.  (It is a small minority
           of libertarians that are utopian).  I'm sure there are better
           criticisms of Libs out there, as there is much to criticize.
           -a libertarian
           \_ Huh.  Thanks for the insight.
              \- libertarianism is a reasonably powerful and parsimonious
                 theory about government. but there is a lot more to philosophy
                 than the ordering of social institutions. and conclusions in
                 other areas in turn feed back into beliefs about the ordering
                 of social institutions. and that lack of a theory about
                 say "what we owe each other" or the right and the good,
                 justice, fairness etc is where libertaianism lacks in theory.
                 where it lacks in practice in my opinion and experience is
                 many adherent really are not committed to theory. they cleve
                 to the ideology because the conclusions are what they like
                 with rather than the fundamental principles and logic. the
                 extrme form of these are randroids. those people dont even
                 realize randianism isnt a philosophy any more. it is just
                 a bunch of prescriptions which a sham theory behind it [sic].
                 there are also a minority of honest libertarians who are
                 too obsessed with theoretical parsimony which is lacking
                 in some messy but probably more honest and powerful
                 theories [these are the nozick-heads. it is quite possible
                 you dont know any of these people. although if berkeley
                 you have some chance of meeting a few of these. they can
                 be worth talking to.]. --psb
                 \_ Interesting, though dense.  Thanks for taking the time
                    to elucidate.  It's all pretty interesting when presented
                    rationally without all the distracting acrimony.
                    \- oh there should be acrimony but maybe not distracting
                       acrimony toward randroids. there isnt enough acrimony
                       towards them. --psb
                        \_ agreed. -a libertarian
2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36714 Activity:moderate
3/16    Why is Congress investigating steroid use in baseball? Were the
        steroids illegal?
        \_ Yes.  But it seems that there might be a few things more pressing
           for Congress's attention right now...
        \_ My question would be: why does the Congress care about steoid use in
           baseball?  If it's legal, leave them alone.  If it's illegal, leave
           them to the judicial branch.
           \_ Bread and circuses my friend.  Bread and circuses.
           \_ Interestingly, congress gave baseball a special exemption from
              anti-trust law.  So they do have special status according to
        \_ Kind of like how our tax dollars are wasted policing things like
           illegal MP3 and movie trading? Or for that matter, the whole
           "war on drugs" which has resulted in nothing but wasted lives
           and wasted money? Welcome to the world of politics, my friend.
           \_ I'm not your friend.
              \_ Welcome to the world of politics, you dick.
              \_ I think he was being mildly patronizing and you're clearly
                 too stupid to pick up on that, my overly literal and rather
                 obtuse friend.
                 \_ I knew he was being patronizing and was calling him out on
                    that.  Now who's being obtuse, friend?
                    \_ Hmm.  No, it's still you.  Train harder, grasshopper.
                       \_ You're a doody-head!  NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!
                          \_ I guess this means that you're not \my\ friend
                             either...thank God.
        \_ Just for fun, order these by how much the government spent on each:
           Investigating Bill Clinton's alleged real estate fraud
           Investigating why the last space shuttle tragedy happened
           Investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks
           \_ Looks like you already have.
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36634 Activity:very high 66%like:36625
3/10    Violent Dems!
        \_ Gosh this sucks. I wished the man had actually run down the woman
           and have gotten away. That damn bitch supported an illegal war
           that killed a lot of innocent lives. Fuck her.
        More Violent Dems!
        \_ Republicans do this kind of shit every day.
           \_ Every day? Do tell!
              \_ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#bias
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36625 Activity:moderate 66%like:36634
3/10    Violent Dems!
        More Violent Dems!
        \_ Republicans do this kind of shit every day.
2005/2/28-3/2 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36457 Activity:moderate
2/28    Alexf, Can you please answer this?  Condemning the whole organization
        over Mumia seems ... overzealous:

        (from yesterday)
        \_ Hey, I got no problem with the concept, but once they start
           defending terrorists and cop killers, the implementation is,
           in my book, obviously hopeless. -pp
           \_ To what are you refering?  You're claiming something I
              can't find any reference for.  Please give some context.
              \_ (FWIW, I don't check the motd nearly often enough to have
                 time to respond before these threads get purged). Anyway,
                 how's this quick selection for a start:
                 Re Mumia:
                 AI supporting the Jenin myths:
                    http://csua.org/u/b7d (honestreporting.com)
                 AI promoting ludicrous notions of moral equivalence:
                    http://csua.org/u/b7e (ibid.)
                 As far as what the rest of the thread brought up -- I
                 don't think them particularly in the wrong on Abu
                 Ghraib (the media has, though, blown it far out of
                 proportion IMHO), and am rather ambivalent in regard
                 to their involvement in the Gitmo stuff. I'll readily
                 admit that they've done a lot of good work in the
                 past, but many of the things they do now, and, yes,
                 the Mumia case is the most disgusting behavior of
                 theirs in my book, color my perception to the point
                 that I definitely think the world would be better off
                 without them (or with a monumental change in their
                 leadership and culture). I don't intend to continue
                 this debate on the motd. If you really want further
                 responses from me, email or better yet come to Soda
                 in person. -alexf
                 \_ ob group masturbation of hooded prisoners at abu ghraib
                    video; also: "I went down to Tier 1 (the cellblock where
                    much of the abuse is said to have occurred) and when I
                    looked down the corridor, I saw two naked detainees, one
                    masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open," he
                    is quoted as saying. "I thought I should just get out of
                    there. I didn't think it was right, as it seemed like the
                    wrong thing to do. I saw Staff Sergeant Frederick walking
                    towards me, and he said, `Look what these animals do when
                    you leave them alone for two seconds.'"
                 \_ AlexF, I understand you want to provide a more balanced
                    view of the cases cited, but do you really think citing
                    a website devoted to avenging Daniel Faulkner and a
                    website devoted to denigrating any criticism of Israel
                    balances things in any meaningful way?
                    \_ Maybe they were the first things up on Google.  In
                       any case, I hope we can all agree that the far left
                       has been taken for a ride on the whole Mumia thing,
                       and should really just let it go.
                       \_ "Mumia probably killed that guy. There, I said it.
                          ...the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the
                          fact that he did indeed kill that cop. ...He probably
                          did kill that guy." -Michael Moore, from "Dude,
                          Where's My Country"(2003), page 189.
                       \_ I don't know about that. You have to remember
                          that the Philly police bombed a whole city block
                          and killed something like a dozen people to
                          eliminate the MOVE crowd. It was the Waco of the
                          80s but since it was a bunch of black people, not
                          that many people got upset about it. Mumia
                          was a good spokesperson for their efforts. This
                          is all tangential to his actual guilt or innocence
                          I know, but in the real world, this is the way
                          politics works.
        \_ Repost the link, some ass deleted it.
           \_ There was no link.  Mumia is the only thing I could think of
              that he could have been talking about.
        \_ Amnesty International = Evil, Torturing Innocents At Gitmo = Good
           \_ There are no innocents in Gitmo!  They're all very bad people,
              and we're not cutting off people's fingers or feeding them into
              the woodchipper feet-first like Saddam.
              Anyway, even if there's 1 or 2 people in Gitmo who weren't
              planning an attack on the U.S., they were at least doing
              something that they shouldn't have been; otherwise, they wouldn't
              be in Gitmo!
              If a Democrat were in charge the terrorists would be blowing us
              all up by now! -typical Dubya voter who p0wn3d u liberals
              \_ You forgot at least one reference to God, and your faith in
                 His wisdom, etc, etc.
2005/2/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:36444 Activity:very high
2/27    Peter Benenson died last week:
        \_ Now if only Amnesty International would die with him...
           \_ Fuck.  You.
              \_ Hey, I got no problem with the concept, but once they start
                 defending terrorists and cop killers, the implementation is,
                 in my book, obviously hopeless. -pp
                 \_ To what are you refering?  You're claiming something I
                    can't find any reference for.  Please give some context.
                    \_ Everyone in Abu Ghirab and Guantanamo Bay is a
                       terrorist, remember?
                       \_ *Everyone*?!  You're kidding, right?  I've been
                       \_ And torture is OK as long as they're bad guys.
                          \_ Hey, people say there's no intellectual diversity
                             on liberal college campuses like Cal.  The
                             pro-torture sysadmin faction proves that to be
                             false.  I think there are probably a good half
                             dozen motd posters who genuinely support torture.
                             \_ I think anyone who's had to deal with a
                                sysadmin wouldn't be surprised by their
                                pro-torture attitudes.
                       \_ You, sir, are the terrorist.
2005/2/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Recreation/Travel/LasVegas] UID:36399 Activity:nil
2/23    Oldie but goodie.  Cheney playing poker.
2005/2/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:36391 Activity:nil
2/23    I love America!
        \_ John Ashcroft would love to talk to the PPP CEO. C'mon, it's
           NYC, anything liberal and evil's possible. They will never sell
           these things in holy places, like ummm, Texas.
        \_ "If the boys had used the card, they would have ended up on a Web
           site rife with the rawest closeup photos and videos of sex acts,
           including intercourse and fetishes."  OH MY GOD CALL A CHILD
           SUPPORT GROUP!  Jesus H. Christ.  "Rife".  -John
2005/2/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:36338 Activity:kinda low
2/20    Hey jwang, I have a suggestion/feature request. Rather than deleting
        politics which I know you hate, how about moving them to another file,
        like /etc/motd.politics? I appreciate the hard work you put into
        political cleansing in the past few years as it makes motd more
        compact, but it would be nice if they're moved instead of eradicated.
        You got root, and/or you got ties to root to make it
        happen. How about it jwang?
        \_ fuck you kchang.
          \_ fuck you ilyas.
             \_ fuck you meyers.
               \_ The above illustrates why conservatives are running the show
                  (cuz the other side can't get along with one another)
                  \_ I am on the liberal side now?  Someone forgot to let me
                     know.  I don't know (and don't care) what kchang's
                     politics are.  Meyers' politics are irrelevant as he is
                     an idiot. -- ilyas
                     \_ Wow, it's like you've known me my whole life!  Please
                        explain to me why foodstamps at gunpoint is bad, but
                        funding your research at gunpoint is good.  -meyers
        \_ I personally would go for that, though I think it is sort
           of a solution looking for a problem. If I am not interested
           in something, I just don't bother with it. I don't go
           around trying to decide what is appropriate for others
           to read. Actually, how about we create a motd.moderated
           and a motd.unmoderated and you can be responsible for
           maintaining motd.moderated. -ausman
           \_ This is fucking hilarious.  How many people does anyone really
              think would read motd.moderated?
                  \_ after 911 the motd went into a lockdown and everyone
                     switched over to the underground motd. Search for
                     "underground motd peterm" in the archiver and you'll see.
                     It's really no big deal, people adapt quickly.
           \_ I have a better idea.  How about instead of doing that, jwang
              gets a fucking clue? -- ilyas
              \_ go libertarian go!
           \_ Good idea, with one slight change: just made motd.unmoderated
              a symlink to motd.public.
              \_ Can we also symlink motd.moderated to /dev/null?
2005/2/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36150 Activity:high
2/11    Anyone saying no one could have imagined terrorists using planes
        as weapons is not fit to dress themselves, let alone be SecState.
        I mean, c'mon, Tom CLANCY used it in Debt of Honor in '96.
        \_ I would argue that this is one reason we need a few more tech people
           at the top levels of government.  A future "failure of imagination"
           would be less likely if you had people who grew up reading/watching
           sci fi and who actually understand technology calling some of the
           \_ But it wasn't a failure of imagination. That's just a stupid line
              of crap.
           \_ Forget tech people. They need hardcore SF writers and game
              designers. Hell, I'd love to do that kind of job-- spend all
              day dreaming up worst case scenarios for security people to
                \_ Only a sci fi geek would think that's a good idea.
                \_ Wasn't this what Jerry Pournelle did/does?  -John
        \_ Do you people not understand that the real world works a little
           bit differently than the fictional world of books and tv shows?
           Sure someone could imagine that terrorist might fly planes into
           buildings but the people who write these books and create these
           TV shows also brought you Sam Fisher (where can I get one of
           those distractions cam for my P-90?) and Dana Scully getting
           abducted by Aliens.
           In the real world things are far more complicated than on TV.
           Think about that for a minute. These terrorist somehow managed
           to get past multiple security checkpoints and then on most
           planes managed to take control w/o meeting any resistance.
           How likely is that? What would you have done had you been on
           one of those planes? Sat idly by? Maybe try to take control?
           Think about all of the variables that are present and the
           behaviors of hundreds or thousands of people on 11 Sept and
           tell me you still think that it was imaginable in the real
           \_ It's not an issue with realism or what.  Of course things are
              more complicated in real life.  The issue is that you want
              people around who have the imagination to come up with the
              really odd, improbable shit--remember Sherlock Holmes?  "If you
              have discounted all other probabilities, whatever remains,
              whatever improbable, must be the truth"?  I'd welcome having
              people around who can think outside of some bureaucratic,
              limited, wingtip-shoe "it'll-never-happen-here" mentality.
              Just having people like this on the payroll doesn't mean you
              have to jump every time they predict an alien invasion or, god
              forbid, a tsunami, but it might help you react a bit faster if
              such a thing did come to pass.  -John
                \_ While I generally agree that quicker reaction may have
                   prevented considerable loss of life, the problem is
                   that the military largely lacked any basis for knowing
                   whether or not the crashes were due to terrorist activity.
                   Had these not been suicide attacks, but rather some
                   sort of mixup/malfunction and the military had reacted
                   by destroying the planes, it is highly improbable that
                   they could have justified the action by showing that
                   there was probable cause to suspect suicde airplane
                   attacks. In retrospect is it easy to say that the ptb
                   should have known, but one must consider that question
                   in light of what could they have reasonably done w/o
                   complete proof (which they did not have on 9/11) that
                   the situation was really as they believed it to be?
                   \_ This is the fundamental problem faced by people working
                      in corporate IT security--your very job consists of
                      coming up with unlikely-but-highly-destructive scenarios
                      and selling the most effective, least intrusive pre-
                      emptive measures or countermeasures capability to these
                      you can think of.  There are wide areas of risk analysis
                      devoted to coming up with exactly this sort of crap--you
                      take _all_ imaginable scenarios, then figure out how
                      feasible they are and rate them in terms of how urgently
                      (if at all) you should do something about them.  I'm not
                      just talking about 9/11 here, but referring to a seeming
                      inability or unwillingness to consider just this sort of
                      crackpot scenario (which apparently _was_ dreamed up by
                      some pretty competent and intelligent people) or even
                      something unlikely that a sci-fi writer might cook up
                      (massive earthquake + tsunami kills 150k, asteroid hits
                      NYC, whatever) and seriously attempt to determine (a) a
                      probability for it, and (b) what to do if it comes to
                      pass.  Blowing it off out of hand does not count as
                      responsible under ANY circumstances.  -John
                      \_ I agree w/ you that the way to deal w/ the
                         problem is (a) and (b), but I what I don't
                         agree w/ is that the ppl in charge blew
                         it off b/c a determination that the prob.
                         of the event is not very great can look, in
                         retrospect, to be blowing it off. I haven't
                         read about any evid that shows that a prob.
                         assessment of a 9/11 style attack prior to
                         9/11 was greater than miniscule in anyones
           \_ When I first heard the news, my first thought was, "They've
              finally done it." My next thought was, why the hell weren't
              there contingency plans drawn up by the military, etc. to
              handle just such a case. And then I heard they'd crashed into
              the Pentagon, and I knew, for real, that we as a govt. are
              crippled and screwed.
              \_ One further point which I omitted is the fact that prior
                 to 9/11 a military plan which involved the destruction
                 of civilian aircraft w/o a clear showing of terrorist
                 involvement would have been impossible to implement.
                 Let us suppose that the military had a plan to destroy
                 the planes based on a suspicion that terrorist had taken
                 control. Could they have implemented that plan? In the
                 pre-9/11 world the answer is NO.
                 If the 9/11 incident had turned out to be an accident or
                 a standard hijack rather than a terrorist suicide attack,
                 military action that destroyed the plane in the air would
                 have been characterized as trigger-happy extermism, &c.
                 No lefty senator would have accepted an explanation that
                 the intelligence services felt that the planes might be
                 used by suicide hijackers on the basis that such as
                 belief was completely implausible. Prior to 9/11 this
                 objection would have been perfectly reasonable b/c there
                 was no reasonable basis (prior acts, &c.) for holding
                 w/ a view that such an attack was plausible.
                 \_ Bullshit. The Pentagon could easily have established
                    a no-fly zone around it that would trigger an automatic
                    anti aircraft response. Almost no one would object
                    to that. Remember when the USS Vincennes shot
                    down a civilian airliner for straying too close?
                    Very few objected to that. The Pentagon is a far
                    more valuable target than a carrier group.
                    \_ iirc, the Vincennes incident is sufficiently
                       distinguishable from 9/11: (1) the ship was
                       engaged in surface action, (2) the iran air
                       flight took off from a civilian/military
                       shared airfield and (3) the radar aboard the
                       Vincennes could not accurately distinguish
                       a commerical airliner from a military jet.
                       The cmdr, who was already faced w/ hostile
                       surface action had little choice but to
                       assume that the inbound was hostile as well.
                       9/11 is different. The Pentagon was not
                       "engaged" in any action, it was located near
                       commerical flight paths, the plane was known
                       to be a commerical jet, &c. If the military
                       had made a mistake and shot it down when
                       no terrorist action was involved, there is
                       no way a congressional commission pre-9/11
                       would have accepted the pentagon's threat
                 \_ Disagree. 9/11 changed things in the public consciousness
                    but I would have assumed there would be procedures in
                    place for this as applied to the pentagon. Shooting down
                    a civilian airliner would be a tragedy even if it was
                    100% clear it was in kamikaze mode. But even "lefty
                    senators" who hate America would accept it. It really
                    is common sense.
2005/2/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Military] UID:36106 Activity:kinda low
2/8     Is there any conspiracy theory which is most likely true?
        \_ There really was a conspiracy to hide information about UFO's from
           the public.  The nonexistence of aliens did not stop the mindless
           wheels of government.
           \_ um yes, gov't consipiracy to cover up UFOs are true.
        \_ What do you mean? They're all true!
        \_ The Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination was almost
           certainly a coverup. I personally think they were covering up the
           fact that they really had no idea what happened, not that nutjob
           theory of your choice did it, but who really knows?
2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35993 Activity:very high
1/31    Is Al Qaeda ineffective? I ask this because despite spouting so
        much bile and hatred they haven't really done much of anything.
        As the train accident in LA showed, it's easy to stage simple
        attacks and yet all they have to show are a train bombing in Spain
        and the WTC. I am starting to think the WTC was more lucky than
        good. Is Al Qaeda as large of a threat as most of us thought on 9/11?
        \_ Oh.  It's only 1300+ and counting.
           \_ 1411 to be exact.
              \_ Your number is old.  1435.
        \_ Al Qaeda is effective in the Russian guerilla warfare sense -- they
           are using very limited resources to tie up a LOT of resources of
           the enemy. -- ilyas
           \_ Understood, but I guess the surprise is how limited their
              resources really seem to be. Even Hamas seems to be a
              stronger, better-backed, and better-funded organization. They
              make the most of what they have, but what they have seems to
              be 'not much'.
              \_ Al Qaeda may well be smaller and less funded than Hamas.
                 Their only claim to fame is pulling off an attack on US soil.
                   -- ilyas
                 \_ And on US embassies.  And on US warships.  Not to mention
                    MASSIVE loss of US civillian life.  And the first WTC
                    \_ All of this was on or before 9/11, no?
                       \_ Mostly, yeah -- I was responding to the notion that
                          WTC II was their only claim to fame.
                       \_ Bali nightclub bombing was after.  weren't there
                          refinery explosions in germany or something claimed
                          by al qaeda?  American compound in riyadh in may 03.
                          daniel pearl
        \_ This is almost stupid enough to call troll on it, but it's dim,
           so i think it's sincere.  Coordinated embassy bomings in africa,
           uss cole, etc.  now have expanded their presence to over 60
           countries.  they're dispersed, and growing, and bush hasn't done
           a thing to actually work on it.
           \_ Wow, now THIS is a troll. Since 9/11 there hasn't been one
              successful attack on U.S. soil. If your Al-Qaida was so
              powerful why haven't they done even one suicide bombing in
              America? Oh, I guess you're going to blame the LA train wreck
              last week on some sort of government cover-up. Tinfoil hat
              \_ As ilyas points out above, they've done an incredible job
                 costing the US billions of dollars, thousands of lives,
                 and tying up a HUGE portion of the US's military power with a
                 trickle of resources.  What should be obvious is that if we
                 didn't tie up those resources, then it's far more likely that
                 rather than military personnel lost in combat it would
                 probably be as many civillian lives somewhere else.  Your
                 observations are accurate, but your standards of evaluation
                 are all wrong.
                 \_ You seem to be suggesting that if we had not invaded Iraq,
                    the US would have suffered around 14,000 civilian terrorist
                    casualties in the past 2-3 years.
                    \_ [This is now incoherent because PP backed off of his
                        absurd assertion]
                        \_ [PP was too busy trying to beat the motd spinlock
                            and didn't think all the details through.]
                            \_ Motd spinlock never happens!  Someone who posts
                               way more than me says so! -- ilyas
                               \_ That claim was never made.  Reread the
                                  archive, dude.   -4 hp for poor reading
                                  \_ Ilya was being sarcastic.  Now who's got
                                     poor reading comprehension?
                                     \_ Sarcastic...you keep using this word..
                                        perhaps it doesn't mean what you think
                                        it means.
                                     \_ You can be sarcastic AND wrong.
                                        Sarcasm is fun; being misquoted is
                                        irritating.  Crap.  Ilyas trolled me,
                                        didn't he?  DAMN YOU ILYAS!  -4 hp to
                                        me for being gullible.
              \_ Before 9/11 there hadn't been a us attack for many years.
                 And now there are all those nice soldiers in Iraq to blow
                 up instead.
                 \_ Attacking military targets isn't a particularly good
                    way to terrorize the US populace at large.
                    \_ You know the goal isn't terror.  Terror is just one
                       of many tools.  The goal is to further an agenda.
                       This isn't a Bond movie.
                    \_ No, but it terrorizes the Iraqi population, which makes
                       our job there harder, more expensive, and with higher
                       casualties to boot.  If they hurt the populace enough,
                       the US may even be forced to withdraw which would be a
                       PR disaster (not to mention a massive ideological
                       failure).  Also, if it gets bloody enough for our
                       troops, the government may even lose popular support,
                       which gives further validation to the effectiveness of
                       terrorism overseas impacting domestic policy (ie, the
                       US populace at large).
                        \_ so Saddamn didnt terrorize the iraqi populace?
                           \_ ???  Are you responding to the correct thread?
                    \_ But it is a good way to 1) drain our resources and
                       2) solidify and "train" their people.
           \_ On the other hand, if all of the attacks happen in the Middle
              East (e.g. Cole) then they fade into irrelevance. Same thing
              if the attacks come decades apart. You'd think there would be
              more attacks in the US, Japan, or Europe and yet nothing. To
              me this indicates they have a severe lack of resources and
              thus spend a lot of time planning to use them efficiently.
        \_ I get the impression that they have a few smart people at the top
           who move very slowly, and a lot of low level poor ignorant angry
           men.  Rember that 9/11 was years in planning and only then it was
           the second try to destroy the WTC.  I don't think they have
           the resources to make chem or bio weapons, but given enough time an
           a state-sponsor they could put them into use.
        \_ Yeah, I'd have to agree. That's why I was and continue to be
           surprised that people believe that that 9/11 has changed the world.
           Staging an attack on U.S. soil is *very* hard, but anyone can
           get lucky once in a while. There will not, however, be another
           attack on U.S. soil of any substantial magnitude (over 50
           casualties) masterminded by Islamic fundementalists in the next
           15 years (you heard it hear first).
           \_ I guess the idea is that they shouldn't have gotten lucky --
              US had gotten too lax in its handling of terrorism.  The
              World Trade Center was a wake up call.  It was the wake up call
              that serves as the 'changed the world' part.  That's just a
              guess on my part though.  You're probably right about the 15
              years part.
        \_ If Dubya didn't start the practice of scanning checked-in luggage
           for bombs, you can bet there would be a synchronized commuter
           plane event.
        \_ Yes, but how many unsuccessful attempts at terrorism has there
           been since 9/11?
        \_ why make a move when the great satan imperialist is sending
           its running dogs all over the place.  let them run around raging
           mad doing stupid things and waste money and get tired, making
           their friends turn away, and making new enemies, then when they
           are broke and exhausted and got kicked out of iraq with tail
           between their legs, then add insult to injury and start
           bombing and terrorizing them at their home again.  by then their
           will would be totally broken, and they will cry like girl.
           \_ Wow!  This r3wl5!!1!
           \_ You WIN!
           \_ I would suggest that the 'kicked out of Iraq' part isn't
              going according to plan.
2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/History/VietnamWar] UID:35988 Activity:high
1/31    New York Times 9/4/1967:
        "WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and
        heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential
        election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting."
        \_ What would you identify as the Iraq equivalent to the Vietcong?
           \_ VC is easy, it's the NVA that's missing.  -John
              \_ Iran is Cambodia!
                 \_ Err, stop thinking, man -- you're not very good at it.
                    \_ What's wrong with that?  "No we're not doing anything
                       there, wink wink".
                       \_ Heh, okay -- fair enough.  I take it back, then.
        \_ Gyah, you're giving me hives.
2005/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35951 Activity:high
1/28    Man I want to be a terriorist!!
        \_ If things keep going on the current path, soon posting on the motd
           will make you a terrorist!
           \_ Wow, so ilyas isn't nuking hte motd, he's FIGHTING TERRORISM!!
        \_ So hot!  I thought these things only exist in R-rated B movies.
2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35873 Activity:nil
        \_ The motd has gotten so goddamn stale and boring in the last few
           days that I'm actually glad to see freeper troll back.  Keep
           up the good work!
        \_ It's more like dirty than violent.
        \_ Proof that the American Justice system still works:
2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35811 Activity:moderate
1/20      http://cryptome.org/hsomb/hsomb.htm
          \_ Is there some reason you can't describe this link?
             \_ Homeland Security warnings, for official use only,
                but left open to the public due to some beauracratic
                oversight. Interesting reading.
        \_ Is there some reason you can't describe this link?
           \_ Homeland Security warnings, for official use only,
              but left open to the public due to some beauracratic
              oversight. Interesting reading.
2005/1/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35718 Activity:high
1/14    Dubya interview tonight emphasizing the failure to find WMDs and
        colossal CIA mistakes, where he says war was "absolutely" worth
        it even if there were no WMDs.
        Interview buried by Titan coverage and also Dubya's press
        conference today admitting his plainspokenness may have "unintended
        Intentional?  Who cares!  Even if it wasn't, this is exactly how
        the administration would have liked to have planned it.  Burying
        bad news on Friday has become a time-honored tradition for Dubya
        and friends, the rationale being:  The bad guys are the terrorists,
        if the Dems are ever elected they'll unwittingly let the terrorists
        destroy America; therefore, many actions are fine, and even heroic!
        \_ Unwittingly? You must not be familiar with Ann Coulter's corpus.
        \_ The interview is the "buried" news/  That's on 20/20 which is always
           on Fridays.
        \_ It is kind of hard to figure out exactly what you are trying to
           say here, but the gist of it seems to be that you believe that
           Bush traveled back in time and made sure that the Cassini probe
           was launched in such a fashion as to ensure that it passed Titan
           at the precise moment that scandal was erupting. I hope you
           don't really believe that. And if you do believe it, please
           join the other side. -Bush basher/American patriot
           \_ No I don't believe that, and this was said explicitly in the
              deleted thread.  To sum up:  "Bad news buried on Friday --
              sometimes it's intentional, sometimes not, but Dubya's
              people don't care either way, because they feel that they
              are doing it for the greater good."
              \_ Okay, then why drag poor Titan into it? And while I am sure
                 that Bush massages the news cycle, so has every President
                 since Nixon (maybe before, I dunno).
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35631 Activity:very high
1/10    As much as I like 24, I find its portraying of us liberals and
        the mention of moore interesting. Is the producer hard core
        republican? -curious 24fan
        \_ Is this from yesterday's episode?  Didn't you find that they
           played the Sec. of Defense as a caricature too (on the right)?
           Also, have the good guys stopped using Macs?
           \_ yes, macs are kind of non-mainstream now.
        \_ Has any past U.S. Defense Secretary been a non-republican?
           Trollish, but I'm also curious.
           \_ Harold Brown might have, president of Caltech at one time
              Director of Lawrence Livermore. Ph.D. in physics by age 21
           \_ Some of FDR's Secretary of Wars were Democrats. George Dern
              for sure. Louis Johnson, appointed by Truman must have been
              a Democrat, too.
        \_ Was Palmer rep. or dem.?
        \_ I never really watched 24 before last night. I thought the acting
           and drama was good but several things left a bad taste in my mouth.
           The stuff with the hacker "stealing software" was laughable. The
                                     \_ no, concluding that someone was
                                        "corrupting the internet" from looking
                                        at a scrolling series of hex numbers
                                        is laughable.
           defense guy's security was incompetent. The stuff with the
           terrorist's kid and his evil parents and the American chick was
           ridiculous. He wants to invite her over to kill her? Like that's
                       \_ how did you draw this conclusion?
                                \_ From the "scenes from the next episode"
                                   teaser they played afterwards.
           not gonna get noticed by anybody?
           \_ If you analyze it like that, then I am sure you'll find
              flaws. What I like about the show is the non stop
              suspense and twist and turns and the fact you have no
              idea what will happen next. A lot of shows are too
              predictable. I feel they've done a good job at 24.
              whether they are going up hill or down hill, hard to say
              at this point...
              \_ Yeah I said the acting and drama was good. I can't help
                 analyzing stuff but I can generally overlook it. It doesn't
                 take that much to appease me... if for example the feds put
                 up even a slight bit of fight instead of getting completely
                 wasted, or the hacker stuff was slightly plausible.
                 \_ The toughest part for me to overlook has always
                    been that the characters never seem to notice that
                    something cliffhanger-ish always seems to happen
                    every hour on the hour.  At some point you'd think
                    they'd look at their watches, see it's 9:59, and
                    brace themselves for something really really bad
                    to happen.  It's still a lot of fun though.
                    \_ The part that's always funny to me is the technical
                       stuff. Looking at hex scrolling by is an example,
                       maybe they thought we geeks can read machine code
                       or something. Or they are so fancy/advanced I go
                                   \_ you can't?
                       "you can do that?" Guess that's true with most
                       movies as well.
                       \_ I'm amazed at how quickly people can get from
                          place to place in LA.
2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35588 Activity:nil
1/7     "We don't need the Americans' intervention. We know who to elect.
        Not like them -- they elected a moron."
        \_ so? We don't need the Al Qaeda intervention. We know who to
           elect, not a moron. But Bin Laden came out in November and
           look at all the morons voting for a moron.
           \_ Somewhere there's a bridge missing its troll.
              \_ Crap, I came on too strong again.  I am so desperately lonely!
                 \_ There, there, I understand there's a trio of goats heading
                    your way even as we speak.
2004/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35457 Activity:moderate
12/28   http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-3/talk_of_the_town_susan_sontag.htm
        "In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be
        said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not
        cowards." -Susan Sontag, Sep 24 2001 issue of the New Yorker
        Goddamnit, I hate stupid liberals, especially those who are "smart".
        We're on the same team, but these people make us look like idiots.
        \_ Courage cannot be a morally neutral virtue in Platonian ethics,
           for obvious reasons.  Plato is so influential in ethical
           philosophy, I am surprised this point isn't addressed more.
           Unless, of course, she's just a demagogue. -- ilyas
        \_ With what do you disagree?  That courage can be evaluated in
           moral-neutral terms?  What was "cowardly" about the attacks?
           They were horrendous, shocking, unthinkable.  But cowardly?
           Calling them cowardly may be a salve for us here, but it's not
           necessarily true.
           \_ Killing civilians, where the idea is to kill as many as possible,
              is almost the purest definition of cowardice.  It's discouraging
              that someone as "smart" as Sontag couldn't recognize this.
              This is no "salve" -- this is the truth, long and short of it.
              \_ They went after US symbols of monetary and governmental
                 power.  If they wanted to kill as many civilians as possible,
                 they could have flown the planes into any of the nuclear
                 plants along the route.  I'm not trying to make light of the
                 deaths, but you've forgotten what the target was.
                 \_ Actually, the nuclear plants probably would have
                    killed less people and would have been much harder to
                    \_ Says you and who else?
                       \_ Read up on dirty bombs, and nuclear materials in
                          general.  As for harder to hit, are you an
                 \_ I think Osama thought it was great to kill two birds with
                    one stone:  (1) "Spectacular" attack from killing so
                    many innocents, and (2) the financial repercussions from
                    taking out the WTC.  I haven't forgotten anything, hombre.
        \_ She wasn't exactly a "liberal", more like a "rabble rouser", like
           just write/say crap that's total nonsense and dress it up with
           high-brow veneer and make it look like someone intelligent
           wrote it. I never liked her novels.
        \_ Terrorists are all cowards.
           \_ It's pretty courageous to drive your car into a crowd of
              innocent and unarmed people, which is basically what the
              WTC attackers did. If that's not courage then what is?!
              \_ how many troll points is this worth?
                 \_ Your sarcasm meter is on the blink.
                    \_ you needed more "?!!!"
           \_ "Cowards are cruel, but the brave Love mercy, and delight to
               save." -- John Gay
              "When all the blandishments of life are gone, The coward
               sneaks to death, the brave live on." -- Dr. George Swewll
              "To wish for death is a coward's part. [Lat., Timidi est
               optare necem.] -- Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso)
                \_ Those last two quotes miss the point entirely.  But
                   agree with Sontag, willfully piloting a plane into a
                   buildings is a lot of despicable things, but cowardly
                   it is not.
                   \_ I believe Sontag and you are both missing a key point.
                      The term "cowardly" is NOT morality-neutral.  http://m-w.com:
                      "cowardice":  lack of courage or resolution
                      "courage":  mental or moral strength to venture,
                      persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty
                      Now, if there were a morality-neutral term to use
                      for piloting a plane into a building, killing yourself,
                      then use that term.
                      This is where you say:  "Oh, but it says 'mental' OR
                      'moral' strength, and I meant mental courage, and that's
                      morality-neutral, so there!"
                      Then here is where I say:  "The moral connotation trumps
                      in this case; use a clear, morality-neutral term."
        \_ "Well, I believe [...] that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-
           indulgent, overrated crap."  - Crash Davis, "Bull Durham"
2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35393 Activity:high
12/22   Recruit is dropping, prison is overcrowded... what do you guys think
        about offer prison inmate an option to serve in the military?  Chinese
        used to do this in the imperial time.
        \_ Yeah, let's send over a bunch of rapists and murderers to Iraq.
           That'll make 'em love us.  Not that "normal" Americans have done better.
           That'll make 'em love us.  Not that "normal" Americans have
           done better.
           \_ Umm...I thought we did that.
        \_ Actually this is done quite often, esp. when things get desperate.
           Read some American/English/French war history.  Convicts make very
           poor soldiers, however.
           \_ In Colonization, they need TWO morale upgrades just to become
              free colonists!
        \_ You apparently are unaware on how high-tech the army is these days.
           The army needs highly motivated people to carry out its sophisticated
           tactics. Modern day warfare isn't about sending a mass amount of
           people to go off and die (that's what Al Qaeda does and that's why
           we have something on the order of 50-to-1 casualty ratios).
           Anyway, only the truly moronic will let people of questionable
           morality be trained for large sums of money to wield million
           dollar weapons.
                \_ Your entire response is a joke, right? hi-tech army?
                   highly motivated people? your 50:1 casualty ratio?
                   moronic-vs-moral people? surely you're kidding. I think
                   you have a very idealized notion of our military, and
                   I also think you overestimate the intelligence and
                   moral fiber of our military leaders and government.
           \_ 50:1??? Who are you kidding? Are you adding all the
              civilians casualties in there? We have lost 1.2k soldiers
              killed and 10k wounded. Do you think Al Qaeda has lost
              60k killed and 500k wounded? Where the hell did they put
              the 1/2M wounded???
           \_ al Qaeda is not sending massive army.  not even close.  and
              if anything, al Qaeda members are more motivated than us.
              high-tech weaponary is not an issue, we know that because
              we used to *TRAIN* those al Qaeda members in 1980's, remember?
2004/12/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35357 Activity:nil
12/18   Really interesting article on the sociology of International
2004/11/30 [ERROR, uid:35118, category id '18005#3.9472' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35118 Activity:high Edit_by:auto
11/30  Maybe one of you dickhead conservatives can explain why the "Liberal
       media" don't consider the release of a new Al Qaeda tape on Arab TV
       to be news.
       \_ Al Jazeera is a little too johnny-on-the-spot for my tastes.
2004/11/29 [Politics/Domestic/911, Finance/Investment] UID:35107 Activity:nil
11/29   Hello petro-euro, goodbye petro-dollar: http://www.csua.org/u/a4w
        \_ who wrote that article, a publicist for Dreamworks?
           i'm sorry I can't take someone who writes about the burning
           girders of the wtc and the dollar seriously.
        \_ Aside from a hit to American prestige, I dont' see how this changes
           anything.  Exchange and interest rates are determined by the flow
           of goods and money, not the currencies they are denominated in.
           \_ Less reasons for other countries to prop up the dollar
              \_ If they were propping up the dollar to keep oil cheaper, they
                 were making oil more expensive when priced in their native
                 currency.  I don't buy it.
2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35092 Activity:nil
11/27   Happy Holidays everyone!  And in the spirit, I present to you this
        story.  Teenage girl murders her mother and posts about it on her
        LiveJournal.  Not a hoax.  Hilariously, a lot of the comments on her
        blog are defending her.
                \_ nice web page name! - danh
        http://csua.org/u/a4l (Google News search)
2018/03/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 301 - 450 of 667   < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:911: