| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/27 |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34500 Activity:high |
11/1 OK, this was on Fark, but it seemed interesting enough that the motd
would appreciate it: If someone votes early (by absentee or whatever)
and then dies before election day, should their vote count?
(No 'the dead already vote' trolls, please)
\_ It seems that it should. The act of voting becomes valid at the time
of voting, not at the time the results are tallied or the time the
polls close. -- ilyas
polls close. If someone has a heart attack on the way from the
polls, it's the same thing. To use a less controversial example --
if someone signs his will, and then dies minutes later, the will
is still valid. -- ilyas
\_ I sort of agree, but another way to look at it is that the
election only happens on one day, and early voting methods are
just a courtesy, and your actual vote only happens on election
day, so the dead have not really voted, just mailed in an intent
for their vote to happen.
It seems 'fairness' in this would usually be overshadowed by
partisanship, as in "Who would the recently deceased likely vote
for?"
\_ Your statement "the election only happens on one day" is
fundamentally flawed. You might want to start from there.
In most voting systems I of which I am aware, the vote is
cast in time once it is sealed or placed in a ballot box.
Once your dead person sealed their absentee ballot, it was
cast. :wq
cast.
\_ Except the law doesn't match what you just said in many
places. Sorry.
\_ Only if they voted for Kerry.
\_ You just proved my point -above poster |
| 2004/11/1 [ERROR, uid:34496, category id '18005#2.46875' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34496 Activity:nil |
11/01 I predict that this will actually have an effect on the election, if
the hoodie generation have already registered:
Quicktime: http://www.gnn.tv/content/eminem_mosh.html
WMV or RealPlayer: http://mosh.eminem.com/video
(Yes, sound, yes, profanity, yes, video; hoodie optional.)
BUMPED |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34495 Activity:high |
11/01 Gotta love prop 71. Here in CA the crooks don't have to buy the
politicians, they can just put themselves on the ballot.
\_ Which one is that again?
\_ $3B bond for stem cell research. No oversight. Brown Act
exemption. etc. etc.
\_ What's the Brown Act and why do they want an exemption?
\_ The Brown Act requires public policy meetings to be held in
a public forum and an agenda to be posted in advance. 71
also exempts the board which makes monetary decisions from
the public records act. If this passes, I may have to go
into biomed. Whoever gets this money will be set to life.
into biomed. Whoever gets this money will be set for life.
\_ Thanks for the info, I was already going to vote
no for other reasons, but makes it NO.
\_ My answer to any propositions that I didn't already know about and
actively agree with is a "no" vote by default. I fully understand
the meaning and implications (and holes) of maybe 1 or 2 per
election cycle which get a "yes". There are just too many which are
just too vague or have too much background info we don't see to
vote "yes" on them.
\_ Don't do that. Many policy-makers know most people vote
like this, so they phrase the proposition so that a "no"
vote actually implements their proposed changes. |
| 2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34479 Activity:nil |
10/31 Death to America!
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041031-105422-5980r.htm |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34444 Activity:high |
10/29 Capitalism magazine, the bastion of randian objectivism, is apparently
as split over the US election as the rest of the country. I found that
somehow amusing. Some of the folks there are making reasonable
game theoretic arguments for why a randy ought to vote for Kerry.
-- ilyas
\_ If you mean "randian" in context of Ayn Rand (never heard it used
like this before) then Capitalism magazine is just plain wrong.
A true "randian" would either A) not bother to vote or B) vote
for himself.
\_ Not that I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand, but you don't understand
Randians at all. I said 'randian objectivism' to differentiate
from other kinds of objectivism (i.e. technical terms in lit
crit, philosophy, etc) -- ilyas
\_ I just had the very amusing experience of looking at
http://www.rand.org to find out if Rand had written anything about
elections in her time, and was amazed at how non-wingnut it
was...until I realized it was the wrong rand!
\_ yes, the Rand Corporation is a serious, professional
consulting organization |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34443 Activity:low |
10/29 So what happens if you're in a swing state, and you're still in line
to vote at 8pm? Do you still get to vote, or do they turn everyone
away, or is their mass confusion as conflicting orders to stop and
continue trickle down from local government and TV?
\_ John Ashcroft personally comes and puts you in jail indefinitely.
\_ Martial law is established and the race wars begin.
\_ I have worked the polls before, so I know the answer. One of
the poll workers comes out, eyeballs the last person in line
and tells them: "You will be the last person voting. Please
tell everyone who shows up after you that the polls are closed."
They come out a few minutes later to make sure he has not
ignored or misunderstood you. |
| 2004/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34429 Activity:insanely high 54%like:34477 |
10/29 hi all. I'm going to Florida. thought you might be interested in
following along from home...
http://csua.berkeley.edu/~rory
\_ I salute you, and wish you luck. --scotsman
\_ Thanks. This could actully be useful.
\_ I'm jealous. I didn't have free cash or vacation enough to
go to FL. I'm spending election day in Reno, instead. You'll
definitely be warmer. -- ulysses
\_ You campaigning? I am hooking up with half a dozen old
Chateauvians to campaign in Las Vegas. -ausman
\_ I'm going to Florida too. Finally putting law school to good use.
-- cathyg
\_ How exactly?
\_ Are you part of Litigate the Vote 2004?
\_ As a minority, I'm being disenfranchised because I'm not able to
register a vote that counts in the Presidential elections. Will
you file a suit on my behalf? I'm a California Republican. :-)
\_ Mmm. Utter bullshit. If your complaint is with the electoral
college, say so. That you're in the minority does not mean
you're disenfranchised. --scotsman
\_ Geez. He even put a smilie on the end. Sometimes a
joke is just a joke.
\_ Some things just aren't funny. Deal.
\_ It might be funny if disenfranchisement wasn't an
actual problem.
\_ Wow, get a sense of humor. I'll sell you one for
less than the price of a Starbuck's.
\_ Have you actually heard of intimidation or vote-supression
against Republicans in CA or are you just being an ass?
\_ Re-read his post and try again, moron. -!pp
\_ I considered he just meant that R-votes for pres. in CA
didn't mean anything in CA but figured trolling was much
more likely.
\_ IT. WAS. A. JOKE. I'm selling the other guy a sense
of humor. You get one at half price.
\_ How can you be a Californian and still a Republican?
\_ I can totally see it. The Republican party is a decent
organization by political standards; it's just the few at
the top who are cheating the party out of its decent name.
\_ How can you be an American and still be a Democrat? |
| 2004/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34423 Activity:high |
10/28 Here is a stupid question of the day. Since butterfly ballot doesn't
work, and electronic voting machine sucks, why don't we just use
*SCANTRONS* for ballot? Anyone who attend a year or two of high
school would be very familar with this system, and scantron is a
relatively fast accurate means of casting a vote, no?
\_ not sure why anyone uses the butterfly ballot, good question
\_ This is how we do it in my county (Northern CA). Each issue on the
ballot has a rectangle next to it. We use purple felt-tip pens to
fill in the rectangles. These systems are referred to "optical"
systems among the voting machines. They have the lowest rate of
ballot spoilage of all methods IIRC.
\_ We're using scantrons as of 2004 in L.A. County too, I believe.
\_ San Francisco uses Optical scan as well. It is by far and away
considered to be the best overall method, but I believe the
machines are very expensive compared to the Diebold type
devices. Counties don't want to pay for expensive things like
that.
\_ Well, you know there's a government subsidy on voting
machines with easily fakable vote counts.
\_ Hey, Oregon has mail-in balloting only. They should do this
nationally. No more long line, wrong precinct problems.
They just have to mail them by some postmark, let's say, or drop
them off at specific locations by a certain day.
\_ Absentee has the most possibilities for fraud. I'm for outlawing
it.
\_ Sutter County uses scantrons as well.
\_ How about if people are too stupid to write legible ballots /
vote they have to live with their own actions?
\_ A scantron card is easy to use if you can figure it out. A
butterfly ballot can get fucked up by quite a lot of reasonably
intelligent people. A Diebold machine can crash and lose all
votes on its little Windows brain forever, or have its Microsoft
Access "security" hacked and have votes changed, without any
record.
\_ As balloting methods go, scantrons are a lot better than many of
the other methods out there, but still far from perfect. If memory
serves the most common problem with scantron style ballots are
entry errors, e.g. partially filled in bubble/rectangle, filling in
multiple rectangles for a single race, etc. Though better than
punchcards with their hanging, pregnant, dimpled, etc. chads there
is still the possibility of inaccuracy when interpreting voter
intent.
Scantrons are *WAY* cheaper than computerized touch-screen
DRE voting systems, but most of the scantron voting systems are
made by the same companies that make DRE voting systems. Since
there's more profit to be made on DRE systems than scantrons, the
companies are much more aggressive about selling the DRE systems.
It's a pretty easy sell since many election supervisors are fairly
clueless when it comes to technology, and the DRE systems have a
much higher ``gee-whiz, ain't computers cool'' factor than
scantrons. The money allocated by HAVA (Help America Vote Act) can
only be spent on election equipment/maintenance, and if local
officials don't spend it, it disappears so there's no incentive to
buy scantrons for price reasons.
One other thing to consider is that scantron ballot counting
devices are potentially hackable, though, IMO, much less so than
most DRE systems. Of course, you have a paper trail for manual
recounts which is definitely an improvement over DRE's.
-dans |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34391 Activity:moderate |
10/27 "There was another election season, back in 1952, when a presidential
contest seemed too close to call, America worried it was vulnerable to
attack, and a single company dominated computing."
http://tinyurl.com/5qk8f
\_ Univac predicts landslide victory for Bush in CA!!11!1!!
\_ Univac's polling completely ignores circuits which use
transistors and no longer have a conventional vacuum tube.
\_ Thanks Captain Obvious. And your point?
\_ It's a joke on people criticizing the Gallup poll
methodology.
\_ The Univac I used mercury delay line memory. Very cool technology.
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-univac-mercury-memory.jpg
\_ Looks like a jet engine.
It appears that the delay line was only used as a stack. Had they
implemented a time-slot-based memory system, they could have used
the delay line for random access, and this would have presaged the
later Rambus architecture. Of course, a time-slot based system
would have been too complicated to implement given 1950 technology.
\_ The Univac I use cleans my carpet well. I'm waiting to upgrade to
Multivac which can clean two rooms in parallel.
\_ Which single company dominates computing today? Microsoft? Intel?
IBM?
\_ Actually, it's Apple
\_ Microsoft is only small stuff. Intel is small and mid-sized.
IBM has their finger in everything. But I don't think there is
one single company that owns computing in that sense anymore.
\_ Uhhh... Yeah, sure. Whatever. |
| 2004/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34387 Activity:high |
10/27 A note for the uber nerds: despite what `calendar` will tell you,
the elections are November 2, not November 5.
\_ I predict reports of really really long lines during prime-time
voting hours will be widespred on November 2.
Also, if you are an absentee voter in CA, please note that they
are required to be delivered by November 2 -- postmark by November
2 doesn't count! I believe you can also drop it off at a polling
booth.
\_ It's actually too late to reliably mail them at this point;
they were supposed to be in by Tuesday. You can drop them off
at the polling station though. -- forgetful absentee voter
\_ What do you want to bet that if there are long lines at closing
time, minority precincts in swing states do not stay open late?
\_ No precincts should ever be open late unless the precint
was at fault for some reason. If you're not in line by the
time the precint is supposed to close, you don't vote. I'll
bet that instead there are numerous judges who order certain
precints *only* in heavily minority areas to stay open longer. |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34383 Activity:moderate |
10/27 The dead registers to vote. http://csua.org/u/9oi \_ BBC scoops voter intimidation campaign underway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm \_ Uh huh. Imagine trying to keep people from voting who would be voting illegally. So intimidating! \_ And those thousands of millions of hundreds of dead people with their collusion and fake registration! Such a clear conspiracy! \_ Did you even read the URL? You're not even on the same vaguely general topic as the rest of us. \_ Nice fallacies in that story. A bunch of names in a largely black region. Did the author check to see if the names actually belonged to black people? Did he check the felony rolls? \_ Wow. It seems like you actually read the link. Neat-o! \_ Weir and Lesh are both voting for Kerry. \_ You can read a transcript of the story at the RNC site. Nothing in the story that points the finger at one party or another if you ignore the RNC supplied headline. http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=4996 |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34357 Activity:nil |
10/26 Just to get away from the presidential trolling, what do people
think of Prop 1A? The counter arguments in my voter guide just
talk about lack of oversight for how the money is used, but I
don't really see how that applies to normal general use tax
funds. motd, Yea or Nay?
\_ When in *any* doubt I vote "nay" on everything. |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34355 Activity:high |
10/26 Why are you a Democrat? Why are you a Republican? What is the
top reason you belong to either party?
\_ I am independent but I hate Democrats because they want to decide
everything for you, except what happens in the bedroom.
\_ I am a democrat for exactly one reason: George W. Bush. I was always
an independent before.
\_ Yes, I am precisely democrat for the same reason. I was pretty
neutral before, but GWB truely showed me what Republicans
are made of.
\_ I wouldn't go that far. If anything, i've become much more
willing to listen to moderate republicans over the last
four years, and I have in fact found that I have far more
in common with them than I would have thought. It's
just that one man, and some of his more wingnut cabinet
members.
\_ You are right, it is also men like Tom Delay and Bill
First. The moderates are totally cowed by the extreme
wing of the party, and until that changes there is no
moderate republican party.
\_ I'm a Democrat because I want to work within the system to improve
it. The Republican Party is full of assholes who justify their
beliefs and actions with survival of the fittest - and who wants to
party with people like that? If Republicans were just about smaller
government and having a safety net for the poor without this asshole
attitude and the derived characteristics, I'd probably be a
Republican. Why not just be an independent? You can always vote
for the other guy or criticize other Democrats as a Democrat.
\_ Independents get no say in the primaries.
\_ I grew up poor, and I believe in the "democrat" policies that helped
poor families like mine and now my family is pretty well off.
I don't mind paying more taxes to paybackk for the government
services I received in school like financial aid. I am democrat.
\_ I am democrat because I hate Republicans. They tend to be arrogant
and have no respect for other people.
\_ Nice troll!
\_ http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
\_ I am a Republican because I am stupid and evil. Once, a long
time ago, I was smart and good and a Democrat just like you.
\_ I was ignorant and blandly neutral until I came to Cal. After a
few years of seeing the left completely unfiltered, I found them
deeply intellectually dishonest, hostile, angry, mean, bitter,
and unworthy of serious consideration. I vote Republican because
they're the other major party and I've never met Republicans as
vicious and mean spirited as the left I met at Cal.
\_ I didn't have this experience when I attended 92-97, but I would
say (like Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary) they're
just stupid liberals, and stupidity is common to both parties,
and to independents as well. I would actually say my experience
(during Cal and since Cal) has actually been the opposite of
yours. -liberal
\_ I have the impression that states tend to be more strongly
polarized Repulican or Democratic. What are the top R and D
states? Do R or D states tend to do better (not in the fun-to-
live-in sense, but in the fiscal/crime/social services/education
sense)? CA is pretty screwed up. Is the equivalent Republican
state (TX?) equally screwed up? Does anyone know of relevant
research?
\_ I realize this is not exactly what you're talking about, but
it's interesting:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gspmap/mappage.asp
Blue states have higher per capita state domestic product.
If you broke it down by county, I think you'd see something
much more dramatic. When you actually look at the numbers,
it's the republicans who are the non-productive welfare
whores. Just look at the water projects in the western
states.
\_ Do you really need to ask motd?
\_ Most D states are along the coasts. R states are anywhere in
between. You be the judge.
\_ You don't know either, huh?
\_ What you have to understand is that there are really three
American political parties, the Republicans, Democrats
and Appropriators (to quote Dick Armey and Trent Lott). Most
Dems are Appropriators, and alot of Repubs (RINOs) are also.
The fiscal discipline (and other successes) of the 1990s
resulted when the small government conservative contingent
of Congress was able briefly take control in the 1994 elections,
aka the Contract with America. After Newt left, Congress
slowly returned to normal, although with a different letter in
charge.
\_ Fine. The question remains though. Which states are doing
better? Is TX as screwed up as CA? Is NY as screwed up as
GA? |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34348 Activity:kinda low |
10/26 Insufficient trolling. Please insert troll to continue.
\_ I think all illegal aliens should be shot. What do you think?
\_ Would you raise taxes to buy the bullets?
\_ Here's a good one from OSC
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-10-17-2.html |
| 2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34339 Activity:low |
10/25 It's been 44 years since 1960. 44 fucking years. When the year 2048
rolls around and us liberals are still being bitter about the 2000
election on the motd, I don't want to hear any bitching from you
bastards.
\_ Let us all say a non-denominational prayer that there will no
longer be anyone bitching and moaning on the motd in 2048.
\_ why not?
\_ Hehe, you got caught in a big way once. You also got busted in
Fl'2k. That's twice. You're just upset that the other side is
finally fighting back. When we have a voter ID card nationwide
that only allows a single vote your party is doomed. |
| 5/27 |
| 2004/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34305 Activity:low |
10/23 I'm reading my Official Voter Information Guide, and it seems to
me that almost every argument against any proposition is, "This
proposition is great, but doesn't go quite far enough, so vote
no!" Is there any clearer way to write, "I want this proposition
to pass, but they paid me to write this counter argument." ?
What kind of crap is this?
\_ The counter arguments written by that one lawyer sound positively
assinine. |
| 2004/10/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34297 Activity:high |
10/22 Trying to decide how to vote on prop 66 (the 3 strikes one).
Any thoughts?
"A decade after it was enacted, California's three-strikes
sentencing law has had little impact on violent crime while
costing taxpayers $8 billion to imprison tens of thousands of
felons, most of them for nonviolent offenses, according to a
study released today."
http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=396 - danh
\_ VOTE NO. It only strengthen a provision of the child abuse
statute that no DA has ever used. While weakening others from
felonies to misdamenaors (i.e. must prove INTENT for bodily
harm in non-fatal DUI accidents if 66 passes)
\_ I am voting NO. Judges and DAs already have discretion on
when/where to apply the 3rd strike. The case of people
stealing some pizza and getting 25 to life is a myth.
\_ You sure about this? The term mandatory minimums and
life in prison for 3 crimes seems to contradict your
bit about juridical discretion. California's prison system
is a shambles, and we imprison too high a percentage of the
population; I can say that much. The actual problems
of three strikes, and the merits of prop 66 I don't know
enough about. URLs would be helpful.
\_ "A strict reading of the language of the statute and the
initiative back in 1994 led to the interpretation that there
was no discretion for the prosecutor to dismiss qualifying
prior convictions... This narrow interpretation proved to be
incorrect in light of the California courts' decisions in
People v. Superior Court (Romero) and People v. Kilborn,
among others. Romero highlighted the court's ability to
strike prior strikes in the furtherance of justice and Kilborn
highlighted the prosecution's ability to request the court to
strike prior strikes in the furtherance of justice. Thus, in
an effort to accomplish justice, the prosecutor has the
discretion to request the court to dismiss prior convictions
in order to prevent a defendant from being punished unjustly.
And even if the prosecutor does not choose to exercise this
discretion, the trial court, which has the obligation to
impose a just and fair sentence, may dismiss prior strike
convictions." [Sorry for the long quote.]
http://www.cdaa.org/WhitePapers/ThreeStrikes.pdf
\_ So far, that says the trial court and prosecutor have
leeway to drop prior "strikes". I do not have time to
read your link. Does it include a part where _judges_
have the ability to decide sentencing apart from the
basic terms given in 3 strikes?
\_ Once a prior strike has been dropped at either the
request of the prosecutor or the discretion of
the judge, then the newest conviction can be
sentenced normally based on whatver other guidelines
(from other sources) that may apply.
\_ Hmmm.. My understanding was that the "pizza theft" incendent
\_ Hmmm.. My understanding was that the "pizza theft" incindent
actually occured, but what they fail to meantion was that it
wasn't just a petty theft, it was a strongarm robbery for a
slice of pizza. Which is exactly the type of person I want
in jail.
\_ Exactly. Also, a lot of these 'drug convictions' are just
convenient ways to lock up people involved in a lot more
than smoking out at their mom's house. Face it, anyone
can make a mistake. Or two. The third time then I want
a mandatory sentencing. Crime is way down so it seems to
work. Do you want all of those criminals (some "harmless"
and some not-so) released?!
\_ The real solution to the incarceration problem is not
to gut the three strikes law, but to gut the war on
drugs. Of course, no one will ever put this on a ballot
measure.
\_ We already did, remember "Medicinal Marijuana?"
\_ I agree very much! |
| 2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34289 Activity:insanely high |
10/22 NY Times editorial: Iran's nuclear threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/opinion/22fri1.html (user/pw: bobbob)
This is my prediction of what will happen:
- Iran suspends enrichment, but says it will never renounce right
- Iran accepts reactor-grade uranium from Russia
- Iran operates reactor
- Iran retains knowledge of weapons-grade enrichment
- Israel, U.S. do nothing
- IAEA maintains inspections
"Nightmare" scenario:
- As previous scenario, but ...
- GW Bush re-elected
- Joint U.S./Israel attack destroys reactor, 1/2 enrichment facilities
- 2-3 years pass
- Iran successfully detonates nuke, announces nuclear stockpile
- Israel responds with first public nuclear test
- U.S. stalled in UN by Security Council vetoes
- U.S. rapidly deploys primarily air-based systems near Iran's borders
- Iran blows up some nearby U.S. airbases with nukes before attack
- New Republican administration elected
- U.S. nukes Iran, destroying entire population
- Draft receives Congressional approval, including special skills draft
\_ Okay, and the bad part?
\_ So in your worst case scenario the ultimate bad thing that is going
to come from a nuclear war is the special skills draft? Okey dokey!
That was quite the stretch to get the geek draft in there. Anyway,
we've been over this before. The military is different now. The
draft would be worse than useless. It takes roughly 2 years to
take an off the street slacker and turn them into a soldier. WTF
good is a draft when the conflict will be long over before the first
draftee has a uniform on? FUD.
\_ Two years? Pshaw. It just takes 10 weeks of basic and 12 weeks
of infantry school. -Vet
\_ no you idiot. it's Us nukes iran, destroying entire population.
get your head out of your ass. i hope you're not allowed to vote.
\_ I don't think it's quite true that a _Special Skills_ draft
would be useless. It might take 2 years to train a guy
you want on the ground in Iraq, but support roles probably
aren't that hard. A special skills draft would allow the
military to stuff the support roles with draftees and put
the volunteers in the field.
\_ What about all the discipline, standards, and shit that
militaries want from their goons, support roles or
frontline grunts? You'll never get someone unmotivated
to be a usable combat grunt; rear-area support type will
simply be a tremendous waste of a lot of time. Your best
bet is shooting them on arrival, pre-body-bagging them and
using them as human sandbags. -John
\_ I think you're over-estimating the difficulty of
something. I'm not sure if it's "hearding
sysadmins" or what. Support roles aren't that
hard, and they don't require much discipline. It's
just like coders and sysadmins at IBM, you don't
show 'em to the public, you hide 'em in some back
room, while the marketers (soldiers) do the front
line stuff.
\_ Yes, you know that and I know that, but we don't
run an army. Now find me one of those which
follows this sort of sensible philosophy.
\_ Nah, you just need to transfer out the company
commander once the reservists don't show up
for their contaminated helicopter fuel run.
\_ Drafted sysadmins, coders are cheap. Anyways, I'm just showing
how Dubya keeps his "no-draft" promise - it's for the President
*after* Dubya. Also, anyone can come up with a worst-case
scenario. I'm painting a *realistic* "nightmare" scenario. -op
\_ You're showing nothing but your lack of understanding of the
modern American military. The realistic nightmare scenario
is that Iran is allowed to continue developing nukes, gets
nukes and has a nuclear exchange with Israel. The so-called
skills draft wouldn't make the list even if such a silly did
thing happen. What skills do you think you have they'd want
anyway? Surfing and restarting apache servers aren't
critical military needs.
\_ My scenario (the U.S. and Iran lobbing nukes at each other)
is not far off from Iran and Israel lobbing nukes at each
other. This second scenario is far more obvious, which
is why I didn't mention it. You missed my point on that
part - which is to argue how the U.S. realistically decides
to do some nuking itself.
Now, if the skills draft isn't that important, then why did
the military decide to plan for one, just like adding
a plan for a draft of Middle Eastern language experts?
My basic argument is that engineers are cheap when you
draft them. I'm also participating in FCS design, so I
know what I'm talking about. -op
\_ The Pentagon has a plan for everything. If they didn't
have a plan for everything collecting dust on a shelf
somewhere and getting updated every 10-15 years someone
would scream, "WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE A PLAN FOR A SKILLS
DRAFT! YOU MORONS!". The US won't be nuking Iran
because Iran won't be nuking anything American. They
would hit Israel first. Once Israel is in ashes, they
"win", no matter what else happens afterwards. By
"they" I mean Muslims across the ME who want every
Israeli dead and Israel destroyed utterly. As far as
language experts go, were you upset they didn't have
enough Pashtun speakers when we went into southern
Afghanistan? They're making sure that sort of thing
never happens again. As an aside, my English instructor
at Cal was also a Baltic languages expert. The CIA was
paying his entire way and then some so long as he
continued to keep up his language skills and promised
to be available as needed. Was that a bad thing? Are
you opposed to that?
\_ Baltic?!! You mean Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian?!
Are you sure you don't mean Balkin? Why does the
CIA want Baltic language experts? I've been to
Estonia, and it seems odd that the CIA would go
to so much effort to spy one a very small country
of extremely peaceful people who mostly speak
english anyway.
\_ It might seem odd to you, but they do. |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34273 Activity:very high |
10/21 Some asswipe turbo-deleted the thread, so I ll resurrect something
from it. Ben, are you saying about 30% of the country actually
agrees with what Bush et al are doing? I am not sure where you get
this number from, but even if you are right, do you think it's any
different from any other president? Clinton himself said something
about the 4 years being necessary so the POTUS has the leeway to
make unpopular decisions. Are you saying popularity is the yardstick
of the Presidency? Do you think all presidents had a 50%+ mandate
on their work (or should)? I don't really see WHAT you are saying
(other than "I REALLY disagree with this Bush guy, I wish he would
just fuck off and die!"). I STILL don't see what his policies have to
do with royalty, it sounds like some sort of liberal figure of speech,
like me calling liberal policies 'communism' in jest. Even the
most venal pro-corp anti-everything else folks don't want Feudalism
back, it will cut into the profits. -- ilyas
\_ I was talking about election turnout/civic involvement. -scotsman
\_ Bush is the most authoritarian President the US has had in
at least 125 years, probably ever. I am sorry that you are
so biased that you cannot see that. When you add that to his
personal arrogance, there is a reasonable cause for concern.
\_ I'll spell it out slowly. I'm not talking about the
popular conception of individual families. I'm talking
about ceding our wealth and civic power over to wealthy
individuals and corporations (which for some damned
reason are people too...). By cutting or eliminating
taxes on unearned or inherited wealth, the burden shifts
to income taxes and other revenue streams. It also allows
massive wealth consolidation which means massive power
consolidation. At the same time, deregulation takes away
our (the people's) recourse against bad actions by
these increasingly wealthy entities. The reason we have
regulations are to keep meat safe to eat, drugs safe to
take, planes safe to fly on. To keep the air breathable,
the water drinkable, and our economic markets running
smoothly. The end of this slide would be feudalism, which,
as ilyas correctly says, will "cut into profits". He seems
to say that people aren't that shortsighted, and that these
philosopher-kings of industry will be able to hold this
together. I'm scared our society will break before that.
--scotsman
\_ If taxes worked so well on inherited wealth, how
come the Kennedys are all still liveing off
inherited wealth? (This question is only sort of
Trollish, I am sort of curious about what the
Kennedys do to make money.)
\_ The Kennedys live off a trust, and therefore do
not pay "inheritance taxes." Only poor people
pay inheritence taxes, rich people all have
trusts.
\_ Yeah, all those poor people with estates >$1.5m
\_ You mean scotsman is worried about all those
schmucks with houses in Palo Alto?
\_ I think that number is wrong. It says
here that, before Bush's change, estates
over $1mil were charged at the "top
rate." This suggests that estates smaller
than that would still be taxed. Also,
$1mil isn't that hard to hit if you're
running a small business.
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2003/04/rules.html
\_ I'll try to summarize your two concerns firat. You
are worried that 1. the change in tax code will
cause a concentration of wealth and power in the
elite classes, and 2. deregulation will offer the
common people less protection against the whims of
the elite. I have good news for you, my friend.
Trivially googling found the following paper from
the Urban Institute (http://csua.org/u/91e From
its conclusion, the study finds that "the evidence
suggests that the playing field is becoming more level
in the United States. Socioeconomic origins today
are less important than they used to be. Further, such
origins have lttle or no impact for individuals with
a college degree, and the ranks of such individuals
continue to increase." So evidence suggests that,
contrary to your worries, the upper classes are becoming
less stratified and not more. I recall reading that
most of the people on the first Forbes wealthiest list
are no longer there, and most of the members of that
list earned there money instead of inheriting it.
list earned their money instead of inheriting it.
I'd like to see evidence that there is the formation
of a calcified layer of feudal lords.
of a calcified layer of feudal lords. On the
\_ It's actually http://csua.org/u/9le
and it was published in 1997. Dumbass. We're
talking about the absurd extremism of the last 3
years. --scotsman
\_ Well, I am sure you can come up with contrary
research that says the socioeconomic mobility
is decreasing, especially due to the tax policies
of the last few years. Well? How about research
that shows the increase of SE mobility after the
imposition of the tax? Since that was adopted
in 1916, surely there has been enough time for
researchers to study the matter? If the imposition
of the tax did not improve mobility, then would
the removal of the tax decrease it? I wonder how
much the super-rich used to pay in inheritance
under the previous tax regime. Have they already
been successful in avoiding those taxes? You
made a lot of claims, how about some data?
deregulation side, I will take the less common
argument that fewer regulations making it easier for
new players to enter a particular field, and therefore
creates even more opportunity for socioeconomic
mobility. Fewer rules makes it more difficult for
the entrench players to use government regulationis
to fend off new challengers, which in turns contributes
to the churn of players at the top.
\_ Oh come on. Is Bush as bad as Tricky Dick? Or FDR (to be
fair about picking authoritarian presidents)? Bush hasn't
been caught yet, and he hasn't had the chance to pack the
Supreme Court either.
\_ Yeah, he is. Nixon, contrary to popular belief, made a solid
go at adhering to the Freedom of Information Act at the
beginning of his term; FDR never lied to get us into war.
\_ Ahem... lend-lease... ahem...
\_ ...waiting for relevance vis-a-vis lying to get us into
war.
\_ While lend-lease may have been a lie, it didn't get us
into war. The Japan Embargo did, and that was done for
honest, if questionable reasons.
\_ I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam war...woops,
sorry, I don't!
\_ Don't take the Paris Peace Accords deal! I'll make
you a better offer later!
\_ And you base this authoritarian accusation on what? Personal
experience? You have studied the history and in context
background of every President? I find this... unlikely. If
you just hate the guy, just say so. You don't have to make
outrageous, unsupported and unsupportable claims in a useless
attempt to make it appear that your hatred is based on some
false intellectual premise instead of personal animosity.
\_ Who was the president 126 years ago, and why is Bush not as
bad as he was? Was it even an election year 126 years ago?
Did you just pull the 125 year number out of your ass?
\_ Rutherford B. Hayes was the evilest man to ever darken God's
green Earth. On a more serious note, he lost the popular
vote but came out ahead in a 8-7 partisan split in a Senate
commitee to decide the election. One of the 3 states whose
EVs were in dispute was... Florida. -!pp
\_ I wouldn't say "Bush is the most authoritarian President" --
without backup, you sound like a dumb liberal. At least, you
were an easy target for above posters.
The argument is much sharper to describe the most important and
obvious event instead of just applying a label.
E.g.: "The primary reason for invading Iraq was to eliminate a
regime possessing WMD stockpiles, from which it could dole WMD
kits out to terrorists who would without question use them.
Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past, viewed them also
as his trump card, and could believably distribute them to exact
his vengeance against the U.S., which would be under the watch of
Bush Sr.'s son. President George W. Bush, having seen the
stockpile reason vanish, instead insists that, had he known
everything he knows today, would still have directed the U.S.
to invade Iraq. This is absurd."
\_ ilyas complaining about a thead being deleted.. Welcome back to
BIZARRO WORLD!! In other news, the Red Sox are in the world
series! -meyers
\_ Yeah, right.
\_ It'd be hypocritical for Democrats to decry royalty in American
politics. (ref. the Kennedy clan and Camelot)
\_ Democrats don't choose to get rid of dividend/capital gains/
estate taxes. Democrats don't vote for massive deregulation/
reduced corporate oversight/stripping tort powers. -scotsman
\_ You do realize that many people think that cutting taxes
and deregulating industry are good things. And none of
this have anything to do with claims of royalty. Are the
Bushes more royal than the Kennedies?
\_ Bush: evil. Kennedy: good. You need to be sent to the
Martin Luther King Reeducation Kamp immediately!
\_ You're not very intelligent, are you? It's okay, I'm
sure your parents still love you.
\_ Yeah Ben, "no progressive taxation -> feudalism" is a new
'line of attack' for me. I am sorry, it's really off the
wall. -- ilyas
\_ That's not "no progressive taxation". It's tax the poor
and middle class, and give the rich a pass.
\_ Which isn't happening, but it makes a good scare
tactic!
\_ Counting all the tax cuts (including captital gains,
dividends, and estate), people in the 2nd-lowest
quintile got a 17.6% tax cut. The middle quintile
was cut 12.6%, the 2nd-highest quintile 9.9%, and
the top quintile 11%.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108201
\_ Ah, short term vs. long term. Numbers are funny
things.
\_ Data please. Or are you just making
unsubstantiated claims?
\_ estate tax exemption will increase for next,
what, 7-8 years until no tax at the 10 year
mark. dividend tax was halved in 2003, gone
in 2004. running the numbers for the last
2 years is patently dishonest.
\_ I don't have a problem with regressive _tax cuts_
as long as they result in a system which is closer
to a flat tax system, which I believe is fair.
(Regressive _tax_ is bad of course). If you
think a flat tax system will lead to feudalism,
you are at the fringes of political discourse,
sorry. -- ilyas
\_ I posted the data to counter the claim that
the tax system is now less regressive. It is
if anything more regressive.
\_ The Kennedys are really great people so its ok. |
| 2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34255 Activity:insanely high |
10/20 Hey conservatives- take back your own party please. A bit of history:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm
\_ You must not be familiar with the extensive Christian origins
of this nation.
\_ They were mostly deists. The current regime are fundamentalists.
\_ Patently false. Stop reading these atheist internet sites, they
are bogus.
\_ Patently false. Stop reading these atheist internet sites,
they are bogus.
\_ Patently false. Stop reading these Christian internet
sites, they are bogus.
\_ I'm not going to bother to get into this. If one
reads their original writings and speeches their
Christianity is obvious, unless you are stupid.
\_ Most of them, but not all of them. Jefferson
was not.
\_ Indeed a great number of them, but the separation
of church and state was more than an offhand
comment to them. Remember what they were rebelling
against: King George and the COE. Royalty and
theocracy. Two things our current George seems
perfectly happy to bring back. I for one don't
want to see revolution in my lifetime. I'd much
rather see the fucker go peacefully in this
election. --scotsman
p.s. It's good to see you as blissfully ignorant
as ever mr. black.
\_ I am amused that professed lovers of
democracy start muttering about revolution
under their breath as soon as an election
or 3 doesn't go their way. Make up your mind
is the tyranny of {the majority|electoral
college|etc} good or bad? I don't know what
Bush truly wants to do in his heart of hearts
(probably party or something) but the office
of the POTUS is a moderating kind of chair
to sit in. The bigger the chair, the less
important are the psychological particulars of
the ass sitting on it. No one is
complaining about Nancy Pelosi and her brand
of Bay Area liberal insanity, although she is
very influential in the DNC right now. If you
think Bush wants to bring royalty back in the
US, you ve gone off the deep end, sorry.
I mean this makes LeRouchies sound reasonable.
-- ilyas
\_ Ilya, I'm talking about history and vague
worries when I talk about revolution. Our
democracy is far from healthy. The tyranny
of the majority is really the tyranny of
less than a plurality of, oh, 30%? And by
royalty, we've had this discussion before.
It's not direct governmental plutocracy.
It's handing over power, tax refunds, and
a blind eye to institutions and individuals
who could give a shit about the public. If
that's what the subplurality of 30% really
want, let alone a majority of the public,
then, yes, I worry. --scotsman
\_ (a) Saying "all Bush opponents are talking
about revolution" equates to "all
conservatives are right wing religious
nutcake loonies." (b) POTUS itself may
eclipse individual personalities, but it
_is_ a tremendously powerful office,
especially when combined with a disciplined
and determined crew, as now. (c) Who
says nobody's complaining about Pelosi?
She's part of the reason voters are being
forced to choose "less worse" instead of
"better" this year. -John
\_ re: (a) I was talking about Ben in
particular. re: (c) Maybe people are,
but I haven't heard anything, and
certainly nothing compared to the volume
of low grade bile directed at Bush.
-- ilyas
\_ (a) be more specific, (c) a lot of
SF residents have loads of low
grade bile for her from when she
was a supervisor. -John
\_ BushCo is interested in maintaining power,
moreso than any other Pres. since LBJ.
The more petty and ridiculous tricks are
pulled by both sides, the less moral high
ground there is to go around, and the
more both sides sound wholely corrupt and
powermongering. That BushCo has players
who excel at the game while the Dems seem
be playing the Washington Generals merely
stokes the flames against the Pres.
\_ That's because a whole lot of these
"professed lovers of democracy" are
actually thinking, "I'm smarter than
everyone else. I should be in charge."
They're fine as long as everyone else
agrees with them, but if some people
think differently, they must be stupid
and wrong and therefore should not
have a vote.
\_ I am, I should, they are. Well, most
of them, anyway. -John
\_ No, Mr. Leek. It's not some elitist
tendency. It's a compassionate, dare
I say Christian (raised Lutheran over
here), drive in me that actually cares
about the people and the country. Did
I claim anyone should "not vote"? I
would love to see election day made a
national holiday so no one would have an
excuse not to. I would love to have been
required to take civics in high school
or even jr. high. If our voter turnout
even began to approach that of some other
countries, I think you'd be greatly
dismayed at how out of touch you are.
In the meantime, I'd suggest that rather
than be insulting, you actually put your
arguments forward in good faith.
--scotsman
\_ I actually not sure how to
respond to this mix of oddness.
I agree that people should take
civics in school, along with
economics. I'm not sure where
you get the idea that I don't
care about the country or the
people. I'm not even sure what
\_ I didn't say you don't. Read what
you said. See how it's directly
insulting. Read what I said.
Realize I was talking about myself
in defence of charges of a super-
iority conflict. --scotsman
you're saying I'm out of touch
with. All I'm saying is that the
road to hell is paved with good
intentions. I think you're
making assumptions about my
political positions that you know
nothing about. (And what's with
telling me you were raised
Lutheran? Am I supposed to care?
Did you know Paolo was rasied
Catholic? So what? He's still
Paolo.)
\_ How delightfully low on signal. Drop trou and produce
debunk (and not from some fundie site) or eat crow. |
| 2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/SW/Security] UID:34254 Activity:moderate Edit_by:auto |
10/20 Hi, I've created a toy web site that will hopefully be a bit of
insightful for people who want to know the "slant-ness" of different
news source: http://www.slantcheck.org
I already bought the domain names, I'm now looking for a place
to host it. If you would like to help please email me. -kchang
\_ http://www.free-webhosts.com/webhosting-01.php
\_ Kevin, does it occur to you that averaging faulty sensor
readings doesn't produce meaningful results? Maybe if we
had some sort of pagerank for people this could work. -- ilyas
\_ the same is true for web votes on http://cnn.com, http://cbsnews.com, etc.
Also read his disclaimer. It's not meant to be scientific at all
\_ I know. I am saying why add to the garbage? -- ilyas
\_ ilyas-- what is trash to you may be useful to others.
To say categorically that something has no value,
says a lot about you. Secondly, most systems require
some level of trust and certainly all systems are
subject to abuse. Just look at the electoral college,
Gerrymandering, e-vote machines crashing, etc.
No system is abuse free -- some systems are much
more abuse prone than the others (case in point informal
internet vote). It's good to have a starting point
somewhere, and in time, refine the system to a point
that it is much less abuse prone and that it is
generating acceptible results.
\_ It does say a lot about me. It says that I think
systems where a vote is trivial to fake, where
a single person can trivially cast arbitrary
numbers of votes, where the opinions of all
people are weighed equally, etc. etc. etc.
will produce garbage. No one will
rely on such a system for anything other
than generating empty motd conversations.
Having said that, I welcome differing opinions
of 'others,' because I am curious how http://cnn.com
polls can possibly be of any use to anyone.
I want to be proven wrong here. If you honestly
want to make progress in this area, you can
look at social networks/pagerank research,
or computer security. -- ilyas
\_ Aw, I thought it was going to run news articles through some sort
of analysis program to compute the results. Instead I find it's
just an unfiltered click poll.
\_ that itself is a PhD thesis right there. Context sensitive
weight analysis.
\_ Yeah, well I could hope for some arbitrary heuristics at
least. A poll isn't right... the name evokes http://factcheck.org
which at least provides human analysis. A <DEAD>slantcheck.org<DEAD>
run by some dedicated individuals who analyze submitted
instances of "slant" could actually be an interesting
service that could get national attention.
\_ Is this thing just a cry for attention?
\_ I dunno. But a http://factcheck.org comparison is natural...
hey I would enjoy doing that analysis as part of
some funded group. Those http://factcheck.org people get
paid to sit around and analyze the same shit you
guys all do on the motd every day.
\_ thanks for the response guys. The bottom line is that there are
a lot of improvements and changes that need to be made in
order to make the results fair and meaningful. I'd love to
implement some of the features that were suggested, but most
of them require a lot of time and/or money. Please keep up these
great suggestions, but even more importantly, send me money
via PayPay. Once I generate enough interests and funding,
I'll be able to hire someone to implement these
features. Thanks. -kchang
\_ How are we supposed to know you aren't going to spend it all
on h07 42n ch1x, or hire one to "implement" your features?
\_ he's gonna hire hot UCLA chicks to implement the features :) |
| 2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34249 Activity:moderate 66%like:34528 |
10/20 All right, we all know how we're going to vote. The determining
factor will be how many people get out and vote.
\_ That, and three months of litigation after the election, yeah.
\_ You know, any election system that is decided by less than the
margin of error deserves to have the hell litigated out of it.
\_ There shouldn't be a margin of error. It's the only
egalitarian voice we have in the process. It should
not be a difficult problem.
\_ Any human process will have a margin of error. It should
be smaller than it is, but there is no way to eliminate
it.
\_ fair enough, but this is absurd. It's time for the federal
government to establish some minimum standards for the
ability of a ballot to measure the intent of the voter
consistently, and then for the states to start enforcing
those standards. How the FUCK the last four years passed
without this happening is beyond me. |
| 2004/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34241 Activity:high Edit_by:auto |
10/19 Sorry, I get confused. LATimes is liberal or conservative?
Anyway, according to them, the CIA is delaying a 9/11 report that
points fingers and names names until after the election:
http://csua.org/u/9k9
Text of article can be found at:
http://www.theregular.org/node/209
\_ LA Slimes is in the same vein as NYT.
\_ whoo how clever! yeah they're pretty liberal.
for your incredibly conservative dose of southern
california news go read the OC register - danh
\_ All of LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post offer good, mostly
objective reporting. ABC News and NBC News as well. CNN tilts
to whatever the current administration is to maintain "access".
CBS News screwed up on memo-gate, but they also offer good, mostly
objective reporting.
Fox News shows an American flag in the upper-left part of the screen
to show that they support America, implying that the other stations
do not, or have a "liberal agenda".
\_ Hi, I've created a toy web site that will hopefully be a bit of
insightful: <DEAD>slantcheck.org<DEAD>
I already bought the domain names, I'm looking for a place
to host it. If you would like to help please email me. -kchang
\- if you become the number one hit for
google(chang,slant) you may be able to make
money ... maybe as a p0rn tunneler or something --psb
\_ Wow, that's amazing. I didn't know the report was already done.
I heard the reason for the delay was that it was too big to finish
before the election.
Also, the article is an op-ed column; it is not a news piece.
And here's the news piece, one day later:
http://csua.org/u/9kr (Yahoo!)
In it it says the official reason for the delay is ... the report
is still a draft!
\_ "Congressional officials said they were told that the CIA
inspector general's office had completed the report in July"
Now who do you believe? I'm waiting for a CIA leak. |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34223 Activity:very high |
10/19 http://csua.org/u/9jt - Text of Gore's speech last night. I dare anyone who plans to vote for Bush to read it from start to finish. \_ I saw a few minutes of it on the tube. It was painful. I felt bad for him. He needs help. Losing in 2000 broke him in some deeply fundamental way. \_ This thing is huge. I recommend reading it from the last page, and stopping when you're bored. \_ Reading is hard, let's go shopping! \_ Why, so I can remember why I didn't vote for Gore 4 years ago? \_ I dare anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 to read it from start to finish and not think, "We almost elected a tin-foil hat guy!" \_ I couldn't vote for Gore in 2000. If you don't think the current executive branch is run by a bunch of neocon loons I'd like some of what you are smoking. If you think Bush has a clearer view of reality than Gore, then you've been shooting up as well. Please provide examples from the speech of "tin-foil hat" thinking. \_ Example: The central elements of Bush's political - as opposed to religious - belief system are plain to see: The "public interest" is a dangerous myth according to Bush's ideology - a fiction created by the hated "liberals" who use the notion of "public interest" as an excuse to take away from the wealthy and powerful what they believe is their due. Therefore, government of by and for the people, is bad - except when government can help members of his coalition. \_ This would be tin-hat fodder if not for the Orwellian named Clear Air Act and the Healthy Forests Act. There is no need for conspiracy theories anymore; it's all out in the open, and the heads of state just don't care if you know it. Ask Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay. \_ Al Gore speaks, Alcoa goes up. Tin shortage on the rise! \_ Partisan Blinders, Activate! Form of: An ostritch! |
| 2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:34198 Activity:nil |
10/18 Alameda County still needs pollworkers! Please sign up!
http://www.co.alameda.ca.us/rov/workers.htm
\_ Yeah right for a mandatory 6:30am to 9pm shift.
\_ If you signed up for it, is it really mandatory? |
| 2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34193 Activity:nil |
10/18 So I registered to vote online two weeks ago, and just received my
form on Friday. It says I need to sign and return it. My question is
if I drop it off in the mail today, is it too late? Do I need to find
some place where they have voter registration and hand the form to
them? I am in foster city.
\_ No, it's not too late. You're registered in the system, but they
need your signature to activate it.
\_ I'm not so sure about that. The online fill-out-the-form, we
mail it to you system seems more like a service to me. Until
you sign it and mail it in, I don't think anything is done
with it. As to the time-line, iirc, voter registration just has
to be postmarked by the specified date, while absente-ballot
registration must be received by the specified date.
\_ Urk. Good call. According to the State, however, today is
the last day to register, so op will be in luck if he sends
in his card today. -pp
\_ Can't you cast a provisional ballot regardless of whether you
are registered?
\_ Yes. See the following URL and search for "Provisional":
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/hava_section_1.htm
\_ Called the Secretary of State's Office for you. They say your card
is good as long as it's post-marked by today (Monday, October 18).
\_ Thank you all! I've mailed it at the post office! |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34182 Activity:moderate |
10/17 what does it mean to register as a Rep/Demo? Is it used for
statistics or something? How about registering as one party
and then voting as another party, is that allowed?
\_ In most states you can't vote in the primary of a party
unless you're registered. Since leaving Ca, I've registered
for a party just so I can vote in the primary. Where I live,
whoever wins the Demo primary wins the general election by such
a large margin that the whole election *is* the primary, and
you don't really get a vote unless you're registered Democrat.
Does this suck? yes, it does.
\_ Ever heard of the secret ballot? We've got that in this
country. So how exactly would they "not allow" you to
vote for whomever you wish? I mean, please!
\_ thanks for your response. I'm not a citizen so I
don't know these things but I hope to vote once I get
my citizenship. So here is my second question. Say there
is a party A and a party B. I hate party B, so can I
register as party B and pick the most incompetent person
for the primary, and come the general election, vote for
party A? Is that illegal? -op
\_ it's not illegal, but it makes you a jackass. I believe
that the most responsible thing to do as a citizen is to
vote in whatever primary matters (e.g. republican in 2000, dem
in 2004) and vote for whoever you actually think would make
the best candidate. If democrats had followed your strategy
in 2000, they would have probably picked Bush as the weaker
candidate...but gues what? he won, and most dems would probably
agree we'd be a hell of a lot better off with president McCain
right now. Whether you're a democratic-leaning voter or not
is beside the point. Republicans would probably have voted
for Dean in this election, but you have to ask yourself...are
you *sure* your guy can beat the guy you think is weak?
what if you're wrong?
\_ I actually practice cross-party voting in the primary all
the time. In 2000, I voted for McCain in the Primary, even
though I wanted Gore to win; in 2002, I voted for Simon in
in the Primary even though I wanted Davis to win (and yes,
that was a worrying gamble). I look forward to an open
primary system at some point so I can stop filing all of
this paperwork.
\_ Here's the part where someone posts an anti-Davis rant.
Come on folks, NOBODY liked that guy.
\_ Maybe you did not realize it, but you did vote for
Davis if you voted against the recall. That was
a special case where you could vote twice.
\_ Yes, we SO need a Davis/Ah-nold flamewar right now!
I know you can do it! Motd's greatest hits comin'
back atcha!
\_ There's nothing to flame about. No one is going
to defend Davis. No one is that stupid.
\_ You obviously weren't reading the motd during
the recall shitrain [borrowing this term
from Hunter S. Thompson because it is so
appropriate.]
\_ Sure.
\_ No, it is not illegal.
\_ sounds complicated. what is the objective for doing so? |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34171 Activity:nil |
10/16 Super Rich Step Into Political Vacuum
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38722-2004Oct16.html |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34160 Activity:high |
10/15 Oh look, Republicans are cheating again:
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=345
Why can't they just let the electorate vote fair and square?
\_ Simple. They have God on their side, so every action
they take in defense of God's Will is justified. Get it?
\_ Ask the Dems the same thing about the military vote.
\_ Mrf? And when do two wrongs make a right anyway? Jail 'em all! |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34158 Activity:nil |
10/14 Here is an idea. We all know that Bay Area is one of the most
liberal places on the West Coast and right wing policians don't
even bother talking to us. How about a a concept of a bunch of
underground liberals, say, in the millions, declaring themselves
as Republicans and even answering polls that show that they
support Republicans. This will trick the enemy thinking that
we could actually be a swing state hence wasting money convincing
us to vote right. Come the election, these underground
liberals can come out and vote for the Democrats and really
fuck up the Republicans. Theoretically, does this plan work,
and in practice, can the plan be executed successfully?
\_ Secret and Millions of people are mutually exclusive.
\_ shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34155 Activity:high |
10/15 From an AP article about possible election nightmare scenarios:
'Another quirk involves "faithless electors," who refuse to cast their
electoral votes for the person chosen by their state's voters. This
rarely happens - only 10 times in history - but even one this year
could be critical. And one of the five Republican electors from West
Virginia is holding out the possibility of withholding his vote for
Bush if the president carries the state.'
Excuse me, but WTF. If this isn't a great argument for junking this
ridiculous and outmoded system, I don't know what is.
\_ The system was designed to prevent the common people from choosing
the president. As we saw in 2000, the system works!
\_ This should not be a partisan issue. As the rogue West Virginian
elector shows, this could break against the President just as
easily at it could break towards him. Sadly, I think the only
scenario that would create enough of a real push to fix the
system would be Kerry losing in the popular vote but winning
the electoral vote. The inverse would simply be status quo.
\_ I think it's not a partisan issue of Rep vs. Dem so much
as politician vs. voter. Politicians love this system
because they only have to campaign in certain parts of the
country, and can strategize accordingly. Without the electoral
college, both candidates would actually have to campaign in
california, texas, new england and the south. This would
obviously be in the best interests of everyone but the
soccer moms in ohio who now hold complete control over the
nation as far as voters go, but would be a big pain in the
ass for politicians.
\_ It would also make things like instant runoff voting much
more necessary. Proportional electoral representation
would also greatly change the dynamics of 3rd parties.
\_ Part of the problem is that you would have to find a
system that breaks slightly in favor of small states like
the current one does. Otherwise it will just never be
reformed.
\_ You could keep electoral votes but make each state's EVs
be distributed according to popular vote in that state.
(Like the Colorado measure) If only a few states do this
it diminishes their importance but if they all did it it
would be a level playing field.
\_ This doesn't address the "faithless elector" problem.
Can you imagine the shitstorm if the electoral college
is tied, and that W.Virginian elector switches his Bush
vote to Kerry?
\_ Sure it could. The state could just specify by
statute the way in which an elector must vore. Any
faithless electors are acting in violation of state
law and get replaced.
\_ You could just get rid of the electors and make
the electoral votes be directly based on what
was voted in the state.
\_ The large/small state balance is included in constitutional
amendments as well. You're never going to convince 75% of the state
legislatures to pass it. Stop talking about reforming the EC. This
was a boogeyman raised in 2000 and it didn't matter then either.
\_ So your attitude is, "The system is fucked and a minority wants
it to stay fucked, so piss off." As I recall, there have been
over 20 Constitutional amendments over the years to correct
various problems, and those have passed.
\_ Ummm... Perhaps I should point out that it's only
"fucked" from the perspecitve of the big states. I don't
know how you'd convince the smaller states that getting
screwed up the butt by CA is good for them, but you're
welcome to try. -!pp
\_ Let's extend your logic to state elections. Why should we
have majority elections for electing the governor? After
all, the populated areas of the state could "screw over"
the less populated parts. By your logic, we should have
an electoral college to give people in the unpopulated
parts proportionally more voting power. And why not
take it further, to the local level? After all, my block
doesn't have as many people in it, but do I want those
\_ Laws are only correct or incorrect when they are
stating a fact, like declaring Pi=22/7.
people in the Sunset picking my Mayor and screwing me?
Give me more representation!
\_ Wow, your whole thesis is based on a fallacy of
scale.
\_ The idea that "Wyoming" needs representation is
itself a fallacy. The state of Wyoming has no
concern at all with terrorism, for example, yet
it's one of the biggest supporters of Bush's
policies. -tom
\_ Heh, "I'm smarter than you, so let me vote
for you."
\_ uh, no. Value of person in Wyoming =~ value
of person in CA. Value of vote in Wyoming
=~ 5 * value of vote in CA. That's bullshit,
period. -tom
\_ So move to Wyoming and stop bitching.
Equating this with 'person value' is
bizarre.
\_ I would rather reform Gerrymandering.
\_ I would rather reform voter fraud, ie. bring back DMV
voter registration.
\_ Bring back? |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:34146, category id '18005#25.256' has no name! , ] UID:34146 Activity:moderate |
10/15 Republicans commit registration fraud in numerous states:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/13/32821/029#215
\_ Dailykos... yes, the ultimate non-partisan quality news site.
And you people delete links from the nuts at the freerepublic
but think this is perfectly neutral and worth reporting? Get it
from a real news site and we'll discuss this and the number of
dead people voting for the Democrats over the years.
\_ No really, let's discuss it. Do you have a single credible
accusation? Are you aware that as people die, new people replace
them? Are you aware that people move? Are you aware that it
takes time for registration numbers to reflect this (there is
usually at least a 5 year time lag)? There are TONS of legit
reasons for the number of registereds to outnumber the number
of eligibles. As for the Republican operatives destroying
Democratic registrations, there are links to legit news stories
within that link. However, you're simply dismissing it out of
hand because it comes from a partisan site. Here is some
information from a "regular" news outlet about this:
http://csua.org/u/9hu (yahoo news)
Note that despite the headline, the only Republican accusations
contained in the article are the vague notions about registereds
and eligibles, which have a legit explanation. The Democratic
accusations are at times very specific.
\_ Two words: Kennedy/Nixon.
\_ Funny thing is, Kennedy would have won even without
Illinois. And that was 40 years ago.
\_ There are literally a dozen links to "legitimate" news
from that url.
\_ Block the Vote - Paul Krugman http://csua.org/u/9hr (Yahoo!)
... a firm hired by the Republican National Committee to register
voters, told a Nevada TV station that their supervisors
systematically tore up Democratic registrations. The accusations
are backed by physical evidence and appear credible. Officials have
begun a criminal investigation into reports of similar actions by
Sproul in Oregon. Republicans claim ... Democrats do it, too.
But there haven't been any comparably credible accusations
against Democratic voter-registration organizations.
Sproul in Oregon. Republicans claim, of course, that they did
nothing wrong - and that besides, Democrats do it, too. But there
haven't been any comparably credible accusations against Democratic
voter-registration organizations.
\_ Democrats don't have to do it. They just need the votes to
actually be counted. There are a hell of a lot more D than R
in the country.
\_ If they don't register then they aren't anything. How do
you figure that? Anyway, I think you might be in for a big
surprise when 4 million of those hated Xtian fundies show up
this time who skipped the election in 2000.
\_ The count(D) > count(R) is for registered voters, as well
as voting voters, at least in presidential elections. And
if you think the fundie vote wasn't out in force in 2000,
you're smoking something I don't want.
\_ And the story came out on the day of registration deadlines...
\_ The only thing I've ever seen with Democrats are vague accusations
from Republicans about "more voters registered than eligible,"
a classic case of confusing causation with correlation.
Apparently they've never heard of population growth, people dying,
moving, etc. etc.
\_ Oops, I took a quote out of context by ellipsing too much.
Repaired now. Sorry!
\_ Now it's even more out of context. The quote is
"Republicans claim, of course, that they did nothing
wrong - and that besides, Democrats do it, too." Mmm..
tasty tasty hypocrisy
\_ Shit, you're right. I've fixed it completely now.
(BTW, it's not hypocrisy, it's called fucking it up twice
in a row. The original was even more out of context.
The taste you note is from my ass.)
\_ I didn't mean you were hypocritical. I was savoring
Krugman's phrase.
\_ http://www.alternet.org/election04/20183 |
| 2004/10/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34133 Activity:nil |
10/14 Got this on my fortune, kinda funny
"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for
democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national
election." -- Bill Vaughan
\_ cuz you can put a bullet through shit, but not thru bullshit |
| 2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/Biology, Health/Disease/General] UID:34070 Activity:very high |
10/12 "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. America just
lost a great champion for this cause in Christopher Reeve.
People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs
and walk again with stem cell research."
-John Edwards. Hallelujah!
\_ Let me guess, you have a problem with that. Would you
be more satisfied if he said he plans to leave everyone
with those diseases to suffer while we spend our money
on other things?
\_ I have a problem with Edwards promising millions of sick
people something he can't deliver in a cynical attemp to
get votes from the desperately ill. You're ok with that.
\_ We need less Homer Simpsons, and more money for public schools!
\_ But what does Bud Day think about this???
\_ Why do you hate Bud Day? |
| 2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34060 Activity:very high |
10/12 What is the election is close enough that the Colorado initiative
to split their electoral votes decides the election? Which way
would the USSC rule?
\_ USSC is pwned by Bush/Cheney. I think it would pretty much be a
foregone conclusion. That said, I think the scenario (Bush wins
Colorado && initiative passes) is pretty unlikely.
\_ On the basis of historical precedent, states have been allowed to
choose how they allocate electoral votes, but I'd count on this
court to cook up some argument to throw it out.
\_ The US Constitution allows the state legislature to choose the
method for allocating electoral votes. The CO initiative
bypasses the legislature and IMO should be ruled
unconstitutional.
\_ This really is the key issue here. Under the Const.
the legislature has manifest power over how electors are
chosen. Even if it passes it won't take effect for this
election because of legal contests.
\_ Well, it obviously allows the legislatures to defer that
responsibility to the voters.
\_ Show me anything in Article II Section 1 that "obviously"
says that.
\_ OK, why do the states let popular vote decide who gets
the electors?
\_ That's how the legislatures wrote their state laws.
Some states already split electoral votes based on
popular vote.
\_ Maine does it. Why can't Colorado? Is it a "If it passes, it
shouldn't apply until the NEXT election" kind of issue?
\_ Well the initiative is written so that it would apply to this
election, so it's not like you could argue the voters are being
tricked.
\_ Who is saying the voters are being tricked?
I'm talking about the candidates having the rules "change"
on them during the election, and perhaps this being "illegal".
\_ Responding to myself: Okay, the earlier thread makes
sense. The question is, does legislature == the people or
legislature != the people, for the purposes of
USC Article II Section 1 on apportioning electoral votes.
\_ I don't see why you can't have a state constitutional
amendment saying "the legislature shall do such-and-
such..."
\_ It would be pretty funny if the USSC wrote something
like, "the spirit of the electoral college was to
prevent the tyranny of the masses, so legislature !=
the people in this case".
\_ Why would this be funny? We're a republic, not a
democracy.
\_ We're whatever is required to most benefit the
dominant party, which at the moment happens to
be the Republicans.
\_ It would be funny because the people might end
up pissed. This is independent of the intent
of the framers of the Constitution. Duh. |
| 2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34044 Activity:high |
10/12 Anyone have an opinion on Austin Texas? Preferably someone that
has actually been there, and not "Bush and Texas suck!".
\_ My older brother got his laptop stolen out of his rental car there
while he was eating lunch.
\_ He left his laptop sitting open on a seat with a sign that said
"Steal me, my owner is stupid". Austin sucks!
\_ Actually it was in his trunk.
\_ Shit happens everywhere. BTW, I think the other day you
have mentioned this happened in San Antonio.
\_ Just reporting a data point. Chill.
\_ It's not a bad city. I drove through it and spent 3 days there.
Austin would be the only city that I'd consider living in, in TX,
and the biggest reason I wouldn't want to live there is that
it's land-locked.
\_ seconded. it's the only livable place in texas for several
reasons. the weather is less hellish than typical texas weather,
and the culture is not so monolithically texan. The UT area
of austin looks amazingly like berkeley.
\_ I had a gf out there. The city has a lot of very nice lakes,
so if you just need water, its very nice. I would have
considered moving out there.
\_ I have many, many coworkers who went to UT Austin. They all
liked it a lot. Most did say it was the only place in Texas
they would live. The majority went there for grad school and
were not originally from Texas. Only one of them was from CA,
though. I feel Californians have higher standards. Still, the
guy from CA ended up settling there. Most of my coworkers have
since left Austin, but talk highly of it. Me, I've never been.
\_ Flew out of Austin yesterday (first visit since junior high).
I was pretty impressed. Like other posters noted, it's by far the
best place to live in Texas. Big tech industry, great university
as the core of the town, really educated population, big live music
scene. Probably as liberal as you'll get in Texas. It's probably
the closest you'll get to Silicon Valley culture outside of
Silicon Valley (although I don't think it's a whole lot like
Berkeley, maybe more like Rockridge).
\_ I once came up with the big 4 reasons to relocate to TX, when I
considered it several years ago. My 4 reasons were: 1. no state
income tax, 2. concealed carry, 3. open containers in cars, and
4. women with big hair. Texas might have sissified in recent
years, so I don't know how many of the reasons may still apply. |
| 2004/10/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34036 Activity:high |
10/11 Congress just passed a bill to hand out $14.5 billion to people
who *choose* to live in the path of hurricanes. ilyas, and other
motd libertarians or other social regressives, how do you feel
about being "forced at gunpoint" to pay for these handouts? -meyers
\_ What about the $120 billion for people who "choose" to live on
top of our oil? Where's the outrage?
\_ Consider it evening the scorecard for Kosovo. At least this
time we are fighting for the right side (against militant
Islam as opposed to for it).
\_ California has earthquakes, Washington state has volcano, other
states has tornados, etc. Heck, we should all move to a
state without any natural disasters.
\_ what, and create a state with 'man-made' disasters?
\_ NYC has terrorist attacks.
\_ That volcano ain't nothin'. We should create some more disasters
on the west coast to keep things fair with the fed relief funds.
\_ CA already tossed it out of office.
\_ You're all missing the point. We hear whining about giving
handouts to people who *choose* to be poor, but now we have
a republican congress just giving federal money away. Where's
the outrage about not letting the free market fix this problem??
There are numerous insurance companies which could be making
big money here (insuring against disasters, not in paying out
claims, of course) -meyers
\_ I disagree with giving fed disaster relief, and pretty much
all subsidies of any kind. Calling this a 'republican congress'
because RNC has a slim majority is more than a little misleading.
I am neither republican nor a conservative. I try my best to
game a system where the two major parties are basically centrist,
and I don't like either. I do tend to dislike the modern DNC
more than the modern RNC, but that's DNC's fault. On a
slightly unrelated note, I am glad you found something else
to talk about. Thoughtful liberals and thoughtful libertarians
tend to agree on social ills (it's 'bad' that people able and
willing to work don't get enough to eat, etc). However, liberals
are more impatient, they are willing to prod society in what they
feel is 'the right direction' with a bayonet, if necessary.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of bayonets (and certainties
of what 'the right direction' is), so much so that they are
willing to put up with a lot of social ills to avoid said
bayonets. -- ilyas
\_ unless said bayonets are used by the government to murder
innocent people who are wrongly conviced of a crime.
apparently that doesn't even count as a social ill
for libertarians.
\_ I don't see how the old legal dilemma about the proportion
of innocents hanging in the gallows vs the guilty prowling
the streets (and where I happen to think a reasonable
solution lies) have to do with libertarians. Everyone has
to solve this problem. Libertarian opinions on proper
solutions differ, just as liberal and conservative opinions.
You are a troll. Come back with an actual point. -- ilyas
\_ Which is.. exactly what they do in florida. insurance companies
and hurricanes have a long colorful history.
\_ Yes it's rediculous, there is plenty of discord on
conservative sites.
\_ You just overwrote someone. I know there are insurance
companies in Florida. Where's the outrage about govt
messing with their market?? -meyers
\_ The same place the rest of your black 'n' white red
herring strawman went. In the trash. Try again with
new bait.
\_ 14.5B for disaster recovery is nothing compared to the shameless
giveaways to the special interests, such as the $160B farm bill
signed in 2002. Even The Economist commented: "The real explanation
for America's farm idiocy is electoral". Divide that by the number
of tax payers. This is on average how much is being taken from you
for farm subsidies.
\_ As if I wouldn't pay for it at the super market or every time I
eat out. I prefer paying that way but since aggressive income
tax schedules are sucking my income in half I'm ok if some of
that money goes to making my life better in some other way.
\_ It is plain and simple vote buying by the Republican Party, no
more and no less. Perfectly legal and how pork barrel politics
works. |
| 2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34030 Activity:low |
10/11 http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657 John Eisenhower (Ike's son) writes about why after 50 years as a Republican, he's voting for John Kerry. \_ and here's the non-broken version of the link: http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=44657&archive=1 [yes, very nice, censor the current topic and instead repost some old tom/ilyas flame fest. way to show tom isn't a censor and is a nice guy] |
| 2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:34026, category id '18005#11.875' has no name! , ] UID:34026 Activity:nil |
10/11 http://www.nbc25.com/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=2536 \_ Republicans call Democrats and lie, telling them they aren't registered and won't be allowed to vote this election. \_ Nothing new, Dems are the party of the gullible. Dem. readers of the MOTD, you are not registered and won't be allowed to vote. Ignore any voter information you receive in the mail, if you can read. Thank you. |
| 2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34003 Activity:high |
10/9 All of Karzai's opponents boycott the election and cite fraud.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216608.htm
No wonder Bush is taking credit-- that's how democracy works in
Bush country.
\_ Republican-sponsored vote fraud: Good enough for America,
good enough for Afghanistan!
\_ I could tell you that an imperfect election process is better
than dictatorship but I suspect you'd disagree. I'm already
walking the IHBT line by even responding.
\_ It's that simple, isn't it? Either you're for an imperfect
election process or you're for the Taliban. What about
taking the time to hold a reasonable election?
\_ Is this from the same ABC that put their left wing bias on paper
and published it? Try a URL from a reliable source.
\_ Which, the Australian Broadcast Corporation (this) or the
American Broadcast Corporation? 'Cos I got both.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=151668 |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33963 Activity:nil |
10/6 Where have all the MOTD conservatives gone? Are you guys just
licking your wounds at this point, or what? Now that you've been
proven wrong about just about everything, are you just going to take
it and vote for Bush anyway? |
| 2004/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:33953 Activity:very high |
10/6 I'm trying to beat a radar speeding ticket on "speed trap" grounds.
I want to see if I can find the Engineering & Traffic "Speed Zone"
Survey for that road to see if the speed limit's set too low, or a
survey wasn't done recently enough. Does anyone know how or where
you go about obtaining these?
\_ if you haven't already, snag a copy of the 'fight your ticket'
book from nolo press. It covers all of this stuff, in good
detail.. -- Been there, done that, beat my ticket.
\_ Pay the fine you ass! Or drive slower.
\_ Pay the fine AND drive slower!
\_ Speeding tickets are an underhanded regressive tax for the
most part. If the system cared more abouit safety and less
about raising money enforcement would be on other things.
\_ As long as the speed limit is set in a sane way, I'm fine
with speeding tickets. It would be interesting if we had a
system where your fine was proportional to your income, like
some Scandinavian countries.
\_ The argument here is about the speed limit being set wrong
(specifically, that it's lower than the speed at which 85% of
people actually drive on that stretch), not about cheating the
system.
\_ 85% of people deciding to break the law doesn't make breaking
the law right. 85% of people deciding to drive above the
speed limit doesn't necessarily mean speeds above that limit
are safe.
\_ Perhaps, but it makes enforcement arbitrary
and hypocritical. Especially when approaching 100% of
cops and politicians speed. (and the number for the
general populace is closer to 95%)
\_ In these situations, to avoid being pulled over, do not
be passing people, changing lanes, or young and black.
\_ you forgot having out of state plates in BFE states.
\_ It also makes driving below the speed limit dangerous,
when everyone is tailgating you, or speeding pass and
then cutting in front of you.
\_ "85%...doesn't make right." You know... we live in a
democracy. Laws exist to serve the people, not the other
way around. If the majority of people break a law, I
believe that by definition makes it "right" in our society.
\_ If the majority of restaurant waiters evade tax by not
reporting all their tips to IRS, does that make not
paying tax on tips right?
\_ you've never waited tables, have you?
\_ No, but I've tipped at restaurants and I've seen
how much the waiters collect in one hour. Anyway
is this relevant to the point?
\_ maybe yes, maybe no. I'm not really that
interested in this debate. my point is that
compliance with taxes on cash tips is probably
less than a tenth of a percent in most
places.
\_ The IRS collects taxes on the imputed
value of tips collected to counter this.
\_ That's a false comparison. The correct comparison
would be "majority of taxpayers all not claiming
gratuity income" Good luck finding that. If the
majority of americans cheated in the same way on
their taxes, then yes, I think that way of "cheating"
should become legal.
\_ Wrong. The first poster who quoted 85% wrote
"... lower than the speed at which 85% of people
actually drive ON THAT STRETCH". The correct
comparison is "if the majority of WAITERS don't
report tip income", not "if the majority of
taxpayers don't report tip income". On the other
hand, if what the first poster wrote were "...
lower than the speed at which 85% of people
actually drive IN AMERICA", the correct comparison
would be "if the majority of TAXPAYERS don't
report tip income". See the association?
\_ Ah, but you're ignoring the "who it effects"
\_ Ah, but you're ignoring the "who it affects"
facet. Speeding affects... people who drive
on that road. Federal tax evasion affects all
taxpayers (and some non-taxpayers) in one way
or another, hence they are involved in the
majority.
\_ what many folks here dont realize (and would if you bothered to
read the nolo book, is the letter of the law (at least in california)
isn't against violating some arbitrary limit of speed (unless you
were going over say 70mph), but that the speed was fast enough to
be 'dangerous'. This 'fuzzy' definition provides for lots of
flexibility to the defendant, as the cops now have to *prove* the
speed was dangerous. Usually they use the traffic engineering
studies to estabilsh a 'prima facie' speed limit that anything over
is *assumed* dangerous and this is the posted 'maximum speed limit'
you see.. But you still have room to argue against this, as there
are a number of things that you can attack on the traffic study,
including the 85 percentile speed travelled speed that the OP
mentioned.. Do you research, show up to court prepared, and argue
your case. If you dont have a good argument, maybe you were driving
hazardously, and should just pay up and not deal with the hassle.
\_ Is over 70 always indefensible?
\_ I've driven numerous times on roads with limit 75.
\_ I bet you are a democrat, right?
\_ See, AMC, what happens when you censor political threads? Now
we start to pollute other threads. |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33941 Activity:high |
10/4 Sinister Republicans strike again
Rangel votes against own draft measure
http://www.thehill.com/news/100604/rangel.aspx |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33924 Activity:high |
10/5 FOUR MORE WEEKS!
\_ 4 more years!!! Thanks to Floridians.
\_ On a more serious note.... Both parties are so entrenched and
absolutely certain of victory in this election and the complete
lack of qualification of the opposition and certain doom if the
other guy is elected. It will be interesting to see the losing
party completely implode on November 3rd. I wonder if this will
be one of those rare moment in American history where a major
party vanishes and is replaced by something new or is consumed
by some currently tiny party.
\_ This is what Nader banked on in 2000. Worked great didn't it?
\_ It wasn't like this in 2000. Both parties wanted it but
neither was so self certain of getting it as they are now.
\_ if you live in CA or another non swing state, feel
free to vote for the Green Party. Nader is NOT
the green party candidate.
\_ go Nader!!!
\_ Ross Perot 4 EVAH!
\_ The Republicans will not implode. They are used to being
the minority party. They will just retrench. The Democrats
might implode if they do badly. -Liberal
\_ Uhm, why? I don't think this assertion is based on reality.
\_ Umm the Dems have controlled Congress for a very large
proportion of the 20th century... maybe 60-70%?
\_ This doesn't explain anything. This is a fact. There
is a significant difference between a fact and a
logical argument. Kindly show your knowledge of
the difference with a demonstration. thzx
\_ Sigh. This motd is not large enough to contain
this explaination. But to start with: the Republican
Party somehow survived Watergate and losing both
Houses of Congress and the Presidency for many years.
It is unlikely that merely a close loss in a
Presidential race will be their undoing. Especially
since they are likely to hold the Senate and almost
certain to hold the House, thereby having at least
some say in the running of the Federal government.
Kapich? The case of the Democrats is not as clearcut.
I am not sure if there is a historical precedent for
the Democratic Party being totally out of power for
8 years. The Democratic Party is fundamentally a
populist, working class and poor party. Their
base comes from people either wholely or partially
dependent on government subsidy. Without controlling
the levers of government, how are they going to
provide the.. uh.. rewards, that being an ally of
the party in power recieves? Furthermore, with a
moderately educated populist base they risk losing
the bulk of their support if they lose too often.
Sort of like how the 49ers have lost most of their
fans by losing week after week. A Conservative
(the real Buckley kind, not the Dubya kind) does
not really mind being in the minority. In fact, he
might be kind of disturbed at being in the majority
too often, since his sense of self is predicated on
being "different" i.e. superior, to the commoner.
A Liberal who does not "lead the masses" is kind of
a sorry sight. -liberal
\_ I don't know that I agree with much of what you
say, but thank you for providing a more detailed
explanation.
\_ "populist, working class, poor party". Are
you joking? Have you looked at their contributors
or political platform recently?
\_ This is lamer than my "GOOG will drop a lot the first week and
a lot more by half a year" prediction - and that's pretty lame.
\_ Props! --googler
\_ What? This is totally off topic. Get over your google
fetish. Links have been posted and were unrefuted by you
kool aid drinkers. Go make your own thread. |
| 2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33905 Activity:nil |
10/4 Authorities reviewing voter registration forms
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2004/09/30/local/iq_3133196.txt |
| 2004/10/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:33901 Activity:moderate |
10/4 here's a pretty good reason to not re elect gwbush,
his administration's efforts to outsource torture to other
countries.
http://csua.org/u/9b4
\_ Oh no! The horror! Humans hurting other humans! We should rewrite
our genetic code to stamp it out and live off the land.
\_ gave me a good chuckle
\_ Or a good reason TO re-elect him, depending on your POV.
\_ true. too bad i have to share the country with psychos.
\_ Republican: evil/stupid, Democrat: good/smart.
\_ WDYHA?
\_ If you think it is a GOOD reason, you should ask yourself
why we should outsource rather than doing it in house.
Outsourcing is unamerican! |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33857 Activity:high |
9/30 So I actually spent some time at Wal-Mart today. Is it just me
or does it really suck? The prices weren't really that good, the
selection was pretty shoddy grade goods. I think you can do a lot
better at smaller shops carrying a better quality of goods. Why
is this the largest chain in the U.S.? I guess a lot of people
are rednecks...
\_ Mmm. Flamebait.
\_ ever been to places that make up the bulk of United States,
like South Carolina, remote parts of Texas, Tennessee,
etc? And yes most of the US is NOT California or New England.
It is mostly uneducated rednecks who have never been to nice
malls and nice shops that we take for granted. These are alos
the same people who will vote for Bush.
\_ Mmm. Flamebait. |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:33852, category id '18005#12.4979' has no name! , ] UID:33852 Activity:high |
9/30 Republicans trying to block hundreds of thousand of new voters.
Why? Because they can, there is no valid reason, except
a raw desire for power:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/27/125755/309
\_ Republican: evil. Democrat: good. No need to post a URL or read
anything.
\_ Who just out-and-out deleted this? Lets hide unpleasant truths, huh?
\_ Um, it's the same story as the Ohio one below. More dupes than
/. lately.
\_ Which got deleted. Hence the repost.
\_ He backed off, after public pressure:
http://csua.org/u/9a0 -op
I found this out after further research, which is why
I deleted it myself.
\_ No one talks about how in '92 the Demos blocked the voting rights
of military overseas, who tend to vote Republican. The right to
must be asserted.
\_ Clinton won by a landslide anyway! Wouldn't have made a
difference!
\_ Land slide? Uhm... whatever.
\_ You obviously have never studied elections. Reagan '84
was a landslide, so was Nixon '72. Haven't seen a Demo
get a landslide since FDR. |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:33848 Activity:moderate |
9/30 Republicans trying to pull a "Florida" in Ohio:
http://act04.org/paperstock
\_ How? No one pulled a "Florida" in the first place except the
lawyers after the fact.
\_ Um, bogus felons lists being used to prevent blacks from voting.
\_ Um, didn't happen.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200310150822.asp
If you don't believe his analysis, follow the link the the
actual investigation.
\_ ...are you for real?
\_ Yes, I am. And I read the report. Did you?
\_ Yes, I did, and I see a system that failed to
accomplish its goals.
\_ That article is from the guy who wrote the
dissent of the US Election Commission Report.
In other words, he was in the minority in his
opinion. The majority disagreed with him.
\_ Did you read his dissent? Did you read the facts
he presented in it?
\_http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm
Facts are such stubborn things. He claims no
one was disenfrachised. The commission found
at least 78. I read his "dissent." It was
nothing more than a partisan rant, just like
that article.
\_ "The majority of those witnesses who
experienced problems and who came before the
Commission testified that they were
ultimately able to cast their vote, despite
the problems they described; a few were not.
A chief flaw in the majority report,
however, is that it generally fails to
distinguish between problems of mere
inconvenience, difficulties caused by
bureaucratic inefficiencies, and incidents
of potential discrimination. In this way,
the complaint from the white male voter
whose shoes were muddied on the path to his
polling place is accorded the same degree of
seriousness as the case of the
seeing-impaired voter who required.but was
denied.assistance in reading the ballot, or
the African American voter who claimed she
was turned away from the polls at closing
time while a white man was not."
\_ The dissent was written by Thernstrom and
Redenbaugh. The article was written by Kirsanow.
\_ Sorry, got that wrong.
\_ truck in illegals, raise the dead to vote, democrats are
hypocrites.
\_ You can't possibly be comparing election fraud with wholesale
voter disenfranchisement based on race.
\_ So you think Democrats having the dead vote is ok? If it
was Repuiblicans who raised the dead every 4 years you'd
be the first raising hell about it.
\_ Since "wholesale voter disenfranchisement based on race"
didn't happen...
\_ http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
\_ This was based on felonies (not race), and whites
were twice as likely to be incorrectly put on the
list.
\_ Uhm, you do realize that whites outnumber blacks
by more than a factor of 2x, yes?
\_ Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Yes? |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33845 Activity:nil |
9/30 I've never voted. What do I need to do before I can vote? Or do I
just show up at the vote place the day of the vote? thanks.
\_ if you are dead already, just go to the DNC
\_ If you're black and in Florida, be sure to ask your local sheriff
for permission first.
\_ If you're heavily invested in tin foil, vote Democrat.
\_ If you think all them towelheads ought to be nuked into
blue glowing cinders, vote Republikkkan.
\_ Why do you hate towels?
\_ Err, I'm not sure how nuking towels is a clear
demonstration of love for them....
\_ voting in Berkeley is a waste of time. You already know the
outcome!!!!
\_ Look, even if Bush will take California in a landslide it doesn't
mean you shouldn't vote on state and local issues.
\_ If illegals weren't voting, he might.
\_ Speaking of tinfoil hats...
\_ Yup Illegals will do anything to call attention to
themselves because they love to be noticed by the
government!
\_ Walk down sproul, there'll be a hundred groups volunteering to
get you registered. Alternatively, go to the post office, maybe
city hall, fill out a form.
\_ Do I need to register where I am resident at? ie, if I work
in city A but lives in city B, can I register in either city?
so what exactly does registering get me? Do I get a mail saying
I can vote now?
\_ You must register at only one place, your "primary" address.
(Where you live). They mail you a packet (read following post)
\_ I believe you can pick up a form anywhere in your county
and it will go to the right place. You do have to use
your home address though. [formatd]
\_ Yup, that is correct. I registered outside the Masonic
Temple when I became a US citizen, but I don't live in
San Francisco.
\_ No less that 2 weeks before the election, you must register to vote.
This entails filling out a form with a bunch of personal information
and signing it and submitting it to a registrar, such as the League
of Women Voters (who can sometimes be found in public places) or by
going to some place like a city hall or DMV office and getting /
submitting the form there. After that, your county registrar will
mail you a packet with a sample ballot, explanation of the
propositions, candidate statements, and information about where and
when to vote.
To register, you must be a citizen, be 18 by the time of the
election (November 2.) and register using your current address.
\_ http://www.declareyourself.com
\_ Vote democrat, early, and often. |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33802 Activity:high |
9/28 So Carter says there will be problems with the election in Florida.
This is the same man who certified the Venezuelan election which had
"mathematically impossible" results.
http://davidholiday.com/weblog/2004/08/nitpicking-nytimes-on-venezuela
\_ The Economist published a reasonable analysis of the ven.
election results, and they are satisfied it was reasonably
fair. no i don't have a link. - danh
\_ What kind of file is that?
\_ this is the guy who wanted the peace prize so badly he killed
for it
\_ Here's a better link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4431638,00.html
"Rampersad claimed touch-screen voting machines in at least 500
polling sites produced the exact same number of ``yes'' votes in
favor of ousting Chavez, a result he said was statistically
impossible. He said the supposed finding indicated the machines were
rigged to impose a ceiling on ``yes'' votes."
\- after 49 "yes" votes, they become "overloaded with data" --psb
\_ That's because Carter is an idiot, and should really just
shut-up.
\_ When did Bill O'Reilly get a csua account? |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33800 Activity:very high |
9/28 What happened to the color of Kerry's skin? He's orange!
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/sep04/kerry1092704.jpg
\_ pic? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Carter? Now HE'S
looking like he had too many carrots.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1096306030421_91715230/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
\_ Hee, hee. It looks like someone dipped him in tanning oil.
\_ Makeup? bad lighting?
\_ Now we can choose between Orangity Orange, and Lemony Yellow!
\_ Photoshop |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33798 Activity:very high 50%like:30994 |
9/28 What's up with the Gallup Poll?
Likely Voter Sample Party IDs - Poll of September 24-26
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%
Total Sample: 758
GOP: 328 (43%)
Dem: 236 (31%)
Ind: 189 (25%)
A 12% party ID skew towards Republicans? Sure guys. You'd think
they would want to fix their methodology after they blew it in
2000, but they seem to have ignored the problem. "Hello, McFly?
Random sampling of land lines isn't going to cut it anymore! McFly!
Caller ID? Cellphones? McFly?!"
\_ For context if you don't know: 2000 was 35% GOP turnout, 39% Dem.
\_ Looks like the Dem. lost faith in the system.
\_ Are you stupid or just stupid?
\_ Actually, the Dems have signed up millions of new voters,
most of whom are not being polled. This election is what
finally woke up the lazy, non-voting TV watching prole
to vote his class interests. |
| 2004/9/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33779 Activity:low |
9/27 Republicans try to steal Florida again:
http://csua.org/u/986 (law blog)
\_ There was no attempt in the first place. Learn your facts. Though
many people were incorrectly on the felon list, more felons who
should have been on the list were not. Blacks and whites alike.
Nice troll though. |
| 2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33746 Activity:nil |
9/24 http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm Vote Bush, or the terrorists^W satanists have won! |
| 2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:33742 Activity:very high |
9/24 I am annoyed by the Chron's sloppy reporting on the UC admission
GPA increase. http://csua.org/u/971
In one paragraph, they talk about "4900 fewer students in the
eligibility pool". In another paragraph, they talk about the
smaller number of each racial group who would be admitted, but
they do this trick that confuses members of the eligibility
pool with the students actually admitted. (I imagine not that
many 2.8 GPA students were admitted into UCB.) What I really
want to know is how the policy would actually affect admissions,
say by looking at admission statistics of the last several years.
But the Chron deliberately, lazily, or misleadingly does not
provide that information. Does anyone know?
\_ I was admitted with a 2.8 highschool gpa. I agree that it's
probably rare. There were also minimum SAT score requirements
which were higher the farther your gpa was below 3.0, iirc.
\_ You mean "the Chron's sloppy reporting." period.
\_ I am not usually bothered by the Chron since I use other
news sources most of the time. Thinking about it more
though, I am somewhat worried that there are people who
depend on it for their primary "in depth" news source.
\_ I don't understand. If conditions are bad at your school,
shouldn't it be easier to get a high GPA?
\_ Easier given the same amount of effort, but if you've ever
been to a bad school you'd understand why this is not
necessarily true. Lots of kids are trying to survive, not
get a high GPA.
\_ Generally those kids aren't too worried about going
to a UC either.
\_ Which is the sad part, because they should be. To
compare Beverly Hills High to Crenshaw High in terms
of GPA is silly. It's probably *harder* to get a high
GPA at a place like Crenshaw, despite less
competition.
\_ I agree with you there. Which is why we need to
fix the schools, not make it easier to get into
college. Then it's already too late.
\_ What's that? The public schools are broken?
But ... how can that be? Aren't they overseen
by the ALMIGHTY STATE? WHAT WENT WRONG? It
must be the greedy private interests that fucked
up our schools!
\_ In fact it was. Prop 13.
\_ BWAHAHAHA!
\_ Not Prop 13. Check out:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A18D12E59
[disguised wingnut link]
\_ Read:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_1003HRR.pdf
"Despite Proposition 13 and other limitations,
state and local government spending in
California in in line with spending in other
states. In 1999-2000, state and local
government spending per capita in California
exceed the average of all other states by 9%."
The lack of tax money is not a problem. What
is a problem is how we choose to spend it.
\_ is that adjusted for things like local
cost of materials/cost of living?
\_ Doesn't look like it. Nor the teachers'
salaries, for that matter.
\_ Ah, but what's spending as % of GDP?
\_ California had good public schools before
Prop 13. I am old enough to remember.
\_ And free junior colleges. We REALLY
need to reexamine.
\_ And CA ranks near the bottom of
the US in state spending per student
\_ I don't think most people are
against spending more on
schools, if there was any
chance of it getting better.
Have you seen the schools?
They're run my complete
morons!
\_ Have you considered working in
the schools? It's terrible! The
pay is shit, the hours are long
and you have medeling from nosy
parents and a school-board run
by junior politicians. It's no
wonder they can't attract good
people!
\_ Wow... how can this
travesty happen with a
STATE-RUN INSTITUTION?
Surely, there must have
been some sort of shadowy
special-interest involvement
from greedy multinational
corporations that caused
this!
\_ Okay, think about it
this way. How often have
you received good service
at a Denny's, or some
shop at the mall, or
first level tech support
from a big company. If
you don't pay enough,
the good people won't
stick around "for the
love of it."
\_ It is not relevant that CA had good
schools before Prop 13. CA has plenty
of tax revenue. The reason CA spends
less on education is because we spend
a smaller % of tax revenue on
education (22% for CA versus 25%
elsewhere). Read the PPIC article. Prop
13 is just a scapegoat. In the 1970s
sale tax was 3% and houses cost $35K
(i.e. property values far outstripped
inflation). More taxes is not the
answer.
\_ What does California spend it tax
money on then? I am genuninly
curious. Do you have a reference?
\_ Yes. THE LINK ABOVE TO PPIC says
that. If you want to know
everything broken down look here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q25E25F59
BTW, CA has the highest paid
teachers in the nation.
\_ they make TWO hunks of dirt a day!
\_ http://www.edsource.org/sch_ca_us_pupil_xpn.cfm
California lags far behind the rest of the
nation in per pupil expenditures.
\_ Try looking at: Serrano v. Priest |
| 2004/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33694 Activity:low |
9/22 Well, that's a whole 'nother subject. I
personally think it's unfair to take away
felon's right to vote, but I won't debate
that here. Make another thread if you want.
\_ So serial rapists, murderers, the criminally insane, etc. are a-ok?
Are you for real? -- ilyas
\_ So in your mind felon==serial rapist or murderer? Are you for
real? The range of things one can get a felony conviction for
is much, much larger than that.
\_ There's obvious value in denying these people the right to walk
the streets, but what exactly the value in denying them the vote?
It's certainly not deterance. Are you afraid they'll all band
together and elect Satan or something? If you've served your
time, are you less entitled to have a say in how society is run?
(Insane people are another matter entirely.)
\_ I'm pretty sure these people will vote for whichever candidate
that, say, supports cutting law enforcement funding by half
and replacing all jail sentenses with probation. It'll make
their future easier.
\_ So? It won't pass unless a majority of voters supports it,
and if a majority of voters supports it, maybe the felons'
candidate wasn't so wacky after all. The right to vote
doesn't just belong to the people you agree with.
\_ The majority of people convicted of felonies are there
for drug crimes. As a libertarian, you should be sympathetic
to their plight. Maybe we could change the law so that
only those guilty of violent felonies lose their voting
rights.
\_ I am, I support decriminalization of all drugs. Having said
that, I am against letting felons vote (using my definition
of felon). I should clarify my view a little. I believe in
a retributive system of justice, if someone finished their
restitution, they reenter society and are no longer a 'felon/
criminal/whatever.' They are accorded full rights. Some
crimes are 'permanent' in that you never finish with your
restitution. People committing those crimes are 'permanent
felons,' and I do not want those guys to vote ever (they give
up a lot more basic rights permanently, like their freedom).
-- ilyas
I haven't thought very hard about which crimes ought to involve
permanent restitution status, but off-the-cuff, I think it
will have something to do with the 'irreversibility' of the
damage caused by the crime. -- ilyas
\_ Crimes of theft/fraud are theoretically reversible, but
seldom are. Threatening someone with a gun is not
reversible, but seldom scars the victim for life.
\_ what is your point?
\_ Your justification for denying felons the right to
vote seems to have a pretty fuzzy foundation if you
can't even say which felons should be disenfranchised
\_ 'Felons,' as I understand the term give up a bunch
of rights while they are in 'debt.' The
justification for making them give up these rights
is so they are forced to 'pay,' and can't run off
or vote away their 'debt' (or go further into
'debt'). If you are attacking me
for being unable to provide a precise
characterization of a 'permanent felon,' then
that's a pretty weak attack. Addressing the
problem fully would require a book and a lot more
knowledge than I have. This doesn't make the
approach invalid. Our justice system has the
notion of a 'permanent felon' also, I merely
sought to give a 'short' description of what
that class of people ought to be. -- ilyas
\_ Why deny violent felons the right to vote? Seriously. -op |
| 2004/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33691 Activity:high |
9/22 Millions of voters disenfranchised:
http://csua.org/u/95p (Reuters, by way of Yahoo News)
"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black
voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills
or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent
would be arrested at polling stations." and
"In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending
to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling
stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been
reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to
vote in black neighborhoods."
WTF? If you want to win an election, do it on the basis of a strong
candidate, not these asinine gestapo tactics.
\_ Fliers? Post one. Let's see it. Pretending to be police? This
is hearsay. Got video? Mysterious people? With cameras? Maybe
they were tourists from one of your favorite socialist countries
who came here to learn how to run an election. If you want to win
an election, do it on the basis of a strong candidate, not by
putting forged documents on the air as news.
\_ It's ok, man, it's Reuters. Reuters is not a serious news
source.
\_ YOU ARE SO RIGHT. I ONLY TRUST RUSH LIMBAUGH AND FOX NEWS!!1!
\_ Wow. You went completely off the subject and started ranting
about socialism and the CBS memos within a couple of sentences.
Your troll fu is extremely weak.
\_ Photo ID isn't required to vote? So what's to stop me from
showing up at different polling stations all day claiming to be
other people? ...Oh, right. That's why the Dems are against
photo ID...
\_ Troll. The republicans have just as much opportunity to cast
frauduant votes. Requiring photo ID disenfranchises transients
and makes it a whole lot easier to intimidate voters.
Can you honestly say you don't think it will be used to
intimidate minority voters in the south?
\_ Troll. Let's not bother with voter registration, since we're
not interested in verifying anything anyway. Just let
everybody vote, including non-citizens and illegal aliens, as
many times as they wish.
\_ This bugs me every time I go to vote. I agree it's a small thing
to ask for, and it's a fine preventative. -op
\_ There's a difference between a friendly request for ID by
a polling station operator, and a police officer intimidating
people at the door, and you guys know it.
\_ Huh? I didn't say anything about officers at the
door. I'm not sure I even believe that. It just
mentions in the article that photo ID is not required
to vote, which I have issue with.
\_ But if it is required, you'll have some places where a
cop is standing at the door and an off-duty cop is
manning the polling station and ID'ing people.
\_ We probably have that now. Just with out the
guy ID'ing people. Really man, you're against
IDing people before they vote?
\_ If ID'ing could be done with no bad consequences,
I have no problem, but I'm fairly certain it will
disenfranchise minorities and the poor.
\_ I have a hard time believing there are
that many people who don't have ID. And
I think leaving the door blatantly open
to voter fraud is a little stupid.
\_ Not that many people don't have ID, but
quite a few people don't trust the gov't
enough to show ID to a cop before voting.
\_ Cops are not part of the voting process,
with the exception of those who are off-
duty and volunteering to work the polls.
There's no reason for a cop to check your
ID before you vote. There's plenty of
reason for a poll worker to check your ID
against the list of registered voters.
\_ What could a cop do with your photo
ID that he couldn't do with your
name and address on the sheet in
front of him? That's bordering on
paranoia. I don't think it's
unreasonable to think that if you're
that nuts, I'm not too worried about
you getting your vote.
\_ And no ID'ing allows felons to vote. Well shit.
\_ Well, that's a whole 'nother subject. I
personally think it's unfair to take away
felon's right to vote, but I won't debate
that here. Make another thread if you want.
\_ Ilya, I moved your reply into a seperate
thread. Don't go all hissy-fit on us now
\_ Why are leftists so concerned about felon's right to vote but not
to own a gun?
\_ Because a dangerous person can't kill more people by voting. |
| 2004/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33685 Activity:nil |
9/20 Bush has gained 10 points on Kerry in just one month in California.
At this rate, Bush will be ahead of Kerry by two points on Oct
22 and win California in a landslide:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/California%20Sept%205.htm
\_ By your logic, Bush will have over 100% support in Ca in less
than a year. Fuck off.
\_ Didn't some other motd poster claim that Gore had more than
100% of the vote in some parts of PA? So it is theoretically
possible...
\_ Just 2 or 3 precincts, but still. It made me laugh. --cons
\_ According to http://www.electoral-vote.com Rasmussen leans right.
\_ And Zogby leans left. So? Talk to me on November 3rd. |
| 2004/9/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:33642 Activity:moderate |
9/20 What are the applicable laws / rules of thumb governing your CA
driver's license #? I know you're supposed to exchange it in an
accident, but what happens to it after that? What's my exposure
to, say, a bouncer swiping my ID at a bar (happens a lot in LA)?
\_ You have the right to not give them your ID at a bar.
The bar has the right to not let you in without ID.
\_ that's not helpful.
\_ you also have the right to insult the previous poster's
mom and make an obtuse reference to illegal immigration.
\ you have the right to burn American flags |
| 2004/9/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health] UID:33613 Activity:nil |
9/17 http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/porn.fine.ap/index.html Condom or no condom? |
| 2004/9/13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33493 Activity:high |
9/13 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=3&u=/ap/flipping_ and_flopping fucking little bush. \- things like the steel trarrifs were not "flipflops" they were far worse. that particular case was cynical vote mongering ... burying principle for electorial votes. in re: flipflopping over changing circumstances, as JM Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind -- What do you do, sir?" Another good Keynes quote: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." --psb \_ Also note that changing your mind based on changing facts is different from denying facts while making your decision, then changing your mind when your polls drop. \_ If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. -GW Bush \_ cf. letting the ban on assault weapons lapse to gain the NRA endorsement. "I support the ban," the President said. |
| 2004/9/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33479 Activity:high |
9/12 Did anyone go to the Cal game? Did you hear California Triumph?
Was it good?
\_ Went to the game. Cal had a hard time getting started, then
passed for a bazillion yards and trounced the Aggies' defense.
Cal gave the Aggies a pity goal near the end. A great Cal game.
\_ You misunderstood the question. I was asking about a song,
not the game.
\_ Sounded fine to me!
\_ There are a lot of college fight songs. I think "Fight for
California," "Big C," and "Stanford Jonah" are all top-notch,
as college fight songs go. "California Triumph" sounded pretty
middle-of-the-road. Maybe once there are words it will seem more
compelling. -tom |
| 2004/9/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33470 Activity:insanely high |
9/10 Is it legal to shoot somebody who is unarmed, but threatens you? Do
you have to wait for them to actually harm you? Seems like if someone
runs at you, and you shoot, it would be hard to prove that there was
a threat.
\_ they have hands and feet which are weapons
\_ Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
\_ Better carried by 6 than prison raped by 12.
\_ I'll take my chances on a trial. Though I've heard
more than one cop recommend that if you do shoot, make
sure it's a fatal shot, just so it's your word against
no one's else's.
\_ Police are different, they are given a greater
latitude when dealing with potentially deadly
situations.
\_ You must show that you had a reasonable fear for your life and
safety and that you had no other course of action to defend
yourself, such as running. One can presume deadly intent on
the part of an assailant if it is a "surprise" attack or if
an asssilant breaks into your home or business while you are
inside. If say you were a 4'1" 75 pound person and a 6'5"
240 pound man charged you, yeah, you'd have an easier time
showing reasonable fear for life and safety.
\_ This is pretty accurate. Mainly, the crux of the case will be
on whether you can show that a 'reasonable person' would have
felt in life-threatening danger with no reasonable recourse but
to shoot. -POC
\_ I don't have a clear idea of "reasonable". Also, how about
non life-threatening danger? Such as someone trying to rape
your girlfriend. I suppose the law requires letting him do
so with impunity while you call the cops? And attacking with
something other than a gun would be assault? (Never mind that
trying to intervene physically could get you killed.)
\_ *sigh* If you're really that worried and clueless, read
up on it -- the materials aren't hard to find. If someone
is raping you (or your gf), then I'd be inclined to say
that the 'life-threatening' condition has been adequately
met (I mean, duh). Attacking with something other than a
gun would also be assualt if you have no proper
justification (although it would likely be battery). You
are allowed to defend yourself in CA. Really.
\_ your right to defend yourself also extends itself to
others you choose to defend: the gf, your friend, your
son, an innocent person you see being held up at
gunpoint or knife or being beat up by a group (careful
with the last case though)
\_ The original poster asked about a situation involving
him(or her)self, not someone else. The answers were
given in that context. Learn to read.
\_ So what, I asked a related question.
\_ You will have a surprisingly difficult time if this was done
not on your property. It's even worse in Britain, there's a famous
case of a guy going to prison for shooting a burglar in his home.
-- ilyas
\_ happened in LA just a few months ago. You can only use a
gun in protection of your life, NOT your property in Cali.
\_ Are you referring to the one where the guy who broke in left
when he saw the gun and was running down the street when the
owner shot him in the back?
\_ I am SO fucking out of Cali as soon as I graduate. -- ilyas
\_ there's super-cheap land available in the matsu valley.
http://www.matsuvalleynews.com
all they talk about in their paper is property rights
and you can buy a 0.50 magnum pistol at the 24 hour k-mart.
expect to slather your body with DEET for 3 months of the
year, though.
year, though. Oh, yeah. and there are NO TAXES! no
sales tax, and no state income tax. they send you
a check every year from interest on a fund of money saved
up from oil revenue.
\_ I was thinking Wisconsin. Wisconsin's a battleground
state, so I can be sure I contribute to a government
that will lower taxes, brutalize criminals, despoil the
environment, and RULE YOU LIKE A KING. -- ilyas
\_ is alaska that bad with mosquitoes? that sucks.
\_ it really depends on time of year and how far
you are from the ocean, but in the interior in
the bad season it's pretty insane.
\_ Well, when I think about it there are lots of
mosquitoes here in CA. Ran into lots in the
Santa Cruz woods and in the some in the Sierras.
And we have the West Nile stuff here now.
\_ I know--what's up with Cali and all that shite about 'life
being valued above property'. Fucking pansy ass liberal
wimps. Back in the day, not only could you kill a man
for stealing your property, if you killed him you were
entitled to his property as well. Bring back the days of
the libertarian utopia, I say!!
\_ You are confused. See, criminals, by virtue of not
respecting my property rights, give up their rights.
For instance, their rights not to be killed like a dog
This is why we lock criminals up, and make them
work, and don't call that a violation of rights. Or are
prisons a part of a 'libertarian utopia' too? You make
a great impression on behalf of liberals everywhere,
buddy. -- ilyas
\_ BWAHAHAHA! Your prejudices are showing, ilya.
I'm not a liberal. I also believe in the right to
bear arms, and intend to join the NRA. It's
possible to value life above property (while
still believing that criminals should be punished
in proportion to their crimes) without being a
'liberal'. You make a great impression on behalf
of libertarians everywhere, son.
\_ I value life above property too. Are you saying
criminals don't give up rights when they commit
crimes? -- ilyas
\_ No, I'm not. Nevermind, ilya. Don't worry
your pretty little head about it -- just leave
California when you graduate, as you suggested
earlier.
\_ So what ARE you saying? Are you just upset
someone called you a liberal? Next time a
big guy without a deadly weapon breaks into
your house and starts looting (without
actually threatening your life, just sort of
pushing you away), you make sure to tell him
how much you value life above property.
As far as I am concerned, if you are in my
house without my invitation, your life
depends on my good graces, I prefer to live
in places that let me defend myself.
-- ilyas
\_ like Wisconson! Live free or die!
MY cheese! |
| 2004/9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33330 Activity:very high |
9/3 Serious question for motd conservatives, except for that Freeper
guy, who I seriously think is nuts:
Has the Republican Party become the "big government" party these
days? Bush listed a dozen Great Society programs last night
that he intends to implement. Now that the Republicans are in
power, have they discovered that they like government after all?
\_ Big government is not a part of the republican 'story,' but of
course they implement certain big government programs. Sometimes
it's to get votes (medical stuff), sometimes it's to appear they are
doing something to respond to a threat, or perhaps for will-to-power
reasons (homeland security), sometimes it's collusion between
business and government (subsidies, etc). Republican big government
policies are the corrupting delta (the difference between what they
say and what they do) given our form of government.
The problem is, democrats will do all these things, but they also
believe in big government as some sort of principle, so they will
also do many MORE things. Fixing things here does not involve
\_ What a bunch of rank bullshit.
\_ "World would be even more blowed up if Kerry was Prez"
\_ Yeah, he would have done something like let Osama get
away, fail to secure the ports, or invade a Muslim
country and then fail to send enough troops or give
them body armor. -knows you were being sarcastic
voting for someone else, I think, as the flaws are structural in
the way we run things. I am beginning to think our problems are
mostly cultural. I can't imagine the swiss implementing something
like homeland security, because they have a long and deep tradition
of decentralized solutions. -- ilyas (not a fan of big government)
\_ The Republican camp is responding to both bases of social and
financial conservatives. For FiCons, they got the lower taxes.
Then the SoCons get their "Big Government" style agenda items
passed. These big ticket items (plus the increase in defense
spending) drop the money available in the general pool. So the
\_ not in the general economy but in the federal budget which
is just fine with me, since its already bloated with crap.
the less money the feds have for crap spending, the better.
i object to your mixing and hazing out the difference beween
the general economy and the gederal budget. they are not
at all the same.
\_ I WAS talking about fed budget... Crap is in eye of the
beholder. Reps fund their pork same as Dems. However,
they aim at removing gov regs to pay for SoCon BG items.
FiCons cut government funds that regulate business. Plus those
"BG" items are not always properly funded by the Feds. They
become unfunded mandates and the states/locals pick up the tab,
which raises taxes, which brings out new FiCons, who vote in
more Republicans. The rule has always been unspent money is a
politician's curse.
\_ So if the feds pay for it, taxes dont go up but if the states
do then taxes have to go up to pay for it? you have a very
fundamentally flawed understanding of where federal money
comes from. ill give you this one: it comes from taxes.
\_ No, the Feds DON'T pay for it. But they REQUIRE it. Take
"No Child Left Behind." Costs $29B to fund, but feds put
little money behind it. States must follow Fed regs so
the cost comes from state pockets. State has no money, so
it takes it from Counties, who have to raise taxes.
\_ Hm, usually I think your posts are well-reasoned ilyas but this
is just a long slimy string of crap.
\_ I ll be sure to post a short, 2-line string of crap next time,
like your good example shows! -- ilyas
\_ Lemme get this straight... what you are saying is
that Republicans increase the size of government, though
they don't belive in doing that, whereas Democrats
also increase the size of government, but they do believe
in it. And somehow the former is better? Ok. And how
exactly does one differentiate between an action that
one repeatedly does, though does not believe in, with
an action that one repeatedly does and does believe
in? Oh, and BTW, the size of government increased
during the Reagan and Bush II (so far) administrations
but decreased during the Clinton administration.
http://csua.org/u/8x1 but don't let the
facts get in the way of your belief in platitudes.
\_ Republicans are unprincipled. Democrats are unprincipled
and wrong. Nader 04, etc. -- ilyas
\_ A democrat would say just the opposite.
\_ Actually, Bush's big idea is the "ownership society". Fewer
handouts, more opportunity. If you do nothing, there will be less
of a safety net for you, other than people's and state/local
governments' (not the federal government's) own charity. -liberal
\_ Did you even listen to the speech last night? He promised
more money for K-12, more money for community colleges,
more money for pell grants and other higher education funding,
more money to help seniors pay for drug benefits, more money
for the military, more money for ....
\_ and more tax cuts!
\_ Everything you mentioned is consistent with a smaller safety
net and increased opportunity.
\_ Except the drug benefits, right?
\_ Well, since the drug benefits were structured so that
the government pays whatever price the drug cos. say,
it's really just a giant piece of corporate welfare.
\_ Wrong. It is impossible for most people today to save
enough money during their normal life times to pay for
their medical expenses post-retirement. You can thank
trial lawyers like John Edwards for a big part of that.
\_ Oh. Bull. Shit. Try HMO and drug company profits.
\_ You are trolling, right? You know the numbers
show you to be completely uninformed about this
issue, yes? Asswipe. --aaron
\_ The flaw in the meritocratic model that the Repubs tout is that
the playing field is not even, and not everyone begins with the
same tools. If this were the case, then yes, effort and hard
work would out; the Republican model of believing that anyone
who works hard can succeed to the highest levels would be true.
In reality, however, there are already x number of people at the
top who exert a disproportional effect on who gets to advance
and who is passed over. As long as we have old boy networks and
corrupt politicians, the Republican meritocratic dream will
remain a fantasy. |
| 2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33158 Activity:insanely high |
8/26 Why is there still this misconception? Wouldn't everyone be better
served if at the least the truth is known? Quoting from below:
\_ "Your media"? Anyway, some major news
organizations (NYT included, I think) did a full
manual recount of the state and showed that under
most recount rules if there had been a full
recount Gore would have won Florida. Of course
this happened several months after the Supes
appointed GWB, so by then it was a moot point and
it didn't get a lot of press.
\_ Actually, you are exactly wrong. The study
you referred to (done by the National Opinion
Research Center, commissioned by NYT, CNN,
etc.) showed that Bush would have won by
493 votes had there been a recount. And, no,
it didn't get a lot of play in the media.
http://csua.org/u/2b5
\_ Good article and thank you. Your single
statement from it is exactly true but
the article says a great deal more. I
suggest people read it. -- ulysses
\_ This NORC???
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CarolASThompson/NORC.htm
\_ Rehashing the recounts is pretty pointless, I'll agree. But the
larger concern is Florida's continued registrar shenanigans.
\_ There is a lot of anger over the recount that is unjustified,
given the above link. We can argue over politics, but I hope
we can all agree there should be more civility in our
argument. These kinds of misconception make civility impossible.
\_ The misconception about how the votes went down in Fl'2k is still
being perpetrated because the more you tell the big lie, the more
people will believe it and get mad because they won't do their own
research into the truth which is that in all the ways the votes
were being counted and recounted, Gore lost, no one was appointed
President and it pisses off the left to no end. Had Gore only won
his own home state, it wouldn't have mattered what happened in Fl
anyway.
\_ You are precisely a victim of the kind of propaganda you decry.
Read the NORC link above.
\_ I read it before posting, thanks. What next? You're going
to tell me that there was a huge conspiracy across Florida
between Jeb Bush, the police, and the dog catcher's union to
prevent blacks from voting?
\_ I would sincerely hope that a Cal CS student would know
what precision of measurement is. The above link very
clearly shows that Bush won under some methods of
counting and Gore under others. Which you still deny,
even though the evidence is right in front of your face.
You are either 1) insane, 2) lying or 3) unable to
read and comprehend English at a 12th grade level.
I suspect #1, actually.
\_ Gore did not win under any method that was actually
being proposed to count ballots. He won only under
a method that neither side suggested which was
fabricated by the media counters so people like you
could claim there was bizarre circumstance under which
Gore won. Bush won under all the ways the votes were
being counted. By the courts. Not by the media who
was making up more ways to do it, although Bush won
under some of those methods as well.
\_ This is false as well. By the standards set
by the Florida Supreme Court: "one in which there
is a clear indication of the intent of the voter"
Gore would have won, due to the overvotes that both
marked him clearly and had his name written in.
This was what the State of Florida law required,
but the US Supreme Court ruled that there was not
enough time to conduct this recount. Remember that
the Bush team did everything it could, both
legally and illegally, to delay that recount.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Just admit that the vote was "tied" by any
reasonable interpretation of the results. In
our legal system, "ties" go to the courts to
adjudicate. This one belonged in the Florida
State Supreme Court, but in a maneuver so suspect
that even they claimed that it was not precedent
setting, the USSC took it away from them. That's
\_ Would you have preferred the method of the
1876 election? Then Bush would have won.
the breaks, I say, but it is Constitutionally
suspect and the reason there remains a cloud
over the results. The Bush Administration from
the very start believed that they didn't have
to answer to the rule of law. Thanks for
reminding me all all that, btw, I am going to
donate another $100 to the John Kerry campaign.
\_ A Federal election is a state court issue..
huh!? Read article 2 and Amend. 14, the
implication is obvious. The legislature has
plenary, manifest authority over the choice of
electors - period! What provision of
Federal or Fl. state stature talks about
'ties go to the courts' - that statement
tells me you have no understanding of
the law or intent of the Const. authors.
This has been discussed an nasaeum, the
decision was 7-2 and Bush won under every
possible scenario except the bizarre one you
promote. If one extrapolated these absurd
scenarios far enough you could probably make
Buchanan win too - he should have sued!!!
\_ I would say that the article showed that Gore would
have won under the most permissive interpretation of
ballots, and Bush under more generally accepted
methods of interpretation.
\_ Are you the same guy that claims that "in all the
way the votes were being counted and recounted
Gore lost"?
\_ Nope. I'm the Gore-would-have-won-under-the-
most-permissive-interpretation-and-Bush-
everything-else guy. The in-all-ways guy is
someone else. |
| 2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:33153 Activity:nil |
8/26 Indian tribes are underprivileged? See how powerful they are:
http://csua.org/u/8ri (Yahoo! News)
\_ Um. We killed almost all of them, wiped out most of their culture
and language, and took all but the worst parts of their country
from them. Don't you think they deserve what they can scrape up?
\_ Wouldn't Hobbes say we deserve their country?
\_ And also that they deserve the power they've accumulated now
because they've learned to adapt and work the new system.
\_ No, no, no, American capitalism and the Free Market are
only good when they benefit rich, white Americans.
\_ Hobbes said a lot of things. He was kind of a dick.
\_ A veritable Leviathan!
\_ Damned Indian outsourcing! |
| 2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33109 Activity:nil |
8/24 The only practical way to eliminate the electoral college system in
the U.S. is for a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the
popular vote by 5-10%, and then having the U.S. go to shit. This may,
and I stress "may", generate enough support for changing to a
popular-vote system.
\_ Interestingly the support is already there, at least in the 1992 and
1968 polls (check http://Wikipedia.com). Its just that you need so much
support to pass a constitutional amendment that its not practical.
I find it very ironic that the attempt at an amendment to abolish it
in 1989 passed the house easily but (of course) failed in the Senate,
where all states have equal representation. I'm not even sure if
the scenario you describe would bring enough support from the Senate
and 3/4s of the states, but maybe. There's always a Constitutional
Convention, but given the dangerous nature of such a thing I doubt
that will ever happen either.
\_ With a 5% difference, the President will have an expectedly hard
time claiming a mandate. With a "small" difference, like 0.5% in
2000, people will also say "no mandate", but will be overwhelmed
by others saying "this goes to show that the system works". |
| 2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33102 Activity:insanely high |
8/24 Can someone articulate a defense of the Electoral College system?
\_ Because it makes it harder for a charismatic but evil person from
gaining a large following in small but densely packed places and
screwing the other 49.9% of the population. A republic is more
stable than a democracy. Pure democracy will not lead to the
utopia you dream of. If we didn't have the EC, candidates would
campaign in about 2% of the country instead of 18% of the country.
You think that's a better solution? Also, since the number of
people in a state is used to calculate the number of EC votes a
state has, a Wyoming vote is not substantially different than a CA
vote. The big problem in our system is the primaries give a
disproportionate amount of decision making power to the 3 to 4
earliest voting primary states, while the last 40 or so are just
a rubber stamp.
\_ There is a ridiculous fallacy here--that it's important for
candidates to campaign in large, empty states, rather than
in states where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE. Our president isn't
answerable to prarie dogs in South Dakota, he's the
representative of the *people*. Any system which means that
he has to appeal to more PEOPLE is an improvement. -tom
\_ Pure democracy would leave those people permanently out of
the political cycle. But since they don't share your
political view, mostly, that's ok, right?
\_ The EC simply makes states vote as a bloc. So a given
state will have a split vote, but casts its decision as
a whole. This gives the state more power. It's still
democracy, there are actual people in those states, and
the EC prevents state minorities from undermining the
decision of the state election. However I don't think the
case is made that that the EC makes candidates campaign in
more areas. It's just different. Without the EC candidates
could pick up votes anywhere. Another problem is states
that are too large like CA. In huge states the national
voice is reduced in the Senate, and you get too many
people without enough common ground. Personally I'm against
the EC and think it is outdated since states are too large
and diverse to justify consolidating their votes.
\_ The current EC system does nothing to discourage
candidates from campaigning almost exclusively in urban
population centers; in fact, the winner-takes-all set-up
encourages it. In order to win California's whopping
55 electoral votes (20% of the number needed to win the
election), a candidate's energy is best spent appealing
to LA and SFBA, where the vast majority of the voters live.
A better system would be much more representative: allot
votes to individual counties based on population (and set
a minimum such that counties without enough residents get
grouped with other counties until they form a large enough
population to warrant a vote); then award votes based on
who wins the majorities in those counties. In this way,
Riverside and the Inland Empire could acutally give one
of California's votes to Bush, while Austin could give its
three to Kerry. Abolishing the EC is silly, but reforming
it is a really good idea.
\_ Abolishing would not be silly. What you describe is
ok but impractical. Like I said, I think it's outdated
and as long as we're apportioning electoral votes
based on population, we should be counting the actual
votes. But it doesn't bother me much. The primary
schedule bothers me a lot more, as well as only
needing a plurality.
\_ Isn't the primary date decided by the state legislature? Why
doesn't CA move it's primary up to the front of the pack?
There should be at least one west coast state in the early
primary.
\_ Because our legislature is full of weaklings. We used to be
so far back it didn't matter if we voted. Then they moved
it up a few months. Now we're so far back it doesn't matter
if we vote. Uhm... yeah!
\_ ... but it makes it easier for a charismatic but evil person
to succeed while screwing the other side which got more votes.
\_ Please. Don't start with the butterfly ballot again.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College (have phun)
\_ Gives mostly empty states in the center of country actual
influence as opposed to being totally neglected? Other than that,
the electoral college system sucks.
\_ how is giving mostly-empty states a good thing?
\_ Because they're citizens, too? Because they should have some
say in how their country is run? But, wait, those are mostly
conservative areas. NO FREE SPEECH FOR FASCISTS!
\_ That's where we keep the nuclear weapons. We don't want to
encourage them to seccede.
\_ The greater the space per capita, the less likely a state
will succeed in seceeding.
\_ People in Wyoming are more important than people in California. -tom
\_ Yes. They are. And?
\_ yeah, maybe if the succeed then they'll be rich by
selling us food at extreme prices
\_ Is there much farming in Wyoming? Farmers spend a LOT of
money on fertilizers and pesticides.
\_ well. tons of cattle and horses which produce
shit to make fertilizer , and also beef
\_ But the cows are generally fed corn, which I don't
think they grow a lot of in Wyoming, and it is mostly
produced with nitrogen-rich fertilizers made from
petrochemicals.
\_ The cows are grass fed in Wyoming (duh).
\_ Now tom, you know this is easy to fix -- just get enough of your
friends to vote Republican that CA becomes a battleground state
again. People will start to pay attention to you! -- ilyas
\_ I don't have enough stupid friends. And in any case, even
if the presidential candidates bothered to campaign in the
most populated and important state in the country, a vote in
Wyoming would still count more than a vote in California. -tom
\_ The problem is, states fight with each other via the feds.
If the US introduced the system you suggest, CA might vote
all the water from surrounding states into itself or
something like that. The problem is that states are
specific entities from which things can be taken away by
law. You either need to remove states altogether, or give
states the legal means to fight for things for their
residents. The electoral college system was a historic
compromise, but there was a reason a compromise was
needed -- the states didn't trust each other, and with
good reason. -- ilyas
\_ You're being obtuse. (Gee, what a surprise). We're
talking about one specific thing--presidential
elections. -tom
\_ Why should electing the president have a special
exemption from the general system? The office of
the president is another tool the states use to
fight each other. If you think the office of
the president only concerns 'the people', why not
apply the same reasoning to the rest of the
government, say the legislative branch? -- ilyas
\_ sorry, you'll have to find someone more gullible
to chase your red herring. -tom
\_ You are a prisoner of the running 'narrative'
on wall, Tom. -- ilyas
\_ No, you moron, it doesn't. The ratio of voters per electoral
vote may be smaller in Wyoming, but Wyoming is, like CA,
a first-past-the-post state. Your vote may count more
towards tipping the electoral votes in Wyoming than it
does in CA, but Wyoming also has a lot less electoral
votes as a state. Your vote doesn't directly correspond
to an electoral vote, but to a slate of votes. Depending
on how the state's race is shaping up and how the national
election is shaping up, your vote has more or less power
in any given situation. If CA is a battleground state and
Wyoming isn't, your vote is actually MORE significant in
CA than it is in Wyoming. --williamc
\_ gee, idiot, when 480K people (.16% of the population)
decide on 3 electoral votes (.56% of the electoral
college), their votes have more weight than when 35
million people (11.7% of the population) decide on
55 electoral votes (10.2% of the electoral college).
Try taking a math class. -tom
\_ 35 million? No. Drop the illegal aliens and only
count registered voters and the numbers change
dramatically. Try taking a civics class.
\_ Are you contending that there are fewer than
8 million US citizens in California? That's
what it would take for CA's representation in
the electoral college to be proportional to
Wyoming's. -tom
\_ We are the UNITED STATES of America. The States
make up the UNION. Not the other way around.
The states must be accorded their rights as
equal sovereign powers. Dealings btw them must
be done with recognition of their positions as
equals (look up "full faith and credit"). The
EC is a compromise, it gives every state as
close to an equal say in the selection of the
Chief Executive as is possible. [why was this
deleted?]
\_ Your last sentence is complete hogwash. An
equal say would have Wyoming choosing .16% of
the electors, and California choosing 11.7%.
Are you going to try to claim again that
states have rights? -tom
\_ What part of equality of sovereign
powers do you not understand?
Wyoming has 2 senators and 1
congressman, thus it has three
votes in selecting the Chief Exec.
California has many more people
hence it gets proportionately more
congressmen, which translates to
proportionately more votes in the
EC which means more votes when
selecting the Chief Exec. Maybe
Wyoming gets a little bit more
than an equal say b/c its pop.
is smaller than the min.
threshold for two congressmen.
This is why the EC is as close
to a completely equitable
system as is possible given
the foundation of the republic.
Its seems to me that based on
your logic, Wyoming should have
no representation at all b/c they
have hardly any people. That
is not how it works for good
reason.
Yes, states have rights. Let's
give you an example that you
can understand. You ride your
bike to Nevada. While riding
around you happen to crash it
into the window of a health
food store. You get up and
ride back to California.
Nevada courts have the right
to haul you, a non-resident,
into court to answer the
charges. You can choose
not to appear, but that will
just mean a judgment by def.
If Nevada didn't have any
rights/power, how could they
drag you into court? Think
about that.
\_ Republican: stupid. Stupid: Republican. It all makes
sense to me now. Half the country is simply stupid because
they don't agree with tom. All Hail Leader Tom!
\_ Well, if you're Republican, that at least would be one
example. Try reading it again. -tom
\_ All Hail Great Educator Leader Tom!
\_ Imagine Florida 2000 across THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Be grateful for the
Electoral College.
\_ I hope you realize that most democratic countries manage to
hold elections where the popular vote determines the winner and
they can actually count the votes properly.
\_ Actually, if we had Florida 2000 across the entire country, we
would have each state supreme court ruling on recounts in their
own state. On the other hand, if we didn't have an electoral
college system, and we had Florida 2000 in all 50 states,
assuming 500-vote margins for Bush x 50 would mean Bush would
win the popular vote and the Presidency by 25,000 votes.
\_ Congratulations. You managed to make a good point at first
and then squander it in taking the example to its illogical
conclusion.
\_ How so? Because he can do math?
\_ He's probably annoyed because "Florida 2000" also means
assorted election hijinks by Jeb and friends, and I
didn't mention that but ended with a popular vote win
for Bush in each state and overall, which doesn't make
sense. |
| 2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33090 Activity:insanely high |
8/24 Question on voting absentee ballot. I am currently working overseas,
but I am still can vote. But which State am I supposely voting for?
Last time I registered to vote was in California, does it mean I
am voting a California absentee ballot?
If, let say, I decided to make my vote more meaningful by asking
my uncle to register vote for me in OHIO, does it mean I can vote
absentee in behalf of Ohio resident?
\_ Right now you're registered in the last state you registered in,
so you're a California voter. In order to register in Ohio, you'll
probably need to furnish an Ohio address as your permanent address.
You can then vote absentee in Ohio... and pay Ohio taxes, get flyers
from Ohio candidates, etc., etc.
Check out http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/voter for more info.
\_ Try to register in ALL the states, and see who rejects you.
Maybe you could vote 50 times! It's all ok, as long as
you're voting for Kerry!
\_ Absentee votes always lean towards the Republicans. Now it
makes sense. -tom
\_ Always? What makes sense? We already knew that Republican
equals Evil and Evil equals Republican. What more did you
need to know about the world? Everything I needed to know
about politics I learned from the wall/motd.
\_ the reason is that most absentee are people in the arm forces
I am not, and I am trying to make democrat to carry Ohio.
my uncle lives in Ohio, i could easily use his address
as permanet address. State taxes doesn't really apply to
ex-pats, and I pay my share of federal income taxes. --OP
\_ So, you're going to lie?
\_ Being a good liar is a strong "motd-conservative" value,
such as lying to the police officer about how you shot
and killed a clearly unarmed person because you
"thought" he was pulling a gun.
\_ California expects you to pay state taxes even if you're
an ex-pat. Also, remember that Ohio requires you to reside
in Ohio for a month before you're eligible to register for
an absentee ballot. I don't know how they check these
things (if at all), but you should do some more research
before you inadvertantly commit election fraud.
\_ It doesn't sound all that inadvertant.
\_ Especially if you're dead and voting for Kerry or you're one of
the people in Pennsylvania who took Gore to over 100% in some
voting districts.
\_ Do you have a link for this story?
\_ Which story? That dead Deomcrats in Chicago turned the
Kennedy/Nixon election or that Gore received more than
100% of the vote in some precincts in Penn. in 2k?
\_ I was interested in the Penn. story.
\_ I read it on The Free Republic, it has to be true!
\_ No, I watched the returns come in that night.
\_ Anything that happens in Pennsylvania: EVIL!
Anything that happens in Florida: GOOD!
\_ I also last voted in CA and have no legal association with Ohio or
Florida, just like you. I'd also like to vote in another state,
just like you. Why can't we all vote absentee in a state we've
never lived in? I'm absent from Ohio, too, right? Duh!
\_ if you actually live in USA, then, there will be some
complication in terms of taxations, etc, etc. The problem is
less severe if you live outside the USA, absent from all
the states. -OP
\_ Check out this link for info on how you can get your absentee
ballet oversees:
http://www.tellanamericantovote.com/usa_iam.php
\_ thanks --OP |
| 2004/8/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33085 Activity:nil |
8/23 http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/23/news/election_models/index.htm?cnn=yes models predict the election result \_ "Despite an embarrassing failure in their forecasting four years ago ..." |
| 2004/8/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33076 Activity:nil |
8/23 Old, but summarized: Florida felon can't-vote list includes
highly disproportionate number of black voters, but only 50 Hispanic
names, in a state where 1 in 5 residents is Hispanic. ("Hispanic
names" is a superset of Cuban, which votes heavily GOP). Total
size of list is 50,000 names.
http://billmon.org/archives/001601.html |
| 2004/8/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33071 Activity:high 50%like:32491 50%like:33002 50%like:35669 |
8/22 Vote early, but most especially, vote often!
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224449p-192807c.html
\_ 68% of double voters are Democrats (18% republican, 16%
independant) but they use 2 republicans, 1 democrat, and 1
unmentioned as examples, and they talk about one of the
republicans twice. Hmm...
\_ And 68% (or thereabouts) of total voters are registered
democrats... Hmm... Maybe there's a large portion of
people on BOTH sides that are not cleared from their
former states of residence...
\_ No, all the dead registered Democrats don't count except in
places like Florida, Chicago, and certain precints in
Penn. where Gore received more than 100% of the vote.
\_ Nope! No left wing media bias here! No, sirree!
\_ No, those percentages were poeple who registered twice. The
examples were people who actually voted twice. Who knows if
numbers are the same. For a while I was reigistered in two
states because I didn't even think I'd have to unregister
I assumed there was some system to do that. I never actually
voted in two states at the same time.
\_ Hmm, with 68% (D) doubled registered vs 18% (R) doubled, 2
double voting (R) and 1 double voting (D) means that (R)
are roughly 7x more likely to double vote! Republicans: evil,
Democrats: good!
\_ I don't suppose there might be some non-scandalous explanation
like Democrats move state to state more often while conservatives
are more likely to stay put.
\_ Republicans: good, democrats: evil!
\_ They only checked New York and Florida. Most Jews are
democrats.
\_ Jews are EVIIIIILLLLLL!!!! Unless they are in Isreal and
kicking Palestinian ass, in which case they are GOOOOOODDDD!
because they are bringing about the Apocalypse!!!!
\_ Is encouraging the Apocalypse akin to promoting suicide?
\_ No, because true believers will have everlasting life
\_ Well, that and we'll all be taken up in the
rapture. It's all YOU jerks who die.
--I agree with Paul
\_ Nope, the Gupper's full.
\_ Through the destruction of the nonbelievers,
shall you achieve Eternal Paradise. Yum!! Full
of Creamy Christian Goodness!
\_ Ummm... no. That's creamy Muslim
goodness. In the Christian case, you
aren't allowed to kill non-believers
yourself, but it's ok for God to kill
'em.
\_ But working for the Apocalypse is trying
to force God's hand. Is that good or bad? |
| 2004/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33066 Activity:very high |
8/21 Motd survey: did you pay your CA use tax this year?
no: ..
yes:
\_ you forgot to ask whether we live in CA or not.
\_ You are special, aren't you. |
| 2004/8/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33041 Activity:very high |
8/20 So I was doing a dumbass experiment last night, as nerds are wont to
do. Say we have a three-state nation, with 10,000 people in each
state, and 1 electoral vote for each state. You need 2 out of 3
electoral votes to win. Let's say Kerry wins 100% of state 1.
Let's say Dubya wins 5,001 votes in states 2 and 3. Dubya wins
the Presidency with 2 out of 3 electoral votes, and Kerry wins
the popular vote with 19,998 votes to 10,002 votes, or 2 : 1.
If you do the same experiment with 51 states of 10K people each,
you obtain a ratio of 2.92 : 1 -- or 25% of the nation elected
the President although 75% of the nation voted for the other guy.
I offer no opinion - it's just a dumbass experiment.
\_ Good thing we have the congress instead of an elected monarchy.
\_ Yes, we knew this along, which is why it's pointless to vote
in a non-battleground state. I mean, you're just realizing this?
Have you people actually attempted to stay awake in your
High School U.S. History and Government classes?
\_ No, I know you all realized the electoral college system will
give and has given in the most recent election presidencies to
those without the popular vote.
However, not all of you may have worked out the related basic
math experiment.
And actually, I suggest that all Kerry voters in California
turn out, and all Dubya voters stay home, just because it
would be funny if we ended up with 55% popular vote to Kerry
and he lost.
\_ Actually, I thought 2000 was only the second time ever that
someone won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.
\_ Four times total.
\_ Could you please name them?
\_ http://csua.org/u/8ot
\_ It isn't pointless. In a non-battleground state, everyone should
vote for Nader so we can break the two-party system which is
destroying this country.
\_ Amen! Go Nader! Break the Democrat monopoly on the
liberal vote in America! -- ilyas
\_ one of the nerds who I work with who also likes to do experiments
like this found a situation in which the electoral college will
be tied which is based on very reasonable assumptions about how
the states might actually vote.
\_ I did this in the LA Times flash tool for assigning votes.
\_ The electoral college as it is, is undemocratic. It used to be
a lot less democratic. The founders didn't really trust 'the people'
\_ hint: we live in a republic so undemocratic is ok.
\_ bullshit since 'the mexican people' would be able to
run the United States just by filing up LA
\_ Well first around 100 million Mexicans have to sneak in, then
become citizens and register to vote. This will happen
sometime after we elect a black lesbian atheist as president.
\_ We all knew Condi was doing Dubya just for this!
\_ It was part of the large state/small state compromise. Good
thing too, or the 5 largest metro areas would run everything.
\_ This has happened in past presidential elections.
\_ "Some call you the elite. I call you my base."
\_ All your base belong to us.
\_ Get it right if you're going to use this outdated joke.
Are your base _are_ belong to us.
\_ Get it right if you're going to use this outdated joke.
_All_ your base are belong to us.
\_ You have no time to troll make your time.
\_ State 1 voters got screwed. Voters in states 2 and 3 got their
issues heard.
\_ How did State 1 voters get screwed? There was a system in place
long before either candidate was born. This is how we do it.
Every voting system has flaws. You just want a system that is
flawed in a way you believe to be favorable to your candidate.
What you're missing in your description is that out here in the
non-theoretical real world of voters, states don't have exactly
the same number of voters, citizens, electoral votes, etc. Only
about half those elible to vote, do. With only 1/2 "+1" of that
required for a win, roughly 12.5% of the eligble voting
population will win the election for either candidate. The
problem isn't the electoral college. It is lack of voter
participation. A popular vote of 12.5% or electorally assigned
12.5% is still a trivial fraction of who could and should be
voting.
\_ No, actually, we're just talking about our thought experiment.
No one is advocating a change from the electoral college
system. The real effect of this discussion is that it would
be very funny if Dubya lost the popular vote by a significant
percentage, and still is re-elected.
\_ no, it wouldn't be funny. -tom
\_ uhm, ok, nevermind then. I still think it's ugly that only
12.5% "+1" of the elible potential voters will decide who
the next President and all other elected officials will be
and similar numbers have done so in the past. Nevermind,
fuck the rest of them if they can't bother to go vote.
\-Read about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem. That is the main
result in this area. --psb
\_ The Theorem applies when there are at least two voters and at
least three options, but in our presidential election we only
have two candidates.
\_ How about adding Nader? State 1: Kerry-10,000. States 2 & 3:
Bush-3334, Kerry & Nader-3333 each. Win: Bush. Ratio of 6668
vs. 23,332. Wee! Fun! Brought to an insane level it could be
4 vs. 29,996. Ah math...
\_ You are varying the wrong variable. If you have 100
serious candidates for one position and assume a single
election where everyone agrees a plurality is a fair win,
you can even more trivially show a win with 1% of the
vote.
\_ I think I already implicitely stated that the scenario isn't
fair. I would also claim that the system allows the concerns
of states 2 and 3 to be addressed more fully, and this is
an important consideration. What is more important depends
whether your greater concern is on state 1, state 2 or 3, or
states 1+2+3.
\_ The concern for your issues should be proportional to your
population. -- Small-d-democrat
\_ It depends on your scope. If I am unemployed and homeless
in Alaska, do I care if the candidate is going to do right
by California? Shoudl I care? Or do I care more about
job programs where I live?
\_ It depends on your scope. If I am unemployed and
homeless in Alaska, do I care if the candidate is going
to do right by California? Shoudl I care? Or do I care
more about job programs where I live?
\_ Are you seriously advocating pure democracy??
\_ This is not fair at all and the founding fathers
understood that. Why should lots of hip and trendy
SF iPoding linux users whose main concern is the
lack of high speed internet and marriage rights for
homeless gays with a dope prescription dictate
national policy for the poor rural hick farmers
with gun racks in the back of their F150s who
actually do all the hard work of keeping America
fed and clothed?
Everyone has valid concerns and the most equitable
way to address these is the system we have. Maybe
its not perfect but it is the best system we know
about.
\_ there are 750K people in SF, which represents
about .5% of the electorate. They wouldn't dictate
to people in Wyoming, any more than people in Wyoming
dictate to people in SF now, if the electoral college
were gotten rid of. And hey, candidates might actually
have to campaign to ALL THE PEOPLE instead of just
corn farmers in Iowa. -tom
\_ The greater bay area has more people than the state
of wyoming but I think wyoming, being a state,
should have greater rights than a large city. Our
system does that. As far as Iowa, change the
primary system and no one will give a shit about
Iowa or New Hampshire.
\_ States don't have rights. People have rights.
-tom
\_ Uh, no.
<DEAD>encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/State's%20rights<DEAD>
\_ Try actually *reading* that definition.
""States' Rights" is actually a
misnomer; only the people, in
American constitutional law, hold rights."
And more fundamentally, only people hold
interests; "California" isn't a single
entity with a single point of view. -tom
\_ I did before posting it. And?
\_ So if states don't have rights, then
what is all that "full faith and credit"
stuff about?
\_ Well, technically, 100% of State 1 voters got screwed; and
50.01% of state 2 and 3 voters got their issues heard.
\_ You are assuming that (to continue the thought experiment)
Kerry didn't adjust his message to capture states 2 and 3.
A more realistic case would be that, the closer the contest
in states 2 and 3, the more the candidate would try to cater
to those states. State 1 got screwed in another way because
they were so much in the pocket of one candidate, there is
no need for either candidate to address the specific needs
of the state.
\_ I don't think "adjusting your message" really gets that
many votes. I think most people are in tune to enough
sources of information today that if you talk out both
sides of your mouth in two different states, the people
do hear what was said in the other state and label you
a flip flopper.
\_ I think this is a case where the persuasiveness of the math
exceeds that of your explanation, but that's just IMO.
Like I am Dilbert, and you are the PHB.
\_ I would claim that my argument on the variablity of the
message is not addressed by the mathematical model.
How about this? Let's say a candidate has a platform
with some degree of variability. For states 1, 2, and
3, platform A will get you {100,10,10}% of the vote,
+/- moe. Platform B will get you {100, 20, 20}, C
{100, 30, 30}, and N {100, 49.99, 49.99}. Which one
should the candidate choose? Now how about a more
realisitic platform N' (since likely N does not exist
in the real world), which yields {51, 49.99, 49.99} +/-
moe? Who gets screwed then?
\_ I don't know if it's my fault or not, but I really
don't understand the above. Let's say all good
people vote for Kerry. All evil people (who honestly
think they're good) vote for Dubya. 100% of state 1
residents happen to be good. 50.01% of state 2 and
3 residents happen to be evil. Dubya is elected:
100% of state 1 voters got screwed; 50.01% of state
2 and 3 voters got their issues heard.
\_ I am claiming the existence of a platform N'
{51, 49.99, 49.99}% that gives the candidate the
best chance to win. Let's say his starting
platform is N, with {100, 55, 55}% of the votes.
Then, to get the N', he has to give up 49% of the
votes in state 1 in exchange for 10% of the votes
in states 2 and 3. However, the candidate has no
chance to win given N, but has a better chance to
win with N', so that's a good exchange, and the
platform end ups being more targeted towards
voters in states 2 and 3 than 1. The complement
happens with the other candidate, whose winning
strategy would be a platform that yields {dontcare,
50.01, 50.01}.
strategy would be a platform that yields {dont
care, 50.01, 50.01}.
\_ Strong Bad totally needs to come in and kick
all of your weakling nerdy asses.
\_ People in big cities are more likely to engage
in groupthink, so the electoral college system dilutes
this effect.
\_ You have either never lived in a small subruban town, or you
are being intentionaly evil. If the former, I salute you:
keep up the good work and continue to live the good life. If
the latter: fuck you--please choke on a donut and die. |
| 2004/8/19 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33023 Activity:nil |
8/20 Carly Patterson is cute, I wanna date her.
\_ even though she's practically a midget?
Speaking of olympics, is it just me or it seems like the US team
really sucks this year? First the basketball debacle and then
all the other crap that followed it?
\_ We are an Empire in decline. Get used to it.
\_ Hey are you the same 'nuanced' liberal guy who thought 90% of
stuff going on in the 'real world' is personal shit and vendettas?
I applaud you! -- nuanced guy #1 fan
\_ Of course, she's only 16 years old...
\_ Mmm, statuatory rape...
\_ Maybe the OP is 16 also. We're all undergrads here, right?
\_ Actually, you can be 18. The Romeo-Juliet laws in CA allow
for two years difference for it not to be statuatory rape.
\_ Well, aside from tom, many of us have graduated, but remain
active on the motd.
\_ "many of us have graduated?!" Dude, I was being
sarcastic. Is *anyone* here under 25 at all?
\_ I'm 23. -jrleek
\_ That's 12 in Mormon-years.
\_ Huh?
\_ Hey, you! Move to Japan!
\_ What's the law in Japan regarding this? Thx.
\_ Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the "age of
consent" is 14. If you're really interested, I'm
sure you could find it online. |
| 2004/8/19 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33011 Activity:very high |
8/19 Can't explain...just read...too funny to explain adequately.
http://csua.org/u/8ny (yahoo! news)
\_ The written article is fine, but I demand more from the
photojournalist.
\_ How about "videojournalist"?
http://www.fittits.com/mary-carey/gal1.html - gal3.html
\_ yermom wears army boots
\_ yermom wears army boobs
\_ This is the third time, recently, i've heard of people complaining
about this. And it is such a non-issue. Army surgeons get almost
no training in plastic surgery during peace time and there is a huge
demand for it during war. Therefor the army makes plactic surgery
a covered benefit. the cost of the silicon is damn trivial compared
to the cost of the Surgeons and Hospital staff that are already there
\_ And for the implants you have to pay for the parts yourself.
\_ But the Big Evil Government is taking your money AT GUNPOINT
to pay to give criminals like Pvt England bigger boots!!
\_ YOUR BOOBS ARE SO BIG AND TAX FREE!
\_ Stuff like this is why I love to read the motd. |
| 2004/8/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32936 Activity:insanely high |
8/16 Question for soda liberals regarding taxing inheritance.
The rationale, as I understand it, for taxing inheritance goes as
follows: "it is not fair that some talentless, unlikeable shmuck has it
easy in life because their parents were rich, while others, much
smarter, people have to work hard for everything and still perhaps not
be as wealthy in the end." Assume I agree with this. Let's consider a
related kind of unfairness. Some people are born more talented than
others. For programmers, being gifted can often translate into orders
of magnitude difference in performance. In some sense, this is as
unfair as being born into money -- it's a complete lottery that
occasionally rewards unscrupulous shmucks, etc. Would you support
tax-on-talent? Also, (as a purely theoretical add-on) assuming we had
the technology to do 'talent redistribution', would you support it on
the same grounds of fairness as income redistribution?
-- ilyas
\_ people who make money based on their talent get taxed on it.
what a stupid premise. -tom
\_ Sure but talent brings less tangible benefits -- the respect of
your peers, academic recognition, etc. Same with things like
attractiveness, having perfect pitch, etc. Perhaps same with
things like being a white male in american society.
Does a certain equalization not seem in order, on grounds of
fairness? -- ilyas
\_ look, I'm sorry you got stuck with that brain, but really
there's nothing that can be done about it. -tom
\_w00t! Go tom!
\_ [ ad hominem deleted ]
\_ you mean like all the promotions, respect and recognition
John Nash got? Talent alone desn't get you shit. I've
seen some pretty brilliant people basically waste away
because that's all they had. This is fundamentally different
from simply being born into the right family in that to
get rich from talent always requires some effort.
\_ Nash's was a sad story with a relatively happy ending.
\_ Tom's point is succinct and exact. Everything below it
is blather. Kill this thread now, because you have been
rebutted.
\_ I agree. One thing that can be added to the discussion
is the well-known American notion of the safety net, which
is supposed to provide hard-working individuals in
hard times with something to live by.
\_ fairness is just part of it. resources should be managed by more
capable and hardworking people. you don't want it to be like good
king passing throne to idiot lazy son. why do you keep asking
these very basic questions.
\_ They may be basic to you, but they are not basic to me. I will
ask about reasons other than fairness some other time. I am
interested in fairness today. I did hear fairness given as a
justification for income redistribution in general, and for
\_ wealth redistribution
inheritance tax in particular. Thus, I am curious how far this
commitment to fairness goes. -- ilyas
\_ Simply put, material things, yes. Innate qualities, no.
Also, harm to one person is only done to benefit another.
Making me blind will not help a blind person.
\_ Ok, but assume you were smart and another person was dumb,
and there was a way to 'suck your smart out' and give some
of it to the dumb person, so now both of you are 'average.'
Will you support that? Also you not being as dumb as the
other guy _is_ hurting him, since you can compete more
effectively for things he wants (jobs, mates, etc.) -- ilyas
\_ I *am* my intelligence. I am not my inheritance.
\_ ilyas just wants to lead dumb people into arguing with him by
creating arguments based upon false dichotomies.
\_ Oh boy, here we go again.
\_ IMO, this question should be written with less of a sense that op
is superior to potential responders, e.g.:
"Tax on inheritance (some people inherit money, some don't).
Tax on talent (some people inherit talent, some don't).
How can you support one and not the other?"
\_ Where did you get this from? I don't consider myself superior to
responders, otherwise I wouldn't try to debate. Debate has to be
between equals or it's not a debate but a lecture. -- ilyas
\_ Then why does it sound like a lecture, although it is
intended as debate? (rhetorical question)
\_ I am asking questions, not normally a part of a lecture.
Would you feel more at ease if I used broken english next
time like Chicom troll? -- ilyas
\_ Socratic method. It is a style which sounds like it
is coming out of a classroom, with you as the
instructor, does it not?
\_ You know, your short version is socratic by that
reasoning. Maybe you just don't like to read long
paragraphs. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas, please argue in good faith, that is,
recognize the merits of what other individuals
are pointing out to you. Be humble. Don't
sound like you know it all, especially on
something that's debatable. I know you're
talking to the liberals, but please try.
\_ Like one of tom's clever zingers above? -- ilyas
\_ His first post was fine. The part about the
brain, well, that WAS on a personal level.
\_ Right, so let's compare. What _could_
have been said: 'I believe unfairness
due to talent is remedied appropriately
by taxation, and no other remedy is
needed' and/or 'integrity of the self is
more important than fiscal fairness.'
Instead I get a bunch of personal shit.
Why are you lecturing ME about how _I_
sound. Go lecture tom and the liberal
goonsquad about arguing in good faith.
You can say what you will about how
I argue, but I at least try to stay
civil. -- ilyas
\_ I argue that anyone would get a
virulent response if they posted with
"question for soda liberals" with an
intention to compare inheritance taxes
with a talent tax. It makes us all
sound stupid, like we can't get the
obvious similarity between the two,
when in fact there is a substantive
difference.
\_ Right, why don't you channel your
concern for the quality of motd
posts into where it's needed most.
-- ilyas
hard times with something to live on.
\_ You mistake the argument. It's not that those inheriting are
unworthy, but successive generations can create a concentration of
money which is akin to inheriting political power. This is (or was)
inconsistant with American ideals. Isn't it better that the wealth
of individuals be based on their individual talents, acumen, luck,
and work ethic? Besides even with taxes, families are left far from
destitute. In addition, vast wealth is made on the backs of a stable
government and the goodwill of the public. Redistibuting that wealth
after the death of that recipient of public graciousness will
promote the betterment of Society in general, and, through our
government, offer a chance for other dynamic individuals to succeed
and advance our society as a whole. Talent, unlike income or wealth,
cannot be accurately measured or determined from one point of time
to another leading to a completely subjective scale. As a point of
taxation, it would be impossible to use as a measure, thus unfair.
\- this touches on some deep questions in political philosophy.
you may wish to look up "wilt chamberlain argument" and
read "anarchy state and utopia" and the article "the procedural
republic and the unencumbered self". my short version of the
"problem with inquity" is that people change the rules of the
game and in some cases equality seem more more desireable
than efficientcy ... it's is ok to pay the talented programmer
more, but should he be given a priority in a heart transplant?
--psb
\_ "Only if it's me or someone I know" is the problem answer.
\_ Vast wealth does not require a stable government or the good
will of the public. If it did then only peaceful democracies
would have rich people.
\_ This is a stupid (and fallacious) argument.
\_ That wasn't even a good dodge. Your reply is useless and
makes no counter point at all. If it was really so
stupid and fallacious you should be able to trivially
refute it in the space you used to descend to the personal.
\_ Alright, first thank you for a good reply. Second, let's look at
the situation using your argument. 'Talent' is clearly an
inherited thing, although its inherited through a less
deterministic mechanism than money, etc. Talent can also cause
you to make more money, possibly very quickly. Money can be
used as a way of obtaining political power. Does this not mean
that simple genetic inheritance of traits useful in modern
society is contrary to the American ideal of prohibiting the
inheritance of political power (although admittedly in a less
direct way than inheriting money). -- ilyas
\_ [your wish is my command]
\_ You are selectively taking one part of his argument
and hammering on that, while overlooking the rest.
Is there any precedent for taxing of intangable assets
like knowledge? Do you get taxed if you learn something
from reading a book?
\_ Dude, I am not even disagreeing with him. I just want to
know where he stands. If he thinks talent is against
American ideals, that's interesting. If he thinks
talent is different from money in this respect, that's
also interesting. Why is everything about violence with
you? Relax. We are having a nice chat. -- ilyas
\_ "I'm calmer than you are, Dude." Seriously, what's
your answer to my question, Mr. "I always debate
in good faith?" Taxation of inheritence is an obvious
extension of taxation of other forms of income. What
would be an analog to taxation of talent? What is an
example when some similar intangible asset is taxed?
\_ As stated, talent may or may not be inherited and may or may
be a learned trait. However, the American ideal does not
FORCE inheritants to follow in the steps of their parents.
Not all of the talented have the desire, will, luck, or work
ethic to find monetary or political success using their
talents. This make it a fallacy to tax talent before some form
of success and assumes that even a successful use of talent
automatically leads to monetary success. Taxation of assumed
talent leads to a tyranny of those who "judge" and makes
sons and daughters slaves to their parents' legacy. This
belies the judgement of individuals on their own merits, while
not always socially possible, but held as an American ideal.
\_ it's easy to put a price tag on an inherited house; it's harder
to put a price tag on talent. Sometimes the value of "talent"
is negative -- e.g. if you accept that "talent" is correlated
with a higher risk of suicide. Would Alan Turing owe money
to the government, or does he deserve a refund? -- misha.
\_ I am not sure the value of Turing's talent is negative... and
he surely didn't end up like he did because he was talented, but
because he was gay (and the UK gvt were assmonkeys). It's true
that it's hard to put a value on
talent, but let's say we could, and let's say its usually
positive (both big assumptions). -- ilyas
\_ I do not agree with your assumptions. I do not see how
you can defend any specific tax amount -- e.g. in Turing's
case. -- misha.
\_ You may have noticed that this isn't an entirely practical
question to begin with. I am curious about an underlying
moral commitment, so I am asking about a non-real situation
where we _had_ a way to accurately determine value. If
you don't like that setup, how about sticking a big alarm
in smart people's ear, and weights on graceful people's
legs, like in that Kurt Vonnegut story, so we get a level
playing field? I am curious, ultimately, about where the
quest for a level playing field ends, and boundaries
(be they for property, integrity of the self, etc.) begin.
-- ilyas
\_ I would argue that many in the far left ARE in
favor of an inherited talent tax, although they
wouldn't put it that way. How much education your
parents had is taken into account in Affirmitive
action stuff, since it's true statistically that
people who's parents are educated will tend to be
educated themselves.
\_ That seems grossly unfair. My family makes sure
to send all their kids to the best schools they
can no matter how much it hurts the rest of the
family so it seems only right to take race into
account when deciding things like FA.
\_ Assuming a perfect method of measuring talent, there
should be no way of forcing individuals to exploit that
talent against their will. Comparing money to talent as
a concept is flawed. It's force vs. potential energy.
The waste of talent, while tragic, is not enough to
destroy an individual's rights. Vonnegut takes the
wrong extreme POV. Instead of disadvantaging the
talented, society should aid the disadvantaged.
\_ Liberals are in favor of inheritance tax as long as they don't
have to pay it. For example: Ted Kennedy. |
| 2004/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Finance/Investment] UID:32934 Activity:nil |
8/16 Yermom: discuss
\_ Yo mama so dumb she thinks posting the same troll every day for
weeks on end will actually change someones vote.
\_ Yo mama smells so bad, Saddam tried to drop her on the Kurds! |
| 2004/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:32931 Activity:high |
8/16 Orson Scott Card rambling book review/essay, that eventually comes
to an interesting synthesis between republican and Democrat views
on the war on terror.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-08-08-1.html
\_ Hi emarkp!
\_ WRong, but nice try. -op
\_ Indeed, I hadn't even seen this article yet (though I read the
column, the current one was just posted). -emarkp
\_ Wait, let me get my hat and my magic stones!
\_ Hi aaron!
\_ Hi ilyas! |
| 2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32894 Activity:nil |
8/13 Hahahahahahaha - The http://cnn.com Quick Vote on the front page is: "Would you vote for a gay politician? (Yes) (No)" Guess what the breakdown is ... \_ I'd be more interested in "Do you think *your* governor is a closeted homosexual?" \_ See, I find questions like this sketchy, since while I have nothing in particular against gay people, I have yet to meet one that I agree with politically. |
| 2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32858 Activity:very high |
8/12 Same sex marriage nullified, yeah!!
\_ Why is this even a surprise. Newsome himself knew this would
happen. He carried out the marriages because:
1) he wanted to shed his image as a prviliged yuppie by breakin'
the law
2) he was pandering
\_ Do you honestly believe that being a pimp helps you get
votes in San Francisco? Or do you mean pander in the more
general "this guy is appealing to a group I don't like"
lazy incorrect fashion that some politicians like to use?
\_ Wow, like this isn't even a good troll.
3) increased revenue from all the licenses
\_ Now I know you're joking. SF collected $200k from the
4000 couples. Compare that to the city budget of $5B.
Less than 4/1000s of a percent.
4) increased tax revenue from all the rings and wedding cakes and
such
If he really cared about the issue, he would have challenged this
through the courts.
\_ You think he handed out gay marriage licenses to get increased
revenue from the the licenses and wedding cake sales? You're
friggin nuts. I don't agree with the pro gay marriage thing,
but I think you're even nuttier.
\_ No, I think the primary reason (the one which I listed first
for a reason and the one you didn't comment on) was to
project an image of a rebel, since Gonzales made it a closer
election than anyone expected. I think the increased revenue
from gay tourists flocking to the City was just icing.
\_ Can't agree more. I'm not against gay marriage, but I'm against
breaking the law, especially while representating a govt body.
\_ Whew! That's good, 'cause I was about to start smokin' pole any
second...
\_ Libertarians to thread...
\_ I think the libertarian position on gay marriage is that
marriage is between two people or two people and their church,
and government shouldn't have anything to do with it one way
or the other. Is that about right?
\_ I doubt that's right--there are legal aspects around things
like inheritance which can't be decided by the church.
\_ Sure they can. The old Church said you should give
everything to them to avoid going to Hell.
\_ Probably, but some of the local Libertarians go through some
amazing contortions to toe the Republican party line...
\_ The government is the recording authority. Beyond that, it
should get out of the business of deciding who or what can
marry and leave that up the the individuals involved. Is
that the Republican line?
\_ no, it isn't.
\_ As a (R) the last thing I want is Libertarians at my party.
\_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
nullified. Everyone should be glad about this, or any Mayor could
start changing state law any way he or she pleased.
start changing state law any way he or she pleased. (this was the
original text of the comment below)
\_ Agreed. If you don't like the law, change it, don't break it.
Especially don't make a City break the law.
\_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
nullified. Everyone should be glad about this, or any man could
start marrying any dog or box turtle he pleases,
\_ By reading this post, why do I feel like I've gone back in time
50 years?
\_ Because you've missed the point. The courts ruled that the
marriages were carried out illegally. Rather than challenging
the definition of marriage through the courts, Newsom took
the law into his own hands. The above poster is basically
saying he's glad any other mayor cannot now just take the law
into his own hands to marry whatever to whomever. You probably
also thinkthat Clinton got impeached for receiving a bj.
\_ lol. I can't believe you fucking guys. All we ever hear
from you is the evils of "activist judges" legislating
from the bench, and now you want it challeneged through
the courts? man, this would be hilarious if i didn't
have to share a country with you fuckers.
\_ Please tell me this is some kind of troll. No one here
could really be THIS dumb, could they?
\_ It's pretty dumb. Please read my response below:
\_ These judges are enforcing existing law; if they were
"activist", they would leave the marriages legal.
That's what you get from the first look at it.
On a second look, any conscientious judge would feel
ashamed 50 years from now to take part in enforcing
the no-gay-marriage law, as it is clearly a "separate
but equal" issue; and "separate but equal" has been
shown to violate the Constitution.
\_ What "no-gay-marriage" law?
\_ The federal DOMA as well as the California state
initiative. Everyone knows these laws are
unconstitutional - why do you think there's a
rush to desecrate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hamend the
constitution before the Supremes take a look at
DOMA?
\_ Nonono, you got it all wrong: Gay marriage
desecrates the sanctity of Marriage!
\_ Sanctity is a religious concept. Here in the
USA, we have a secular government. Religion
is a private matter. Why is this so hard for
some people to understand? If you really
want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.
\_ Inasmuch as Jefferson wrote volumes on
separation of church and state, he is
only one guy, and there is a good
argument that the U.S. was founded on
Christian values and the belief in God.
Between having a government where
mentioning religion in a public place
is illegal, and the "establishment of
religion" clause, there is a lot of room.
\_ It clearly was not "founded on
Christian values". The republican
concepts were lifted from classical
(pagan) philosophy. Christian values
involve strong church authority. They
don't mention anything Christian,
but merely the generic "God" and
"creator" which signify nothing.
\_ They do? What about Protestants?
The whole issue with Protestants was
rebellion against Church authority.
You are spouting, my friend.
-- ilyas
\_ If it is so clear to you, please
show me evidence that this country
was founded on classical (pagan)
philosophy without regard to
the dominant Protestantism at
the time. I also think this
sentence is flat out wrong:
"Christian values involve strong
church authority." C'mon. We
have Christian values throughout
the U.S. today, and there is no
strong church authority.
\_ BZZT! Homosexuals have the same right to marriage
as any straight person. They have the legal right to
marry someone of the opposite sex. The law does not
care about love or personal taste or desire. The
law is only about strict factual concepts like your
gender, age, and race in regards to equality issues.
\_ Sexual orientation is, for the vast majority of
cases, something someone is born with. Over time,
it will be more concretely established in U.S.
law that it deserves the same level of protection
as gender, race, and age -- because it is
something someone is born with.
\_ Url on the statistics on that? Or is this just
a liberal article of faith?
\_ actually, I think it was the part about the dog and box
turtle
\_ Its possible to both support Newsom's actions and the actions
of the court. You may wish to look up the definition of
"civil disobedience."
\_ You may wish to take English 1A again. Box-turtle guy
explains why he thinks this is good news. Critic calls
box-turtle guy intolerant slut. All I said was that
box-turtle guy's statement doesn't have anything to do
with intolerance and everything to do with following
legal procedures.
\_ The fact that you don't think there's anything
intolerant about comparing an expression of love
between two human beings to an expression of "love"
between a man and a turtle is quite revealing.
\_ Love has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage
is a legal state that all people have equal access
to. All people have the legal right to marry
someone of the opposite sex. There is no equal
rights issue here.
\_ Love has nothing to do with marriage? Boy,
I REALLY hope you're not married.
\_ Actually, all I said was that the dog and turtle
part sounded like it came from a stodgy old guy
from 50 years ago with the thick-rimmed glasses.
\_ It actually came from a guy who's covered in
KY and feces.
\_ Actually, it came from some jerkoff (pun
intended) who change my original post.
\_ Civil disobedience isn't an elected official ignoring
the law. It's private citizens disobeying the law. A
Mayor's job is to enforce the law, and if he's unwilling
to enforce it, he should step aside and act as a private
citizen.
\_ This is a stretch when we are talking about San
Francisco, and I think you know it.
\_ Just because San Francisco is full of wackos
doesn't mean it's elected officials shouldn't be
held to their oaths.
\_ I think you're stretching, and I still think
you know it ...
\_ I'm not the above person who thinks SF is
full of whackos, but he does have a point.
Consider racist southern sheriffs who would
refuse to enforce the law against whites
who attacked and murdered blacks.
\_ What about an activist sherriff before
emancipation who refused to track down
escaped slaves, or refused to prosecute
the people who helped slaves escape?
\_ Slavery is a way of making people
unequal and is thus a violation of
the Constitution's equal rights
sections. Allowing marriage only
between those of the opposite sex is
not a violation. All adults are
allowed to marry someone of the
opposite sex and not marry someone of
the same sex. This law is applied
equally to all people. No issue here.
\_ "The law, in its majestic equality,
forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to
beg in the streets, and to steal
bread." --Anatole France
\_ Scuse me, Junior Scalia, but I think
your legal analysis is a wee bit
lacking here. But thanks for
posting it three times, repetition
definitely increases the
effectiveness of your arguments.
\_ Not to be too weasely or anything but he took
an oath to uphold the law, and made a
calculated judgement that the (dominant)
equal-protection clause contradicted with the
no-gay-marriage law. Elected officials have to
interpret the law all the time, but courts have
the final say on interpretation of law. |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32838 Activity:nil |
8/11 "Afghanistan's interim president, Hamid Karzai, faced questions
during a news conference ... about the legitimacy of that
election in light of reports that many voters have registered
multiple times and may try to vote more than once. 'This is an
exercise in democracy. Let them exercise it twice!' Karzai
said. 'We cannot be perfect.'"
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040811_1192.html
\_ "Karzai later hastened to add that voters will have their hands
marked in ink that will be difficult to remove in an effort to
prevent them from voting more than once."
Oh boy, Taliban targets! |
| 2004/8/9 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32791 Activity:very high |
8/9 Sometimes you just forget how far out Texas really is:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=58223
\_ If you want to tell yourself that these shitheads only exist in
Texas and the south, fine, but you're wrong. They're right here
on the motd. What do you think this country would look like if
the Mormons ever succeeded their stated goal of converting the
U.S. into a Mormon state? The fundamentalist enemy is all around
you.
\_ w00t! Way to turn an unrelated story into an attack on a
denomination you know nothing about!
\_ Surely you'll now be able to document our "stated goal" right?
-emarkp
\_ just wondering, as a mormon what do you think of said law?
\_ As a /citizen/ I think communities should be able to
establish and enforce obscenity laws. It's unclear from
the article whether the case is prosecutable under the
local laws or not. I really don't know what my being
Mormon has anything to do with it. -emarkp
\_ As a *citizen* I see you and your obscenity laws
as a direct threat to my freedom, and to this
country. Thank you for proving my point.
If you delete this again, I'll nuke everything
below the original anti-mormon rant. Fuck you.
\_ I didn't delete anything in the thread, and I
assume you didn't just delete my reply. Grow up.
And sign your name. Freedoms are all limited, and
we decide collectively where those limits are.
You aren't free to yell "fire" in a crowded
theater either. -emarkp
\_ Joseph Smith is a false prophet, therefore the whole church
is a sham. Also, not one shred of archaelogical evidence
for the Book of Mormon.
\_ Learn to format aaron.
\_ Wasn't me. --aaron
\_ Nice work documenting your claim. -emarkp
\_ Well, it's just known that you're in cahoots with the Jews,
the Xtian religious right wing, the necons, the KKK, the
North Dakota militiamen, the North German Neo Nazi movement,
the toxic waste dumpers, and the mad scientists to control
the orbital mind control lasers, in order to reverse the
alignment of the boy sprouts and thus achieve global
domination! Only the far liberal left aka the socialists,
once known as the communists can protect our freedom to party!
\_ And California is perfectly normal and centrist.
\_ Yes, we do have our own eccentricities, but at least we don't
waste the police's time by infiltrating people's private
dildo selling parties.
\_ Don't like a law? Change it. It's called 'community
standards'. When you bring your dildo party to places that
don't like them, you expect shit will happen.
\_ And we don't like those places, or more specifically, the
"prominent citizens" of that place.
\_ Whatever. Have you added anything to this thread with
a comment like that? Does your liking or not liking
people from other places have anything to do with dildo
parties in Texas getting busted by the local cops? No.
\_ Actually, my comment more clearly states the essence
of the first post in this thread:
We hate prominent citizens that sic the local cops
on people below them breaking a law that shouldn't
be a law.
\_ People below them? WTF country are you in? In
*this* country, you're a citizen or you're not.
STFU with your class warfare bullshit. As far
as "breaking a law that shouldn't be a law" goes,
if you don't like a law, get it changed. If you
can't get it changed because not enough others
agree with you, then tough shit. It's a community
standards issue, not a matter of life and death or
freedom. The Constitution does not guarantee the
right to have sex toy parties.
\_ I don't think I ever mentioned "class warfare",
nor do I know what you're talking about
exactly. We all know changing a law takes
time and trouble, and it helps to be well
connected and have free time to do it.
What I say still holds:
No one likes it when prominent citizens sic the
local cops on people below them breaking a law
that shouldn't be a law.
\_ Different people have different levels of
power, money and authority in this country.
It is not "class warfare" to acknowledge
this fact.
\_ Those are some seriously warped "community standards."
I am not going to waste my time trying to change some
redneck Texas rural communities laws, just be thankful
every day I live in a more sane and tolerant place.
\_ They have their laws. You have yours. The people who
*do* live there have chosen to accept them. If they
don't like them they can try to change them or leave.
They do not have the a-ok to break them and whine about
it because they are applying your leftist liberal
California standards to a very socially conservative
Texan town. That's just stupid.
\_ By your standards, those Muslim women who object
to being forced to wear a burqa and being kept
out of school should just STFU and accept their
community standards or leave.
\_ That's ridiculous--when it's not a democratic
society obviously they can't try to change their
local laws. -emarkp
\_ Technically, Nigeria is a democracy. yet
they have some of the most egregious
rights violations by religious nuts
in the world. Is that the fault of the
victims also?
\_ Once upon a time germany had a democratic
society that decided communists, gays, jews,
and gypsies were not upto its community
standard, and neither was challenge to the
furer.
\_ MEN WITH GUNS took that woman from her STUFF!! Where's
the libertarian outcry??
\_ Dude, SF is Middle America. We're about as liberal as
Dayton, OH. http://csua.org/u/8iy
\_ Link unread. Either it points to goatsex, tub lady, or you're
serious and not worth replying to.
\_ It's worse than goatsex...hint: it's "fair and ballanced..." |
| 2004/8/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32772 Activity:moderate |
8/8 I despise Bush, and will certainly not vote for him in november,
but IMHO Bush's recent speech at the UNITY conference was the best of
his presidency. Definitely worth viewing. Go to http://www.cspan.org
and click on "Pres. Bush Remarks at UNITY Conference"
He actually manages not sound like a dumbass or a right-wing nut for
over half an hour. Particularly impressive in front of an openly
hostile audience.
\_ 1/2 hour out of 4 years just doesn't cut it.
\_ Erm, wasn't this the speech where the audience was laughing at him,
mostly to do with his answer to the question about Indian
sovereignty? Something like "sovereignty is well ... sovereignty,
and if you have sovereignty you are sovereign."
\_ I said "over half an hour." There were still some dumbass parts
during the q&a session. OTOH the fact that they got him to
publicly come out against legacies in admissions is pretty
funny.
\_ Without legacies how would the next generation of politicians
like Al Gore get into school? We know he isn't smart enough
to get in on his own. |
| 2004/8/8 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32768 Activity:nil 60%like:32760 |
8/7 http://www.bamn.com/doc/1997/do.asp?970415-flyer.asp \_ why are you posting a 7 year old url? weird. No free speech for fascists! w00t! \_ Note the date. In other news, any retard with an internet connection can make a billion dollars by saying the words "dotcom" and "e-business" and the world as we know it will end in 2000 with that "y2k" bug. |
| 2004/8/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32760 Activity:high 60%like:32768 |
8/7 http://www.bamn.com/doc/1997/do.asp?970415-flyer.asp No free speech for fascists! w00t! \_ Note the date. In other news, any retard with an internet connection can make a billion dollars by saying the words "dotcom" and "e-business" and the world as we know it will end in 2000 with that "y2k" bug. |
| 2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:32703 Activity:very high |
8/4 What is a decent book on general US history? One that is intelligent
and well researched, not consists of fairy tale or only diatribes,
and the intended audience are neither freepers nor Spartakusbund.
Ok thanks.
\_ I am Spartakusbund!
\_ No, I am Spartakusbund!
\_ Personally, I think that the people with an axe to grind tend to
be the best writers, and that it's useful to read biased stuff
like "A People's History of the United States" as long as you
recognize and igore the bias and the propoganda. I'd be curious
to know what the conservative equivalent of Zinn's book is.
A history text with no bias at all which attempts to cover all
of U.S. history will probably be a massive compilation of
dry facts with no focus on anything that's not very readable, IMHO.
I'd love to see a counterexample to this, however.
\_ agreed. one (of many) good things about 'peoples history...'
is that he specifically chooses his biases, and states them
in the introduction. and his biases cover a lot of information
that is rarely touched upon in more conservative history books.
plus it was a fun read.
\_ The Americans series by Daniel J. Boorstin (former Librarian of
Congress and yaDJB :-)) is pretty good:
Colonial Experience: http://tinyurl.com/63gey
Democratic Experience: http://tinyurl.com/55gc2
National Experience: http://tinyurl.com/594nv
I also liked his Discovers: http://tinyurl.com/4cyov
--ranga
\_ What's yaDJB? Yet another himself????
\_ A People's History of the United States is pretty good and
non-biased. by Howard Zinn.
\_ your idiocy knows no bounds.
\_ and your recommendation is ....
\_ yes! I think this counts as my first successful troll.
\_ whatever. i was calling you an idiot because the first
reply was about Zinn's book, and the reply to that
was also about Zinn's book. |
| 2004/7/31 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32610 Activity:nil |
7/31 I was having dinner with a former 6th grade teacher and a
classmate last night (haven't seen both in years). I was dragged
into a political discussion I didn't really want to get into.
The result was the usual left-wing/bleeding-heart-liberal
diatribe against corporations, money, etc. So from what I
gather the reasoning is something like this:
Greed is bad, therefore corporations are bad because they
exploit workers by underpaying them. Corporations should be
avoided and heavily restricted.
Now, this is the part I don't get. If there were no corporations
in the first place, wouldn't people be unemployed? And if
people are unemployed, wouldn't that be a "bad thing?"
Also, corporations pay a lot of taxes in the form of employment
and income, so doesn't the government greatly benefit from
having business and trade around?
Just a caveat, the former teacher and classmate have never held
a "real" job before. The classmate was stuck in a jungle for
2 years doing peace core shit and recently came back. I don't
know about you, but I think the education system is pretty fucked
if we have people like this running our schools.
\_ Go vouchers!!! Oh wait teacher's unions control the schools and
Dem. Party....
\_ As anyone who worked for a corporation will tell you, corporations
_do_ suck, for the most part. But avoiding or restricting
corporations treats the symptom, not the disease. I don't think
anyone knows how to treat the disease (which, btw, has nothing to
do with corporations themselves, it's apparent in the public sector
too). -- ilyas
\_ Seems to me the common factor is concentrated wealth and power.
"Soulless bureaucracies" are manifestations of power that can
generally be traced to a few large stockholders or government
officials. What do we mean by "restricting corporations"?
Regulating human employment, monopolies, and corporate actions
affecting health, safety, and the environment all seem to be
desirable to me, in this capitalist system, to protect against
the abuses inherently possible with these massive differences
in wealth and power. The government itself is *supposed* to
manifest the power of the "people" but obviously this too needs
watching. But corps. generally represent the power of very few.
--motd moderate
\_ '... needs watching.' Yes indeed. The problem is, even with
government watchdog groups, it's much harder to get the
government to change. Anyways, I am not really holding my
breath for an improvement until the world has achieved
americanization/globalization/localization. I think when that
happens a lot of problems will go away.
(By 'a/g/l' I mean the country's gvt systems and economies
will come to resemble the US, while at the same time there
will be a huge push to decentralize most aspects of the
government, start cultural preservation movements, and so on.
So both a localization and a globalization will happen at once)
-- ilyas |
| 2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32591 Activity:high |
7/30 Mmmm... record deficits... where have we heard that before?
\_ Ray-gun!
\_ Do not mock St. Ronald.
\_ Mao the Pun!
\_ Did his son speak at a Democratic convention?
\_ Republican: when economy is good, tax cut, when economy is
bad, more tax cut. Tax cut is the solution to every
problem. When the rich have more money to spend, everybody
would be ok! Who cares about the deficit because they don't
have to pay it back anyway, it's the tax payer's problem.
How can you people vote for republicans and sleep at night?
\_ Democrats: when economy is good, raise tax, when economy is bad,
raise more tax. Blah blah blah ......
\_ Mmmm, someone obviously DIDN'T get the talking points. "Tax
and spend liberal" is old hat, now you have to talk about
"fighting terrorism."
Fifty-Eight percent of registered voters feel reducing the
deficit is more important than cutting taxes...refer to the
poll numbers at the bottom of this column:
http://www.slate.com/id/2104539
\_ We ought to be able to do both. Look at how much taxes
have gone up in the last 100 years. If we don't slow down
soon we will be living under communism.
\_ what's wrong with communism?
\_ But how much more money are we spending now on welfare,
stupid lawsuits, prisons for death-roll immates, and
providing services to the illegal immirgrants?
\_ Don't forget the much-larger military budget and
service on the debt.
\_ Kudos for hitting all the hard right hot buttons
simultaneously, but all of those are miniscule
in comparison to the military budget, Social
Security, and a lot of other thing. As far as
death row inmates go, the only way to save real
money on prisons is to decriminalize all drugs.
\_ anyone got any link as to the percentage of the
federal spending? What percentage is the military?
the prisons, education, etc?
\_ Most prison spending is at the state level, and
though the feds to provide some money for
education, a lot of that is also state and
local taxes.
\_ Yah, there are really very few federal
prisons. The majority of correctional
facilitiies are county jails, though I'm a
little unclear whether the state gives any
money for those. |
| 2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32541 Activity:very high |
7/28 So why don't the libertarians move to someplace like the Congo,
where there is no oppressive government, no taxes and they
can carry any weapon they like?
\_ Why don't republicans move to Saudi Arabia where they can finally
have total religious control of the government, hereditary
absolute power, and an economy totally dominated by the oil
industry?
\_ Wrong religion.
\_ Why don't liberals move to Cuba or North Korea?
\_ because they don't have access to Kais Motd -kchang
\_ because America is our country. That is why you are here.
\_ Bad analogy. You should ask why the liberals don't move
to Canada or The Netherlands.
\_ Oh yeah, as if the original 'Congo' thing is a good analogy.
It should have asked 'why don't libertarians move to
Switzerland.' Sometimes I wonder myself.
\_ No, Switzerland has confiscatory taxes and takes money
from its citizens at gunpoint, forcing them to work as
virtual slaves for The State.
\_ And the Netherlands and Canada have cruel capitalism,
and class warfare. You are a weak troll, buddy.
\_ Got you, though, didn't he?
\_ Liberals aren't socialists dunderhead. The sooner
you figure that out, the better off you will be.
\_ In fact, we have it on record that regular citizens are
contemplating a move to Canada if Bush wins a second term.
Whether they would follow through?
\_ Why should they have to, when they can make America just like it?
\_ Because they like the US' government services, they just don't think
they should have to pay for them.
\_ What are you talking about?
\_ law enforcement, national defense, public roads, etc |
| 2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32526 Activity:very high |
7/28 I don't get it. What's wrong with having a society that comes
together and decides that the poor and those in need should get
some assistance? I think people below are pushing individualism
too far such that it became like pure survival of the fittest.
Are humans like tigers. Don't we function more effectively in
cooperative groups?
\_ if i give $100 to this, beauracracy filters it down to $1
meaning people who want this want it cuz they can easily
steal it . by the time the money reaches the needy it's
dwindled to nothing
\_ cuz they're already taking half my income
\_ And yet you have an account on a machine at a *public*
university. Way to stand by your principles.
\_ Is UC funded by the fed?
\_ I'll immediately give up my csua account forever for a
0.001% drop in my taxes permanently. Or hell, any drop
at all.
\_ Some assistance == get back on their feet, not perpetual
handouts.
\_ and not cradle to grave government interference in
economic decisions.
\_ You're begging the question.
\_ Sure. You and your friends come together to decide to do whatever
charity you like. I might even join in, if the cause is right
and the plan sound. I only object when you pull out a gun
and tell me I have to join, or else.
\_ Ah, the old libertarian canard of "forced at gunpoint". If you
resist, nobody's going to point a gun at you. They might take
your stuff or put you in jail, but the only way they'll point a
gun at you is if you point one at them.
\_ They can't take your freedom (or your stuff) away without
violence or the threat of violence, duh.
\_ right.... why does IRS and the EPA each have SWAT teams
(thanks to WJC)? Tell that to Weaver, Koresh and Elian.
\_ Because the people most likely to defy a court order are
the same people who own guns and might be dumb enough to
shoot at government employees. And Elian? Come on! That
was plain and simple kidnapping. You don't bring a knife
to (what you think will be) a gunfight.
\_ They could have picked up Koresh anytime at all since
he was known to go shopping in town twice a week with
only 1 or 2 others at most. In a pickup truck, not a
tank like the Feds showed up with. Elian was not so
simple. If it was so simple there wouldn't have been
an issue. I think you're trolling because it the
whole point was that his family in Florida that his
mother was fleeing to wanted to keep him. His father
was out of his life since the parents split years
earlier when he was a tot.
\_ And the government never shoots first? Nor does it
ever threaten violence to harmless people? And if
you disobey a government edict, it's ok so long as it's
done non-violently? Can I have some of what you're
smoking?
\_ and how are they going to get me to go to jail? by asking
nicely? at some point, there is going to be an implicit or
explicit threat of violence.
\_ Many people being indicted are given a chance to turn
themselves in. If you don't have any respect for the
authority of the courts then what can they do but force
you to be arrested. You won't get a gun pointed at you if
you are civil, but if they think you're a violent wacko
it's only common sense they protect themselves by carring a
gun.
\_ So I should obey just because someone like you made a
law? Nuh uh, buddy! At some point I *will* get a gun
pointed at me if I refuse to acknowledge your law no
matter how unjust. You can't deny that.
\_ What if I lock the door to my house? Will they knock
the door down? What if I refuse to go by grabbing onto
a table, or a couch, or anything? Will there be violence
done to my body then? The government can enforce its
\_ Are you that radical that you can't see the need
to respect the authority of the courts? If the
government can never use force, I can just come into
your house and shoot you myself.
\_ Ah. The implicit or explicit threat of force.
Thank you. BTW, some might even say that it
is the responsibility a free person to disobey
an unjust law.
\_ Funny, because the people who say that are
usually referring to altruistic motives, not
simply a desire to protect their stuff.
\_ There are few resopnsibilities as honorable
as the struggle against tyranny.
\_ OMFG the government is collecting taxes!
Those tyrants! Let's all live in an
anarchical collective and grow our own
food and die at 40 of cholera.
\_ Taxation is the power to destroy. If
you put the tax rate high enough you
will destroy someone's life. Maybe
you should find a history book and
read about all the tyrants who were
called that only because they levied
outrageously high taxes. Except a
peasant in dark ages England paid
lower taxes than I do now.
\_ A friend once refused to pay the
portion of his income tax that would
have gone into the defense budget. He
was soundly slapped by the IRS for
that, of course. The government
wants its money, even if you disagree
with how the money is spent.
\_ If you disagree, you vote them
out. Or you leave the country.
That's your recourse.
will because it's stronger and more violent than I can
ever be.
\_ Hitler told the jews, you must respect his
authority
\_ The trouble is that I often don't agree with how the "society"
spends its money to uplift the poor.
\_ Darwinsm was very popular until WW2, when Hitler used it as a tool
for his agenda. Afterwards, equal right/opportunity/weak-deservers-
more mentality was much more accepted. So, thanks Hitler.
\_ When you're ready to lower your GPA by a full point to help 5 others
bring theirs from 1.8 to 2.0 to save them from being kicked out of
school then we can discuss how far I'll allow you to reach into my
pockets. |
| 2004/7/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32516 Activity:very high |
7/27 What's the argument against instant runoff voting? Are any of you
actively against it?
\_ Are you nuts? They couldn't even figure out a ballot in
Florida that was mailed to everyone months in advance and
you want them to start ranking candidates???
\_ I think instant runoff elections are great! On a completely
unrelated subject: motd liberals, are you not tired of the way in
which the Democratic Party sells out the interest of the working
man in favor of shadowy special interests, just like the Republican
Party does? Take a stand against corruption now! Vote for a
'minor party' candidate that speaks best for you. -- ilyas
\_ Republicans oppose it because it would help the Democratic party.
\_ Both major parties oppose it because it would help third parties.
- Liberal Dem.
\_ But the "liberal dems" won't go on record with that argument.
I was reading various articles and legislative actions about
IRV and other electoral reform and progress seems pretty slow,
although there are a couple exceptions. Jesse Jackson has an
interesting constitutional amendment proposal that would
state an explicit "right to vote" and require a winner to
achieve majority instead of plurality (leading to IRV or
something to that effect).
\_ Wait, isn't Jesse Jackson a liberal Dem?
\_ No. JJ is all about JJ.
\_ You need computers tabulating the vote. When you have computers,
you need a paper-based audit trail. Ready for local elections,
not ready for state or national yet.
\_ Well what would make it be ready? In Texas they apparently can't
even use it at a local or county level and bills to lift that
restriction quietly died.
\_ To hold a state-wide election, you would need computers
tabulating votes for all precincts, and a paper-based audit
trail.
\_ Right so why aren't we ready for that system?
\_ ... well, someone's got to convince all the little
bigwigs at the Capitol to install the suckers and
show they can't be manipulated. I mean, I'm seeing
a drudgereport article talking about how all the
Florida 2002 gubernatorial data were accidentally
"lost due to computer failure".
I nominate YOU to go out and lobby the big wigs, and
be in charge of selecting the right system and
installing them all, and be responsible if something
goes wrong.
\_ Have you ever worked for/with a government IT guy?
I'm not at all surprised a government paid IT guy
would fuckup and lose the data. That's far more
likely the reason for data loss than some cabal of
evil sysadmins destroying the records as part of
their plot to take over the Florida electoral system
for Halliburton.
\_ What does instant runoff mean?
\_ Instant runoff is a method where you get to rank your 1st, 2nd,
3rd... choices. If your first choice doesn't get a plurality,
your vote falls back to your second choice and so on.
http://www.fairvote.org has more info.
\_ How does it work? Voters rank candidates in order of choice:
1, 2, 3 and so on. It takes a majority to win. If anyone
receives a majority of the first choice votes, that candidate
is elected. If not, the last place candidate is defeated,
just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted
again, but this time each ballot cast for the defeated
candidate counts for the next choice candidate listed on the
ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate
and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate
receives a majority of the vote. With modern voting
equipment, all of the counting and recounting takes place
rapidly and automatically. (from the FAQ)
\_ Compare this description to the current system:
1) vote for the guy you like,
2) the guy with the most votes wins.
The complexity of IRV is reason enough not to do it.
\_ It's not complex. Are you an idiot? The whole point is
to accurately account for more than two candidates by
letting voters express a secondary preference. Why
would anyone NOT want elections to more accurately
reflect voter desires? It's supposed to be democracy.
Having winners with less than a majority support makes
me unhappy.
\_ It's an oral technique perfected by yermom. |
| 2004/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:32446 Activity:insanely high |
7/23 I wonder which "domestic terror" group they could be talking about?
Have the Freepers formed their own militia?
http://csua.org/u/8am (yahoo news)
\_ yes.
\_ There have been domestic terrorists practically forever. Just off
the top of my head I can name, the KKK, 1900's anarchists, the SLA
and abortion clinic bombers. Domestic terrorists are
left or right wing fringe elements who believe violent means are
justified in persuit of their goal.
\_ Don't forget ELF and the various militias in the central north.
\_ I'm sure I've forgotten a dozen groups, but I'm just saying
there's all kinds of terrorists.
\_ Has the ELF actually injured/killed anyone?
\_ a.out
\_ You think Hummers don't feel pain?
\_ Idiot. Look up "tree spiking" and why it can kill.
\_ Fatass. Look up why yermom is so fat that she
could kill somone if she sat down on them. But
she hasn't yet, so we don't call her a murderer,
just a fat ugly skanky Hummer driving hobag.
\_ When my mom spikes a tree, I'll let you know. When
your idiotic 'heroes of the environment' stop
trying to kill people and destroy property, let
us know.
\_ "There is something slightly absurd about a
scenario in which those who want to destroy
a forest can accuse those of trying to perserve
it of property damage..." -Maines
\_ I was referring to the number of autos that
were burned or spray painted, not trees
spiked. Re: "ugly skanky Hummer driving
hobag".
\_ and what about all the pedestrians
killed by drivers of monster suv's
who can't see over the dash? what
about all the asthma deaths associated
with excessive driving in urban and
suburban areas? When one persons
actions lead to the death of another
and that death is preventable, i call
that violence.
\_ Sue GM, Ford, etc. RIDE BIKE! Yeah,
whatever. Troll, troll, troll. Not
even a good troll. Only ilyas
bothered to respond.
\_ You need to become familiar with a
legal concept of 'main cause.'
-- ilyas
\_ most tree spikers (YES I KNOW NOT 100 PERCENT BUT FUCKING
CLOSE) make the tree with paint to let everyone know
they spiked it.
\_ so only some loggers are likely to get injured or die and
those who don't check for paint?
\_ I would say a small number of loggers have a slight
chance of being injured if they are dumb enough not
to LOOK AT THE DAMN TREE THEY'RE CUTTING.
\_ Does that include the ones where they glued bark
over the hole, or painted the nail so it wouldn't
shine and is harder to see? How about they file
some lawsuits or vote or do something within the
legal bounds of society instead of forcing their
views on others through violence?
\_ Injured, yes. Dead? Not that I know of but only due to
luck. Their stunts could easily have killed someone.
\_ FWIW, Earth First! disavowed tree spiking and never took
responsibility for any of it officially. Their MO was
more blocking logging operations and camping out in
trees. That's not to say their extremist rhetoric
couldn't have inspired others to do such things.
\_ EF != ELF. Anyway, they're all shadowy .orgs with
no real official structure anyway. Killing people
is killing people and *someone* was spiking trees,
whichever terrorist .org they belonged to.
\_ Tree spiking has not hurt or killed anyone,
in spite of logging company propaganda. And I
agree with you, killing people is killing people,
but tree spiking never killed anyone. Blaming
EF for tree spiking is almost as dumb as blaming
Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
\_ Well, it hurt this guy:
http://www.peterherrick.com/content/treespiking5.htm
\_ That doesn't count! He's white!
\_ Okay, I take it back. One minor injury.
\_ You're an asshole: "This happened in
California in 1987, where the operator's
jaw was broken and several teeth were
knocked out".
\_ Yawn. Minor injury.
\_ *laugh* Now, I _know_ you're a
troll. Sub thread is now dead.
\_ So are all these guys seriously trying to claim that ELF is
the terrorist org that the FBI says is planning to kill journalists
at the Democratic convention? Somehow, I kind of doubt it...
\_ Earth Liberation Front. I have no idea which ELF you're talking
about and if the FBI says they're planning to kill anyone.
\_ You really think it is the Earth Liberation Front that is
going to go after the Democratic convention eh? You are
battier that I had even thought, I and I thought you were
pretty batty. Did you come up with that one on your own,
or do you have some kind of source for it?
\_ 1) the person you're replying to (me) didn't state anything
about ELF attacking the DNC convention except to say I
hadn't heard anything about what the other poster claimed
about the FBI. 2) learn to read. 3) given #1, there is
no need for #3. See #2. |
| 2004/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32445 Activity:very high |
7/23 P Diddy launches election crusade:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3912141.stm
\_ Can P Diddy read? Oh yeah, that's not required to vote anymore.
\_ Are you kidding? It's not even required for presidency.
\_ Are you going to post that photoshopped "upside down book"
pic with GWB now?
\_ http://www.wtfomg.com
\_ Why does his name sound like a word a child would use in place
of "to urinate?"
\_ He's a big admirer of R. Kelly |
| 2004/7/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32428 Activity:insanely high |
7/22 After giving it some thought, I think the real issue isn't 'communism'
or 'fascism' but 'bureaucratism.' Large, soulless bureaucracies are
something Big Government and Big Business have in common. In fact, the
two Bigs are so similar, I am surprised people can be so vehemently
opposed to one and not the other. The issue is that people are small
pack animals, they don't like big ant hill arragements, and so they are
unhappy working as a part of a bureaucracy. Ask anyone working with
(or for) one of the above Bigs. I think what's needed is to make
our society more like a collection of packs and less like an ant hill,
or to make us more like ants biologically. -- ilyas
\_ Theory indicates that ant societies are as cohesive and
altruistic as they are because siblings share 3/4 of their
chromosomes, not just 1/2. Humans do not have this interesting
reproductive scheme.
\_ Interesting sidenote: in african mole rat societies (they are the
only mammal to evolve eusociality), the 'worker rats' cannot
breed because, apparently, they are too stressed out by the
bossing around they receive from the 'queen rat.' -- ilyas
\_ Awsome! I've tried to convince you of this repeatedly, as have other
poeple on the motd. Now, the next step is to recognize that the
libertarian stance that big business should have no restrictions
on it is just as dangerous to individual rights as statism,
particularly since the big business interests and the statists
generally work hand in hand.
\_ The problem is, your solution to Big Business is to sic Big
Government on it. I am a little sceptical of this, for obvious
reasons. The libertarians believe Big Business should have
restrictions, btw, same as everyone else. They shouldn't trample
on people's rights. My point is a wider, I think, point about
what kind of society it takes to make people happy. Even if
Big Business was perfectly well behaved, I think people would be
unhappy working for it, and dealing with it. We as humans just
don't like large hierarchies very much. -- ilyas
\_ Ah, but libertarians admit that big government is needed
to defend against foreign enemies, even if it is a necessary
evil. This is totally analogous. When a corporation with
hundreds of thousands of employess is killing people by
dumping toxic waste into the water table, using big gov't to
fight them in court is exactly analogous to using it
to fight a foreign enemy who is trying to kill us.
\_ You seem to know a lot about libertarians that I, a
libertarian, find very new. Are you sure you aren't
confusing libertarians and republicans? -- ilyas
\_ don't most libertarians vote republican?
\_ Libertarianism seems doomed as a practical model of
governance, because it is based entirely on ideal
models. In this way it is very much like communism.
\_ ... moved.
\_ I didn't! I don't think ilya is using motdedit,
so his posts are getting intermingled as he
edits them. This happens to people a lot.
\_ Tell us about the ant-people, ilyas
\_ Read Hellstrom's Hive by Frank Herbert. A really creepy book.
-- ilyas
\_ There is no such thing as society, only collections of individuals.
-- some stupid old bitty
\_ How can rational people be pro-Big-Government and
anti-Big-Business? Because they believe the former ultimately
takes care of them, but the latter works them to death in pursuit
of the Almighty Dollar. How can a person be anti-Big-Government
and pro-Big-Business? By believing the former takes advantage of
hard working folks, benefiting the lazy; and the latter is a
creation of hard working people and raises the standard of living
for everyone. But everyone knew all of this already, right?
\_ I think neither of those beliefs is very rational. The two
Bigs are not very different in their structure. Their only
difference is mandate (Big gvt can use force). -- ilyas
\_ That 'difference' is B.S. Big business can always get the
government to use force for it. If there was no government
then business would just have private armies.
\_ While you think that these beliefs are not very rational,
rational people do hold these beliefs. (There is a subtlety
in that sentence.)
\_ You may wish to consult this entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
\_ Naturally you can find rational people who are anti-both.
I was addressing ilyas' "surprise" at people being pro-one
and anti-the-other.
\_ Don't expect people here to understand what
is a logical fallacy and what is not. Reading
comprehension is not a general forte here.
\_ I is a college student!
\_ People don't like feeling like they aren't in control of their
lives. People by nature think large hierarchies reduce their
freedom. Big business and big government are both large
hierarchies, so both are bad. We should have smaller hierarchies.
I think I've just summarized your thesis.
\_ It's a pretty good attempt. I would only add that even in
situations where people understand that their freedom must
be voluntarily given up (say to sit in a cubicle and program
for a day), they will still be unhappy due to the incessant
rain of little stupidities and injustices that you would get
working in some large org. Also, not only do 'people think that',
it's actually true. -- ilyas
\_ You could have just said:
Large hierachies *do* reduce happiness, and this occurs
whether people are voluntarily part of the hierarchy (as in
a company) or forced to be in it (as in subject to the federal
government).
\_ I think the voluntary aspect is important. If I am truly
free to leave to form my own group or join another then
I can potentially be happy working as a group I believe in.
If economic pressures are too harsh then freedom will
depend too much on competitive advantage.
\_ I don't think it's always true. I work for a large corp. but
operationally the only concern is my immediate group. There
is a common business hierarchy with a boss/director/VP. Any
time you have any kind of hierarchy there's potential strife.
Even small tribal societies, or wolf packs for that matter,
may operate seemingly ideally but are not free of strife.
I think this sort of strife is reduced when there are social
elements in place to avoid huge differentials in wealth and
power, fundamental rights are guaranteed, and power is
representational. Then there is a size beyond which this
power loses some meaning, and probably the US federal gov't
has grown to a size and power that is uncomfortable.
"But I was now escaped out of the shadow of the Roman empire,
under whose toppling monuments we were all cradled, whose laws
and letters are on every hand of us, constraining and
preventing. I was now to see what men might be whose fathers
had never studied Virgil, had never been conquered by Caesar,
and never been ruled by the wisdom of Gaius or Papinian." |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32277 Activity:high |
7/14 So I am curious how Conservatives feel about The House repeatedly
"bending the rules" to get things passed at the last minute:
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005080.html
\_ Sounds shady to me (the actions of the house leaders, not the
reportage). Got any better references than Joe Q. Blogger? How do
Liberals feel about the mutation in the Senate of everything
requiring cloture?
\_ This was widely reported. You can do a search anywhere for it.
On the Medicare bill last year, they held the vote open for
almost 3 hours while they tried to convince people to change
their votes. This time it was only 20 minutes. As far as I've
read, this was unheard of before last year.
\_ Weren't the new cloture rules proposed by Frist and Z.Miller?
Why do you suggest this is a Liberal mutation?
\_ I'm not referring to rules, but rather the practice of the
dems to filibuster anything they don't like, which basically
means that to get anything done you need cloture rather than
simple majority.
\_ That's the senate, son.
\_ As opposed to the filibuster free repubs in the senate
under Clinton? Come on... That's what the senate is for.
\_ As opposed to the filibuster free repub senate under
Clinton? Come on... That's what the senate is for.
It's a necessary check on the majority. Democracy at
work.
\_ We could compare the numbers between the previous and
current admins for filibusters. The answer won't
come out in your favor. You're also twisting the
issue. It isn't a case of "filibuster free". It is
a case of now requiring 60 votes instead of the
Constitutionally mandated 50 because the Dems won't
let *anything* pass at 50 now. It's an abuse.
\_ okay, i'm curious. care to cite sources for numbers
and post the math and results somwhere?
\_ I think it is a shitty way to run a democracy. -op
\_ So I guess when the Republicans logjammed the congress in the
'90s, that was really bad too? Oh wait, Democrats BAD,
Republicans GOOD.
\_ Compare the numbers like I said above. There's a difference
between stalling a few bills here and there and doing it
for nearly everything.
\_ And the dems don't do it for nearly everything. Man have
you drunk the koolaid. They have done it for a few high
profile cases, jsut like the repubs did. |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32274 Activity:high Edit_by:auto |
7/14 How do i find out how each senator voted on a given bill?
In particular, I'm trying to find out how each senator voted on
the gay marriage ban today, and I can't find the actual vote in
the senate records.
\_ http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00155
\_ you rock. thanks.
\_ DUDE U R TEH GAY
\_ Post it if you find it.
\_ do you want to OUT them?
\_ http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
(just google for: how senators voted)
\_ You can figure it out from this article. They list the
party members who crossed lines:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49537-2004Jul14.html
__,-~~/~~~~~~`---.
_/_,---( , )
/ < / ) \
| ( / :: \ / : \ |
\/ ::::::: :: \ :::) :: /
(_(::::\::( ::::>::::::\)
\\_(:_:<:::>_>'::::/ //
~~`-i########|--~~
:/OVIVBV|v\:
,Z/V7V|HIH\\..
/V|ViI:i\
I;|.|.|
<|i::|i|`.
- ------===;;;'====------------------===;;;===----- - -
` ^'"`-' "
/V|ViI:i\
:/OVIVBV|v\:
__ __ ,Z/V7V|HIH\\.. _ _
__/~\___/ \_/ \XX/~~\##/~~\\\_/ \/ \__/~~\_/\_
__,,,----(::/::\:/:\:==@@@@@############@@@@@===/;;\;;);;);;)-----..____ |
| 2004/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32203 Activity:moderate |
7/9 This is a report that should concern all patriotic Americans,
no matter what their political affiliation:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001002.html
\_ Like duhhh, apparently you've never been in either civil service
or in the army. Where did you think the backronim "snafu" for
Situation Normal, All Fucked Up comes from? This is also why
tax breaks are good, because private citizens and enterprise
are a lot more efficient at containing costs than the U.S. Gov't.
Welcome to reality.
\_ All Hail the Special Skills Draft! All geeks to the Pentagon, hut
hut!
\_ Why would they want a bunch of smelly snarly know nothings?
They want highly skilled technical people. A very tiny number
of motd readers have to even think about this. |
| 2004/7/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32194 Activity:insanely high |
7/8 "No analyst is going to say they changed their view as a result of
specific pressure. No analyst is going to admit that. But there is no
doubt and this report reflects the fact that there was tremendous
pressure inside the agency. As a matter of fact, [CIA Director George
J.] Tenet himself said, and this report reflects that, that he was
told by analysts that they were under tremendous pressure. And what
Tenet said is, well, in that case, just try to ignore that pressure.
But the pressure was clearly there." -Carl Levin, a senior Democrat on
the Senate intelligence committee today
\_ just wait--soon we'll be hearing from the GOP that the whole
thing was the fault of the Democrats because they failed in their
responsibility as the minority party to question the actions of the
majority and mindlessly followed to avoid looking unpatriotic.
for once, i'd be in agreement.
\_ Further proof of motd axiom #4: anything a democrat does, evil.
Anything a republican does, good.
\_ careful, the poster you're responding to just might be a
Democrat
\_ if you mean that I hate the republicans, greens, socialists
and libertarians even *more* than I hate the democrats,
then yes, i guess i'm a democrat. -above poster
\_ I ve never understood the hatred of librarians.
\_ I ve never understood the hatred of libertarians
Do you just hate them in their capacity as a bookish
voting block? Or do you have a problem with their
'live and let live' mentality? -- ilyas
\_ I'm going to assume you mean "libertarian."
I hate libertarians because it has been my
observation from reading stuff on their website,
reading publications of the self-proclaimed
libertarian cato institute, and reading motd
libertarian posts that while they claim to
care about freedom, they're really just for
corporate socialism. When it comes to individual
freedoms, i agree with libertarians, but it seems
that their biggest issue is not with the freedom
of individuals but with the "freedom" of corporations
who in many cases have more power than any but
a handful of nations to do whatever they want.
This is a very simliar arguement to saying that
the "freedom" of governments must be preserved
by letting them oppress poeple, because that's what
governments do and they should have to the right to
do it. when the government decides it has the right
to imprison citizens indefinitely based on secret
evidence, the libertarians are mostly silent, but
when the goverment tries to limit a corporations
"right" to kill people and cause birth defects
with pollution, they're up in arms.
\_ Some idiot changed my post. Anyways, I don't
know where you get this thing about libertarian
silence. Libertarians don't like the elements
of Bush policy involving the patriot act and
indefinite detention etc. I certainly don't, and
said so before.
As for corporations, there are big
differences between corps and governments. Corps
can't use force, for example. Thus, while corps
are worth watching, governments are worth watching
ten times more. I think it's a matter of picking
your villains. There is no question in my mind
that corps do bad things. But governments do bad
things too, and their bad things are much worse.
Look at Mogabe's [sp?] government, for example.
-- ilyas
\_ Corporations can't use force in the way of guns
(not counting mercenaries in countries we dont
like), but they can use almost any other kind
of force. Their legal resources dwarf the
agerage citizen's. They can basically buy laws
to make the governement do what they like
(within limits). Ask someone who's had their
home taken away by eminent domain to build
a shopping mall whether the corporation or the
government used force. Ask the good citizens
of Bohpal if a corporation's power is less
dangerous than their government.
differences between corps and governments. Corps
can't use force, for example. Thus, while corps
are worth watching, governments are worth watching
ten times more. I think it's a matter of picking
your villains. There is no question in my mind
that corps do bad things. But governments do bad
things too, and their bad things are much worse.
Look at Mogabe's [sp?] government, for example.
-- ilyas
\_ I don't think you ll have a lot of luck
blaming eminent domain abuses on corps.
That's a government flavor of evil: "hey if
we have a shopping mall on this land instead
of this old grandma's home, we ll get a lot
more taxes!"
Libertarians really don't like eminent
domain abuses, too. Also, you seem to have
\_ My great uncle's house was taken by
eminent domain supposeadly to build a
road. He then found out the county was
planning to sell the land to a
politically-connected developer so the
developer would essentially be able to
buy commercial land at residential
prices. My G. Uncle sued to force them
to build a road there. This is in Clark
County, NV. There's a similar situation
in NJ where Atlantic City tried to take
someone's house to build a road to a
parking lot for a Trump casino. Is it
really government being evil, or is it
the power of corporations corrupting
government?
I guess you'd say government is
dangerous because it wields power, while
I'd say corporations are dangerous
because they wield government.
a weird way of assigning blame. If the
system is venal, who are more to blame: the
folks who buy or the folks who are bought?
I d say the latter, because if they acted
morally, the former would be SOL. -- ilyas
\_ In the current circumstance, the acts
themselves are not _illegal_ on the part
of the buyers; they're still unethical
and immoral, and they contribute to the
continuation of the corruption. It breaks
the spirit of the Social Compact to game
the system.
\_ If the buyer is giving a kickback to
someone in government, it is very
illegal (though potentially hard to
proove).
\_ So now back to my original question,
Did anything I say sound
unreasonable to you? -- ilyas
\_ I think that's ok. this is an axiom of the *motd*, not
reality. |
| 2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31196 Activity:kinda low |
7/7 The congressmen who want U.N. observers in U.S. vote
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39318
\_ Because we need the third world to help us have clean elections?
Ours are the cleanest the planet has ever seen and that includes
the dirty ballot box stuffing in Chicago and Philidelphia every
year. |
| 2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:31174 Activity:very high |
7/6 Bush down by 14 points in California in latest poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/California%20July%205.htm
\_ holy sheepshit, batman!!! in other news, bush to win texas, loose
new york...
\_ Hey! Don't interrupt while we're mocking landslide guy!
\_ why does everyone misspell 'lose'?
\_ When you get to lose with your spelling your words loose
\_ When you get to lose with your spelling you're words loose
meaning.
\_ OW OW OW!
\_ Burn motherfucker -- burn.
\_ He lost last time, he'll lose again. So?
\_ I predict Nader will win California in a landslide!
\_ With Camejo on the ticket, you're sure to be right.
\_ http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1972353
Campaign for Nader, but vote for Kerry. |
| 2004/7/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31151 Activity:insanely high |
7/2 Bush stoops to yet another new low. Hits up churches for names,
money, and votes: http://tinyurl.com/34v27
\- if you think this is a new low, you need to check your
altimeter.
\_ How is this any different than the DNC swapping donor
lists with unions and NPR?
\_ Unions pay taxes, churches do not.
\_ how about separation of church and state? unions have
always been political. NPR probably has an axe to grind
for republicans trying to silence an independent point-of-
view. Just shows how low Bush will go to be the prez.
\_ There is no such notion of 'separation of church in
state' in the Constitution. It is a contrivance of
leftist judges during the first half of the 20th
century. NPR receives federal funding, exclusive
of other news organizations.
\_ Duh, like the founders had things all figured out.
Take some civics lessons to know that the constitution
is a living document that can add rights and protections,
though, the "right" wants to abuse even the constitution
to limit certain people's rights - not even taken in
account the un-patriotic patriot act. sheesh.
\_ The document is not *living*. It says what it says and
has provisions for change. This is not the same as
*living* which really means "we make it say what we
want it to say".
\_ You are an idiot. I say this without malice, I just
think you should know. -cuhdz
\_ I think you are a cock-sucker. I think you already
know. Probably from spending too much time down
there in the "Bush"-es.
\_ Yes there is provision to change to Constitution. Its
It's _/
called an Amendment, and there are 17 of them. And
guess what else - judges were not designed as part
of the Amendment process, contrary to
what you see today.
\_ You mean like the dems' political rallies IN CHURCHES?
\_ thank you. jesus fucking christ this is a dumb thread.
it makes me ashamed to call myself a democrat. of
course democrats campaign in churches all the time.
Didn't anyone notice that one of the candidates in the
primary race was a reverend? hello?
\_ Dems=good, republicans=EEEVIIILL, everything repubs
do is bad. You are not being a good little CA dem.
if you think further than this.
\_ well, I don't live in California, so maybe that's
my problem. Where I live, the parties actually
get things done together from time to time.
\_ !!!! WHERE DO YOU LIVE?! I WANT TO GO THERE!
SEND HELP! --CA resident
\_ so. you want to move to a state with less
retarted politics, huh? ok, i'll give you
directions. get out a compas. go any
direction other than south or west, and you'll
be there.
\_ Can't your state just invade and bring
democracy to California? The weather is
so nice here. Democracy is the only thing
we're missing.
\_ California suffers from excess of
democracy, among other things. -- ilyas |
| 2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:31129 Activity:very high |
7/2 How will The Republicans respond to this?
http://csua.org/u/80w (Yahoo News)
\_ their standard response: "Get over it!" - pst
\_ this coming from someone who falls at the feet of a group
named "moveon.org".
\_ An amusing stunt to be sure. You might want a more descriptive
line like: "Some Democratic Congresspeople request UN observe US
election." There's some loon who censors any link without what
he considers to be an adequate description (presumably so he doesn't
have to deal with the shock and awe of reading anything he might
disagree with).
\_ Idiot. So it a) doesn't waste his time and b) avoids work
unsafe links. Moron, we aren't all surfing in our underwear
at home with the motd in one window, pr0n in another and our
dick in our hand.
\_ The Republicans will not respond to it because the UN has no real
jurisdiction here. I mean, what are you going to do if the UN
Monitoring Committee finds that the elections are a fraud? Invade
the US? The UN is merely a sock puppet for the U.S. anyway, and
has no real power.
\_ The UN exists so the 3rd world dictators can have a place to
safely, and powerlessly, mouth off and feel important so they
don't something stupid and actively harmful. The UN doesn't
have jurisdiction *anywhere* on the planet.
\_ This is as stupid as standing on the porch of your
trailerhouse with your shotgun in hand, declaring
"them gubmint regulators ain't got no authority here"
but you probably do that, too. |
| 2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31123 Activity:very high |
7/2 Sorry Ralph! Guess the GOP couldn't help you in Arizona!
http://csua.org/u/80s (yahoo news link)
\_ you can still write his name in
\_ "Writing Ralph Nader's name in" should probably be in the
dictionary as a reference for the word "deluded."
\_ Screw you Democrats. A vote for Ralph is a vote for Ralph. We
will not stand by forever with your one-party, two-name system. |
| 2004/7/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:31112 Activity:very high |
7/1 <DEAD>www.smartmoney.com/onthestreet<DEAD> "There's no question that the FERC has leaned over backward to protect the industry at the expense of California," says Peter Navarro, associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of California at Irvine. "[Vice President Dick] Cheney in the middle of the crisis blamed the whole thing on environmental regulations that were too stringent. That was absurd. Now, we know that there was considerable market manipulation going on." \_ Fuck Cheney, capitalist scumbag at its best!! \_ The power generation and power distribution industry is very far from a free market. is very far from being a free market. \_ Go back to your butcher shop, Lupo. |
| 2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:31100 Activity:low |
6/30 Prostitutes ready to work overtime for family-friendly Republican
National Convention!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html
\_ Bringing back the Times Square of Reagan's day!
\_ And here I thought putting most of the Repub delegates in hotels
in Hillcrest was inspired. |
| 2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:31099 Activity:very high |
6/30 I'm being oppressed by Bay Area liberals!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030306.shtml
\_ Why has he forgotten about hispanics? Their population rise
all across bay area. In a sense, you can say they are driving
out the blacks and putting increasing pressure on the asians.
\_ Stop bringing facts into the equation.
\_ This is plain stupid, and racist. I use to live in a black
\- hello, are you saying Thomas
Sowell is a racist who hates
black people? --psb
\_ I think he is referring to
the motd commentator, as
indicated by the indentation,
not the Thomas Sowell article.
neighborhood. I still live at the same address, but most of
this area is now filled with white people (near Alamo Square
in SF). They tend to be young wealthy-enough white yuppies
who are buying victorians in the area. They have bought out
the black families who use to own these homes, and who knows
where they've gone now. The only blacks in the area live in
the nearby projects.
\_ have you caught gay yet?
\_ only for you.
\_ So the solution isn't to make sure all races have equal access to
education so that you can have a nice mix of affluent races in the
area, but rather to kill open spaces that are one of the things that
make many bay area communities such a nice place to live. Good plan!!
\_ Wow, you're really stupid. He's a nationally syndicated
columnist. That page has all his columns, and yet you know
nothing of his opinions, and instead of finding out, (by
reading one of his columns about education) you make really
stupid assumptions. Way to go!
\_ yeah, if you read more of his opinions, you'd realize he's
a total wack job and not waste your time responding to his
idiocy
\_ I'm not sure who the object of this sentence is. |
| 2004/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31083 Activity:insanely high |
6/30 People complain that Moore and Franken call themselves "comedians", but
how come there is no MOTD talk about Jon Stewart? Do repubs hate him
less bc he is willing to make fun of loser democrats as well as bush?
\_ jon stewart calls himself a comedian too.
\_ I think that jon stuart doesn't try to be serious sometimes, then
hide behing the "hey I'm just a comedian" when he says something
stupid. The way that Franken (and P.J. O'rouke for that matter)
do. Jon pretty much always has the attitude that "hey, i'm just
a guy doing comedy". He does, though, have the best take on the
martha stewart conviction:
http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8108
.html
http://tinyurl.com/3g5qt (comedycentral.com)
Also, Jon is clearly a California Democrat, but he is not some
by-the-book liberal-democrat the way Franken and Moore are.
\_ Jon Stewart is very much a liberal, but he's also not afraid
to point out stupidity no matter who puts it out there. He's
also very fair to his guests, Repub or Dem, and he'll often
call the audience to task for dissing a guest. (One exception:
the guy who wrote a book proposing a link between Iraq and
al Qaeda got pretty short shrift, but hell, the man was
really asking for it.)
\_ he was really nice to richard perle, don't know why
\_ Yeah, that was surprising how he treated that guy. I
watch pretty much every episode and I've never seen him
do that. But, the guest was clearly trying to capitalize
on a lie, and he knew it, so Stuart just called it for
what it was.
\_ Yeah, that was surprising how he treated that guy. I watch
pretty much every episode and I've never seen him do that.
But, the guest was clearly trying to capitalize on a lie,
and he knew it, so Stuart just called it for what it was.
\_ Jon did try to give the guy some credit by suggesting
that perhaps the recent capitulation could be traced to
the invasion, but then the guy himself pointed out that
Libya funded the recent assassination plot against the
Saudis. Really, there was no helping that guy.
\_ As opposed to the tongue kiss he gave Michael Moore who
is capitalizing on several lies.
\_ Name one.
\_ Where have you been? These links have been posted
more than once to the motd, and are very easy to
find, unless you restrict your google search to
site:indymedia.org like you probably do...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 - for the new.
http://bowlingfortruth.com - for the previous.
\_ The hitchens article blathers a whole lot
without saying much of substance. Please point
out the specific lies in question. |
| 2004/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:31037 Activity:insanely high |
6/28 Not quite unanimous: Three Supreme Court decisions today. 8-1,
6-3, 5-4. President does not get blank check for detaining U.S.
citizens indefinitely without a legal hearing during wartime (8-1).
Non-citizen detainees also have access to federal courts (6-3).
Guantanamo is in U.S. jurisdiction. Padilla case rejected on
technicality (should have filed in S. Carolina, not New York, since
he is detained in Charleston) (5-4).
\_ Sad that the Rheinquist court is the last bastion of sanity in the
Federal govt. But three cheers for these decisions.
\_ My opinion had been that it would have been unanimous against
\_ Think of it as the court voting to preserve the authority of the
court.
\_ I think of it as the court voting to preserve the authority
of the constitution. You remember what that is?
\_ "The constitution? Oh, that thing."
\_ My opinion had been that it was going to be unanimous against
detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without a legal hearing.
Guess who the lone dissenter was?
\_ What's odd is that Scalia and Thomas usually vote together...it
had to be one of them, right?
\_ If you say to yourself, Scalia prides himself on being the
smartest dude on the Supreme Court and won't go into history
books as clearly making the wrong decision -- what do you
have left?
\-Does anyone know what STEVENS J. wrote in the where
he wrote a separate opinion? Also I was crossing my
he wrote a separate opinion? I was also crossing my
fingers that the Ct would be the "last bastion of sanity".
I think it affirms their role in the checks and balance
system against the executive power and i think the very
idea of *anybody* should *never* get a day in *any* court
is completely shocking to any lawyer and undermines the
meta-principle of the "rule of law" rather than taking
sides on any particular law. --psb
\_ The process that gave Thomas a seat does damage to the
"last bastion" ideal - particularly as a raft of judges
are headed to the SC the same way. -- ulysses
\_ This must also apply to O'Connor then?
\_ What do you mean? Was there something particular
about the way O'Conner was apppointed to the court
or her voting patterns that you object to?
\_ She was a Reagan judge.
\- The SupCt isnt responsible for Thomas being
there. The executive is. The OCONNOR comment
\_ the legislative branch must take some
share of the blame as well, for politi
cizing the consent process. -crebbs
\-i dont think "advise and consent"
leaves them with much room. yeah i
suppose it is too bad they had to
go in for all the anita madness
when they just should have said
"you are too short to be on the ct".
and i think if anything the executive
cyntically used the black factor
to put the legislature in an awkward
position. if you decompartmentalize
from just talking about thomas to
the bork as well, i suppose you
have a point. but that doesnt
mean you float thomas to "get even"
and it certainly doesnt make him
well qualified. --psb
\_ It's not exactly "to get even"
(though...), It is simply a
case of "hey, you played politic
with someone who was qualified
so here's one at least as conserv.
but who is immune to that tactic.
\- well really to "get even"
the went with souter the
stealth candidate who
didnt have a long record
like bork. and that sort
of backfired. but nobody
is saying DS isnt qualified
to be there. --psb
\_ C.T. was chosen also
because he is immune to
the type of character
assassination that hurt
Bork. If there had not
been so much playing
politics by the Leg.
with exec. appointments
I do not believe C.T.
would have been
nominated. -crebbs
doesnt make any sense. Not only is OConnor
super-well qualified to be on the Ct [Rhenquist
was 1st in his law class at Stanford and OConnor
was 3rd in that class] but arguably she is more
influential than the chief because she is closer
to the center. It is amazing how many of the
most sig decisions have been written by her.
See e.g. http://csua.org/u/7yq --psb
\_ She *is* the swing vote, but she seems to favor
pragmatism over principle too much for my
taste.
\_ I remember when I posted that the USSC would probably declare
that it had jurisdiction over the Guantanimo detainees and was
that it had jurisdiction over the Guantanamo detainees and was
mocked for claiming this and especially mocked for using the
qualifier "probably." Well, Right Wing Nutjob, I mock you back
for being wrong and especially mock you for being such an
idiot extremist that you only respect people who claim
certaintly when they do not have it. Like the entire White
House Administration, come to think of it. No wonder you
are so lost.
\_ Why does the Court hate America?
\_ Why is it a "right wing nutjob" who you think was in favor of
us upholding our own constitution? --conservative
\_ Claiming that Bush is above the law is upholding the
Constitution? Sorry a very conservative supreme court
voted 6-3 against your very vocal and strenuous claim
that Bush could do anything he wanted to in Gitmo.
All your quotes from WH lawyers to naught. You and
the WH are both way out on a limb and you don't
even know it.
\-this is quite a simplistic comment.
her equal protection approach to in
texas vs johnson is quite principled.
part of the jobs of the USSC is to give
practical advice lower courts can apply
with some consistency, such as the
lemon test. do you really have any idea
what you are talking about. --psb
\_ hun? url please. I went and read this
case and do not see anything by her at
all, let alone anything regarding
"equal protection". -!principle boy
\- sorry, my mistake. the case to look
at is lawrence v texas, not
tx v johnson [which was the flag
burning case]. there are a lot of
strange departures from "principle"
in sup ct jurisprudence. it's not
so simple as practical vs principle.
like how to blanace sep powers,
federalism, legis intent, article i
powers, orig intent, stare decisis,
process vs. substance, disparate
impact ... see e.g. Benjamin Nathan
Cardozo: Nature of the Judicial
Process, A. Bickel: The Least
Dangerous Branch etc. i assume that
is the case you are asking about,
not the "lemon test" case, which
is lemon v. kurtzman interpreted by
oconnor in various "establishment
clause" cases like lynch v donnelly
to define govt endorsement. --psb |
| 2004/6/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30983 Activity:high |
6/23 http://tinyurl.com/3yfaq (news.yahoo.com) Holy shit! How do *I* get into the parties they're attending?! \_ I have invites...who wants them. \_ marry Jeri Ryan \_ Is this the same one who played Seven Of Nine? That dude is strange if he's married to Seven Of Nine and wants to go the xxx clubs. \_ this story wouldn't get nearly the attention that it has if it weren't the same Jeri Ryan \_ He's a Republican who went to sex clubs. Is this some bizarre conservative cross-pollination from Britain? What's next, Jesse Helmes found dead of autoerotic asphyxiation? \_ He's a tried and true RINO. \_ His name is Jack Ryan and he's running for office? That's too funny. \_ Tom Clancy fans might get confused and vote for him. Maybe that is his angle. \_ Why do you hate sex? |
| 2004/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:30905 Activity:high |
6/18 Going to Arizona, what are some cool places to visit?
\_ The Grand Canyon. Do not let anyone talk you out of going. The
grandeur is overwhelming, especially at sunset.
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=10510
\_ Stay indoor to stay cool. Arizona is quite hot this time of year.
\_ TPC Scotsdale, great golf course.
\_ what do you want to do/see? There are many National Parks there.
\_ Sedona is nice. Arizona is a big state, though. From Monument
Valley to Bisbee is a long way! *WHERE* in Arizona? Flagstaff?
Tucson? Phoenix?
\_ Scottsdale Gun Range. You can rent a G36, Glock 18, MP5, UMP, P90
all real, all full auto. None of that airsoft crap.
\_ what the hell does that have to do with Arizona? Why not go
to a movie theater while you're at it?
\_ have you tried to rent a fully auto gun at a range in
california?
\_ Meteor Crater:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/meteorcrater.html |
| 2004/6/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30851 Activity:high |
6/16 California Ordered to Refund Enron $270M
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/energy_refunds
WTF? Can I blame Bush for this??
\_ Sorry, no. We have to refund them $270m so we can get our $2.#b
back from them. We can blame FERC for not ok'ing our $9b complaint
and Ahnuld for not following up on that.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
\_ what about Robert Rubin?
\_ Yes, all bad things are Bush's fault. All good things come from
Kerry and higher taxes.
arch liberal Kerry and higher taxes.
\_ Well someone's gotta pick up the tabs. So you think we can just
cut taxes for the fucking rich, blowing billions in a fucking
war for the rich, and then all the debt will just disappear?
\_ Cut spending if you don't have enough money?
\_ good idea. let's start with cutting the war in Iraq.
\_ If you were serious you'd be an isolationist like most
real conservatives. You want a big army to go into
foreign countries *you* feel should be invaded.
\_ let's just save up for the war in the USA |
| 2004/6/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:30780 Activity:insanely high |
6/13 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040613/D836DRJ00.html So, after 50+ years of miltiary, economic and diplomatic warfare against extreme leftism, the Europeans are going to simply elect them to office. If I cared about Europe, I'd be pissed off. But I don't so I think it's funny. \_ Socialist governments elected are a far cry from what the Warsaw Pact countries were like. \_ Socialist governments elected are a far cry from what the Warsaw Pact countries were like. \_ And in other news, the Gipper's body is now spinning like a turbine. \_ "Overall, center-right parties won, taking between 247 and 277 seats in the 732-member European Parliament, according to preliminary projections. The center-left group, which includes lawmakers from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party and Schroeder's Social Democrats, finished second - with an expected 189 to 209 seats." So, what exactly are you talking about? -tom \_ Way to ignore the important parts of the article where the Socialists are taking over the various governing bodies of the individual countries! You score 1 twink point for bad trolling. No one cares about the EU Parliament. They don't do anything. \_ I guess if any socialist anywhere has any power, the Cold War was lost, even if they were elected lawfully to a temporary position in an orderly democratic process. \_ You don't remember Chili, don't you? they did democratically elected a communist government. we overthrew it. \_ Chili is a stew, Chile is a country. \_ It's okay to say that you don't know. \_ Here we go... Do you know who else was lawfully elected to power in the early-mid 20th century? I won't say it. \_ Awesome. You Godwin'd an otherwise reasonable thread in record time! Way to go! \_ You mean that damned Socialist Roosevelt? \_ Sweden has been electing Democratic Socialist governments to power for the last 50 years with no discernable ill effects, except for perhaps universal free health care. \_ Sweden? You really think any large country can be run like Sweden? \_ you are right. large countries should be run like India. Small countries should be run like Singapore. |
| 2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30721 Activity:insanely high |
6/10 Why is Reagan credited with "winning the cold war"? Isn't it basically
Gorbachev's doing? All Reagan did was quadruple our national debt.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/gorbachev
\_ He is credited with it because he did. I laughed my ass off the
other day when one of the complaints from some leftist blog was
bitching that Reagan destoying the Soviet Union put an end to any
hope for detente. Unreal.
\_ In Soviet Russia, Cold War wins YOU!!
\_ Well, Gorbachev himself credits Reagan with ending the cold war:
http://csua.org/u/7om
\_ He says "made a huge, possibly decisive, contribution to creating
conditions for ending the Cold War". That's not the same.
\_ Pretty close though. Within epsilon.
\_ So Hitler made a huge, possibly decisive etc. for ending
the Third Reich, by his various blunders. The conditions
for ending aren't the ending.
\_ Hilter didn't come out and say 3rd Reich is going
away and I'm going to make it happen. Reagan said
that he was going to bring about the end of Soviet
communism and he put into place policies to that
end. That is the difference. I know YOU don't care
but I still felt like mentioning it.
\_ Wow, talk about turning reality on its head. A good
rhetorical attempt at twisting words to suit your
agenda but silly when presented to an audience with
more than 1 brain cell.
\_ When the Soviet Union collapsed, I didn't hear anybody crediting
Reagan. I heard credit going to the collapse of their economy.
\_ And the entire intel community saying "Holy shit. We didn't
expect that..."
\_ Two words: Zero Option. Look them up.
\_ USSR collapsed because Gorbachev was an idiot, really. Although
his reforms that were meant to modernize the party and the economy,
he accidentally unleashed forces that lead to the disolution of the
soviet union. Today he might be writing in his memoirs that this was
his original intention, but that's complete bs. The truth is that
he was plain incompetent as a leader. His reforms, specially in the
economic areas, usually didn't go beyond rhetoric.
\_ His reforms led to greater freedom and the breakaway of the
client states and so forth... whatever he intended, incompetent
or not, this was basically his doing. He clearly intended moving
towards more openness and reducing the command economy.
\_ Well, the ussr had their own expensive vietnam going on in
Afghanistan. They had to spend hugh sums on this war, and on
continuing the cold war with the US increase in defense
spending (modernizing and expanding), and SDI. The ussr
couldn't keep up, financially - their old economy collapsed
on itself. Reforms were the result which we all know didn't
work out so well. So the Reagan administration's was able to
end the cold war w/o firing a shot by outspending the ussr.
Probably a good use of the money considering the alternative.
\_ so why didn't China and North Korea collapse? They never kept
up. it's just not that simple.
\_ You said it yourself. They never kept up. The USSR was
attempting to keep up and couldn't play that game. China
and NK haven't tried and haven't kept up either. If China
or NK was to engage in an all out WWIII style blood bath
like the US & USSR were prepared to do for almost 50 years
they were be crushed like bugs before it even started. If
the same thing happened with the USSR, the odds are good
that all human life on the planet would have been snuffed
out. If China or NK tried to keep up they would collapse
too. Why? Because our system, our culture, and our
society are superior.
\_ right... so if life would have been snuffed out anyway,
USSR could have really cut back without any particular
danger to their empire. So it seems to me the real
difference is that under Gorby, the USSR failed to
keep up the autocratic iron fist. China never let up.
\_ no, they couldnt because eventually something like
star wars would have worked and other tech advances
would have made their land forces obsolete as well.
if we had continued dumping billions into SW we might
have a functional system today which would make their
nukes useless, or useless enough. our modern land
forces of today would have obliterated their forces
of 25 years ago. I agree with the iron fist part,
except: 1) the USSR had to do something, Gorby tried
something and lost, 2) China has not kept up and can
not stand up to the US today. China is not the US
military equal the USSR once was.
\_ exactly. liberlize economy first, but retain strong
political control, like what putin is doing today.
\_ It takes Leadership to cut taxes, recognize your enemies in the face
of nuclear war, and spend on defense.
(And defined in this way, as many Americans do, Democrats don't
have Leadership.)
\_ JFK? Reagan increased the total tax burden on the middle class
btw. He cut income taxes and raised payroll taxes, shifting
the overall tax burden down. Overall collections as a percentage
of GDP changed only very slightly.
\_ You need an unbiased URL to prove the first two sentences, and
not from an opinion column.
\_ Reagan DID lower income and corporate taxes but raise
payroll taxes. It shoudlnt' be too hard for you to find a
URL. -second opinion
\_ Then find one. Your opinion is worth the bits it takes
to print them. Probably less.
\_ Look, I am not going to do your research for you. Taxes
as a percentage of GDP is a prety easily obtained stat.
Is the WSJ unbiased enough for you?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000365
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000365
\_ Dumbass. Yes, you, dumbass:
First two sentences. That does not include "JFK?".
The person who makes the unconventional claim must
back it up.
\_ The only reason it is "unconventional" to you
is that you are economically uneducated. I do
not have the time to educate you, that is something
you have to do yourself. Here is more data:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
Look at Federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP
in 1980 and 1989.
\_ Are you JUST NOT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING?
"First two sentences."
\_ Okay, I see the confusion. You should have
said second and third sentences. I will
research this and get back to you. I am
busy at work right now.
\_ It is in this book:
http://csua.org/u/7ol
Look at the source of federal revenue through
out the Reagan Era. The percentage amount from
payroll taxes increases and from income
decreases. Reagan raised payroll taxes
numerous times. Here are CBO numbers:
http://csua.org/u/7on
Income tax dropped from 8.9 to 8.0
while Social Security went from 5.8 to 6.7,
perfectedly offsetting the decrease.
\_ and the ad hominem begins. conservatives lose!
\_ Actually, I'm a Democrat, and I'm not thinking
of switching. I just can't stand it when
some liberal makes a claim far out of left
field without some backup. Republicans think
we're all idiots, and I'm not going to help them
with that myth.
\_ No, we don't think you're all idiots. If that
were so we would've destroyed your entire
movement decades ago. We think that many of
you are well meaning but either confused or
simply wrong and the rest are simply selfish to
the point of being evil. I do appreciate you
coming forward and trying to bring the level of
debate above the usual "yoo teh suk!" that we
see on the motd from the fringes and the echo
chamber. --conservative
\_ It takes Intelligence not to waste trillions on nukes and star
wars and tax cuts while promising balanced budgets and accruing
massive debts. Defined in this way, Republicans don't have
Intelligence.
\_ The same Americans would say that if we had Carter in there,
we wouldn't have spent as much, the Soviets wouldn't have
spent as much, and the Evil Empire would still be there.
The same Americans would say the deficit-spending was money
well spent, and without big government too.
\_ Reagan also passed some of the biggest tax _increases_
of any President.
\_ Do I have to continue this?
The same Americans would say that raising taxes was
necessary to support defense spending in the arms race
with the Soviets, to keep Social Security solvent,
and to not let the deficit go wildly out of countrol
and to not let the deficit go wildly out of control
(and it was wild) -- all worthwhile causes.
\_ But wait, so its okay to raise taxes to pay for
war and control the deficit?! Why can't we do that
now?!
\_ Because tax cuts stimulate the economy. Lowering
taxes asctaually increases revenue!
taxes actaually increases revenue!
-- voodoo economist
\_ Hehe, ok so you're saying that raising taxes
stimulates the economy? That high taxes will
increase revenue *over a period of time* and
not just initially? That high taxes create
private sector jobs? Okey, dokey!
\_ Of course it is more complicated than
that. Taxes spent in economically useful
activity tends to grow the economy faster
than when that activity doesn't happen
or only happens at the whims of the
market. Universal public education, paid
for by taxpayers, has been shown to be
a win by many diverse economies. I think
universal healthcare is too, as
demonstrated by countries like Canada,
where they spend less as a percentage of
GDP (by far) but get similar results. Tax
money wasted stupidly or in fraud is
always a drain on the economy. Compare
The Netherlands vs USA economic growth
rates over time to see that higher tax
rates do not always strangle the economy.
\_ So you're saying the command economy is
better than the demand economy. I think
the failure of the Soviet Union and now
China moving to a demand economy buries
that idea. Money siphoned off to the
government can never be spent as
efficiently as money spent directly in
the private sector. What the government
can do that the private sector can not
is big public works projects that benefit
everyone such as building/maintaing the
highways, defense, dams, and other large
projects that are unlikely to yield
direct monetary benefit or are impossible
for the private sector to deal with.
Re: Netherlands. Uhm, yeah, let's
compare a homogenous highly controlled
tiny country that doesn't have a military
or any of the other problems the US has
as a large nation and only super power to
the Netherlands(???). It isn't even
worth discussing. How about you compare
the US to some other country or group of
high tax countries that can almost equal
the US in some way? You know, the apples
to apples thing? Try Germany, France,
Britain, etc. combined. Netherlands?
That's laughable. The mouse that roared.
\_ Heh. In my current game of Victoria,
I am playing as Netherlands. It's
1850s, I still control Indonesia, and
I am rivalling the US for the #2
world power status (Britain is #1).
Netherlands used to be powerful back
in the days. Didn't they make Japan
a satellite state at one point?
-- ilyas
\_ Those in favor of the war should pay more taxes.
\_ That would be great! We could all choose
what government services we want to pay
for. I have no kids, so screw education!
I also have no need for social security,
medicare, or welfare, so I'm not paying
for them either! I think you should run
for office on that ticket.
\_ Amen, brother! I'm totally in favor of us
each only contributing as much as we take
out! My taxes would drop from a total
burden of just over 50% (fed, state, etc) to
about 5%.
\_ Sure. Make sure to vote for me. I'll
be running as CSUA party in '08.
\_ You're using CSUA account...that's part
of education. As for social security,
you'll need it unless you plan to
die before 67.
\_ I don't need the CSUA account, I'm
paying way more in taxes for
education than the value of a CSUA
account. Do you really think you'll
get back even a fraction of the
money you put into social security
now? Here's a hint: save money.
\_ No but it's more for helping out
those who need it. How do you like
seeing those senior citizens sleeping
out on your streets if there's no
social security? Here's my hint:
MAX out your 401k. Save money is
not getting you anywhere.
Same goes with welfare. No welfare
means more bums in yoour neighborhood.
or maybe you pay extra tax to have
govt to deport them somewhere else
or pay extra to move to richer place.
It's totally your choice.
\_ No welfare means fewer crack heads
after they either get jobs or
starve to death. I'll pay an extra
1% for funeral costs for the first
year or two it takes to shake the
garbage people out of the country.
\_ But what if the crackheads
decide to start burglarizing
your house and carjacking you
so they can afford to eat?
Now you've been robbed and
possibly shot and you then have
to help pay the $50K per year
to keep them in prison.
\_ Prison? No, 2nd amendment.
Anyway I think more highly of
people than you do. Most
will work if forced to.
\_ It doesn't take much
carjacking to eat. drug
adicts rob to pay for their
habit, not their dinner.
(yet another legalization
arg.) -phuqm
\_ I have to disagree whether you
need education or not. In someway
you used the education fund already
by having gone to public schools and
UCB. Just because you don't need
it now doesn't mean you got ripped off
by the govt. Without this education
fund, your parents would have paid
a premium to get you educated.
\_ Very little of your education costs
go to teaching students. If this
was a pure undergrad school most of
us could easily afford it with a
part time job.
\_ I think you pay education not solely
for yourself, but for a better
society. Just imagine what's like
to live in state with no public
education. You'll end with so many
kids on the streets doing random
things.
\_ Duh, that's what the second
amendment is for.
\_ Yeah, that is working out
real well in places like
Afghanistan and Congo.
\_ They don't have the other
body of laws or culture to
support a non violent pro-gun
culture. The Congo? Yes,
when barbarians get weapons
they kill each other. Big
surprise.
\_ You'll never know if you need welfare.
\_ I'm hungry and cold. Send me your money.
\_ We PRC Chinese made the USSR collapse. We kicked them out of the
house and cozied up with Uncle Sam. Then we did a punitive
expedition against Vietnam, after which the USSR sent huge amounts
of money to their Vietnam lackey. USSR also had to deploy many
divisions along the world longest land border. Not long after
we punished the Vietnamese for being traitors, the USSR invaded
Afghanistan in part to surround China, and got their butt kicked
there. In conclusion, it is us who brought down the USSR. We
rule.
\_ Kind of true. If a large country was supporting Afghanistan/Iraq,
I am sure the outcome would be different. Too bad the Soviet
is too chicken to do what the US did to them in Afghanistan!
\_ The Soviet? What is the Soviet? Whatever it is there isn't
a the Soviet anymore. Perhaps that is why the Soviet didn't
do anything about Iraq?
\_ The USSR invaded Afghanistan for oil and a warm water port. Why
would they want an even longer border with China? Not only is
this not even "kind of true", it isn't even internally
consistent.
\_ Really? Then how come Afghanistan has neither a port or oil?
They have invaded Afghanistan just to put another satelite
country under their belt. I think that was the main point,
though most Russians themslves don't know what was the point
of this war. I have read somewhere that it was mostly
Brezhnev's idea who after having recieved lots of literary
awards for his WWII trilogy "Malaya Zemlia" imagined himself
to be the world's greatest military commander and ordered the
Afghanistan invasion right before his death.
\_ Warm water port to a river? What for?
\_ Uh, you're kidding right? Russia and then as the USSR
has been trying to get a warm water port for _hundreds_
of years.
\_ I just don't see how a river port is worth invading a
country.
\_ Yes, but their goal was to reach Mediterranean Sea,
not the Indian Ocean. They were actually pretty close
to reaching the Mediterranean but were prevented
by the British and other allies of the Ottoman empire.
\_ Why would they want a longer border? No, it's not that
they want a longer border, it's just that the USSR likes to
threaten and bully. That's what the USSR is about. Until
it fell apart. Warm water port is just part of the whole
picture. Mostly USSR wants to dominate the region, with
help from friendlies like India and Iran.
\_ So they conducted a 10 year war in Afghanistan just because
they're mean? And a warm water port and a shitload of oil
was secondary? Ok, yeah, that makes lots of sense.
\_ they thought it's gonna be just a few months.
countries that sent most aid to the mujahadeens:
us, china, saudi arabia. china was poor and
stingy. why would it send aid in this case?
and no, there is no oil in afghanistan. ussr
has plenty of oil, they don't need more oil. |
| 2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health/Women] UID:30714 Activity:insanely high |
6/10 What did William Randolph Hearst, one of the most powerful man
on earth during the early 1900s, see in Marion Davies? I mean, she's
not particular pretty or anything, what exactly did he see in her?
\_ One word: Rosebud.
\_ I think she was quite beautiful. And supposedly she was
very funny and charming.
\_ To judge a partner only by looks is extraordinarily shallow.
I don't know if Hearst was -- perhaps he satisfied any need
for "pretty" women with mistresses, common for rich men.
\_ But MARION was the mistress, at least at first, no?
In any case, she stayed with him long after she herself
had become independently wealthy ... so maybe they really
just loved each other.
\_ lame question, but back in the 20s-40s, pre-pill era, what the
heck did they use for birth control?
\_ Condoms have been around for centuries.
\_ I'd think the world's most powerful man would prefer
not using the condom because it feels so much better
\_ Syphilis URL nutcase to thread...
\_ I don't think he is the world's most powerful man,
perhaps the most powerful man in his castle.
\_ Withdrawal.
\_ Have you ever actually... you know... with a girl... *talked* to
one? And no, for-pay online sex-cam chat doesn't count.
\_ Have you ever done the castle tour? According to the tour guides,
they were very much in love with each other.
\_ In the US maybe, not on earth you idiot.
\_ http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/willh.html
he hated Minorities and supported Hitler.
\_ yes, which is another reason the myth of the liberal press
is absurd. -tom
\_ I finally figured out why we let you stay here. For the
humor factor. Taken the right way you're actually a
really funny guy. Sort of like the court jester or the
class clown, you're always there with something wildly
inappropriate, off topic, ridiculous, or just plain rude.
I hope to see you around some more. The motd was making
too much sense without you for the last few months. |
| 2004/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30654 Activity:insanely high |
6/7 Was Starship Troopers 2 even in the theatres?
\_ No, and it had a budget of roughly $6 million compared to the
original's $100 mil.
\_ Can't make it any worse.
\_ Wow, it says the original oly made $65 mil. (So it lost
about $35 mil) There IS some justice in the world.
\_ enough justice to warrant a sequel.
\_ Was that just theater tickets, or overall?
\_ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starshiptroopers.htm
\_ If the original had tried to be anything like the book it
might have made money. They stole the title and the
character names. The rest was bullshit.
\_ Best review of original ever:
http://postviews.editthispage.com/movieVideo/StarshipTroopers
\_ it took a somewhat interesting book that had something
interesting to say for its time, discarded the stuff
which is no longer relevant for its shock value and filled
it in with other stuff which is actually relevant to our
current political climate. What is bullshit about that?
\_ They took Heinlein's politics, turned it upside down
and made a bad joke of it, and then fucked up the only
other cool thing by ruining combat by turing the super
nuke and flame thrower wielding heavy infantry into sub
machine gun toting light infantry bug food who
shouldn't have stood a hope in hell of surviving 2
minutes on any bug planet much less actually winning
against them. Bullshit. Shall I go on? I'd have to
dig up my copy to give you specific details but it's
more of the same. Oh yeah, they also completely
skipped the Skinnies. How long ago did you read the
book? I re-read it a few months ago.
\_ Best review of movie ever:
http://csua.org/u/7n2 (independent review, humorous)
\_ Heinlein's politics ARE a joke. His stories are
1950's sci-fi fanboy fantasies. They're fun if you
are in your teens, but hardly great shakes. The only
real disappointment of Starship Troopers was that
Denise Richards didn't go topless. Now THAT is
something Heinlien would have pushed for.
\_ Hmm, service to one's country is a good thing...
joke... with rights come resposibilities... joke
earn voting rights by serving country... ok, yeah
you're right, it's just a joke, we're doing so
much better today with people selling their votes
and corrupt money burdened politics. You should
go re-read your Heinlein. It sounds like you read
him in your teens and missed out on what he was
really saying. You also completely ignored my
point about the movie's silly version of combat
and the complete loss of the Skinnies. Or maybe
you're just a troll and never read his stuff at
all and you're just taking the silly movie as
what Heinlein really had to say and what his
stories were like.
\_ That goverment model has a name, fascism. The
Italians tried this when WWI vets felt that
only they deserved to run the government. In
Heinlein, everyone puts out, women doubly so.
Pure fanboy. Tossing mini-nukes around makes
friendly fire so much more interesting. And
irradiating planets where you hope to inhabit?
Just a bad idea. The movie was tripe, feeding
off Heinlien's good name and an entertaining
read. But never confuse Heinlien with reality. |
| 2004/6/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:30593 Activity:high |
6/3 there are talks among inner hispanic circles like mesa to use
the muslim tactic of breeding out existing societies to
take control of california then succeed from the union.
Like muslims they will want to claim an independent state.
they estimate it will take 20 years.
\_ we will bury you!
take control of california then succeed from the union.
Like muslims they will want to claim an independent state.
they estimate it will take 20 years.
\_ ^succeed^secede
\_ Did it occur to any of them that they're gonna need an army to
secede, and gang-bangers do not an army make?
\_ In 20 years, California may be Hispanic, but in 20 years, all those
new Hispanics will be Americanized.
\_ US needs to make Mexico its 51st state, and get it over already.
\_ What's an "inner hispanic circle"? Since when did MESA represent
anything more than some racist nutbags? Are they passing fliers
out to hispanic women asking them to breed for the cause? And even
if the state went 99% hispanic, why would any significant number of
those people want to secede from the US? This line of thinking is
just ugly racism. Summary of thought: someone who is hispanic
authomatically hates all non-hispanics and loves all hispanics and
automatically thinks just like we do only because they're hispanic.
\_ RACIST! |
| 2004/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30573 Activity:insanely high |
6/3 If California declares independence, and the non-kookoo portion
of US decides to invade California, how will it attack? cross the
desert to take Los Angeles first, then roll up Hwy 5?
\_ It would take 21 days. 20 days for the rest of the US to stop
laughing and realise CA was serious and 1 day to retake everything.
\_ The US is all out of step except CA!
\_ On a related note, let's say you're drawing a U.S. Diplomacy
board. HOw would you divvy up NOrth America?
\_ Red counties and blue counties.
\_ If pigs fly out my ass, will they have bat wings or feathered ones?
\_ Bat wings, duh! Pigs are mammals.
\_ Take Interstate 80 from Reno to Sacramento.
\_ I think a lot depends upon how committed to a war the citizenry
is. Will companies like Boeing and Lockheed with plants in CA
support CA or the US? Will US soldiers attack Californians?
What percentage of US soldiers are from CA?
\_ Let's assume CA has a decent army. Inferior and outnumbered
by the US military, but capable of fighting a little. It's
mostly a military question, rather than a political one -op
\_ The only part of CA with significant military is San
Diego, so I imagine San Diego goes first and then the
defense contractors in SoCal. Less important is Silicon
Valley and the navy in SF.
\_ ok, let's assume california inherited 1/8th of the
US military forces minus anything nukular.
\_ That's not fair: A lot of submarines are based out of
San Diego.
\_ Another issue is who are CAs allies? Mexico? Japan?
\_ I don't think any country would provide military aid.
\_ Why not? They did during the Civil War.
\_ The South had a chance of winning, and the North
was way too busy to fight the other countries.
The US could easily lob missiles at any country
that help California.
\_ link?
\_ what a great thread! How about we assume the forces
of nature rise to aid California? (Pigs with wings of
all types...) What then?
\_ Why would the forces of nature rise up to help us?
Have you any idea how many H2s are on the road?
\_ Good point. But is it fair to assume they'll
bite the tires/tracks of both attackers AND
defenders? And there will probably be more
attackers than defenders, so it would be of
net benefit to the Californians?
\_ assume california has no allies, but neither does the
US, and it cannot attack California from Mexico.
\_ yea, but don't attack LA directly, isolate it, cut off its
water supply, and wait for it to surrender.
\_ That would cut off all of SoCal.
\_ What if we approach this the other way? California goes
on the offensive against Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and
Arizona to claim water rights. We pretty much own them
now anyway.
\_ ok, that's interesting. Let's give California the
advantage of a first strike, surprise attack.
where would you try to attack and hold? Of course,
you want to control the Sierras for its water and its
defensive value, but other parts of Nevada is kind
of hard to hold even if you conquer it at first.
I am not too familiar with geography of Arizona.
As for Oregon, is there any point in attacking it
for a defense purposes?
\_ CA can't even pass a spending bill on time. You think
CA can launch a first strike?
\_ But we have ... the Governator!
\_ But the governator cannot travel back in time with any metal or
clothing...
\_ Or look at it another way, how would you set up your defenses
for California against a US invasion?
\_ Let's keep it simple. After we crack the launch codes, we can
deter with the nuclear weapons stored in CA, and build more.
\_ Hawiians have talked about secessions for a very very long time.
In fact, they're still talking about it. They have nothing in
common with any other state and they're always fucked no matter
who the president is.
\_ hawaii's governor is very pro bush
\_ Convert Pendleton before proceeding. We stand a much better
chance with the marines with us than with them against us.
\_ CA vs. the US: it lasts about 3 weeks. That's 20 days for the US
to stop laughing, 1 day to take over.
\_ Substitute Calif with Taiwan, and U.S. with China. Now discuss...
\_ It would help a lot if the PRC supplies weapons to California,
and it has good reasons to, since there are so many Chinese in
California.
\_ Question for the anti-Taiwan independence crowd. Didn't China
cede Taiwan to Japan in the treaty of Shimonoseki? -- ilyas
\_ China tried ceding Taiwan, but Taiwan declared indepen-
dence before the Japanese invaded Taiwan, then Japan
ceded Taiwan back to China after WWII. Weird. That's
why Taiwan should declare independence. We have
superior US made weapons that will kick China arse.
Some association of US companies in Taiwan put out
an advertisement in some Taiwan newspaper last weekend
warning Taiwan government to negotiate direct
shipping, flight, etc. to PRC, or US companies will all
be dumping Taiwan companies soon. Those traitors!
be dumping Taiwan soon. Those traitors!
Taiwan will soon be spending another US$18 billion to
buy weapons. Greedy Americans overcharges Taiwan by
an arm and a leg for the weapons since no one else
sells to Taiwan. Those bastards! But hey, those
are some cool toys to play with. I was personally
aboard one of the Knox class destroyers when it was down
in Long Beach during handover training after it was
bought by Taiwan. That was one outdated warship.
We need a few Aegis boats instead. Please sell us
a few. PRC commies recently been unofficially
publishing list of Taiwan actresses and singers and
stars who are pro-independence. Heard that president
Ah Bian recently had trouble inviting any of these
money grubbing actresses and singers and stars to
his functions. Those PRC commie bastard bullies!
\_ yea but article 4 of the Treaty of Peace between China
and Japan states that:
It is recognised that all treaties, conventions,
and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941
between Japan and China have become null and
void as a consequence of the war. |
| 2004/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30567 Activity:insanely high |
6/3 Almost every single person I personally know are in California,
and every single one of them hates Bush. Having this said, how come
the poll still shows that Bush/Kerry are neck to neck? In another
word, how come people outside of California like Bush? What did
Bush do for them?
\_ Do a google search on: "Pauline Kael" McGovern
\_ Gah, why bother even asking here? You're not going to get a
coherent answer, and even if you do, it will instantly be drowned
out by a bunch of name calling. Oh wait, its the motd, maybe you're
just trolling.
\_ Move to Orange County.
\_ I know a lot of people who don't exactly love Bush, but are
tolerant of him because they really don't like Kerry or other
Democrats. They live in CA. In the last election a lot of
people in CA voted for Bush.
\_ I predict Bush will win California in a landslide!
\_ troll. Let's see: I live in the liberal part of a liberal state and
I don't understand why I don't know any Bush supporters! Let's see,
I hate Bush and I hate him loudly and refuse to talk to anyone who
doesn't hate him and I wonder aloud why I don't know any Bush
supporters... troll.
\_ California has a very different economic/social makeup
than the rest of the nation. It has been fucked by
Bush's friends (Enron) and the little guys here have
benefited very little from Bush's administration.
Furthermore it receives less % of the share of Federal
aide than the other states. If anything, California
should at least attempt a Declaration of Causes
of Secession
\_ CA has received a lesser % of federal money than other
states for decades. This is suddenly Bush's fault? Did
you bitch about that from 1992-2000 and blame that
President for it at the time? Did he do anything for the
little guys in CA? Presidents don't do shit for the
little guys, the big states or anyone else. That isn't
their job. If you want a sugar daddy, go to SF, drop
your pants and someone will be along in a minute or two
to give you a few bucks.
\_ Is this really true? I would like to see some
statistics about this. I suspect CA used to get
its fair share back in the 70s and has been
on a downward trend since then, but I am interested
in seeing actual facts.
\_ BushCo would love that: military invasion of Cali,
followed by suspension of Statehood and negation of
those juicy anti-Bush electoral votes.
\_ Tinfoil. Hat. Nutter. Prozac.
\_ Are you really so fucking stupid to think that
post is serious?
\_ With MOTD righties, it's sometimes hard to tell.
\_ Don't tell me you're still trying.
\_ would california be a good place to fight a
guerilla war? like we have mountains, big cities,
small towns, farming communities, rivers, deserts,
etc. should be fun. hey, we may actually have
some real WMDs somewhere.
\_ Our real enemy is not Bush but Bush supporters.
\_ "Our"? Who is "us"? Enemies of the United States? Pro-Soviet
trolls who cry for loss of Stalin or maybe China's Mao? 'Enemy'
is a harsh word. You turn politics into a death match with
words like that. You can't afford to lose a death match. I'm
one of the people you declare as an "enemy" but I don't see you
as such. I only see you as young and misguided and not earning
enough to get pissed off when you see your taxes being spent on
buying votes at the next election which is the best way to kill
a democracy or republic. I'm not your enemy.
\_ No, actually, you are. I've been tracking you for years now,
and I will not give up now that I'm so close, so very, very
close. Your time is coming, Moriarty.
\_ Coulter and Savage has been calling anyone who disagrees
\_ I'm busted! But you shall not have me before I destroy
all of London when the bomb goes off in Old Ben!
\_ Coulter and Savage have been calling anyone who disagrees
with them "traitors" for a long time. Perhaps you should
work on muzzling the voices of hate on the right.
\_ That's it? That's the best you've got? A second rate
author and talk show personality and a third rate local
radio host? How about you start at the top of your party,
then go to the NAACP, http://moveon.org, Soros, Hillary, Gore,
Kennedy, and I guess Kerry doesn't matter. You can keep
Kerry. He's useless to you.
\_ When have any of those people referred to the Republican
Party as "the enemy" or traitors? Oh, they haven't.
I guess that shoots down your theory about who
the haters are. Add Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly
and half of Congress to the Republican Hate Machine.
\_ You and your friends are not a representative statistical sample of
the population. Beware anecdotal statistics. -emarkp
\_ I view liberalism (not classical) as a pernicious evil
engendered by communism and secularism that has
steadily eroded the foundation of this country. Maybe this
explains to you why I consider the GOP the lesser of two
evils and why I will never ever ever sincerely vote for a Dem.
And I live in Berkeley.
\_ I view you as a Berkeley kook.
\_ What is wrong with secularism?
\_ Hitler, Mao, Stalin ... were all atheists. WWII and Cold War
were effectively wars of theism vs. atheism.
\_ Hitler wasn't an atheist. He just wasn't a Christian.
Furthermore we allied ourselves with Stalin who did the
main work of defeating Hitler. The cold war was a war of
capitalism vs. command economies. But that was just how it
was waged; the real cause was the USSR's imperialistic
behavior.
"An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of
nature, and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man,
on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism
(which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as
he perceives that the state, in sheer opportunism, is
making use of false ideas in the matter of religion,
whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure
science."
...
"If in the course of 1-2,000 years science arrives at the
necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not
mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's
always striving, according to the momentary state of
knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a
mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity which
is the liar; it's in perpetual conflict with itself."
\_ Quite a few vocal white supremacists live in Berkeley. |
| 2004/5/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Military] UID:30464 Activity:high |
5/27 vote to lift the Assault weapons ban
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/09/gun.control.rally.ap/index.html
\_ Or, alternately, to extend it.
\_ Why extend it? In what way does it help? -- ilyas
\_ I think poster is pointing that it could go either way.
half-empty versus half-full.
\_ I was just curious what the arguments are for extending the
ban, now that it's been in effect for a while, and we are
in a position to see how well it did. -- ilyas |
| 2004/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30453 Activity:very high |
5/27 Track Kerry's Position on Iraq
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerryoniraq
\_ They really need something like this for Bush:
Mission Accomplished! Mission not accomplished!
Baathists out. Baathists in.
Will significantly reduce troops in a year. More troops longer.
WMD. WMD program. No WMD or WMD program.
Chalabi's the next president. Chalabi is a crook.
Eliminate all militias. Negotiate with Sadr militia.
Gitmoize Iraq. Iraq is not Gitmo.
There is an al Qaeda link (Dick).
- There is no al Qaeda link (George).
- Well, now they're all here anyway.
\_ Shut the fuck up you piece of shit!
\_ With debate skills like yours, Bush will win California
in a landslide!
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ Why do you hate white people?
\_ w00t!
\_ I find it humorous that with all of Bush's faults, the best dirt
that they can come up with is that he *gasp* flip-flops!
\_ I find it humorous that with all of ______'s faults, the best
dirt that they come up with is that he *gasp* flip-flops!
\_ If ____ were Kerry his faults would be more than mere flip
floppery but that's the easiest and most amusing charge to
level. I voted for flip flopping before I voted against
flip flopping!
\_ Right, why argue policy or substantive issues when you
can just make up easy shit?
\_ "I HATE BUSHCO BECUZ DEYRE EEEVVVIILL!!" When you're
ready to keep your personal hatred to yourself and
argue those substantive issues I'm here. -real consrvtv
\_ Nice strawman. The only one frothing here is you.
[restored, censors and smashers can go fuck off]
\_ I never froth. I'm just voting for things before
I vote against them. You have *never* seen the
word "hate" come out of my keyboard unless it was
referring to someone else's use or state of
emotion. There are very few things in the world
worthy of true hatred. Politicians aren't worth
the energy it would take to hate them especially
since all you can really do about them in the end
is vote against them and that's not enough to
satisfy the deep hatred I've seen others express.
Have a nice day! :-)
\_ You have a limited understanding of politics
if you believe that all you can do is vote.
I have helped put laws on the ballot that
were then passed, raised thousands of dollars
for my favored candidates, lobbied my
legislators and changed at least a few other
voters minds on the way. Don't diminish
your own power like that. |
| 2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:30434, category id '18005#8.995' has no name! , ] UID:30434 Activity:high |
5/26 http://www.csua.org/u/7gg "My prediction: Bush will win California on the way to a landslide victory." Thanks for the laughs, Bush worshippers. Still willing to stick with that "prediction"? \_ The Requested URL /y/7gg was not found on this server. \_ URL fixed. op slapped. \_ Umm. Thanks. \_ w00t! \_ I didn't make that prediction but the election is really going to come down to two things: 1) is there a major attack on American soil between now and then (and how do people respond to it) and 2) how each candidate comes across in the 3 debates in October. Everything going on now is fluff. \_ how about 3) will OBL be caught before the election? \_ Maybe they already have him in Cheney's Dungeon. \_ Cheney's DUngeon? What level is it? I've got this great 4th level Warrior that I want to use.... \_ nah, capturing hussein didn't do a damned thing for the poll numbers. \_ He got a ~ 6% jump in approval rating, but it dropped soon after: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/bush_approval_052504.html |
| 2004/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:30423 Activity:high |
5/25 Don't believe it could happen?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
\_ it? what it? fucking trolls. im not going to read your zero
content teaser link. that's almost as bad as a cock tease. get off
the motd you link tease.
\_ It's not like it's a disguised freeper link.
\_ It might as well be. Why can't OP just say what "it" is?
Link tease!
\_ Operation Northwoods
\_ Which means what? "Don't believe Operation Northwoods
could happen? <url here>" Ok, so what? |
| 2004/5/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30362 Activity:high |
5/22 Arnold policies help CA ecnomy recover... without raising taxes.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040521/us_nm/economy_california_rating_dc_1&printer=1
I didn't vote for him and I don't like everything he's done or trying
to do and I voted against his propositions but credit where credit is
due. If he pulls it off I might vote for him if he runs again.
\_ shortened to http://csua.org/u/7eu --darin
I didn't vote for him and I don't like everything he's done or trying
to do and I voted against his propositions but credit where credit is
due. If he pulls it off I might vote for him if he runs again.
\_ Ooh, the CPAs say we're doing better. Tell that to grad students
that now can't afford UC.
\_ There's a grad school in some other state they can afford?
\_ ok freeper whatever you say
\_ SO... you think this didn't actually happen?
\_ personal attack on OP -> OP post value++ && your value-- |
| 2004/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30275 Activity:high |
5/18 http://www.csua.org/u/7c3 hey ranty conservative poster: you described this as "Just another partisan rant, full of wild assumptions and faulty conclusions." Now I'm curious. What are the wild assumptions? -!op \_ which rant are we supposed to read, "You fat fucking fucks need to stop eating so much fatty catby stuff You are fat because you don't like baby jesus. Fuck you. That's baby jesus says. Fuck you. Also, you fat donut eaters need to keep\ eating donuts but must learn to shut up. Fuck you," or "KEEP EEATING DO-NUTS AND VOTGING DUBAYOU KERREY IT MAKE NO DIFFERENCE YOU JBOS STILL WILL COME TO US!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE FAT AMERICAN!"? I just don't know where to start. \_ How about the first sentence. \_ Yeah, that'd be one of the wild assumptions. -evil conservative \_ Phew. I'm a lefty and think the post is farily off mark. -evil lefty \_ Phew. I'm a lefty and think the post is fairly off mark. -evil lefty |
| 2004/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:30269 Activity:nil |
5/17 Can some chemical engineering major tell me if these are real or some
sort of elaborate joke?
Molecules with Silly Names
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/silly/sillymols.htm
\_ I know Buckminster Fullerene, Unununium and Apatite exist, and I've
heard of Cadaverine before. -!ChemE
\_ But Cummingtonite?!
\_ There is also benitoite, found in Benito, CA. -- ilyas
\_ A mineral discovered near Cummington... plausible. |
| 2004/5/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Transportation/Car] UID:30221 Activity:nil 53%like:30210 |
5/13 http://tinyurl.com/2bs2z (news.yahoo.com) Price of gasoline a little high for California? \_ "Price of gas at a station in Santa Barbara, Calif. Tuesday morning May 11, 2004, was $3.11 for full service, 91 octane. It was later changed to $3.13." Who buys _full service_ gas anywhere? Premium yes, but full service? \_ Old people and others who have trouble standing up and walking. \_ oregon won't let you pump your own gas \_ OMG, another reason why Oregon sux0rs. \_ And yet they pay less for gas than we do... \_ We should totally invade Oregon and steal all their cheap gas. Oh wait... \_ w00t! \_ Not a terrible thing in a rainy state. \_ full service in a rainy state is not terrible... *forcing* people to pay for full service is *always* wrong. \_ It's different from full service, it's called mini service. And Oregonians can alway vote to repeal. \_ Should these people be trusted behind the wheels? Don't get hit by them when you're on the sidwalk! \_ It's a luxury. People who couldn't give a damn about how much it costs to fill the H2 can spend the extra bucks to have someone making minimum wage to check their oil, wash their windows, and check their tires. Such places exist... |
| 2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:30212 Activity:low |
5/12 Cold Turkey, by Kurt Vonnegut (05/12/04)
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0512-13.htm |
| 2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Transportation/Car] UID:30210 Activity:low 53%like:30221 |
5/13 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040511/480/cajme10205111903 Price of gasoline a little high for California? \_ "Price of gas at a station in Santa Barbara, Calif. Tuesday morning May 11, 2004, was $3.11 for full service, 91 octane. It was later changed to $3.13." Who buys _full service_ gas anywhere? Premium yes, but full service? \_ Old people and others who have trouble standing up and walking. \_ oregon won't let you pump your own gas \_ OMG, another reason why Oregon sux0rs. \_ And yet they pay less for gas than we do... \_ We should totally invade Oregon and steal all their cheap gas. Oh wait... \_ w00t! \_ Not a terrible thing in a rainy state. \_ full service in a rainy state is not terrible... *forcing* people to pay for full service is *always* wrong. \_ It's different from full service, it's called mini service. And Oregonians can alway vote to repeal. \_ Should these people be trusted behind the wheels? Don't get hit by them when you're on the sidwalk! \_ It's a luxury. People who couldn't give a damn about how much it costs to fill the H2 can spend the extra bucks to have someone making minimum wage to check their oil, wash their windows, and check their tires. Such places exist... \_ Most people driving an H2 can't afford full service. |
| 2004/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:30201 Activity:high |
5/12 My brother works as a janitor for a cleaning company while he goes
to college. He's paid well, so he doesn't want to quit.
However, there's this guy he works with who he can't stand.
Janitors have a lot of time to talk as they take out the trash,
and this guy says really stupid things constantly. He's racist,
sexist, and always asking for computer help. My brother asked to
work with someone else, and his boss said that no one else could
stand the guy either, but he had no reason to fire him. Is
"None of your coworkers can stand you" just cause for
termination in CA?
\_ Sure you can be fired for any reason whatsoever, or no reason
at all. Unless you are under some kind of contract, like at
a Union job. Is this guy in a Union?
\_ Not in a union. But I'm not sure you're right. I've heard
of people sueing for unlawful termination before, and I know
it was a concern with my boss when I was a pizza boy.
\_ whatchoo talkin' bout, boy? unless you can show some kind of
discrimination, or contract (union?) they can fire at will.
just make up stuff about the guy, or tell the boss he was
offensive and shit, that's a valid reason.
\_ This is bad advice. Just fire him. Don't give any reason.
Giving reasons is the #1 source of unlawful termination
lawsuits. It sounds mean, but it covers your ass.
\_ I love listening to the advice you guys give. It's
obvious none of you have owned or run a business with
employees. Firing someone safely is VERY VERY HARD.
\_ his brother doesn't either. he's a janitor. i'm
clearly missing something about this thread.
\_ what state do you live in? I've seen enough CA layoffs
that I have to doubt that. other than the safety angle
of psychotic revenge with an assault rifle.
\_ THE TIME OF PURIFICATION IS AT HAND. *CHA-CHICK*
\_ layoff != firing. and i've seen people file suit
after a layoff and the company settle.
\_ Firing one person is a piece of cake. You barely need
a reason. More than one person, then you have to have
good reasons. As the numbers grow, the better your
reasons need to be. Suing based on discrimination is
HARD since the onus of proof is on the person fired. They
would need to show intent of malice. Some folks sue, some
employers settle out of court because it's cheaper.
\_ convince the other guy to quit. have your brother tell him that
he loves black/asian/hispanic/jewish/whatever people, that he
can't wait to see a female POTUS, and some bad computer advice.
\_ "Creates a hostile working environment." Log all complaints. Once
the paper trail gets long enough, fire the guy with no cause given,
and retain the paper trail for defense. If you really want to be
safe, create an employee handbook with strict rules against racist
comments, etc. and reprimand him for violating the rules. With
luck, he might improve. Otherwise, you'll have plenty of ammo to
get rid of him.
\_ His brother isn't the manager but this is what the manager should
be doing. And yes, like other people said above, it is very hard
to safely fire someone in CA, at-will laws or no.
\_ The best thing to do (as a manager in a situation like this)
is to reduce the hours the guy can work. Reduce them far
enough, and it won't be economical for him to work for you
anymore.
\_ Then he'll have grounds to sue you because you reduced
his hours for no reason while keeping everyone else the
same. This is stupid. Make policy, document violations
from that point on, then fire.
\_ Maybe he's trying to get himself fired? |
| 2004/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30178 Activity:very high |
5/12 http://www.hillnews.com/news/051204/patriot.aspx confuses me. Are we supposed to like republicans for opposing the patriot act extension because we hate the patriot act or are we supposed to now like the patriot act because republicans oppose it? Or are we supposed to hate republicans *and* PA no matter what they vote for or against? \_ I think we need to be glad that more GOP lawmakers have found their balls again. \_ Exactly. We'll see how long it goes until they cave. Besides it's a rollback they should be shooting for as "libertarian- minded Republicans". -- ulysses \_ So since this is just their nature its ok to keep hating them? \_ Say what? -- ulysses \_ Well, this is just for show. They will quietly sign on later. And so will the democrats. \_ So we should hate democrats as well? \_ Hate whoever you want, gays, liberals, feminists, or free thinkers. This is a free-to-hate country. |
| 2004/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30166 Activity:kinda low |
5/11 Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, on the beheading of Nick Berg:
"From my own perspective, it validates Secretary [of Defense Donald]
Rumsfeld and General [Richard] Myers' attempt to keep these initial
photos from being published," Hunter said. ... "I think it shows
they were trying to save American lives when they did that.
Unfortunately, those pictures were released." -CNN
\_ The beheading took place some time back. This was not done in
retaliation for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. This was not done by
Iraqis. This was done by Al Qaeda.
\_ I'll bet it would be even better if there was no torture to take
pictures of. Then we'd be really set!
\_ Even though you don't provide any supporting URLs, I kind of
believe everything you wrote. Except, it's kind of hard to
discriminate between Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda right now.
\_ Actually, I was wrong about the timing. Nick was beheaded
on Saturday. Nevertheless, I think this was a calculated
move on the part of foreign insurgents in Iraq (i.e.,
Al Qaeda) to stir up precisely the sort of anger against
Iraqis we're seeing here. Their hope is that this will
drive a wedge between the Iraqis and US troops who have,
to this point, been trying to bridge the gap.
\_ The U.S. found his body on Saturday. I guess it's hard
to believe the insurgents kept his corpse for a week.
Naturally, anti-U.S. forces killed Nick Berg and released
the video as an act of terror.
\_ It's always good to know which congressmen would be happier if the
American public were more ignorant. If we don't know bad things are
happening, they they really didn't happen, right? Ooo shiny..
\_ So what do we know about this Nick Berg guy? Who was he there
working for? Why was he 'detained' by the US for over a week? It
was hard to tell from the news if he was even there legally or was
just some random idiot who decided he was going to Iraq for his own
random reasons. Does anyone know for real what he was doing there
and who sent him, if anyone? |
| 2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30150 Activity:very high |
5/10 Why do Republicans only support sodomy when it is nonconsensual?
http://csua.org/u/793
\_ NO COOKIE! Play Again(Y/n)? ___
\_ This sounds like a troll except it is true - it's hard to find
a popular conservative who is not defending the tortures. (Yes,
\_ Those who do are partisan hacks with no core. Your link appears to
be down, BTW.
it is torture. Whenever we accuse other countries of doing it we
always call it torture instead of abuse, hazing, or emotional
release. And no, they didn't cut off anything. On the other
hand, our arab and muslim allies have been cutting parts of
prisoner and our goverment has been very supportive. Amputation
is a tradtional punishment in Arab and Muslim countries and it
is not usually used for interrogation, with which torture is
usually but nonexlusively associated.)
\_ There's no sin in it if you don't enjoy it.
\_ Bend over and think of Iraq!
\_ Those who do are partisan hacks with no core.
\_ How did you infer this from the article you mentioned? If you want
to help pick on Republicans, at least use a better example.
\_ Inhofe is one of the most outspoken anti-gay activists in
Congress. I assumed that readers would know that.
\_ 'Inhofe, who visited Iraq in March, is described on his senatorial
Web site as a leading conservative voice in the Senate,
advocating "common sense Oklahoma values including less
government, less regulation, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility
and a strong national defense."'
He's not a Repub, he's a Libertarian.
\_ never mind the fact that "less government, lower taxes" are
directly opposed to "strong national defense." -tom
\_ bzzzt! Libertarians are in favor of a strong nation defense.
They understand, unlike most leftists, that without a strong
military, the long term survival odds for your country are
exactly zero.
\_ No facts! Anyone not with us is against us! --JFK
\_ "If you are not with us you are with the terrorists." -GWB
When did JFK say that? Oh, that's right, he didn't.
\_ He is registered and elected as a republican. He is a republican
senator.
\_ Hey, let's take it easy on "our heroes." They probably don't have
Skinamax or the Playboy channel, so they are forced to get the
murderous, terrorist insurgents to act out Oklahoman heterosexual
fantasies lest the cornfed troops get urges to lather each other
up in the showers and betray the American God's Laws by thinking
homoerotic thoughts. Hmm. Let's whip the savages some more Sarge!
\_ Sweet! That was so off topic and unrelated to anything in the
real world yet managed to stereotype and disparage so many
millions of people you've never met that you really should get
sort of motd award. Maybe for Most Racist, Frothing, Thought He
Was Clever, But Is Really A Drooler Reinforced By Other Motd
Droolers post of the hour?
\_ I rool! |
| 2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30050 Activity:high |
5/6 Now THIS is hilarious. 2000 election results ranked by average IQ:
http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm
\_ Assuming this is accurate... have you ever noticed how common sense
seems to vary inversely with IQ?
\_ No. Your hypothesis is flawed. That said, I mostly just thought
this was funny and in no way illuminates any real truth. IQ
data is notoriously bad in all sorts of ways and shouldn't
be a basis for any kind of policy. --op
\_ Though you really have to be a little challenged to vote for
people who back fiscal policies that directly or indirectly
hurt you.
\_ yeah, it's very hard to believe that there are three states
with averages over 110, and five states with averages under 90
\_ Have you ever actually been to those states? I have,
and I don't find it that hard to believe. |
| 2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:30047 Activity:high |
5/6 Guys guys, PLEASE!!! 1 or 2 political posts are ok, but 8-10 posts
on why Bush sucks, how his rating's decr, what he's doing wrong,
that even the Rep. are losing faith, etc etc. is just too much.
Most of the Sodans already hate eBush and are not gonna vote
for him anyways, why not post something interesting and original?
We have enough trash and spam to deal with already, please be nice
and stop the motd spam.
\_ learn to ignore shit if you don't want to read it.
\_ Learn how to nuke the motd. |
| 2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:30033 Activity:high |
5/5 Does apple education store charge sales tax/shipping for CA? thx.
\_ When I bought an iBook, shipping was free, but I did have to
pay tax.
\_ Yes, for recent G5 purchase. Funny, while you are filling out
your order, sales tax doesn't show up, but after you click
the "buy" button, it's all tacked on to your bill. I ended up
going over my apple loan limit. It makes one appreciate
http://amazon.com's checkout process.
\_ This happened when I bought a refurbished G5. I'd managed to
talk my wife into the expense, and then the bill showed up
with an addition couple hundred tacked on. That really pissed
me off. |
| 2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29991 Activity:moderate |
5/4 On Cheney (Guardian UK): http://csua.org/u/76f \- i wish that had been a better article. the success of dick cheney is a product of people valuing niceness over principle ... "well he might be an evil fucker, but he is nice to me" --psb |
| 2004/5/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:18852 Activity:very high |
5/1 The 1st Amend says we can't abridge right to free political
speech. How did this come to mean we have to air well-tuned
propaganda on our national airways? When did corporations begin to
be counted as people for the purpose of free speech? If you want to
go the Founding Fathers route, remember that they had no clue that
we would spawn an entire industry devoted to creating need for
products (and, by extension, candidates). I'm not a Communist, but
I don't think you should get a bigger voice just because you make
more money.
\_ Sure, now figure out how to craft a law properly to make this happen.
What we had passed recently clearly doesn't work for a number of
reasons that have been stated already. -- ilyas
\_ It was a step in the right direction and a foot in the door.
Let's put some pressure on that opening and wedge our way in.
\_ Except a bad law is a step backwards, not forward. It is
unlikely to be repealed, and will degrade political freedom
in the US. I give no points for trying badly. -- ilyas
\_ I get where it didn't stop up all of the gaps, but even
reading back through Kai's motd, I have no idea where
this degradation of political freedom bit is justified.
\_ You haven't been reading kaismotd very carefully.
-- ilyas
\_ Sorry, o venerable Ilyas, but this wisdom remains
opaque to me. Your reputation for being cranky,
however, is beginning to make sense.
\_ It's too bad people never tell me things to my
face (i.e. sign their names), with the possible
exception of Mr. Holub's famous 'you are an idiot'
line, although in his case I suspect he had
forgotten how to say anything else... -- ilyas
\_ you have to ask yourself why signing posts
is useful. i very strongly believe that it
is non-useful, and that the main motivation
for signing is ego. before you start blathering
about "accountability", let me point out that
first of all most people on the motd don't
know eacher in real life, so my knowing that
you are "ilyas" means nothing, and second of
all, signed posts are not verifiable in any
way and can be easily abused. Finally,
signed posts lead directly to ad hominem
attacks which are just pointless(see above).
also, when people post anonymosely, they can
argue random sides of an issue to explore
different ideas rather than declare a personal
side of the issue and duke it out as a partisain
flame war. and no, i'm not the guy giving
you a hard time in the above section of this
thread.
\_ Is this just a freeper trying to make liburals look bad?
\- if you ask a more pointed question, i may be able to answer
in part. you raise too many issues. 1st amd law does distinguish
between commercial speech and political speech ... it would be
much tougher for a zoning law to be written that would disallow
you to put "vote for X" sign in your front yard than "buy
marlboro cigarettes". --psb |
| 2004/4/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:13451 Activity:insanely high Edit_by:auto |
4/28 GOP'ers: How does the party's platform on Native Americans jibe with
the current California initiative to tax the Indian casinos?
http://csua.org/u/743 (GOP Platform, search for Native Americans)
\_ Uh... 100%? I see no problem with taxing those doing extremely
well with their casinos. The poor tribes (those without casinos)
get almost nothing from the rich tribes. I can go on at some
length on the topic but really I don't see any non-jibing. How
much do you really know about tribes in CA vs. tribes in other
states and exactly what we owe or do not owe any of them? What do
you really know about the rich vs poor tribes, conditions on the
different reservations or anything else? You need to pick a topic
you're much better informed about if you want to poke a stick in
someone's eye and make some trolling motd political points.
\_ GOP Platform says:
"Political self-determination and economic self-sufficiency
are twin pillars of an effective Indian policy." and
"High taxes and unreasonable regulations stifle new and
expanded businesses and thwart the creation of job
opportunities and prosperity."
Explain to me how taxing Indian casinos jibes with these two
planks of the GOP platform. And you can take your ad hominem
and shove it up your ass.
\_ ITYM "jives"
\_ dict jive
dict jibe
you are incorrect. |
| 2004/4/23 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13344 Activity:nil |
4/23 American Idol: Racism or not?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/23/tv.americanidol.ap/index.html |
| 2004/4/22 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13338 Activity:nil |
4/22 Greetings CHE GUEVARA, I heard you might be interested in either
purchasing a new BERKELEY CA home, or a Refi at 333 SODA HALL 1776.
Johnson and Robinson Services can be a cordially free help to you.
-- Sylvia Hosking <sylviahosking@cheerfulassuagement.com> |
| 2004/4/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:13334 Activity:moderate 62%like:13330 |
4/22 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2985728.stm [mr. t ?. Right On! ... duz he gots' some carea' somewhere?] --psb \_ A bit uh Mr. T. trivia: afta' de A-Team, Mr. T. nearly died uh one uh dose ho'rible degenerative diseases. He survived and recovered but dun didn't wo'k fo' many many years durin' dat time and blew most uh his bre'd on treatment and simple daily livin'. Mr. T. gots'ta only recently started wo'kin' again as some mino' characta' in some numba' of shows/movies. He gots'ta done some lot uh charity wo'k ova' de years, mostly fo' childhood "fuck down yo' whole life" diseases. --Mr. T. #1 Fan \_ Little knode Mr. T fact: back in 1984, Mr. T reco'ded some album of incredibly stereotypical electro-funk-rap, sindesiza' solos included. It be called "Mr. T's Be Somebody (Or Be Somebody's Fool)" and features Mr. T "rappin'" about how pea' pressho' nuff be bad-ass and ya' should treat yo' moda' right. Must be heard t'be recon'd. \_ I am curious. Is there more than one person who thinks rendering threads unreadable this way is funny or is it just a single person? -- ulysses \_ Post link. Right On! PLEASE. Right On! \_ http://www.inzenity.com/mrt/index.html (Ice-T wuz producer, apparently) \_ Maybe if youse lucky, I'll put it down fo' waaay download tonight. Meanwhile, try Soulseek. Dat's where ah' found it. ah' doubt de RIAA gots'ta spank ya' fo' dis one. \_ Dat's right, de RIAA wants's ya' t'respect yo' mama. Sheeeiit. \_ I would really like to see a Mr. T & Gary Coleman buddy movie. It could even have a Thunderdome scene where Gary rides on Mr. T's sholders and directs him to kill things. Oh yeah. What chu talking about, Foo'? \_ If that movie could have Gary Busey and Ken Foree in supporting roles, it would be the Best Movie Ever. \_ Someone call the movie studios! We've got a hit on our hands, and it'll be really cheap to make. $4 an actor and a black van rental! |
| 2004/4/22 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13330 Activity:nil 62%like:13334 |
4/22 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2985728.stm [mr. t ?! ... does he have a career somewhere?] --psb \_ A bit of Mr. T. trivia: after the A-Team, Mr. T. nearly died of one of those horrible degenerative diseases. He survived and recovered but didn't work for many many years during that time and blew most of his money on treatment and simple daily living. Mr. T. has only recently started working again as a minor character in a number of shows/movies. He has done a lot of charity work over the years, mostly for childhood "fuck up your whole life" diseases. --Mr. T. #1 Fan \_ Proof that polls are retarded! \_ Little known Mr. T fact: back in 1984, Mr. T recorded an album of incredibly stereotypical electro-funk-rap, synthesizer solos included. It's called "Mr. T's Be Somebody (Or Be Somebody's Fool)" and features Mr. T "rapping" about how peer pressure is bad and you should treat your mother right. Must be heard to be believed. \_ Post link! PLEASE! \_ Maybe if you're lucky, I'll put it up for download tonight. Meanwhile, try Soulseek. That's where I found it. I doubt the RIAA will spank you for this one. \_ That's right, the RIAA wants you to respect yo' mama. |
| 2004/4/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13256 Activity:nil |
4/18 If one is already living in California, what more does it take to
become a resident?
\_ Not sure, but these are the rules the UC plays by:
http://registrar.berkeley.edu/ssvc.html
\_ No, it is different for voting than for UC residency.
\_ Driver's License, Voter Registration, pay Utility bills, Library
Card. Oh, and a couple of years.
\_ I had all these but UC still turned down my in-state
residency application. Reason? I was out of state for
family reunion during Xmas.
\_ How did they know? Did you move out?
\_ credit card statements are often requested as
the burden of proof.
\_ So you're not allowed to leave California even on
vacation? There's a very solid lawsuit in this for
you if you can demonstrate that this was the sole
reason they denied you resident prices.
\_ " Your intent will be questioned if you return
to your prior state of residence when the
University is not in session."
\_ Yup, that was the only reason they gave me.
The guy was an asshole about it too. He said,
"you are lucky I didn't ask you to show proof
over spring break and Thanksgiving."
\_ Call a lawyer. You should be able to make back
the difference, assuming that was the only
reason.
\_ This has been a requirement for residency for
at least 10 years, probably much longer. What
makes you think there is anything illegal
about it?
\_ The UC determines your residency status on
where they think you will live after you
graduate. If you spend every holiday away
from California, they rightly think you are
just trying to rip off the California taxpayer.
I am curious, did you stay in state after
you graduated?
\_ One interesting note is that if you attended a CA high school for
more than 3 years and leave the state, you are still entitled to
resident tuition fees vs. out of state. This is working for me
since I graduated Berkeley moved out of state and am now moving
back to do a graduate program.
\_ If you pay taxes for two years equivalent to the taxes you would
pay if you made $20K in income, you can gain resident status.
\_ Marry. No, seriously, if you marry in California, you gain instant
residence in the eyes of the UC. I imagine they don't check nearly
as rigorously as the INS does for green cards. |
| 2004/4/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13246 Activity:nil 50%like:33208 |
4/16 Why gamers don't vote:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-04-14&res=l |
| 2004/4/15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:13213 Activity:nil |
4/14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14444-2004Apr15.html This is a fairly good run down on S. Korea's recent election. It's mainly interesting because most American's assume that this means Koreans are turning anti-American and pro N. Korean. Which is true to some degree, but my wife (who is Korean) belives this has more to do with a backlash against GNP corruption, and the Uri Party (Roh Moon Hyun's party) being realitively anti-corrution. Impeaching the president really went over badly for the GNP. -jrleek \_ when did you get married? \_ 1/31/2004. You can see a picture or 2 of my wife on my csua webpage. -jrleek BTW, who's asking? \_ congrats! -dwc |
| 2004/4/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/HateGroups] UID:13197 Activity:nil 61%like:13196 |
4/14 What media bias?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38027
\_ I can't believe he's not going for the double-brass-ring and
calling for both Byrd and Dodd to resign.
\_ If a Republican praised an ex-KKK Republican member of the
Senate, we would not hear the end of it. But the liberal
media will pass on this story.
\_ Damn that liberal media! -- ulysses
\_ Yes, actually damn them. They have already destroyed all
credibility the media once had with the American people.
\_ Why isn't the liberal media all over the story of a FORMER KKK
MEMBER BEING IN THE US SENATE? Don't you think that's maybe
a slightly more egregious offense than generic praise of someone
who used to be in the KKK? It's not comparable to the Lott
comments--Lott's comments were specifically about how racist
policies might have been better. -tom
\_ I am a liberal, and I really don't like Lott. However, I
don't think that was the intent of his comments at all, and
I believe he was unfairly attacked for it. The republicans
decided to crucify him to make their party as a whole
appear to be something other than it is: a haven for racists
in general, and for poor whites in the south who vote against
their economic interests in particular.
\_ You fergot our guns! Yep yep yep yep yep! "We're gonna get
those Duke boys this time! Aren't we Flash!!??"
\_ Yawn, Republicans = evil. Democrats = good. See? That's
so much shorter to type and it's all you had to say.
\_ You mean ol' Strom? His views evolved over many years and
he publicaly renounced racism. Lott implied recently that
he supported segragation.
\_ According to the article, Byrd the ex-KKK member had to
apologize for using the "n-word" in a Tony Snow interview.
I'm not saying there are no racist Republicans. I am saying
this public praise for a former KKK member by a Democrat
will not be endlessly paraded as an example of Democratic
racism, the way it would be if the praise for a former
KKK member came from a Republican.
\_ you think every time Strom Thurmond was praised that
it was "endlessly paraded as an example of Republican
racism"? Be serious. -tom
\_ Do a google on "racist strom"
\_ I see nothing other than references to Lott. I
suppose it's possible that no one else praised
Strom in the 50+ years he was in the senate. -tom
\_ Lott's mistake was claiming Strom should have
become president when he ran, as a
segregationalist. This Dem. says this other
senator should have been a leader when he was
a segregationalist. (And a pro-slaver)
That's why this is the same mistake as Lott's. |
| 2004/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:29915 Activity:nil 54%like:29908 |
4/11 "My prediction: Bush will take California and win in a landslide."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4709863 |
| 2004/4/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:13109 Activity:nil |
4/8 I'm driving up to Seattle/Vancouver on Sunday just for kicks. Any
suggestions of places to stop on the way? So far I've been recommended
the Tulip Festival in Skagit (tulipfestival.org).
\_ I'm leaving Sunday and have to be in Seattle on Tuesday, so like
the person below says... I am sort of "blasting" through. However,
I would like to make a 3-4 detour either through a national forest,
quaint town, or something like that. The suggestions below are all
great... much appreciated.
\_ errr ... that's a very long drive with literally hundreds
of places on the way worth visiting.
\_ yes, that's teh problem, so much to do, so little time.
http://traveloregon.com is a pretty good site.
\- helo if you are interested in geology, there are some
interesting locations in eastern oregon to drive through
rather than blasting up 5. but yeah, you have to put
more on the table for meaningful feedback.
\_ If you're going through Portland, I recommend stopping at
Powell's bookstore. I've been told it's the biggest bookstore.
\_ Powell's rocks. Also in Portland is the nickel arcade
(very cheap arcade games) and Dot's, a dive-y bar with
a sock monkey tree. I recommend the Lime Rickey. -brain
\_ An arcade? give me a break...
\_ Redwood national forest on the border btw Oregon and CA, and
some volcanic lake the name of which I forgot somewhat more inland.
These things stand out on any map so I guess maybe you are not
into nature things if you bothered to ask.
\_ Crater Lake. It's cool. I think it's a National Park.
\_ I was thinking about going here. What's it like? Big holes
in the ground, volcanic ash?
\_ It's a beautiful deep blue lake that is very deep. It's
surrounded by a cliff rim all the way around that drops
several hundred feet to the lake surface. There's a
funny little island in the middle you can take a boat out
to. You can also hike up to some of the little peaks
around the rim.
\_ Portland's rose garden is nice, though probably not so much so this
time of year.
\_ The Bridgeport Brewery in Portland:
http://www.bridgeportbrew.com/bp-brewery.html
Free tours at 2 and 5 daily.
\_ don't forget to pick up danh on your way back
\_ Lake Shastina. Say hi to Ponch while you're there. |
| 5/27 |