| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/27 |
| 2005/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/BayArea] UID:38397 Activity:high |
7/1 Economy's good in Republican states: http://tinyurl.com/9o829 \_ Fuck God, fuck Texas, and fuck you. \_ How about your Buddy Jesus? Come on, you can't be mad at your good ole Buddy Jesus? His old man is just upset because some of the uppity kids at work won't listen to him. He'll get over it. Hey who's yer pal? Who's your friend? Your Buddy Jesus! \_ War profiteering is good business, too. \_ No to mention all those homeland security dollars going to red states with nothing for terrorists to target. \_ Red states tend to have lower taxes and lower costs of living. I'd be better off working in Texas with a 10% pay cut than in Cali. \_ That's because California living costs have lost all touch with reality. You could take a 10% pay cut and have a higher standard of living by moving to any other blue state as well (excluding New York City, but there you salary would go way up anyway.) \_ Not sure about that. Places like Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, and Hawaii are very expensive. Pretty much anywhere with a big city that isn't in The South. I was in Denver on business and was surprised to see houses are costing $500K there, too, and they make less $$$. You might get more for your money there, but California seems like a bargain given all the other advantages of living here. \_ And what are all these advantages you speak of? \_ Weather, people, geography, culture (museums, shows, etc.), educational institutions, restaurants, and so on. You can get almost anything you want here locally. This is true in, say, NYC, but not in most places. A place like Phoenix or Idaho is cheap, but totally blows. \_ But then you'd have to hang out with all those damn Texans... \_ Who are *far* nicer on average than the people in the SF area. \_ http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4127&n=3 \_ Ugh, I hate LA so much. You couldn't pay me to settle down here. People and culture indeed. -- ilyas \_ Seconded. If I could take a job in a decent place for salary X or in LA for salary 2X, I'd take the X. \_ You are experiencing the idiocy that is Westwood/Santa Monica. Lots of people went to Berkeley and thus think the Bay Area is a shithole, too, based on Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose and limited experiences in SF. \_ Third that. I lived in LA and orange county. \_ LACMA, The Huntington, The Guggenheim, The Getty, MOCA, The Norton Simon... Have you ever left campus? \_ Have you been to the greater LA area? It's full of diversity nowadays, Little Taipei, Little Saigon, Little Bombai, not to mention Japantown, Koreatown, etc. Also, there's quite a bit of counter-culture as well. Maybe not as much as Berkeley, but it's not lacking. LA's main prob., imo, is the lack of a real "city-climate." That's something that SF & NY have in spades. LA is too "sprawling," with cultural pockets spread between vast wastelands of suburbia. \_ SF is a tiny city that feels big. LA is a massive city that feels small. This is because LA has no real center. I sometimes take out-of-town guests around and they say 'Is that downtown?' when we pass Glendale, Century City, Universal City, Westwood, and so on. Each of those enclaves is a city unto itself by the standards of most Americans. \_ SF is a tiny city that feels big. LA is a massive city that feels small. This is because LA has no real center. I sometimes take out-of-town guests around and they say 'Is that downtown?' when we pass Glendale, Century City, Universal City, Westwood, and so on. Each of those enclaves is a city unto itself by the standards of most Americans. \_ agreed. There's downtown. But there's not much there worth seeing. Nothing else is really centered around it, either. \_ Downtown has Chinatown and Little Tokyo. There's also Exposition Park and MOCA. The Jewelry District often appeals to women. The Biltmore is pretty historic and there are some good restaurants. \_ Sure, but none of these is high on the list of things people want to see: For general interest, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, etc. >> Chinatown; Rodeo, Melrose >> Jewelry District; Getty, LACMA, Huntington >> MOCA. I'm speaking in general terms, obviously, as all the places you mention have great qualities that make them worth visiting. Just most of them get out-shone by other things elsewhere in the greater LA area, which is the general trend I was pointing out. cf. what's avail. near SF or NY downtown. \_ Northern Californians like to rag on LA, but LA is a lot closer to SF/NY than it is to, well, just about every other city in the country. Certainly by any cultural measure it's in the top 5 even if you're being hard on it; it's ahead of the Bay Area in theater and visual arts. -tom \_ Given the huge density of actors, writers, and almost every other Hollywood-related profession in the Los Angeles area, it isn't exactly a surprise that LA is ahead in theater. The visual arts is likely because there are so many more affordable places to rent gallery space. \_ It's not a surprise, but it's a reality. It's cheap to rent gallery space in Des Moines but that hasn't made Iowa a cultural powerhouse. -tom \_ There may also be some synergy betw. acting and other creative arts. \_ Of course there is. Also, a lot goes into making a film other than acting. Set design, storyboard artists, and others have lots of artistic talent. \_ The creative arts seems to be flourishing in LA much better than in the Bay Area, except for the acapella scene. But I think the reason for that is that in LA, anyone with enough talent to do good acapella can actually work in the music industry and actually get paid. \_ Speaking as a huge fan of The Bobs, the rest of the "a capella scene" can bite me. Most a capella groups are basically karaoke with better singers, and singers are a dime a dozen. -tom \_ Out of curiousity, I wonder if you've come across my friends, Clockwork. they opened for the Bob's last F&S show (iirc). Nearly all original charts, some original songs, and I think they're pretty damn tight. --scotsman \_ Haven't heard them, no; I was out of town for the last Bobs show. -tom \_ Ignoring CoL for the moment, wouldn't be you better off with that 10% cut somewhere w/ higher taxes? Then you'd drop into a lower tax bracket, pay (proportionally) less in taxes than you would in the low-tax region, and thus have lost less than 10%. \_ Unless you run into AMT territory because of the higher state tax deduction, and end up getting screwed twice \_ Having lived in DC and LA, I would have to agree that traffic in DC is indeed worse than LA. \_ Regardless of the posts above, LA traffic sucks. If you have to go through 405 or other parts of LA that you must go through, you'll be happy to move at 5MPH. Want to go to LACMA or Getty or whatever you think is cool? Try to get there first. You may have to leave 2-3 hours in advance. \_ what about taking the rtd a.k.a. mta... or metro ??? j/k.. being a minority (asian), being in l.a. or the bay area is so much better than most places... i heard that in the south, minorities get ignored (as if the minority was non-human) in stores and shops.. \_ Having lived in DC and LA, I would have to agree that traffic in DC is indeed worse than LA. \_ Sure, LA traffic sucks. Got any other newsflashes? Traffic in every big city sucks. I think LA's freeway system is better than most. I shudder to think what many other large cities will be like when they reach 13 million people. LA is designed around the automobile unlike, say, DC. \_ Having lived in DC and LA, I would have to agree that traffic in DC is indeed worse than LA. \_ this reminds me of a stat I heard once. Some people complain that LA is just one big network of freeways. However, if you calculate miles of freeway lanes per resident, LA ranks 45th in the nation or something. \_ Cruisin' down the street(s) in my 6-fo' Jackin' the bitches, slappin' the ho's Went to the park to get the scoop Knuckle-heads out there cold shootin' some hoo's A car pulls up, who can it be? A fresh elkomino rolly Kilo G He rolls down his window and he started to say It's all about makin' that GT A Cuz the boyz in de hood are alwayz hard You come talkin' that trash we'll bull your car Knowin' nothin' in life but to be legit' Don't quote me boy, cuz I ain't sayin' shit ... |
| 2005/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/SW/Security] UID:38384 Activity:high |
6/30 Whenever I watch celebrity news I hear so and so is guilty in the
court and have to perform community service. They don't get fined or
go to jail, but have to perform community service. What's so bad
about serving your community? I mean, isn't it noble to serve food
for the homeless, paint houses for the poor, and clean up highways
trash? Imagine the United States drafting men between 18-25 to
perform mandatory community service for just one year. We'd
have a huge [free] labor force to clean up grafitti, recycle
cans, and other wonderful things that make our community more
beautiful. In our ever increasingly busy digital lives, we rarely
have time to even help ourselves, let alone help others out. We
are increasingly isolated from one another, and have very little
understanding on this "sense of community" that our grandparents
talked about. Perhaps incentives and rewards should be given to
those that help our community, to make everyone's lives better.
Community service is an honor performed by those who honor community
and brotherhood. It is sad and ironic that criminals have the honor
to serve our community. Just my two cents for today. -2 cents guy
\_ For reasons I won't elaborate on, I had to spend some time cleaning
up trash with the other "community service" people in People's
Park at one point. There is actually a pretty huge pool of
people who have "community service" hours to do at any given time.
Several of the people there had 1000 hours of service they had to
do. I was, as far as I could tell, the only person there who was
actually working. Mostly people would just show up and loaf around
all day, then get double that number of hours signed off for by
the dude who runs the park. If the dude who runs any given park
doesn't want to be corrupt, people just migrate somewhere where
it *is* corrupt. Of all those community service hours that get
handed out by judges, very little real service gets done (although
I busted ass cleaning up the park).
\_ This is a fairly old idea. This was called a 'subbotnik' in
USSR (only this was done on Saturdays, hence the name 'subbota =
saturday'.) You should ask someone who participated in a subbotnik
what they think of it. -- ilyas
\_ why didn't you participate in a subbotnik?
\_ I was too young. -- ilyas
\_ Switzerland requires you to serve the military or perform
substitute service (community service). Maybe John can tell
you all about it.
\_ Yes, and it's pointless, a waste of money, bad for the
economy (by forcing people to take a large, unproductive
gap between school and work, and by forcing employers,
including SMEs, to subsidize long absences), and exposes
young men to drugs and cigarettes. In the abasence of
enemies or funding for all these recruits, there are many
make-work projects to occupy the ~60% or so who don't
manage to get out of it. It's state slavery; totally
pointless and philosophically repulsive. -John
\_ One might obtain a somewhat less grim view of such matters by
looking at the Works Projects Administration established in the
US during the great depression. I believe modern Germany has a
similar program where one may choose between military or
`alternative' civilian service, but don't know much about it.
Also, why constrain this sort of thing to men only? That seems
backwards and silly. That said, if you're going to encourage
community service, I don't think picking up trash and cleaning
up graffiti are particularly inspiring tasks or the most useful
application of that sort of workforce. What made the WPA cool
was that it took on really ambitious projects. Even if you take
all this into account, I don't know how much it's going to do
for instilling a sense of community in people. I know there's a
geographic component to this: Many of my grandparents'
present-day friends are people they grew up with on the same
*block* in Brooklyn. They joined the service together. After
the war they settled on Long Island together. In their later
years, part of the group moved to the same communities in
Florida. Of your friends today, how many lived on the same
street you did when you were young? Do you still keep in touch
with your friends from high school? Personally, I think my
sense of community is as strong as my grandparents, just
oriented along different axes (e.g. cultural vs. geographic).
-dans
\_ I think the CCC also did something similar in the same time
frame.
\_ Why community service? Because we supposively live in a classless
society. Billioniares pay the same amount for a moving violation
as the average Joe. Community service forces the culprit to give
up time, which means the rich don't get off easy and the poor
aren't forced to pay fines. Both beat jail which puts the burden
on society. All of this is separate from enforcing a draft
(military or community works) or volunteerism. Much of the
reasons behind why not lay with the relationship of citizens and
government and society in general. And those discussions get ugly.
\_ Where is the claim made that we live in a classless society?
There have never been, and perhaps never will be a classless
society. -- ilyas
\_ I never claimed it was a classless society in reality.
It's just one of those things that American democracy
aims for. Probably a silly thing to put in the motd...
\_ I think the best you can say along these lines is
American society was in part a rejection of solidified
class lines of European society. I don't think the
founding fathers were specifically aiming to create a
classless society, merely to reject aristocracy in the
European conception of the word. Classless society is
probably impossible, and almost certain undesirable,
as a goal. Even an ant colony has 'classes.' -- ilyas
\_ Yes, and we should never seek to surpass the utopian
efficiency and elegance of ant society.
\_ If you seriously want to make men into an
ant colony, you should read Hellstrom's Hive.
Also, a certain quote from John involving a baseball
bat comes to mind. Do you actually maintain American
society has a classless society as an explicit goal?
Do you have a source for this claim, or are you just
making stuff up to suit your agenda? -- ilyas
\_ I think you were trolled. -John
\_ I think you're being needlessly pedantic.
"classless" in the context of government applies
to equal treatment under the law, one-person-one-
vote, etc. I think this type of classlessness is
an explicit goal of American society; that people
have equal opportunity etc. --!op
\_ When someone talks about a 'classless society,'
especially if they talk about ant colonies
being utopian in the same breath,
I understand them to be using the common
definition the Marxists use. I don't think
I am being pedantic at all, I think you
misunderstood the previous poster. -- ilyas
\_ I didn't write the "ant" comment, but I did
write the original "classless society" one.
The original thought was towards the equal
treatment of Man under law as opposed to
a more communistic "equality of Man" ideal.
The followup use of "American democracy"
was an attempt to point in that direction.
Apologies to those who may have been misled.
\_ What kind of "classes" do chimpanzees have?
\_ Chimpanzees have a society? (Actually, to the extent that
great apes are social animals and live in hierarchies you
may well say they have 'classes.' So do wolves. An
interesting question I thought about recently is why do
all functional wolf packs have at least one Omega).
-- ilyas
all functional wolf packs have at least one Omega).-- ilyas
\- I have discovered a remarkable proof for this but:
(0. Hola)
1. it requires the Axiom of Choice
2. the motd is too small to contain it.
3. ok tnx. |
| 2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:38318 Activity:high |
6/27 God, I really envy the Japs. Why don't we have something like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/06/27/bt.japan.bullet.train.ap
\_ Japan has a much higher population density?
\_ You can't compare Japan to the US; you should compare to
California, or the eastern seaboard. Obviously you can't
support bullet rail in Wyoming, but California has plenty of
population density and travel to do so. -tom
\_ Japan also doesn't have the kinds of politics the US does.
http://tinyurl.com/7myk2 -- I recall midwesthsr being
throttled by every 2-bit politician wanting a stop in his
town in return for voting for it, sort of like the Washington
airport expressway. By the way, the pic on that tinyurl link
is of a Zurich commuter train--very un-high speed. -John
\_ Japan is not at all comparable to California. Try flying
above the CA coast and looking down vs. the same in Japan.
Japan is smaller than CA and 3.5x the population.
\_ Hmmm, I wonder how a bullet train from SF to LA would do?
\_ There is a proposal for it, which of course the airlines
are fighting tooth and nail. They killed a similar
project in Texas. I think a high-speed rail connection
between SF and LA, with downtown embarcation, would
be heavily used. -tom
\_ As someone who hates airports and flying with a passion,
I think this country could use more high speed rail.
-- ilyas
\_ Who do you expect to pay for the infrastructure to
build this high speed rail, oh libertarian?
\_ Charitable donations from Republicans, of course.
Big corporations rip off average consumers so
that they can make big donations to the poor.
All heil Waltons, Bushs, and Gates -Libertarian
\_ "The train is expected to make the 360 mile trip between
Tokyo and Aomori --about the distance between San Fran-
cisco and Los Angeles -- within three hours ..."
\_ Population density:
San Francisco: 16,632 per sq. mi.
Los Angeles: 7,990 per sq. mi.
Tokyo: 33,617 per sq. mi.
\_ California is not as populus as Japan, but it is as
populus as many places which have extensive rail networks.
-tom
\_ Whatever. My numbers were for cities. Also, high-speed
rail needs local city transportation as well, else no
one will ride if they can't get the last 1-5 miles.
\_ Yeah, that is why no one is willing to fly
\_ Yeah, that is why no one is willing to fly in
airplanes. They can't get out of the airport.
\_ I remember an article in the SFCron a few
years ago that driving to LA from SF was
superior to flying. It took less time, and
you had a car when you got there.
\_ Grammatical question for you. How do you know when to say
"Japan has much higher population" and "Japan has A much higher
population"? Ditto with "the" and others.
\_ Yermom has rabies.
Yermom has a cold.
Yermom has the mumps.
There are general rules, but sometimes you just have to
remember.
\_ I seem to remember that when I was a kid people used to
say "the Ukraine", but now the "the" has disappeared.
What's that about? Any Ukrainians want to comment?
\_ I think the difference is that now Ukraine is a
country, rather than an area of Russia. On the
other hand, I still say, "the Ukraine." Maybe it
should be Ukrania?
\_ Plural vs. singular. In this case "Japan has higher
population density" would be incorrect; "population density"
is singular and requires the "a". Population is also properly
singular. Unless it's the verb form.
\_ Yes, let's envy those whom we deride with racial slurs!
\_ I remember an article in the SFCron a few
years ago that driving to LA from SF was
superior to flying. It took less time, and
you had a car when you got there.
\- i am surprised SF-LA train proposals have
found any "traction" at all [that really
was unintentional]. i am not sure what
problem it solves. it seems to me the only
people it is good for is people near the LA
terminus wo want to come to downtown SF for
a few days. how much would a SF<->LA fast
train ticket cost ... actual cost [without
weird cross subsidies] and what would the
out of pocket ticket price?
\_ The problem it solves is that flying is
a pain in the ass. Taking the train is
fun. -tom
\- do you actually think that is a
serious answer? a fun choo-choo
train != multi-billion dollar rail
project. is a fast train more fun
than the Coast Starlight? you might
take a trian for fun, but that isnt
why you build one.
\_ Actually, yeah. I've both
flown from Seoul to Pusan (Korea), and taken the new
bullet train. The train is superior. It's more
comfortable (wieght is not such an issue), runs more
often, and you don't have to hang around the station for
an hour and a half before hand. Of course, that doesn't
mean it will be so nice here, but.. -jrleek
\_ Yes, let's envy those whom we deride with racial slurs! Is it
so hard to type out "Japanese"? |
| 2005/6/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38303 Activity:high |
6/24 Libertarian purity test.
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi
Feel free to post scores/interpretation. -- ilyas
\_ Alarm bells should go off in your head any time some ideology starts
trying to measure and compare the "purity" of its adherents.
Reasonable people do not measure their politics or philosophy on
a linear scale.
\_ Dear GOD, man. Is being a geek an ideology too? They have a
purity test. How about being gay? How about you get that
stick out of your ass? -- ilyas
stick out of your ass? The 'purity test' tradition is
an ancient part of Internet culture. -- ilyas
\_ 16. It called me a "soft-core libertarian", which I guess
is true in the same way The Princess Bride is soft-core porn.
If you score zero (meaning you approve of the current U.S.
system of government), it calls you a Nazi nut.
\_ Ditto here, with 30 points. The test is bunkum, as it makes, as
as with most such silliness, no allowance for shades of gray.
Plus, "anarcho-capitalist?" Nobody who calls him/herself a
libertarian that I know of would describe themselves as even
close to that. Bzzt, sorry, try again. -John
\_ It may be bunkum to you, but I find it useful as an estimate
(it's unbelievably fashionable among some people to proclaim
social liberalism and economic conservativism). For
\_ Does that make the stance any less valid? I don't see the
problem with "mind your own busineess and be responsible
when spending other peoples' money". -John
\_ Sure, but that quote you have in quotes is uninformative.
I have found when talking politics with my friends that
almost everybody sounds the same (reasonable). This is
because people have a tendency to not start with the
more controversial components of their beliefs when
discussing politics. This is why tests like this are
useful. John and I might sound superficially the same
when we start talking, but there's a huge difference
between a 30 and a 76. -- ilyas
\_ Why is it uninformative? I find that, no matter
how many shades of gray you have between extremes,
there's always a tipping point at which the majority
of educated individuals making up the center bit of
any bell curve will no longer see a certain bit of
politics as matching a given quality--this being
something like "responsible", "frugal", whatever. I
refuse to be drawn into a discussion of "one should
always do xyz", where "xyz" is some predefined
action like "cutting taxes by 50%". I believe that
it's the duty of said educated individuals to make
decisions and choices based on a well thought-out
moral and ethical foundation, and in careful
consideration of a particular situation. Otherwise
we could replace the constitution with some all-
encompassing decision matrix, couldn't we? I just
happen to have come to the conclusion that what I
put in quotes above works for me in most
situations. -John
\_ It's no more uninformative than that test is
an accurate measures of your political beliefs.
What I put in quotes above works for me most of the
time as a common-sense litmus test for most
political issues, while still letting me take into
account the particular situation. And frankly I
haven't found a "determine your political color"
test yet that I didn't find in any way valid or not
full of horseshit. -John
\_ That's because a real political test would
be extremely long and read like a philosophy
paper. At any rate, the 'purity test' might not
be a serious political test, but you can't compare
the information you get from it to your vague
platitute of:
"mind your own business and be responsible
when spending other peoples' money". Don't forget
to mention something about not eating kittens.
-- ilyas
paper. -- ilyas
\_ Why not? It's a basic "gut test" for looking
at politics, as opposed to an attempt to
simplistically quantify a wide range of topics
in a binary manner, which simply doesn't work.
I have a few fundamental ideals that I believe
in, which I consider when analyzing various
political situations. I find that gives me far
more satisfying answers than "should we sell
the federal government? Yes/No (if you answer
No, you need to work on your answers.)" -John
\_ Why not? Because that line has a wide WIDE
set of interpretations, many in conflict
with each other. At least with yes no
answers you get a rough idea of where you
are willing to bite the bullet. With what
you said, I get _no information_. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, we're arguing on two different
levels here. Of course my tenet is no
more than a "wide" political ideal. You
will not be able to divine how I will
vote on Prop X. from it. However, I
think it's entirely fair to state it as a
basis for making political decisions, as
opposed to a bunch of absolute answers
to nonsensical questions with no context
given whatsoever. To be honest, I think
that people who claim to have absolutely
sure and immovable convictions about such
topics without even bothering to consider
surrounding "real world" factors, border
on fanaticism. -John
calibration, my score was 76. Point about libertarians
vs A-C people, the test ought to be more properly called
the 'anti-government purity test.' If it wasn't obvious,
this wasn't a serious test, much like other purity tests.
A real test would be a moral philosophy test. -- ilyas
\_ A 76? Did you say we should abolish everything? I only
managed a 17 and I consider myself a conservative with
libertarian tendencies. -emarkp
\_ The only things I am _sure_ the government ought to
be responsible for is the army and the justice system.
I am also thinking about dbushong's idea of 'commons
rent,' which the government collects and uses to maintain
the commons. For instance, charging individuals
proportionally to the pollution they cause. -- ilyas
\_ What about government funded basic research? We
are still benefiting today from basic research done
at the Royal Society two hundred years ago, or for
that matter from Archimedes' research that Syracuse
paid for two thousand years go. Were they all
Looters as well? Are you a Looter?
\_ We're also benefitting from having wiped out the
Indians and seized their land.
\_ 7 -moderate
\_ 38 -nivra
\_ another 16. I hadn't remembered what a bunch of nutcases
the libertarians were. I *like* having regulators inspect
elevator safety, and don't trust the "marketplace" to take
care of that in the long run.
\_ 17. agreed.
\_ 12. Which system of philosophy advocates chemical castration and
utterly transparent financial records for all elected officials?
'Cos I'd vote for that. --erikred
\_ I find it ironic that the anti-government party uses a government
owned statue as its symbol. I got a 22, btw. -ausman
\_ 20. I am intrigued at how these guys expect some of the schemes to
work. I have heard of some of them but I'm not clear on for example
abolishing the state altogether and having private law and money.
Seems like this would involve joining private security groups, which
would probably end up being bullied by larger conglomerates. Anyway
libertarians seem to ignore certain realities such as environmental
concerns. Air and water pollution, and open space preservation for
example. Private entities might conceivably run a place like
Yosemite, but to maximize their profit they might do undesirable
things. I wonder what the monetary value of such places is. If
enough people interested in outdoors pooled resources they might
conceivably claim ownership I guess. But in general the wealthy
would be able to wield more power such as blocking the public from
various lakes etc.
As far as international involvement goes, sure it sounds good to
withdraw from everywhere but kind of ignores the possibility of
foreign states bent on empire. -- a moderate
\_ Did you read my post about 'commons rent?' Commons are an
acknowledged problem for _me_, I am sure it is for other
libertarians. -- ilyas
\_ No offense intended, but from the discussion above, it's apparent
that this is more aptly called the ilyas Purity Test.
(the closer you are to 76, the more you agree with ilyas) |
| 2005/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38282 Activity:nil |
6/24 Interesting. CA is one of a handful of states which have enacted
further eminent domain protections than the federal law requires.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506240150jun24,1,7295148.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
\_ Yeah, my reading is that states can define how much "for public use"
encompasses, and the Supreme Court will respect that. |
| 2005/6/23-8/18 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38266 Activity:nil |
6/23 The Blight of Eminent Domain
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5160
\_ As wild as the language used in the article is, I believe the author
does have a valid point. |
| 2005/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38243 Activity:nil |
6/22 Every year the House approves one of these idiotic flag burning
amendments, and every year the Senate lets it die. Is this the
most important thing that they could be doing?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning
\_ Was the Terry bill? They love looking like they're doing something.
\_ What's more important than rallying the base?
\_ they should attach it to one of the annual fund the troops
bills
\_ Amendments take a bit more than that to pass. |
| 2005/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38235 Activity:nil |
\6/22 Supercomputers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4111866.stm |
| 2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38240 Activity:moderate |
6/21 DeLay is just a good honest Republican:
http://csua.org/u/cgt (Yahoo news)
\_ Dan Rostenkowski, and Jim Wright, are good
honest Democrats too. Please! Both sides cheat,
the trick is not to get caught. If you don't know
who those two are, you are yet another person
who thinks politics extends back only to Clinton.
\_ The point is that he's the GOP House leader, and GOP folks
are more hypocritical / much less apologetic about corruption,
politicking, and screw-ups.
\_ Heh. -- ilyas
\_ Dan Rostenkowski, Jim Wright, and Jim Traficant are good
honest Democrats too. Please! Both sides cheat, the trick
is not to get caught. If you don't know who those three are
you are yet another person who thinks politics extends back
Clinton.
\_ Rostenkowski was what? Wright was what? Talk about less
apologetic - look at Traficant.
\_ Shock! Surprise! Politicians are all scummy! "Your politicians
are scummier than my politicians! nyah!" Whatever on all of you.
These sorts of "your guys are more corrupt and hypocritical than
my guys are corrupt and hypocritical" noise is sheer idiocy from
both parties. I vote for people who believe in what I believe in
not for a party.
\_ delay is much more powerful than rostenkowski or traficant
ever were. my memory doesn't go back far enough to comment
on wright. it is funny that the 5th in command
republican is such a slimeball. - danh |
| 2005/6/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:38124 Activity:moderate |
6/14 Even Alan Greenspan thinks the rich/poor gap in the United States is
becoming a big problem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050614/ts_csm/ataxing_1
\_ The dumbing down of the average American is NOT the core of the
wealth gap. The problem is that there are too many people
getting smarter, thus creating and keeping wealth that the average
American can't possibly have. The solution is to cut all
education programs and reduce F1/F2 skilled-worker VISAs from
India and China, which will hopefully reduce the educational and
income gap in the U.S. Wait, it's already happening thanks to the
guidance of our great President. Thank God and Bush for standing
up to evil. The Good and Righteous will always prevail. God Bless.
\_ You know, the Catholics have the Pope as the head figure. What
about the Jews? So I asked my best friend who's a Jew, and his
reply is that they have Alan Greenspan.
\_ -5 Lousy excuse for a troll.
\_ "America's powerful central banker hasn't suddenly lurched
to the left of Democratic National Committee chief Howard
Dean. His solution is better education today to create a
flexible workforce for tomorrow - not confiscation of
plutocrats' yachts."
I'm confused. When did Dean announce his yacht-confiscation plan?
\_ High taxes == no yachts, because rich people can't afford
lawyers to avoid taxes.
\_ I think he meant
Yacht confiscation != Progressive taxation to check the
wealth gap
You say the first thing if you're a Republican.
You say the latter if you're a Democrat.
\_ What's funny is that most of my entrepreneur friends
here have this ideal of America as a place where
people say "hey, he's rich, how can I be rich too?"
whereas in Europe people say "hey, he's rich, he
shouldn't be rich, that's not fair." How about
making it easier for the poor to, I don't know, make
more money? Given all the effort that goes into
coming up with taxation schemes, that might be an
idea, or am I just being hopelessly naive? -John
\_ The standard Republican answer seems to be keep
taxes low on the off chance any of them do start
earning more money. The truly poor pay little in
taxes as it is so reducing their taxes further is
moot. The left response is provide things that
either give the poor money directly or make things
cost less for them so they can keep more of what
they make. Where, however, shall that funding
come from, if lifting the poor is one's actual
concern? -- ulysses
\_ Income taxes != sales taxes != inheritance
taxes. I do not like the latter, and #2 are
regressive, except for "luxury taxes", which
are a logistical nightmare. I have no problem
with cutting taxes for "the rich" (usually
including your upper middle class) thereby
creating incentives. There's nothing wrong
with "the rich" getting richer, as long as
nobody's poorer overall. How about better
education? Scientific incentives? Tax breaks
for successful industries? And how to pay for
it? How about greater accountability in
govt. expenditure, sensible military budgets,
and cuts in direct subsidies? And yes, I'm a
hopeless romantic. -John
\_ When taxes are decreased, the programs they
made available are curtailed. This is most
likely the exact intent of much recent and
Reagan-era strategy. For people whose income
is small to begin with, reducing programs
such as socialized health care and public
transit is making many people poorer overall.
Succesful industries (oil, pharma) already
receive frightfully large incentives. Is that
the most effective way to help poor people?
A sensible military budget would go a long
way, at least at the gov't end of funding.
That is not likely for quite awhile, though.
Bless your hopelessly romantic heart.
-- ulysses
\_ I don't mind cutting programs. In fact
I would specifically want to cut spending
on programs which I don't feel benefit
"the poor" (or the country) at all-such
as a lot of hopelessly inefficient pork
in defense, agricultural subsidies, etc.
I make no apologies for my stance on
taxes--where I am willing to concede that
I am unrealistic is in my strong belief
that there _is_ a shitload of waste and
inefficiency in government spending, and
that, in an ideal world, this would all
go away. I am of the firm conviction
that a government's expenditures will
always rise to exceed any funds available
to it. -John
\_ Why don't you like the latter, which I assume
you mean inheritance tax?
\_ Because I feel it is the business of an
individual to what he wants to give to whom.
Note that I didn't say I don't see some
justification behind having it, I just don't
like it.
\_ If we really wanted to reduce taxes on the
poor we'd get rid of the lottery and reduce
tabacco taxes.
\_ The new thing is Greenspan says there is a widening wealth gap and
widening wealth gaps are bad for America.
The questionable thing is he also implies the dumbing down of the
average American is the core reason for this.
It's true, though, that if the average American gets smarter, the
gap should narrow.
The question is whether this is "the core reason", or just one with
the distinction of having approval from Dubya's people.
He probably can't say: "The wealth gap widened because the wealthy
benefited most on the last tax cut, and don't forget the elimination
of the dividend tax and of the inheritance tax."
\_ If everyone gets a PhD who will dig the ditches and pack
meat?
\_ The answer is apparent in Europe. EVERYONE.
\_ Yeah, it's great, I just got back from my weekend
socialist-enforced ditch digging collective trip,
and we all sang people's ditch digging songs and dug
ditches for the glory of the EU constitution. -John
\_ You know, you laugh, but I actually have been on
one of those. Along with my mother, who was a
college-educated civil engineer. -- ilyas
\_ Why do you hate Socialism?
\_ Because there's a chance of being forced on a
peoples' revolutionary ditch digging gang and
having to listen to ilyas sing peoples' revo-
lutionary ditch digging songs. -John
\_ I've been known to sing russian war songs
when I had a bit to drink. -- ilyas
\_ Ironically, I would pay money to see ilyas
forced to sing revolutionary people's ditch
digging songs.
\_ I've been known to sing russian war songs
when I have a bit to drink. -- ilyas
\_ And Russian peasant drinking songs?
\_ Ironically, in a society in which he'd be
digging ditches, you'd be right there
next to him, bub. -John |
| 2005/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38074 Activity:low |
6/10 http://csua.org/u/cbk (wapo) Finally, we drive that final nail in the coffin of the libidinous, treasonous PBS. \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PSB. \_ Oh, I read that as libidinous, treasonous PSB. \_ Less PBS funding, less children's shows that promote diversity. Translation: Less PBS funding, less toxic exposure to my kids on topics such as faggots and AIDS. This is definitely good news for the Religious Right. All Heil GWB, bring them on, and God Bless. \_ Yeah, because Sesame Street was the prime target. Sure. Please apply for the job below, because you seem to be qualified. \_ Would it make it better if SS _were_ the prime target? \_ No. Though SS has declined dramatically in quality in the last 5+ years, it's not exactly leftwing drivel. \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PBS. \_ So to what, other than Bill Moyers (who may be leftwing but to call drivel is your own failing), would you object? \_ There is too much left wing drivel on public broadcasting. They got all these brit shows like Red Dwarf, HG2G, Antiques Roadshow, etc. They need to put on more quality programming like the 700 Club. I mean, Dr. Who is definitely gay and that whole Tardis thing is just obviously phallic. \_ I want to think this is a troll, but since it's williamc, i'm never quite sure. \_ No, it's not a flame, we're all serious here. Especially you. Down with Wall Street Weekly! \_ It's cute when you try to be funny. :-P \_ Wasn't this just about the dumbest thing the Republicans could have done, politically? I mean, what with all this hugely wasteful billion-dollar pork everywhere and a trillion-dollar war that nobody wants, they decide to kill a very popular and very visible $500M program in the name of "cutting costs." Way to go guys, I hope you enjoy President Hillary. \_ Hillary is unelectable. Come on, after the previous election, it's clear that this kind of stuff doesn't sway enough votes. They vote on gay marriage and stuff, and how the candidates look. I guess it all depends on what candidate the pubs come up with next time. \_ Rudy? \_ Powell? \_ jeah right! \_ McCain \_ Destroyer of the 1st amendment. \_ Could you give a reference or some context for that? I'm not as savvy about McCain as I'd like to be. -mice \_ Think "McCain-Feingold" restrictions on political speech. As in "congress shall make no law..." \_ Huh? \_ The votes of the republicans on that sub-committee do not reflect the opinions of many republicans. Personally I feel that PBS is the most unbiased source of information currently available (I'm mainly speaking of things like the NewsHour, Nova and Frontline) on television. \- for the cockroaches in power, "fiat lux" is not especially desirable ... like televised hearings on judges, john bolton etc. and when they want to be on TV, its easy enough for them to get airtime. --treasonous psb |
| 2005/6/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health] UID:38060 Activity:low |
6/9 Sez the Canadian Supreme Court: "delays in the [Quebec] public health
care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients
die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."
http://csua.org/u/cb5 [nytimes]
\_ Meanwhile, 40 million plus Americans have no health insurance of
any kind. And god help if you have a preexisting condition and
become unemployed.
\_ This fictional 40 million number.... why should the govt
pay for health insurance for people who rather buy
new cars and flat screen plasma TVs? The number of people
who could not afford health ins., should they actually
choose to buy it, is very small. Futhermore, by law no
one is denied care at a hospital emergency room and
socialized health care programs already exist.
\_ I don't know if this is trolling or naivete. "Could not
afford" is, perhaps, a subjective term, but data I've seen
from at least Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake and Napa counties
indicate populations well into the thousands who cannot
afford heath insurance and are under-served by the local
publicly available health care options. Not to mention that
in those counties, as well as in Santa Cruz county,
facilities that serve primarily Medicare and Medical patients
are closing. "By law" is one thing but have you heard of a
"code red" condition? That means the ER at a hospital won't
accept any new comers. That said, I don't think any of the
folks I'm refering to would be buying new cars or flat
screen TVs either. -- ulysses
\_ so you know personally know 40 million people without
insurance? "really can't afford health care" can denot
alot of categories. As a graduate student making 30k a
year I could afford catastrophic health care or,
if need be, go on a government program, as we already
have Fed and state programs for people who cannot
afford health care. Let me ask you this - would you
agree to tax cuts so people could pay for their health
care, or do these people you seem to know not work
anyways?
\_ The populations to whom I'm referring make typically less
than $10,000 a year. Cutting their taxes would still not
give them enough money to afford health care. Sample
occupations include homecare workers, gardeners,
(non-union) custodians. There are many more but those
are on the top of my head. These are people typically
within two or three multiples of the federal poverty
line. You are certainly correct that you, as a graduate
student, have more options. The Fed and state programs
to which you refer (Medical? Medicare?) only work if
there are facilities around to take patients. This is
getting lengthy and narrow for the motd so I invite you
to sign your login or email me. -- ulysses |
| 2005/6/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Religion] UID:38055 Activity:very high 76%like:38044 |
6/9 [re-posted after motd censor deleted it (2x)]
motd demographic/political poll, d-dem, r-repub, i-independent:
white & christian:
\_ Actively christian? raised christian?
\_ active (you self-identify as christian, now)
non-white OR non-christian: dd
non-white OR non-christian: ddr
\_ I'm torn. I'd love to be I, but then I'd lose my ability to vote in
primaries. I see little value left in R (at least here in CA).
-emarkp
\_ What's so special about CA?
\_ Entirely dominated by D. -emarkp
\_ Have you ever considered moving to R friendly states, like
say... Utah? Everyone there looks happy, unlike pissed off
protesting satanic Liberal here.
\_ Hi anonymous troll! -emarkp
\_ Seriously though, do you really like California?
We have the most number of gays and lesbians. We
also have the most druggies, criminals, jails, and
welfare & project leeches. In addition we have the
biggest minority population in the entire U.S., and
many people simply hate Jesus Christ. Put it another
way, if it were not for your career, wife, or
friends, would you stay in California? If I were a
Christian, I'd probably move out as well. |
| 2005/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:38014 Activity:high |
6/8 [ Re-posted after deletion by motd censor. It's not even 24 hours
old fer chrissakes - originally from 6/7 ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4616043.stm
Taiwan assembly passes changes: Future amendments will have to be
decided by referendums, which means the Assembly has effectively
voted for its own abolition.
But, later on, it says this:
However, analysts point out that the threshold for passing amendments
- 50% of the entire electorate, not just those who turn out to vote
- is very high, making it difficult to pass any controversial changes.
Here, it says, typical turnout is around 60%... http://csua.org/u/ca0
That means, in the future, for any amendments to pass, 82% of voters
need to approve, unless turnout is abnormally high.
\_ The failed assassination attempt on Ah Bian proves that Four
Eyes can't shoot.
\_ Yes, DPP has set up Taiwan for Buku-Bucks and big time detente.
Politically they're capitalizing on the KMT's pro-China visits.
You know how GOP folks complain about Democrats co-opting their
goals and vice versa? Same thing.
\_ Can you explain, elaborate, and/or provide url's? How does this
generate cash(Beacoup Bucks?). How does this represent the DPP
co-opting KMT's goals? As far as I understand, this just
makes it practically impossible to pass any kind of amendment.
Does it also make it impossible to pass other legislation? -op
\_ http://csua.org/u/cal (Post)
It makes it harder to pass changes to the Constitution, such
as: Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country, separate
from China (PRC).
\_ That's what it sounds like... then why did the DPP do it?
I thought their platform was independence. This legis-
lation basically cements the current status quo forever:
no independence, no merger, no changes, period. I know
that the KMT wanted this, in fact, this was part of their
election platform, but I thought the DPP ran on change.
\_ They saw a dead-end following a hard-line approach.
\_ it's more than that. DPP want to do it mainly because
this "reform" will squash smaller party, Taiwan
Solidarity Union," headed by Li Deng Hui. the TSU
has becoming more of a threat to DPP than an ally.
Further, you would argue that DPP gained a small
victory because in the past, changing the soverign
territory (such as remove the Chinese mainland)
impossible. With new rule, it's highly improbable, but
not impossible.
\_ Is there any significant difference left in between
the two main parties, then? As far as I understood
the recent elections, the biggest difference was
their stance vis-a-vis re-unification/independence.
Now that issue is no longer on the table, so what's
left? I guess this also pretty much resolves the
entire reunification/independence debate.
\_ in my eye, the differences is still there.
KMT still calls for eventual unification with
the mainland, under the condition that China
would become richer and more democratic.
DPP still want to be independent. If it requires
USA to nuke China off face of the earth, then
they will do everything they can to drag USA
into it.
The blurr you see is more to do with the fact
that lousy economy has made people to think
"may be getting a job is better than pursuit
my own identity;" And the fact that DPP was
ran on a "reform" platform... and it turned out
while KMT was corrupt, it left technocrats to
run most of its government / economic policies;
DPP is more blatently corrupted, and it has
essentially destroyed the civil servant
machines. Major government post are fill by
those who are loyal to DPP or made significant
contribution to the campaign. Political
correctness overrides any economical / political
consideration. This is why under DPP rule,
TW went from a meager 1% fiscal deficit to
30+% deficit today. -live in TW now.
\_ thanks for all the replies. What party, if
any, do you support? -op
\_ i am completely disillusioned with
democracy for Chinese in general now.
I prefer rapid unification with some
degree of self-goverance for three reasons:
1. so TW can jump onto the Chinese economic
bandwagon. People in taiwan can make most
differences, AND benefit most from China's
boom.
2. DPP build its power based upon fueling
racial tensions. Want to get rid of that
before this racial tension turned into
sectarian violence
3. it is only way to remove this potential
flash point which may cost hundreds of
millions of Chinese lives... i.e.
full confrontation with United States.
- denizen of Chinese Republic.
\_ I'm not Chinese, and I know very
little about this. However if I were
Taiwanese, I think I would be very
nervous about reunification until
China makes some democratic reforms
and builds up a better track record.
Can't argue with 3 though.
\_ I agree with you.
Not many people in Taiwan is in
a hurry to "re-unite" with PRC.
However, it is important to
get a dialogue going, and not
constantly provoke PRC (mostly
by DPP, etc. for domestic
political consumption). It would
also be nice to reach some form of
understanding with PRC on some
guidelines, necessary
conditions, etc. for co-existence
and possible eventual unification,
while Taiwan still has the
political, economic, and military
capital to do so, cause unless
you think PRC will suddenly
collapse, time is on PRC's side,
unfortunately. Very few in
Taiwan are willing to pay the
price for dejure independence.
The best thing to do is to
maintain defacto independence,
not unnecessariy provoke PRC,
set guidelines and conditions
on what PRC needs to do before
unification can be considered,
and observe and bid time. The
problem is everytime someone
tries to do that, the more
extreme TI supporters will
start yelling "traitors",
"sellouts", and fan emotions and
fears.
\_ I concur.
\_ Interesting. These Taiwanese
conservatives sound just like
the NeoRepublicans of America.
\_ Huh? What do you think
then?
\_ DPP, because they don't buy votes and
they're not full of wackos who think Chen
shot himself.
\_ I don't know whether he shot himself
or not, but I wouldn't call people
who think so wackos cause the whole
incident and how it was handled do
smell fishy.
\_ ^wackos^Wackjobs
DPP's biggest problem is it doesn't know
how to handle corruption among its own.
\_ wacko's version of assassination:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5911.htm
\_ Wackjob.
If Chen really wanted to stage the shooting, don't you think
he would have done a lot better job acting? Not, "Oh,
what's this blood on my shirt?" but "Shit, what the fuck was
that that just blew into my stomach?!"
\_ huh? the wikipedia article pretty much supports
the claim that the whole thing smells fishy.
\_ Okay, I took out the URL and gave you the reason why
they're all wackjobs.
\_ otoh, it could just be ah bian being his usual
self: a clown and a bad actor
sorry, but I don't buy your "he couldn't be so
dumb" defense.
\_ Wackjob. Go home. Think about it.
\_ wikipedia article reposted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-19_shooting_incident
\_ what is the big deal? we got a president who staged an
assassination; his wife made millions in stock markets, put
his house servant on government payroll, sued and searched
opposition newspapers and magazines, and allow cronies to escape
island after embazzled millions, flare racial tentions for his
political gain and completely ignore the
Consititution since the it states One-China policy... are you
trying to say this "reform" is significant in some way?
\_ Oh gawd, you're still on the assassination theory?
\_ don't know about that, but ah bian's fat belly
(supposedly scratched by the bullet) is certainly
world famous now.
\_ not to mention the suspect they "caught" died
one year ago. the will which suppose to proof
he was the assassint was burnt... and that is the
official end to this assassination... you don't call
this a cover up?
\_ ^cover up^conspiracy theory
\_ url for these accusations?
\_ google is your friend. |
| 2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37977 Activity:kinda low |
6/6 "In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block
the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use":
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana
So what are you faggot-loving drug-using tree-hugging protesting
LIBERALS gonna have to say about this? Ha ha ha ha
\_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
want you on our side. This tramples on state's rights.
-emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
\_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I don't want to think about how you would get
sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
\_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
\_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
than any other city in America.
2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
\_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
could avoid them. -emarkp
\_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
be disruptive to interstate commerce through
the area with respect to gas stations, public
accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
falls under the "provide for defense" and
provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
perhaps we might instead expand the National
Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
\_ Since when did the motd become /.? You must have missed the
"Medical Marijuana, RIP" post.
\_ Yeah I did, thanks -op, conservative
\_ If you're a real conservative, we don't want you on our side.
This tramples on state's rights. -emarkp
\_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
want you on our side. This tramples on state's rights.
-emarkp
\_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
\_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I don't want to think about how you would get
sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
\_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
\_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
than any other city in America.
2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
\_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
could avoid them. -emarkp
\_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
be disruptive to interstate commerce through
the area with respect to gas stations, public
accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
falls under the "provide for defense" and
provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
perhaps we might instead expand the National
Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
[ threads merged ]
\_ O'Connor complaining that it's not repsecting state rights? I'm so
confused. Is this the Bizarro SCOTUS?
\_ States rights are only good if we like what the right is, like
citizens owning anti-tank weaponry and the government not knowing
who those owners are.
\_ Interesting that Justice Thomas dissented.
\_ Along with O'Conner and Rehnquist (he's still alive I
guess)
\_ Is this in line with Rehnquist's record? Does
anyone think he's changed his priorities because
of his health?
\_ They're voting as "state's-rights" ideologs.
O'Connor also wants to be perceived as the
compassionate/sensible conservative.
Scalia is not a buffoon so will judge according
to law, along with the other 5 in the majority
opinion, even though it hurts people.
\_ There's that all-inclusive "interstate commerce" line again. Just
like "provide for the general Welfare", it's broken.
\_ The reasoning in the opinion seems really weak.
\_ I read the opinion last night and I think that
Scalia's concurrence probably is more illuminating
than the majority opinion.
The way that I understand it is that the decision
is based on the 'necessary and proper' clause that
allows congress to regulate intrastate activities
to the extent that they affect interstate commerce.
As Scalia states the test is whether the means used
by congress are "'reasoanbly adapted' to the ...
legitimate end[s] under the commerce power."
Since Pot is a Schedule I drug (you may dispute
classification, but that was not at issue) and
Congress's desire to eliminate Schedule I drugs
from interstate commerce is legitimate (again
you may dispute this, but it was not at issue),
the question is whether it is possible to distin-
guish local pot from "imported" pot. Since it is
not, Congress's desire to restrict pot growing
preempts state law.
Notes:
(1) I have not taken Con Law yet, so my understa-
nding of the commerce power and the necessary
and proper clause is a bit weak.
(2) The real problem is that pot is misclassifed
as a Schedule I drug. If pot is reclassified,
then the outcome should be different and these
people can go about their business.
(3) My agreement of w/ the outcome is colored by
my general dislike for things like pot,
cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, &c.
\_ If nothing else I enjoyed hearing "The evil left-wing liberals
are trying to steal our pot" on right-wing talk radio this
morning. |
| 2005/6/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37971 Activity:nil |
6/4 Protests in Azerbaijan! (interesting pictures)
http://csua.org/u/c99
\_ A Neocon Republican's dream come true.
A Moderate Republican's nightmare.
\_ Depends. Guess what leads through there since May 25? -John
\_ It couldn't be a pipeline, because motd told me they weren't
working on one. |
| 2005/6/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:37930 Activity:high |
6/1 God does not like Republicans.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050601/ap_on_re_us/laguna_beach_landslide
\_ I know you're just joking, but that's in LA, dem city.
\_ The CITY of LA is 70% democrat but LA county is overall 55%
democrat. In fact, it is a myth that Southern Cal is democrat.
Most of Orange County, Malibu, Palos Verdes, and other extremely
affluent parts of LA are Republican strongholds. These people
are SOCIALLY liberal but are even more driven by money-- they're
fiscally conservative, hence the party affiliation. Perhaps you
should take a look at a Southern Cal map and get an idea how
big it really is relative to cute little Bay Area. Lastly Laguna
Beach is NOT LA. It's over 50 miles from it.
\_ that's probably why he didn't say, "that's SoCal, dem region",
or, "that's LA County, dem county". duh.
\_ If God hates Republicans then 2500 Democrats (out of over 3000
souls) would not have perished on 9/11. If anything, all indications
show that God loves Republicans. |
| 2005/6/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:37922 Activity:nil 60%like:37046 |
6/1 Ding Dong the Broadcast Flag is dead:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003619.php |
| 2005/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37856 Activity:nil |
5/27 Not all republicans are anti-stem-cell... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25stem.html?pagewanted=all |
| 11/27 |
| 2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37817 Activity:nil |
5/23 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050523/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_139 "Centrists from both parties reached a compromise Monday night to avoid a showdown on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees and the Senate's own filibuster rules ..." \_ Watch freepers scream and rant http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408993/posts \_ Bill Frist got pwnd. \- how do you figure this isnt a 95% republican victory? --psb \_ It's a delay of game penalty. When a Supreme steps down and Demos try the same thing, the filibuster will fall. In fact, I doubt it will be that close. \_ So you're saying the 7 Democratic senators in on the compromise will filibuster the next SCOTUS nominee, and for that nominee, there won't be 6 Republican senators to vote to prevent use of the nuclear option? In any case, I could see use of the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominees by both parties (initiated by the GOP and tit-for-tat by Dems in 2008-2012), but a general reluctance for appeals court and other judges. I also give it a 50% chance that Dubya will nominate a non-wacko SCOTUS candidate as the first one, obviating the need for a filibuster. \- without taking a stand on what that probability p will be [and it may depend whether it is the CJ or and AJ] i think the probability certainly is affected by how bruised he is ... over Bolton, over Social Security etc. This is obvious but the point being you can score points that have an affect down the road even if you lose early on. |
| 2005/5/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37814 Activity:nil |
5/23 Fox's angle on Star Wars vs. Republicans:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157229,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157229,00.html
\_ I see everything twice!
\_ "By and large, the rebellion's supporters were ordinary people who
wanted self-determination, republican government, and free
enterprise in place of the Galactic Empire's oppression, economic
controls, and high taxes."
Typical Fox handwaving, to imply that republican government is
the equivalent of Republican-dominated government. |
| 2005/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37792 Activity:nil |
5/20 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/politics/main697013.shtml Bush says "the way to honor [Pope JP] is to continue to build a culture of life where the strong protect the weak." Is that why we're torturing Iraqis and bombing civilians, so that they will not terrorize other people? \_ No, dumbass, it's the reason why we keep brain-dead people alive against the wishes of those with the power-of-attorney and also why we are defunding stem-cell research so that we'll be behind every other industrialized country in biotech in the near future. The torturing Iraqis and bombing civilians has to do with this nation being good Evangelical Christians in general. Your propoganda fu is weak. |
| 2005/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37775 Activity:high |
5/19 Stupid prediction:
Six Republicans will report to other Republican senators that they're
going to compromise to prevent use of the nuclear option. Republican
senators, rather than face the embarrassment of not being able to
execute on the nuclear option, will compromise with Democrats in some
form. Both sides claim victory; both sides will say they did not
sacrifice on principles; the media will say a compromise prevented
the nuclear option.
\_ I don't see any incentive for Republicans to back down. Not
that I am all excited about filerbuster, just that I felt that
judges should be confirmed with super majority, period.
\_ Why in god's name do you think that Judges should be
"confirmed with super majority" ?
\- the rationale is ostenisbly like peremptory
challenges, which is another "negative selection" ...
to get rid of "tails". --psb
\_ Also, the precident is horrible: The rules have
been a judge can be fillibustered, both sides have
done it many times before. Changing the senate's
internal rules with a simple majority vote, by
effectively lying about what the vote is about
is really wonky.
\_ How common has judicial filibustering been? Are we
talking hundreds of times in the history of the US?
Just trying to figure out the order here. |
| 2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37764 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 Irony is Dead: The Republicans are trying to use a bogus interpretation
of the Constitution to force the confirmation of judges they believe
will return us to an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.
\_ Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. -John
\_ News flash! Partisans redefine terms to look good! Yeah, it's
pathetic. But then, I think all procedures which prevent the
majority from passing legislation/etc. which aren't explicitly in
the Constitution should be eliminated. -conservative
\_ And to hell with that whole "protection of the minority" idea.
\_ There are constitutional supermajorities required for some
things.
\_ And the constitution also says the senate runs by its own
rules. Those rules require a 2/3 vote to change. If they
can be changed by a majority vote "because dick says so",
watch the fuck out.
\_ I was under the impression that only 50%+1 was necessary
to change rules. Where did you find 2/3 to change
senate rules?
\_ Answering myself.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt
seems to say two-thirds. But there are so many
run-on sentences it's hard to read.
\_ Since you view yourself as such a strident
Constitutional purist you might like to know
the aforementioned document specifies five
instances where a supermajority is required.
Guess what, appellate judge nominations is not
one of them. The Founders were afraid of
judicial tyranny for a reason. What is wrong
with a simple yes or no vote on the Senate floor?
\_ What is wrong with hypocrisy?
\_ did you feel the same way when Clinton
was President?
\_ none of Clinton's judge nominations
were filibustered. What precisely
am I expected to "feel".
\_ But they were not given a simple up
and down vote in the Senate, were they?
I would expect you to be consistent,
or just admit you are only interested
in power for its own sake, not in any
notion of fair play.
\_ An appointee should die in committee
if the committee thinks he won't come
close to an up vote. That's the point
of a committee. Alternatively, the
committee could just send the vote to
the floor with a recommendation (which
seems reasonable to me).
\_ Is that what happened to Clinton?\
All 60 of his nominees that were
blocked in committee had no chance
in an up and down vote? Is that
what you believe?
\_ FATALITY!!1!
(ob follow-up about false
dichotomies that ignores that
he just got slammed)
\_ How old are you? |
| 2005/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37748 Activity:high |
5/19 Some hopefully neutral background on the filibuster:
According to Wikipedia, the filibuster has existed as an option to
stall any issue in the Senate since 1806. Since 1917 the requirement
to terminate a filibuster has varied from two-thirds of the entire
Senate (67 votes) to the three-fifths (60 votes) we have today.
In 1974, we did change the rules such that budget bills could not be
filibustered if they reduced the budget deficit (the exception to the
rule is Social Security, though -- you can still filibuster bills which
would change SS).
We are now debating whether we can change the rules such that you
cannot filibuster nominations to federal judgeships.
Theoretically we can change the rules to eliminate the filibuster as an
option for any particular class of issues if you can get 51 votes or 50
votes + VP tiebreak.
[re-posted in response to thread below]
\_ What if they filibuster a bill to relax the rules to eliminate
filibusters?
\_ Can't filibuster that. It's not a law, it's just part of the
senate rules.
\_ Question: This is what I thought was the case, but reading the
senate rules suggests 2/3 for a rules change. Everyone's saying
it's only 50% + 1 for a rules change but I can't figure out why
that's the case. Do you have a cite for that?
\_ This is the "nuclear option". Basically, breaking the rules for
changing rules so they can... change the rules.
\_ Never have I read/heard it described as 'breaking the rules'.
Do you have a ref for that?
\_ Well, according to Wikipedia, [Reid said] "the
parliamentarian of the United States Senate has said it
(the nuclear option) is illegal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_%28filibuster%29
Also, from a likely non-neutral source:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18761
Reading this stuff, it makes me think that the nuclear
option is far less of a "you can certainly do it but people
just don't want to piss other people off that much" type of
issue than I thought. If the nuclear option was arguably
illegal, then I could certainly see "successful" employment
of it causing all sorts of problems in the Senate.
\_ If it were so illegal, why would R's even have it as an
option? Why have no pundits said anything about it?
\_ Even if it were legal (and we won't have a word on
that unless it happens, but some say it will be a
constitutional crisis), it flies in the face of 200
years of tradition in a body that thrives on
tradition. At this point, I would be surprised if
Frist actually had the votes to get it done. In any
event, it'll be interesting to hear the
constitutional scholars and SC weigh in.
\_ SCOTUS doesn't have a say.
Also, a senior Republican aide said, "[the
Senate parliamentarian] has nothing to do with
this. He's a staffer, and we don't have to ask his
opinion." |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37729 Activity:moderate |
5/18 Yes yes yes! Enough with racial fighting, violence, and failing
educational system in the second largest city in the US. DOWN with
wealthy, out of touch white male politicians and in with a new
minority mayor! It is about time. It's a huge victory for diversity,
minorities, and average Americans -white male politician hater
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4554873.stm
\_ Why am I reading about a US mayor on the BBC?
\_ uh, because your sense of perception is usually better when
you're far away, whereas when you're closer things tend to be
over-magnified or distorted? Or if you're asking why a foreign
news cares about a sucky US city, is it because most of the
world is well in tune with what goes on in the US, whereas the
other way is untrue? This is, perhaps we are the most self
indulgent species in the entire planet and we don't care about
the world, or our perception by the world? Or maybe this is
because unlike Europeans, we don't travel as much for
whatever reason? Take your pick.
\_ The Euros as a whole (massive overgeneralization) tend to
look at US politics as a pretty monolithic affair. I
remember my gf watching Rumsfeld get the bitchsmack laid
on him at some Senate hearings and being extremely astounded
at how aggressively they were treating him. You don't often
get that sort of depth of detail in most countries about
other countries' politics. Who here heard of George
Galloway before he appeared in the Senate? (You didn't miss
much) -John
\_ What did BBC have to say about the District 2 special
election in Oakland? 'Cos I'm never heard of any of these
people, and I've been living here for six years and
worked for the City of Oakland for 3.5 years. --erikred
\_ Oakland is not the biggest 5 cities in the US, so it's
not really a city :)
not really a REAL city :)
\_ Damn you and your logic! :)
\_ I thought Oakland is the biggest US city by area,
although not by population.
\_ Not a chance, but you would be forgiven for thinking
so if you've ever driven down San Pablo and then
moved over to International all the way to San
Leandro. Speaking of which, are there any movie
theaters south/east of the Parkway?
\_ Follow-up: Oakland ranks 98th in area among
cities with pop > 100k.
http://www.demographia.com/db-us90city100karea.htm
\_ I love how the state of California is more
densely populated than the city of Anchorage.
\_ This is not the first time LA has a non-white mayor, racist. |
| 2005/5/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37681 Activity:low |
5/14 "Where a government has come to power through some form of popular
vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of
constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted,
since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been
exhausted." --Che Guevara
\_ try to go through that once yourself, then, you might have a
different reaction. Overthrowing Taiwan's government never
went across my mind until I personally went through the election
in 2004.
\_ Are you saying Taiwan is ripe for a guerilla takeover?
\_ not yet. just that the government is no longer legitimate.
\_ Gorilla takeover? I thought the Chicoms were trying Pandas..
\_ You tried to shoot President Chen in South Taiwan? |
| 2005/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:37531 Activity:high |
5/5 Heh. It's hard to make a pinko happy: http://csua.org/u/byq \_ No, it's easy. Just put them in charge. It's more of an "I'm always right" ideology. |
| 2005/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37517 Activity:moderate |
5/4 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/04/british.election Do YOU guys want Blair to win? Poll: Yes: No: . \_ It's pretty much a foregone conclusion. \_ I want Blair to step-down and have another Labour Party member step in as PM, saying, "Yeah, Blair lied. I'm the new guy!" Or, I want Blair to say, "Yeah, I lied about these specific things." Then I would want him to win. \_ I want Blair to step-down and say "Yeah, I lied, in fact, Georgy promised me goodies if I lied." \_ They'll get Brown soon enough. -John \_ We should start a letter writing campaign to tell regular British voters it's important for us that they vote Tory. Yeah, that'll work. |
| 2005/4/30-5/3 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37435 Activity:nil |
4/30 These frist filibuster protesters are actually kinda creative and fun,
I gotta hand it to them.
http://www.princeton.edu/~petehill/filibuster.html |
| 2005/4/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:37428, category id '18005#5.58125' has no name! , ] UID:37428 Activity:high |
4/29 Coburn and Tancredo for 2008!
Senate plots to get rid of doc (Pork-buster Tom Coburn)
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1392923/posts
\_ why do you hide the free republic links? |
| 2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:37406 Activity:nil |
4/28 I have a lot of stocks and I get to vote for amendments. I see the
following A LOT: "Approval of amendment and extension of the executive
officer incentive plan" or "Amendment of bonuses and options to
officers." I always vote no, yet, I always see them getting approved.
What the fuck?
\_ Unless you own or control 51% it doesn't matter what you vote for.
\_ You don't have a lot of stock. get 100,000 shares and then you
still don't have a lot of stock in terms of moving those votes.
\_ You know how you always read shit like "And the board of directors
awarded the C*O with 14,000,000 shares of stock" -- That's money AND
more votes for themselves. |
| 2005/4/25 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37350 Activity:nil |
4/25 Billboard for TV newscast has 'CA' crossed out, Mexico added
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43973 |
| 2005/4/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37319 Activity:high |
4/22 Thoughts on the "nuclear option"? Seems truly crazy to me.
\_ Is this in relation to something?
\_ Uh.. do you follow the news at all?
\_ Until both sides are willing to do a 24-hr round-the-clock
filibuster, I don't think it's reasonable to even talk about it.
You can break a filibuster with endurance if you're willing to stay
up late. And if the other side is willing to stay and fight it,
maybe the majority should reconsider. On the other hand, I think
the Dems are going nuts blocking judges.
\_ 10 out of over 200 is nuts? Maybe the majority should remember
what "compromise" means. I bet you'll be the first screaming
for cloture rules to be reinstated when the D's take back the
Senate.
\_ Well, "10 out of over 200" is misleading. The Democrats
blocked 17 of 52 Bush appellate nominees, roughly 1/3. Of
course, the Republicans blocked 16 of 51 Clinton second
term appellate nominees too. So the Democrats are slighly
less accommodating, but both sides play this game.
\_ I really don't mind "this game". For the most part, these
nominees are fine. When someone leans far enough to either
side to get more than 40 people to say NO, it _should_ be
a red flag.
\_ Explain to me again how this is "going nuts."
\_ Did I comment on "nuts" one way or the other? I merely
explained that "10 out of over 200" is misleading, when
it was really "17 of 52". Nor did I single out the
Democrats, when I took pains to point out that
Republicans did the same thing. You need to 1) calm
down, and 2) work on your reading comprehension.
\_ This is a bit deceptive. The Clinton nominees were
blocked, but by the majority in the Senate, not by a
filibuster.
\_ You can approve judges if you can get 51 votes out of the Senate
(or 50 votes + VP Cheney) every time. Considering you have 55
Republican senators, all you need are 50 rubber stamps to pack
the courts. Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes.
Filibustering is rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
night when you could compromise?
However, you can also get 50 votes to make a rule that says you
can't filibuster anymore on judges.
In which case, you can then employ 50 rubber stamps on any judge
you want.
Is this legal? Yes.
Is this good for America? I really doubt it.
\_ Don't you also need to attain cloture on a rule change?
\_ Apparently not.
\_ Staying up all night sounds so theatrical and dramatic, but
in the modern Senate all that is required is for a senator
to state an intent to filibuster. Requiring a senator to
pull an all-nighter might interfere with the real Senate
business of sucking up to special interests and banging
underage pages.
\_ What's your point again?
\_ Just correcting the inaccurate claim that a filibuster
requires a senator "to stay up all night". Some of us
care about factual things.
\_ So all a senator has to do is "state an intent
to filibuster"? What do they do after that?
Note how I haven't claimed "that a filibuster
requires a senator 'to stay up all night'". Read
the wording carefully -- the words are "who wants
to stay up all night when you could compromise",
not "a filibuster requires a senator to stay up
all night".
\_ Well, the exact words were "Filibustering is
rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
night..."
\_ Why don't you answer my question, which
should address the key question of how
difficult it is to filibuster.
What does a filibustering senator do after
stating an intent to filibuster?
\_ Do? Nothing. If there are enough votes
for cloture, fine. If not, the filibustered
bill gets tabled. You might want to read
the wikipedia entry on filibusters.
\_ I did read it. Please quote the section
which shows (in more or less words):
"If there are enough votes for cloture,
fine. If not, the filibustered bill gets
tabled."
Be very careful with your interpretation.
\_ "What happens if the Senate fails to
invoke cloture? The debate
continues. Generally, the Senate
majority leader . in this case
Frist . will simply give up trying
to have the chamber vote on the
measure in question and move on to
another issue."
http://csua.org/u/btx
\_ What's your problem?
Why aren't you quoting wikipedia
like I asked? You're the one who
brought up wikipedia.
\_ I am large, I contain
multitudes.
multitudes. --chiapet
\_ The Constitution explicity names six instances where supermajorities
are required, appellate judge nominations is not one of them.
The use of filibusters to prevent nominations is historically
rare, until Bush's 1st and 2nd term.
A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and so
they should.
Lastly, it is a sad day indeed when espousing the beliefs of the
founders, as did Janice Rogers Brown, makes you a controversial
nominee. Unfortunately this is not the first time.
\_ "A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and
so they should." Just because you can doesn't mean you "should".
Legal? Yes.
Good for America? I really doubt it. |
| 2005/4/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37295 Activity:nil |
4/21 Yay!
"Republicans on Thursday moved closer to a showdown with Democrats
over filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees, sending two
judges under dispute to the full Senate. ... Conservatives during the
last Congress accused Democrats of being anti-minority for blocking
Brown, who is black; anti-women for blocking Owen, and anti-Catholic
for blocking Pryor."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/filibuster.fight.ap/index.html
\_ Because it couldn't be that they're anti-psycho.. |
| 2005/4/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:37291 Activity:nil 78%like:37794 |
4/20 Senior Java Developer opening in Pleasanton, CA: see /csua/pub/RHI-IT
- jthoms
\_ Maybe you mean /csua/pub/jobs/RHI-IT |
| 2005/4/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37281 Activity:low |
4/20 When democracy meets islam in the UK:
http://tinyurl.com/9jg7d (telegraph.co.uk)
\_ The absentee ballot system in the States is pretty much just as
bad.
\_ I think your link description goes better with this one:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/18034715?version=1
\_ Not really. George Galloway is, not to put too find a point
on it, a cunt in the finest tradition of cuntness. Read up
on his past a bit; he's just getting his just desserts for
a lot of really really bad shit that he's done. Ironic that
it's coming from an islamic mob, though. -John |
| 2005/4/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37227 Activity:nil |
4/16 Doing the jobs American's won't do. First aircraft mechanics, now
ship builders for the Navy.
Audit Shows Illegal Workers Hired
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384322/posts |
| 2005/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37220 Activity:nil |
4/16 Evil Democrats are 'against people of faith':
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/15/republicans.filibusters.ap
May conservatism be strong in the US, and GOD BLESS. |
| 2005/4/15-16 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37206 Activity:low |
4/15 Just curious, anyone pay use tax on the ca state return for internet
purchases?
\_ Yes, I wrote in I spent $500 on out-of-state purchases for both
2003 and 2004 tax years. $41 in taxes for being in L.A. County.
\_ No I don't.
\_ No.
\_ Statistically speaking, no. |
| 2005/4/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37154 Activity:nil |
4/12 Whoever put that link to the Wayne Madsen article ( I didn't
nuke it) still can't believe that there is a world outside of
suburbs and cities that votes in a unison for the President.
Visit a NASCAR game or listen to country and you'll see. |
| 2005/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37150 Activity:nil |
4/12 It is easy to dismiss this guy as a crackpot, but he is
a Senior Fellow for EPIC, a retired NSA analyst and
was an intelligence officer in the Marine Corp:
http://csua.org/u/bnk (onlinejournal) |
| 2005/4/9 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37128 Activity:nil |
4/8 California campers attacked and robbed by Mexican Nationals (Illegal Aliens)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380571/posts |
| 2005/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:37082 Activity:moderate |
4/5 So it begins. Welcome to the culture of death:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/43933.htm
\_ Big churches esp. Catholic, gives me this image of having a
lot of clout like the ones mafias have. I would think that if
pro-lifers seriously want her to live, [weathly] Churches like the
ones in Utah would have no problem coming up with Save-a-Shiavo
campaign. In addition, it would be a great public relationship
stunt. The fact that none of the Churches offered a penny or
had not organized any visible and successful campaign, shows you
that either they don't give a damn, or that they're not as powerful
as GodFather the movie portrays them to be. -troll
\_ WHY is it anyone not talking about bolemia and anorexia and other
things that could have prevented Shiavo's death in the first
place? I mean, an ounce of prevention is... you know.
\_ i for one welcome our new culture of death overlords.
\_ "Hail Death!"
\_ How much of your tax money would you like to go toward keeping
ABD (all but dead) people alive? Would you rather that money
went toward schools or prenatal care? How much of your income
would you like to pay in taxes? As for me, if I am ABD, take
the money and buy immunizations for the poor, and let me drop
dead. --PeterM
\_ The *real* question is *who* decides which people are ABD.
\_ Who do you think is deciding now? If you disagreed in
Schiavo's case, it was the doctors who decided she was
hopeless, and her guardian chose to end extraordinary
measures. That seems the right way to me.
\_ It is long past time for us as a society to have this discussion.
I worked in a hospital and I used to watch doctors do stupid
and expensive procedures on people who were obviously in their
last few months of life.
\_ And I've seen doctors not give a shit about whether someone lives
or dies. They're the ones we're bowing down to.
\_ Where did you see a doctor like that? I worked in two different
hospitals for a total of 4 years and I never saw anything
close to resembling what you are describing.
\_ Radiation Oncology.
\_ This makes the case for a serious conversation about
how to handle these cases even more compelling.
\_ We've always been a culture of death. Even those expousing the
"Culture of Life" are enamored by death and have fetishized their
beliefs to the point of ridiculousness. |
| 2005/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36997 Activity:nil 50%like:37159 |
3/31 Job available at ISTI in Santa Monica, CA.
Check out /csua/pub/jobs/ISTI. Thanks |
| 2005/3/30-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36988 Activity:nil |
3/30 A critique of libertarian thought:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
\_ This is from a conservative perspective that the vast majority
here are not going to be in tune with. It also mischaracterizes
libertarianism on a number of fronts. Most egregiously when it
suggests that libertarianism somehow has "contempt for
self-restraint". He approaches the real problem when he suggests
that most libertarians don't realize how easy it is to infringe on
another's rights (I'm fond of pointing out that this is especially
true in densely populated areas), but the article is mostly
pandering to the "drugs and porn are bad" crowd, muddled thinking,
and the putting up of a utopian straw man. (It is a small minority
of libertarians that are utopian). I'm sure there are better
criticisms of Libs out there, as there is much to criticize.
-a libertarian
\_ Huh. Thanks for the insight.
\- libertarianism is a reasonably powerful and parsimonious
theory about government. but there is a lot more to philosophy
than the ordering of social institutions. and conclusions in
other areas in turn feed back into beliefs about the ordering
of social institutions. and that lack of a theory about
say "what we owe each other" or the right and the good,
justice, fairness etc is where libertaianism lacks in theory.
where it lacks in practice in my opinion and experience is
many adherent really are not committed to theory. they cleve
to the ideology because the conclusions are what they like
with rather than the fundamental principles and logic. the
extrme form of these are randroids. those people dont even
realize randianism isnt a philosophy any more. it is just
a bunch of prescriptions which a sham theory behind it [sic].
there are also a minority of honest libertarians who are
too obsessed with theoretical parsimony which is lacking
in some messy but probably more honest and powerful
theories [these are the nozick-heads. it is quite possible
you dont know any of these people. although if berkeley
you have some chance of meeting a few of these. they can
be worth talking to.]. --psb
\_ Interesting, though dense. Thanks for taking the time
to elucidate. It's all pretty interesting when presented
rationally without all the distracting acrimony.
\- oh there should be acrimony but maybe not distracting
acrimony toward randroids. there isnt enough acrimony
towards them. --psb
\_ agreed. -a libertarian |
| 2005/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:36977 Activity:high |
3/30 So what do people here think of the Minuteman Project in Arizona, and
the response of the ACLU and Vicente Fox? -emarkp
\_ I don't know anything about it, URL from CNN or http://Fox.com?
\_ http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050330-125346-1389r.htm
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0317fox17.html
or just plain:
http://news.google.com/news?q=minuteman+project+vicente+fox
\_ If they stick to never actually confronting immigrants, it sounds
legal. It's certainly an excellent diversionary tactic given there's
been no sign so far that any terrorists have tried to come up
via Mexico. Blaming brown people has worked well as a pretty good
rallying call for the right. I also predict Fox won't get any help
from Bush this time since Bush doesn't need the Latino vote anymore.
-- ulysses
\_ If you ever lived in Southern California for over 10+ years and
attended public elementary to high school there, you'll know exactly
how you feel. If you're Latino, you'll feel that S Cal is a great
place where you get free subsidy and support from your own people.
If you're not Latino, you'll think S Cal is a shithole, a perfect
example of great wealth inequality where the richest and the
poorest people living in one place. This imbalance of wealth
contributes to conflicts unique in S. Cal. For example, S. Cal
having the highest car insurance rate (1/4 are staged for insurance
money), gangsters, drive-by shooting (my school had drive by twice),
ethnic fights, etc.
-someone who lived there +10 years and witnesses a lot of shit
\_ ...that's right, those pesky Latinos are getting all of those
subsidies, and that's what's wrong with everything. Dude, I'd
tell you to go to hell, but there's no place possibly worse to
live in than your own mind.
\_ I'm anti ILLEGAL immigrant but I'm not anti immigrant. Extra border
patrol will discourage drugs and contrabands into the US as well
as discourage desperate people coming into the US, who usually get
taken advantage of. If people want to come to the US, they should
first learn a bit more about the country (not from Hollywood or
magazines) and come in LEGALLY. -parents who came in legally
\_ you're a moron.
\_ why is he a moron? You need to explain so he'll stop being one
\_ morons don't stop being morons.
\_ if that's true, I will stop trying to change tom
\- there is a certain amount of hypocrisy for free
traders to be in favor of the free movement of
goods and capital but not labor. much of the
rationale for the efficiency gains of trade/$
apply to labor as well ... labor is another
"factor of production". --psb
\_ Although I agree, there are other factors
that are relevant to people (e.g. overpopulation
concerns, cultural effects, etc.) that are not
relavent to other factors of production. I
have been for open borders most of my life, but
i'm not sure it is a very pragmatic stance.
The history of the world has been a history of
poverty and income/power disparity. The U.S.
has managed (along with some other countries) to
overcome that state to some degree. It is perhaps
justifiable to try to insulate it, if for no other
reason than to act as an example of what is possible
(though, i have to say, this rings false) -phuqm
\- yes i understand what you say, but there are
"other factors" that also apply to harmonizing
IP regimes, high capital mobility etc. but the
fundamental argument about "let the factors of
production find where they will get the best
return" and the ideas of comparative and abs
advantage apply to labor too. yes, letting
a lot of Changs, Mohammeds and Singhs into
a lot of Changs, Parthas and Mohammeds into
the country has "side effects" but so do
coke and pepsi, monsanto etc. --psb
Coke, Pepsi and Monsanto. --psb
\_ Labor can come here, they just have to do it
legally. I don't advocate allowing drug money
to move unhindered to offshore banks either.
Nothing hypocritical about it at all.
\-i dont think you understand what i mean by
free movement of labor.
\_ Then explain yourself.
\_ Agreed. Those who break the law should be punished, not awarded.
\_ Why can't we just shoot them? I am getting sick and tired of all
those mexicans standing on the street of SF looking for work, and
all of them are illegal. They are potential terriorists, let's
do what we do best, shoot first, ask questions later. It WILL solve
the illegal alien problem.
\_ Keep a tight grip on your soap when you're in jail for
shooting the wrong one.
\_ it's still murder, whether a citizen or an illegal.
\- how about we impose public lashings for people employing
illegal aliens unless they can come up with say a
photocopy of the forged documentation. --psb
\_ The big problem is what happens when the Border Patrol doesn't
send someone out. Say the INS is busy dealing with something else
and the Minutemen call with a possible illegal. The INS looks bad
because they're overwhelmed. The MM get peeved. Say this happens
a dozen times. Will the MM get frustrated and do something stupid? |
| 2005/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36964 Activity:low |
3/30 Pat Buchanan on democracies killing themselves:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_28/buchanan.html -John
\_ Nice essay by Pat. Wonder what he thinks of the power grab
by the White House? --PeterM
\_ Good question--I don't recall PB being much of a statist, yet
this article article seems to have a bit of a contradiction
between "government must safeguard liberties" and be restricted
by the constitution (the Jefferson quote) and "don't let the
people decide anything". Hmm. -John
\_ PB is a statist of the Old School. I think "Conservative"
had a much different meaning in his day. My favorite bit
from HST "The Great Shark Hunt" is where Pat talks about
how Chuck Colson wasn't a "real" conservative.
\_ "the U.S. is a Republic not a democracy!!1!"
Yes, yes, we know. |
| 2005/3/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36851 Activity:nil |
3/24 Just in case you think we're getting close to the end of the
loopiness caused by the Republicans running everything:
http://csua.org/u/bhg |
| 2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36837 Activity:high |
3/23 Modern Conservatism has truly become the party of Big Government.
Now Jeb Bush wants to "take custody" of Terri Shiavo, away from
her husband and away from her family. How can anyone who calls
themself a Conservative really be in favor of this kind of thing?
http://csua.org/u/bh5
\_ I don't think that they do. The polls I saw had 58% of self
described conservatives opposing the federal intervention.
This is a direct consequence of the religious right hijacking the
Republican party.
\_ "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts
and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the
process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the
social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a
violation of federalism."
-(Conservative) Hoover Institute member
"This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate
your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this
country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."
-Sen. John Warner (GOP), Virginia
\_ Now it's around 32 different judges
\_ every one of them is a tyrant!
\_ You misspelled "activist"
\_ None of the judges other than Greer have ever looked at the
findings of fact. That's why they're trying to have his findings
of fact reviewed 'de novo'
\_ The standard for appeal is that findings of facts by
the trial ct are accepted as true unless there is a
showing of abuse. There was no showing of abuse in
this case b/c Greer did nothing wrong.
While a de novo review may turn up something different,
this is unlikely. Absent some huge new revelation, the
facts found by the dist ct judge will be roughly the
same and if he applies state substantive law the tube
will stay out. Unless she finds some fed statute to
sue under (maybe disabled persons), she is SOL.
\_ Personally I hope the USSC takes this case and lays down the
law. Under Art. 3 congress cannot create subject matter jx
over a particular state law claim in favor of a single citizen.
What congress did was ridiculous and I hope that many of them
lose their jobs over it and are replaced by true conservatives.
\_ Please quote the section ofArticle 3 you are referring to.
\_ Please quote the section of Article 3 you are referring to.
\_ Art 3 Sec 2.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03
The original jx of the fed cts is limited to admiralty,
international disputes, federal question (arising under
the constitution/fed statues), or diversity (btwn two
or more states, citizens of different states, citizens
of the same state claims lands under grants of different
states, btwn a states/citizen of a state and a foreign
country).
Congress cannot create more jx for the fed cts than
the constitution provides w/o an amendment. In the
Schiavo case, congress has created jx for the Dist
Ct in the Middle District of FL to hear a suit on
behalf of Schavio for violations of her rights arising
under the constitution.
While one might argue that providing a specific dist
ct w/ jx over constitutional claims is still w/in Art
3 Sec 2, what congress is really doing is creating
jx for a fed ct to hear claims that are already
subject to res judicata under state law. This is not
allowed.
\_ The SC will refuse to hear the case and send it back down with
no comment. This is modis operadi. Shiavo will die and social
conservatives will have a new face for an old issue to play
with next election. Ooooo. Shiny.
\_ I'm hoping the USSC has a vested interest in telling
congress that they can't overstep their bounds.
\_ http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.03.22.GrandOldPragma-X.gif
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367722/posts |
| 2005/3/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36787 Activity:low |
3/21 What corporate greed does to a city.
Original title, changed to above by MOTD communist:
What democrats and Unions do to cities
Documentary Shows a Ruined Detroit
http://detroityes.com/home.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366589/posts?page=1,50
\_ I think you can blame the decline of Detroit on the incomes
of the city and residents being dependent on the auto industry,
then the factories moved off shore because it's cheaper
there. blaming it all on democrats and unions is stupid.
\_ then why do foreign motor companies continue to build
US plants? GM outsources to China in the 1970s....
hmmm
\_ you know what, i don't know. i doubt it's
because of those goddamn liberals though.
\_ you are right, probably a magical leprauchan
\_ yes, that's actually much more plausible than the
previous explanation.
Documentary Shows a Ruined Detroit
http://detroityes.com/home.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366589/posts?page=1,50
\_ Thar she blows, it is the fabled Freeper back from the dead!
Do you really think you persuade anyone by posting these fanatics?
\_ no
\_ Why do you do it then?
\_ or more specifically, what does the freeper link add to
the first one, other than the spittle emissions of
the inbred?
\_ San Francisco is a similarly pro-union and Democratic town,
yet it is thriving. How do you explain the discrepancy? |
| 2005/3/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health, Health/Disease/General] UID:36762 Activity:high |
3/18 Best and worst states & public schools for raising healthy kids:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150763,00.html
California ranks 13th.
\_ As someone who spent half his youth in their lowest ranked state and
half in their highest, I just want to say that these people are
*completely* full of shit.
\_ indeed, because, like most people, they are idiots
They didn't even measure how fit kids were in these states
These are your standard liberal dumb asses who think that
the way you get kids to be more fit is upping the "school
requirements and recommendations for physical education and
nutrition classes [and] playground safety" Jeesh. |
| 2005/3/18-19 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36745 Activity:nil |
3/15 Cut tax, cut funding, every man for himself. Also,
bring your own toilet paper. Is this every Libertarian's
dream? Yahoo News: http://tinyurl.com/4y5a7
\_ No, the Lib dream is to not have these people working in government
offices at all. |
| 2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Dating] UID:36683 Activity:nil |
3/14 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html California gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional (state constitution) State: "State law also says marriage is a contract between a man and a woman." Plaintiffs: ... cited now-overturned bans on marriage by interracial couples, or laws that treated wives as a husband's property \_ Why is the constitution so vaguely written!! God damn it. \_ Does this mean I can finally marry chiapet? Joyyyyyyyy!!! \_ So, in the plaintiff's argument, were those bans overturned by the legislature or the courts? \_ Perez v. Lippold (1948) - Supreme Court of California "Respondent refuses to issue the certificate and license, invoking Civil Code section 69, which provides: '* * * no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.'" \_ Mongolian or the Malay race? So Chinese was somehow a better race than Mongolian and Thai better than Malay in the American eye back in 1948? What caused such discrepancies? -- Chinese \_ Because Americans in 1948 knew what the opium trade did to China! -Bud Day \_ My interpretation: They meant "Mongoloid" (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Inuit, etc.). \- The "keep the races sep" attitude was to be found among the "educated and respectable" far later than 1948. See the quotes in WARREN''s opinion in Loving v. Virginia: http://csua.org/u/bcv In the last 15 yrs there were various southern school principals getting into hot water over similar. --psb |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36612 Activity:very high |
3/9 Sun Tzu's Art of Winning Election, Liberal Edition:
- If you want to protest on the streets WEAR NICER CLOTHES for
heaven's sake. Door-to-door salesmen and businessmen don't wear
tie-dye shirts and jeans to persuade people. Neither should you.
- Don't show conservatives how pissed off you are. Sun Tzu in The
Art of War says to never show your emotions.
\_ Perhaps Republicans are just more polite.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
\_ Very well. In that case, if you're a rude liberal, FAKE IT
- Listen to Sun Tzu. Trick your enemies by feigning incompetence
when you're strong. If you want to exterminate your enemies, you
don't announce how you're gonna do it. You agree with them, party
with them, drink with them, and when they're drunk and asleep in
victory, kill them and their families when they least suspect it.
\_ I'd keep their hot daughters.
\_ Is their a site with "republicans we'd fuck"? I mean beyond
the Bush twins and Coulter, both of which, well, yuck.
\_ http://www.rilf.com
- Attack conservative views aggressively, but with sensitivity.
The more nasty names you call your foes, the more likely they'll
disagree with your views (examples: idiots, Red necks, hicks).
- Get a clear, simple & maybe stupid message this time, just make
sure to stick to it. To some [sad] extent, it's not what you say,
but how you say it.
- Support liberal views early. Not 1 year before the election,
not 1 month. NOW.
- Talk about tolerance and the history of Civil Liberty EXCEPT
in predominantly white/Red states because they hate "Nigers"
\_ I disagree with this. Even in the South, most people are
in favor of equal rights these days. Don't make this
the focus when talking to uneducated whites, obviously.
\_ In Mississippi and Tennesee, blacks and whites still don't hang
out together.
\_ You're an idiot.
\_ Have you been there? I have.
\_ Not only have I been, but my gf is from
Mississippi. You're an idiot. Yes, they are more
backward than, say, NYC but your comments are
insulting.
\_ If your gf from a different race? Why did she
leave Mississippi?
- Tie in liberal views with family values. Just because you
support gays and lesbians doesn't mean you must support drugs,
rave parties, and swingers.
- Do what your enemies do, and do it better. For example, work less,
try to enjoy life more, and for heaven's sake PRODUCE MORE KIDS.
You're more than welcome to add to the list, and God Bless Liberals.
\_ Improve visual presentations better. The power of persistence and
suggestion is great. Fox pioneered the flashing Red/White/Blue logo,
so should liberal media. For example when you talk about gays &
lesbians, flash those colors around.
\_ Stop buying at Walmart and Dell! They write big checks to RNC.
Check http://buyblue.org.
\_ Low prices at Walmart are good for low-income consumers which
are more likely liberals.
\_ I agree but look at long term implications.
- Stress your patriotism. Talk about your military service, if you
have it, support the troops even if you don't. Sing along with the
national anthem at football games. Let everyone know that you
love your country, even if it is flawed. Dissent is not unpatriotic. |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:36609 Activity:high |
3/9 http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/10/film.passionrecut.ap Re-release of The Passion. In another news, religious conservative membership increases and Republicans are expected to rule for the next decade or two. Also, Mel Gibson is running for president: http://www.writeinmelgibsonforpresident.org \_ No, he's not. Read the site. Hooray for the rise of conservative media and conservative actors. \_ All in favor, say "die". \_ Die. But it's not gonna happen, conservatives are reproducing faster than liberals. \_ Must watch episode AABF23. \_ You got whooshed by a Simpsons reference. \_ Gibson, the next Reagan for Republicans? \_ "I am Mel Gibson, and I see before me an army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will you fight? FREEDOM!!! VOTE FOR ME!!!" \_ Haha, good memory! \_ You do realize that quotes and scripts are available online? It's this handy little technology thingy called a 'search engine'. \_ IIRC the re-release is a slightly different cut to get it under an R rating. \_ ...which effort failed miserably. -John \_ I am a Christian and have always voted for the Democrats, but this anti-Christian rhetoric on the motd is annoying. I think I am going to switch to Republican. I mean, what did Mel Gibson do that people here hate him so much. \_ Produced a movie that plays on Christians' sense of religious persecution to ensure a steady profit base while inflicting gratuitous scenes of torture on said audience. It's exploitation of the worst kind. \_ I don't particularly like the movie, but if Mel Gibson wants to make money, I am sure there are plenty of much easier ways for him to do so. I disagree that his intention is purely, or even mainly for monetary gain. And I think there have been way too few mainstream movies about Christ, or other Christian related theme for quite some time. I applaud Mel Gibson for his courage in making the movie. And boy, did he get crucified attacked ^ for it, but I think he saw it coming, and did sort of like jesus it nevertheless ^. The movie didn't do it for me because it focused on the physical suffering of Jesus, but that's certainly one aspect of Christ's road to the cross, and if Gibson wants to focus on that, I don't have a problem with it. |
| 2005/3/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:36587 Activity:high |
3/8 I'm in the process of writing a book called a Liberal's Guide
To Become A Good Conservative. I need a list of suggestions.
I'll start but I need your help:
\_ If you post the same link to the motd enough times, everyone will
eventually agree with you. If it starts to get deleted, just
post the ip address. No one will think of that, because it's
super-sneaky.
\_ Never admit a mistake, you don't want to show your weaknesses
\_ Show people that you believe God. God Bless America.
\_ Religion works all the time. God Bless America.
\_ You are more important than anyone else, screw what other people
think. Sometimes the right decision [for me] is not a popular one
\_ There is only good and evil. You're either with us or against us.
\_ Use simple phrases, like MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! BRING 'EM ON!!!
\_ If something goes wrong, just point your finger at someone!
Like "CIA mislead me! It's not my fault."
\_ Accept that you're good and that everything else is Liberal Bias.
There is good and evil. Mormon is good. Everything else is evil.
\_ Cut taxes. Talk about God a lot. To set policy on a particular
topic such as healthcare or energy, invite business leaders to
tell you what to do.
\_ This should be a really easy book to write. All you need is
one page, and it should just read "remove head from ass".
\_ According to Tom Holub, the motd is a bastion of conservativism.
And he's right -- look at all the help this thread has gotten so
quickly! -- ilyas
\_ uh, when did I say this? -tom
\_ According to ilyas, motd is about him and tom holub. Just
look at these two dominating motd. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
\_ Have some compassion for ilyas. He seems to have a very
low self-esteem and he just needs acceptance. He is
unsure of himself and covers up his esteem with quick
snappy insults. And people like that usually have
a history of being ridiculed or not being able to
"fit in" in the physical world, so they find places that
are less painful to be in, like motd.
\_ I don't think ANYONE comes to the motd for acceptance.
I come here for the laughs mostly. -- ilyas
\_ yet you do not deny that you have a low self-
esteem. You realise that people on motd usually
laugh AT you, not with you, yes?
\_ I admit everything! The motd inquisition got me,
at last! -- ilyas
\_ Give him... the comfy chair!
\_ Don't EVER defend the queer, you'll lose lots of allies.
\_ Don't EVER bring up boring statistics like "87 Billion dollars in
Iraq will give you 100,000 teachers for 20 years" unless you want
to bore your audiences to death. BORING!!! Instead, talk about GOD.
\_ If someone makes fun of your intelligence (Democrats), they are
immoral people. Talk with your gun (and oh thanks, NRA!)
\_ Liberty is not free, and is the historical exception not the
rule.
\_ Odd one stands out, dummy.
\_ Do NOT get an intern to suck your dick, it'll piss off Jesus' people
\_ Remove your brain and trust your government.
\_ Funny, I always thought that was the liberal/socialist view.
\_ Correction: "Don't trust the government unless it trusts God"
\_ If you get enough people to say it, anything, no matter how patently
false, will sound convincing. |
| 2005/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:36524 Activity:high |
3/4 FYI for any other PEs here, as of July 1st, should the Gubernator get
his way, the Professional Board is being folded into a single "Dept
of Commercial Licensing". The implication is that, after 7/1, any
complaints against your license will be processed by the same people
who process complaints against hairdressers rather than a council of
engineers. Google California AB 1024. -- ulysses
\_ As much as I dislike Ah-nold, I'm inclined to agree with him on
the consolidation of the state governing boards. A lot of these
board positions are just sinecures for retired politicians.
\_ The BPELS has 13 seats and one Executive Officer. 6 of those
seats and the executive officer are PEs with the remaining 7 being
"public". You decide.
"public". You decide. For comparison the CA Bar Ass'n Board is
6 "public" out of a 23 member board. Hey, you don't care about
who licenses the person who designed your roads, bridges,
waterways, BART tracks, etc etc vs who licensed you real estate
agent or your stylist, well, that's the will of the public at
work, I guess.
\_ Indeed. Crap like this is EXACTLY why bureaucracies end up
sucking. "Ooh, we can save money!" while the world falls
apart around you.
\_ What's a PA seat vs a public seat?
\_ PE = Professional Engineer.
\_ I know a woman who put herself through Berkeley EECS as a
hairdresser who may very well be reading this. Why don't you
belittle someone else?
\_ As someone who frequents the more expensive stylists and bemoans
the lack of decent cuts this side of the Bay Bridge, I probably
have more respect for stylists than you do (probably). Still, my
guy Christopher out in South Beach is not likely to create
something within his profession that could destroy property or
lives...or to get into a more real scenario in my case, make
toilets run backwards
-- ulysses |
| 2005/3/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36509 Activity:high |
3/2 Dearliou cesr u am king te troll belw.
Youatet o nk i tilend bythe way it s meant as
humrfothse fusw ve nbeen ndoctrinate by the
Chrtanales.Te rlelowvealswhy your peple are
oft oaed an y hkg inversig roles, mabe you can
actly pahiz it d le somehing from i, like
sentvi, espc, nteranfor oher people. -agnostic
\_ a dk,I dnt hkhe tl wascensored fo religious
aon assig elby n Anonmously is iiotic. People
olditer tac o relous pople" or whtever in general,
heshuldsgntinamef the're going t attack someone
am ersnll, uld fer tat the motdstay anonymous,
dth popl ptf e for, bu this whole"dear jrleek"
a ijut cwrdynretad. Snd him a fuking email.
dnoI asntth eho cored t, but I ca see their point.
\_ a dk,I dnt hkhe tl wascensored f religou
aon assig elby n Anonmously is iotic. Pple
olditer tac o relous pople" or wtever n neral,
heshuldsgntinamef the're going attac seone
am ersnll, uld fer tat the motstay aonous,
dth popl ptf e for, bu this whol"dear rlk"
a ijut cwrdynretad. Snd him a fking eai
dnoI asntth eho cored t, but I c see teipoint.
tie
\_ o, w he gosi/heiscan frm their ow group of
nbeieingbelivs anidicule anyone else who don't share
hei pints ofvw. Ive been waiting for this to happen ever
inc the fall f Communism in general. - fellow atheist of the
\_ o, w he gosi/heiscan frm their o groupof
nbeieingbelivs anidicule anyone lse wh d't share
hei pints ofvw. Ive been waitingfor ths happen ever
inc the fall f Communism in geneal. - elw atheist of the
church of ahteism.
>>>>>>> Your Changes Above |
| 2005/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36453 Activity:very high |
2/28 Baby Gap - How birthrates color the electoral map
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_20/cover.html
[anonymous reference to me deleted] -emarkp
-disillusioned liberal still pissed off at the 2000/2004 campaign
\_ So what's your excuse? Are you busy making liberal babies, or are
you part of the problem?
\_ Don't worry, mexican immigration should help.
\_ except they are leaning conservative thanks to the increasing
huge Latino military population in San Diego bases.
\_ Yes, and we all know that all Latinos live in San Diego.
\_ Haven't you heard of youthful rebellion? Parental politics !=
politics of children.
\_ "The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get."
That's odd, I thought causality went the other way. The more
actively pro-bush you are, the more babies pop out. That's what they
taught us in health class in middle school...
\_ Conservatives sleep in double beds, Liberals sleep together.
This is why there are far more liberals than conservatives.
\_ But two liberal men sleeping together don't produce babies.
\_ they can sure have fun trying, though.
\_ I've found it funny for a few years that:
Birth rate varies inversely with income and education.
Evolution acceptance rate varies with income and education.
Those who believe in evolution are evolving away.
\_ The stupid shall inherit the earth.
\_ No no no. You don't understand. The 'stupid' are those who
accept evolution but are choosing to have fewer children.
\_ This seems like where darin should step in. He's the
only person I've met to decide to have lots of babies
because he believes in evolution and is smarter than
average.
\_ [troll deleted]
\_ What? Why is it smart to have a lot of children? You take
care of a bunch of kids for years. Be my guest. You can't
win that game anyway and it doesn't benefit you either.
You're gonna be dead.
\_ Having many kids means that your genes are more likely
to be propogated. That's why it's smart.
\_ You'd be smarter to learn to spell propagate. How
do you benefit by having your genes propagated?
Answer: you don't. Hey you know what? You'd have a
better chance if you went around killing other males!
Give that a try, let me know how it works out.
\_ Why are there still stupid people who think
that what's good for the propagation of their
genes is good for them. Please, you are not
your genes! Don't let your genes be your
master.
\_ Because historically, the genes for smart
people who don't care about propagating their
genes don't last very long.
\_ What's your point?
\_ So does that mean there is a evolutionary
counter-pressure on intelligence?
\_ Which is why humanity is doomed.
\_ At first glance I thought it was about the fashion company. :-)
\_ Apparently, at some subconscious level, liberals understand that
their genes are not worth passing on.
\_ This much chatter over an American Conservative article? Holy
moley, are we bored or what? Read this instead:
http://csua.org/u/b78 (SF Weekly, punking white supremacists)
\_ I thought the gun control part was incisive. |
| 2005/2/27-3/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:36445 Activity:moderate |
2/27 Intellectual Diversity in the Ivory Tower:
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001588
\_ summary: only 1 Stanford professor believes in astrology and only
1% believe in telepathy. There is no diversity in liberal colleges
and these elitist Democrats should go to hell. It's written by
Aaron Swartz. If only our Aaron Smith had written this...
\_ This summary is taken completely out of context, and entirely
misses the point. The article is a sarcastic spoof of a
supposedly neutral academic study that found only 30%
30%? I'd be SHOCKED if it was that high. _/
of Professors at elite colleges were politically conservative
and leaped to the clearly ridiculous conclusion, ``There is no
diversity in liberal colleges...,'' that you cite above.
Whatever your reason for posting such a weak summary (too caught
up in your own agenda, too simple to recognize subtle forms of
humor like sarcasm, not funny enough to carry the joke about
aaron@csua), you should get a clue. Please kindly refrain from
breeding until you do so. In the mean time, sign your posts so
I know who I'm insulting. -dans
\_ Say dans, before you start talking out your ass, might I
recommend actually _reading_ what the above piece is
satirizing? Hint: the link is at the top. "30%" is hardly
the same thing as "9 to 1". And unless you make the argument
of "well, the republicans are too stupid to listen to anyway",
which, I'd say, only further supports their point re
leftist brainwashing, I think there's definitely something
to think long and hard about there. -alexf, who, like
the authors of the PA weekly article, also votes largely
Democrat, and still thinks there's a major problem with
extreme political bias in academia
\_ Alex, you are a self-described libertarian. I would be
curious about your reasons for mostly voting Democrat
as opposed to Republican (Note: I think either are
reasonable for a libertarian. I have just been leaning
the other way myself, and I am curious for another point
of view that starts from mostly the same premises as me).
If you don't want to answer this here, but do want answer,
please send me a mail or something. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not alex but I don't think the Republicans are
giving "less government". They cut some taxes, fine.
But that just goes into the deficit. Meanwhile they
pump up spending. A lot. And increased federal gov't
power with Patriot Act provisions etc. And engaging
in a costly unnecessary war doesn't seem libertarian
to me.
\_ It's pretty much common knowledge no mainstream US
political party is a 'small government' party. Hence
my question. I am perfectly open to the possibility
that the DNC is more in line with libertarian ideals
than the RNC, I just haven't found that to be the
case in practice. -- ilyas
\_ Given that this is the case I don't choose between
them on that criteria but rather my personal trust
and assessment of them in other areas.
\_ I choose based on issues. *shrug* -- ilyas
\_ LOL, you realize that the post you're responding to is
a similarly sarcastic response to the original article,
don't you? I suppose that you yourself fail to understand
the subtle forms of sarcasm that you supposedly purport.
It's rather ironic that the troll got trolled.
\_ You do not seem to know what sarcasm means.
\_ And you most definitely do not know what ironic means.
Please refer to the appendix of Eggers' "A Heartbreaking
Work of Staggering Genius" for a thorough introduction.
-dans
\_ I'm pretty sure you've been trolled. I can't believe anyone
on the motd is as dense as pp appears to be. |
| 2005/2/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36392 Activity:kinda low |
2/23 Since I can't find a CA newspaper that talks about this:
Calfornia goverment ties Alabama for worst state government
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20050130-103554-6800r.htm
\_ maybe you should try a non-moonie newspaper.
\_ Sorry, here's the real source
http://results.gpponline.org
\_ here's a shock; a group funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts
(an evangelical "think" tank) gets reported by the Moonies
as thinking California has bad government. -tom
\_ So, do you have actual issue with the results, or are
you just blowing smoke as usual?
\_ Uh, the Pew Charitable Trusts might have some religious
aspect, but they seem to give most of their grants to
center/left groups. Do you have any idea what you're
talking about? |
| 2005/2/17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:36211 Activity:high |
2/17 "No, the philosophy, as I recall, was that if you earn
money, you deserve it (note "earn" in the the meritocratic
sense.) And are not wealthy, and don't work for money,
you do not deserve it. -John"
\_ ok, few Q's. 1) what if you won the lotto, is that meritocratic?
2) suppose you simply got lucky, say during the dot-com days and
got 5 million dollars even though the poor bozo around you worked
just as hard, is that meritocratic? 3) suppose you inherited an
apartment building and all you do is you hiring someone else to
manage it for you, and you get good and consistent income from
that. Is that meritocratic? 4) suppose your ancestors left great
wealth to you and the wealth "self-generates" with minimal input,
is that meritocratic?
Lastly, for each of the question, if the answer is no, should the
solution be to redistribute the wealth via brute force?
\_ Are you asking what John thinks, what we (other random motd
posters) think or what Ayn Rand would have thought?
\_ asking what everyone thinks, just a survey, not expecting a
right wrong answer, just want to understand what and why you
guys have certain opinions. open ended question ya know -pp
\_ (1) Yes. You invested, you got lucky. Question the system if
you will, not the winner's right to the money. (2) Yes. Life
is not fair, sorry. If he's starving, you may take a moment to
think about whether you have an ethical burden to help him or
not, but this is your prerogative. (3) Yes. It's capital. It
was earned at some point by someone, you received it through
legal means. (4) Yes. See (3). Of course I'm ridiculously
stretching the meaning of "merit", but I fail to understand
the source of all the resentment directed at those with money
obtained through legal means? I always thought the American
ideal (compared to some wacko European marxists I know) was not
"hey, he's not supposed to have that", but "hey, how can I get
that as well". And if you're going to quote me, do me the favor
of correcting my ass grammar, would you please? -John
\_ I don't resent the wealthy. I do think that wealth reaches
the point of diminishing returns fairly rapidly, and that
it is better for the society for a billion dollars to be spent
on, say, public health care, than for Bill Gates to be worth
$51 billion instead of $50 billion. -tom
\_ I don't know what the exact endowment of his foundation
is, but it's accomplishing exponentially more than the
same amount of money would in the hands of, say, NIH
bureaucrats. Yes, if you rely on private charity you
can't guarantee the flow of money from the hands of the
wealthy, but it's also pretty obvious that, without the
choice of what to do with the money (hence the idea of tax
deductions, I guess) the money would go somewhere else
(i.e. a Cayman account) pretty quickly and nobody would
benefit from it. -John
\_ The argument you just made--you can't tax the rich
because they'll just hide the money--is a lot different
than the one you started this thread with, don't you
think? -tom
\_ (a) I didn't start the thread, (b) I didn't say you
can't tax the rich, I objected to the idea of
taxing the rich out of principle (as in "because
they're rich and we're not") and (c) I'm pointing
out economic realities which any society trying
to come up with a usable and just taxation model
must consider--that enforced equality is bunk, that
exorbitant taxes will be seen as theft (rightly imho
but that's just a subjective opinion) and that very
often private disbursal of funds is more effective
than government spending. -John
\_ Having read only Atlas Shrugged, I would say that Ayn Rand would
reply as follows: (1) No. Lotto is theft. (2) Possibly, depends
on what you did vs. what others did. Did you create value? Did
your work translate into $$? Or was it plain dumb luck? (3) Yes.
Capital begets capital. It's smart investment. (4) Yes. See
previous. Although, given Ayn's philosophy, she would likely
say for (3) and (4), that if the previous generation earned the
money via superior intelligence, ability, etc., they would most
likely also have trained their progeny to be "men of ability,"
who would be able to further the family line. Ayn believed in
what John says above, and also believed that certain ppl had
inherent qualities that made them "men of ability," and that they
knew hard work, were intelligent and capable, and would thus
naturally rise to the top in a meritocracy - a system that
rewarded those who earned money, and not those who didn't.
\_ I have also only read Rand's fiction, just Atlas Shrugged and
The Fountainhead. I am having trouble seeing where you get
(1) from. I don't remember gambling being mentioned in
either book. Personally, I agree with "no. lotto is theft",
but where's the evidence that Rand did?
\_ Privately run lotteries would not be considered theft.
Whether a publically ran lottery would be something Rand
agrees with is not a question I know the answer to. In
some sense the question is moot because government ran
lotteries make, rather than lose, money. She certainly
wouldn't say it was 'theft', she might possibly say this
sort of thing lies outside the juristiction of government.
-- ilyas
\_ Wealth becoming concentrated in the hands of a small minority
of richer and richer landlords is a phenomenon seen in the
dynastic cycle of China. Usually, when a new dynasty is
founded, land is redistributed to make it more equitable, and
taxation would be working well, then as the years passed by,
wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer number of
richer and richer landlords. Wealth begets wealth and these
landlords gain power and can bribe local officials or become
officials themselves, and through corruption, they don't pay much
taxes, and the central government starts having problem collecting
taxes, and the tax burden goes increasingly to the small farmers,
and the dynasty weakens and eventually fails. This
phenomenon was well observed and documented in China's history and
they even have a term for it. A little simplistic, and probably
not entirely relevant to the modern world, but it's something to
think about.
\_ Very astute and accurate observation. Equally interesting is
to chart out what happens to healthy economies and societies
when the rabble finds that it can help itself to the wealth
of its prosperous members at gunpoint in the name of
democracy and equality (French revolution, Soviet revolution,
Zimbabwe, Uganda under Idi Amin, etc.) -John
\_ The idea is that if the problem the poster above you
mentioned is not dealt with, it may eventually lead
to the problem you stated.
\_ Also completely accurate--however it's an fascinating to
compare upheaval-type attempts to redistribute wealth to
more gradual ones (viz. growth of tax systems in western
countries since 1700.)
\_ Yes, the gradual ones are known as 'boiling the frog.'
\_ Of course, there is also a Chinese proverb that says wealth
doesn't survive past 3 generations. BTW, what is the chinese
term that describes the phenomenon you described?
\_ I only remember the second character is "tian2" as in
farm land.
\_ I wonder how Marx and other various famous political theorists
would respond to this question.
\_ Take my girlfriend. She just got her master in human
resources from a above average school. She is very capable and
driven and I am sure she will do well in her career. But
because she is a foreign student, doesn't have any US working
experience, and also her English is not very
good at all, after a few months of job search, all she got was
a $47000 offer from a tiny company in the middle of nowhere.
So she called up her wealthy and successful cousin who knows many
wealthy and successful people, and viola, she got a $80000 job with
nice annual bonuses of $20000+. Now, people say most job offers
are made through networking, but do you think this is meritocratic?
\_ I don't. I think networking is evil, and I don't do it
professionally myself. -- ilyas
\_ no wonder you don't have a job. -tom
\_ isn't academia very political as well? I get to know a few
people, write mediocre papers, submit to conferences in which
your buddies or your professor's buddies are chairmen of, and
get published? How about DARPA and NSF funding, don't
professors shmooz a lot to get those funding?
\_ Yes, academia is extremely political. -- ilyas
\_ Yes, academia is extremely political and schmoozy.
However, past a certain point, in academia (as in industry)
results speak for themselves without any of the crap.
-- ilyas
\_ "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." -Honore de Balzac |
| 2005/2/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/Space] UID:36111 Activity:very high |
2/8 What's the best pen?
\_ bic round stick. just ask any writer or john stewart.
\_ jon
\_ they leak.
\_ they're acceptable sometimes. not very slick.
\_ uni-ball VISION, the micro version, blue.
\_ how often does this thing leave a blot?
\_ If you're not used to it, it can blot, and it depends on
your writing/drawing style, but I agree with pp that once
you're used to it, it's the best.
\_ Uni-Ball Vision black, biyotch!
\_ how are those Fisher Space Pens for general use?
\_ Impractical but cute; they write just fine. If you want really
stylish, go for a Graf von Faber Castell fountain pen. Never
blots, nice heft, real pleasure to write with. What are you
looking for? Drawing/drafting, writing, doodling? -John
\_ Just whatever. Not drawing/drafting. And uh, under $20.
\_ Ah. I like Lamy Vista rollerball pens with M62 super
plus 205 ink cartridges. http://www.lamy.de . -John
\_ a pen connoisseur! I have a Lamy 2000 fountain pen,
nothing else writes so smoothly - it's awesome!
\_ Well I just got it on a lark once when I bought
about 4 or 5 decent pens to try out. I still
think the F-C fountain pen my gf gave me blows away
all the Cross or other expensive pens I've ever
had by a mile. The really nice ones are at
http://www.graf-von-faber-castell.com although
<DEAD>faber-castell.com<DEAD> has really good quality pens too.
So does Caran d'Ache if you're into this sort of
thing -- http://www.carandache.ch . $$$ but
really worth it. -John
\_ Ever try a S.T. Dupont? If so, how's it compare
to the F-C? -nivra
\_ Not tried, seen. Dunno, go to an expensive
pen shop and try them all. If they balk at
letting you try out every pen in the place
before you blow $700 on a writing implement,
vote with your wallet. -John
\_ The Lamy Safari is worth taking a look at if you
want to try a fountain pen. Quite decent, sturdy,
costs $25 to $30. -pvg
\_ "During the space race back in the 1960's, NASA was faced with a
major problem. The astronaut needed a pen that would write in the
vacuum of space. NASA went to work. At a cost of $1.5 million
they developed the "Astronaut Pen". Some of you may remember. It
enjoyed minor success on the commercial market.
The Russians were faced with the same dilemma.
They used a pencil."
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
\_ Pilot G5
\_ I'm not a pen connoisseur, but these days, I usually buy whatever
pen that uses gel ink.
\_ That doesn't smear right? I don't know if I've ever tried it.
It sounds like the hot ticket... no smear and water resistant.
\_ I mainly like it, because they write smoothly. -pp
\_ Why use pen anyway except for throw-away doodling?
\_ Lab notebooks have to be in pen.
\_ I love the Sensa, it actually uses the "Space Pen" refills
mentioned above. The plasium shell is great, it's very
comfortible, molds around your finger (ergonomic). Also
equally counter-balanced and looks way too cool! Had mine for
3 years, works like a charm, highly recommended!
\_ I thought people from China blowing off thousands for expensive
watches were dumb. Didn't know it's the same over here, just
that it's pens. |
| 2005/2/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:36091 Activity:nil |
2/7 I was reading about how the US budget is ~$2.5 trillion. The debt
is ~$7.5 trillion. Why not cut budgets 10% across the board and
pay this back in the next 30 years? 10% cuts are not nice, but
not crippling either.
\_ your oversimplification starts with forgetting about interest.
\_ An oversimplification that would make a libertarian proud!
\_ Not forgotten, since interest is part of the budget. In fact,
assuming that the debt gets paid back faster that will mean
> 10% available in later years. I am assuming that there is
not a *deficit* so the cuts have to be larger than 10% in
reality.
\_ I can't remember the numbers, but Cameho had a similar argument
when he ran for CA governor, which went something like this:
We have a $20B deficit, but only 6 years ago our CA budget was
$40B and now it is $100B. We should be able to cut some stuff
and have a surplus. I think the simple explanation is that
there is too much pressure (mostly promises to constituents)
to spend money, and little political benefits to actually saving
money. Just like how many people could get out of credit card debt
just by not buying lots of crap for a while, but they won't do it.
\_ heck let's tax the Iraqi people while we're at it.
\_ I can't remember the numbers, but Cameho had a similar argument
when he ran for CA governor, which went something like this:
We have a $20B deficit, but only 6 years ago our CA budget was
$40B and now it is $100B. We should be able to cut some stuff
and have a surplus. I think the simple explanation is that
there is too much pressure (mostly promises to constituents)
to spend money, and little political benefits to actually saving
money. Just like how many people could get out of credit card debt
just by not buying lots of crap for a while, but they won't do it. |
| 2005/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36070 Activity:high |
2/4 Proof Enron turned off the lights in California:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/national/04energy.html
\_ uh DUH, everyone already knows that, what good is proof gonna
do for Californians now? It's like the Clinton scandal, everyone
knows that the dress has his sperm, what good is the DNA test
gonna do? It's like the Bush war scandal, everyone knows that the
war's a dumb & hasty decision, but what good is it to prove that
it's bad via all the numbers? Shit. You're pissing me off.
\_ what exactly do you expect companies to do when the PUC buys
daily all of their energy on the spot market and even anounces their
intentions? It is called a free market for a reason. This game
sure had a big effect on LA, not. You might as well
rename the article "Company acts in a manner to maximize
shareholder profit that is legal under existing system".
\_ Except it wasn't legal.
\_ it was unethical, but sadly, legal at the time.
\_ You are an idiot.
\_ It was illegal. Hence the billion dollar judgements
against them. Do you understand the difference between
criminal law and civil law?
\_ the government is the law and can change the law
as it sees necessary, including to retroactively
sue companies such as the tobacco industry. Its funny
that none of the california legislature members never
returned the hundreds of thousands given by Enron during
the '90s, nor did Davis ever return the hundreds of
thousands he received. The California taxpayer was
in fact screwed by its government.
\_ Which is why we recalled Davis. |
| 2005/2/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36062 Activity:very high |
2/4 Whoa, this is the first time I've heard anyone dying from H2O
intoxication: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/fraternity.death.ap
\_ Wooooo, Chico! Home sweet home! -jrleek
\_ The folks I did get out the vote beat-walking with in Reno were
all Chico students. I liked them. -- ulysses
\_ You shut yer mouth boy. You don't live here no more. -emarkp
\_ now i see where jrleek & emarkp's conservatism come from.
\_ Nah. I moved here in 2000 after marrying his sister in
1996. -emarkp
\_ Chico was the liberal big city where I went to
high school, Red Bluff. -ausman
\_ Yeah, actually Chico has a big liberal element
to it. It is very Berkeley esqe in some ways.
Maybe it's Red Bluff meets Berkeley. (I
actually just went to Jr High and High school
there.) -jrleek
\_ I was at the library the week before the election
and saw a group of Kerry supporters meeting to
discuss strategies on election day--including how
to stop Repub. voting fraud. I wanted to go in
and ask how well their foil-hats fit. -emarkp
\_ you're so cool. -tom
\_ Sounds like they might be a little too
tight.
\_ So I am curious. Do you believe that
Republicans never ever engage in voter fraud?
\_ Was wondering if that question would come
up. Of course not. But the topic was on
the blackboard, etc. Butte county votes
very conservative usually and so I'd see
little reason for vote fraud. Especially in
a presidential election in which everyone
knew the Dem was going to win. Aside from
that, it appears that when Dems pursue vote
fraud, it's by excessive votes. Repubs seem
to favor disqualifying votes. -emarkp
\_ Would you be willing to agree that,
regardless of any intentional wrongdoing
by either side, that voting is a pretty
broken system right now, which needs
both legal and technical fixes? I would
like to see a system where we could hold
a mock election with hackers of various
types intentionally trying to break the
voting, but failing. Of course, we'll
never have a perfect system, but I think
the present system is a disgrace to this
country. I've done some research on this
since 2000, and I'm convinced that most
overcounted or undercounted votes are
caused by idiocy, not malice. However
most politically active people seem to
be more interested in malice than simply
fixing the idiocy.
\_ Best things to do in Chico:
Get Drunk, lie on train tracks.
Get Drunk, swim in dangerous river
Get Drunk, drive into walnut tree. (Friends cut down tree in
revenge.)
Drink self to death. (alchohol)
Drink self to death. (water)
\_ I read about one of those now and then. Not too long ago there was
someone on ecstacy who drank too much water because she was worried
about dehydration. There was another woman who had some strange
phobia about dehydration and always drank tons of water until one
day she overdid it.
\_ It is actually more common than people think. Hits folks who
hike in hot/dry areas and don't understand the dangers of too
much water.
\_ It's common (especially in hospitalized people), but unless
there's a specific reason it rarely makes it into the news.
\_ When one drinks that much water doesn't one just urinate
it back out? How much and how fast would one have to drink to
be in danger?
\_ It's not that hard to drink more than you can pee out;
it's not easy, but also not impossible. try it and see
(don't, obviously).
\_ The cause of death isn't explosion. The cause of death is
all that water flowing through your system leaches out
stuff from your system via osmosis. Peeing the water out
won't change that.
\_ More to the point it causes your body's sodium and
potassium to become too diluted, and that interferes with
nerve and muscle function.
\_ not exactly. osmosis causes the water you drink to
move INTO your cells. but the cause of death is cells
swelling up in your head, causing convulsions and other
nasty conditions like that. it also pushes your brain
through the one hole in your skull.
\_ maybe Michael Moore should have a documentary on how he prevented
suicidal people from drinking too much water.
\_ Mmm, dumbass, and you nuked two people's posts |
| 2005/2/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36054 Activity:nil |
2/3 http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/24_freshmen.shtml Liberalism outnumber Bushism by more than 4 to 1, freshmen liberalism on campus the highest since 1972. "Berkeley's white students are the most liberal ethnic group, at 59.9%. That is, white female students. White women were the most liberal group of all freshmen at Berkeley, at 65.9%" Too bad this doesn't mean they will date Asian men -Asian \_ do we really have to encourage the Cal Patriot? |
| 2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Consumer/Camera] UID:35995 Activity:moderate |
1/31 Brain Washing 101
http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/brainwashing-101.html
\_ All that brainwashing, and he's still a knee-jerk dittohead.
How depressing. |
| 2005/1/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35982 Activity:nil |
1/30 Not surprisingly, the following headlines appear:
Fox: Bush Calls Iraqi Vote 'Resounding Success'
CNN: Bush praises historic vote
ABC: Iraq Voters Defy Threats, Boycott Calls
MSNBC: History Vote
\_ eh?
CBS: Iraqi Voters Defy Insurgents |
| 2005/1/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35973 Activity:high |
1/29 Any Saturday night trolls want to predict what will happen on Iraq
election day?
\_ Lots of people will vote, some will be killed, and Iraq will
continue to be violent and occuppied by the U.S. with very little
real change.
\_ Probably a coup.
\_ we'll invade iran as a distraction
\_ Kurdish independence.
\_ Lots of motd wankery.
\_ We have a winner!
\_ There will be lots of polling booths and security in Shiite areas
(where ~ 80% want to vote), and not very many or no polling booths
at all in Sunni areas (where seemingly > 50% have said they will
definitely NOT vote). Why have polling booths somewhere where
people won't vote, security will be an even more incredible bitch,
and they'll probably mortar you to death anyway? -op
\_ some will vote, some will not, but it'll be run democratically
and people will slowly understand that democracy > dictatorship.
In time the terrorists will understand as well and begin to
accept democracy and appreciate what we've done for them. God Bless
\_ basically, if all the shiites vote and the sunnis do not, it's
like saying the sunnis don't want yer stinking election
and will wage war / continue the insurgency with the shiites
\_ Iraq is made up of a lot of different ethnic groups who hate each
other. My guess is that the ethnic majority Shia will win the
election, take over the assembly/congress/whatever and pass laws
that will be favourable for them while screwing everyone else
(since they got really screwed under Sadam's rule). It'll be like
the Republicans taking over the country and passing anti-abortion,
anti-gay marriage, and faith-based initiative laws and piss off
liberals. |
| 2005/1/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Travel/LasVegas] UID:35919 Activity:nil |
1/26 http://tinyurl.com/724bd (yahoo news) First, Phillip-Morris is sued, then McD is sued, and now... casino is sued... \_ We Americans like to blame others for our bad decisions. That's why there are so many wacky warning labels in our daily lives. http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050105/55627_1.html \_ http://bash.org/?4753 |
| 2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35872 Activity:nil |
1/24 A military personnel must support his/her supreme commander, ie. the
current president. Doesn't it conflict with his/her freedom to vote
for a challenging candidate during an election?
\_ brain classification: small.
\_ Premise is incorrect. Reevaluate and resubmit.
\_ Supporting your commander-in-chief has nothing to do with voting for
the next one (even though that could be the same person). |
| 2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:35866 Activity:nil |
1/23 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1324513/posts |
| 2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35810 Activity:very high |
1/20 How true is this "Trixter" thing, 20 somethings who live off
their parents, change jobs often, and change SOs often?:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050124/story.html
\_ It's a widely reported phenom in Japan, too, where they're called
"Furita" (from the the Japanese transliteration of "free time").
\_ The "changing jobs often" is a direct result of the destruction
of pensions in this country. As to the not getting married until
later, I think this is a definitely good change. I think in the
next generation you'll see a lower divorce rate because of it.
People have realized "I don't need to enter a world-without-end
bargain with this person I don't even know", and so they find
their own way in the world while looking for someone they can
go along with. I think these trends started with women's lib,
and are for the best. My mom married a horrible guy, got out
when my sister was born, met my dad, and has been married to
him for 25 years. My sisters and I learned from that. --scotsman
\_ ah that's because you're born in a hippie family. Look at
all the evil things in media-- violence, first person shooter
games, reality shows based on cheating and lying, etc. You
liberals don't know anything about family values and faith.
Have you been to your local church lately? You may find
peace and stability there. God bless.
\_ Hardly. Why would you say that? Because my mom
divorced? Because she's a churchgoer and school
teacher? Because my dad served in Vietnam and is
a retired LtC? Get your head out of your ass.
You prefer someone getting married right out of
high school and being miserable for years in a
bad marriage? I weep for your children.
Are you the same person that complained about the
guys who weren't allowed to "defend" the kid from
the empty water bottle? --scotsman
\_ Heh, I know the guy that posted the water bottle
link; it's not the same guy as the one you're
responding to above. -mice
\_ With all due respect to your veteran status (you're
almost as old as me) please don't feed the trolls.
\_ to the other guy: I'm a conservative, but in this
case, lay off scotsman even if he may be a hippie
\_ you are probably being trolled
\_ duh.
\_ Your brain is so small...I am so sad for you, so sad.
\_ Damn, what a bunch of horseshit. If faculty outside of the
technical fields are not going to spend their time teaching,
we should just fire their asses so they don't pollute the world
with their moronic ideas. Yes, these kids exist in massive
numbers, and yes, they're lazy.
\_ "Twixter" and this sounds exactly like my 25 year old brother
and his friends. I hear from older acquaintances that many of
their kids are the same way. In spite of what the article says,
I do think they are lazy.
\_ Anyone got the full article? Also, I agree with the poster
above. Most twixters I know are that way because they are
allowed to mooch.
\_ I was like that until I was 35, but I didn't live off my
parents. -ausman
\_ Here in Texas, we don't have Twixters:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/kdaly/2005/krd_0118.shtml
\_ what are the Liberal Parenting Mantras? What are the
Conservative Parenting Mantras?
\_ Conservative:
Spare The Rod, Spoil The Child
Children Should Be Seen And Not Heard
A Family That Prays Together, Stays Together
Liberal:
Bitch Betta Have My Money
It Depends On What The Meaning Of "Is" Is
\_ It is a worldwide phenomena, no doubt the fault of the Lib Media:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050124/sotwixter_chart.html
\_ I see teenage moms on the bus everyday. Is this what Conservatives
mean by "family values"?
\_ funny, I've always thought they're liberal single parents
like the ones you see in liberal media. Have you
people ever wondered why conservatives are dominating
politics? It's because they listen to people.
Many people in America are pissed. People are sick and
tired of liberal TV media that glorify late-20s/early-30s
jobless comedians, minority ganstas, and gays & lesbians in
NYC and Los Angeles. People are tired of seeing them
sleeping with and/or shooting at each other. Call it
evil media, bad influence, or liberal view, I don't care,
but that is not America is about. Look, people want safety,
security, stability, and family values, all of which
conservatives have provided many decades ago.
I know this thread is going to get a lot of flames.
Typical liberal response.
\_ The only thing in your list that any liberal would balk
at is "family values," and that's simply because of the
way social conservatives define it. Of late (read last
2 decades), conservatives have not provided safety or
stability. And many of the "family values" they offer are
not what I will try to instill in my family.
\_ I'm not sure about in general, but in the south bay I think
that more and more college grads are returning home after
college. About 1/2 of my friends still live at home (we
graduated 5-6 yrs ago). Some of us (including myself) still
live at home b/c we are working on PhD or LS/Med school and
don't want to pay rent in addition to tuition. Those who
are working have taken over things like house payments or
tuition payments for younger siblings. |
| 2005/1/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35777 Activity:high |
1/18 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/18/opinion/main667553.shtml An alternative inaugural speech. \_ Wow, I remember when PJ O'Rourke wasn't a raving ass. \_ when was that? I'm not fucking with you, I'm just curious, since I haven't really read much of his stuff. \_ That was a lot funnier than I expected. \_ I agree with the ass guy. |
| 2005/1/16-17 [ERROR, uid:35739, category id '18005#9.23372' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35739 Activity:very high |
1/16 Looks like there was some voter fraud in Milwaukee as well.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan05/293225.asp
Or the right wing blog version:
http://csua.org/u/aq0
This reminds me of a movement in Berkeley a few years back to
allow "Same day voter registration." I don't recall if it got on
the ballot, but it failed either way. I couldn't see how anyone
could support something so transparently designed to facilitate
voter fraud, but there were pleantly of young activists out
telling us that it would never be used for evil....
\_ Please don't delete this. -dgies, !op
\_ you seem surprised by this... it is endemic. Even illegals
vote:
Texas County Cracks Down on Illegal Voting
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1322109/posts
\_ my friend (US citizen) went from county to county to vote. There
was no accountability whatsoever. You give you ID (driver's license
or passport) and they let you vote. This has been going on for
decades, why do you sound surprised?
\_ What surprises me is not that it happens, what surprises me
is how many people _support_ it. I personally think we
should shoot anyone who attemts voter fraud. |
| 2005/1/15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35728 Activity:high |
1/15 Proof that conservatives have more manners:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/14/polite.cities.ap/index.html
\_ The most polite cities aren't cities.
\_ A real conservative should have better manners. Southerners
are nothing if not genteel, at least the white ones.
\_ Then again....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144454,00.html |
| 2005/1/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:35712 Activity:high |
1/14 http://csua.org/u/ap3 \_ I wonder if the moron parent who was all pissed off that her son wanted to be a fisherman has any idea what commercial fishermen make. \_ Actually, I'm curious how long the kid would last as a commercial fisherman. It's a whole different boat from sittin' on the riverside with a pole. \_ Well, I did it every summer I was in college. Personally, I can't stand the sitting around with a pole type of fishing. Yes, it's hard work, but depending on what fishery you're in, it's comparable to construction work in difficulty, but with *much* better pay, and much more fun. The big pay difference partly comes from the fact that when you're at sea you don't spend *any* money, so what you earn you actually save, without bills, food expenses, etc. And there's no income tax in Alaska. \_ No income tax in Alaska? How oppressive! \_ Yeah, but the sales tax is 12%. \_ Nice try. It's zero. \_ Omg! Poor poor people! How can they stand it? Clearly, someone has NOT thought of the children in Alaska. \_ Actually every resident of any age gets a check from the interest on a fund from oil money that was started in the late 70's. It's usually about a grand a year per person. And yes, that includes children. \_ But if you're a resident in CA you have to pay tax on income made elsewhere as well. Also, how's the mortality rate on the boats? \_ The danger level strongly depends on which fishery you're in. Crab is really dangerous, salmon hardly at all. I mentioned the income tax thing because if someone were to do it fulltime, that makes a big difference. It made no difference to me, since I only worked two months a year and was still in a low tax bracket. \_ I wouldn't last a day. I hate sea-sickness.. -- ilyas \_ You'd be suprised how many commercial fisherman have the same problem, but just suck it up and take dramamine until they get used to it. \_ Heh. Let me tell you something about dramamine. Dramamine does not work in storm weather, if you are on a tiny boat. To the tune of continuous vomiting. -- ilyas \_ Other cool career choices for 8th graders: Adult Film Star \_ If no one grew up to be an adult film star, about 75% of you would have nothing left to live for. Professional Prostitute Pawn Shop Proprieter Mobster Crack Dealer \_ Don't forget crack whore; it is a noble profession and quite necessary to help sustain our society's way of life. \_ Crack dealers make GOOD money. It is a great profession if you don't fry your brain first. \_ How much would a street dealer make? Not some distributor who sells to the street dealer, but the guy on the street pushing the shit. Are there really that many crack addicts in a given area? \_ Hollywood, and the 2nd floor labs in soda. \_ Rule Number One: Never use your own product. \_ Don't get high on your own supply. |
| 2005/1/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35677 Activity:nil |
1/12 Where's the guy who predicted that the Republicans would
get a do-over in Washington?
http://csua.org/u/aoj
\_ "A two-week delay is a small price to pay to restore confidence in
this election," said Republican Rep. Mike Armstrong. "This is a
historic time and we cannot afford to rush this process."
Oh, the Irony.
\_ Again, you confuse imagined disenfranchisement with dead
people voting, mysteriously appearing ballots, and poll
workers actively changing votes.
\_ Thus ends democracy.
\_ Uh, the Opinion Journal article ended like this:
"[Gregoire] would do well to recall what happened in Minnesota
after the 1962 election for governor there. Republican Elmer
Anderson won a squeaker and was sworn in, but a recount of disputed
ballots ground on. A hundred days into Mr. Anderson's term, a panel
of three state judges ruled that Democrat Karl Rolvaag had actually
won by 91 votes. To end the legal wrangling, Mr. Anderson dropped
any appeals and calmly left office, allowing Mr. Rolvaag to move
into the governor's mansion."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006139
\_ I lost all respect for that rag after they repeated the
Drudge sourced Kerry intern rumours. |
| 2005/1/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35669 Activity:moderate 50%like:33071 |
1/11 A vote for Al Gore is a vote for the complete annihilation of all
possible worlds.
http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~okeefets/algore-nothingness.html
\_ is this amusing? I couldn't tell. -tom
\_ It is if you have ever taken undergraduate philosophy, and
especially if you have had to read an undergraduate philosophy
paper. |
| 2005/1/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35664 Activity:high |
1/11 What's the libertarian/conservative repsonse to the mudslide
in SoCal? Should be be forcing Ilya, at gunpoint, to pay to
try to rescue people who *choose* to live downhill from, um,
anything? Should surivors be able to sue the owner of the
mud for damages?
\_ I am no libertarian or conservative, but I think aid for people
who built million dollar houses in obviously idiotic places is
bullshit. When a once in a hundred years tsunami floods your whole
town, you can call it an act of God, but when you build your
house in a fucking flood plane and it gets flooded you deserve
what you get.
\_ I don't mean extra aid, I mean digging bodies out of the
mud. And suppose the mudslide was caused because the owner
of the land uphill cleared out the vegetation? Lastly, calling
the little bit of rain they're getting a tsunami is a stretch,
given the widespread destruction of the real one.
\_ [ bitch. ]
\_ La Chonchita was hardly a place of million dollar homes, fyi.
\_ If I remember correctly from yesterday's hate fest, ilyas would
deny such basic assistance as food stamps to poor people. Why
would he want to waste money rescuing anyone?
\_ It's not a waste to spend money to rescue people, but if I were
in charge of the country, I wouldn't consider it my money to
spend. I would encourage people to not be fucktards and help,
but I will not be a fucktard in return and make them help if
they do not wish. -- ilyas
\_ And while you're taking your time gathering support, real
people are dying buried beneath the mud.
\_ I think the libertarian solution would be to have people
donate in advance to a relief group which would help out
when necessary. --not libertarian, but trying to understand
\_ Or it could work kind of how home owner associations
work. Places have their own local organisations
responsible for providing or contracting private
emergency services. --also non-libertarian
\_ I will not force people to do good. If you want to go
down that path, why have free will at all? Just lobotomize
them into some sort of drone-saint and be done with it.
Of course, drone-saints are not moral agents, but that
probably doesn't bother you. If you ever wondered why
Christians tend to not be liberal, it might be because
they have this intuitive notion that God considered free
will important as far as doing good. Otherwise, he wouldn't
have bothered with it, and just made everyone act as they
should act. Liberals ignore the issue of human goodness
entirely using the machine of government. -- ilyas
\_ Hmm, libertarians seem to take the notion of human
goodness for granted, and conveniently ignore the fact
that expensive life saving equipment and training is
usually outside of the range of affordability for me
and neighbor Joe. That money's gotta come from
somewhere, and if that means through taxes, then so
be it. Saying that this 'ignoring the issue of human
goodness' seems, at best, non sequitur. Perhaps you can
give clarification.
\_ Eh, rescue stuff is sort of a gray area. In
principle libertarians tend to not fund stuff other
than police/army. On the other hand, rescue
operations are often done _by_ the army, since they
tend to be very qualified for this kind of work
(see the tsunami thing for example). Personally,
I don't consider rescue efforts, and general
'good samaritan' stuff to be the province of the
government, though I recognize government agencies,
even in limited government, tend to be good at it.
Anyways lifesaving equipment/training maybe outside
the scope of the average Joe, but so are blood
transfusions, or AIDS research. This does not mean
average Joe would not contribute, and that effective,
fast acting charity based rescue orgs cannot exist
(in fact they exist now).
I ll modify my original claim somewhat, and say that
short term crises of any kind can be reasonably
claimed to be the province of the army/law
enforcement agencies, which are tax-funded.
Or they may not (also reasonable).
The 'human goodness' comment is more of a general
comment on how libertarians view acts of charity
and decency. -- ilyas
\_ Eh, rescuing people in need of immediate disaster
response is part of the reason IMO we have government.
Long-term aid should be through private groups, etc.
Rebuilding should be done (if at all) via funds from
private insurance. -emarkp
\_ This mostly makes sense to me. I don't understand
why this would be 'ignoring the issue of human
goodness', though. -mice (a moderate)
\_ Haven't you been keeping up with motd? God punishes the
unworthy (esp if they're poor and ideologically unsound).
It's their fault, so sit back and enjoy yer stuff and feel
no conscience about (or need to participate in) society.
\_ Dig them out and then mail them a bill.
\_ Rescuing people is a reasonable government action. Paying them
relief money so they can rebuild in the same spot isn't. Morons who
drive around barricades to cross a river which was a road should be
charged the cost of the rescue. |
| 2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:35634 Activity:very high |
1/10 John Fund explains some of what happened in Washington's recent
race for governor.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006139
\_ Restored.
\_ He omits that Rossi won the first two machine counts and
only after a hand recount only in overwhelmingly Dem.
King County did Gregoire come out ahead. The Dems. have
refined their election stealing skills since 2000.
\_ Source? Everything I've read indicated that the dem led
in all the recounts, which was why the repub. wanted a
"re-vote"
\_ Are you kidding? I've never read anything like that.
http://csua.org/u/anl (5th paragraph)
Also just search on http://news.google.com.
\_ Seriously, where did you hear this?
\_ I suspect he just mis-read the articles. Since they
usually just use the names of the canidates, it could
be easy to mix up.
\_ They recounted the whole state. Pretty funny to watch
the Republicans whine when the shoe is on the other foot.
Want some cheese with that whine?
\_ And pretty funny to see the Dems who were all worked up
about making sure everyone got their vote be suddenly
silent in the face of ACTUAL fraud.
\_ You mean like all the Florida fraud in 2000? Admit it,
you are just a big fat hypocrite.
\_ Honestly, I was out of the country during that
time, and I completely missed the whole 2000
controversy. I don't know how that makes me a
hypocrite, but you're welcome to try to come up
with something. -jrleek
\_ I read the full report about FL. There was absolutely
zero evidence of fraud.
\_ You don't know how to read then:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
"After carefully and fully examining all the
evidence, the Commission found a strong
basis for concluding that violations of
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)
occurred in Florida."
\_ You don't know how to read the whole thing:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/dissent.htm
-emarkp
\_ Did you say "zero evidence of fraud" or not?
There is certainly plenty of evidence.
\_ Um, no there isn't. There's a lot of
handwaving, but no evidence. -emarkp
\_ Wow. You know how to present the
dissenting opinion and claiming it's
fact. I think I remember you posting
the same link before. From now on,
I'm going to live life according to
the body of law made up by Clarence
Thomas's dissents.
\_ I see you haven't read the dissent.
Show me in the conclusions what the
evidence was then. -emarkp
\_ There are none so blind as he
who will not see. It is right
there in front of your face.
"It is impossible to determine the total
number of voters turned away from the
polls or deprived of their right to vote.
It is clear that the 2000 presidential
election generated a large number of
complaints about voting irregularities in
Florida. The Florida attorney general?s
office alone received more than 3,600
allegations 2,600 complaints and 1,000 letters"
Here is a whole bunch more
evidence you can deny ever
seeing:
http://csua.org/u/anq
\_ Error 404
\_ Facts are such inconvenient,
stubborn things.
\_ Yes, especially when made up.
-emarkp
\_ So your contention is that all
the people who claimed that
they were turned away and not
allowed to vote are lying?
\_ Hey assmonkies! Why don't
we let the politicians and
pundits shout at eachother
about who "committed fraud"?
Us techies should be sticking
to a single message: "voting
in America is innacurate."
It can be fixed with common
sense, better laws, technology
and hard work. Claiming that
the "other guy", whoever
he is, is at fault really
helps nothing. Both sides
did that for four years, and
in 2004 the voting was just
as broken. Sure, there was
a clear winner, since he won
by such a large margin, but
the system is still broken,
and shouting like
children/pundits helps
nothing.
\_ I don't know if John Fund is a Republican, but he his
pretty famous for being an expert on voter fraud. He's
pretty bi-partisan in that area. |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35624 Activity:nil |
1/9 I thought I'd post this seperately. Here is the breakdown of
the Jooish vote in U.S. presidential elections going back to 1916.
Hell, even Mondale and McGovern managed to clean up in this demographic.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
And in case anyone cares, I'm both a Democrat and a (secular)Joo. |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:35617 Activity:high |
1/8 Chinese American who spies for US and then arrested for sleeping with
her handler freed. Judge accuses presecution of serious misconduct.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-katrina7jan07,1,3939111.story
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316268/posts
\_ Thanks. It is almost always amusing to read the comments
by the freepers. It is also very informative -- not about the
original article but about the freepers themselves. They appear
mostly to be poorly programmed robots. Despite all their
mistrust of the government all but one seemed to know for sure
the fed is right and she is guilty of spying for China. In fact
they seem to know the right answer to everything. If only we
could have a regime change to put them in power.
\_ This is an old case....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/894913/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/890235/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/889352/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/889197/posts?page=1,50
http://www.cis.umassd.edu/~gleung/nacaf/nb9a.html
\_ But dismissed only now. BTW, what is the special relevance of
the pics on the last link? to the case? Any pics of her is
evidence of guilt? |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35614 Activity:very high |
1/8 Why are movie stars mostly liberal democrats? I thought most people
with seven figure incomes were ususally republicans. Doesn't this seem
odd?
\_ First, just how "usually" would you expect 7-figure-makers to be
Republican? There are large numbers of wealthy people who are
liberal. Secondly, acting requires a very empathetic personality.
People that are drawn to it will tend to have a circle of concern
well outside themselves, and a curiousity in humanity that
supercedes the urge to condemn what they don't understand (or simply
don't like). Do you know any actors?
\_ This argument is amusing. Why does having an empathetic
personality and having a tendency to curiosity over
condemnation make one a liberal in the US sense? Those
virtues belong to western secular liberalism as a whole.
The distinguishing characteristic of a US liberal is a certain
frame of reference that sees government as 'family,' and
prefers communal decision making at the expense of individual
wishes. See Lakoff for more on this. Anyways, liberals, if
soda is any indication, condemn what they don't like with far
more spittle than pretty much any other group. -- ilyas
\_ You have the definition of the liberal world view from
non-liberals. This discussion will go nowhere.
\_ Lakoff is a liberal. Not a stupid one, either. -- ilyas
\_ Uhm, huh? Have you visited freerepublic? I don't exactly
think of that site as 'spittle-free' or even 'spittle-
reduced'. I think this tendency of vocal condemnation has
far more to do with people as a whole rather than a single
unrealistically simplified political affiliation. -mice
\_ Eh. Freerepublic people are idiots. Soda people are
Berkeley students or Berkeley graduates. I hold soda
folks to a much higher standard. -- ilyas
\_ "...liberals, if soda is any indication..." This
would seem to imply that you're extrapolating
liberal behavior based on the soda population...
which you just said you hold to a higher standard,
in effect implying (perhaps not correctly, I hope)
that you're holding liberals to a higher standard.
A system of labels that reduces the political
landscape to one of two affiliations doesn't seem to
be serving a very useful purpose in this
conversation -- esp if you're going to start holding
specific segments to variable standards. -mice
\_ It's very simple. I accused liberals of 'spittle.'
You countered with freerepublic. I pointed out
that freerepublic are random internet idiots, whereas
soda people are Berkeley students/grads. The cream
of the crop, so to speak. It's not really reasonable
to expect a 'better behaved statistical group' among
liberals than college grads from such a good school
as Berkeley. So I am extrapolating from this group
to liberals as a whole, who, I conclude will likely
only be worse than soda people. Is anything I said
unreasonable to you? -- ilyas
\_ Some of it, yeah -- but it's the weekend, so I
hope you'll not be too hurt if I take my toys
and play somewhere else. Have a decent weekend,
ilyas! -mice
\_ The fact that you regard soda members as
representative of anything forces me to downgrade
my opinion of your intelligence. -ausman
\_ My intelligence seems to come up a lot on the
motd. In the interest of avoiding useless
repetition, let's just all agree I am an idiot,
and move on to other things. -- ilyas
\_ Cf. talk radio, the neocons, Safire, Davids Brooks
and Horowitz, Orson Scott Card, and Fox News in
general for a rebuttal of the spittle comment.
\_ DailyKos, DU, Al Franken, etc. on the
democrat side. He's talking about
average people. I'm not saying he's
right, but I am saying you're argument
misses the point.
\_ Good point. Cf. Freeper troll, ChiCom
troll, etc.
\_ I find white liberal guilt pretty odd too. -- ilyas
\_ 1) Hollywood is a liberal town, and most actors are stupid. If
Liberal arguments are the only ones you hear, and your stupidity
makes you easily influenced, then you'll be liberal, too.
2) Making millions acting is mostly a matter of luck. They may
suffer and work hard, but making it big is a matter of luck, and
is much less correlated with talent than in the business world.
Hence the guilt and resulting liberal bleeding-heart mentality.
3) But where does the liberalism originate and renew itself
from? This may smell racist, but I think it comes from the Jewish
contingent in Hollywood. The Jewish faith and culture has a long
tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Jews are much
contingent in Hollywood. The Jooish faith and culture has a long
tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Joos are much
more likely to retain these values even as they grow older and
rich. They are also much more likely to be strongly steeped in this
culture as children, as opposed to WASP and Catholic families.
Later in Hollywood, among a lot of stupid people, their conviction
wins out. And it certainly has its merits. But there aren't many
fundamentalist Christians in Hollywood to compete with their
"eye-for-an-eye, the poor get what they deserve" mentality.
\_ 3) doesn't make you a racist, it makes you a moron. If "exposure\
to Joos" infects people with liberalism, how come the finance
industry is so god damn conservative?
\_ Wow. Stupidity incarnate.
\_ such guilt made more sense in the era when blacks had to sit in
the back of the bus and many whites thought this was a fine idea.
\_ You don't have to be dumb to embrace a worldview, left or right.
If you are dumb, however, I'll mock you whichever way you lean.
\_ One party makes money off the way they make you feel when you watch
them on the silver screen.
Another party makes money by dicking you around, and say "suck it
up, it's America, land of equal opportunity" when you complain.
What's so surprising?
\_ I don't understand how they make money in the 2nd part.
\_ you must be a movie star!
\_ Much of wall-street and hollywood is leftist because secular
jews (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
joos (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
\_ Next time someone brings up the tired The Left Is Anti-Semite!
crap I'd suggest they remember this stupidity first.
\_ The left *is* anti-semite. Jews vote Democratic anyway
as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Jews lean
\_ The left *is* anti-semite. Joos vote Democratic anyway
as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Joos lean
Republican but Republicans won't have them. As for
actors, it's because most are not businessmen and as such
have no ties to big business. It really is similar to
a lottery winner. Most wealthy people are tied to
big business and hence are Republican.
\_ Care to back up your left = anti-semite claim? Come on I
dare you. I double dare you. Oh and neocon = filthy jew
dare you. I double dare you. Oh and neocon = filthy joo
is not backing up your claim, cause that is patently false.
\_ God damn it, would you please use that brain of yours to
get your mind around the idea that you can be against the
Israeli government's handling of the Palestinian issue and
not be anti-Zionist or anti-semitic?
\_ most of the earliest Communists / leftists in USSR and Europe
were Jews. There are historical reasons for this - look them
up rather than revealing your ignorance. "Jews lean
were Joos. There are historical reasons for this - look them
up rather than revealing your ignorance. "Joos lean
Republican" ... WTF are you talking about. Where do you
people come from - your knowledge of history is appalling
and dangerous.
\_ Are you judging by numbers or by influence? If by numbers
then can you back up the 'most' claim? If by
influence, was Vladimir Lenin a joo? How about any
USSR Gensec? I say you are full of shit. -- ilyas
\_ Most single digit millionaires are Republican but most wealthier
people are Democratic. There is an amusing article about f*ck you
money and how it influences people's politics in a recent issue
of The Economist. |
| 2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/Networking] UID:35596 Activity:low |
1/7 I'm driving from LA to SF tomorrow. Is there a website that can tell
me how I can get there? I am hearing rumors that I5 might be closed
and also that 101 sometimes has mudslide issues.
\_ google "caltran" yields url:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/hwytables.htm
\_ yes, thanks, but that doesn't really give driving directions
based on closed routes, or even alternate routes.
\_ rain+LA=complete misery. Are you ready for complete misery?
\_ I believe this is true for all of southern CA, I lived in
Bakersfield. brrr...
\_ http://sigalert.com |
| 2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:35584 Activity:high |
1/7 Anyone has any luck suing a person/business outside of California
through small claim court? How can the court order the defendant
to appear in this case?
\_ The same way that they order people in the state to appear.
Just because a person is out of state doesn't mean that he/she
can't be sued and required to show up in court. The only issue
here is whether the court will uphold that it has jurisdiction
over the case.
\- this is not strictly correct. a business has to have
"dealings" in california to be sued in a CA court.
in the case of a person, this is more unlikely unless
possibly the suit is over some issue that required being
in CA ... like say a car accident or some tort involving
such a physical act. there are things called "long arm
statues" which is how corts can compel non-residents/remotely
incorped busness to appear, but i am not sure if small claims
courts have differnt long arm statues. for a real/large business
it is highly likely that they have enough business presence
in CA .. in which you can probably check with the sec of state's
office who the califnornia agent is for process service/summons.
for somebody who runs a hotdog stand in louisiana, you probably
cant sue them for food poisioning in CA court. on an amusing note
on the jurisdiction question you may want to look at Mayo v.
Satan and His Staff. --psb
\_ Yes, psb, we know this. What do you think "jurisdiction over
case" means? It is strictly correct. If you don't know what
\- as someone i know used to say "i dont mind tautologies;
they're always true!". saying you can sue in court X
if court X has jurisdiction i suppose is meaningless and
unhelpful more than true/untrue. "the court feels" ...
is driven by guidelines such as the ones i discuss.--psb
"jurisdiction over the case" means don't comment. Also, you
don't need a business presence in CA to be sued in CA. All
that is required is that the court feels that it has original
jurisdiction on the matter involved. Under the UCC this means
the place of business, and if the business was conducted
in CA then the court will find it has original jurisdiction.
If all fails, you can go file a suit in Federal Court, and
there will NOT be ANY questions about original jurisdiction,
but for a small claims matter it's not worth the money.
\-mr. d. ass: you also misuse the term "original
jurisdiction" ... that is in contrast to appelate
jurisdiction, not geography or "diversity juris-
diction". as you suggest, federal ct may be an
option, but whether it is worth the money is not
fully up to the plaintiff, but there is a minimum
specified in the USC and USCA. See e.g.
http://csua.org/u/amm
\_ Uhm, no, there is really only the concept of
"original jurisdiction". It encompases what you
refer to as "geographic jurisdiction", which in
reality is a fiction. So STFU dumbass. Original
Jurisdiction always comes from the lower courts,
and appellate courts have original jurisdiction
in certain types of cases. There also isn't
really a term caled "appellate jurisdiction,"
which is a fiction also. However, since it's
unfortunately come into common usage I suppose
that it can be considered as such.
Read up on some Prosser/Keaton.
\_ I belive the problem here is that the two of you
are confusing two separate ideas: personal jx and
\- i'm not the one confused. the OP is the one
specifcally asking about the geographic/diversity
issue.
\_ Sorry. The guy who was responding to you is
a doofus, and I should be doing hw instead of
writing about jx...
writing about jx on the motd...
subject matter jx. A ct must have both in order
to hear a case. SMJX is sometimes refered to as
"original jx" in the context of fed cts.
In order for a ct to hear a case, it must first
have SMJX. In general state cts are cts of general jx
and have original jx over all cases. Fed cts are cts
of limited jx and have original jx only over two types
of cases, federal question (USC Title 28 Sec 1331) and
diversity (USC Title 28 Sec 1332). The jx of the fed
cts are limited by Article 3 of the Constitution.
In order for a case raise a fed question the complaint
must arise from the constitution, treaties of the US
or laws of the fed gov.
In order for a case to be in diversity two requirements
must be met: (1) the claim must be greater than $75K (if
you are trying to sue in small claims, you can't meet
this) and there must be complete diversity in citizenship
"across the v". Complete diversity means that no plaintiff
and no defendant must be citizens of the same state. A
corporation is considered a citizen of 2 places, the
place where it is incorporated and the place where it has
its primary place of business. The primary place of bus.
can be determined using one of two tests: (1) the nerver
center test (where are the admin offices located) or (2)
the muscle test (where the manufacturing occurs).
Personal jx is a different idea. It is refers to the
power of a ct to compel a person to appear before it and
defend a suit. PJ is proper in a state if the defendant
(1) resides there or (2) was personally served with
process in the state. PJ may also be proper over non-res
defendants IF the state has a long arm statue authorizing
the exercise of PJ over non-res defendants. Almost all
states have such statues. Some states (ex NY) enumerate
the circumstances under which PJ may be properly exercised
by the states cts over non-res, while others (ex CA) say
that any exercise of PJ consistent with Due Process is
okay.
Even if there is a statue that says that PJ can be
exercised by the ct, that exercise must be consistent
w/ the requirements of Due Process which according to
the USSC means that that the defendant has to have min
contacts w/ the state AND the exercise of PJ must be
consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justices (see Intl. Shoe)
If the case is related to some specific action of the
defendant w/ or in the state, then even a single
contact may be enough (specific jx). If the case is
unrelated to the contacts of the defendant in the
state, then lots of contacts are need.
There are lots of factors that a ct considers when
figuring out if PJ is fair: (1) the burden on the
defendant to defend in the state, (2) the interest
of the plaintiff in efficient resolution, (3) the
interest of the state, (4) interests of other states
and (5) shared interests of many states.
I'm sure this was WAY more than you possibly wanted
to know. Anyway, the upshot of all this is that if
you are suing a non-resident corp in small claims
ct you will probably not have any basis for being
in fed ct and you will probably have a hard time
compeling the corp to appear. However, you may be
able to get a judgment by default and then via
Full Faith and Credit get a lean on the corp's
property in its home state. Then you can show up
at the annual shareholders meeting and say that
you are not leaving the bldg until the deadbeat
corp makes you whole. This is an effective way
to get your money and your ass kicked in one go.
\_ http://www.tamerlane.ca/library/cases/humour/mayo_v_satan.htm
\_ Sorry, you're wrong. If you actually understood
substantive law instead of merely googling for
stuff you'd understand what
"original jurisdiction":
really means. And PSB, stop junking up the motd
with your google transcripts. I'm sure we can
all cut and paste from the web. That doesn't mean
you know shit about the law.
\- are you the person whose orginal contribution
[sic] was the tautology above?
\_ My friend, if you actually knew anything
about law you'd realize that it is filled
with tautologies. Res ipsa loquitur.
An example of this include the following:
the description of cause-in-fact or
actual cause
the description of proximate cause
the concept of what a reasonable person is
the concept of what negligence is
the definition of intent
the definition of voluntary
Take a 1L course in substantive law,
see if you can pass it. Then come back
and we'll talk.
\_ First time poster, long time listener
here. The description of 'actual cause'
is not as simple and tautological as you
may think. Email me for technical
details. -- ilyas
\- the law may be filled with tautologies
but your first respose was totally
useless. Well 99% useless. You claim
1. you may be able to reach out to
someone in another state 2. and you can
do so if the court decides you can.
while i suppose point #2 is sort of a
"legal realist" answer [the law is what
courts say it is ... as opposed to some
metaphysical body of a priori principles
of justice], it's not helpful to the OP.
if you are an attorney and gave me
advice like that, i'd not only think the
"law's an ass" but my lawyer was too.
some tautolgies ... or "analytic
statements" are trivial, some are
merely uninteresting and some are
useful or insightful. 1=1 is trivial.
x^23+x^5+x+5=8 has solution x=1 is
a useless factoid. sum 1/2^x from 1
to infinity = 1 is "interesting" ...
so all of these are "tautologies across
the equal sign", but only one is a
valuable observation.
\_ Thanks. I am doing this for someone. I have sent two
emails to the debtor and I was never able to reach the
debtor by phone. Small claim court is the next logical
step?
\-email is pretty worthless. send a demand letter by registred
or cert mail or whatever it is called.
\_ If the person you are trying to sue is a non-resident
the ct may not have any effective way to compel them
to appear and defend (provided PJ is proper in the
state in which you bring your suit). Since the cap on
small claims is $2,500, many non-residents will just
\_ Not neccesarily true, certain
districts allow you to sue up to
$5000. It depends on the district
and the state.
decide that it is not worth the hassle and won't appear.
You will be given a judgment by default, but in order
to enforce this judgment you will have to travel to
a state where the defendant resides and ask a ct in
that state to enforce the judgment (the ct has to b/c
of Full Faith and Credit).
Enforcement is a bit easier if the non-resident has
property in the state in which you sue. As part of
your suit you can ask the ct for a pre-judgment
attachment of the property. If the defendant is a
no-show, then you will be awarded judgment by default
and you can ask the ct to order a sheriff's sale of
the property to satisfy your judgment.
\- law person: for a good time you may wish to look up
789 F. Supp. 395 ... also avail at:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
Last line is sort of funny, w.r.t. jurisdiction. |
| 2005/1/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35581 Activity:nil |
1/6 Inflation disinformation: http://csua.org/u/am2 \_ Oh yeah, objective research from Gold Bullion dealers. C'mon, people, let's get facts from credible sources, eh? \_ Why don't you refute their claims instead of the source. Do you believe oil prices can jump 40% year over year and have no effect on everything else, even though oil underpins every aspect of our economy? |
| 2005/1/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35571 Activity:very high |
1/6 Someone please list possible neocons who post on motd. I'll start.
Remember this is just a suspect list, and they're innocent till
proven guilty:
emarkp (believes the war has made the world safer, preemption, etc)
jblack
williamc
\_ Nope, wrong. I'm not a neocon. I've already stated publicly that
I was against the Iraqi war. I also have stated that I'm a
\_ some neocons, like that fujimoron, are against the war
devout atheist, support universal healt-care, same-sex marriages,
and abortion. I just don't like non-criticial self-rightous
\_ neocons are all secular and mostly atheist, unlike con.
radicalism of the left. It's funny, but a reporter friend of mine
(who is by no means a republican) stated that after having
interviewed a number of people, she found that liberals are
basically "stupid" because they spout off their dogma without
checking facts. Having said that, my offer to help you be
deported to Canada still stands -williamc
\_ Right, and the Other Facilely Labelled Team *ALWAYS* does.
Can you at least try for some objectivity here?
\_ Well, I don't hear libertarians nor conservatives
whining when they lose. They don't threaten to
leave the country. OTOH, very conservative people
I know who belong to a Churcn and are devout
Christians DO put their money where their mouths
are and actually take sabbaticals to 3rd world countries
to spread their faith. I don't agree with their religion,
but I admire their faith. Unfortunately the same cannot
be said of the liberals. I find it somewhat fascinating
that someone like John Kerry can vote FOR the Iraq war
and then claim he's AGAINST it during his campaign
run. And not only that, he actually ALLLOWS the
right to paint him into a corner. The world is hardly
ever black-and-white. Both sides contain valid criticisms
of the other side. However, not practicing what you preach
makes you look very stupid. Let this be a lesson to you
liberals, what comes out of your mouth is considered,
weighed, and judged. If you want to be taken seriously
by the American public, speak seriously, think seriously,
and most important of all, practice what you preach.
Otherwise you will continue to be targets of ridicule.
-williamc
\_ I thought Kerry voted to authorize the use of force
in response to terrorism. Since Iraq HAD little to
do with terrorism directed at us, how would that be
voting for an Iraq war? Granted, he said some stupid
stuff after the vote where he tried to have it both
ways.
\_ Uhm, no, he voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
You're getting his "spin" confused with the actual
vote. If you don't believe me you can go read
the resolution online and see what he voted for.
If he thought that the resolution stated otherwise
then shame on Kerry for not actually reading
the resolution before voting for it. Sorry, you
can't have it both ways. What you vote for is what
counts, not what you say after the vote.
\_ He voted to agree to allow the President to take
action in Iraq. That's not the same as authorizing
the invasion.
\_ Wrong point. Kerry voted to give Bush the
authority to go to war if he exhausted all
other options to disarm Iraq. Bush didn't.
Specifically he didn't fulfill section 3b of
the resolution. Nor has he performed any of
section 4.
\_ So if I happen to get a job in Canada, will you pay my
relocation costs even if I don't become a Canadian citizen
and am not moving for political reasons? This sounds like
a potentially sweet deal. How does one qualify for the
Williamc Canadian Fellowship?
\_ Nope, the conditions of the Alec Baldwin Fund are as follows:
\_ Nope, the conditions of the James Baldwin Fund are as follows:
1) We pay you to relocate to Canada
2) You have to sign an affadavit that you will renounce
your American Citizenship and never return to the U.S.
or any of its territories.
3) You need give us documented proof that the U.S.
Government has received and accepted your renouncement
either in the form of an official document from the
INS or other State Dept. office.
4) You need to submit your cancelled American passport
to us.
Failure to meet these terms will disqualify you.
Thanks for playing. -williamc
\_ Devout atheist?
\_ Did *anyone* move to Canada, France, or some other paradise of
neo-liberalism?
\_ No.
\_ I find it somewhat ironic that you're looking towards making a
blacklist of people and refuse to sign your own post. Perhaps
you should put up or shut up.
\_ Being a neo-con is a crime?
\_ Restored. When someone can tell me what a neocon is, I'll let you
know if I'm one. -emarkp
\_ As far as I know, the standard left-wing definition of
neocon is just "evil." So I guess the question is, are you
evil?
\_ well I don't care about politics but this is time for shameless
self-promotion. You can find past posts and definitions here:
http://csua.com/?entry=12748
Political posts go in endless & pointless circles so why not just
read past posts and not create any more trash? thanks.
\_ It was a rhetorical request. The definition isn't exactly
settled. The wiki lists:
- militant anticommunism: yep
- more social welfare spending: nope
- sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda: nope
- being more inclined than other conservatives toward an
interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is
sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy
and international law: yep
So what does that make me? -emarkp
\_ You are a conservative. What I would call a "rightist"
conservative, to be exact. This discriminates you from,
say, libertarian conservatives.
\_ Hmm. What about if I add this? I believe we should
drill in ANWR but also that we should put a huge
boatload of money into researching nuclear fusion for
power generation and hydrogen for power distribution.
And I bike to work. -emarkp
\_ People called me a neocon before. Heh. I love how the motd
meaning of 'neocon' drifted from 'hawkish jew' to 'believes
Iraq war was a good idea.' I always thought neocons were people
who wanted to drill for oil in Alaska. -- ilyas
\_ I never saw "hawkish jew" and "neocon" is a set including some
but not all of "believes Iraq war was a good idea". Neo = new
and "con" is conservative. It's for people, like say David
Horowitz, who were liberals (or radicals, in his case) and are
now conservatives. I'd like to see where this "standard left wing
definition" appears. I've only heard it from people who are not
left in the least, like the poster above. -- ulysses
\_ I am sorry, I don't know whose fault it is exactly,
but the 'neocon' label has been hijacked and misused to
such an extent, that it's really kind of laughable to use
this word seriously. In my opinion. -- ilyas
\_ I respect your opinion and certainly the poster above
has provided a perfect example of misuse (or at least
erroneously broad use). I don't believe the term has been
as badly hijacked as that. The most common misuse I see is
right here by one or more posters who never sign their
names so who can say? -- ulysses
\_ Wiki suffers from some of the same problems as the motd
does. There was a /. article on this very subject
recently. -- ilyas
recently. People seem to use wiki as a 'mainstream
authoritative source' these days. -- ilyas
\_ I can categorically state that I am not now and never was a
member of the Communist Party, er, I mean neocon.
\_ Conservative = Small government, lower taxes mainly; family values
Neocon = Everything that happened in Afghanistan, Iraq
\_ See the wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29
\_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html. |
| 2005/1/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35529 Activity:high |
1/3 Where does all the money go that people donate? Who distributes it and
who buys stuff with it? Does it go directly to the area governments?
\_ Short answer: it depends on where people donate the money.
\_ ok assume Red Cross since that seems to be the big thing here.
\_ similar question (I'm not the op), what % of the money I donate
to Red Cross/Salvation/Good Will goes to admins and what % actually
gets distributed to the needy?
\_ Heh. Good question. -- ilyas
\_ How much research funding for ilyas' group goes to support to
his motd habbit?
\_ None. I work far more hours than I am paid for.
There is also the notion that certain kinds of work
cannot be adequately measured by hourly rates anyways.
Like, say, programming or research. There is also
the matter that you are an idiot. -- ilyas
\_ I see. You're underpaid, so that's the justification
for a libertarian living off the taxpayers' nickel.
\_ Are you dense? Didn't we have this conversation
already? Do you not understand that the only people
on whom this complaint does NOT work are those who
are perfectly happy with the way our current society
is. Because you know, if you happened to NOT like
something about society, you almost certainly
are benefitting from this feature you don't like in
some way, somewhere. You hypocrite bastard.
Too little taxation = more business investment,
too much taxation = more public good, etc. etc.
Do you think people who conceived of western
secular liberalism did not benefit from the
fucked up societies they had the misfortune
to be born into? Were they hypocrites to believe
in what they did? You are a pretty sad case even
for the motd. -- ilyas
\_ I think op is just saying you should practice
what you preach.
\_ I d be happy to, if ever I am elected into
public office. Wouldn't everybody? And at
any rate, where are the complaints against
environmentalists taking advantage of the
benefits provided by the evil soulless oil
companies? Liberals pocketing Bush tax cuts?
Practice what you preach, bitch! -- ilyas
\_ http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/comics.php
\_ Stop bothering me, can't you see I have
a deadline! -- ilyas
\_ My tax cut went straight back to the
DNC. Stick to talking about things
you know something about, hypocrite.
\_ Except it shouldn't go to the DNC,
Aaron. It should go back to the
state. I _wish_ I could spend my
taxes how I want politically.
Dumbass. -- ilyas
\_ It's about reinvesting the money
into the state rather than
actually spending the money on
myself. Get a clue, doofus.
\_ So the DNC = the State now?
Wtf? Also, who says
libertarians spend money
on themselves? -- ilyas
\_ Who cares if they spend
money on themselves? What
are you babbling about?
The issue is your willing
use of state money to
coast along, despite your
prolific and long winded
posts about your
libertarian Utopian
ideals. Hello? Earth to
ilyas?
I'm not libertarian but you're being dumb. _/
He was pointing out that a libertarian can
choose to invest in the state if he wants,
rather than being taxed for it (in theory).
\_ He's also being dumb by not answering the
other objections: DNC != State,
environmentalists driving cars,
shopping at republican donor businesses,
etc. Probably not actually dumb, but
playing dumb for trolling purposes.
-- ilyas
\_ heh, 3 ilyas points, but I still lost the
bet. well, shucks.
\_ What were the terms of the bet?
-- ilyas
Would you prefer my default reaction
to motd posts be outright dismissal
and derision? -- ilyas
\_ don't you think it's amusing to be a hardcore
libertarian AND a grad student at the largest public
university in the world? i see a lot of humor in that.\
i think you belong at Pepperdine with ben stein. - danh
university in the world? i see a lot of humor in that.
i think you belong at Pepperdine with ben stein. - danh
\_ I find it no more amusing than seeing you employed
at some soul-sucking corp you probably hate. Actually,
I find it quite sad. And I am not a 'hardcore'
libertarian. I am actually fairly moderate. Unless
it's one of those obligatory adjectives, like
'cold-blooded killer.' -- ilyas
\_ 'Cold-blooded libertarian' has a nice ring to it,
though.
\_ That was the insinuation, yes. -- ilyas
\_ I remember the Red Cross ranks #1 in this regard. I don't
remember the actual numbers though.
\_ $0.19 to raise $1.00. 9.9% overhead, 91.9% goes to programs.
http://csua.org/u/ak9
\_ Dont donate to the United Way. They are terrible.
\_ On a more positive note, I read in the Economist that each dollar
spent on charity results in a > 1 dollar net economic benefit.
That is, 1 dollar spent in helping someone get back to her feet,
etc. eventually results in a > 1 dollar return (eg. she starts
contributing to society again). Don't ask me how the Economist
did its calculations.
\-why does this come as a surprise? it is more or less axiomatic.
charity goes to those with very little and it is just the law
of diminishing marginal returns. if you want to spend your
money to go from having no fishing net to having a finshing net
obviously that has a bigger return than going from gold to
platinum jewelry. --psb
\_ Fishing nets won't get you laid; platinum jewelry will.
\_ Fishing nets catch fish which can be sold for money which
can be used to buy platinum which can get you laid.
\- suffering from amoebic dysentary probably wont either --psb |
| 2005/1/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35508 Activity:insanely high |
1/1 Randoids go berserk, disagree with tsunami aid.
http://csua.org/u/ajf (Ayn Rand Institute)
Money sentence is the one about how "most" of the victims were hurt
through "no fault of their own."
\_ Ah, yes, the age old question of governmental aid. The fallacy of
the article, like most of Objectivism, is its failure to acknowledge
interdependency, much like the failure of it's diametric opposite,
Communism, albeit in a different manner. Complex social systems
rarely break down into over-arching theories of what should and
should not be done. But it does raise an interesting issue, when
should aid be given and when should it not? If someone disagrees
with an agenda and questions its efficacy, shouldn't we take time
to consider it rather than outright rejecting it? It appears
that the left and the right are both ramming things down their
respective throats without evern considering the other side...
\_ Like all libertarians, they are right wing shills: take a look
at their essays on Iraq from the 90's when Clinton was in power, and
then what they have to say when Bush is in power. They use the
same rhetoric about how "our leaders lack moral certainty," but
the message is clear: Republican good, Democrat bad.
Libertarians: Republicans, only more pompous, and with more lies.
\_ This is flat wrong, which explains why you don't provide URLs.
Among libertarians many faults is a tendendcy to be overly
isolationist (politically). As with the vast majority of the
libertarian ideal, it is absolutely wrong in theory, but since
society is so far gone in the opposite direction, the policy
implications are mostly correct.
Libertarians, particularly the libertarian party, have been among
the most outspoken opponents of the war in IRAQ and this Bush
administration in general. I don't know what The Ayn Rand Inst.
has to say and don't care. She is an idiot and her followers are
worse. All groups have their fanatic/moronic fringe, and when
you are a fringe group to begin with, well ...
\_ The URL to back up what I said is simply the OP's URL. I
clicked around and read their essays on various subjects.
They sounded exactly identical to our loudest local
libertarian here on the motd. I hope I am wrong about
libertarians at large. Do you want to point me to what
you consider to be a representative libertarian
website/book/article?
\-For "respectable" academic Libertarianism, see
R. Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia. --psb
\_ Thanks! I'll check that out.
\_ 1st, The left-right dichotomy is lame (see other threads).
2nd, going with it anyway, the greens are shills for the left
much more than libertarians are shills for the right. As i've
said before: Libertarians gloat when they take votes away from
Republicans. Contrast this to Nader supporters. Libs under-
stand that one corporate bought, pandering, fear-mongering
aristocrat from one faction of The Party is effectively the same
as the other.
\_ While Randroids are libertarians, they represent libertarianism
about as well as the PETA folk represent Evironmentalism.
I.e. not at all.
\- As with racist and bigots, this seems to be one of those cases
where I want to see them "talk more" and undermine themselves and
reveal themselves for what the are. A good essay is "The Procedural
Republic and the Unencumbered Self". It is avail from JSTOR. BTW,
"randoid" has been deprecated in favor of "Randroid".
\- re: "all libertarians ..." i think there is a
respectable academic argument to be made by
libertaianism. however i think many libertarians
outside academia are "accidental libertarians"
... meaning they are really not interested in where
the philosophical arguments take them, but the cleve
to a philosophy which seems more respectable than
simple Hedonism to justify [sic] being the way they
are [selfish hedonists]. i think the philosophical
sophistication totem pole looks something like this:
hedonists [people who say things like "i need to be
true to myself"], then randroids ["altruism is
corrupting"], then libertarians ["contractualism" is
a pretty powerful argument]. there are a few
reasonable libertarians ... like by best friend, who
is one of the most considerate persons i know ... but
they are generally not "libertarians unius libri".
This is sort of a funny story about the Academic
Libertarian-in-Chief: http://csua.org/u/ajg ... one
Berkeley people can relate to. ok tnx.
\_ I am a little confused by the (lack of) distinction.
Hedonism is a moral commitment, libertarianism a
political one. Related to be sure, but not the
same. Are you saying it's unsophisticated to be
concerned with political philosophy? I think
adopting a position to see where it takes you
is quite a bit more phony than adopting one you
actually believe in (because of how you are).
Life is not a rhetoric class. -- ilyas
\-what is phony is shopping around for a
justification that sounds better than
"do whatever you want and take whatever you
can get" whent that is what you believe.
some people answer the question "what do we owe
one another?" with "whatever!" [in the sarcastic
sense of "i dont care to talk about this"], some
with "nothing." and still other with "nothing,
because...". what i am saying is the reasoning
in many people's case is an appendage adopted
for the sake of form, not truly to explain why
you have arrived at a particular place. BUSHCO
didnt invade iraq to free the iraqi people,
although it's convenient to trot out. on the
flip side, meaning you dont get moral credit
for someting done out of inclination rather than
duty, as sondheim writes "nice is different than
good".
\_ Partha, you are projecting. People who are
hedonists tend to view selfishness as a
virtue, not a vice in need of justification.
Whether you get credit for something done
out of inclination or out of dity depends on
your ethics. Not everyone's a Kantian.
-- ilyas
\_ I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I'm just
curious: why *do* you think BUSHCO invaded
Iraq, exactly?
\- i think they believed in WMD. I think they
were wrong. i think they should have been
fired for being wrong. i think they are
incapable of admitting it. i think thier
reputation in history should have been in
tatters.
\_ No, believing in WMD (which i agree they
did) is just like believing that tax cuts
for the wealthy are the right thing for
the economy. They believe it because it
justifies what they want to do. WHY they
wanted to invade IRAQ is because it was
an untennable situation with a leader who
hated america growing in power while his
country(and the world) suffered due to
sanctions that we couldn't/wouldn't lift.
The only people benifiting from the sitch
was the UN and
thoze embezzling from their program(s).
It was a bad situation and many leaders
in the bush admin felt it was a giant
loose end that they wanted to tie up.
They just grossly underestimated the
aftermath of occupation (as historically
countries have). -phuqm
\- another value of non-anon posting is
it's either to figure out who is
not worth talking to. you cant compare
facts [existence of WMDs] and values
[progressive taxation] and theories
[what econ effects of policy X will
be]. --psb
\_ I wasn't comparing facts with
values, i was comparing MOTIVATIONS
and rationalization. Politicians
wanted to cut taxes on those that
contributed to their campaigns, so
when some Academics came along and
told them that was what was good for
the country, they were quickly able
to believe that. When (other) pols
wanted to invade Iraq and the intel.
community said Iraq had, or soon
would have WMD, they found it very
easy to believe. -phuqm
easy to believe. To paraphrase and
distort: "The facticity of a
proposition has little to do with
it's believability." -phuqm
\_ Apostrophe abuse! Three demerits!
\_ ugg, fixed. -phuqm
\_ Demerits retracted.
\_ I somehow doubt that last bit.
Everyone else was talking about the
aftermath problems. They chose to
simply ignore that because it would
provide support for opposition. The
whole war was done this way: build up
troops without a war, oh now we have
to fight, it would look stupid to
withdraw all those troops, oh look
things are fucked up, well we can't
cut and run, you have to give us a lot
more money, sorry bout that, support
our troops and all, etc.
\_ http://www.newamericancentury.org -tom |
| 2004/12/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:35469 Activity:high |
12/29 For those who think the US is stingy:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues01.asp?v=12/29
"According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, we gave
nearly $241 billion to charity last year and have increased our giving
every year for the last 40 except for 1987.
"Clearly, Americans are a generous people, and we are willing to spread
our wealth outside the country. Last year Paula Dobriansky, State
Department undersecretary for global affairs, reported 'Americans
privately give at least $34 billion overseas annually.'"
\_ The quote should say that the American govt is generous. Unless
it's put up to a vote of the people, you can't conclude that the
people are generous.
\_ I wonder how badly the weak dollar is hurting the recipients of this
US aid.
\_ And yet we lag behind many other countries in giving in terms of
%GDP.
\_ And your source is? My understanding is that is only cash
transactions from our government to another government. This
private giving isn't tracked at all.
\_ E'ist:
http://www.economist.com/diversions/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2963247
\_ http://tinyurl.com/6vhdu (economist)
Though looking at their source (http://www.jhu.edu/~cnp
I'm going to stop talking. Our numbers don't look too shabby.
\_ "That does not include the $10 billion in official U.S. foreign
aid, though it does include $18 billion in remittances immigrants
send to their home countries."
In other words, Americans send $16B overseas annually, though how
much of that is charity is unclear.
\_ yeah, I believe that. US is owned, controlled, and run by the
Corporation and the people who run the Corporation, and the
government is just a facade. |
| 2004/12/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35465 Activity:high |
12/28 http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/28/academic.freedom.ap/index.html Conservatism, it is not only a trend, it is the future. \_ Make sure you read all the way to the end so you can see David Horowitz calling liberal professors "sissies". \_ "To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught." That's just beautiful... simply marvelous. The liberal navelgazing. \_ My God, it's full of lint! \_ There are two institutions that try to protect and grow democracy without actually practicing it themselves: academia and the military. There are good reasons for this. \_ Yes, one is to indoctrinate the young with the propaganda required by the state, the other is offer security to the state. The former provides the cadre of youth to feed into the latter. \_ I'm calling bullshit on this. Academia doesn't "protect and grow democracy". \_ The more educated the populace, the more effective democracy is. \_ Wow, one unfounded assertion backing up another. Sorry, education is not always an improvement. Many highly educated people don't have much common sense. \_ Nor did they have such before they became educated. With education, however, there is the slightest chance of improving understand and critical analysis; without education, there is no such chance. As for unfounded assertions, this is the motd, not usenet. Expect less, and be disappointed less. \_ The lawsuit is something I agree w/. Why should an eng. student (not sure these people were eng.) have to read some book about the Koran? Total waste of time. If you are interested, then you should learn about it on your own a la psb. If not, the school should let you get on with your life (ie doing homework and playing counter-strike). \_ If you want field-specific education, consider vocational training. A University-level education is supposed to expose your young mind to a variety of topics and opinions so that you will have more experience of the world around you. Its success or failure, however, range wildly. \_ That's what the diverse student body is for, not one of the core class requirements. The core class requirements are supposed to teach you basic universal cognitive skills so that when you go interview you know how to speak in a coherent manner. Reading the Quran should be relegated to things like Eastern Culture Studies or Theology. If we make people read the Quran, why don't we make them read the Bible then, or the Book of Mormon, or recite Koans? \_ WOW. You have really bought into all that humanities bs. |
| 2004/12/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35461 Activity:insanely high |
12/28 Is it me, or is $35 million the US has pledged seems rather
small? I mean we are the fucking United States of America and
all we can give in a tragedy of this magnitude is 15 million?
\_ It's just you. How many of our tax dollars should the US government
pledge to help another nation?
\_ Yes, help someone in need that you will have nothing to gain
from, that's obviously a new concept to you.
\_ It's not new at all. But that giving should be done by
individual citizens, not by allocation of our tax dollars.
\_ None. Our tax dollars should only be used to bomb them.
\_ I agree that it is rather small, compared to the amount
we have spent so far to invade another country.
\_ like Darfur, this is another opportunity which we can use
to counter Osma Bin Laden's propaganda. We should of dragged
those Arab satellite TV stations along with us, show them that
we do help out people, including those Muslim as well.
\_ the USA is not socialist! We have low taxes so that people can
keep most of their money from wasteful bureaucracy, and more
efficiently and voluntarily give to charities people can
individually select! -New Republican l0ser who STILL p0wn5 4ll u
dem0cr4tic l0s3r5!
(sarcasm aside, the problem is that Democrats intuitively know
there is a problem with the above argument, but just sit there
and fume about rich/ignorant freeper bastards instead of giving a
persuasive counter-argument)
\_ 0mgz! n3rf tr0015!!!!``111!!~@!
\_ I d like to hear some. I became a libertarian because someone
changed my mind. It could certainly be changed again. -- ilyas
\_ The problem is that, left to their own devices, people will
donate inefficiently. We need a coordinating authority to
make sure the money is spent wisely. Of course, the
government also seems to do a bad job of steering money to
projects that have the greatest positive impact.
\_ I agree that given perfect information, and given
incorruptibility, a central planning agency will do better
than a set of independent agents. However, since those
assumptions are both incorrect when applied to governments,
and since independent agents have shown to be more effective
in resource allocation for investment, for instance, than
a central agency, what makes you say the same is not true
for charity? -- ilyas
\_ fyi, "The problem is that ..." guy is not the same guy
as the "sarcasm aside, ..." guy.
\_ Note that I agreed that the government seems to do an
inefficient job of allocating charity money. So my
argument is not so much individual vs. the governemtn,
but rather the individual vs. a "charity planner".
Individual investers often (usually?) do a bad job of
managing their own investment strategy and they would be
smart to leave the job up to professinoals (mutual
funds managers, financial planners, etc.) Why not use
the analog for charity giving? Instead of individual
persons making donations based on personal whim or
public appeals, why not use follow the recommendation
offered by a charity expert? Why not donate money to a
mutual fund of charities, just as a person would
investment in a mutual fund of stocks? This is likely
not the optimal strategy (for both charitable giving
and investment), but it'll probably yield better long
term results than going it on your own.
\_ I see no problem with this, as long as people, just
as with mutual funds, have a choice of where to
donate, or whether to go at it alone. In fact, isn't
this how charity works now? -- ilyas
\_ Do I get a choice to opt-out of paying for
the war in Iraq?
\_ There are a few possibilities here:
(a) You are an anarcho-capitalist. Then I
sympathize with your plight.
(b) You don't believe in democracy as a form
of government. Then I sympathize with your
plight and agree.
(c) You are a liberal troll. Then I advice you
to go stick your head in a pig. -- ilyas
\_ Dude, you just said "Why do you hate
America?" and you didn't even realize it.
\_ Hahahaha, you are my hero!
\_ You two both took the choice of not
volunteering for the citizen-soldier armed
forces! Freedom is not free!! Now get back
to work traitors!@1! -Troll
\_ So long as the rest of us also get to opt out
of paying for the things we disagree with, sure.
\_ Um, you do realize that >90% of managed mutual funds
perform worse than the market as measured by major
indices (e.g. DOW, S&P 500, etc.), and that's
*before* deducting commissions, management fees, and
other overhead.
\_ 1. Do you think Moses came down from Mount Sinai
with the lists of stocks that comprise the Dow
(not an initial, BTW, unless you say DJIA),
S&P, etc.? 2. Asset allocation is everything.
The effect of selecting particular securities
is secondary.
\_ How much did you donate? How does the $35 million compare to
what other nations contributed? How much do they donate to us
when we have a disaster?
\_ $35 million is a lot of money for countries like Sri Lanka.
Anyway, we've donated enough money to 3rd world countries over
the years, and we've bailed them out countless times.
\_ you have to put things in perspective. Taiwan donated whopping
$50k USD to Thailand for the relief effort :p
\_ I'm sorry to say this but the wealthy Taiwanese people are one
of the most self-indulging people in this world. They drive
nice cars and eat expensive Chinese seafood yet do not
understand the meaning of charity. They don't seem to care
about anything other than keeping their blood and money in
their own circles. -dated an X-gf who was Taiwanese
\_ What about reallocating a week's worth of aid to Israel
to this earthquake/tsunami relief fund. That will be at
least $50million.
\_ Yea, but that's because they have to pay US$18 billion
(multiple times what other countries pay for them)
to the US for its outdated older generation weapons.
Generally speaking I agree with you. Part of the
reason is that Taiwan has too few Christians (2%).
\_ Hello, are you a conservative? Are you a Republican?
Do you think the war has made the world safer? Do you
think the world will be a better place when everyone
is converted to a Christian? -moderate
\_ "have to pay"?
\_ Yes, or surrender to commie China.
\_ Some one asked how much other countries have donated. Here:
The United States is offering a total of $35 million, followed
by Japan with $30 million. Australia has now pledged $27
million, Saudi Arabia $10 million and Germany $2.7 million.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/29/asia.quake/index.html
\_ Australia and Japan have more incentive to contribute,
being the major players there. What about France, Russia,
and so on? |
| 2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35405 Activity:very high |
12/22 The Confederate flag is fighting back, the Red is the latest fashion!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142338,00.html
In other news, rural area is expanding and the Conservatives are
way out-reproducing the Hippies:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142320,00.html
\_ The Latinos are way outproducing both.
\_ true, and they are Conservatives who hate you Hippies.
\_ Why do they vote overwhelmingly Democratic then?
\_ Depends on their income and generation. They vote more
and more Republican the more money they make.
Middle-class Latinos tend to be Republican and all
are conservative by virtue of their religion.
\_ overwhelming? In 2000, they were 25% Rep 74% Dem.
In 2004, the were 44% Rep 54% Dem. Go figure.
\_ That 44% is a Republican fantasy. Bush got
about 40% and that is far better than your
average Republican. He also got 35% in 2000,
not 25% as you imply. Been listening to Rush
Limbaugh again? You really should fact check
that guy before repeating his falsehoods.
Latinos are over 3:1 currently Democratic.
Latinos are currently over 3:1 Democratic.
http://www.lif.org/civic/vote_2000.html |
| 2004/12/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:35353 Activity:nil |
12/18 This is about a month old but hadn't seen it on the motd or news.
Tara Reid had a wardwobe malfunction, sure some of the guys on the
MOTD would appreciate it:
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/reidslip.html
\_ tangent: that much makeup looks gross IMO.
\_ Yeah, I was really looking at the makeup too (shrug)
\_ Of course I looked at the tit first. "okay, a large tit."
\_ Yeah, between the makeup and the scars from her implants
she's not really all that attractive. |
| 2004/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35314 Activity:high |
12/15 So did anyone see the California Quarter coming out next year?
The 7th largest economy, birth of modern cinema and the PC
industry the gold rush, and all they could think of was
John Muir and Yosemite? Shouldn't they have pictures of things
like The Golden Gate?
\_ I think you're overestimating both the seriousness of this program
and the information density of engravings on one side of a quarter.
Look at what some of the other states have:
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/50sq_program/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=schedule
\_ Well, some of the other options had a lot more interesting takes.
There was a page up some time ago to vote for the quarter design.
A number of them pulled in icons from all over the state, and
some actually looked nice.
\_ 7th largest? I thought it's the 4th.
\_ 5th, according to the state website:
http://commerce.ca.gov/state/ttca/ttca_homepage.jsp
\_ golden gate does not represent california anymore than disneyland
or hollywood. |
| 2004/12/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:35238 Activity:nil |
12/9 I good overview of what has been happening in Ukraine during the
last month:
http://www.exile.ru/2004-December-10/feature_story.html |
| 2004/12/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35233 Activity:very high |
12/9 "...troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing
centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their
identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would
receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at
all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the
deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned."
http://csua.org/u/a9s (boston.com)
Hmm...required to wear badges. Remind anybody of anything?
\_ at least they pay a flat tax
\_ Well, it's not like the Fallujans are missing anything.
It was much worse under Saddam. Anyway, Mr. Liberal Troll,
do you actually have a point? See, the problem with you is
that you say "blah blah blah, U.S. is acting very badly
in Iraq." But the problem is that Iraq was much worse
during Saddam, so your argument doesn't hold. It's like
like saying "Oh, the Americans are evil because they
interred the Japanese." Well, the Japanese killed over 8
million Chinese, so out goes your argument.
I mean, seriously, are you brain damaged?
\_ damn. There's that argument again. At least we're not as
bad as Saddam.
\_ I think it's the same guy. His knee likes to jerk.
\_ He also doesn't seem to understand that people of a non-
liberal bent can disgree with him, too. Poor fellow.
\_ let me explain why you might be brain damaged instead, ok?
suppose you're a civilized human being, which implies that
you must not exude offensive smell. if you go around saying
"i don't smell like shit. i smell a little bit better than
shit," you're not going to get people to say "oh yeah, you do
smell good." now, here's the tricky part. think of this, except
replace smelling like shit with "acting like a nazzi". And see
if the little lightbulb in your head lights up. ok?
\_ Let's imagine this situation. Say a bunch of people in
Compton, CA, decided to stop killing each other, organize,
and start regularly setting off bombs in major metropolitan
areas in the US.
Now what do you suppose the appropriate course of action is,
for the US gvt? (No acting like Nazis now!) |
| 2004/12/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35219 Activity:very high |
12/8 Torture in our name? Unacceptable.
http://csua.org/u/a8z (Dallas Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
\_ If you're trying to portray texans as decent human beings, you're
going to have to try harder. Ivins lives in Austin like all
civilized texans with above a sixth grade education. Austin is
about as much a part of red state america as los angeles.
\_ Damn, you're right. Travis County voted 56% Kerry, 42% Dubya.
L.A. County was ~ +7% more blue than that, but still.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/TX/P/00/county.009.html
\_ The 'red states/blue states' myth always amuses me. There
are more republican voters in CA than in in almost any given
are more republican voters in CA than in almost any given
red state. -- ilyas
\_ Indeed. Here's the popular vote shown as shades of purple:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/andromedagal/1522.html
\_ Wow, that's the first thing I've agreed with you on. |
| 2004/12/6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35184 Activity:nil |
12/6 http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=477 \_ I like this one. Couldn't sound more wingnutty if he tried: http://csua.org/u/a7j (onlinejournal.com) |
| 2004/12/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35139 Activity:high |
12/1 Ah.. Michael Moore looked quite Republican the other night on Leno.
\_ care to describe the incedent?
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292105/posts
\_ Well, he's still pretty ugly, but at least he's
presentable. The shave and the haircut are big
impovements.
\_ Yeah, what's wrong with tailored suits? They look good,
and you don't have to be a mega-rich Republican to afford
one.
\_ Michael Moore is far more mega-rich than most
Republicans I know...
\_ So what you're telling us is that most of the
Republicans you know are poorly dressed?
\_ Pretty much everyone I know is poorly
dressed, I live in CA.
\_ You mean the Bay Area. Other parts of CA
are not nearly as bad. For some reason,
Bay Area folks think polar fleece is
appropriate attire at a fancy restaurant.
\_ For some reason, people from southern
California are assholes. This is my
unbiased opinion as someone born and
raised outside California who lives
outside California now. There are
exceptions, but I'm sure beyond a shadow
of a doubt that you're not one of them.
\_ Can you give specific examples, including
where you were?
Perhaps you are confusing this with
rich people in general?
\_ Perhaps in Berkeley. Certainly not in
San Francisco. You sound like a provincial
spoiled Orange Country brat who spent
four years on campus and thinks that
what he saw on Telegraph Ave represents
"Northern California." |
| 2004/11/29 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35106 Activity:high |
11/28 Hypothetical motd poll, which of the following is the worst
100 fraudulently cast ballots:
100 people not allowed to vote:
Both are equally bad:
\_ Hi ilyas!
\_ Hahaha. No.
\_ 100 morons voting legitimately. -John
\_ Whichever one is more likely to change the outcome. This would
probably be the 100 fake votes, because they'd all go one way, while
the disenfranchised would have voted like individuals.
\_ On what do you base your assertion that the fake votes would all
go one way? In any system where fraud is possible, wouldn't there
be an equal temptation from both sides to engage in it?
\_ Temptation, yes. Opportunity, no.
\_ There's a pretty good book on election shennanigans. "Stealing
Elections" by John Fund. It's very non-partisan, has a lot of
stories of voter fraud and such from both parties. |
| 2004/11/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35105 Activity:nil |
11/28 The first post-election analysis that makes sense:
http://www.exile.ru/2004-November-13/moscow_babylon.html
\_ Let's do a Stalin on the Reddies! |
| 2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35093 Activity:nil |
11/27 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/27/bush.radio/index.html If drafting can't be possible, let's try a bit of advertisement, guilt trip, and peer pressure. \_ And this is different from Clinton's praise of the military while he sent them to Kosovo and godknows where because? This only after he realized they could win votes did he decide to stop kicking them out of the White House. |
| 2004/11/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:35070 Activity:nil 54%like:35065 |
11/24 Republicans are winning everything, even in Washington!!!
http://tinyurl.com/639oc (cnn.com)
\_ If it's a state-wide hand-recount, I bet the DemocRAT wins! |
| 2004/11/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Languages] UID:35066 Activity:high |
11/24 Hispanic and Latino: which term(s) are politically correct?
\_ Both are, but they refer to different things.
\_ So a Hispanic is someone with spanish ancestry and
a latino is someone who lives in a latin american country?
I'm confused. Please elucidate.
\_ I can tell you spic is not.
\_ Yes, the preferred term is 'wetback'
\_ similar questions: Latino vs. Chicano: What's the diff?
\_ chicano = mexican
\_ Both refer to the same thing, the guy who replied to you is
wrong. Latino is more PC west of the mississippi, hisapnic
on the East Coast. Dunno why, but that is just the way
it is.
\_ Uhm, no. Hispanic is someone of Spanish descent. Latino is
someone from latin america.
\_ So the only difference between these two overlapping
groups is Brazlians, who you claim can be called Latino,
and Spaniards, who you claim can be called Hispanic. Right?
Personally, I think you are wrong on both counts, but I
will ask my Brazilian and Spanish friends what they think.
Do you believe that Latin Americans of 100% native background
cannot be referred to as Hispanic? They are not of Spanish
descent, afterall.
\_ Well gosh, maybe my 30+ years as a Hispanic male have led
me wrong, what with having extended spanish speaking
family etc. Not to mention my relatives that are still
living in mexico.... Hispanic is a very general term,
what with the Spaniards having conquered half the freaking
new world. Latino is a subgroup within the domain of
Hispanicity; it's an ethnic grouping in a cultural sense
more than a racial one. As for 100% native background
people, I have no idea how they group themselves.
\_ Well gosh, maybe my 30+ years as a Hispanic male have
led me wrong, what with having extended spanish
speaking family etc, not to mention my relatives that
are still living in Mexico.... Hispanic is a general
term, what with the Spaniards having conquered half the
freaking New World. Technically, Latino is a subgroup,
though it only really covers Central and South America;
it's an ethnic grouping in a cultural sense more than a
racial one, but I suspect most Latinos would resent the
application of the Hispanic label. Chicano is the term
for an American from Mexico, though I doubt a Mexican
living in Mexico would refer to himself as 'Chicano'.
As for someone of 100% Native American background in a
Spanish speaking country, I have no idea how they group
themselves. In Argentina I suspect they'd group themselves
as 'rebels' and in Venezuela as 'normal' -- but now I'm
just being silly.
\_ Hmmm, why would people in South America refer to
themselves as "Latinos"? I thought they always
considerd themselves either as South Americans
or as people from their own country. In fact, I've
never heard someone from South American refer
to themselves as "latino" or "hispanic". I think
that these terms were produced by the U.S. to
create a false "race" of people who didn't speak
english but were for all practical purposes white
with a bit of mestizo mixed in. In fact, I've never
heard of anyone in Mexico refer to themselves as
"Latino" or "Hispanic." The only people who use
these terms are people in the U.S.
\_ *sigh* The original question was 'which is more PC'
and the proper answer has *NOTHING* to do with the
damn Mississippi. I've tried to explain what the
terms mean (not whether everyone accepts in all
geographical locations). Good luck.
\_ Well, it's pretty apparent to me that the terms
mean essentially the same thing. Trying to say
that one term artificially means A and another
term artificially means B doesn't mean that
what you say is correct. Since they're both
essentially artificial constructs to denote
people originating from people south of the
people originating from south of the
border they're both as "pc" as you are going
to get. One may as well argue whether chicken
should be called poultry or when exactly a
stream becomes a river. Completely a nonsenical
discussion.
\_ I would argue that this whole thread is a
nonsensical discussion because pc language
is all bullshit anyway. Language should be
used to communicate, not to express political
and academic trends. If you want to know what
to call someone, you should just fucking ask
them. I think the worst example of PC idiocy
I ever encountered was when I called some guys
"Chinese" because they were a bunch of Chinese
sailors on a Chinese boat who were hired in a
Chinese port, and an American told me I should
call them "Asian American." Obviously the
person who said this knew there was nothing
*American* about these guys, but once someone
starts thinking in PC speak, the brain just
turns off.
\_ For the same reason a caucasian American of
European descent probably wouldn't refer to himself
as "white" or "Germanic". All my friends who were
born in S. America identify themselves with their
countries. -John
\_ you're all wrong...
http://www.elboricua.com/latino_hispanic.html
in short: Hispanic - of Spanish heritage
Latin - from the geographic region of Latin America
Chicano - Mexican (sometimes meaning Mexican in the US)
\_ Er? I see at least 3 posters that are in agreement with you.
\_ That dude is hardly an authoritative source. |
| 2004/11/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:35065 Activity:nil 54%like:35070 |
11/24 Republicans are winning everything, even in Washington!!! http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/24/wash.governor.race.ap/index.html \_ If it's a state-wide hand-recount, I bet the DemocRAT wins! |
| 2004/11/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35057 Activity:nil |
11/24 Hmm. Reports that the Russian military is being used against the
Ukrainian protesters. Intereeeesting.
http://hotline.net.ua/eng/content/view/2533/37
http://eng.maidanua.org/static/enews/1101252011.html
http://csua.org/u/a3k
\_ The Russian Army. It checks in, but it don't never leave.
\_ With Putin appointing the governors these days, how long until
Ukraine rejoins the Russian Federation? In Russia, Russia
federates you! |
| 2004/11/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35049 Activity:high |
11/23 Ukraine to go FOOM!
"Tens of thousands of opposition supporters surrounded Ukraine's
presidential offices after their pro-Western leader declared himself
president ... Official ballot counts so far show 54-year-old
Yanukovich won 49.39 percent of the vote compared with Yushchenko's
46.71 percent, with 99.48 percent of polling stations reporting. Most
independent exit polls handed victory to Yushchenko, but some of those
commissioned by Yanukovich's team showed the prime minister as the
winner."
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041123/1/3or3z.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6032-2004Nov22.html
\_ Doesn't Ukraine have some number of nukular weapons?
\_ http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/ukraine
\_ Why didn't Al Gore do that?
\_ I. JUST. DON'T. KNOW. More importantly, it speaks volumes as to
how little we believed in Kerry's chances of actually winning.
\_ No Bush minions tried to kill Gore by poisoning him before the
election. No massive formerly imperial neighboring country
making massive amounts of pressure. No criminal conviction of
winning candidate. No massive government corruption. Among
other things. -John
\_ I have been following this saga since the beginning (and was rooting
for the opposition candidate) but I still can't find an answer to
this question: What evidence of vote rigging does Mr. Yuschenko
and all those outraged European and American election monitors
have other than that some of the exit polls don't match the official
results too well? |
| 2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35022 Activity:high 50%like:35088 |
11/22 Hey script people, did he "ilyas" the motd again?
\_ Basically, we've determined ilyas' Kryptonite: just mention how
he's a hypocrite for being a libertarian who lives for free
off of the UC system.
\_ This is as moronic as blaming wall socialists for not moving
to Cuba. Rather than sitting in CA, and reaping the benefits
of the evil, worker exploiting capitalist society with
BushCo at the helm. -- ilyas
\_ I don't know of anyone on wall advocating socialism.
\_ Heh. Then I am not a libertarian, but a Queen of
\_ Heh. Then I am not a libertarian, but the Queen of
England. -- ilyas
\_ I thought you could always make ilyas look like an idiot just by
deleting one of his posts or signing his name to something he
wrote. It never fails. He always does something stupid in
response.
\_ Since he insists on strict ordering, and prefers everyone
sign their posts, why doesn't he wall instead of posting
on the motd? Is it because he can't nuke the wall log??
\_ Because on wall he can't pretend to be 5 different people. |
| 2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:35009 Activity:insanely high |
11/22 so what is the justification for eliminating the tax deduction
for providing your employees with health insurance? evil?
assholeness? true conservatism? freedom is on the march?
i don't get it.
\_ If you are asking a serious question, some people believe
controlling/encouraging behavior through taxes is not a good
idea. Why Bush did this is another matter, of course. -- ilyas
\_ I don't think the gwbush administration is doing anything
because of deeply held conservative principles that are ingrained
in them after long years of study of Smith. They just
want to stick non ultra rich people with the bill for
their spending habits. - danh
\_ Neat Dan, can I borrow your direct line into W admin's heads
sometime? I mean seriously, is it completely inconceivable
to you that there may be a non-evil explanation? -- ilyas
\_ so what is their justification? the war on terror? - danh
\_ It's not like Dubya woke up one day and decided to cut
in this particular way. He has some idea of what he
wants, and he asks his advisors, who in this case would
be high powered econ people, for plausible
implementation. Your beef is probably with them, but
I bet they _are_ governed by principle (and understanding
of econ). You may not agree with the principles, but
painting them as mindless evil is silly. -- ilyas
\_ No, he didn't wake up and think this. He's said
all along that this was what he wants to do. His
whole plan of the ownership society is about "encour-
aging investment". Unfortunately the HUGE majority of
the population does not have sufficient investment
to benefit from these policies nor available cash
to increase their holdings. This is a massive tax
burden shift from investments to income.
\_ Actually, insofar as Bush wants to encourage
any sort of behavior (even 'good' behavior, as I
see it), I disagree with him. On the other hand,
moves to make out tax system less progressive and
more flat make me happy. I d be annoyed if he
copped out of the vague flat taxish motions he was
making in early 2004. -- ilyas
\_ you don't believe there are evil people in the
world?
\_ No, I don't believe Bush's econ prof advisors are
evil, no. Do you? Can I have some of the good
stuff you are having? -- ilyas
\_ I believe Grover Norquist bathes in the blood
of liberal virgins every night. - danh
\_ don't be an idiot! no red blooded texan
listens to sissy econ prof from academia.
he just finds an econ prof whose theory
happens to fit his agenda.
\_ whether they are evil or not doesn't matter so much to me
lately, whoever is in charge of fiscal policy appears to
be completely delusional as they continue to increase
spending while deliberately cutting off the gov's revenue
streams. maybe grover norquist has gay blackmail photos
of everyone? can you find a non faith based economist
who actually thinks cutting off revenue and running huge
budget and trade deficits is a good thing for the US
economy? i think the dollar is going to plummet,
debt service is going to become a huge chunk of our budget
just like several third world countries, but at least
gay people won't get penalized by the death tax. - danh
\_ Link? I have no idea what you're talking about.
\_ http://csua.org/u/a2h
[stuff about the administration trying to further cut capital gains
taxes]
"The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the
administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and
local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business
tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers
said." - danh
\_ Do people here live in caves?
\_ More or less. I don't watch TV, and read the news that shows
up on google.
\_ I particularly like the $2m to buy the presidential yacht.
\_ The justification is that the current administration is
against gay marriage and terrorists. Get it?
\_ What will screw me is eliminating the deduction for state and
local taxes. It would be just like Kerry winning. The biggest
reason lots of Repubs vote Repub is because of taxes. If Bush
is gonna sock it to high-income people living in states with
high tax rates then the Repubs are ruined.
\_ Welcome to the ownership society.
\_ Dude, Bush is spending massive amounts of money while slashing
taxes for obscenly wealthy, leading to record debts. Where do
you think the money is going to come from? Just because the
Republicans claim to be the party of financial responsibility
doesn't mean they are.
\_ "If Bush is gonna sock it to high-income people"...
\_ He isn't socking it to the ultra-high income people.
\_ There aren't enough ultra-high income people to make
any real difference to government debt one way or the
other.
\_ Ultra-high income people are still getting screwed
by this, because they pay a lot in state taxes. If
you make $10 million per year you are paying $1
million to CA and Bush's stupid idea costs you real
money.
\_ No. Those states voted Kerry anyway. Bush's power base is
secure.
\_ Haha, it would be awesomely evil if Bush implemented a
blue state agenda in blue states. Democracy would work
then! -- ilyas
\_ This was not a blue state agenda in any way shape or form.
\_ Raising taxes is always a blue state agenda.
\_ Until you start actually questioning this are
you just going to keep being surprised that the
republicans are fucking you tax wise while claiming
the opposite and then forgetting about it until the
next time your ass hurts?
\_ Oh, you mean CA. A state with blue state budgetary
priorities and the predicted blue state problems? |
| 2004/11/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:34984 Activity:very high |
11/19 All discussion of voter fraud censored for The Good Of America.
\_ Why do you hate voter fraud?
\_ ain't no fraud gonna make up 3million votes
\_ but 200k votes is enough to turn the election.
\_ republican: good, democrat: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil
\_ You go girl!
\_ Are you a hoser? Do you have any idea the effect of ilyasing
the motd has on the CSUA??
\_ Wear a uniform when ilyasing the motd, or you may be legally
shot on sight!
\_ You must also act as part of an organized military force
while ilyasing the motd, or you may be tortured.
\_ You must also hate freedom, America's god given right
to rule the world, welfare (except corporate welfare),
cute puppies, apple pies, and yermom. |
| 2004/11/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34976 Activity:high |
11/19 The motd readership seems to have an excess of free time and
mathematical education. Why doesn't someone here analyze the
election data themselves to look for anomalies and put it in
/csu/tmp? I'll bet if one of you conservatives can use the numbers
to show convincingly that there was *not* a problem, you'll be
on a foxnews talkshow faster than you can say "spin." Why not?
\_ on a related note, anyone wanna play nettrek later?
\_ I think the burden of proof is on folks who say there _is_ a
problem. (Who do stupid things like observe some things, and
claim VOTING MACHINES CAUSE INCREASE IN BUSH VOTES! W00t!!!!!!!!)
\_ And the right wing ignores evidence such as a county in
ohio where only 600 votes were cast, yet Bush received
over 4000 votes. Nothing wrong there.
\_ url-p. Evidence-p. -- evil right-winger fact-checker
\_ http://csua.org/u/a1a (Washington Dispatch)
\_ More evidence at http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp
\_ Would you like some cheese with that whine? Give it up.
You lefties lost this year and you are going to go on
loosing because people are finally realizing that you
losing because people are finally realizing that you
guys have never had a good idea and that its time to
take our country back from the New Deal and the Great
Society or this great nation will end up a hell hole
like Europe. |
| 2004/11/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34962 Activity:nil |
11/18 Can someone give me a link on how much BASE taxi drivers/waitresses
make? I always thought it's illegal to make below minimum wage,
but I guess that's not the case in certain industries.
\_ First hit on google "minimum wage tip". Something like
$2.13 per hour (with maximum of $3.xx of your tip making up
the rest of the minimum wage).
\_ http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
In CALIFORNIA the min wage is $6-8.
\_ taxi drivers are often hilariously classified as independent
contractors so they have no benefits, pay their own gas,
and get raped by the taxi cab license holding companies
with gate fees. - danh |
| 2004/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34927 Activity:high |
11/14 Straight from "Red America"
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1054/1054_01.asp
\_ "Evolution is the religion of scientists who laugh at God."
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.asp
\_ oh. my. god. I can't believe this crap.
\_ Straight from Ontario, California, the land of cheap houses and
ultra under-educated overly-patriotic white trash
\_ Are you callin' me a faguht!? Ahm gonna kick your ass! |
| 2004/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:34852 Activity:very high |
11/11 The media's Barack Obama feve
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20041111.shtml
\_ thanks! can you imagine if malkin was your mother?
how is the suicide rate among 3 year olds?
\_ Oh, look the Queen of self-hating Asians is back on the motd.
I am curious, is the guy who keeps posting this some kind
of white guy conservative with an Asian fetish? |
| 2004/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34732 Activity:moderate |
11/5 isn't it really weird that where paper ballots were used,
the exit polls were accurate, and where electronic ballots
were used, the exit polls were wildly inaccurate? like
every single time? republicans and stat nerds,
please defend yourself.
\_ I'm not going to defend anyone, but you might find this interesting
http://ustogether.org/election04/florida_vote_patt.htm and
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
I don't see obvious evidence of machine based voter fraud, but
I did not really look as carefully as I could have. This site
is nice, though, because it has raw data. If there was fraud, it
should be apparent in these numbers somehow.
\_ Well, what I found odd was that CNN's exit polls moved in
Bush's favor AFTER the election. I'm still scratching my head
about that one. It was a shift of almost 4% in some cases.
\_ Seek knowledge. The exit poll system broke late evening and
didn't get another update until after 1am so they did this
horrible thing: they used the real returns counted from real
votes.
\_ What do you mean? How can you get how many women voted
for Kerry vs men from real returns? Did the final exit
poll results include real returns or not?
\_ It is weird because it isn't true. You saw very early returns
released to the net without any information about where those polls
where taken, how many were polled, nothing. Please take Stat 2
because you continue to spread further misinformation.
\_ Stop smoking the Democratic Underground crack pipe. -liberal |
| 2004/11/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34723 Activity:nil |
11/5 someone told me that the votes will all be hand counted 11 days
after the election. If that is the case, where are the vote
stubs kept? aren't they subject to contamenation? |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:34710 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://losangeles.craigslist.org/pol/47987927.html Voter IQ. Republican vs. Democrat state intelligence. \_ Yes, we all know that. Democrats are really really really smart and Republicans are really really really dumb. You're also good while we're all evil. You are the smartest, most beautiful, best educated, correct thinking, most well spoken, and closer to God than (well ok not that since you don't believe in one) us. We are moronic bible thumping mouth breathing pig fucking red necks (thanks to the wall on election night for that line) while you are the peak of billions of years of the evolutionary process. Since you got crushed that must mean the world is just an evil place full of stupid and bad people. Your only hope is to flee to Europe. We shall miss you dearly. With you gone, what will we laugh at? The French are just too easy a target. The Brits we feel sorry for. The Spanish are craven. The Germans are beneath contempt. And the rest don't add up to enough to fill a piss bucket. Please excuse me while I go knock a pig unconcious with a bible so I can give it a good old fashioned Republican fucking. Maybe in 4 years you'll learn to treat the opposition as something more than subhuman and actually get some votes from those people. I doubt it. |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34708 Activity:high |
11/4 Glitch gave Bush 3893 extra votes in Ohio. A technician from
the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election
Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the
problem.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html
\_ Assuming the election was by and large fair, as liberals and
conservatives have asserted, such glitches would on average affect
both Kerry and Dubya votes, such that a > 130,000-vote win would
be well outside the margin of error.
Anyways, IMO, WHY THE FUCK do we have voting machines which don't
leave a paper trail? Liberals are just standing around scratching
their heads trying to figure out whether THEY were fucking with
the exit polls; or that the original exit polls were right and they
GOT FUCKED by e-voting machines, with no real evidence either way.
\_ I think the simple answer is that politicians of all stripes
are retarded about technology. They think that more expensive
and complicated is always better. And since the folks who make
expensive machines pay for their campaigns, they tend to listen
to them. That's why NIST needs to start a division to deal
with the problem of voting device accuracy. If we had formal
standards for what constitutes an accurate, reliable voting
machine, then politicans, companies and the public could
actually talk about this rationally instead of all the shouting
we have today.
\_ The reasons are numerous (listened to a program about it)
but I think the primary reason is the revolving door between
the makers of the voting machines and the voting
commissions, and that the opinions of the companies selling
the equipment are crowding out common sense. And why oh
why should there be any laws that make it difficult to
verify election results? There can be no reason for it
unless you wanted to hide fraud!
\_ Omaha, Nebraska is a godamn redneck place. |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34691 Activity:nil |
11/5 Electoral vote map by County:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
\_ http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:34685 Activity:very high |
11/04 Holy Jeebus. The CDN dollar hit $0.83 today.
\_ where's a good site to see exchange rates plotted as a function of
time?
\_ http://finance.yahoo.com/currency?u
\_ Move your assets into something non-US dollar denominated. I did
so two years ago and have doubled the S&P gain each year. The
dollar is in for a mighty drop soon.
\_ What has it been doing other than dropping?! Soon, indeed.
\_ You ain't seen nothing yet.
\_ What is the timeframe for an Argentina-style currency
crisis? Would it take 5 to 10 years or could it happen
more quickly?
\_ Why do you think it will drop more? It's dropped a lot already
in the last three months. -ignoramus
\_ Short answer: The Economist says so.
Long answer: huge and unsustainable budget deficit,
ditto with the trade deficit, an administration that
refuses to admit that this is a problem and in fact
intends to borrow even more, a Japan and China growing
weary of financing it, a real competing currency
(The Euro) for the world to put its capital into.
\_ How did the dollar do when confronted with
Reaganomics? The dollar is falling because the US
wants it to fall. It makes it easier to pay back the
$$$ we borrowed. We'll prop it up when we're ready.
\_ nah, it's the chinese and japanese who've been
propping it up, and they are the only ones who
can continue to prop it up. Dollar falling
ain't bad, makes our products more competitive.
US dollar once went down to 1.4 Singapore dollar,
then bounce back up to 1.84 Singapore dollar
during the gogo internet years, now it is at
1.67. I think it will fall back to 1.4 or lower
in the next year or two.
\_ Products more competitive? Hello, McFly. We're
running a HUGE trade deficit, which the dollar's
fall has done nothing to help. Currency crisis
here we come, although I happen to think it won't
really hit hard until W is out of office.
\_ Don't forget the international dollar glut and Russia
moving to Euros for intl. oil payments. -John
\_ One way to bet that the dollar will fall is to buy
an international short term bond fund like BEGBX
(some international bond fund are hedged to eliminate
exchange rate changes vs the dollar, but not this
fund). |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34664 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 If the Bush campaign is indeed using the churches to GOTV, why the
fuck do they have tax-exempt status?
\_ Don't most political organizations have tax exempt status as
non-profits anyway?
\_ My donation to MoveOn was not tax-deductible, if that's what
you mean.
\_ Churches don't formally endorse politicians. At any rate, black
churches are also a huge democratic source of votes.
\_ This is no longer as true as you might think.
\_ churches are no longer a huge democratic source of votes.
Blacks, especially apathetic ones, just don't go. And
they don't seem to give a damn. New black voter turnout
was proportionally the LOWEST of all ethnic groups. Kerry
pretty much counted on them and took them for granted, not
realizing how much they've changed.
\_ And every election there is video of the Dem candidate openly
campaigning INSIDE A CHURCH. Why do THEY have tax-exempt status?
\_ During a service or not? The clergy are very careful to say
everything up to but not including, "Vote for So-n-so." As
long as they do this, they are not in violation of their tax-
free status. This was covered in great detail by CBS, NPR, and,
frightneningly enough, the Daily Show. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34656 Activity:high |
11/04 alright, some final thoughts for any interested... dont think i can
bear to keep this up much longer, so....
http://csua.berkeley.edu/~rory
\_ I did something similar in Nevada. I should have stayed
home and purchased cocaine. - danh
\_ Well, thanks for getting all those people out to vote.
\_ You poor besieged intelligent people, surrounded by idiots as you
are. Give me a fucking break.
\_ A huge percentage of Bush supporters still believe that Saddam
Hussein had WMD and helped UBL to take down the WTC, and you
don't understand why intelligent people might feel surrounded
by idiots? --erikred
\_ I was unable to parse this...
\_ I think the problem lies with you, not the sentence above.
\_ Welcome to Motd-land.
\_ The Democrats keep thinking that, and they're never break out
of their loser niche. Me, I'll take a guy who goes to work
everyday and manages to put food on the table every night over
a Soda "intellectual" any day of the week.
\_ Fuck you in the eye. I do that and I voted for the Democrat.
You're just countering one stereotype with another.
\_ Tell me you make $35k a year with a wife and kids and then
you'll have my apology.
\_ What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I'm
not the person calling everyone an idiot...
\_ This has got to be a troll.
\_ And BTW my comment is aimed at rory's lament about "me and
the rest of the (intelligent people) left in this country".
I wonder how many of rory's poor huddled masses can take
a vacation to Florida to entertain a political masturbation
whim. Just give me the guy who's working hard to feed
the family and spare me that "poor intellectual me" lament.
\_ So voluntary participation in a get-out-the-vote effort
is a "political masturbation whim"? -- ulysses
\_ seriously. while the pp was probably home on a literal
masturbation whim to ascii pron some of us were out
volunteering to try and inform and mobilize people
in a way we believe to be beneficial for all. i wont
deny that there is a certain psychological element
that derives some pleasure from "doing good" although
that exists in the 30% of evangelicals in our country
just as much. i took 2 days vacation from work which
i dont think you could consider such an extreme
privelage either. and the trip was paid for from
donations around the country. and if you consider
donating to a liberal cause a privelage as well,
perhaps you should look into the percentage of
christian americans across the socioeconomic spectrum
tithing their wages. - rory
\_ Yeah, rory is pretty much being an unfavorable caricature
of a CA liberal. -- ilyas
\_ well replace CA with "CA/NY" and you've pretty much
nailed my target audience, so no doubt that I'm taking
certain liberties with formality in an effort to be
bit more humorous to them. I could have replaced
"intelligent" perhaps with some description of those
us left with the privelage of being well-informed
enough to vote for the best interests of ourselves
and the majority of the nation.
Though I do agree that the image of the left in this
country as intellectual is damaging for progress and
not true... if I didnt crack myself up with that
parenthetical witicism I'd probably remove/correct
the stmt. - rory
\_ all that bickering and name calling is the exact reason
why the Republicans kicked our ass.
\_ rory, you and the DNC are brain dead. While you're busy
knocking doors on apathetic negros, the RNC only had to
make a few phone calls to church pastors to get hundreds
of people to vote for Bush. Total stupidity. I've lost
faith in DNC, a bunch of unorganized hippies -disillusioned
\_ uh, well I appreciate the anon insult and the hyperbole...
just keepin it real on tha motd I guess. anyway...
(1) I am neither a hippie nor a DNC organizer, so I cant
take any credit for that.
(2) I agree that the DNC needs to focus on religion instead
of random attempts to get the msg across. I'm currently of
the opinion that the primary reason for the recent GOP
success is the artifical conflation of various social issues
with Christian values and the effective hijacking of the
religious "right" by Karl Rove, et al. - rory
p.s. - out of all my current frustration my current plan is to
exert a bit of energy in working on this as much as I can. If
would like to stop frothing on the motd and do something about
it as well feel free to email me. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:34654 Activity:high |
11/4 With all the garbage about "liberal" vs. "conservative" (both horrible
misnomers) floating around, I seriously am trying to find out if/where
I fit into the political spectrum. I've put together a list in
~john/politics.txt am curious about what the MOTD peanut gallery
thinks. -John
\_ I look at that list and see a strong modern left position. And
I suspect it pretty much mirrors a lot of what us commie pinko
socialist bleeding heart liberal scum on soda beleive in. Modern
"liberals" (whatever the fuck that means) are not the same thing
they were 40 years ago, but are still stuck being painted that way.
For Europe you are probably pretty middle of the road, but in
America you'd be a flaming liberal. So sad.
\_ huh. I agree with you on all points you list, and I consider myself
to be a liberal. I think that's out of step with what most people
call a liberal, but fuck them. I believe that these principles
coincide with what liberalism is supposed to be.
\_ You have contradictory requirements. First, you wish for low taxes,
but then you also want to fund a moderate liberal agenda (keep the
poor off the streets, good public education, etc). You have to
choose what is more important to you, low (and in particular
progressive or no) taxes, or the nifty stuff you want to buy with
taxes. As described, you would be called a centrist, somewhat
left of center, or a moderate liberal, in this country. You are
probably somewhat right of center in EU. -- ilyas
\_ here's an idea: if you can't explain the views of one side without
making them look like evil morons (ex: the conservative view
below), then you don't hold that political philosophy.
\_ I applaud your rigorousness, but I strongly suggest you frame
this in specific, in-your-face examples.
E.g.,
Iraq - liberal view: America should have waited for Blix to finish
Iraq - conservative view: America was right to use its military
superiority to remove Saddam, even if he had no WMDs and even if
we don't have a track record of building a democracy in a country
like Iraq, and it's worth the cost of innocent Iraqi and American
lives that we are directly responsible for.
Consensus view: If you have WMDs, we produce a smoking gun, and
we think you may take us out or blackmail us, we'll take you out.
Social security - liberal view: As-is progressive system where
rich contribute more relatively to help out poor
Social security - conservative view: Give everyone IRAs, if you're
poor when you're young and working, you're still poor when you
retire. Sorry! America is the land of OPPORTUNITY, not handouts!
Consensus view: It shouldn't be as bad as Western Europe.
\-i think your list is sort of "bottom up" ... here is what i
think about 10 issues ... what do i fit into best ... rather than
a "top down" view which would take as it's starting point some
kind of "big question" like "what is the purpose of govt" or
"what do we owe each other" and have more of an essay form of
answer [or if we take the essay to the extreme, you get say
nozick: anarchy, state and utopia, or rawls: a theory of justice].
also a lot of the "hard questions" involves aspects of process ...
like the role of money in politics, what should be civil penalty
vs criminal [say a company pollutes] ... so in your list is it
not clear what should happen to the "victims" of free trade,
not much on health care ... and without some kind of "philosophy"
it's hard to guess where you would come down on issues not
explicitly delineated. it's not clear to me why you believe in
public education, for example. oh your list is also subject to
the a sort of wilt chamberlain problem [where you have initial
condition you like, but nothing prevents things from evolving in
a direction you dont like ... without an encroachment on liberty
you also dont like ... you can look up "wilt chamberlain nozick"
on the WEEB probably]. --psb
\_ Good points, thanks for the critique. That list was just a
sort of brain dump in reaction to "issues" discussed during
the election. I have a sort of naive assumption that someone
who stands for election would possess the kind of intelligence
and flexibility that would let them adapt to changing
conditions; I am wary of platforms or grand sweeping
documents that go too much into detail (see the US vs.
European constitutions). As for W. Europe vs. US social
security, they're both bad and in the shits, but at least the
W. Europeans are getting something from it right now :) -John
\_ Well, I've always thought that if you can't explain it to
a four-year-old, you don't really understand it. I'm taking
this approach. Why theory-build when you don't need to?
\-because a complicated society involves hard questions.
the simple theories like "strict constructionalism" either
have limited power, or arent as simple as they pretend to be.
know any 4yrs old who can follow say the federalist papers?
how do you balance between minority and majority interests?
you cant just say "vote on everything". not only is there the
interest of minorities but problems like the arrow problem.
what about trade offs between equality and efficiency [see eg
arthur okun's essay by that name]? not all social choice is
pareto improving ... if it is kaldor-hicks efficient, how are
losers compensated? i think "can you explain X" is a decent
test of your understanding, but the 4 yr old test is setting
the bar a little low. books i've read which i find have some
bearing on this include: the republic, dworkin: taking rights
seriously, cardozo: nature of the judicial process, bickel:
the least dangerous branch [no, the bible isnt on this list].
\_ You're right, but at some point, as a citizen, you have
no choice but to abstract and simplify political
principles; one of the major tasks of a government is
to outline a set of guiding philosophies, and to work
within these as much as possible, taking into account
"operational realities". Simple, 4-year-old statements,
such as "wealth is good" and "crime is bad" are perfectly
valid; however, at some point it should become possible
for someone with an average level of education and
intelligence to identify and formulate some coherent
beliefs without the benefit of an in-depth knowledge
of political theory. You pay your elected officials to
deal with the minutiae of making these work. -John
\- sure, there are some guiding principles like: freedom
to contract, social safety net, coase theorem/learned
hand rule, checks and balances, stare decisis,
federalism, due process, equality before the law ...
but entire books have been written on the single word
"equality" [http://csua.org/u/9sw] so again while
these are useful tools to have in your mental cabinet
with which to analyze problems like prop 187, they
are not simple tools. people who use one or two of
these has hammers and reduce problems nails [like
most libertarians] are falling short of the reflective
ideal, imho. curiously, some of the issues most people
would see as the most inherently moral questions, i
see as pretty empirical, like abortion and the death
penalty. i think another interesting and hard question
is "what is the role of govt outside of solving
'problems'" ... like why should there be a NASA ...
clearly NASA is not as "practical" as DARPA. if there
is one question for conservatives: what should be the
limits of the freedom to contract, and for liberals:
how would i justify progressive taxation. aff. action
is also a rich topic for debate ... also not something
clearly address in your list [metatopics being: how
do you trade individual rights for social agendas,
are there 'group rights' etc]. --psb
\_ I think the limits of the freedom of contract should
be the death of the individual (to prevent
feudalism). [ I had some other stuff here, but I
removed it, because I realized the problem is harder
than it looks. I want to say that the individual
should be free to sell his life however he wishes,
but I am not sure I can bite the bullet on the
ensuing ick.] One nifty argument for
progressive taxation I heard is that the rich make
a more effective use of the money they have,
because they have more of it, and so in some sense
a proportional tax isn't really fair. -- ilyas
\_ i don't know a lot about this stuff and i really hate
encouraging you, but is there a first world nation with
a flat tax besides Iraq? |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34644 Activity:nil |
11/3 We underestimated rednecks. Now what?
\_ No -- we chose a candidate that no R or conservative would EVER
vote for. Time to start playing a smarter game in the primaries.
\_ I pray the Dems put up someone reasonable next time, and I
pray the Republicans can get someone better than Bush.
But they probably learned the wrong lesson. -voted for Bush.
\_ I suspect the R can't put up Cheney in 08, so who then?
McCain or Powell, I'd vote for (as a D/I). Frist? Lord,
I hope not. If all D can put forward is Obama or La Clinta,
then it's going to be a pretty one sided race. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34639 Activity:very high |
11/3 I'm seeing an argument around the net today that seems strangely
compelling. I think the most viable argument for blue states may
be to start arguing strongly for federalism and states rights.
The red states can have their theocracies, so long as they don't
interfere with what the blue states want for themselves. Less
centralized federal government, less transfer of resources between
states, and more equitable distribution of federal resources such
as they would be constituted. It would be a very uphill battle, but
it strikes me as the only rational response. What's really scary
is that this is precisely the argument that led to the Civil War.
\_ Do you even understand what you're saying? It is only a strong
Federal system that allowed the Civil Rights Movement to break the
evil (D)emocratic South/KKK. It is only a strong Federal system
that allows a poorly written legal opinion like Roe v. Wade to make
abortion a nation wide right instead of each State being allowed to
decide the issue for itself. Same thing for a number of other
issues I'm sure are close to your heart such as environmental laws,
work place protection, health standards, OSHA, etc. Calm down, stop
reading the net for a week and *think* about what you're saying.
Stop *feeling*.
\_ good luck. Bush said he's gonna screw stem cell research,
reduce abortion, and use YOUR tax money on programs like
abstenence in public schools. And I pledge allegiance
to the United States, under God...
\_ The sheer horror of a reduced numbers of abortions, abstinence
instead of random sex, and only 25 million in FED. FUNDED
embryonic stem cells. What is this country coming to?
\_ Yay, decentralization, ho! Maybe those crazy libertarians aren't
as evil as they seem. -- ilyas
\_ Most people don't think libertarians are evil or stupid. They
think they just oversimplify things. Often, to simplify is
to falsify.
\_ I never thought they were evil, just a little naive. Am I
making a libertarian argument here? I'm not arguing that the
individual states should be libertarian - I'm sure the reds
would want plenty of authoritarian power over people's personal
lives, and I can imagine some blues wanting more socialized
medicine etc. etc. More power to them. But it is clear that
this nation is coming unglued, and we need to reach an
equitable compromise. The California stem cell law (which was
flawed and which I opposed for various reasons) is one example
of what could be possible.
\_ Your argument is driven by practical considerations, but at
its core, and driven to its logical conclusion, it is
a libertarian argument. If you have your way and the
federal gvt loses its former prominence, what's to stop
the recursion from proceeding further? What if some
besieged county decides it wants more local power from
the state gvt, etc. Libertarians are very happy to
see power localize in the communities. -- ilyas
\_ I think your historical appreciation of US politics is
lacking.
\_ Prepare to be deported to Jesusland.
\_ Elaborate.
\_ I think it's pretty obvious the Dems can't handle being
out of power. Dems have controlled congress for, what,
50-100 years? Now that power has shifted you're all
running around screaming about how the world is going to
end if we don't put you back in power. Newsflash:
Democrat != Ruling Elite. When Dem's were in power,
centalized goverment was good, now it's bad. Go fig.
\_ Wow. You're so partisan it's a little sickening.
NEITHER party wants to be out of power and both will
kick and scream like a stuck pig when deprived.
Attributing that to D as though it's unique to them and
sets them apart from R is just silly. You've really
not been paying attention outside of the Rightwing echo
chambers/spin machine if you think it can be so easily
reduced to that. I think mainly it's not about being
out of power as it's about a damaged, morally bankrupt
presidency that really has almost NOTHING in 4 years
that it can point to as a success. This is what got
reelected. Once the emotion dies down, and all the
recriminations and stupid gloating ease back, what's
going to be found is that D couldn't field a candidate
that had appeal to anyone other than other D's....which
led to a less ideal presidency being reelected since
the opposing view was unable to field anything better.
It's emarrassing for the D's, but really has little to
do with your infantile and absurdly facile 'analysis'.
Rise above your party's spin, kid -- that's what your
education is supposed help you with; critical reasoning
skills.
\_ "Kid" funny insult from a guy who can't even
remember back to 1995.
\_ Your contentless reply only goes to confirm my
opinion of you. Here, have a lollipop.
\_ Did I say I was a Democrat? I'm concerned about the
divide in the country and ways to solve it.
\_ I never said you were.
\_ Actually, your post rather strongly implied that.
\_ Your post strongly implied you were. So
we're even.
\_ Uhm, seeing as you're replying to my first
post to this subthread, I'm forced to conclude
that you're an imbecile.
\_ Because you sign your post so everyone
knows when YOU'RE posting huh?
\_ Okay, fine. We're BOTH imbeciles.
\_ yeah.
\_ Well, good! |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34636 Activity:high |
11/3 A logical plan for secession: http://house.style.net/usa.jpg \_ "God Bless Our Gra-cious Queen ......" \_ Looks like Iowa will go to Jesusland instead of USC. n \_ At first glance I thought the green part reads "Jerusaland". \_ At first glance I thought the green part reads "Jerusaland". \_ We'll have to get rid of that "we stand on God for thee" part. -tom \_ Ah yes. We should ethically cleanse the rednecks out of Indiana and Ohio first though. We don't want to drive through Jesusland to get to Michigan. We could let them have half of Indiana... they need the Brickyard for their NASCAR activities. \_ Your man lost. Get over it. Keep in mind that CA voted 55/45, not 100/0. \_ Well, keep in mind your man won by only about 150k votes in Ohio, so let's not all kid ourselves. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34627 Activity:moderate |
11/3 Historically, what is the longest duration which we had a
republican president? what about democratic?
\_ see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_president#List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
\_ see : http://tinyurl.com/5hna3 |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34626 Activity:nil |
11/3 BTW, fellow liberal hosers:
The number one problem we have is the image of the "liberal elite":
Unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, rich, not hard-working
and lounging at sushi bars (thanks psb for that latter idea),
saying and believing anything to win the election (gay marriage?),
valuing spotted owls above jobs, being critical instead of optimistic,
and not supporting our soldiers.
(I'm stressing "image" of the liberal elite. I am not saying this
is how it actually is ... if you don't know what I'm talking about,
do two things. (1) Watch Team America: World Police. (2) Read this
thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269267/posts
\_ I did a study 1998-ish where I tried to talk to the occupant of
any house that sported an American flag. Most of them are
initially surprised by my knocking on their door, but they became
quite talkative once I explained myself. Out of 23 houses that
I visited in Northern California (mainly around the Peninsula)
and in suburban Boston (around Wilmington and Norwood), 21 self-
identified as Republican. The other 2 households were around
Boston and were Pats fans. This has no scientific value, but I
thought the result was interesting nevertheless.
\_ I disagree. It's a combination of uncharismatic leaders, the
image of giving free stuff to poor "welfare queens" etc. and
the abortion/gays/guns/god stuff. Culturally, John and Teresa
are out of step with regular people, just the way they talk.
A guy like Clinton had much better rapport with people.
\_ Yeah, I also wanted to add "out of touch with the average
American" to the list. Remember, it's the perception of
what a liberal is. All those freeper posts about how happy
the libs lost -- they are talking about this image. -op
\_ bullshit. the liberals tend to lose because of pussies like
you. do you think that if bush lost, they'd all be sighing
on the freeper boards about how their extremist rightwing
religious agenda is out of the mainstream? of course not.
they'd be shaking their fists over it, and demanding blood
in 2008.
\_ Whatever you say man. -op |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34623 Activity:moderate |
11/3 If the deficit continues at the current rate, what would it imply?
I mean, what does all the deficit really means?
\_ Deficit/surplus as a percentage of GDP:
1976, -4.2%
1983, -6%
1992, -4.7%
2003, -3.5%
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
\_ Any figures for national debt as % of GDP?
\_ Looks like we'll have to raise taxes to get out it.
\_ Taxes were coming regardless of who won the election. The
question is who is going to get taxed. Kerry would have taxed
the rich. Bush will likely gut the EITC among other things.
\_ One of the problems with taxing the rich that
raising taxes often just makes them put their money
in shelters, which doesn't help the economy OR tax
revenues. Notice how Kerry's wife only pays 15% of
her income in taxes?
\_ Shhh... We're not supposed to talk about Teresa.
\_ Raise taxes or pray for the economy to get hot, but
unfortunately the current bunch in Washington is religious.
However, we've clearly been here before, and the chicken
littles are likely overstating their case.
\_ Nah, we'll just keep borrowing until total collapse. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34616 Activity:kinda low |
11/3 Bush first president since Bush Sr. to win > 50% of popular vote:
http://truthnews.net/comment/2000_11_mandate.html
(article written in 2000)
\_ uh, so it was Bush Sr. > 50%, then Clinton < 50%, then Bush Jr.
Term 1 < 50%, now Bush Jr Term 2 > 50%?
\_ yes
\_ What about Clinton Term 2?
\_ Clinton got < 50% of popular. See infoplease link below.
\_ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34608 Activity:nil |
11/3 So much for the youth vote. Hahahahahaa.. Have fun in Canada, eh?
http://tinyurl.com/4vkns |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34595 Activity:nil |
11/2 Bush 57.4 mil, Kerry 53.7 mil popular vote. How is this
even close? A difference of over 3 mil vote is, in my mind,
winning in a landslide. This is just pathetic.
\_ Well, it's 3%. You know, like 51% to 48%. They start thinking
about "landslide" when it's 5% or more. That's just how it is.
Imagine the 3-4 million votes in the City of Los Angeles deciding
the fate of the nation. There you go.
\- come on, this is a product of the "objective function"
which was to win in the EC ... kerry didnt and shouldnt have
been trawling for a couple of more percent of the CA or
NY vote. note: i also thought the ALGOR people were foolishly
whining about the popular vote in 2000 ... it is one thing to
say "this is a good reason to get rid of the EC" but given what
the rules were, this is like claming the wimbledon winner
lost on games although he won on sets was robbed. --psb
\_ Well, I think the Dems were more pissed that the Supreme
Court stopped the recount when there were good reasons
that it should have left it to the Florida Supreme Court.
Then again the Dems erred morally and legally by
asking only for recounts in Dem-heavy counties.
\_ A landslide is what Reagan had. This is still historically close. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:34593 Activity:nil |
11/3 What an election: What I do know is that this has been
one hell of a slam bang election season.
Tony Blankley worked for Newt Gingrich and is editor
of Wash. Times
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20041103.shtml |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34589 Activity:nil |
11/2 Fuck looks like Prop 69 is going to pass.
http://www.10news.com/politics/2887351/detail.html |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34582 Activity:high |
11/2 Democratic soul-searching begins now: NY Times op-ed piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?hp
"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted
Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to
get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them
economically." ... Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge,
and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own
working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.
\_ I find the comment that comes up time and time again, about poor
southern whites voting 'against their self-interest' revealing.
\_ yeah, tax breaks for billionaires.. totally dead-on!
\_ isn't this true? You know, with the vast majority of the tax
break going to the $200K+ bracket, the removal of the dividend
tax, the removal of the inheritance tax?
Well, to be accurate, it should say "millionaires and up".
\_ It is true, but it misses the point. Is it not possible to
vote against one's direct self-interest because, perhaps,
principles are involved? A libertarian might accept a higher
tax rate because he believes a flat tax is fairer than
progressive tax. Why is this so incomprehensible? -- ilyas
\_ Um, someone moved my post. My post was in response to
"tax breaks for billionaires".
Anyways, who says I didn't comprehend what you just wrote,
ilyas?
My post was meant to convey the FACT that most of the
tax breaks are going to the rich -- not the rightness
of it, which is different for every person, as you've
implied.
\_ Not you. I was talking about the author of the article,
and his seeming incomprehesion of southern voting
patterns 'against their interest.' This is a common
complaint from liberal circles, and I find it odd.
Those guys down south don't live in the same 'fight
for a piece of the public pie by any means necessary'
world as you do. (again I don't necessarily mean 'you').
-- ilyas
\_ the article is quite clear that it is talking
about poor, rural voters voting against their
"economic interest", which means the rich get more
money, the poor get comparatively less -- for the
short-term at least. It's a point of debate whether
a less progressive tax system works long-term.
It is also quite clear that the author believes
these voters are voting for their "social self-
interest" (my quotes on that one), which is voting
their values -- such as no gay marriage for queers.
their values.
\_ Ok how is a flat tax "fairer"? no one is forcing you to
earn more. If you believe an income tax is fair in the
first place then what's the big deal with progressive?
If it's too high you just don't work, and have a lot more
free time. If it's too high you're probably screwing your
economy. But that's a separate issue than fairness.
For example, a high tax on income over $1m/y wouldn't
truly hamper anybody's "pursuit of happiness", and would
be fair: anyone earning that much gets that tax.
\_ Look we are not going to have a long ass ranty
discussion about a flat tax, ok. For most people,
in most contexts, fairness = proportionality. Fairness
!= proportionality only if you are in magical liberal
taxland. -- ilyas
\_ proportional? not proportional to services used,
not even a flat tax does that. so it's already
unfair in that sense. once you're there, i'm arguing
there's no "moral" difference going to progressive.
\_ *sigh* If you want proportionality for services
used, charge for them directly. This argument is
stupid. You are not convincing me, and I am not
convincing you (nor am I particularly interested,
as far as I am concerned CA liberals can rot in a
hell of their own devising, I am getting out of
here first chance I get). -- ilyas
\_ Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
This argument is no more stupid than your usual
motd rantings. You just refuse to see outside
your chosen worldview. I suppose CA's liberal
hell is why so many people have been coming
here. Why are you here anyway? Using our
subsidized university system? Shouldn't you
already be out in Georgia Tech or something?
Oh wait that's public too... ok, Duke.
\_ I think your next line is to complain about
me using the phone system and the freeways.
This conversation is SO over. -- ilyas
\_ Not quite. While you might not be able
to avoid using the freeways and phone
system, there were plenty of private
universities, including top tier ones,
yet YOU CHOSE to attend the evil govt
funded public school. The free market
provided you with alternatives, but
YOU CHOSE to force all of us "at
gunpoint" to pay for your education.
Way to stand by your principles.
-meyers
\_ Sure, I can avoid using the phone and
the freeway if I go become amish.
Similarly, I go where I am accepted.
Though a private school would probably
be better, understand that all
universities in the US, private or
not, are heavily gvt subsidized, so
the point is kind of moot. Plus,
I where they let me. -- ilyas
I go where they let me. -- ilyas
\_ Stay on topic: we're talking about
your decision to attend a public
university instead of a private
one. Are you saying that *no*
private school would accept you?
-meyers
\_ No private school out of a
reasonably large set to which
I applied accepted me. Again,
because there is little moral
difference of kind (only of
degree) between a fully gvt
funded school (UCLA), and a
partially gvt funded school
(Stanford) I don't really see
your point. It reduces to
freeways. -- ilyas
\_ They only vote on abortion, anti-queer stuff, and whoever
thumps the most bible. They think this is their self interest.
They bang their cousins and mope around in their hick towns,
and send their kids to the army, why not vote Bush. Bush says
"y'all" and plays country music at the rallies.
\_ If you believe NPR; the Dems lost because the Reps
were better able to motivative their base. This was especially
true in Florida with the Christian Right ( Hah! What a &%*$
oxymoron) who viewed this election as an actual war against
their belief system; disturbingly similar to what all of those
racist groups used to blather on about. Who would think that a
country like ours could become more intolerant. The whole
youth vote thing never materialized as expected; more due to
apathy than anything else; according to at least some of the
networks; something akin to only people who pay taxes are
motivated to vote. Sad.. really really sad |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:34581 Activity:moderate |
11/2 Why is Orange County so red? San Diego-- easy, a lot of dumb
and patriotic servicemen. But Orange?
\_ I am glad you can disparage those "dumb" serviceman with your
freedom you owe them but hey, what can I expect from those
selfish many who never served.
\- i feel sorry for them ... i think they are being taken advantage
of by BUSHCO, halliburton etc.
\_ I'm glad they feel that way 1 out of 3 times. Don't forget
Halliburton was hailed by Clinton for their work in Kosovo.
Please, BTW, tell me just what other companies provide
the same services and take the same risks ?
\_ Bechtel.
\_ so, no bid contract is ok?
\_ Rich, hard-working people live there. Rich, hard-working people
want smaller government, less taxes -- they don't want handouts for
lazy poor people or higher taxes for inefficient govt bureaucracy.
\-a recent study suggests there is more willingness to fund
social welfare programs when it is visibly and obviously
going to "people like you" ... that may in part explain why
some areas are more willing to have social welfare ... some
people are suggesting the support for social welfare programs
in europe is declining with brown people immigration.
also the OC people dont feel bound by principle to suck it
up when the "going isnt good" ... think state bailout
after OC investment fiasco. i think the OC is still the
largest municipal banruptcy in american history. --psb
\_ Why would you vote for Bush if you wanted a smaller
government?
\_ "Free Heathcare for Everyone!" answer your question?
\_ Do you even know what that plan entailed? FYI:
it didn't cover everyone. Providing basic health
insurance to those who can't get it from employers
doesn't require too much. Those people end up costing
money regardless, in emergency rooms for example. |
| 2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34573 Activity:moderate |
11/2 "If Bush wins, this country is filled with a lot more pigfucking
inbred moronic loser bible-thumping assholes than I originally
thought."
Mmm. Tolerance.
\_ That's just dumb anyway. Sure, Bush is about to win solidly, but
it's still within the margin of error of the polls we've all been
watching for weeks, so where's the suprise?
\_ The Dems will continue to struggle until they realize why some
people see this as unjustified elitist bullshit. 'Know your
enemy and keep him close.' --Kerry voter
\_ Yeah I agree. Watching wall tonight was both fun and revealing
for me. -- ilyas
\_ 'Rednecks' in Louisiana voted for their first Republican
senator since Recontruction. Think about that next time
you call them 'pigfuckers'. California is the state that
voted for Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan!
\_ The 'Southern Democrat' isn't what you conceptualize as a
California or New York Democrat. This statement shows that
you really don't much understand the South.
\_ The fact that Pete Wilson was a Republican senator
and later governor (who went to UC Berkeley!) shows
you don't understand anything at all. The very fact
that a Southern Democrat is different is the point
I am illustrating! Likewise, so is a California
Republican (see: Arnold). No one wants a New England
liberal! GWB is *soooo* much better than a Southern
Democrat, huh?
\- yes, i suppose in the edwin edwards vs david duke
they made the "right choice". however, a state that
nominates duke ...
\_ Fuck you. We will have 4 more years of this country going down
the toilet that's why I walled that. If seeing massive deficits
with no end in sight, universal hatred of our country, erosion
of civil liberties, weakening of environment protections, crony
capitalism running amok, chaos and instability in the world, etc.,
makes me "elitist" then you can call me that. At least all the
bad shit Bush is going to put into motion the next 4 years won't
make me feel guilty since I didn't vote for him. Plus I've got
another country to move to if this whole deck of cards known as
the US economy collapses. - eric
the US economy collapses. Oh BTWM, just for the record, I'm
equally annoyed at the extremists on the other side, you know,
the pseudo-intellectual surrender monkey pussies who think that
the proper reaction to 9/11 was to send a basket of flowers to
bin Laden and that we should give communism just one more chance
... It's just that there are a lot more of the former than the
latter in this country, you know it's true - eric
\_ Eric, don't take this the wrong way, but you come across as a
ranty, intolerant, close-minded bigot. That the liberal
movement has come to be defined by people like you is why you
lost at the polls yesterday, and why you will lose again and
again.
\_ Hey, I know I'm way out of the American mainstream, and
you can attack me personally if you wish. But at least
give me some credit for caring about the state of the
country.
\_ You may care about the country, but if you insult its
majority in the way you do, your care seems a little
cold and distant and abstract. It's the people, not the
country, that are important.
\_ I never said the majority of the country were
"pigfucking inbred moronic loser bible-thumping
assholes" ... Although I do believe that group
is much more likely to vote Bush than Kerry.
is much more likely to vote Bush than Kerry. -eric |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34561 Activity:nil |
11/2 So it took Bush less than 5 minutes to vote? wtf? It took me
over 10 minutes just to read through all the questions. What did
he do? Just voted for himself as the president and skipped the
rest of the question? Does that sounds like someone qualifying
to lead a country? Yeah, I stand firmly behind my 5 minute
decisions!!
\_ Most states don't have a bunch of propositions on the ballot like
CA always does.
\_ Maybe you're just slow. It took me about 3-5 minutes to vote. What's to
read? Props are yes/no and the rest is just finding the name you want
on the ballot.
\_ He had a cheat sheet.
\_ Don't a lot of people write down their choices on the sample
ballot before they get to the polls?
\_ And how long did it take Kerry to vote?
\_ 20 minutes. He kept flip-flopping between himself and Nader. |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:34537, category id '18005#2.16825' has no name! , ] UID:34537 Activity:high |
11/2 http://storage.nfshost.com/bush this was awesome \_ Post that to freeperland \_ if you like this then you'll like these: http://tinyurl.com/5tt2y http://tinyurl.com/3sp7b link:tinyurl.com/44t4y \_ Actually I found these boring, even though I liked the op's link |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:34532, category id '18005#8.1975' has no name! , ] UID:34532 Activity:high |
11/2 Why Alaska's election matters:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/5738106p-5671916c.html
1) very very close U.S. senate race
2) may soon become the first state where it is *totally* legal
to grow, sell, use, and give away pot.
\_ #2 is important because...? |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34528 Activity:kinda low 66%like:34249 |
11/2 VOTE!
\_ Stay home if you're a clueless bastard that still has no idea
what's going on after some of the most intensely active campaigning
from both parties ever.
\_ There's still time to learn enough to have some idea of who you'd
prefer and vote. Not that these people read the motd anyway.
\_ At this point, on the morning of ED, they should just stay
home. I don't care who they'd vote for. Clueless people
should stay home.
\_ I hate to tell you this, but if clueless people stayed home,
the turnout would probably be in the 10 million or less
range.
\_ I'm totally ok with that. What's wrong with that? Does
having lots of stupid people voting mean we get a better
government?
\_ I don't think having a majority of overeducated,
self-important nitwits is all that desirable either,
you silly arrogant fuck.
\_ What about clueless people who made up their mind a long
time ago? |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34527 Activity:insanely high |
11/2 Vote early.. vote often! Let's hope this isn't true:
\_ you can vote more than once?
\_ No, they kill you after you vote.
"Before voting even began in Philadelphia -- poll watchers found
nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered throughout the
city... One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St.,
Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4
machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly
500... A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute,
Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of
day... INCIDENT: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION:
7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia,
Pa.; INCIDENT: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION:
12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa... MORE...
A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30,
division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and
surrounded the location..."
\_ Source conveniently omitted. So, has this been reported anywhere
*other* than Drudge yet? I notice that Drudge also doesn't bother
to say where he got this information. Maybe that's because he
made it up...again. http://www.drudgereport.com/vote1.htm
\_ Yay, counterfactual Drudge strikes again!
\_ It doesn't say who the votes were for?
\_ http://www.drudgereport.com/vote1.htm is updated. Kerry says it
didn't happen at all. Bush is suing. Election official have an
explanation for something that didn't happen.
\_ Philadelphia city official says:
"Recent press reports have stated that machines in at least one
precinct were not properly calibrated to ensure an accurate
accounting of the number of votes cast.
"These allegations are completely unsubstantiated and have no
factual basis whatsoever."
\_ "Democratic party hack makes lame excuse: says sorry we got
busted and is now in major spin mode"
\_ Any "proof" besides the Drudge-i-nator? He's not known for
his accuracy.
\_ Damn, dude, it's all over the place. Point browser.
The question isn't whether or not something happened
but exactly what happened.
\_ Woot! Kerry's adviser gives the motd response! |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34520 Activity:nil |
11/1 Why is the media so obsessed with the national polls when it is the
electoral votes that decide the outcome?
\_ obBanTheElectoralCollege, obItsARepublicNotADemocracyStupid! |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34517 Activity:moderate |
11/01 if i put in Chimp for pres, does GWB get the vote?
\_ In florida? Probably.
\_ Not if they're black or not smart enuff to use a butterfly ballot |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34515 Activity:nil |
11/1 http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm CA to be safe? \_ Based on a rather biased translation of UBL's speech. Cf. houris as grapes instead of maidens, and maiden instead of virgin in certain religious works. |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34509 Activity:low |
11/1 I haven't received the big book about election, you know, the one
that talks about all the measures and things that I am suppose to
vote on. Do they have one at the voting place? Is the info online?
Can I just vote Kerry and be done with it? (ie, skip the rest?)
\_ For the state props, see http://www.ss.ca.gov
For your local props/candidates google:
<your county> registrar of voters They may have candidate
statements and info on the local propositions.
\_ http://www.smartvoter.org
\_ Are you sure you're registered? They screwed me once. |
| 11/27 |