|
12/25 |
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. |
12/25 |
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 |
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. |
12/25 |