Politics Domestic California - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California: [Arnold(228) | Prop(52) ]
Results 451 - 600 of 1361   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34500 Activity:high
11/1    OK, this was on Fark, but it seemed interesting enough that the motd
        would appreciate it:  If someone votes early (by absentee or whatever)
        and then dies before election day, should their vote count?
        (No 'the dead already vote' trolls, please)
        \_ It seems that it should.  The act of voting becomes valid at the time
           of voting, not at the time the results are tallied or the time the
           polls close. -- ilyas
           polls close.  If someone has a heart attack on the way from the
           polls, it's the same thing.  To use a less controversial example --
           if someone signs his will, and then dies minutes later, the will
           is still valid. -- ilyas
           \_ I sort of agree, but another way to look at it is that the
              election only happens on one day, and early voting methods are
              just a courtesy, and your actual vote only happens on election
              day, so the dead have not really voted, just mailed in an intent
              for their vote to happen.
              It seems 'fairness' in this would usually be overshadowed by
              partisanship, as in "Who would the recently deceased likely vote
              \_ Your statement "the election only happens on one day" is
                 fundamentally flawed. You might want to start from there.
                 In most voting systems I of which I am aware, the vote is
                 cast in time once it is sealed or placed in a ballot box.
                 Once your dead person sealed their absentee ballot, it was
                 cast. :wq

                 \_ Except the law doesn't match what you just said in many
                    places.  Sorry.
        \_ Only if they voted for Kerry.
           \_ You just proved my point -above poster
2004/11/1 [ERROR, uid:34496, category id '18005#2.46875' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34496 Activity:nil
11/01   I predict that this will actually have an effect on the election, if
        the hoodie generation have already registered:
        Quicktime: http://www.gnn.tv/content/eminem_mosh.html
        WMV or RealPlayer: http://mosh.eminem.com/video
        (Yes, sound, yes, profanity, yes, video; hoodie optional.)
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34495 Activity:high
11/01   Gotta love prop 71.  Here in CA the crooks don't have to buy the
        politicians, they can just put themselves on the ballot.
        \_ Which one is that again?
           \_ $3B bond for stem cell research.  No oversight.  Brown Act
              exemption.  etc. etc.
              \_ What's the Brown Act and why do they want an exemption?
                 \_ The Brown Act requires public policy meetings to be held in
                    a public forum and an agenda to be posted in advance.  71
                    also exempts the board which makes monetary decisions from
                    the public records act.  If this passes, I may have to go
                    into biomed.  Whoever gets this money will be set to life.
                    into biomed.  Whoever gets this money will be set for life.
                        \_ Thanks for the info, I was already going to vote
                           no for other reasons, but makes it NO.
        \_ My answer to any propositions that I didn't already know about and
           actively agree with is a "no" vote by default.  I fully understand
           the meaning and implications (and holes) of maybe 1 or 2 per
           election cycle which get a "yes".  There are just too many which are
           just too vague or have too much background info we don't see to
           vote "yes" on them.
                \_ Don't do that. Many policy-makers know most people vote
                   like this, so they phrase the proposition so that a "no"
                   vote actually implements their proposed changes.
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34479 Activity:nil
10/31   Death to America!
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34444 Activity:high
10/29   Capitalism magazine, the bastion of randian objectivism, is apparently
        as split over the US election as the rest of the country.  I found that
        somehow amusing.  Some of the folks there are making reasonable
        game theoretic arguments for why a randy ought to vote for Kerry.
          -- ilyas
          \_ If you mean "randian" in context of Ayn Rand (never heard it used
             like this before) then Capitalism magazine is just plain wrong.
             A true "randian" would either A) not bother to vote or B) vote
             for himself.
             \_ Not that I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand, but you don't understand
                Randians at all.  I said 'randian objectivism' to differentiate
                from other kinds of objectivism (i.e. technical terms in lit
                crit, philosophy, etc) -- ilyas
             \_ I just had the very amusing experience of looking at
                http://www.rand.org to find out if Rand had written anything about
                elections in her time, and was amazed at how non-wingnut it
                was...until I realized it was the wrong rand!
                \_ yes, the Rand Corporation is a serious, professional
                   consulting organization
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34443 Activity:low
10/29   So what happens if you're in a swing state, and you're still in line
        to vote at 8pm?  Do you still get to vote, or do they turn everyone
        away, or is their mass confusion as conflicting orders to stop and
        continue trickle down from local government and TV?
        \_ John Ashcroft personally comes and puts you in jail indefinitely.
        \_ Martial law is established and the race wars begin.
        \_ I have worked the polls before, so I know the answer. One of
           the poll workers comes out, eyeballs the last person in line
           and tells them: "You will be the last person voting. Please
           tell everyone who shows up after you that the polls are closed."
           They come out a few minutes later to make sure he has not
           ignored or misunderstood you.
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34429 Activity:insanely high 54%like:34477
10/29   hi all. I'm going to Florida. thought you might be interested in
        following along from home...
        \_ I salute you, and wish you luck. --scotsman
        \_ Thanks.  This could actully be useful.
           \_ I'm jealous. I didn't have free cash or vacation enough to
              go to FL. I'm spending election day in Reno, instead. You'll
              definitely be warmer. -- ulysses
              \_ You campaigning? I am hooking up with half a dozen old
                 Chateauvians to campaign in Las Vegas. -ausman
        \_ I'm going to Florida too.  Finally putting law school to good use.
           -- cathyg
           \_ How exactly?
           \_ Are you part of Litigate the Vote 2004?
           \_ As a minority, I'm being disenfranchised because I'm not able to
              register a vote that counts in the Presidential elections.  Will
              you file a suit on my behalf?  I'm a California Republican.  :-)
              \_ Mmm.  Utter bullshit.  If your complaint is with the electoral
                 college, say so.  That you're in the minority does not mean
                 you're disenfranchised. --scotsman
                 \_ Geez.  He even put a smilie on the end.  Sometimes a
                    joke is just a joke.
                    \_ Some things just aren't funny.  Deal.
                    \_ It might be funny if disenfranchisement wasn't an
                       actual problem.
                       \_ Wow, get a sense of humor.  I'll sell you one for
                          less than the price of a Starbuck's.
              \_ Have you actually heard of intimidation or vote-supression
                 against Republicans in CA or are you just being an ass?
                 \_ Re-read his post and try again, moron. -!pp
                    \_ I considered he just meant that R-votes for pres. in CA
                       didn't mean anything in CA but figured trolling was much
                       more likely.
                       \_ IT. WAS. A. JOKE.  I'm selling the other guy a sense
                          of humor.  You get one at half price.
              \_ How can you be a Californian and still a Republican?
                 \_ I can totally see it.  The Republican party is a decent
                    organization by political standards; it's just the few at
                    the top who are cheating the party out of its decent name.
                 \_ How can you be an American and still be a Democrat?
2004/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34423 Activity:high
10/28   Here is a stupid question of the day.  Since butterfly ballot doesn't
        work, and electronic voting machine sucks, why don't we just use
        *SCANTRONS* for ballot?  Anyone who attend a year or two of high
        school would be very familar with this system, and scantron is a
        relatively fast accurate means of casting a vote, no?
        \_ not sure why anyone uses the butterfly ballot, good question
        \_ This is how we do it in my county (Northern CA).  Each issue on the
           ballot has a rectangle next to it.  We use purple felt-tip pens to
           fill in the rectangles.  These systems are referred to "optical"
           systems among the voting machines.  They have the lowest rate of
           ballot spoilage of all methods IIRC.
        \_ We're using scantrons as of 2004 in L.A. County too, I believe.
        \_ San Francisco uses Optical scan as well.  It is by far and away
           considered to be the best overall method, but I believe the
           machines are very expensive compared to the Diebold type
           devices.  Counties don't want to pay for expensive things like
           \_ Well, you know there's a government subsidy on voting
              machines with easily fakable vote counts.
        \_ Hey, Oregon has mail-in balloting only.  They should do this
           nationally.  No more long line, wrong precinct problems.
           They just have to mail them by some postmark, let's say, or drop
           them off at specific locations by a certain day.
           \_ Absentee has the most possibilities for fraud.  I'm for outlawing
        \_ Sutter County uses scantrons as well.
        \_ How about if people are too stupid to write legible ballots /
           vote they have to live with their own actions?
           \_ A scantron card is easy to use if you can figure it out.  A
              butterfly ballot can get fucked up by quite a lot of reasonably
              intelligent people.  A Diebold machine can crash and lose all
              votes on its little Windows brain forever, or have its Microsoft
              Access "security" hacked and have votes changed, without any
        \_ As balloting methods go, scantrons are a lot better than many of
           the other methods out there, but still far from perfect.  If memory
           serves the most common problem with scantron style ballots are
           entry errors, e.g. partially filled in bubble/rectangle, filling in
           multiple rectangles for a single race, etc.  Though better than
           punchcards with their hanging, pregnant, dimpled, etc. chads there
           is still the possibility of inaccuracy when interpreting voter
           Scantrons are *WAY* cheaper than computerized touch-screen
           DRE voting systems, but most of the scantron voting systems are
           made by the same companies that make DRE voting systems.  Since
           there's more profit to be made on DRE systems than scantrons, the
           companies are much more aggressive about selling the DRE systems.
           It's a pretty easy sell since many election supervisors are fairly
           clueless when it comes to technology, and the DRE systems have a
           much higher ``gee-whiz, ain't computers cool'' factor than
           scantrons.  The money allocated by HAVA (Help America Vote Act) can
           only be spent on election equipment/maintenance, and if local
           officials don't spend it, it disappears so there's no incentive to
           buy scantrons for price reasons.
           One other thing to consider is that scantron ballot counting
           devices are potentially hackable, though, IMO, much less so than
           most DRE systems.  Of course, you have a paper trail for manual
           recounts which is definitely an improvement over DRE's.
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34391 Activity:moderate
10/27   "There was another election season, back in 1952, when a presidential
        contest seemed too close to call, America worried it was vulnerable to
        attack, and a single company dominated computing."
        \_ Univac predicts landslide victory for Bush in CA!!11!1!!
           \_ Univac's polling completely ignores circuits which use
              transistors and no longer have a conventional vacuum tube.
              \_ Thanks Captain Obvious.  And your point?
                 \_ It's a joke on people criticizing the Gallup poll
        \_ The Univac I used mercury delay line memory.  Very cool technology.
           \_ Looks like a jet engine.
           It appears that the delay line was only used as a stack.  Had they
           implemented a time-slot-based memory system, they could have used
           the delay line for random access, and this would have presaged the
           later Rambus architecture.  Of course, a time-slot based system
           would have been too complicated to implement given 1950 technology.
        \_ The Univac I use cleans my carpet well.  I'm waiting to upgrade to
           Multivac which can clean two rooms in parallel.
        \_ Which single company dominates computing today?  Microsoft?  Intel?
           \_ Actually, it's Apple
           \_ Microsoft is only small stuff.  Intel is small and mid-sized.
              IBM has their finger in everything.  But I don't think there is
              one single company that owns computing in that sense anymore.
              \_ Uhhh...  Yeah, sure.  Whatever.
2004/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34387 Activity:high
10/27   A note for the uber nerds: despite what `calendar` will tell you,
        the elections are November 2, not November 5.
        \_ I predict reports of really really long lines during prime-time
           voting hours will be widespred on November 2.
           Also, if you are an absentee voter in CA, please note that they
           are required to be delivered by November 2 -- postmark by November
           2 doesn't count!  I believe you can also drop it off at a polling
           \_ It's actually too late to reliably mail them at this point;
              they were supposed to be in by Tuesday.  You can drop them off
              at the polling station though. -- forgetful absentee voter
           \_ What do you want to bet that if there are long lines at closing
              time, minority precincts in swing states do not stay open late?
              \_ No precincts should ever be open late unless the precint
                 was at fault for some reason.  If you're not in line by the
                 time the precint is supposed to close, you don't vote.  I'll
                 bet that instead there are numerous judges who order certain
                 precints *only* in heavily minority areas to stay open longer.
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34383 Activity:moderate
10/27   The dead registers to vote.  http://csua.org/u/9oi
        \_ BBC scoops voter intimidation campaign underway:
           \_ Uh huh.  Imagine trying to keep people from voting who would
              be voting illegally.  So intimidating!
              \_ And those thousands of millions of hundreds of dead people
                 with their collusion and fake registration!  Such a clear
                 \_ Did you even read the URL?  You're not even on the same
                    vaguely general topic as the rest of us.
           \_ Nice fallacies in that story.  A bunch of names in a largely
              black region.  Did the author check to see if the names actually
              belonged to black people?  Did he check the felony rolls?
              \_ Wow.  It seems like you actually read the link.  Neat-o!
        \_ Weir and Lesh are both voting for Kerry.
        \_ You can read a transcript of the story at the RNC site.  Nothing
           in the story that points the finger at one party or another if
           you ignore the RNC supplied headline.
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34357 Activity:nil
10/26   Just to get away from the presidential trolling, what do people
        think of Prop 1A?  The counter arguments in my voter guide just
        talk about lack of oversight for how the money is used, but I
        don't really see how that applies to normal general use tax
        funds.  motd, Yea or Nay?
        \_ When in *any* doubt I vote "nay" on everything.
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34355 Activity:high
10/26   Why are you a Democrat?  Why are you a Republican?  What is the
        top reason you belong to either party?
        \_ I am independent but I hate Democrats because they want to decide
           everything for you, except what happens in the bedroom.
        \_ I am a democrat for exactly one reason: George W. Bush.  I was always
           an independent before.
           \_ Yes, I am precisely democrat for the same reason. I was pretty
              neutral before, but GWB truely showed me what Republicans
              are made of.
              \_ I wouldn't go that far.  If anything, i've become much more
                 willing to listen to moderate republicans over the last
                 four years, and  I have in fact found that I have far more
                 in common with them than I would have thought.  It's
                 just that one man, and some of his more wingnut cabinet
                 \_ You are right, it is also men like Tom Delay and Bill
                    First.  The moderates are totally cowed by the extreme
                    wing of the party, and until that changes there is no
                    moderate republican party.
        \_ I'm a Democrat because I want to work within the system to improve
           it.  The Republican Party is full of assholes who justify their
           beliefs and actions with survival of the fittest - and who wants to
           party with people like that?  If Republicans were just about smaller
           government and having a safety net for the poor without this asshole
           attitude and the derived characteristics, I'd probably be a
           Republican.  Why not just be an independent?  You can always vote
           for the other guy or criticize other Democrats as a Democrat.
           \_ Independents get no say in the primaries.
        \_ I grew up poor, and I believe in the "democrat" policies that helped
           poor families like mine and now my family is pretty well off.
           I don't mind paying more taxes to paybackk for the government
           services I received in school like financial aid.  I am democrat.
        \_ I am democrat because I hate Republicans.  They tend to be arrogant
           and have no respect for other people.
           \_ Nice troll!
           \_ http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
           \_ I am a Republican because I am stupid and evil.  Once, a long
              time ago, I was smart and good and a Democrat just like you.
        \_ I was ignorant and blandly neutral until I came to Cal.  After a
           few years of seeing the left completely unfiltered, I found them
           deeply intellectually dishonest, hostile, angry, mean, bitter,
           and unworthy of serious consideration.  I vote Republican because
           they're the other major party and I've never met Republicans as
           vicious and mean spirited as the left I met at Cal.
           \_ I didn't have this experience when I attended 92-97, but I would
              say (like Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary) they're
              just stupid liberals, and stupidity is common to both parties,
              and to independents as well.  I would actually say my experience
              (during Cal and since Cal) has actually been the opposite of
              yours. -liberal
        \_ I have the impression that states tend to be more strongly
           polarized Repulican or Democratic.  What are the top R and D
           states?  Do R or D states tend to do better (not in the fun-to-
           live-in sense, but in the fiscal/crime/social services/education
           sense)?  CA is pretty screwed up.  Is the equivalent Republican
           state (TX?) equally screwed up?  Does anyone know of relevant
           \_ I realize this is not exactly what you're talking about, but
              it's interesting:
              Blue states have higher per capita state domestic product.
              If you broke it down by county, I think you'd see something
              much more dramatic.  When you actually look at the numbers,
              it's the republicans who are the non-productive welfare
              whores.  Just look at the water projects in the western
           \_ Do you really need to ask motd?
           \_ Most D states are along the coasts.  R states are anywhere in
              between.  You be the judge.
              \_ You don't know either, huh?
           \_ What you have to understand is that there are really three
              American political parties, the Republicans, Democrats
              and Appropriators (to quote Dick Armey and Trent Lott).  Most
              Dems are Appropriators, and alot of Repubs (RINOs) are also.
              The fiscal discipline (and other successes) of the 1990s
              resulted when the small government conservative contingent
              of Congress was able briefly take control in the 1994 elections,
              aka the Contract with America.  After Newt left, Congress
              slowly returned to normal, although with a different letter in
              \_ Fine.  The question remains though.  Which states are doing
                 better?  Is TX as screwed up as CA?  Is NY as screwed up as
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34348 Activity:kinda low
10/26   Insufficient trolling.  Please insert troll to continue.
        \_ I think all illegal aliens should be shot.  What do you think?
           \_ Would you raise taxes to buy the bullets?
        \_ Here's a good one from OSC
2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34339 Activity:low
10/25   It's been 44 years since 1960.  44 fucking years.  When the year 2048
        rolls around and us liberals are still being bitter about the 2000
        election on the motd, I don't want to hear any bitching from you
        \_ Let us all say a non-denominational prayer that there will no
           longer be anyone bitching and moaning on the motd in 2048.
           \_ why not?
        \_ Hehe, you got caught in a big way once.  You also got busted in
           Fl'2k.  That's twice.  You're just upset that the other side is
           finally fighting back.  When we have a voter ID card nationwide
           that only allows a single vote your party is doomed.
2004/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34305 Activity:low
10/23   I'm reading my Official Voter Information Guide, and it seems to
        me that almost every argument against any proposition is, "This
        proposition is great, but doesn't go quite far enough, so vote
        no!"  Is there any clearer way to write, "I want this proposition
        to pass, but they paid me to write this counter argument." ?
        What kind of crap is this?
        \_ The counter arguments written by that one lawyer sound positively
2004/10/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34297 Activity:high
10/22   Trying to decide how to vote on prop 66 (the 3 strikes one).
        Any thoughts?
        "A decade after it was enacted, California's three-strikes
         sentencing law has had little impact on violent crime while
         costing taxpayers $8 billion to imprison tens of thousands of
         felons, most of them for nonviolent offenses, according to a
         study released today."
         http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=396 - danh
        \_ VOTE NO. It only strengthen a provision of the child abuse
           statute that no DA has ever used. While weakening others from
           felonies to misdamenaors (i.e. must prove INTENT for bodily
           harm in non-fatal DUI accidents if 66 passes)
        \_ I am voting NO.  Judges and DAs already have discretion on
           when/where to apply the 3rd strike.  The case of people
           stealing some pizza and getting 25 to life is a myth.
           \_ You sure about this?  The term mandatory minimums and
              life in prison for 3 crimes seems to contradict your
              bit about juridical discretion.  California's prison system
              is a shambles, and we imprison too high a percentage of the
              population; I can say that much.  The actual problems
              of three strikes, and the merits of prop 66 I don't know
              enough about.  URLs would be helpful.
              \_ "A strict reading of the language of the statute and the
                 initiative back in 1994 led to the interpretation that there
                 was no discretion for the prosecutor to dismiss qualifying
                 prior convictions... This narrow interpretation proved to be
                 incorrect in light of the California courts' decisions in
                 People v. Superior Court (Romero) and People v. Kilborn,
                 among others. Romero highlighted the court's ability to
                 strike prior strikes in the furtherance of justice and Kilborn
                 highlighted the prosecution's ability to request the court to
                 strike prior strikes in the furtherance of justice. Thus, in
                 an effort to accomplish justice, the prosecutor has the
                 discretion to request the court to dismiss prior convictions
                 in order to prevent a defendant from being punished unjustly.
                 And even if the prosecutor does not choose to exercise this
                 discretion, the trial court, which has the obligation to
                 impose a just and fair sentence, may dismiss prior strike
                 convictions."  [Sorry for the long quote.]
                 \_ So far, that says the trial court and prosecutor have
                    leeway to drop prior "strikes". I do not have time to
                    read your link. Does it include a part where _judges_
                    have the ability to decide sentencing apart from the
                    basic terms given in 3 strikes?
                    \_ Once a prior strike has been dropped at either the
                       request of the prosecutor or the discretion of
                       the judge, then the newest conviction can be
                       sentenced normally based on whatver other guidelines
                       (from other sources) that may apply.
           \_ Hmmm.. My understanding was that the "pizza theft" incendent
           \_ Hmmm.. My understanding was that the "pizza theft" incindent
              actually occured, but what they fail to meantion was that it
              wasn't just a petty theft, it was a strongarm robbery for a
              slice of pizza.  Which is exactly the type of person I want
              in jail.
              \_ Exactly. Also, a lot of these 'drug convictions' are just
                 convenient ways to lock up people involved in a lot more
                 than smoking out at their mom's house. Face it, anyone
                 can make a mistake. Or two. The third time then I want
                 a mandatory sentencing. Crime is way down so it seems to
                 work. Do you want all of those criminals (some "harmless"
                 and some not-so) released?!
                 \_ The real solution to the incarceration problem is not
                    to gut the three strikes law, but to gut the war on
                    drugs.  Of course, no one will ever put this on a ballot
                    \_ We already did, remember "Medicinal Marijuana?"
                    \_ I agree very much!
2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34289 Activity:insanely high
10/22   NY Times editorial:  Iran's nuclear threat
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/opinion/22fri1.html (user/pw: bobbob)
        This is my prediction of what will happen:
        - Iran suspends enrichment, but says it will never renounce right
        - Iran accepts reactor-grade uranium from Russia
        - Iran operates reactor
        - Iran retains knowledge of weapons-grade enrichment
        - Israel, U.S. do nothing
        - IAEA maintains inspections
        "Nightmare" scenario:
        - As previous scenario, but ...
        - GW Bush re-elected
        - Joint U.S./Israel attack destroys reactor, 1/2 enrichment facilities
        - 2-3 years pass
        - Iran successfully detonates nuke, announces nuclear stockpile
        - Israel responds with first public nuclear test
        - U.S. stalled in UN by Security Council vetoes
        - U.S. rapidly deploys primarily air-based systems near Iran's borders
        - Iran blows up some nearby U.S. airbases with nukes before attack
        - New Republican administration elected
        - U.S. nukes Iran, destroying entire population
        - Draft receives Congressional approval, including special skills draft
        \_ Okay, and the bad part?
        \_ So in your worst case scenario the ultimate bad thing that is going
           to come from a nuclear war is the special skills draft?  Okey dokey!
           That was quite the stretch to get the geek draft in there.  Anyway,
           we've been over this before.  The military is different now.  The
           draft would be worse than useless.  It takes roughly 2 years to
           take an off the street slacker and turn them into a soldier.  WTF
           good is a draft when the conflict will be long over before the first
           draftee has a uniform on?  FUD.
           \_ Two years? Pshaw. It just takes 10 weeks of basic and 12 weeks
              of infantry school. -Vet
           \_ no you idiot. it's Us nukes iran, destroying entire population.
              get your head out of your ass. i hope you're not allowed to vote.
           \_ I don't think it's quite true that a _Special Skills_ draft
              would be useless.  It might take 2 years to train a guy
              you want on the ground in Iraq, but support roles probably
              aren't that hard.  A special skills draft would allow the
              military to stuff the support roles with draftees and put
              the volunteers in the field.
                \_ What about all the discipline, standards, and shit that
                   militaries want from their goons, support roles or
                   frontline grunts?  You'll never get someone unmotivated
                   to be a usable combat grunt;  rear-area support type will
                   simply be a tremendous waste of a lot of time.  Your best
                   bet is shooting them on arrival, pre-body-bagging them and
                   using them as human sandbags.  -John
                   \_ I think you're over-estimating the difficulty of
                      something.  I'm not sure if it's "hearding
                      sysadmins" or what.  Support roles aren't that
                      hard, and they don't require much discipline.  It's
                      just like coders and sysadmins at IBM, you don't
                      show 'em to the public, you hide 'em in some back
                      room, while the marketers (soldiers) do the front
                      line stuff.
                        \_ Yes, you know that and I know that, but we don't
                           run an army.  Now find me one of those which
                           follows this sort of sensible philosophy.
                           \_ Nah, you just need to transfer out the company
                              commander once the reservists don't show up
                              for their contaminated helicopter fuel run.
           \_ Drafted sysadmins, coders are cheap.  Anyways, I'm just showing
              how Dubya keeps his "no-draft" promise - it's for the President
              *after* Dubya.  Also, anyone can come up with a worst-case
              scenario.  I'm painting a *realistic* "nightmare" scenario. -op
              \_ You're showing nothing but your lack of understanding of the
                 modern American military.  The realistic nightmare scenario
                 is that Iran is allowed to continue developing nukes, gets
                 nukes and has a nuclear exchange with Israel.  The so-called
                 skills draft wouldn't make the list even if such a silly did
                 thing happen.  What skills do you think you have they'd want
                 anyway?  Surfing and restarting apache servers aren't
                 critical military needs.
                 \_ My scenario (the U.S. and Iran lobbing nukes at each other)
                    is not far off from Iran and Israel lobbing nukes at each
                    other.  This second scenario is far more obvious, which
                    is why I didn't mention it.  You missed my point on that
                    part - which is to argue how the U.S. realistically decides
                    to do some nuking itself.
                    Now, if the skills draft isn't that important, then why did
                    the military decide to plan for one, just like adding
                    a plan for a draft of Middle Eastern language experts?
                    My basic argument is that engineers are cheap when you
                    draft them.  I'm also participating in FCS design, so I
                    know what I'm talking about. -op
                    \_ The Pentagon has a plan for everything.  If they didn't
                       have a plan for everything collecting dust on a shelf
                       somewhere and getting updated every 10-15 years someone
                       would scream, "WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE A PLAN FOR A SKILLS
                       DRAFT!  YOU MORONS!".  The US won't be nuking Iran
                       because Iran won't be nuking anything American.  They
                       would hit Israel first.  Once Israel is in ashes, they
                       "win", no matter what else happens afterwards.  By
                       "they" I mean Muslims across the ME who want every
                       Israeli dead and Israel destroyed utterly.  As far as
                       language experts go, were you upset they didn't have
                       enough Pashtun speakers when we went into southern
                       Afghanistan?  They're making sure that sort of thing
                       never happens again.  As an aside, my English instructor
                       at Cal was also a Baltic languages expert.  The CIA was
                       paying his entire way and then some so long as he
                       continued to keep up his language skills and promised
                       to be available as needed.  Was that a bad thing?  Are
                       you opposed to that?
                       \_ Baltic?!! You mean Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian?!
                          Are you sure you don't mean Balkin?  Why does the
                          CIA want Baltic language experts?  I've been to
                          Estonia, and it seems odd that the CIA would go
                          to so much effort to spy one a very small country
                          of extremely peaceful people who mostly speak
                          english anyway.
                          \_ It might seem odd to you, but they do.
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34273 Activity:very high
10/21   Some asswipe turbo-deleted the thread, so I ll resurrect something
        from it.  Ben, are you saying about 30% of the country actually
        agrees with what Bush et al are doing?  I am not sure where you get
        this number from, but even if you are right, do you think it's any
        different from any other president?  Clinton himself said something
        about the 4 years being necessary so the POTUS has the leeway to
        make unpopular decisions.  Are you saying popularity is the yardstick
        of the Presidency?  Do you think all presidents had a 50%+ mandate
        on their work (or should)?  I don't really see WHAT you are saying
        (other than "I REALLY disagree with this Bush guy, I wish he would
        just fuck off and die!").  I STILL don't see what his policies have to
        do with royalty, it sounds like some sort of liberal figure of speech,
        like me calling liberal policies 'communism' in jest.  Even the
        most venal pro-corp anti-everything else folks don't want Feudalism
        back, it will cut into the profits. -- ilyas
        \_ I was talking about election turnout/civic involvement. -scotsman
        \_ Bush is the most authoritarian President the US has had in
           at least 125 years, probably ever. I am sorry that you are
           so biased that you cannot see that. When you add that to his
           personal arrogance, there is a reasonable cause for concern.
                 \_ I'll spell it out slowly.  I'm not talking about the
                    popular conception of individual families.  I'm talking
                    about ceding our wealth and civic power over to wealthy
                    individuals and corporations (which for some damned
                    reason are people too...).  By cutting or eliminating
                    taxes on unearned or inherited wealth, the burden shifts
                    to income taxes and other revenue streams.  It also allows
                    massive wealth consolidation which means massive power
                    consolidation.  At the same time, deregulation takes away
                    our (the people's) recourse against bad actions by
                    these increasingly wealthy entities.  The reason we have
                    regulations are to keep meat safe to eat, drugs safe to
                    take, planes safe to fly on.  To keep the air breathable,
                    the water drinkable, and our economic markets running
                    smoothly.  The end of this slide would be feudalism, which,
                    as ilyas correctly says, will "cut into profits".  He seems
                    to say that people aren't that shortsighted, and that these
                    philosopher-kings of industry will be able to hold this
                    together.  I'm scared our society will break before that.
                    \_ If taxes worked so well on inherited wealth, how
                       come the Kennedys are all still liveing off
                       inherited wealth? (This question is only sort of
                       Trollish, I am sort of curious about what the
                       Kennedys do to make money.)
                       \_ The Kennedys live off a trust, and therefore do
                          not pay "inheritance taxes."  Only poor people
                          pay inheritence taxes, rich people all have
                          \_ Yeah, all those poor people with estates >$1.5m
                             \_ You mean scotsman is worried about all those
                                schmucks with houses in Palo Alto?
                             \_ I think that number is wrong.  It says
                                here that, before Bush's change, estates
                                over $1mil were charged at the "top
                                rate." This suggests that estates smaller
                                than that would still be taxed.  Also,
                                $1mil isn't that hard to hit if you're
                                running a small business.
                    \_ I'll try to summarize your two concerns firat.  You
                       are worried that 1. the change in tax code will
                       cause a concentration of wealth and power in the
                       elite classes, and 2. deregulation will offer the
                       common people less protection against the whims of
                       the elite.  I have good news for you, my friend.
                       Trivially googling found the following paper from
                       the Urban Institute (http://csua.org/u/91e  From
                       its conclusion, the study finds that "the evidence
                       suggests that the playing field is becoming more level
                       in the United States.  Socioeconomic origins today
                       are less important than they used to be.  Further, such
                       origins have lttle or no impact for individuals with
                       a college degree, and the ranks of such individuals
                       continue to increase."  So evidence suggests that,
                       contrary to your worries, the upper classes are becoming
                       less stratified and not more.  I recall reading that
                       most of the people on the first Forbes wealthiest list
                       are no longer there, and most of the members of that
                       list earned there money instead of inheriting it.
                       list earned their money instead of inheriting it.
                       I'd like to see evidence that there is the formation
                       of a calcified layer of feudal lords.
                       of a calcified layer of feudal lords.  On the
                       \_ It's actually http://csua.org/u/9le
                          and it was published in 1997.  Dumbass.  We're
                          talking about the absurd extremism of the last 3
                          years. --scotsman
                          \_ Well, I am sure you can come up with contrary
                             research that says the socioeconomic mobility
                             is decreasing, especially due to the tax policies
                             of the last few years.  Well?  How about research
                             that shows the increase of SE mobility after the
                             imposition of the tax?  Since that was adopted
                             in 1916, surely there has been enough time for
                             researchers to study the matter?  If the imposition
                             of the tax did not improve mobility, then would
                             the removal of the tax decrease it?  I wonder how
                             much the super-rich used to pay in inheritance
                             under the previous tax regime.  Have they already
                             been successful in avoiding those taxes?  You
                             made a lot of claims, how about some data?
                       deregulation side, I will take the less common
                       argument that fewer regulations making it easier for
                       new players to enter a particular field, and therefore
                       creates even more opportunity for socioeconomic
                       mobility.  Fewer rules makes it more difficult for
                       the entrench players to use government regulationis
                       to fend off new challengers, which in turns contributes
                       to the churn of players at the top.
           \_ Oh come on.  Is Bush as bad as Tricky Dick?  Or FDR (to be
              fair about picking authoritarian presidents)?  Bush hasn't
              been caught yet, and he hasn't had the chance to pack the
              Supreme Court either.
              \_ Yeah, he is.  Nixon, contrary to popular belief, made a solid
                 go at adhering to the Freedom of Information Act at the
                 beginning of his term; FDR never lied to get us into war.
                 \_ Ahem... lend-lease... ahem...
                    \_ ...waiting for relevance vis-a-vis lying to get us into
                    \_ While lend-lease may have been a lie, it didn't get us
                       into war.  The Japan Embargo did, and that was done for
                       honest, if questionable reasons.
                    \_ I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam war...woops,
                       sorry, I don't!
                       \_ Don't take the Paris Peace Accords deal!  I'll make
                          you a better offer later!
           \_ And you base this authoritarian accusation on what?  Personal
              experience?  You have studied the history and in context
              background of every President?  I find this... unlikely.  If
              you just hate the guy, just say so.  You don't have to make
              outrageous, unsupported and unsupportable claims in a useless
              attempt to make it appear that your hatred is based on some
              false intellectual premise instead of personal animosity.
           \_ Who was the president 126 years ago, and why is Bush not as
              bad as he was?  Was it even an election year 126 years ago?
              Did you just pull the 125 year number out of your ass?
              \_ Rutherford B. Hayes was the evilest man to ever darken God's
                 green Earth.  On a more serious note, he lost the popular
                 vote but came out ahead in a 8-7 partisan split in a Senate
                 commitee to decide the election.  One of the 3 states whose
                 EVs were in dispute was... Florida. -!pp
           \_ I wouldn't say "Bush is the most authoritarian President" --
              without backup, you sound like a dumb liberal.  At least, you
              were an easy target for above posters.
              The argument is much sharper to describe the most important and
              obvious event instead of just applying a label.
              E.g.:  "The primary reason for invading Iraq was to eliminate a
              regime possessing WMD stockpiles, from which it could dole WMD
              kits out to terrorists who would without question use them.
              Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past, viewed them also
              as his trump card, and could believably distribute them to exact
              his vengeance against the U.S., which would be under the watch of
              Bush Sr.'s son.  President George W. Bush, having seen the
              stockpile reason vanish, instead insists that, had he known
              everything he knows today, would still have directed the U.S.
              to invade Iraq.  This is absurd."
        \_ ilyas complaining about a thead being deleted..  Welcome back to
           BIZARRO WORLD!!  In other news, the Red Sox are in the world
           series!  -meyers
           \_ Yeah, right.
        \_ It'd be hypocritical for Democrats to decry royalty in American
           politics.  (ref. the Kennedy clan and Camelot)
           \_ Democrats don't choose to get rid of dividend/capital gains/
              estate taxes.  Democrats don't vote for massive deregulation/
              reduced corporate oversight/stripping tort powers.  -scotsman
              \_ You do realize that many people think that cutting taxes
                 and deregulating industry are good things.  And none of
                 this have anything to do with claims of royalty.  Are the
                 Bushes more royal than the Kennedies?
                 \_ Bush: evil.  Kennedy: good.  You need to be sent to the
                    Martin Luther King Reeducation Kamp immediately!
                    \_ You're not very intelligent, are you?  It's okay, I'm
                       sure your parents still love you.
              \_ Yeah Ben, "no progressive taxation -> feudalism" is a new
                 'line of attack' for me.  I am sorry, it's really off the
                 wall. -- ilyas
                 \_ That's not "no progressive taxation".  It's tax the poor
                    and middle class, and give the rich a pass.
                    \_ Which isn't happening, but it makes a good scare
                    \_ Counting all the tax cuts (including captital gains,
                       dividends, and estate), people in the 2nd-lowest
                       quintile got a 17.6% tax cut.  The middle quintile
                       was cut 12.6%, the 2nd-highest quintile 9.9%, and
                       the top quintile 11%.
                       \_ Ah, short term vs. long term.  Numbers are funny
                          \_ Data please.  Or are you just making
                             unsubstantiated claims?
                             \_ estate tax exemption will increase for next,
                                what, 7-8 years until no tax at the 10 year
                                mark.  dividend tax was halved in 2003, gone
                                in 2004. running the numbers for the last
                                2 years is patently dishonest.
                       \_ I don't have a problem with regressive _tax cuts_
                          as long as they result in a system which is closer
                          to a flat tax system, which I believe is fair.
                          (Regressive _tax_ is bad of course).  If you
                          think a flat tax system will lead to feudalism,
                          you are at the fringes of political discourse,
                          sorry. -- ilyas
                          \_ I posted the data to counter the claim that
                             the tax system is now less regressive.  It is
                             if anything more regressive.
           \_ The Kennedys are really great people so its ok.
2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34255 Activity:insanely high
10/20   Hey conservatives- take back your own party please.  A bit of history:
        \_ You must not be familiar with the extensive Christian origins
           of this nation.
           \_ They were mostly deists.  The current regime are fundamentalists.
              \_ Patently false.  Stop reading these atheist internet sites, they
                 are bogus.
              \_ Patently false.  Stop reading these atheist internet sites,
                 they are bogus.
                 \_ Patently false. Stop reading these Christian internet
                    sites, they are bogus.
                    \_ I'm not going to bother to get into this.  If one
                       reads their original writings and speeches their
                       Christianity is obvious, unless you are stupid.
                       \_ Most of them, but not all of them. Jefferson
                          was not.
                          \_ Indeed a great number of them, but the separation
                             of church and state was more than an offhand
                             comment to them.  Remember what they were rebelling
                             against: King George and the COE.  Royalty and
                             theocracy.  Two things our current George seems
                             perfectly happy to bring back.  I for one don't
                             want to see revolution in my lifetime.  I'd much
                             rather see the fucker go peacefully in this
                             election. --scotsman
                             p.s. It's good to see you as blissfully ignorant
                             as ever mr. black.
                             \_ I am amused that professed lovers of
                                democracy start muttering about revolution
                                under their breath as soon as an election
                                or 3 doesn't go their way.  Make up your mind
                                is the tyranny of {the majority|electoral
                                college|etc} good or bad?  I don't know what
                                Bush truly wants to do in his heart of hearts
                                (probably party or something) but the office
                                of the POTUS is a moderating kind of chair
                                to sit in.  The bigger the chair, the less
                                important are the psychological particulars of
                                the ass sitting on it.  No one is
                                complaining about Nancy Pelosi and her brand
                                of Bay Area liberal insanity, although she is
                                very influential in the DNC right now.  If you
                                think Bush wants to bring royalty back in the
                                US, you ve gone off the deep end, sorry.
                                I mean this makes LeRouchies sound reasonable.
                                  -- ilyas
                                \_ Ilya, I'm talking about history and vague
                                   worries when I talk about revolution.  Our
                                   democracy is far from healthy.  The tyranny
                                   of the majority is really the tyranny of
                                   less than a plurality of, oh, 30%?  And by
                                   royalty, we've had this discussion before.
                                   It's not direct governmental plutocracy.
                                   It's handing over power, tax refunds, and
                                   a blind eye to institutions and individuals
                                   who could give a shit about the public.  If
                                   that's what the subplurality of 30% really
                                   want, let alone a majority of the public,
                                   then, yes, I worry. --scotsman
                                \_ (a) Saying "all Bush opponents are talking
                                   about revolution" equates to "all
                                   conservatives are right wing religious
                                   nutcake loonies."  (b) POTUS itself may
                                   eclipse individual personalities, but it
                                   _is_ a tremendously powerful office,
                                   especially when combined with a disciplined
                                   and determined crew, as now.  (c) Who
                                   says nobody's complaining about Pelosi?
                                   She's part of the reason voters are being
                                   forced to choose "less worse" instead of
                                   "better" this year.  -John
                                   \_ re: (a) I was talking about Ben in
                                      particular.  re: (c) Maybe people are,
                                      but I haven't heard anything, and
                                      certainly nothing compared to the volume
                                      of low grade bile directed at Bush.
                                        -- ilyas
                                        \_ (a) be more specific, (c) a lot of
                                           SF residents have loads of low
                                           grade bile for her from when she
                                           was a supervisor.  -John
                                \_ BushCo is interested in maintaining power,
                                   moreso than any other Pres. since LBJ.
                                   The more petty and ridiculous tricks are
                                   pulled by both sides, the less moral high
                                   ground there is to go around, and the
                                   more both sides sound wholely corrupt and
                                   powermongering.  That BushCo has players
                                   who excel at the game while the Dems seem
                                   be playing the Washington Generals merely
                                   stokes the flames against the Pres.
                                \_ That's because a whole lot of these
                                   "professed lovers of democracy" are
                                   actually thinking, "I'm smarter than
                                   everyone else.  I should be in charge."
                                   They're fine as long as everyone else
                                   agrees with them, but if some people
                                   think differently, they must be stupid
                                   and wrong and therefore should not
                                   have a vote.
                                   \_ I am, I should, they are.  Well, most
                                      of them, anyway.  -John
                                   \_ No, Mr. Leek.  It's not some elitist
                                      tendency.  It's a compassionate, dare
                                      I say Christian (raised Lutheran over
                                      here), drive in me that actually cares
                                      about the people and the country.  Did
                                      I claim anyone should "not vote"?  I
                                      would love to see election day made a
                                      national holiday so no one would have an
                                      excuse not to.  I would love to have been
                                      required to take civics in high school
                                      or even jr. high.  If our voter turnout
                                      even began to approach that of some other
                                      countries, I think you'd be greatly
                                      dismayed at how out of touch you are.
                                      In the meantime, I'd suggest that rather
                                      than be insulting, you actually put your
                                      arguments forward in good faith.
                                      \_ I actually not sure how to
                                         respond to this mix of oddness.
                                         I agree that people should take
                                         civics in school, along with
                                         economics.  I'm not sure where
                                         you get the idea that I don't
                                         care about the country or the
                                         people.  I'm not even sure what
                                         \_ I didn't say you don't.  Read what
                                            you said.  See how it's directly
                                            insulting.  Read what I said.
                                            Realize I was talking about myself
                                            in defence of charges of a super-
                                            iority conflict. --scotsman
                                         you're saying I'm out of touch
                                         with.  All I'm saying is that the
                                         road to hell is paved with good
                                         intentions.  I think you're
                                         making assumptions about my
                                         political positions that you know
                                         nothing about.  (And what's with
                                         telling me you were raised
                                         Lutheran?  Am I supposed to care?
                                         Did you know Paolo was rasied
                                         Catholic? So what?  He's still
                 \_ How delightfully low on signal.  Drop trou and produce
                    debunk (and not from some fundie site) or eat crow.
2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/SW/Security] UID:34254 Activity:moderate Edit_by:auto
10/20   Hi, I've created a toy web site that will hopefully be a bit of
        insightful for people who want to know the "slant-ness" of different
        news source: http://www.slantcheck.org
        I already bought the domain names, I'm now looking for a place
        to host it. If you would like to help please email me.     -kchang
        \_ http://www.free-webhosts.com/webhosting-01.php
        \_ Kevin, does it occur to you that averaging faulty sensor
           readings doesn't produce meaningful results?  Maybe if we
           had some sort of pagerank for people this could work. -- ilyas
           \_ the same is true for web votes on http://cnn.com, http://cbsnews.com, etc.
              Also read his disclaimer. It's not meant to be scientific at all
              \_ I know.  I am saying why add to the garbage? -- ilyas
                \_ ilyas-- what is trash to you may be useful to others.
                   To say categorically that something has no value,
                   says a lot about you. Secondly, most systems require
                   some level of trust and certainly all systems are
                   subject to abuse. Just look at the electoral college,
                   Gerrymandering, e-vote machines crashing, etc.
                   No system is abuse free -- some systems are much
                   more abuse prone than the others (case in point informal
                   internet vote). It's good to have a starting point
                   somewhere, and in time, refine the system to a point
                   that it is much less abuse prone and that it is
                   generating acceptible results.
                   \_ It does say a lot about me.  It says that I think
                      systems where a vote is trivial to fake, where
                      a single person can trivially cast arbitrary
                      numbers of votes, where the opinions of all
                      people are weighed equally, etc. etc. etc.
                      will produce garbage.  No one will
                      rely on such a system for anything other
                      than generating empty motd conversations.
                      Having said that, I welcome differing opinions
                      of 'others,' because I am curious how http://cnn.com
                      polls can possibly be of any use to anyone.
                      I want to be proven wrong here.  If you honestly
                      want to make progress in this area, you can
                      look at social networks/pagerank research,
                      or computer security.  -- ilyas
        \_ Aw, I thought it was going to run news articles through some sort
           of analysis program to compute the results. Instead I find it's
           just an unfiltered click poll.
           \_ that itself is a PhD thesis right there. Context sensitive
              weight analysis.
              \_ Yeah, well I could hope for some arbitrary heuristics at
                 least. A poll isn't right... the name evokes http://factcheck.org
                 which at least provides human analysis. A <DEAD>slantcheck.org<DEAD>
                 run by some dedicated individuals who analyze submitted
                 instances of "slant" could actually be an interesting
                 service that could get national attention.
                 \_ Is this thing just a cry for attention?
                    \_ I dunno. But a http://factcheck.org comparison is natural...
                       hey I would enjoy doing that analysis as part of
                       some funded group. Those http://factcheck.org people get
                       paid to sit around and analyze the same shit you
                       guys all do on the motd every day.
        \_ thanks for the response guys. The bottom line is that there are
           a lot of improvements and changes that need to be made in
           order to make the results fair and meaningful. I'd love to
           implement some of the features that were suggested, but most
           of them require a lot of time and/or money. Please keep up these
           great suggestions, but even more importantly, send me money
           via PayPay. Once I generate enough interests and funding,
           I'll be able to hire someone to implement these
           features. Thanks. -kchang
           \_ How are we supposed to know you aren't going to spend it all
              on h07 42n ch1x, or hire one to "implement" your features?
              \_ he's gonna hire hot UCLA chicks to implement the features :)
2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34249 Activity:moderate 66%like:34528
10/20   All right, we all know how we're going to vote.  The determining
        factor will be how many people get out and vote.
        \_ That, and three months of litigation after the election, yeah.
           \_ You know, any election system that is decided by less than the
              margin of error deserves to have the hell litigated out of it.
              \_ There shouldn't be a margin of error.  It's the only
                 egalitarian voice we have in the process.  It should
                 not be a difficult problem.
                 \_ Any human process will have a margin of error. It should
                    be smaller than it is, but there is no way to eliminate
              \_ fair enough, but this is absurd.  It's time for the federal
                 government to establish some minimum standards for the
                 ability of a ballot to measure the intent of the voter
                 consistently, and then for the states to start enforcing
                 those standards.   How the FUCK the last four years passed
                 without this happening is beyond me.
2004/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34241 Activity:high Edit_by:auto
10/19   Sorry, I get confused.  LATimes is liberal or conservative?
        Anyway, according to them, the CIA is delaying a 9/11 report that
        points fingers and names names until after the election:
        Text of article can be found at:
        \_ LA Slimes is in the same vein as NYT.
           \_ whoo how clever!  yeah they're pretty liberal.
              for your incredibly conservative dose of southern
              california news go read the OC register - danh
        \_ All of LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post offer good, mostly
           objective reporting.  ABC News and NBC News as well.  CNN tilts
           to whatever the current administration is to maintain "access".
           CBS News screwed up on memo-gate, but they also offer good, mostly
           objective reporting.
           Fox News shows an American flag in the upper-left part of the screen
           to show that they support America, implying that the other stations
           do not, or have a "liberal agenda".
        \_ Hi, I've created a toy web site that will hopefully be a bit of
           insightful: <DEAD>slantcheck.org<DEAD>
           I already bought the domain names, I'm looking for a place
           to host it. If you would like to help please email me.     -kchang
                    \- if you become the number one hit for
                       google(chang,slant) you may be able to make
                       money ... maybe as a p0rn tunneler or something --psb
        \_ Wow, that's amazing.  I didn't know the report was already done.
           I heard the reason for the delay was that it was too big to finish
           before the election.
           Also, the article is an op-ed column; it is not a news piece.
           And here's the news piece, one day later:
           http://csua.org/u/9kr (Yahoo!)
           In it it says the official reason for the delay is ... the report
           is still a draft!
           \_ "Congressional officials said they were told that the CIA
               inspector general's office had completed the report in July"
              Now who do you believe?  I'm waiting for a CIA leak.
2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34223 Activity:very high
10/19   http://csua.org/u/9jt - Text of Gore's speech last night.  I dare
        anyone who plans to vote for Bush to read it from start to finish.
        \_ I saw a few minutes of it on the tube.  It was painful.  I felt
           bad for him.  He needs help.  Losing in 2000 broke him in some
           deeply fundamental way.
        \_ This thing is huge.  I recommend reading it from the last page, and
           stopping when you're bored.
           \_ Reading is hard, let's go shopping!
        \_ Why, so I can remember why I didn't vote for Gore 4 years ago?
        \_ I dare anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 to read it from start
           to finish and not think, "We almost elected a tin-foil hat
           \_ I couldn't vote for Gore in 2000.  If you don't think the
              current executive branch is run by a bunch of neocon loons
              I'd like some of what you are smoking.  If you think Bush
              has a clearer view of reality than Gore, then you've been
              shooting up as well.  Please provide examples from the speech
              of "tin-foil hat" thinking.
              \_ Example: The central elements of Bush's political - as
                 opposed to religious - belief system are plain to see:
                 The "public interest" is a dangerous myth according to
                 Bush's ideology - a fiction created by the hated
                 "liberals" who use the notion of "public interest" as an
                 excuse to take away from the wealthy and powerful what
                 they believe is their due. Therefore, government of by
                 and for the people, is bad - except when government can
                 help members of his coalition.
                 \_ This would be tin-hat fodder if not for the Orwellian
                    named Clear Air Act and the Healthy Forests Act.  There is
                    no need for conspiracy theories anymore; it's all out in
                    the open, and the heads of state just don't care if you
                    know it.  Ask Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay.
                    \_ Al Gore speaks, Alcoa goes up.  Tin shortage on the
                       \_ Partisan Blinders, Activate!  Form of: An ostritch!
2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:34198 Activity:nil
10/18   Alameda County still needs pollworkers!  Please sign up!
        \_ Yeah right for a mandatory 6:30am to 9pm shift.
           \_ If you signed up for it, is it really mandatory?
2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34193 Activity:nil
10/18   So I registered to vote online two weeks ago, and just received my
        form on Friday. It says I need to sign and return it. My question is
        if I drop it off in the mail today, is it too late? Do I need to find
        some place where they have voter registration and hand the form to
        them? I am in foster city.
        \_ No, it's not too late.  You're registered in the system, but they
           need your signature to activate it.
           \_ I'm not so sure about that.  The online fill-out-the-form, we
              mail it to you system seems more like a service to me.  Until
              you sign it and mail it in, I don't think anything is done
              with it.  As to the time-line, iirc, voter registration just has
              to be postmarked by the specified date, while absente-ballot
              registration must be received by the specified date.
              \_ Urk.  Good call.  According to the State, however, today is
                 the last day to register, so op will be in luck if he sends
                 in his card today. -pp
              \_ Can't you cast a provisional ballot regardless of whether you
                 are registered?
                 \_ Yes.  See the following URL and search for "Provisional":
        \_ Called the Secretary of State's Office for you.  They say your card
           is good as long as it's post-marked by today (Monday, October 18).
           \_ Thank you all! I've mailed it at the post office!
2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34182 Activity:moderate
10/17   what does it mean to register as a Rep/Demo? Is it used for
        statistics or something? How about registering as one party
        and then voting as another party, is that allowed?
        \_ In most states you can't vote in the primary of a party
           unless you're registered.  Since leaving Ca, I've registered
           for a party just so I can vote in the primary.  Where I live,
           whoever wins the Demo primary wins the general election by such
           a large margin that the whole election *is* the  primary, and
           you don't really get a vote unless you're registered Democrat.
           Does this suck? yes, it does.
        \_ Ever heard of the secret ballot?  We've got that in this
           country.  So how exactly would they "not allow" you to
           vote for whomever you wish?  I mean, please!
          \_ thanks for your response. I'm not a citizen so I
             don't know these things but I hope to vote once I get
             my citizenship. So here is my second question. Say there
             is a party A and a party B. I hate party B, so can I
             register as party B and pick the most incompetent person
             for the primary, and come the general election, vote for
             party A? Is that illegal?                          -op
             \_ it's not illegal, but it makes you a jackass.  I believe
                that the most responsible thing to do as a citizen is to
                vote in whatever primary matters (e.g. republican in 2000, dem
                in 2004) and vote for whoever you actually think would make
                the best candidate.   If democrats had followed your strategy
                in 2000, they would have probably picked Bush as the weaker
                candidate...but gues what?  he won, and most dems would probably
                agree we'd be a hell of a lot better off with president McCain
                right now.  Whether you're a democratic-leaning voter or not
                is  beside the point.  Republicans would probably have voted
                for Dean in this election, but you have to ask yourself...are
                you *sure* your guy can beat the guy you think is weak?
                what if you're wrong?
                \_ I actually practice cross-party voting in the primary all
                   the time.  In 2000, I voted for McCain in the Primary, even
                   though I wanted Gore to win; in 2002, I voted for Simon in
                   in the Primary even though I wanted Davis to win (and yes,
                   that was a worrying gamble).  I look forward to an open
                   primary system at some point so I can stop filing all of
                   this paperwork.
                   \_ Here's the part where someone posts an anti-Davis rant.
                      Come on folks, NOBODY liked that guy.
                   \_ Maybe you did not realize it, but you did vote for
                      Davis if you voted against the recall. That was
                      a special case where you could vote twice.
                      \_ Yes, we SO need a Davis/Ah-nold flamewar right now!
                         I know you can do it!  Motd's greatest hits comin'
                         back atcha!
                         \_ There's nothing to flame about.  No one is going
                            to defend Davis.  No one is that stupid.
                            \_ You obviously weren't reading the motd during
                               the recall shitrain [borrowing this term
                               from Hunter S. Thompson because it is so
             \_ Sure.
             \_ No, it is not illegal.
             \_ sounds complicated. what is the objective for doing so?
2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34171 Activity:nil
10/16   Super Rich Step Into Political Vacuum
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34160 Activity:high
10/15   Oh look, Republicans are cheating again:
        Why can't they just let the electorate vote fair and square?
        \_ Simple.  They have God on their side, so every action
           they take in defense of God's Will is justified.  Get it?
        \_ Ask the Dems the same thing about the military vote.
           \_ Mrf?  And when do two wrongs make a right anyway?  Jail 'em all!
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34158 Activity:nil
10/14   Here is an idea. We all know that Bay Area is one of the most
        liberal places on the West Coast and right wing policians don't
        even bother talking to us. How about a a concept of a bunch of
        underground liberals, say, in the millions, declaring themselves
        as Republicans and even answering polls that show that they
        support Republicans. This will trick the enemy thinking that
        we could actually be a swing state hence wasting money convincing
        us to vote right. Come the election, these underground
        liberals can come out and vote for the Democrats and really
        fuck up the Republicans. Theoretically, does this plan work,
        and in practice, can the plan be executed successfully?
        \_ Secret and Millions of people are mutually exclusive.
           \_ shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34155 Activity:high
10/15   From an AP article about possible election nightmare scenarios:
        'Another quirk involves "faithless electors," who refuse to cast their
        electoral votes for the person chosen by their state's voters. This
        rarely happens - only 10 times in history - but even one this year
        could be critical. And one of the five Republican electors from West
        Virginia is holding out the possibility of withholding his vote for
        Bush if the president carries the state.'

        Excuse me, but WTF.  If this isn't a great argument for junking this
        ridiculous and outmoded system, I don't know what is.
        \_ The system was designed to prevent the common people from choosing
           the president.  As we saw in 2000, the system works!
           \_ This should not be a partisan issue.  As the rogue West Virginian
              elector shows, this could break against the President just as
              easily at it could break towards him.  Sadly, I think the only
              scenario that would create enough of a real push to fix the
              system would be Kerry losing in the popular vote but winning
              the electoral vote.  The inverse would simply be status quo.
              \_ I think it's not a partisan issue of Rep vs. Dem so much
                 as politician vs. voter.  Politicians love this system
                 because they only have to campaign in certain parts of the
                 country, and can strategize accordingly.  Without the electoral
                 college, both candidates would actually have to campaign in
                 california, texas, new england and the south.  This would
                 obviously be in the best interests of everyone but the
                 soccer moms in ohio who now hold complete control over the
                 nation as far as voters go, but would be a big pain in the
                 ass for politicians.
                 \_ It would also make things like instant runoff voting much
                    more necessary.  Proportional electoral representation
                    would also greatly change the dynamics of 3rd parties.
              \_ Part of the problem is that you would have to find a
                 system that breaks slightly in favor of small states like
                 the current one does.  Otherwise it will just never be
                 \_ You could keep electoral votes but make each state's EVs
                    be distributed according to popular vote in that state.
                    (Like the Colorado measure)  If only a few states do this
                    it diminishes their importance but if they all did it it
                    would be a level playing field.
                    \_ This doesn't address the "faithless elector" problem.
                       Can you imagine the shitstorm if the electoral college
                       is tied, and that W.Virginian elector switches his Bush
                       vote to Kerry?
                       \_ Sure it could.  The state could just specify by
                          statute the way in which an elector must vore.  Any
                          faithless electors are acting in violation of state
                          law and get replaced.
                       \_ You could just get rid of the electors and make
                          the electoral votes be directly based on what
                          was voted in the state.
        \_ The large/small state balance is included in constitutional
           amendments as well.  You're never going to convince 75% of the state
           legislatures to pass it.  Stop talking about reforming the EC.  This
           was a boogeyman raised in 2000 and it didn't matter then either.
           \_ So your attitude is, "The system is fucked and a minority wants
              it to stay fucked, so piss off."  As I recall, there have been
              over 20 Constitutional amendments over the years to correct
              various problems, and those have passed.
              \_ Ummm... Perhaps I should point out that it's only
                 "fucked" from the perspecitve of the big states.  I don't
                 know how you'd convince the smaller states that getting
                 screwed up the butt by CA is good for them, but you're
                 welcome to try. -!pp
                 \_ Let's extend your logic to state elections.  Why should we
                    have majority elections for electing the governor?  After
                    all, the populated areas of the state could "screw over"
                    the less populated parts.  By your logic, we should have
                    an electoral college to give people in the unpopulated
                    parts proportionally more voting power.  And why not
                    take it further, to the local level?  After all, my block
                    doesn't have as many people in it, but do I want those
                          \_ Laws are only correct or incorrect when they are
                             stating a fact, like declaring Pi=22/7.
                    people in the Sunset picking my Mayor and screwing me?
                    Give me more representation!
                    \_ Wow, your whole thesis is based on a fallacy of
                       \_ The idea that "Wyoming" needs representation is
                          itself a fallacy.  The state of Wyoming has no
                          concern at all with terrorism, for example, yet
                          it's one of the biggest supporters of Bush's
                          policies.  -tom
                          \_ Heh, "I'm smarter than you, so let me vote
                             for you."
                             \_ uh, no.  Value of person in Wyoming =~ value
                                of person in CA.  Value of vote in Wyoming
                                =~ 5 * value of vote in CA.  That's bullshit,
                                period.  -tom
                                \_ So move to Wyoming and stop bitching.
                                   Equating this with 'person value' is
        \_ I would rather reform Gerrymandering.
        \_ I would rather reform voter fraud, ie. bring back DMV
           voter registration.
           \_ Bring back?
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:34146, category id '18005#25.256' has no name! , ] UID:34146 Activity:moderate
10/15   Republicans commit registration fraud in numerous states:
        \_ Dailykos... yes, the ultimate non-partisan quality news site.
           And you people delete links from the nuts at the freerepublic
           but think this is perfectly neutral and worth reporting?  Get it
           from a real news site and we'll discuss this and the number of
           dead people voting for the Democrats over the years.
           \_ No really, let's discuss it.  Do you have a single credible
              accusation?  Are you aware that as people die, new people replace
              them?  Are you aware that people move?  Are you aware that it
              takes time for registration numbers to reflect this (there is
              usually at least a 5 year time lag)?  There are TONS of legit
              reasons for the number of registereds to outnumber the number
              of eligibles.  As for the Republican operatives destroying
              Democratic registrations, there are links to legit news stories
              within that link.  However, you're simply dismissing it out of
              hand because it comes from a partisan site.  Here is some
              information from a "regular" news outlet about this:
              http://csua.org/u/9hu (yahoo news)
              Note that despite the headline, the only Republican accusations
              contained in the article are the vague notions about registereds
              and eligibles, which have a legit explanation.  The Democratic
              accusations are at times very specific.
              \_ Two words: Kennedy/Nixon.
                 \_ Funny thing is, Kennedy would have won even without
                    Illinois. And that was 40 years ago.
           \_ There are literally a dozen links to "legitimate" news
              from that url.
        \_ Block the Vote - Paul Krugman  http://csua.org/u/9hr (Yahoo!)
           ... a firm hired by the Republican National Committee to register
           voters, told a Nevada TV station that their supervisors
           systematically tore up Democratic registrations.  The accusations
           are backed by physical evidence and appear credible.  Officials have
           begun a criminal investigation into reports of similar actions by
           Sproul in Oregon. Republicans claim ... Democrats do it, too.
           But there haven't been any comparably credible accusations
           against Democratic voter-registration organizations.
           Sproul in Oregon.  Republicans claim, of course, that they did
           nothing wrong - and that besides, Democrats do it, too.  But there
           haven't been any comparably credible accusations against Democratic
           voter-registration organizations.
           \_ Democrats don't have to do it.  They just need the votes to
              actually be counted.  There are a hell of a lot more D than R
              in the country.
              \_ If they don't register then they aren't anything.  How do
                 you figure that?  Anyway, I think you might be in for a big
                 surprise when 4 million of those hated Xtian fundies show up
                 this time who skipped the election in 2000.
                 \_ The count(D) > count(R) is for registered voters, as well
                    as voting voters, at least in presidential elections.  And
                    if you think the fundie vote wasn't out in force in 2000,
                    you're smoking something I don't want.
           \_ And the story came out on the day of registration deadlines...
           \_ The only thing I've ever seen with Democrats are vague accusations
              from Republicans about "more voters registered than eligible,"
              a classic case of confusing causation with correlation.
              Apparently they've never heard of population growth, people dying,
              moving, etc. etc.
           \_ Oops, I took a quote out of context by ellipsing too much.
              Repaired now.  Sorry!
              \_ Now it's even more out of context.  The quote is
                 "Republicans claim, of course, that they did nothing
                 wrong - and that besides, Democrats do it, too."  Mmm..
                 tasty tasty hypocrisy
                 \_ Shit, you're right.  I've fixed it completely now.
                    (BTW, it's not hypocrisy, it's called fucking it up twice
                    in a row.  The original was even more out of context.
                    The taste you note is from my ass.)
                    \_ I didn't mean you were hypocritical.  I was savoring
                       Krugman's phrase.
        \_ http://www.alternet.org/election04/20183
2004/10/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34133 Activity:nil
10/14   Got this on my fortune, kinda funny
        "A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for
        democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national
        election." -- Bill Vaughan
        \_ cuz you can put a bullet through shit, but not thru bullshit
2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/Biology, Health/Disease/General] UID:34070 Activity:very high
10/12   "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's,
        Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. America just
        lost a great champion for this cause in Christopher Reeve.
        People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs
        and walk again with stem cell research."
        -John Edwards.  Hallelujah!
        \_ Let me guess, you have a problem with that. Would you
           be more satisfied if he said he plans to leave everyone
           with those diseases to suffer while we spend our money
           on other things?
           \_ I have a problem with Edwards promising millions of sick
              people something he can't deliver in a cynical attemp to
              get votes from the desperately ill.  You're ok with that.
        \_ We need less Homer Simpsons, and more money for public schools!
        \_ But what does Bud Day think about this???
                \_ Why do you hate Bud Day?
2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34060 Activity:very high
10/12   What is the election is close enough that the Colorado initiative
        to split their electoral votes decides the election? Which way
        would the USSC rule?
        \_ USSC is pwned by Bush/Cheney.  I think it would pretty much be a
           foregone conclusion.  That said, I think the scenario (Bush wins
           Colorado && initiative passes) is pretty unlikely.
        \_ On the basis of historical precedent, states have been allowed to
           choose how they allocate electoral votes, but I'd count on this
           court to cook up some argument to throw it out.
           \_ The US Constitution allows the state legislature to choose the
              method for allocating electoral votes.  The CO initiative
              bypasses the legislature and IMO should be ruled
              \_ This really is the key issue here.  Under the Const.
                 the legislature has manifest power over how electors are
                 chosen.  Even if it passes it won't take effect for this
                 election because of legal contests.
              \_ Well, it obviously allows the legislatures to defer that
                 responsibility to the voters.
                 \_ Show me anything in Article II Section 1 that "obviously"
                    says that.
                    \_ OK, why do the states let popular vote decide who gets
                       the electors?
                       \_ That's how the legislatures wrote their state laws.
                          Some states already split electoral votes based on
                          popular vote.
        \_ Maine does it.  Why can't Colorado?  Is it a "If it passes, it
           shouldn't apply until the NEXT election" kind of issue?
           \_ Well the initiative is written so that it would apply to this
              election, so it's not like you could argue the voters are being
              \_ Who is saying the voters are being tricked?
                 I'm talking about the candidates having the rules "change"
                 on them during the election, and perhaps this being "illegal".
                 \_ Responding to myself:  Okay, the earlier thread makes
                    sense.  The question is, does legislature == the people or
                    legislature != the people, for the purposes of
                    USC Article II Section 1 on apportioning electoral votes.
                    \_ I don't see why you can't have a state constitutional
                       amendment saying "the legislature shall do such-and-
                       \_ It would be pretty funny if the USSC wrote something
                          like, "the spirit of the electoral college was to
                          prevent the tyranny of the masses, so legislature !=
                          the people in this case".
                          \_ Why would this be funny?  We're a republic, not a
                             \_ We're whatever is required to most benefit the
                                dominant party, which at the moment happens to
                                be the Republicans.
                             \_ It would be funny because the people might end
                                up pissed.  This is independent of the intent
                                of the framers of the Constitution.  Duh.
2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34044 Activity:high
10/12   Anyone have an opinion on Austin Texas?  Preferably someone that
        has actually been there, and not "Bush and Texas suck!".
        \_ My older brother got his laptop stolen out of his rental car there
           while he was eating lunch.
           \_ He left his laptop sitting open on a seat with a sign that said
              "Steal me, my owner is stupid".  Austin sucks!
              \_ Actually it was in his trunk.
                 \_ Shit happens everywhere. BTW, I think the other day you
                    have mentioned this happened in San Antonio.
                    \_ Just reporting a data point.  Chill.
        \_ It's not a bad city. I drove through it and spent 3 days there.
           Austin would be the only city that I'd consider living in, in TX,
           and the biggest reason I wouldn't want to live there is that
           it's land-locked.
           \_ seconded.  it's the only livable place in texas for several
              reasons.  the weather is less hellish than typical texas weather,
              and the culture is not so monolithically texan.  The UT area
              of austin looks amazingly like berkeley.
              \_ I had a gf out there.  The city has a lot of very nice lakes,
                 so if you just need water, its very nice.  I would have
                 considered moving out there.
        \_ I have many, many coworkers who went to UT Austin. They all
           liked it a lot. Most did say it was the only place in Texas
           they would live. The majority went there for grad school and
           were not originally from Texas. Only one of them was from CA,
           though. I feel Californians have higher standards. Still, the
           guy from CA ended up settling there. Most of my coworkers have
           since left Austin, but talk highly of it. Me, I've never been.
        \_ Flew out of Austin yesterday (first visit since junior high).
           I was pretty impressed. Like other posters noted, it's by far the
           best place to live in Texas. Big tech industry, great university
           as the core of the town, really educated population, big live music
           scene. Probably as liberal as you'll get in Texas. It's probably
           the closest you'll get to Silicon Valley culture outside of
           Silicon Valley (although I don't think it's a whole lot like
           Berkeley, maybe more like Rockridge).
        \_ I once came up with the big 4 reasons to relocate to TX, when I
           considered it several years ago.  My 4 reasons were: 1. no state
           income tax, 2. concealed carry, 3. open containers in cars, and
           4. women with big hair.  Texas might have sissified in recent
           years, so I don't know how many of the reasons may still apply.
2004/10/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34036 Activity:high
10/11   Congress just passed a bill to hand out $14.5 billion to people
        who *choose* to live in the path of hurricanes.  ilyas, and other
        motd libertarians or other social regressives, how do you feel
        about being "forced at gunpoint" to pay for these handouts? -meyers
        \_ What about the $120 billion for people who "choose" to live on
           top of our oil?  Where's the outrage?
           \_ Consider it evening the scorecard for Kosovo.  At least this
              time we are fighting for the right side (against militant
              Islam as opposed to for it).
        \_ California has earthquakes, Washington state has volcano, other
           states has tornados, etc.  Heck, we should all move to a
           state without any natural disasters.
           \_ what, and create a state with 'man-made' disasters?
              \_ NYC has terrorist attacks.
           \_ That volcano ain't nothin'. We should create some more disasters
              on the west coast to keep things fair with the fed relief funds.
              \_ CA already tossed it out of office.
        \_ You're all missing the point.  We hear whining about giving
           handouts to people who *choose* to be poor, but now we have
           a republican congress just giving federal money away.  Where's
           the outrage about not letting the free market fix this problem??
           There are numerous insurance companies which could be making
           big money here (insuring against disasters, not in paying out
           claims, of course) -meyers
           \_ I disagree with giving fed disaster relief, and pretty much
              all subsidies of any kind.  Calling this a 'republican congress'
              because RNC has a slim majority is more than a little misleading.
              I am neither republican nor a conservative.  I try my best to
              game a system where the two major parties are basically centrist,
              and I don't like either.  I do tend to dislike the modern DNC
              more than the modern RNC, but that's DNC's fault.  On a
              slightly unrelated note, I am glad you found something else
              to talk about.  Thoughtful liberals and thoughtful libertarians
              tend to agree on social ills (it's 'bad' that people able and
              willing to work don't get enough to eat, etc).  However, liberals
              are more impatient, they are willing to prod society in what they
              feel is 'the right direction' with a bayonet, if necessary.
              Libertarians are deeply suspicious of bayonets (and certainties
              of what 'the right direction' is), so much so that they are
              willing to put up with a lot of social ills to avoid said
              bayonets. -- ilyas
              \_ unless said bayonets are used by the government to murder
                 innocent people who are wrongly conviced of a crime.
                 apparently that doesn't even count as a social ill
                 for libertarians.
                 \_ I don't see how the old legal dilemma about the proportion
                    of innocents hanging in the gallows vs the guilty prowling
                    the streets (and where I happen to think a reasonable
                    solution lies) have to do with libertarians.  Everyone has
                    to solve this problem.  Libertarian opinions on proper
                    solutions differ, just as liberal and conservative opinions.
                    You are a troll.  Come back with an actual point. -- ilyas
           \_ Which is.. exactly what they do in florida.  insurance companies
              and hurricanes have a long colorful history.
           \_ Yes it's rediculous, there is plenty of discord on
              conservative sites.
              \_ You just overwrote someone.  I know there are insurance
                 companies in Florida.  Where's the outrage about govt
                 messing with their market?? -meyers
                 \_ The same place the rest of your black 'n' white red
                    herring strawman went.  In the trash.  Try again with
                    new bait.
        \_ 14.5B for disaster recovery is nothing compared to the shameless
           giveaways to the special interests, such as the $160B farm bill
           signed in 2002. Even The Economist commented: "The real explanation
           for America's farm idiocy is electoral". Divide that by the number
           of tax payers. This is on average how much is being taken from you
           for farm subsidies.
           \_ As if I wouldn't pay for it at the super market or every time I
              eat out.  I prefer paying that way but since aggressive income
              tax schedules are sucking my income in half I'm ok if some of
              that money goes to making my life better in some other way.
        \_ It is plain and simple vote buying by the Republican Party, no
           more and no less. Perfectly legal and how pork barrel politics
2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34030 Activity:low
10/11   http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
        John Eisenhower (Ike's son) writes about why after 50 years as a
        Republican, he's voting for John Kerry.
        \_ and here's the non-broken version of the link:

[yes, very nice, censor the current topic and instead repost some old
 tom/ilyas flame fest.  way to show tom isn't a censor and is a nice guy]
2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:34026, category id '18005#11.875' has no name! , ] UID:34026 Activity:nil
10/11   http://www.nbc25.com/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=2536
        \_ Republicans call Democrats and lie, telling them they aren't
           registered and won't be allowed to vote this election.
        \_ Nothing new, Dems are the party of the gullible.  Dem.
           readers of the MOTD, you are not registered and won't
           be allowed to vote.  Ignore any voter information you
           receive in the mail, if you can read.  Thank you.
2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34003 Activity:high
10/9    All of Karzai's opponents boycott the election and cite fraud.
        No wonder Bush is taking credit-- that's how democracy works in
        Bush country.
        \_ Republican-sponsored vote fraud:  Good enough for America,
           good enough for Afghanistan!
           \_ I could tell you that an imperfect election process is better
              than dictatorship but I suspect you'd disagree.  I'm already
              walking the IHBT line by even responding.
              \_ It's that simple, isn't it? Either you're for an imperfect
                 election process or you're for the Taliban. What about
                 taking the time to hold a reasonable election?
        \_ Is this from the same ABC that put their left wing bias on paper
           and published it?  Try a URL from a reliable source.
           \_ Which, the Australian Broadcast Corporation (this) or the
              American Broadcast Corporation?  'Cos I got both.
2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33963 Activity:nil
10/6    Where have all the MOTD conservatives gone?  Are you guys just
        licking your wounds at this point, or what?  Now that you've been
        proven wrong about just about everything, are you just going to take
        it and vote for Bush anyway?
2004/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:33953 Activity:very high
10/6    I'm trying to beat a radar speeding ticket on "speed trap" grounds.
        I want to see if I can find the Engineering & Traffic "Speed Zone"
        Survey for that road to see if the speed limit's set too low, or a
        survey wasn't done recently enough.  Does anyone know how or where
        you go about obtaining these?
        \_ if you haven't already, snag a copy of the 'fight your ticket'
            book from nolo press.  It covers all of this stuff, in good
            detail..  -- Been there, done that, beat my ticket.
        \_ Pay the fine you ass! Or drive slower.
           \_ Pay the fine AND drive slower!
           \_ Speeding tickets are an underhanded regressive tax for the
              most part. If the system cared more abouit safety and less
              about raising money enforcement would be on other things.
              \_ As long as the speed limit is set in a sane way, I'm fine
                 with speeding tickets.  It would be interesting if we had a
                 system where your fine was proportional to your income, like
                 some Scandinavian countries.
           \_ The argument here is about the speed limit being set wrong
              (specifically, that it's lower than the speed at which 85% of
              people actually drive on that stretch), not about cheating the
              \_ 85% of people deciding to break the law doesn't make breaking
                 the law right.  85% of people deciding to drive above the
                 speed limit doesn't necessarily mean speeds above that limit
                 are safe.
                 \_ Perhaps, but it makes enforcement arbitrary
                     and hypocritical.  Especially when approaching 100% of
                     cops and politicians speed. (and the number for the
                     general populace is closer to 95%)
                     \_ In these situations, to avoid being pulled over, do not
                        be passing people, changing lanes, or young and black.
                        \_ you forgot having out of state plates in BFE states.
                 \_ It also makes driving below the speed limit dangerous,
                    when everyone is tailgating you, or speeding pass and
                    then cutting in front of you.
                 \_ "85%...doesn't make right."  You know... we live in a
                    democracy.  Laws exist to serve the people, not the other
                    way around.  If the majority of people break a law, I
                    believe that by definition makes it "right" in our society.
                    \_ If the majority of restaurant waiters evade tax by not
                       reporting all their tips to IRS, does that make not
                       paying tax on tips right?
                       \_ you've never waited tables, have you?
                          \_ No, but I've tipped at restaurants and I've seen
                             how much the waiters collect in one hour.  Anyway
                             is this relevant to the point?
                             \_ maybe yes, maybe no.  I'm not really that
                                interested in this debate.  my point is that
                                compliance with taxes on cash tips is probably
                                less than a tenth of a percent in most
                                \_ The IRS collects taxes on the imputed
                                   value of tips collected to counter this.
                       \_ That's a false comparison.  The correct comparison
                          would be "majority of taxpayers all not claiming
                          gratuity income"  Good luck finding that.  If the
                          majority of americans cheated in the same way on
                          their taxes, then yes, I think that way of "cheating"
                          should become legal.
                          \_ Wrong.  The first poster who quoted 85% wrote
                             "... lower than the speed at which 85% of people
                             actually drive ON THAT STRETCH".  The correct
                             comparison is "if the majority of WAITERS don't
                             report tip income", not "if the majority of
                             taxpayers don't report tip income".  On the other
                             hand, if what the first poster wrote were "...
                             lower than the speed at which 85% of people
                             actually drive IN AMERICA", the correct comparison
                             would be "if the majority of TAXPAYERS don't
                             report tip income".  See the association?
                             \_ Ah, but you're ignoring the "who it effects"
                             \_ Ah, but you're ignoring the "who it affects"
                                facet.  Speeding affects... people who drive
                                on that road.  Federal tax evasion affects all
                                taxpayers (and some non-taxpayers) in one way
                                or another, hence they are involved in the
        \_ what many folks here dont realize  (and would if you bothered to
          read the nolo book, is the letter of the law (at least in california)
          isn't against violating some arbitrary limit of speed (unless you
          were going over say 70mph), but that the speed was fast enough to
          be 'dangerous'.  This 'fuzzy' definition provides for lots of
          flexibility to the defendant, as the cops now have to *prove* the
          speed was dangerous.  Usually they use the traffic engineering
          studies to estabilsh a 'prima facie' speed limit that anything over
          is *assumed* dangerous and this is the posted 'maximum speed limit'
          you see..  But you still have room to argue against this, as there
          are a number of things that you can attack on the traffic study,
          including the 85 percentile speed travelled speed that the OP
          mentioned..  Do you research, show up to court prepared, and argue
          your case.  If you dont have a good argument, maybe you were driving
          hazardously, and should just pay up and not deal with the hassle.
          \_ Is over 70 always indefensible?
                \_ I've driven numerous times on roads with limit 75.
        \_ I bet you are a democrat, right?
           \_ See, AMC, what happens when you censor political threads? Now
              we start to pollute other threads.
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33941 Activity:high
10/4    Sinister Republicans strike again
        Rangel votes against own draft measure
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33924 Activity:high
        \_ 4 more years!!! Thanks to Floridians.
        \_ On a more serious note.... Both parties are so entrenched and
           absolutely certain of victory in this election and the complete
           lack of qualification of the opposition and certain doom if the
           other guy is elected.  It will be interesting to see the losing
           party completely implode on November 3rd.  I wonder if this will
           be one of those rare moment in American history where a major
           party vanishes and is replaced by something new or is consumed
           by some currently tiny party.
           \_ This is what Nader banked on in 2000. Worked great didn't it?
                \_ It wasn't like this in 2000.  Both parties wanted it but
                   neither was so self certain of getting it as they are now.
                \_ if you live in CA or another non swing state, feel
                   free to vote for the Green Party.  Nader is NOT
                   the green party candidate.
                \_ go Nader!!!
                   \_ Ross Perot 4 EVAH!
           \_ The Republicans will not implode. They are used to being
              the minority party. They will just retrench. The Democrats
              might implode if they do badly. -Liberal
              \_ Uhm, why?  I don't think this assertion is based on reality.
                 \_ Umm the Dems have controlled Congress for a very large
                    proportion of the 20th century... maybe 60-70%?
                    \_ This doesn't explain anything.  This is a fact.  There
                       is a significant difference between a fact and a
                       logical argument.  Kindly show your knowledge of
                       the difference with a demonstration.  thzx
                       \_ Sigh. This motd is not large enough to contain
                          this explaination. But to start with: the Republican
                          Party somehow survived Watergate and losing both
                          Houses of Congress and the Presidency for many years.
                          It is unlikely that merely a close loss in a
                          Presidential race will be their undoing. Especially
                          since they are likely to hold the Senate and almost
                          certain to hold the House, thereby having at least
                          some say in the running of the Federal government.
                          Kapich? The case of the Democrats is not as clearcut.
                          I am not sure if there is a historical precedent for
                          the Democratic Party being totally out of power for
                          8 years. The Democratic Party is fundamentally a
                          populist, working class and poor party. Their
                          base comes from people either wholely or partially
                          dependent on government subsidy. Without controlling
                          the levers of government, how are they going to
                          provide the.. uh.. rewards, that being an ally of
                          the party in power recieves? Furthermore, with a
                          moderately educated populist base they risk losing
                          the bulk of their support if they lose too often.
                          Sort of like how the 49ers have lost most of their
                          fans by losing week after week. A Conservative
                          (the real Buckley kind, not the Dubya kind) does
                          not really mind being in the minority. In fact, he
                          might be kind of disturbed at being in the majority
                          too often, since his sense of self is predicated on
                          being "different" i.e. superior, to the commoner.
                          A Liberal who does not "lead the masses" is kind of
                          a sorry sight. -liberal
                          \_ I don't know that I agree with much of what you
                             say, but thank you for providing a more detailed
                          \_ "populist, working class, poor party".  Are
                              you joking? Have you looked at their contributors
                              or political platform recently?
           \_ This is lamer than my "GOOG will drop a lot the first week and
              a lot more by half a year" prediction - and that's pretty lame.
              \_ Props! --googler
              \_ What?  This is totally off topic.  Get over your google
                 fetish.  Links have been posted and were unrefuted by you
                 kool aid drinkers.  Go make your own thread.
2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33905 Activity:nil
10/4    Authorities reviewing voter registration forms
2004/10/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:33901 Activity:moderate
10/4    here's a pretty good reason to not re elect gwbush,
        his administration's efforts to outsource torture to other
        \_ Oh no! The horror! Humans hurting other humans! We should rewrite
           our genetic code to stamp it out and live off the land.
           \_ gave me a good chuckle
        \_ Or a good reason TO re-elect him, depending on your POV.
           \_ true.  too bad i have to share the country with psychos.
              \_ Republican: evil/stupid, Democrat: good/smart.
                 \_ WDYHA?
           \_ If you think it is a GOOD reason, you should ask yourself
              why we should outsource rather than doing it in house.
              Outsourcing is unamerican!
2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33857 Activity:high
9/30    So I actually spent some time at Wal-Mart today. Is it just me
        or does it really suck? The prices weren't really that good, the
        selection was pretty shoddy grade goods. I think you can do a lot
        better at smaller shops carrying a better quality of goods. Why
        is this the largest chain in the U.S.? I guess a lot of people
        are rednecks...
        \_ Mmm.  Flamebait.
        \_ ever been to places that make up the bulk of United States,
           like South Carolina, remote parts of Texas, Tennessee,
           etc? And yes most of the US is NOT California or New England.
           It is mostly uneducated rednecks who have never been to nice
           malls and nice shops that we take for granted. These are alos
           the same people who will vote for Bush.
           \_ Mmm. Flamebait.
2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:33852, category id '18005#12.4979' has no name! , ] UID:33852 Activity:high
9/30    Republicans trying to block hundreds of thousand of new voters.
        Why? Because they can, there is no valid reason, except
        a raw desire for power:
        \_ Republican: evil.  Democrat: good.  No need to post a URL or read
        \_ Who just out-and-out deleted this? Lets hide unpleasant truths, huh?
           \_ Um, it's the same story as the Ohio one below.  More dupes than
              /. lately.
              \_ Which got deleted. Hence the repost.
            \_ He backed off, after public pressure:
               http://csua.org/u/9a0 -op
               I found this out after further research, which is why
               I deleted it myself.
        \_ No one talks about how in '92 the Demos blocked the voting rights
           of military overseas, who tend to vote Republican. The right to
           must be asserted.
           \_ Clinton won by a landslide anyway! Wouldn't have made a
              \_ Land slide?  Uhm... whatever.
              \_ You obviously have never studied elections. Reagan '84
                 was a landslide, so was Nixon '72. Haven't seen a Demo
                 get a landslide since FDR.
2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:33848 Activity:moderate
9/30    Republicans trying to pull a "Florida" in Ohio:
        \_ How?  No one pulled a "Florida" in the first place except the
           lawyers after the fact.
           \_ Um, bogus felons lists being used to prevent blacks from voting.
              \_ Um, didn't happen.
                 If you don't believe his analysis, follow the link the the
                 actual investigation.
                 \_ ...are you for real?
                    \_ Yes, I am.  And I read the report.  Did you?
                       \_ Yes, I did, and I see a system that failed to
                          accomplish its goals.
                       \_ That article is from the guy who wrote the
                          dissent of the US Election Commission Report.
                          In other words, he was in the minority in his
                          opinion. The majority disagreed with him.
                          \_ Did you read his dissent?  Did you read the facts
                             he presented in it?
                                Facts are such stubborn things. He claims no
                                one was disenfrachised. The commission found
                                at least 78. I read his "dissent." It was
                                nothing more than a partisan rant, just like
                                that article.
                                \_ "The majority of those witnesses who
                                   experienced problems and who came before the
                                   Commission testified that they were
                                   ultimately able to cast their vote, despite
                                   the problems they described; a few were not.
                                   A chief flaw in the majority report,
                                   however, is that it generally fails to
                                   distinguish between problems of mere
                                   inconvenience, difficulties caused by
                                   bureaucratic inefficiencies, and incidents
                                   of potential discrimination. In this way,
                                   the complaint from the white male voter
                                   whose shoes were muddied on the path to his
                                   polling place is accorded the same degree of
                                   seriousness as the case of the
                                   seeing-impaired voter who required.but was
                                   denied.assistance in reading the ballot, or
                                   the African American voter who claimed she
                                   was turned away from the polls at closing
                                   time while a white man was not."
                          \_ The dissent was written by Thernstrom and
                             Redenbaugh.  The article was written by Kirsanow.
                             \_ Sorry, got that wrong.
           \_ truck in illegals, raise the dead to vote, democrats are
              \_ You can't possibly be comparing election fraud with wholesale
                 voter disenfranchisement based on race.
                 \_ So you think Democrats having the dead vote is ok?  If it
                    was Repuiblicans who raised the dead every 4 years you'd
                    be the first raising hell about it.
                 \_ Since "wholesale voter disenfranchisement based on race"
                    didn't happen...
                    \_ http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
                       \_ This was based on felonies (not race), and whites
                          were twice as likely to be incorrectly put on the
                          \_ Uhm, you do realize that whites outnumber blacks
                             by more than a factor of 2x, yes?
                             \_ Lies, damned lies, and statistics.  Yes?
2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33845 Activity:nil
9/30    I've never voted. What do I need to do before I can vote? Or do I
        just show up at the vote place the day of the vote? thanks.
        \_ if you are dead already, just go to the DNC
           \_ If you're black and in Florida, be sure to ask your local sheriff
              for permission first.
              \_ If you're heavily invested in tin foil, vote Democrat.
                 \_ If you think all them towelheads ought to be nuked into
                    blue glowing cinders, vote Republikkkan.
                    \_ Why do you hate towels?
                       \_ Err, I'm not sure how nuking towels is a clear
                          demonstration of love for them....
        \_ voting in Berkeley is a waste of time. You already know the
           \_ Look, even if Bush will take California in a landslide it doesn't
              mean you shouldn't vote on state and local issues.
              \_ If illegals weren't voting, he might.
                 \_ Speaking of tinfoil hats...
                 \_ Yup Illegals will do anything to call attention to
                    themselves because they love to be noticed by the
        \_ Walk down sproul, there'll be a hundred groups volunteering to
           get you registered.  Alternatively, go to the post office, maybe
           city hall, fill out a form.
           \_ Do I need to register where I am resident at? ie, if I work
              in city A but lives in city B, can I register in either city?
              so what exactly does registering get me? Do I get a mail saying
              I can vote now?
              \_ You must register at only one place, your "primary" address.
                 (Where you live). They mail you a packet (read following post)
                 \_ I believe you can pick up a form anywhere in your county
                    and it will go to the right place.  You do have to use
                    your home address though. [formatd]
                    \_ Yup, that is correct.  I registered outside the Masonic
                       Temple when I became a US citizen, but I don't live in
                       San Francisco.
        \_ No less that 2 weeks before the election, you must register to vote.
           This entails filling out a form with a bunch of personal information
           and signing it and submitting it to a registrar, such as the League
           of Women Voters (who can sometimes be found in public places) or by
           going to some place like a city hall or DMV office and getting /
           submitting the form there.  After that, your county registrar will
           mail you a packet with a sample ballot, explanation of the
           propositions, candidate statements, and information about where and
           when to vote.
           To register, you must be a citizen, be 18 by the time of the
           election (November 2.) and register using your current address.
        \_ http://www.declareyourself.com
        \_ Vote democrat, early, and often.
2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33802 Activity:high
9/28    So Carter says there will be problems with the election in Florida.
        This is the same man who certified the Venezuelan election which had
        "mathematically impossible" results.
        \_ The Economist published a reasonable analysis of the ven.
           election results, and they are satisfied it was reasonably
           fair.  no i don't have a link. - danh
        \_ What kind of file is that?
        \_ this is the guy who wanted the peace prize so badly he killed
        for it
        \_ Here's a better link:
           "Rampersad claimed touch-screen voting machines in at least 500
           polling sites produced the exact same number of ``yes'' votes in
           favor of ousting Chavez, a result he said was statistically
           impossible. He said the supposed finding indicated the machines were
           rigged to impose a ceiling on ``yes'' votes."
           \- after 49 "yes" votes, they become "overloaded with data" --psb
        \_ That's because Carter is an idiot, and should really just
           \_ When did Bill O'Reilly get a csua account?
2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33800 Activity:very high
9/28    What happened to the color of Kerry's skin?  He's orange!
        \_ pic?  Are you sure you aren't thinking of Carter?  Now HE'S
           looking like he had too many carrots.
        \_ Hee, hee.  It looks like someone dipped him in tanning oil.
        \_ Makeup? bad lighting?
        \_ Now we can choose between Orangity Orange, and Lemony Yellow!
        \_ Photoshop
2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33798 Activity:very high 50%like:30994
9/28    What's up with the Gallup Poll?
        Likely Voter Sample Party IDs - Poll of September 24-26
        Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%
        Total Sample: 758
        GOP: 328 (43%)
        Dem: 236 (31%)
        Ind: 189 (25%)
        A 12% party ID skew towards Republicans?  Sure guys.  You'd think
        they would want to fix their methodology after they blew it in
        2000, but they seem to have ignored the problem.  "Hello, McFly?
        Random sampling of land lines isn't going to cut it anymore! McFly!
        Caller ID?  Cellphones?  McFly?!"
        \_ For context if you don't know: 2000 was 35% GOP turnout, 39% Dem.
           \_ Looks like the Dem. lost faith in the system.
              \_ Are you stupid or just stupid?
              \_ Actually, the Dems have signed up millions of new voters,
                 most of whom are not being polled. This election is what
                 finally woke up the lazy, non-voting TV watching prole
                 to vote his class interests.
2004/9/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33779 Activity:low
9/27    Republicans try to steal Florida again:
        http://csua.org/u/986 (law blog)
        \_ There was no attempt in the first place.  Learn your facts.  Though
           many people were incorrectly on the felon list, more felons who
           should have been on the list were not.  Blacks and whites alike.
           Nice troll though.
2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33746 Activity:nil
9/24    http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm
        Vote Bush, or the terrorists^W satanists have won!
2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:33742 Activity:very high
9/24    I am annoyed by the Chron's sloppy reporting on the UC admission
        GPA increase.  http://csua.org/u/971
        In one paragraph, they talk about "4900 fewer students in the
        eligibility pool".  In another paragraph, they talk about the
        smaller number of each racial group who would be admitted, but
        they do this trick that confuses members of the eligibility
        pool with the students actually admitted.  (I imagine not that
        many 2.8 GPA students were admitted into UCB.)  What I really
        want to know is how the policy would actually affect admissions,
        say by looking at admission statistics of the last several years.
        But the Chron deliberately, lazily, or misleadingly  does not
        provide that information.  Does anyone know?
        \_ I was admitted with a 2.8 highschool gpa.  I agree that it's
           probably rare.  There were also minimum SAT score requirements
           which were higher the farther your gpa was below 3.0, iirc.
        \_ You mean "the Chron's sloppy reporting."  period.
           \_ I am not usually bothered by the Chron since I use other
              news sources most of the time.  Thinking about it more
              though, I am somewhat worried that there are people who
              depend on it for their primary "in depth" news source.
        \_ I don't understand.  If conditions are bad at your school,
           shouldn't it be easier to get a high GPA?
           \_ Easier given the same amount of effort, but if you've ever
              been to a bad school you'd understand why this is not
              necessarily true. Lots of kids are trying to survive, not
              get a high GPA.
              \_ Generally those kids aren't too worried about going
                 to a UC either.
                 \_ Which is the sad part, because they should be. To
                    compare Beverly Hills High to Crenshaw High in terms
                    of GPA is silly. It's probably *harder* to get a high
                    GPA at a place like Crenshaw, despite less
                    \_ I agree with you there.  Which is why we need to
                       fix the schools, not make it easier to get into
                       college.  Then it's already too late.
                       \_ What's that?  The public schools are broken?
                          But ... how can that be?  Aren't they overseen
                          by the ALMIGHTY STATE?  WHAT WENT WRONG?  It
                          must be the greedy private interests that fucked
                          up our schools!
                          \_ In fact it was. Prop 13.
                             \_ BWAHAHAHA!
                             \_ Not Prop 13. Check out:
                                [disguised wingnut link]
                             \_ Read:
                                "Despite Proposition 13 and other limitations,
                                state and local government spending in
                                California in in line with spending in other
                                states. In 1999-2000, state and local
                                government spending per capita in California
                                exceed the average of all other states by 9%."
                                The lack of tax money is not a problem. What
                                is a problem is how we choose to spend it.
                                \_ is that adjusted for things like local
                                   cost of materials/cost of living?
                                   \_ Doesn't look like it.  Nor the teachers'
                                      salaries, for that matter.
                                \_ Ah, but what's spending as % of GDP?
                                \_ California had good public schools before
                                   Prop 13. I am old enough to remember.
                                   \_ And free junior colleges.  We REALLY
                                      need to reexamine.
                                      \_ And CA ranks near the bottom of
                                         the US in state spending per student
                                         \_ I don't think most people are
                                            against spending more on
                                            schools, if there was any
                                            chance of it getting better.
                                            Have you seen the schools?
                                            They're run my complete
                                            \_ Have you considered working in
                                               the schools? It's terrible!  The
                                               pay is shit, the hours are long
                                               and you have medeling from nosy
                                               parents and a school-board run
                                               by junior politicians.  It's no
                                               wonder they can't attract good
                                               \_ Wow... how can this
                                                  travesty happen with a
                                                  STATE-RUN INSTITUTION?
                                                  Surely, there must have
                                                  been some sort of shadowy
                                                  special-interest involvement
                                                  from greedy multinational
                                                  corporations that caused
                                                  \_ Okay, think about it
                                                     this way.  How often have
                                                     you received good service
                                                     at a Denny's, or some
                                                     shop at the mall, or
                                                     first level tech support
                                                     from a big company. If
                                                     you don't pay enough,
                                                     the good people won't
                                                     stick around "for the
                                                     love of it."
                                \_ It is not relevant that CA had good
                                   schools before Prop 13. CA has plenty
                                   of tax revenue. The reason CA spends
                                   less on education is because we spend
                                   a smaller % of tax revenue on
                                   education (22% for CA versus 25%
                                   elsewhere). Read the PPIC article. Prop
                                   13 is just a scapegoat. In the 1970s
                                   sale tax was 3% and houses cost $35K
                                   (i.e. property values far outstripped
                                   inflation). More taxes is not the
                                   \_ What does California spend it tax
                                      money on then? I am genuninly
                                      curious. Do you have a reference?
                                      \_ Yes. THE LINK ABOVE TO PPIC says
                                         that. If you want to know
                                         everything broken down look here:
                                         BTW, CA has the highest paid
                                         teachers in the nation.
                                         \_ they make TWO hunks of dirt a day!
                        \_ http://www.edsource.org/sch_ca_us_pupil_xpn.cfm
                           California lags far behind the rest of the
                           nation in per pupil expenditures.
                                    \_ Try looking at: Serrano v. Priest
2004/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33694 Activity:low
9/22    Well, that's a whole 'nother subject.  I
        personally think it's unfair to take away
        felon's right to vote, but I won't debate
        that here.  Make another thread if you want.
        \_ So serial rapists, murderers, the criminally insane, etc. are a-ok?
           Are you for real?  -- ilyas
           \_ So in your mind felon==serial rapist or murderer?  Are you for
              real?  The range of things one can get a felony conviction for
              is much, much larger than that.
           \_ There's obvious value in denying these people the right to walk
              the streets, but what exactly the value in denying them the vote?
              It's certainly not deterance.  Are you afraid they'll all band
              together and elect Satan or something?  If you've served your
              time, are you less entitled to have a say in how society is run?
              (Insane people are another matter entirely.)
              \_ I'm pretty sure these people will vote for whichever candidate
                 that, say, supports cutting law enforcement funding by half
                 and replacing all jail sentenses with probation.  It'll make
                 their future easier.
                 \_ So?  It won't pass unless a majority of voters supports it,
                    and if a majority of voters supports it, maybe the felons'
                    candidate wasn't so wacky after all.  The right to vote
                    doesn't just belong to the people you agree with.
           \_ The majority of people convicted of felonies are there
              for drug crimes. As a libertarian, you should be sympathetic
              to their plight. Maybe we could change the law so that
              only those guilty of violent felonies lose their voting
              \_ I am, I support decriminalization of all drugs.  Having said
                 that, I am against letting felons vote (using my definition
                 of felon).  I should clarify my view a little.  I believe in
                 a retributive system of justice, if someone finished their
                 restitution, they reenter society and are no longer a 'felon/
                 criminal/whatever.'  They are accorded full rights.  Some
                 crimes are 'permanent' in that you never finish with your
                 restitution.  People committing those crimes are 'permanent
                 felons,' and I do not want those guys to vote ever (they give
                 up a lot more basic rights permanently, like their freedom).
                   -- ilyas
                 I haven't thought very hard about which crimes ought to involve
                 permanent restitution status, but off-the-cuff, I think it
                 will have something to do with the 'irreversibility' of the
                 damage caused by the crime.  -- ilyas
                 \_ Crimes of theft/fraud are theoretically reversible, but
                    seldom are.  Threatening someone with a gun is not
                    reversible, but seldom scars the victim for life.
                    \_ what is your point?
                       \_ Your justification for denying felons the right to
                          vote seems to have a pretty fuzzy foundation if you
                          can't even say which felons should be disenfranchised
                          \_ 'Felons,' as I understand the term give up a bunch
                             of rights while they are in 'debt.'  The
                             justification for making them give up these rights
                             is so they are forced to 'pay,' and can't run off
                             or vote away their 'debt' (or go further into
                             'debt').  If you are attacking me
                             for being unable to provide a precise
                             characterization of a 'permanent felon,' then
                             that's a pretty weak attack.  Addressing the
                             problem fully would require a book and a lot more
                             knowledge than I have.  This doesn't make the
                             approach invalid.  Our justice system has the
                             notion of a 'permanent felon' also, I merely
                             sought to give a 'short' description of what
                             that class of people ought to be. -- ilyas
              \_ Why deny violent felons the right to vote?  Seriously. -op
2004/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33691 Activity:high
9/22    Millions of voters disenfranchised:
        http://csua.org/u/95p (Reuters, by way of Yahoo News)
        "In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black
         voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills
         or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent
         would be arrested at polling stations." and
        "In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending
         to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling
         stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been
         reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to
         vote in black neighborhoods."
        WTF? If you want to win an election, do it on the basis of a strong
        candidate, not these asinine gestapo tactics.
        \_ Fliers?  Post one.  Let's see it.  Pretending to be police?  This
           is hearsay.  Got video?  Mysterious people?  With cameras?  Maybe
           they were tourists from one of your favorite socialist countries
           who came here to learn how to run an election.  If you want to win
           an election, do it on the basis of a strong candidate, not by
           putting forged documents on the air as news.
           \_ It's ok, man, it's Reuters.  Reuters is not a serious news
           \_ Wow.  You went completely off the subject and started ranting
              about socialism and the CBS memos within a couple of sentences.
              Your troll fu is extremely weak.
        \_ Photo ID isn't required to vote?  So what's to stop me from
           showing up at different polling stations all day claiming to be
           other people?  ...Oh, right.  That's why the Dems are against
           photo ID...
           \_ Troll.  The republicans have just as much opportunity to cast
              frauduant votes.  Requiring photo ID disenfranchises transients
              and makes it a whole lot easier to intimidate voters.
              Can you honestly say you don't think it will be used to
              intimidate minority voters in the south?
              \_ Troll.  Let's not bother with voter registration, since we're
                 not interested in verifying anything anyway.  Just let
                 everybody vote, including non-citizens and illegal aliens, as
                 many times as they wish.
           \_ This bugs me every time I go to vote. I agree it's a small thing
              to ask for, and it's a fine preventative. -op
              \_ There's a difference between a friendly request for ID by
                 a polling station operator, and a police officer intimidating
                 people at the door, and you guys know it.
                 \_ Huh?  I didn't say anything about officers at the
                    door.  I'm not sure I even believe that.  It just
                    mentions in the article that photo ID is not required
                    to vote, which I have issue with.
                    \_ But if it is required, you'll have some places where a
                       cop is standing at the door and an off-duty cop is
                       manning the polling station and ID'ing people.
                       \_ We probably have that now.  Just with out the
                          guy ID'ing people.  Really man, you're against
                          IDing people before they vote?
                          \_ If ID'ing could be done with no bad consequences,
                             I have no problem, but I'm fairly certain it will
                             disenfranchise minorities and the poor.
                             \_ I have a hard time believing there are
                                that many people who don't have ID.  And
                                I think leaving the door blatantly open
                                to voter fraud is a little stupid.
                                \_ Not that many people don't have ID, but
                                   quite a few people don't trust the gov't
                                   enough to show ID to a cop before voting.
                                   \_ Cops are not part of the voting process,
                                      with the exception of those who are off-
                                      duty and volunteering to work the polls.
                                      There's no reason for a cop to check your
                                      ID before you vote.  There's plenty of
                                      reason for a poll worker to check your ID
                                      against the list of registered voters.
                                   \_ What could a cop do with your photo
                                      ID that he couldn't do with your
                                      name and address on the sheet in
                                      front of him?  That's bordering on
                                      paranoia.  I don't think it's
                                      unreasonable to think that if you're
                                      that nuts, I'm not too worried about
                                      you getting your vote.
                             \_ And no ID'ing allows felons to vote.  Well shit.
                                \_ Well, that's a whole 'nother subject.  I
                                   personally think it's unfair to take away
                                   felon's right to vote, but I won't debate
                                   that here.  Make another thread if you want.
                                   \_ Ilya, I moved your reply into a seperate
                                      thread.  Don't go all hissy-fit on us now
        \_ Why are leftists so concerned about felon's right to vote but not
           to own a gun?
           \_ Because a dangerous person can't kill more people by voting.
2004/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33685 Activity:nil
9/20    Bush has gained 10 points on Kerry in just one month in California.
        At this rate, Bush will be ahead of Kerry by two points on Oct
        22 and win California in a landslide:
        \_ By your logic, Bush will have over 100% support in Ca in less
           than a year.  Fuck off.
           \_ Didn't some other motd poster claim that Gore had more than
              100% of the vote in some parts of PA?  So it is theoretically
              \_ Just 2 or 3 precincts, but still.  It made me laugh.  --cons
        \_ According to http://www.electoral-vote.com Rasmussen leans right.
           \_ And Zogby leans left.  So?  Talk to me on November 3rd.
2004/9/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:33642 Activity:moderate
9/20    What are the applicable laws / rules of thumb governing your CA
        driver's license #?  I know you're supposed to exchange it in an
        accident, but what happens to it after that?  What's my exposure
        to, say, a bouncer swiping my ID at a bar (happens a lot in LA)?
        \_ You have the right to not give them your ID at a bar.
           The bar has the right to not let you in without ID.
           \_ that's not helpful.
              \_ you also have the right to insult the previous poster's
                 mom and make an obtuse reference to illegal immigration.
                \ you have the right to burn American flags
2004/9/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health] UID:33613 Activity:nil
9/17    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/porn.fine.ap/index.html
        Condom or no condom?
2004/9/13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33493 Activity:high
9/13    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=3&u=/ap/flipping_
        fucking little bush.
        \- things like the steel trarrifs were not "flipflops" they were
           far worse. that particular case was cynical vote mongering ...
           burying principle for electorial votes. in re: flipflopping
           over changing circumstances, as JM Keynes said: "When the facts
           change, I change my mind -- What do you do, sir?" Another good
           Keynes quote: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite
           exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves
           of some defunct economist." --psb
           \_ Also note that changing your mind based on changing facts is
              different from denying facts while making your decision, then
              changing your mind when your polls drop.
           \_ If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the
              world will drift toward tragedy. -GW Bush
           \_ cf. letting the ban on assault weapons lapse to gain the NRA
              endorsement.  "I support the ban," the President said.
2004/9/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33479 Activity:high
9/12    Did anyone go to the Cal game? Did you hear California Triumph?
        Was it good?
        \_ Went to the game.  Cal had a hard time getting started, then
           passed for a bazillion yards and trounced the Aggies' defense.
           Cal gave the Aggies a pity goal near the end.  A great Cal game.
           \_ You misunderstood the question. I was asking about a song,
              not the game.
        \_ Sounded fine to me!
        \_ There are a lot of college fight songs.  I think "Fight for
           California," "Big C," and "Stanford Jonah" are all top-notch,
           as college fight songs go.  "California Triumph" sounded pretty
           middle-of-the-road.  Maybe once there are words it will seem more
           compelling.  -tom
2004/9/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33470 Activity:insanely high
9/10    Is it legal to shoot somebody who is unarmed, but threatens you? Do
        you have to wait for them to actually harm you? Seems like if someone
        runs at you, and you shoot, it would be hard to prove that there was
        a threat.
        \_ they have hands and feet which are weapons
        \_ Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
           \_ Better carried by 6 than prison raped by 12.
              \_ I'll take my chances on a trial.  Though I've heard
                 more than one cop recommend that if you do shoot, make
                 sure it's a fatal shot, just so it's your word against
                 no one's else's.
                 \_ Police are different, they are given a greater
                    latitude when dealing with potentially deadly
        \_ You must show that you had a reasonable fear for your life and
           safety and that you had no other course of action to defend
           yourself, such as running.  One can presume deadly intent on
           the part of an assailant if it is a "surprise" attack or if
           an asssilant breaks into your home or business while you are
           inside.  If say you were a 4'1" 75 pound person and a 6'5"
           240 pound man charged you, yeah, you'd have an easier time
           showing reasonable fear for life and safety.
           \_ This is pretty accurate.  Mainly, the crux of the case will be
              on whether you can show that a 'reasonable person' would have
              felt in life-threatening danger with no reasonable recourse but
              to shoot.        -POC
              \_ I don't have a clear idea of "reasonable". Also, how about
                 non life-threatening danger? Such as someone trying to rape
                 your girlfriend. I suppose the law requires letting him do
                 so with impunity while you call the cops? And attacking with
                 something other than a gun would be assault? (Never mind that
                 trying to intervene physically could get you killed.)
                 \_ *sigh*  If you're really that worried and clueless, read
                    up on it -- the materials aren't hard to find.  If someone
                    is raping you (or your gf), then I'd be inclined to say
                    that the 'life-threatening' condition has been adequately
                    met (I mean, duh).  Attacking with something other than a
                    gun would also be assualt if you have no proper
                    justification (although it would likely be battery).  You
                    are allowed to defend yourself in CA.  Really.
                 \_ your right to defend yourself also extends itself to
                    others you choose to defend: the gf, your friend, your
                    son, an innocent person you see being held up at
                    gunpoint or knife or being beat up by a group (careful
                    with the last case though)
                 \_ The original poster asked about a situation involving
                    him(or her)self, not someone else.  The answers were
                    given in that context.  Learn to read.
                    \_ So what, I asked a related question.
        \_ You will have a surprisingly difficult time if this was done
           not on your property.  It's even worse in Britain, there's a famous
           case of a guy going to prison for shooting a burglar in his home.
             -- ilyas
           \_ happened in LA just a few months ago. You can only use a
              gun in protection of your life, NOT your property in Cali.
              \_ Are you referring to the one where the guy who broke in left
                 when he saw the gun and was running down the street when the
                 owner shot him in the back?
              \_ I am SO fucking out of Cali as soon as I graduate. -- ilyas
                 \_ there's super-cheap land available in the matsu valley.
                    all they talk about in their paper is property rights
                    and you can buy a 0.50 magnum pistol at the 24 hour k-mart.
                    expect to slather your body with DEET for 3 months of the
                    year, though.
                    year, though.  Oh, yeah. and there are NO TAXES! no
                    sales tax, and no state income tax.  they send you
                    a check every year from interest on a fund of money saved
                    up from oil revenue.
                    \_ I was thinking Wisconsin.  Wisconsin's a battleground
                       state, so I can be sure I contribute to a government
                       that will lower taxes, brutalize criminals, despoil the
                       environment, and RULE YOU LIKE A KING. -- ilyas
                    \_ is alaska that bad with mosquitoes? that sucks.
                       \_ it really depends on time of year and how far
                          you are from the ocean, but in the interior in
                          the bad season it's pretty insane.
                          \_ Well, when I think about it there are lots of
                             mosquitoes here in CA. Ran into lots in the
                             Santa Cruz woods and in the some in the Sierras.
                             And we have the West Nile stuff here now.
                 \_ I know--what's up with Cali and all that shite about 'life
                    being valued above property'.  Fucking pansy ass liberal
                    wimps.  Back in the day, not only could you kill a man
                    for stealing your property, if you killed him you were
                    entitled to his property as well.  Bring back the days of
                    the libertarian utopia, I say!!
                    \_ You are confused.  See, criminals, by virtue of not
                       respecting my property rights, give up their rights.
                       For instance, their rights not to be killed like a dog
                       This is why we lock criminals up, and make them
                       work, and don't call that a violation of rights.  Or are
                       prisons a part of a 'libertarian utopia' too?  You make
                       a great impression on behalf of liberals everywhere,
                       buddy.  -- ilyas
                       \_ BWAHAHAHA!  Your prejudices are showing, ilya.
                          I'm not a liberal. I also believe in the right to
                          bear arms, and intend to join the NRA.  It's
                          possible to value life above property (while
                          still believing that criminals should be punished
                          in proportion to their crimes) without being a
                          'liberal'.  You make a great impression on behalf
                          of libertarians everywhere, son.
                          \_ I value life above property too.  Are you saying
                             criminals don't give up rights when they commit
                             crimes?  -- ilyas
                             \_ No, I'm not.  Nevermind, ilya.  Don't worry
                                your pretty little head about it -- just leave
                                California when you graduate, as you suggested
                                \_ So what ARE you saying?  Are you just upset
                                   someone called you a liberal?  Next time a
                                   big guy without a deadly weapon breaks into
                                   your house and starts looting (without
                                   actually threatening your life, just sort of
                                   pushing you away), you make sure to tell him
                                   how much you value life above property.
                                   As far as I am concerned, if you are in my
                                   house without my invitation, your life
                                   depends on my good graces, I prefer to live
                                   in places that let me defend myself.
                                     -- ilyas
                                   \_ like Wisconson!  Live free or die!
                                      MY cheese!
2004/9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33330 Activity:very high
9/3     Serious question for motd conservatives, except for that Freeper

        guy, who I seriously think is nuts:
        Has the Republican Party become the "big government" party these
        days? Bush listed a dozen Great Society programs last night
        that he intends to implement. Now that the Republicans are in
        power, have they discovered that they like government after all?
        \_ Big government is not a part of the republican 'story,' but of
           course they implement certain big government programs.  Sometimes
           it's to get votes (medical stuff), sometimes it's to appear they are
           doing something to respond to a threat, or perhaps for will-to-power
           reasons (homeland security), sometimes it's collusion between
           business and government (subsidies, etc).  Republican big government
           policies are the corrupting delta (the difference between what they
           say and what they do) given our form of government.
           The problem is, democrats will do all these things, but they also
           believe in big government as some sort of principle, so they will
           also do many MORE things.  Fixing things here does not involve
                   \_ What a bunch of rank bullshit.
                   \_ "World would be even more blowed up if Kerry was Prez"
                      \_ Yeah, he would have done something like let Osama get
                         away, fail to secure the ports, or invade a Muslim
                         country and then fail to send enough troops or give
                         them body armor. -knows you were being sarcastic
           voting for someone else, I think, as the flaws are structural in
           the way we run things.  I am beginning to think our problems are
           mostly cultural.  I can't imagine the swiss implementing something
           like homeland security, because they have a long and deep tradition
           of decentralized solutions. -- ilyas (not a fan of big government)
           \_ The Republican camp is responding to both bases of social and
              financial conservatives. For FiCons, they got the lower taxes.
              Then the SoCons get their "Big Government" style agenda items
              passed. These big ticket items (plus the increase in defense
              spending) drop the money available in the general pool. So the
                \_ not in the general economy but in the federal budget which
                   is just fine with me, since its already bloated with crap.
                   the less money the feds have for crap spending, the better.
                   i object to your mixing and hazing out the difference beween
                   the general economy and the gederal budget.  they are not
                   at all the same.
                   \_ I WAS talking about fed budget... Crap is in eye of the
                      beholder. Reps fund their pork same as Dems. However,
                      they aim at removing gov regs to pay for SoCon BG items.
              FiCons cut government funds that regulate business. Plus those
              "BG" items are not always properly funded by the Feds. They
              become unfunded mandates and the states/locals pick up the tab,
              which raises taxes, which brings out new FiCons, who vote in
              more Republicans. The rule has always been unspent money is a
              politician's curse.
              \_ So if the feds pay for it, taxes dont go up but if the states
                 do then taxes have to go up to pay for it?  you have a very
                 fundamentally flawed understanding of where federal money
                 comes from.  ill give you this one: it comes from taxes.
                 \_ No, the Feds DON'T pay for it. But they REQUIRE it. Take
                    "No Child Left Behind." Costs $29B to fund, but feds put
                    little money behind it. States must follow Fed regs so
                    the cost comes from state pockets. State has no money, so
                    it takes it from Counties, who have to raise taxes.
           \_ Hm, usually I think your posts are well-reasoned ilyas but this
              is just a long slimy string of crap.
              \_ I ll be sure to post a short, 2-line string of crap next time,
                 like your good example shows! -- ilyas
           \_ Lemme get this straight... what you are saying is
              that Republicans increase the size of government, though
              they don't belive in doing that, whereas Democrats
              also increase the size of government, but they do believe
              in it. And somehow the former is better? Ok. And how
              exactly does one differentiate between an action that
              one repeatedly does, though does not believe in, with
              an action that one repeatedly does and does believe
              in? Oh, and BTW, the size of government increased
              during the Reagan and Bush II (so far) administrations
              but decreased during the Clinton administration.
              http://csua.org/u/8x1 but don't let the
              facts get in the way of your belief in platitudes.
              \_ Republicans are unprincipled.  Democrats are unprincipled
                 and wrong.  Nader 04, etc.  -- ilyas
                 \_ A democrat would say just the opposite.
        \_ Actually, Bush's big idea is the "ownership society".  Fewer
           handouts, more opportunity.  If you do nothing, there will be less
           of a safety net for you, other than people's and state/local
           governments' (not the federal government's) own charity. -liberal
           \_ Did you even listen to the speech last night? He promised
              more money for K-12, more money for community colleges,
              more money for pell grants and other higher education funding,
              more money to help seniors pay for drug benefits, more money
              for the military, more money for ....
              \_ and more tax cuts!
              \_ Everything you mentioned is consistent with a smaller safety
                 net and increased opportunity.
                 \_ Except the drug benefits, right?
                    \_ Well, since the drug benefits were structured so that
                       the government pays whatever price the drug cos. say,
                       it's really just a giant piece of corporate welfare.
                    \_ Wrong.  It is impossible for most people today to save
                       enough money during their normal life times to pay for
                       their medical expenses post-retirement.  You can thank
                       trial lawyers like John Edwards for a big part of that.
                       \_ Oh. Bull. Shit.  Try HMO and drug company profits.
                       \_ You are trolling, right? You know the numbers
                          show you to be completely uninformed about this
                          issue, yes? Asswipe. --aaron
           \_ The flaw in the meritocratic model that the Repubs tout is that
              the playing field is not even, and not everyone begins with the
              same tools.  If this were the case, then yes, effort and hard
              work would out; the Republican model of believing that anyone
              who works hard can succeed to the highest levels would be true.
              In reality, however, there are already x number of people at the
              top who exert a disproportional effect on who gets to advance
              and who is passed over.  As long as we have old boy networks and
              corrupt politicians, the Republican meritocratic dream will
              remain a fantasy.
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33158 Activity:insanely high
8/26    Why is there still this misconception?  Wouldn't everyone be better
        served if at the least the truth is known?  Quoting from below:
                           \_ "Your media"?  Anyway, some major news
                              organizations (NYT included, I think) did a full
                              manual recount of the state and showed that under
                              most recount rules if there had been a full
                              recount Gore would have won Florida.  Of course
                              this happened several months after the Supes
                              appointed GWB, so by then it was a moot point and
                              it didn't get a lot of press.
                              \_ Actually, you are exactly wrong.  The study
                                 you referred to (done by the National Opinion
                                 Research Center, commissioned by NYT, CNN,
                                 etc.) showed that Bush would have won by
                                 493 votes had there been a recount.  And, no,
                                 it didn't get a lot of play in the media.
                                 \_ Good article and thank you. Your single
                                    statement from it is exactly true but
                                    the article says a great deal more. I
                                    suggest people read it. -- ulysses
                              \_ This NORC???
        \_ Rehashing the recounts is pretty pointless, I'll agree.  But the
           larger concern is Florida's continued registrar shenanigans.
           \_ There is a lot of anger over the recount that is unjustified,
              given the above link.  We can argue over politics, but I hope
              we can all agree there should be more civility in our
              argument.  These kinds of misconception make civility impossible.
        \_ The misconception about how the votes went down in Fl'2k is still
           being perpetrated because the more you tell the big lie, the more
           people will believe it and get mad because they won't do their own
           research into the truth which is that in all the ways the votes
           were being counted and recounted, Gore lost, no one was appointed
           President and it pisses off the left to no end.  Had Gore only won
           his own home state, it wouldn't have mattered what happened in Fl
           \_ You are precisely a victim of the kind of propaganda you decry.
              Read the NORC link above.
              \_ I read it before posting, thanks.  What next?  You're going
                 to tell me that there was a huge conspiracy across Florida
                 between Jeb Bush, the police, and the dog catcher's union to
                 prevent blacks from voting?
                 \_ I would sincerely hope that a Cal CS student would know
                    what precision of measurement is. The above link very
                    clearly shows that Bush won under some methods of
                    counting and Gore under others. Which you still deny,
                    even though the evidence is right in front of your face.
                    You are either 1) insane, 2) lying or 3) unable to
                    read and comprehend English at a 12th grade level.
                    I suspect #1, actually.
                    \_ Gore did not win under any method that was actually
                       being proposed to count ballots.  He won only under
                       a method that neither side suggested which was
                       fabricated by the media counters so people like you
                       could claim there was bizarre circumstance under which
                       Gore won.  Bush won under all the ways the votes were
                       being counted.  By the courts.  Not by the media who
                       was making up more ways to do it, although Bush won
                       under some of those methods as well.
                       \_ This is false as well. By the standards set
                          by the Florida Supreme Court: "one in which there
                          is a clear indication of the intent of the voter"
                          Gore would have won, due to the overvotes that both
                          marked him clearly and had his name written in.
                          This was what the State of Florida law required,
                          but the US Supreme Court ruled that there was not
                          enough time to conduct this recount. Remember that
                          the Bush team did everything it could, both
                          legally and illegally, to delay that recount.
                          Just admit that the vote was "tied" by any
                          reasonable interpretation of the results. In
                          our legal system, "ties" go to the courts to
                          adjudicate. This one belonged in the Florida
                          State Supreme Court, but in a maneuver so suspect
                          that even they claimed that it was not precedent
                          setting, the USSC took it away from them. That's
                          \_ Would you have preferred the method of the
                             1876 election?  Then Bush would have won.
                          the breaks, I say, but it is Constitutionally
                          suspect and the reason there remains a cloud
                          over the results. The Bush Administration from
                          the very start believed that they didn't have
                          to answer to the rule of law. Thanks for
                          reminding me all all that, btw, I am going to
                          donate another $100 to the John Kerry campaign.
                          \_ A Federal election is a state court issue..
                             huh!?  Read article 2 and Amend. 14, the
                             implication is obvious.  The legislature has
                             plenary, manifest authority over the choice of
                             electors - period!  What provision of
                             Federal or Fl. state stature talks about
                             'ties go to the courts' - that statement
                             tells me you have no understanding of
                             the law or intent of the Const. authors.
                             This has been discussed an nasaeum, the
                             decision was 7-2 and Bush won under every
                             possible scenario except the bizarre one you
                             promote.  If one extrapolated these absurd
                             scenarios far enough you could probably make
                             Buchanan win too - he should have sued!!!
                    \_ I would say that the article showed that Gore would
                       have won under the most permissive interpretation of
                       ballots, and Bush under more generally accepted
                       methods of interpretation.
                       \_ Are you the same guy that claims that "in all the
                          way the votes were being counted and recounted
                          Gore lost"?
                          \_ Nope.  I'm the Gore-would-have-won-under-the-
                             everything-else guy.  The in-all-ways guy is
                             someone else.
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:33153 Activity:nil
8/26    Indian tribes are underprivileged?  See how powerful they are:
        http://csua.org/u/8ri (Yahoo! News)
        \_ Um.  We killed almost all of them, wiped out most of their culture
           and language, and took all but the worst parts of their country
           from them.  Don't you think they deserve what they can scrape up?
           \_ Wouldn't Hobbes say we deserve their country?
              \_ And also that they deserve the power they've accumulated now
                 because they've learned to adapt and work the new system.
                 \_ No, no, no, American capitalism and the Free Market are
                    only good when they benefit rich, white Americans.
              \_ Hobbes said a lot of things.  He was kind of a dick.
                 \_ A veritable Leviathan!
        \_ Damned Indian outsourcing!
2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33109 Activity:nil
8/24    The only practical way to eliminate the electoral college system in
        the U.S. is for a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the
        popular vote by 5-10%, and then having the U.S. go to shit.  This may,
        and I stress "may", generate enough support for changing to a
        popular-vote system.
        \_ Interestingly the support is already there, at least in the 1992 and
           1968 polls (check http://Wikipedia.com).  Its just that you need so much
           support to pass a constitutional amendment that its not practical.
           I find it very ironic that the attempt at an amendment to abolish it
           in 1989 passed the house easily but (of course) failed in the Senate,
           where all states have equal representation.  I'm not even sure if
           the scenario you describe would bring enough support from the Senate
           and 3/4s of the states, but maybe.  There's always a Constitutional
           Convention, but given the dangerous nature of such a thing I doubt
           that will ever happen either.
           \_ With a 5% difference, the President will have an expectedly hard
              time claiming a mandate.  With a "small" difference, like 0.5% in
              2000, people will also say "no mandate", but will be overwhelmed
              by others saying "this goes to show that the system works".
2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33102 Activity:insanely high
8/24    Can someone articulate a defense of the Electoral College system?
        \_ Because it makes it harder for a charismatic but evil person from
           gaining a large following in small but densely packed places and
           screwing the other 49.9% of the population.  A republic is more
           stable than a democracy.  Pure democracy will not lead to the
           utopia you dream of.  If we didn't have the EC, candidates would
           campaign in about 2% of the country instead of 18% of the country.
           You think that's a better solution?  Also, since the number of
           people in a state is used to calculate the number of EC votes a
           state has, a Wyoming vote is not substantially different than a CA
           vote.  The big problem in our system is the primaries give a
           disproportionate amount of decision making power to the 3 to 4
           earliest voting primary states, while the last 40 or so are just
           a rubber stamp.
           \_ There is a ridiculous fallacy here--that it's important for
              candidates to campaign in large, empty states, rather than
              in states where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE.  Our president isn't
              answerable to prarie dogs in South Dakota, he's the
              representative of the *people*.  Any system which means that
              he has to appeal to more PEOPLE is an improvement.  -tom
              \_ Pure democracy would leave those people permanently out of
                 the political cycle.  But since they don't share your
                 political view, mostly, that's ok, right?
              \_ The EC simply makes states vote as a bloc. So a given
                 state will have a split vote, but casts its decision as
                 a whole. This gives the state more power. It's still
                 democracy, there are actual people in those states, and
                 the EC prevents state minorities from undermining the
                 decision of the state election. However I don't think the
                 case is made that that the EC makes candidates campaign in
                 more areas. It's just different. Without the EC candidates
                 could pick up votes anywhere. Another problem is states
                 that are too large like CA. In huge states the national
                 voice is reduced in the Senate, and you get too many
                 people without enough common ground. Personally I'm against
                 the EC and think it is outdated since states are too large
                 and diverse to justify consolidating their votes.
                 \_ The current EC system does nothing to discourage
                    candidates from campaigning almost exclusively in urban
                    population centers; in fact, the winner-takes-all set-up
                    encourages it.  In order to win California's whopping
                    55 electoral votes (20% of the number needed to win the
                    election), a candidate's energy is best spent appealing
                    to LA and SFBA, where the vast majority of the voters live.
                    A better system would be much more representative: allot
                    votes to individual counties based on population (and set
                    a minimum such that counties without enough residents get
                    grouped with other counties until they form a large enough
                    population to warrant a vote); then award votes based on
                    who wins the majorities in those counties. In this way,
                    Riverside and the Inland Empire could acutally give one
                    of California's votes to Bush, while Austin could give its
                    three to Kerry. Abolishing the EC is silly, but reforming
                    it is a really good idea.
                    \_ Abolishing would not be silly. What you describe is
                       ok but impractical. Like I said, I think it's outdated
                       and as long as we're apportioning electoral votes
                       based on population, we should be counting the actual
                       votes. But it doesn't bother me much. The primary
                       schedule bothers me a lot more, as well as only
                       needing a plurality.
           \_ Isn't the primary date decided by the state legislature? Why
              doesn't CA move it's primary up to the front of the pack?
              There should be at least one west coast state in the early
              \_ Because our legislature is full of weaklings.  We used to be
                 so far back it didn't matter if we voted.  Then they moved
                 it up a few months.  Now we're so far back it doesn't matter
                 if we vote.  Uhm... yeah!
           \_ ... but it makes it easier for a charismatic but evil person
              to succeed while screwing the other side which got more votes.
              \_ Please.  Don't start with the butterfly ballot again.
        \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College  (have phun)
        \_ Gives mostly empty states in the center of country actual
           influence as opposed to being totally neglected? Other than that,
           the electoral college system sucks.
           \_ how is giving mostly-empty states a good thing?
              \_ Because they're citizens, too?  Because they should have some
                 say in how their country is run?  But, wait, those are mostly
                 conservative areas.  NO FREE SPEECH FOR FASCISTS!
              \_ That's where we keep the nuclear weapons.  We don't want to
                 encourage them to seccede.
                 \_ The greater the space per capita, the less likely a state
                    will succeed in seceeding.
        \_ People in Wyoming are more important than people in California. -tom
             \_ Yes.  They are.  And?
             \_ yeah, maybe if the succeed then they'll be rich by
                selling us food at extreme prices
                \_ Is there much farming in Wyoming?  Farmers spend a LOT of
                   money on fertilizers and pesticides.
                    \_ well. tons of cattle and horses which produce
                        shit to make fertilizer , and also beef
                       \_ But the cows are generally fed corn, which I don't
                          think they grow a lot of in Wyoming, and it is mostly
                          produced with nitrogen-rich fertilizers made from
                          \_ The cows are grass fed in Wyoming (duh).
           \_ Now tom, you know this is easy to fix -- just get enough of your
              friends to vote Republican that CA becomes a battleground state
              again.  People will start to pay attention to you! -- ilyas
              \_ I don't have enough stupid friends.  And in any case, even
                 if the presidential candidates bothered to campaign in the
                 most populated and important state in the country, a vote in
                 Wyoming would still count more than a vote in California. -tom
                 \_ The problem is, states fight with each other via the feds.
                    If the US introduced the system you suggest, CA might vote
                    all the water from surrounding states into itself or
                    something like that.  The problem is that states are
                    specific entities from which things can be taken away by
                    law.  You either need to remove states altogether, or give
                    states the legal means to fight for things for their
                    residents.  The electoral college system was a historic
                    compromise, but there was a reason a compromise was
                    needed -- the states didn't trust each other, and with
                    good reason. -- ilyas
                    \_ You're being obtuse.  (Gee, what a surprise).  We're
                       talking about one specific thing--presidential
                       elections.  -tom
                       \_ Why should electing the president have a special
                          exemption from the general system?  The office of
                          the president is another tool the states use to
                          fight each other.  If you think the office of
                          the president only concerns 'the people', why not
                          apply the same reasoning to the rest of the
                          government, say the legislative branch? -- ilyas
                          \_ sorry, you'll have to find someone more gullible
                             to chase your red herring. -tom
                             \_ You are a prisoner of the running 'narrative'
                                on wall, Tom. -- ilyas
                 \_ No, you moron, it doesn't. The ratio of voters per electoral
                    vote may be smaller in Wyoming, but Wyoming is, like CA,
                    a first-past-the-post state. Your vote may count more
                    towards tipping the electoral votes in Wyoming than it
                    does in CA, but Wyoming also has a lot less electoral
                    votes as a state. Your vote doesn't directly correspond
                    to an electoral vote, but to a slate of votes. Depending
                    on how the state's race is shaping up and how the national
                    election is shaping up, your vote has more or less power
                    in any given situation. If CA is a battleground state and
                    Wyoming isn't, your vote is actually MORE significant in
                    CA than it is in Wyoming. --williamc
                    \_ gee, idiot, when 480K people (.16% of the population)
                       decide on 3 electoral votes (.56% of the electoral
                       college), their votes have more weight than when 35
                       million people (11.7% of the population) decide on
                       55 electoral votes (10.2% of the electoral college).
                       Try taking a math class.  -tom
                       \_ 35 million?  No.  Drop the illegal aliens and only
                          count registered voters and the numbers change
                          dramatically.  Try taking a civics class.
                          \_ Are you contending that there are fewer than
                             8 million US citizens in California?  That's
                             what it would take for CA's representation in
                             the electoral college to be proportional to
                             Wyoming's.  -tom
                       \_ We are the UNITED STATES of America. The States
                          make up the UNION. Not the other way around.
                          The states must be accorded their rights as
                          equal sovereign powers. Dealings btw them must
                          be done with recognition of their positions as
                          equals (look up "full faith and credit"). The
                          EC is a compromise, it gives every state as
                          close to an equal say in the selection of the
                          Chief Executive as is possible. [why was this
                          \_ Your last sentence is complete hogwash.  An
                             equal say would have Wyoming choosing .16% of
                             the electors, and California choosing 11.7%.
                             Are you going to try to claim again that
                             states have rights?  -tom
                                \_ What part of equality of sovereign
                                   powers do you not understand?
                                   Wyoming has 2 senators and 1
                                   congressman, thus it has three
                                   votes in selecting the Chief Exec.
                                   California has many more people
                                   hence it gets proportionately more
                                   congressmen, which translates to
                                   proportionately more votes in the
                                   EC which means more votes when
                                   selecting the Chief Exec. Maybe
                                   Wyoming gets a little bit more
                                   than an equal say b/c its pop.
                                   is smaller than the min.
                                   threshold for two congressmen.
                                   This is why the EC is as close
                                   to a completely equitable
                                   system as is possible given
                                   the foundation of the republic.
                                   Its seems to me that based on
                                   your logic, Wyoming should have
                                   no representation at all b/c they
                                   have hardly any people. That
                                   is not how it works for good
                                   Yes, states have rights. Let's
                                   give you an example that you
                                   can understand. You ride your
                                   bike to Nevada. While riding
                                   around you happen to crash it
                                   into the window of a health
                                   food store. You get up and
                                   ride back to California.
                                   Nevada courts have the right
                                   to haul you, a non-resident,
                                   into court to answer the
                                   charges. You can choose
                                   not to appear, but that will
                                   just mean a judgment by def.
                                   If Nevada didn't have any
                                   rights/power, how could they
                                   drag you into court? Think
                                   about that.
                 \_ Republican: stupid.  Stupid: Republican.  It all makes
                    sense to me now.  Half the country is simply stupid because
                    they don't agree with tom.  All Hail Leader Tom!
                    \_ Well, if you're Republican, that at least would be one
                       example.  Try reading it again.  -tom
                       \_ All Hail Great Educator Leader Tom!
        \_ Imagine Florida 2000 across THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.  Be grateful for the
           Electoral College.
           \_ I hope you realize that most democratic countries manage to
              hold elections where the popular vote determines the winner and
              they can actually count the votes properly.
           \_ Actually, if we had Florida 2000 across the entire country, we
              would have each state supreme court ruling on recounts in their
              own state.  On the other hand, if we didn't have an electoral
              college system, and we had Florida 2000 in all 50 states,
              assuming 500-vote margins for Bush x 50 would mean Bush would
              win the popular vote and the Presidency by 25,000 votes.
              \_ Congratulations.  You managed to make a good point at first
                 and then squander it in taking the example to its illogical
                 \_ How so?  Because he can do math?
                    \_ He's probably annoyed because "Florida 2000" also means
                       assorted election hijinks by Jeb and friends, and I
                       didn't mention that but ended with a popular vote win
                       for Bush in each state and overall, which doesn't make
2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33090 Activity:insanely high
8/24    Question on voting absentee ballot.  I am currently working overseas,
        but I am still can vote.  But which State am I supposely voting for?
        Last time I registered to vote was in California, does it mean I
        am voting a California absentee ballot?

        If, let say, I decided to make my vote more meaningful by asking
        my uncle to register vote for me in OHIO, does it mean I can vote
        absentee in behalf of Ohio resident?
        \_ Right now you're registered in the last state you registered in,
           so you're a California voter.  In order to register in Ohio, you'll
           probably need to furnish an Ohio address as your permanent address.
           You can then vote absentee in Ohio... and pay Ohio taxes, get flyers
           from Ohio candidates, etc., etc.
           Check out http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/voter for more info.
        \_ Try to register in ALL the states, and see who rejects you.
           Maybe you could vote 50 times!  It's all ok, as long as
           you're voting for Kerry!
           \_ Absentee votes always lean towards the Republicans.  Now it
              makes sense.  -tom
              \_ Always?  What makes sense?  We already knew that Republican
                 equals Evil and Evil equals Republican.  What more did you
                 need to know about the world?  Everything I needed to know
                 about politics I learned from the wall/motd.
              \_ the reason is that most absentee are people in the arm forces
                 I am not, and I am trying to make democrat to carry Ohio.
                 my uncle lives in Ohio, i could easily use his address
                 as permanet address.  State taxes doesn't really apply to
                 ex-pats, and I pay my share of federal income taxes. --OP
                 \_ So, you're going to lie?
                    \_ Being a good liar is a strong "motd-conservative" value,
                       such as lying to the police officer about how you shot
                       and killed a clearly unarmed person because you
                       "thought" he was pulling a gun.
                 \_ California expects you to pay state taxes even if you're
                    an ex-pat.  Also, remember that Ohio requires you to reside
                    in Ohio for a month before you're eligible to register for
                    an absentee ballot.  I don't know how they check these
                    things (if at all), but you should do some more research
                    before you inadvertantly commit election fraud.
                    \_ It doesn't sound all that inadvertant.
           \_ Especially if you're dead and voting for Kerry or you're one of
              the people in Pennsylvania who took Gore to over 100% in some
              voting districts.
              \_ Do you have a link for this story?
                 \_ Which story?  That dead Deomcrats in Chicago turned the
                    Kennedy/Nixon election or that Gore received more than
                    100% of the vote in some precincts in Penn. in 2k?
                    \_ I was interested in the Penn. story.
                       \_ I read it on The Free Republic, it has to be true!
                          \_ No, I watched the returns come in that night.
                             \_ Anything that happens in Pennsylvania: EVIL!
                                Anything that happens in Florida: GOOD!
        \_ I also last voted in CA and have no legal association with Ohio or
           Florida, just like you.  I'd also like to vote in another state,
           just like you.  Why can't we all vote absentee in a state we've
           never lived in?  I'm absent from Ohio, too, right?  Duh!
           \_ if you actually live in USA, then, there will be some
              complication in terms of taxations, etc, etc.  The problem is
              less severe if you live outside the USA, absent from all
              the states.               -OP
        \_ Check out this link for info on how you can get your absentee
           ballet oversees:
           \_ thanks  --OP
2004/8/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33085 Activity:nil
8/23    http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/23/news/election_models/index.htm?cnn=yes
        models predict the election result
        \_ "Despite an embarrassing failure in their forecasting four years
           ago ..."
2004/8/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33076 Activity:nil
8/23    Old, but summarized:  Florida felon can't-vote list includes
        highly disproportionate number of black voters, but only 50 Hispanic
        names, in a state where 1 in 5 residents is Hispanic.  ("Hispanic
        names" is a superset of Cuban, which votes heavily GOP).  Total
        size of list is 50,000 names.
2004/8/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33071 Activity:high 50%like:32491 50%like:33002 50%like:35669
8/22    Vote early, but most especially, vote often!
        \_ 68% of double voters are Democrats (18% republican, 16%
           independant) but they use 2 republicans, 1 democrat, and 1
           unmentioned as examples, and they talk about one of the
           republicans twice.  Hmm...
           \_ And 68% (or thereabouts) of total voters are registered
              democrats...  Hmm...  Maybe there's a large portion of
              people on BOTH sides that are not cleared from their
              former states of residence...
              \_ No, all the dead registered Democrats don't count except in
                 places like Florida, Chicago, and certain precints in
                 Penn. where Gore received more than 100% of the vote.
           \_ Nope!  No left wing media bias here!  No, sirree!
           \_ No, those percentages were poeple who registered twice.  The
              examples were people who actually voted twice.  Who knows if
              numbers are the same.  For a while I was reigistered in two
              states because I didn't even think I'd have to unregister
              I assumed there was some system to do that.  I never actually
              voted in two states at the same time.
              \_ Hmm, with 68% (D) doubled registered vs 18% (R) doubled, 2
                 double voting (R) and 1 double voting (D) means that (R)
                 are roughly 7x more likely to double vote!  Republicans: evil,
                 Democrats: good!
           \_ I don't suppose there might be some non-scandalous explanation
              like Democrats move state to state more often while conservatives
              are more likely to stay put.
              \_ Republicans: good, democrats: evil!
              \_ They only checked New York and Florida.  Most Jews are
                 \_ Jews are EVIIIIILLLLLL!!!! Unless they are in Isreal and
                    kicking Palestinian ass, in which case they are GOOOOOODDDD!
                    because they are bringing about the Apocalypse!!!!
                    \_ Is encouraging the Apocalypse akin to promoting suicide?
                       \_ No, because true believers will have everlasting life
                          \_ Well, that and we'll all be taken up in the
                             rapture. It's all YOU jerks who die.
                             --I agree with Paul
                             \_ Nope, the Gupper's full.
                             \_ Through the destruction of the nonbelievers,
                                shall you achieve Eternal Paradise. Yum!! Full
                                of Creamy Christian Goodness!
                                \_ Ummm... no.  That's creamy Muslim
                                   goodness.  In the Christian case, you
                                   aren't allowed to kill non-believers
                                   yourself, but it's ok for God to kill
                                   \_ But working for the Apocalypse is trying
                                      to force God's hand. Is that good or bad?
2004/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33066 Activity:very high
8/21    Motd survey: did you pay your CA use tax this year?
        no: ..
        \_ you forgot to ask whether we live in CA or not.
           \_ You are special, aren't you.
2004/8/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33041 Activity:very high
8/20    So I was doing a dumbass experiment last night, as nerds are wont to
        do.  Say we have a three-state nation, with 10,000 people in each
        state, and 1 electoral vote for each state.  You need 2 out of 3
        electoral votes to win.  Let's say Kerry wins 100% of state 1.
        Let's say Dubya wins 5,001 votes in states 2 and 3.  Dubya wins
        the Presidency with 2 out of 3 electoral votes, and Kerry wins
        the popular vote with 19,998 votes to 10,002 votes, or 2 : 1.
        If you do the same experiment with 51 states of 10K people each,
        you obtain a ratio of 2.92 : 1 -- or 25% of the nation elected
        the President although 75% of the nation voted for the other guy.
        I offer no opinion - it's just a dumbass experiment.
        \_ Good thing we have the congress instead of an elected monarchy.
        \_ Yes, we knew this along, which is why it's pointless to vote
           in a non-battleground state. I mean, you're just realizing this?
           Have you people actually attempted to stay awake in your
           High School U.S. History and Government classes?
           \_ No, I know you all realized the electoral college system will
              give and has given in the most recent election presidencies to
              those without the popular vote.
              However, not all of you may have worked out the related basic
              math experiment.
              And actually, I suggest that all Kerry voters in California
              turn out, and all Dubya voters stay home, just because it
              would be funny if we ended up with 55% popular vote to Kerry
              and he lost.
              \_ Actually, I thought 2000 was only the second time ever that
                 someone won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.
                 \_ Four times total.
                    \_ Could you please name them?
                       \_ http://csua.org/u/8ot
           \_ It isn't pointless.  In a non-battleground state, everyone should
              vote for Nader so we can break the two-party system which is
              destroying this country.
              \_ Amen!  Go Nader!  Break the Democrat monopoly on the
                 liberal vote in America! -- ilyas
        \_ one of the nerds who I work with who also likes to do experiments
           like this found a situation in which the electoral college will
           be tied which is based on very reasonable assumptions about how
           the states might actually vote.
           \_ I did this in the LA Times flash tool for assigning votes.
        \_ The electoral college as it is, is undemocratic.  It used to be
           a lot less democratic. The founders didn't really trust 'the people'
           \_ hint: we live in a republic so undemocratic is ok.
           \_ bullshit since 'the mexican people' would be able to
              run the United States just by filing up LA
              \_ Well first around 100 million Mexicans have to sneak in, then
                 become citizens and register to vote.  This will happen
                 sometime after we elect a black lesbian atheist as president.
                 \_ We all knew Condi was doing Dubya just for this!
           \_ It was part of the large state/small state compromise.  Good
              thing too, or the 5 largest metro areas would run everything.
        \_ This has happened in past presidential elections.
        \_ "Some call you the elite.  I call you my base."
           \_ All your base belong to us.
              \_ Get it right if you're going to use this outdated joke.
                 Are your base _are_ belong to us.
                 \_ Get it right if you're going to use this outdated joke.
                    _All_ your base are belong to us.
                 \_ You have no time to troll make your time.
        \_ State 1 voters got screwed.  Voters in states 2 and 3 got their
           issues heard.
           \_ How did State 1 voters get screwed?  There was a system in place
              long before either candidate was born.  This is how we do it.
              Every voting system has flaws.  You just want a system that is
              flawed in a way you believe to be favorable to your candidate.
              What you're missing in your description is that out here in the
              non-theoretical real world of voters, states don't have exactly
              the same number of voters, citizens, electoral votes, etc.  Only
              about half those elible to vote, do.  With only 1/2 "+1" of that
              required for a win, roughly 12.5% of the eligble voting
              population will win the election for either candidate.  The
              problem isn't the electoral college.  It is lack of voter
              participation.  A popular vote of 12.5% or electorally assigned
              12.5% is still a trivial fraction of who could and should be
              \_ No, actually, we're just talking about our thought experiment.
                 No one is advocating a change from the electoral college
                 system.  The real effect of this discussion is that it would
                 be very funny if Dubya lost the popular vote by a significant
                 percentage, and still is re-elected.
                 \_ no, it wouldn't be funny.  -tom
                 \_ uhm, ok, nevermind then.  I still think it's ugly that only
                    12.5% "+1" of the elible potential voters will decide who
                    the next President and all other elected officials will be
                    and similar numbers have done so in the past.  Nevermind,
                    fuck the rest of them if they can't bother to go vote.
           \-Read about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem. That is the main
             result in this area. --psb
             \_ The Theorem applies when there are at least two voters and at
                least three options, but in our presidential election we only
                have two candidates.
                \_ How about adding Nader? State 1: Kerry-10,000. States 2 & 3:
                   Bush-3334, Kerry & Nader-3333 each. Win: Bush. Ratio of 6668
                   vs. 23,332. Wee! Fun! Brought to an insane level it could be
                   4 vs. 29,996. Ah math...
                   \_ You are varying the wrong variable.  If you have 100
                      serious candidates for one position and assume a single
                      election where everyone agrees a plurality is a fair win,
                      you can even more trivially show a win with 1% of the
             \_ I think I already implicitely stated that the scenario isn't
                fair.  I would also claim that the system allows the concerns
                of states 2 and 3 to be addressed more fully, and this is
                an important consideration.  What is more important depends
                whether your greater concern is on state 1, state 2 or 3, or
                states 1+2+3.
                \_ The concern for your issues should be proportional to your
                   population. -- Small-d-democrat
                   \_ It depends on your scope.  If I am unemployed and homeless
                      in Alaska, do I care if the candidate is going to do right
                      by California?  Shoudl I care?  Or do I care more about
                      job programs where I live?
                   \_ It depends on your scope.  If I am unemployed and
                      homeless in Alaska, do I care if the candidate is going
                      to do right by California?  Shoudl I care?  Or do I care
                      more about job programs where I live?
                   \_ Are you seriously advocating pure democracy??
                   \_ This is not fair at all and the founding fathers
                      understood that. Why should lots of hip and trendy
                      SF iPoding linux users whose main concern is the
                      lack of high speed internet and marriage rights for
                      homeless gays with a dope prescription dictate
                      national policy for the poor rural hick farmers
                      with gun racks in the back of their F150s who
                      actually do all the hard work of keeping America
                      fed and clothed?
                      Everyone has valid concerns and the most equitable
                      way to address these is the system we have. Maybe
                      its not perfect but it is the best system we know
                      \_ there are 750K people in SF, which represents
                         about .5% of the electorate.  They wouldn't dictate
                         to people in Wyoming, any more than people in Wyoming
                         dictate to people in SF now, if the electoral college
                         were gotten rid of. And hey, candidates might actually
                         have to campaign to ALL THE PEOPLE instead of just
                         corn farmers in Iowa.  -tom
                         \_ The greater bay area has more people than the state
                            of wyoming but I think wyoming, being a state,
                            should have greater rights than a large city.  Our
                            system does that.  As far as Iowa, change the
                            primary system and no one will give a shit about
                            Iowa or New Hampshire.
                            \_ States don't have rights.  People have rights.
                               \_ Uh, no.
                                  \_ Try actually *reading* that definition.
                                     ""States' Rights" is actually a
                                     misnomer; only the people, in
                                     American constitutional law, hold rights."
                                     And more fundamentally, only people hold
                                     interests; "California" isn't a single
                                     entity with a single point of view.  -tom
                                     \_ I did before posting it.  And?
                               \_ So if states don't have rights, then
                                  what is all that "full faith and credit"
                                  stuff about?
           \_ Well, technically, 100% of State 1 voters got screwed; and
              50.01% of state 2 and 3 voters got their issues heard.
              \_ You are assuming that (to continue the thought experiment)
                 Kerry didn't adjust his message to capture states 2 and 3.
                 A more realistic case would be that, the closer the contest
                 in states 2 and 3, the more the candidate would try to cater
                 to those states.  State 1 got screwed in another way because
                 they were so much in the pocket of one candidate, there is
                 no need for either candidate to address the specific needs
                 of the state.
                 \_ I don't think "adjusting your message" really gets that
                    many votes.  I think most people are in tune to enough
                    sources of information today that if you talk out both
                    sides of your mouth in two different states, the people
                    do hear what was said in the other state and label you
                    a flip flopper.
                 \_ I think this is a case where the persuasiveness of the math
                    exceeds that of your explanation, but that's just IMO.
                    Like I am Dilbert, and you are the PHB.
                    \_ I would claim that my argument on the variablity of the
                       message is not addressed by the mathematical model.
                       How about this?  Let's say a candidate has a platform
                       with some degree of variability.  For states 1, 2, and
                       3, platform A will get you {100,10,10}% of the vote,
                       +/- moe.  Platform B will get you {100, 20, 20}, C
                       {100, 30, 30}, and N {100, 49.99, 49.99}.  Which one
                       should the candidate choose?  Now how about a more
                       realisitic platform N' (since likely N does not exist
                       in the real world), which yields {51, 49.99, 49.99} +/-
                       moe?  Who gets screwed then?
                       \_ I don't know if it's my fault or not, but I really
                          don't understand the above.  Let's say all good
                          people vote for Kerry.  All evil people (who honestly
                          think they're good) vote for Dubya.  100% of state 1
                          residents happen to be good.  50.01% of state 2 and
                          3 residents happen to be evil.  Dubya is elected:
                          100% of state 1 voters got screwed; 50.01% of state
                          2 and 3 voters got their issues heard.
                          \_ I am claiming the existence of a platform N'
                             {51, 49.99, 49.99}% that gives the candidate the
                             best chance to win.  Let's say his starting
                             platform is N, with {100, 55, 55}% of the votes.
                             Then, to get the N', he has to give up 49% of the
                             votes in state 1 in exchange for 10% of the votes
                             in states 2 and 3.  However, the candidate has no
                             chance to win given N, but has a better chance to
                             win with N', so that's a good exchange, and the
                             platform end ups being more targeted towards
                             voters in states 2 and 3 than 1.  The complement
                             happens with the other candidate, whose winning
                             strategy would be a platform that yields {dontcare,
                             50.01, 50.01}.
                             strategy would be a platform that yields {dont
                             care, 50.01, 50.01}.
                             \_ Strong Bad totally needs to come in and kick
                                all of your weakling nerdy asses.
        \_ People in big cities are more likely to engage
           in groupthink, so the electoral college system dilutes
           this effect.
           \_ You have either never lived in a small subruban town, or you
              are being intentionaly evil.  If the former, I salute you:
              keep up the good work and continue to live the good life.  If
              the latter: fuck you--please choke on a donut and die.
2004/8/19 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33023 Activity:nil
8/20    Carly Patterson is cute, I wanna date her.
        \_ even though she's practically a midget?
        Speaking of olympics, is it just me or it seems like the US team
        really sucks this year? First the basketball debacle and then
        all the other crap that followed it?
        \_ We are an Empire in decline. Get used to it.
           \_ Hey are you the same 'nuanced' liberal guy who thought 90% of
              stuff going on in the 'real world' is personal shit and vendettas?
              I applaud you! -- nuanced guy #1 fan
        \_ Of course, she's only 16 years old...
           \_ Mmm, statuatory rape...
              \_ Maybe the OP is 16 also.  We're all undergrads here, right?
                 \_ Actually, you can be 18. The Romeo-Juliet laws in CA allow
                    for two years difference for it not to be statuatory rape.
                 \_ Well, aside from tom, many of us have graduated, but remain
                    active on the motd.
                    \_ "many of us have graduated?!" Dude, I was being
                       sarcastic. Is *anyone* here under 25 at all?
                       \_ I'm 23. -jrleek
                          \_ That's 12 in Mormon-years.
                             \_ Huh?
              \_ Hey, you!  Move to Japan!
                 \_ What's the law in Japan regarding this?  Thx.
                    \_ Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the "age of
                       consent" is 14. If you're really interested, I'm
                       sure you could find it online.
2004/8/19 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33011 Activity:very high
8/19    Can't explain...just read...too funny to explain adequately.
        http://csua.org/u/8ny (yahoo! news)
        \_ The written article is fine, but I demand more from the
           \_ How about "videojournalist"?
              http://www.fittits.com/mary-carey/gal1.html - gal3.html
        \_ yermom wears army boots
        \_ yermom wears army boobs
        \_ This is the third time, recently, i've heard of people complaining
          about this.  And it is such a non-issue.  Army surgeons get almost
          no training in plastic surgery during peace time and there is a huge
          demand for it during war.  Therefor the army makes plactic surgery
          a covered benefit.  the cost of the silicon is damn trivial compared
          to the cost of the Surgeons and Hospital staff that are already there
          \_ And for the implants you have to pay for the parts yourself.
             \_ But the Big Evil Government is taking your money AT GUNPOINT
                to pay to give criminals like Pvt England bigger boots!!
                \_ YOUR BOOBS ARE SO BIG AND TAX FREE!
        \_ Stuff like this is why I love to read the motd.
2004/8/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32936 Activity:insanely high
8/16    Question for soda liberals regarding taxing inheritance.
        The rationale, as I understand it, for taxing inheritance goes as
        follows: "it is not fair that some talentless, unlikeable shmuck has it
        easy in life because their parents were rich, while others, much
        smarter, people have to work hard for everything and still perhaps not
        be as wealthy in the end."  Assume I agree with this.  Let's consider a
        related kind of unfairness.  Some people are born more talented than
        others.  For programmers, being gifted can often translate into orders
        of magnitude difference in performance.  In some sense, this is as
        unfair as being born into money -- it's a complete lottery that
        occasionally rewards unscrupulous shmucks, etc.  Would you support
        tax-on-talent?  Also, (as a purely theoretical add-on) assuming we had
        the technology to do 'talent redistribution', would you support it on
        the same grounds of fairness as income redistribution?
          -- ilyas
        \_ people who make money based on their talent get taxed on it.
           what a stupid premise.  -tom
           \_ Sure but talent brings less tangible benefits -- the respect of
              your peers, academic recognition, etc.  Same with things like
              attractiveness, having perfect pitch, etc.  Perhaps same with
              things like being a white male in american society.
              Does a certain equalization not seem in order, on grounds of
              fairness? -- ilyas
              \_ look, I'm sorry you got stuck with that brain, but really
                 there's nothing that can be done about it.  -tom
                 \_w00t!  Go tom!
              \_ [ ad hominem deleted ]
              \_ you mean like all the promotions, respect and recognition
                 John Nash got?  Talent alone desn't get you shit.  I've
                 seen some pretty brilliant people basically waste away
                 because  that's all they had.  This is fundamentally different
                 from simply being born into the right family in that to
                 get rich from talent always requires some effort.
                 \_ Nash's was a sad story with a relatively happy ending.
              \_ Tom's point is succinct and exact. Everything below it
                 is blather. Kill this thread now, because you have been
                 \_ I agree.  One thing that can be added to the discussion
                    is the well-known American notion of the safety net, which
                    is supposed to provide hard-working individuals in
                    hard times with something to live by.
        \_ fairness is just part of it.  resources should be managed by more
           capable and hardworking people.  you don't want it to be like good
           king passing throne to idiot lazy son.  why do you keep asking
           these very basic questions.
           \_ They may be basic to you, but they are not basic to me.  I will
              ask about reasons other than fairness some other time.  I am
              interested in fairness today.  I did hear fairness given as a
              justification for income redistribution in general, and for
                                \_ wealth redistribution
              inheritance tax in particular.  Thus, I am curious how far this
              commitment to fairness goes.  -- ilyas
              \_ Simply put, material things, yes.  Innate qualities, no.
                 Also, harm to one person is only done to benefit another.
                 Making me blind will not help a blind person.
                 \_ Ok, but assume you were smart and another person was dumb,
                    and there was a way to 'suck your smart out' and give some
                    of it to the dumb person, so now both of you are 'average.'
                    Will you support that?  Also you not being as dumb as the
                    other guy _is_ hurting him, since you can compete more
                    effectively for things he wants (jobs, mates, etc.) -- ilyas
                    \_ I *am* my intelligence.  I am not my inheritance.
           \_ ilyas just wants to lead dumb people into arguing with him by
              creating arguments based upon false dichotomies.
        \_ Oh boy, here we go again.
        \_ IMO, this question should be written with less of a sense that op
           is superior to potential responders, e.g.:
           "Tax on inheritance (some people inherit money, some don't).
            Tax on talent (some people inherit talent, some don't).
            How can you support one and not the other?"
           \_ Where did you get this from?  I don't consider myself superior to
              responders, otherwise I wouldn't try to debate.  Debate has to be
              between equals or it's not a debate but a lecture.  -- ilyas
              \_ Then why does it sound like a lecture, although it is
                 intended as debate? (rhetorical question)
                 \_ I am asking questions, not normally a part of a lecture.
                    Would you feel more at ease if I used broken english next
                    time like Chicom troll? -- ilyas
                    \_ Socratic method.  It is a style which sounds like it
                       is coming out of a classroom, with you as the
                       instructor, does it not?
                       \_ You know, your short version is socratic by that
                          reasoning.  Maybe you just don't like to read long
                          paragraphs. -- ilyas
                          \_ ilyas, please argue in good faith, that is,
                             recognize the merits of what other individuals
                             are pointing out to you.  Be humble.  Don't
                             sound like you know it all, especially on
                             something that's debatable.  I know you're
                             talking to the liberals, but please try.
                             \_ Like one of tom's clever zingers above? -- ilyas
                                \_ His first post was fine.  The part about the
                                   brain, well, that WAS on a personal level.
                                   \_ Right, so let's compare.  What _could_
                                      have been said: 'I believe unfairness
                                      due to talent is remedied appropriately
                                      by taxation, and no other remedy is
                                      needed' and/or 'integrity of the self is
                                      more important than fiscal fairness.'
                                      Instead I get a bunch of personal shit.
                                      Why are you lecturing ME about how _I_
                                      sound.  Go lecture tom and the liberal
                                      goonsquad about arguing in good faith.
                                      You can say what you will about how
                                      I argue, but I at least try to stay
                                      civil.  -- ilyas
                                      \_ I argue that anyone would get a
                                         virulent response if they posted with
                                         "question for soda liberals" with an
                                         intention to compare inheritance taxes
                                         with a talent tax.  It makes us all
                                         sound stupid, like we can't get the
                                         obvious similarity between the two,
                                         when in fact there is a substantive
                                         \_ Right, why don't you channel your
                                            concern for the quality of motd
                                            posts into where it's needed most.
                                              -- ilyas
                    hard times with something to live on.
        \_ You mistake the argument. It's not that those inheriting are
           unworthy, but successive generations can create a concentration of
           money which is akin to inheriting political power. This is (or was)
           inconsistant with American ideals. Isn't it better that the wealth
           of individuals be based on their individual talents, acumen, luck,
           and work ethic? Besides even with taxes, families are left far from
           destitute. In addition, vast wealth is made on the backs of a stable

           government and the goodwill of the public. Redistibuting that wealth
           after the death of that recipient of public graciousness will
           promote the betterment of Society in general, and, through our
           government, offer a chance for other dynamic individuals to succeed
           and advance our society as a whole. Talent, unlike income or wealth,
           cannot be accurately measured or determined from one point of time
           to another leading to a completely subjective scale. As a point of
           taxation, it would be impossible to use as a measure, thus unfair.
           \- this touches on some deep questions in political philosophy.
              you may wish to look up "wilt chamberlain argument" and
              read "anarchy state and utopia" and the article "the procedural
              republic and the unencumbered self". my short version of the
              "problem with inquity" is that people change the rules of the
              game and in some cases equality seem more more desireable
              than efficientcy ... it's is ok to pay the talented programmer
              more, but should he be given a priority in a heart transplant?
              \_ "Only if it's me or someone I know" is the problem answer.
           \_ Vast wealth does not require a stable government or the good
              will of the public.  If it did then only peaceful democracies
              would have rich people.
              \_ This is a stupid (and fallacious) argument.
                 \_ That wasn't even a good dodge.  Your reply is useless and
                    makes no counter point at all.  If it was really so
                    stupid and fallacious you should be able to trivially
                    refute it in the space you used to descend to the personal.
           \_ Alright, first thank you for a good reply.  Second, let's look at
              the situation using your argument.  'Talent' is clearly an
              inherited thing, although its inherited through a less
              deterministic mechanism than money, etc.  Talent can also cause
              you to make more money, possibly very quickly.  Money can be
              used as a way of obtaining political power.  Does this not mean
              that simple genetic inheritance of traits useful in modern
              society is contrary to the American ideal of prohibiting the
              inheritance of political power (although admittedly in a less
              direct way than inheriting money). -- ilyas
              \_ [your wish is my command]
              \_ You are selectively taking one part of his argument
                 and hammering on that, while overlooking the rest.
                 Is there any precedent for taxing of intangable assets
                 like knowledge? Do you get taxed if you learn something
                 from reading a book?
                 \_ Dude, I am not even disagreeing with him.  I just want to
                    know where he stands.  If he thinks talent is against
                    American ideals, that's interesting.  If he thinks
                    talent is different from money in this respect, that's
                    also interesting.  Why is everything about violence with
                    you?  Relax.  We are having a nice chat. -- ilyas
                    \_ "I'm calmer than you are, Dude." Seriously, what's
                        your answer to my question, Mr. "I always debate
                        in good faith?" Taxation of inheritence is an obvious
                        extension of taxation of other forms of income. What
                        would be an analog to taxation of talent? What is an
                        example when some similar intangible asset is taxed?
              \_ As stated, talent may or may not be inherited and may or may
                 be a learned trait. However, the American ideal does not
                 FORCE inheritants to follow in the steps of their parents.
                 Not all of the talented have the desire, will, luck, or work
                 ethic to find monetary or political success using their
                 talents. This make it a fallacy to tax talent before some form
                 of success and assumes that even a successful use of talent
                 automatically leads to monetary success. Taxation of assumed
                 talent leads to a tyranny of those who "judge" and makes
                 sons and daughters slaves to their parents' legacy. This
                 belies the judgement of individuals on their own merits, while
                 not always socially possible, but held as an American ideal.
        \_ it's easy to put a price tag on an inherited house; it's harder
           to put a price tag on talent.  Sometimes the value of "talent"
           is negative -- e.g. if you accept that "talent" is correlated
           with a higher risk of suicide.  Would Alan Turing owe money
           to the government, or does he deserve a refund?  -- misha.
           \_ I am not sure the value of Turing's talent is negative... and
              he surely didn't end up like he did because he was talented, but
              because he was gay (and the UK gvt were assmonkeys).  It's true
              that it's hard to put a value on
              talent, but let's say we could, and let's say its usually
              positive (both big assumptions). -- ilyas
              \_ I do not agree with your assumptions.  I do not see how
                 you can defend any specific tax amount -- e.g. in Turing's
                 case.  -- misha.
                 \_ You may have noticed that this isn't an entirely practical
                    question to begin with.  I am curious about an underlying
                    moral commitment, so I am asking about a non-real situation
                    where we _had_ a way to accurately determine value.  If
                    you don't like that setup, how about sticking a big alarm
                    in smart people's ear, and weights on graceful people's
                    legs, like in that Kurt Vonnegut story, so we get a level
                    playing field?  I am curious, ultimately, about where the
                    quest for a level playing field ends, and boundaries
                    (be they for property, integrity of the self, etc.) begin.
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ I would argue that many in the far left ARE in
                       favor of an inherited talent tax, although they
                       wouldn't put it that way. How much education your
                       parents had is taken into account in Affirmitive
                       action stuff, since it's true statistically that
                       people who's parents are educated will tend to be
                       educated themselves.
                       \_ That seems grossly unfair.  My family makes sure
                          to send all their kids to the best schools they
                          can no matter how much it hurts the rest of the
                          family so it seems only right to take race into
                          account when deciding things like FA.
                    \_ Assuming a perfect method of measuring talent, there
                       should be no way of forcing individuals to exploit that
                       talent against their will. Comparing money to talent as
                       a concept is flawed. It's force vs. potential energy.
                       The waste of talent, while tragic, is not enough to
                       destroy an individual's rights. Vonnegut takes the
                       wrong extreme POV. Instead of disadvantaging the
                       talented, society should aid the disadvantaged.
        \_ Liberals are in favor of inheritance tax as long as they don't
           have to pay it.  For example: Ted Kennedy.
2004/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Finance/Investment] UID:32934 Activity:nil
8/16    Yermom: discuss
        \_ Yo mama so dumb she thinks posting the same troll every day for
           weeks on end will actually change someones vote.
        \_ Yo mama smells so bad, Saddam tried to drop her on the Kurds!
2004/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:32931 Activity:high
8/16    Orson Scott Card rambling book review/essay, that eventually comes
        to an interesting synthesis between republican and Democrat views
        on the war on terror.
        \_ Hi emarkp!
           \_ WRong, but nice try. -op
           \_ Indeed, I hadn't even seen this article yet (though I read the
              column, the current one was just posted).  -emarkp
        \_ Wait, let me get my hat and my magic stones!
           \_ Hi aaron!
              \_ Hi ilyas!
2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32894 Activity:nil
8/13    Hahahahahahaha - The http://cnn.com Quick Vote on the front page is:
        "Would you vote for a gay politician?  (Yes) (No)"
        Guess what the breakdown is ...
        \_ I'd be more interested in "Do you think *your* governor is a
           closeted homosexual?"
        \_ See, I find questions like this sketchy, since while I have
           nothing in particular against gay people, I have yet to meet
           one that I agree with politically.
2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32858 Activity:very high
8/12    Same sex marriage nullified, yeah!!
        \_ Why is this even a surprise. Newsome himself knew this would
           happen. He carried out the marriages because:
           1) he wanted to shed his image as a prviliged yuppie by breakin'
              the law
           2) he was pandering
           \_ Do you honestly believe that being a pimp helps you get
              votes in San Francisco? Or do you mean pander in the more
              general "this guy is appealing to a group I don't like"
              lazy incorrect fashion that some politicians like to use?
              \_ Wow, like this isn't even a good troll.
           3) increased revenue from all the licenses
              \_ Now I know you're joking. SF collected $200k from the
                 4000 couples. Compare that to the city budget of $5B.
                 Less than 4/1000s of a percent.
           4) increased tax revenue from all the rings and wedding cakes and
           If he really cared about the issue, he would have challenged this
           through the courts.
           \_ You think he handed out gay marriage licenses to get increased
              revenue from the the licenses and wedding cake sales?  You're
              friggin nuts.  I don't agree with the pro gay marriage thing,
              but I think you're even nuttier.
              \_ No, I think the primary reason (the one which I listed first
                 for a reason and the one you didn't comment on) was to
                 project an image of a rebel, since Gonzales made it a closer
                 election than anyone expected. I think the increased revenue
                 from gay tourists flocking to the City was just icing.
           \_ Can't agree more.  I'm not against gay marriage, but I'm against
              breaking the law, especially while representating a govt body.
        \_ Whew!  That's good, 'cause I was about to start smokin' pole any
        \_ Libertarians to thread...
           \_ I think the libertarian position on gay marriage is that
              marriage is between two people or two people and their church,
              and government shouldn't have anything to do with it one way
              or the other.  Is that about right?
              \_ I doubt that's right--there are legal aspects around things
                 like inheritance which can't be decided by the church.
                 \_ Sure they can.  The old Church said you should give
                    everything to them to avoid going to Hell.
              \_ Probably, but some of the local Libertarians go through some
                 amazing contortions to toe the Republican party line...
                 \_ The government is the recording authority.  Beyond that, it
                    should get out of the business of deciding who or what can
                    marry and leave that up the the individuals involved.  Is
                    that the Republican line?
                    \_ no, it isn't.
                 \_ As a (R) the last thing I want is Libertarians at my party.
        \_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
           nullified.  Everyone should be glad about this, or any Mayor could
           start changing state law any way he or she pleased.
           start changing state law any way he or she pleased.  (this was the
           original text of the comment below)
           \_ Agreed.  If you don't like the law, change it, don't break it.
              Especially don't make a City break the law.
        \_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
           nullified.  Everyone should be glad about this, or any man could
           start marrying any dog or box turtle he pleases,
           \_ By reading this post, why do I feel like I've gone back in time
              50 years?
              \_ Because you've missed the point. The courts ruled that the
                 marriages were carried out illegally. Rather than challenging
                 the definition of marriage through the courts, Newsom took
                 the law into his own hands. The above poster is basically
                 saying he's glad any other mayor cannot now just take the law
                 into his own hands to marry whatever to whomever. You probably
                 also thinkthat Clinton got impeached for receiving a bj.
                 \_ lol.  I can't believe you fucking guys.  All we ever hear
                    from you is the evils of "activist judges" legislating
                    from the bench, and now you want it challeneged through
                    the courts?  man, this would be hilarious if i didn't
                    have to share a country with you fuckers.
                    \_ Please tell me this is some kind of troll.  No one here
                       could really be THIS dumb, could they?
                       \_ It's pretty dumb.  Please read my response below:
                    \_ These judges are enforcing existing law; if they were
                       "activist", they would leave the marriages legal.
                       That's what you get from the first look at it.
                       On a second look, any conscientious judge would feel
                       ashamed 50 years from now to take part in enforcing
                       the no-gay-marriage law, as it is clearly a "separate
                       but equal" issue; and "separate but equal" has been
                       shown to violate the Constitution.
                       \_ What "no-gay-marriage" law?
                          \_ The federal DOMA as well as the California state
                             initiative.  Everyone knows these laws are
                             unconstitutional - why do you think there's a
                             rush to desecrate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hamend the
                             constitution before the Supremes take a look at
                             \_ Nonono, you got it all wrong:  Gay marriage
                                desecrates the sanctity of Marriage!
                                \_ Sanctity is a religious concept.  Here in the
                                   USA, we have a secular government.  Religion
                                   is a private matter.  Why is this so hard for
                                   some people to understand?  If you really
                                   want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.
                                   \_ Inasmuch as Jefferson wrote volumes on
                                      separation of church and state, he is
                                      only one guy, and there is a good
                                      argument that the U.S. was founded on
                                      Christian values and the belief in God.
                                      Between having a government where
                                      mentioning religion in a public place
                                      is illegal, and the "establishment of
                                      religion" clause, there is a lot of room.
                                      \_ It clearly was not "founded on
                                         Christian values". The republican
                                         concepts were lifted from classical
                                         (pagan) philosophy. Christian values
                                         involve strong church authority. They
                                         don't mention anything Christian,
                                         but merely the generic "God" and
                                         "creator" which signify nothing.
                                         \_ They do?  What about Protestants?
                                            The whole issue with Protestants was
                                            rebellion against Church authority.
                                            You are spouting, my friend.
                                              -- ilyas
                                         \_ If it is so clear to you, please
                                            show me evidence that this country
                                            was founded on classical (pagan)
                                            philosophy without regard to
                                            the dominant Protestantism at
                                            the time.  I also think this
                                            sentence is flat out wrong:
                                            "Christian values involve strong
                                            church authority."  C'mon.  We
                                            have Christian values throughout
                                            the U.S. today, and there is no
                                            strong church authority.
                       \_ BZZT!  Homosexuals have the same right to marriage
                          as any straight person.  They have the legal right to
                          marry someone of the opposite sex.  The law does not
                          care about love or personal taste or desire.  The
                          law is only about strict factual concepts like your
                          gender, age, and race in regards to equality issues.
                          \_ Sexual orientation is, for the vast majority of
                             cases, something someone is born with.  Over time,
                             it will be more concretely established in U.S.
                             law that it deserves the same level of protection
                             as gender, race, and age -- because it is
                             something someone is born with.
                             \_ Url on the statistics on that?  Or is this just
                                a liberal article of faith?
                 \_ actually, I think it was the part about the dog and box
                \_ Its possible to both support Newsom's actions and the actions
                   of the court.  You may wish to look up the definition of
                   "civil disobedience."
                    \_ You may wish to take English 1A again. Box-turtle guy
                       explains why he thinks this is good news. Critic calls
                       box-turtle guy intolerant slut. All I said was that
                       box-turtle guy's statement doesn't have anything to do
                       with intolerance and everything to do with following
                       legal procedures.
                       \_ The fact that you don't think there's anything
                          intolerant about comparing an expression of love
                          between two human beings to an expression of "love"
                          between a man and a turtle is quite revealing.
                          \_ Love has nothing to do with marriage.  Marriage
                             is a legal state that all people have equal access
                             to.  All people have the legal right to marry
                             someone of the opposite sex.  There is no equal
                             rights issue here.
                             \_ Love has nothing to do with marriage?  Boy,
                                I REALLY hope you're not married.
                       \_ Actually, all I said was that the dog and turtle
                          part sounded like it came from a stodgy old guy
                          from 50 years ago with the thick-rimmed glasses.
                          \_ It actually came from a guy who's covered in
                             KY and feces.
                             \_ Actually, it came from some jerkoff (pun
                                intended) who change my original post.
                    \_ Civil disobedience isn't an elected official ignoring
                       the law.  It's private citizens disobeying the law.  A
                       Mayor's job is to enforce the law, and if he's unwilling
                       to enforce it, he should step aside and act as a private
                       \_ This is a stretch when we are talking about San
                          Francisco, and I think you know it.
                          \_ Just because San Francisco is full of wackos
                             doesn't mean it's elected officials shouldn't be
                             held to their oaths.
                             \_ I think you're stretching, and I still think
                                you know it ...
                                \_ I'm not the above person who thinks SF is
                                   full of whackos, but he does have a point.
                                   Consider racist southern sheriffs who would
                                   refuse to enforce the law against whites
                                   who attacked and murdered blacks.
                                   \_ What about an activist sherriff before
                                      emancipation who refused to track down
                                      escaped slaves, or refused to prosecute
                                      the people who helped slaves escape?
                                      \_ Slavery is a way of making people
                                         unequal and is thus a violation of
                                         the Constitution's equal rights
                                         sections.  Allowing marriage only
                                         between those of the opposite sex is
                                         not a violation.  All adults are
                                         allowed to marry someone of the
                                         opposite sex and not marry someone of
                                         the same sex.  This law is applied
                                         equally to all people.  No issue here.
                                         \_ "The law, in its majestic equality,
                                             forbids the rich as well as the
                                             poor to sleep under bridges, to
                                             beg in the streets, and to steal
                                             bread."  --Anatole France
                                         \_ Scuse me, Junior Scalia, but I think
                                            your legal analysis is a wee bit
                                            lacking here.  But thanks for
                                            posting it three times, repetition
                                            definitely increases the
                                            effectiveness of your arguments.
                             \_ Not to be too weasely or anything but he took
                                an oath to uphold the law, and made a
                                calculated judgement that the (dominant)
                                equal-protection clause contradicted with the
                                no-gay-marriage law.  Elected officials have to
                                interpret the law all the time, but courts have
                                the final say on interpretation of law.
2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32838 Activity:nil
8/11    "Afghanistan's interim president, Hamid Karzai, faced questions
        during a news conference ... about the legitimacy of that
        election in light of reports that many voters have registered
        multiple times and may try to vote more than once. 'This is an
        exercise in democracy. Let them exercise it twice!' Karzai
        said. 'We cannot be perfect.'"
        \_ "Karzai later hastened to add that voters will have their hands
           marked in ink that will be difficult to remove in an effort to
           prevent them from voting more than once."
           Oh boy, Taliban targets!
2004/8/9 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32791 Activity:very high
8/9     Sometimes you just forget how far out Texas really is:
        \_ If you want to tell yourself that these shitheads only exist in
           Texas and the south, fine, but you're wrong.  They're right here
           on the motd.  What do you think this country would look like if
           the Mormons ever succeeded their stated goal of converting the
           U.S. into a Mormon state?  The fundamentalist enemy is all around
           \_ w00t! Way to turn an unrelated story into an attack on a
              denomination you know nothing about!
           \_ Surely you'll now be able to document our "stated goal" right?
                \_ just wondering, as a mormon what do you think of said law?
                   \_ As a /citizen/ I think communities should be able to
                      establish and enforce obscenity laws.  It's unclear from
                      the article whether the case is prosecutable under the
                      local laws or not.  I really don't know what my being
                      Mormon has anything to do with it. -emarkp
                      \_  As a *citizen* I see you and your obscenity laws
                          as a direct threat to my freedom, and to this
                          country.   Thank you for proving my point.
                          If you delete this again, I'll nuke everything
                          below the original anti-mormon rant.  Fuck you.
                          \_ I didn't delete anything in the thread, and I
                             assume you didn't just delete my reply.  Grow up.
                             And sign your name.  Freedoms are all limited, and
                             we decide collectively where those limits are.
                             You aren't free to yell "fire" in a crowded
                             theater either. -emarkp
                \_ Joseph Smith is a false prophet, therefore the whole church
                   is a sham.  Also, not one shred of archaelogical evidence
                   for the Book of Mormon.
                   \_ Learn to format aaron.
                      \_ Wasn't me. --aaron
                   \_ Nice work documenting your claim. -emarkp
              \_ Well, it's just known that you're in cahoots with the Jews,
                 the Xtian religious right wing, the necons, the KKK, the
                 North Dakota militiamen, the North German Neo Nazi movement,
                 the toxic waste dumpers, and the mad scientists to control
                 the orbital mind control lasers, in order to reverse the
                 alignment of the boy sprouts and thus achieve global
                 domination!  Only the far liberal left aka the socialists,
                 once known as the communists can protect our freedom to party!
        \_ And California is perfectly normal and centrist.
           \_ Yes, we do have our own eccentricities, but at least we don't
              waste the police's time by infiltrating people's private
              dildo selling parties.
              \_ Don't like a law?  Change it.  It's called 'community
                 standards'.  When you bring your dildo party to places that
                 don't like them, you expect shit will happen.
                 \_ And we don't like those places, or more specifically, the
                    "prominent citizens" of that place.
                    \_ Whatever.  Have you added anything to this thread with
                       a comment like that?  Does your liking or not liking
                       people from other places have anything to do with dildo
                       parties in Texas getting busted by the local cops?  No.
                       \_ Actually, my comment more clearly states the essence
                          of the first post in this thread:
                          We hate prominent citizens that sic the local cops
                          on people below them breaking a law that shouldn't
                          be a law.
                          \_ People below them?  WTF country are you in?  In
                             *this* country, you're a citizen or you're not.
                             STFU with your class warfare bullshit.  As far
                             as "breaking a law that shouldn't be a law" goes,
                             if you don't like a law, get it changed.  If you
                             can't get it changed because not enough others
                             agree with you, then tough shit.  It's a community
                             standards issue, not a matter of life and death or
                             freedom.  The Constitution does not guarantee the
                             right to have sex toy parties.
                             \_ I don't think I ever mentioned "class warfare",
                                nor do I know what you're talking about
                                exactly.  We all know changing a law takes
                                time and trouble, and it helps to be well
                                connected and have free time to do it.
                                What I say still holds:
                                No one likes it when prominent citizens sic the
                                local cops on people below them breaking a law
                                that shouldn't be a law.
                             \_ Different people have different levels of
                                power, money and authority in this country.
                                It is not "class warfare" to acknowledge
                                this fact.
                 \_ Those are some seriously warped "community standards."
                    I am not going to waste my time trying to change some
                    redneck Texas rural communities laws, just be thankful
                    every day I live in a more sane and tolerant place.
                    \_ They have their laws.  You have yours.  The people who
                       *do* live there have chosen to accept them.  If they
                       don't like them they can try to change them or leave.
                       They do not have the a-ok to break them and whine about
                       it because they are applying your leftist liberal
                       California standards to a very socially conservative
                       Texan town.  That's just stupid.
                       \_ By your standards, those Muslim women who object
                          to being forced to wear a burqa and being kept
                          out of school should just STFU and accept their
                          community standards or leave.
                          \_ That's ridiculous--when it's not a democratic
                             society obviously they can't try to change their
                             local laws. -emarkp
                             \_ Technically, Nigeria is a democracy.  yet
                                they have some of the most egregious
                                rights violations by religious nuts
                                in the world.  Is that the fault of the
                                victims also?
                             \_ Once upon a time germany had a democratic
                                society that decided communists, gays, jews,
                                and gypsies were not upto its community
                                standard, and neither was challenge to the
              \_ MEN WITH GUNS took that woman from her STUFF!!  Where's
                 the libertarian outcry??
           \_ Dude, SF is Middle America.  We're about as liberal as
              Dayton, OH.  http://csua.org/u/8iy
              \_ Link unread.  Either it points to goatsex, tub lady, or you're
                 serious and not worth replying to.
                 \_ It's worse than goatsex...hint: it's "fair and ballanced..."
2004/8/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32772 Activity:moderate
8/8     I despise Bush, and will certainly not vote for him in november,
        but IMHO Bush's recent speech at the UNITY conference was the best of
        his presidency.  Definitely worth viewing.  Go to http://www.cspan.org
        and click on "Pres. Bush Remarks at UNITY Conference"
        He actually manages not sound like a dumbass or a right-wing nut for
        over half an hour.  Particularly impressive in front of an openly
        hostile audience.
        \_ 1/2 hour out of 4 years just doesn't cut it.
        \_ Erm, wasn't this the speech where the audience was laughing at him,
           mostly to do with his answer to the question about Indian
           sovereignty?  Something like "sovereignty is well ... sovereignty,
           and if you have sovereignty you are sovereign."
           \_ I said "over half an hour."   There were still some dumbass parts
              during the q&a session.  OTOH the fact that they got him to
              publicly come out against legacies in admissions is pretty
              \_ Without legacies how would the next generation of politicians
                 like Al Gore get into school?  We know he isn't smart enough
                 to get in on his own.
2004/8/8 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32768 Activity:nil 60%like:32760
8/7     http://www.bamn.com/doc/1997/do.asp?970415-flyer.asp
        \_ why are you posting a 7 year old url?  weird.
        No free speech for fascists!  w00t!
        \_  Note the date.  In other news, any retard with an internet
            connection can make a billion dollars by saying the words
            "dotcom" and "e-business" and the world as we know it will
            end in 2000 with that "y2k" bug.
2004/8/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32760 Activity:high 60%like:32768
8/7     http://www.bamn.com/doc/1997/do.asp?970415-flyer.asp
        No free speech for fascists!  w00t!
        \_  Note the date.  In other news, any retard with an internet
            connection can make a billion dollars by saying the words
            "dotcom" and "e-business" and the world as we know it will
            end in 2000 with that "y2k" bug.
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:32703 Activity:very high
8/4     What is a decent book on general US history?  One that is intelligent
        and well researched, not consists of fairy tale or only diatribes,
        and the intended audience are neither freepers nor Spartakusbund.
        Ok thanks.
        \_ I am Spartakusbund!
                \_ No, I am Spartakusbund!
        \_ Personally, I think that the people with an axe to grind tend to
           be the best writers, and that it's useful to read biased stuff
           like "A People's History of the United States" as long as you
           recognize and igore the bias and the propoganda.  I'd be curious
           to know what the conservative equivalent of Zinn's book is.
           A history text with no bias at all which attempts to cover all
           of U.S. history will probably be a massive compilation of
           dry facts with no focus on anything that's not very readable, IMHO.
           I'd love to see a counterexample to this, however.
           \_ agreed.  one (of many) good things about 'peoples history...'
              is that he specifically chooses his biases, and states them
              in the introduction.  and his biases cover a lot of information
              that is rarely touched upon in more conservative history books.
              plus it was a fun read.
        \_ The Americans series by Daniel J. Boorstin (former Librarian of
           Congress and yaDJB :-)) is pretty good:
           Colonial Experience:   http://tinyurl.com/63gey
           Democratic Experience: http://tinyurl.com/55gc2
           National Experience:   http://tinyurl.com/594nv
           I also liked his Discovers: http://tinyurl.com/4cyov
           \_ What's yaDJB?  Yet another himself????
        \_ A People's History of the United States is pretty good and
           non-biased. by Howard Zinn.
           \_ your idiocy knows no bounds.
              \_ and your recommendation is ....
              \_ yes! I think this counts as my first successful troll.
                 \_ whatever.  i was calling you an idiot because the first
                    reply was about Zinn's book, and the reply to that
                    was also about Zinn's book.
2004/7/31 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32610 Activity:nil
7/31    I was having dinner with a former 6th grade teacher and a
        classmate last night (haven't seen both in years). I was dragged
        into a political discussion I didn't really want to get into.
        The result was the usual left-wing/bleeding-heart-liberal
        diatribe against corporations, money, etc. So from what I
        gather the reasoning is something like this:
        Greed is bad, therefore corporations are bad because they
        exploit workers by underpaying them. Corporations should be
        avoided and heavily restricted.
        Now, this is the part I don't get. If there were no corporations
        in the first place, wouldn't people be unemployed? And if
        people are unemployed, wouldn't that be a "bad thing?"
        Also, corporations pay a lot of taxes in the form of employment
        and income, so doesn't the government greatly benefit from
        having business and trade around?
        Just a caveat, the former teacher and classmate have never held
        a "real" job before. The classmate was stuck in a jungle for
        2 years doing peace core shit and recently came back. I don't
        know about you, but I think the education system is pretty fucked
        if we have people like this running our schools.
        \_ Go vouchers!!! Oh wait teacher's unions control the schools and
           Dem. Party....
        \_ As anyone who worked for a corporation will tell you, corporations
           _do_ suck, for the most part.  But avoiding or restricting
           corporations treats the symptom, not the disease.  I don't think
           anyone knows how to treat the disease (which, btw, has nothing to
           do with corporations themselves, it's apparent in the public sector
           too). -- ilyas
           \_ Seems to me the common factor is concentrated wealth and power.
              "Soulless bureaucracies" are manifestations of power that can
              generally be traced to a few large stockholders or government
              officials.  What do we mean by "restricting corporations"?
              Regulating human employment, monopolies, and corporate actions
              affecting health, safety, and the environment all seem to be
              desirable to me, in this capitalist system, to protect against
              the abuses inherently possible with these massive differences
              in wealth and power. The government itself is *supposed* to
              manifest the power of the "people" but obviously this too needs
              watching. But corps. generally represent the power of very few.
                 --motd moderate
              \_ '... needs watching.'  Yes indeed.  The problem is, even with
                 government watchdog groups, it's much harder to get the
                 government to change.  Anyways, I am not really holding my
                 breath for an improvement until the world has achieved
                 americanization/globalization/localization.  I think when that
                 happens a lot of problems will go away.
                 (By 'a/g/l' I mean the country's gvt systems and economies
                 will come to resemble the US, while at the same time there
                 will be a huge push to decentralize most aspects of the
                 government, start cultural preservation movements, and so on.
                 So both a localization and a globalization will happen at once)
                   -- ilyas
2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32591 Activity:high
7/30    Mmmm... record deficits...  where have we heard that before?
        \_ Ray-gun!
           \_ Do not mock St. Ronald.
              \_ Mao the Pun!
           \_ Did his son speak at a Democratic convention?
        \_ Republican: when economy is good, tax cut, when economy is
           bad, more tax cut. Tax cut is the solution to every
           problem. When the rich have more money to spend, everybody
           would be ok! Who cares about the deficit because they don't
           have to pay it back anyway, it's the tax payer's problem.
           How can you people vote for republicans and sleep at night?
           \_ Democrats: when economy is good, raise tax, when economy is bad,
              raise more tax.  Blah blah blah ......
              \_ Mmmm, someone obviously DIDN'T get the talking points.  "Tax
                 and spend liberal" is old hat, now you have to talk about
                 "fighting terrorism."
                 Fifty-Eight percent of registered voters feel reducing the
                 deficit is more important than cutting taxes...refer to the
                 poll numbers at the bottom of this column:
                 \_ We ought to be able to do both.  Look at how much taxes
                    have gone up in the last 100 years.  If we don't slow down
                    soon we will be living under communism.
                    \_ what's wrong with communism?
                    \_ But how much more money are we spending now on welfare,
                       stupid lawsuits, prisons for death-roll immates, and
                       providing services to the illegal immirgrants?
                       \_ Don't forget the much-larger military budget and
                          service on the debt.
                       \_ Kudos for hitting all the hard right hot buttons
                          simultaneously, but all of those are miniscule
                          in comparison to the military budget, Social
                          Security, and a lot of other thing.  As far as
                          death row inmates go, the only way to save real
                          money on prisons is to decriminalize all drugs.
                          \_ anyone got any link as to the percentage of the
                             federal spending? What percentage is the military?
                             the prisons, education, etc?
                             \_ Most prison spending is at the state level, and
                                though the feds to provide some money for
                                education, a lot of that is also state and
                                local taxes.
                                \_ Yah, there are really very few federal
                                   prisons.  The majority of correctional
                                   facilitiies are county jails, though I'm a
                                   little unclear whether the state gives any
                                   money for those.
2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32541 Activity:very high
7/28    So why don't the libertarians move to someplace like the Congo,
        where there is no oppressive government, no taxes and they
        can carry any weapon they like?
        \_ Why don't republicans move to Saudi Arabia where they can finally
           have total religious control of the government, hereditary
           absolute power, and an economy totally dominated by the oil
           \_ Wrong religion.
        \_ Why don't liberals move to Cuba or North Korea?
                \_ because they don't have access to Kais Motd      -kchang
                \_ because America is our country.  That is why you are here.
           \_ Bad analogy. You should ask why the liberals don't move
              to Canada or The Netherlands.
              \_ Oh yeah, as if the original 'Congo' thing is a good analogy.
                 It should have asked 'why don't libertarians move to
                 Switzerland.'  Sometimes I wonder myself.
                 \_ No, Switzerland has confiscatory taxes and takes money
                    from its citizens at gunpoint, forcing them to work as
                    virtual slaves for The State.
                    \_ And the Netherlands and Canada have cruel capitalism,
                       and class warfare.  You are a weak troll, buddy.
                       \_ Got you, though, didn't he?
                       \_ Liberals aren't socialists dunderhead. The sooner
                          you figure that out, the better off you will be.
              \_ In fact, we have it on record that regular citizens are
                 contemplating a move to Canada if Bush wins a second term.
                 Whether they would follow through?
        \_ Why should they have to, when they can make America just like it?
        \_ Because they like the US' government services, they just don't think
           they should have to pay for them.
           \_ What are you talking about?
              \_ law enforcement, national defense, public roads, etc
2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32526 Activity:very high
7/28    I don't get it.  What's wrong with having a society that comes
        together and decides that the poor and those in need should get
        some assistance?  I think people below are pushing individualism
        too far such that it became like pure survival of the fittest.
        Are humans like tigers.  Don't we function more effectively in
        cooperative groups?
        \_ if i give $100 to this, beauracracy filters it down to $1
           meaning people who want this want it cuz they can easily
           steal it . by the time the money reaches the needy it's
           dwindled to nothing
        \_ cuz they're already taking half my income
           \_ And yet you have an account on a machine at a *public*
              university.  Way to stand by your principles.
              \_ Is UC funded by the fed?
              \_ I'll immediately give up my csua account forever for a
                 0.001% drop in my taxes permanently.  Or hell, any drop
                 at all.
        \_ Some assistance == get back on their feet, not perpetual
           \_ and not cradle to grave government interference in
              economic decisions.
        \_ You're begging the question.
        \_ Sure.  You and your friends come together to decide to do whatever
           charity you like.  I might even join in, if the cause is right
           and the plan sound.  I only object when you pull out a gun
           and tell me I have to join, or else.
           \_ Ah, the old libertarian canard of "forced at gunpoint".  If you
              resist, nobody's going to point a gun at you.  They might take
              your stuff or put you in jail, but the only way they'll point a
              gun at you is if you point one at them.
              \_ They can't take your freedom (or your stuff) away without
                 violence or the threat of violence, duh.
              \_ right.... why does IRS and the EPA each have SWAT teams
                 (thanks to WJC)?  Tell that to Weaver, Koresh and Elian.
                 \_ Because the people most likely to defy a court order are
                    the same people who own guns and might be dumb enough to
                    shoot at government employees.  And Elian?  Come on!  That
                    was plain and simple kidnapping.  You don't bring a knife
                    to (what you think will be) a gunfight.
                    \_ They could have picked up Koresh anytime at all since
                       he was known to go shopping in town twice a week with
                       only 1 or 2 others at most.  In a pickup truck, not a
                       tank like the Feds showed up with.  Elian was not so
                       simple.  If it was so simple there wouldn't have been
                       an issue.  I think you're trolling because it the
                       whole point was that his family in Florida that his
                       mother was fleeing to wanted to keep him.  His father
                       was out of his life since the parents split years
                       earlier when he was a tot.
                    \_ And the government never shoots first?  Nor does it
                       ever threaten violence to harmless people?  And if
                       you disobey a government edict, it's ok so long as it's
                       done non-violently?  Can I have some of what you're
              \_ and how are they going to get me to go to jail?  by asking
                 nicely?  at some point, there is going to be an implicit or
                 explicit threat of violence.
                 \_ Many people being indicted are given a chance to turn
                    themselves in.  If you don't have any respect for the
                    authority of the courts then what can they do but force
                    you to be arrested.  You won't get a gun pointed at you if
                    you are civil, but if they think you're a violent wacko
                    it's only common sense they protect themselves by carring a
                    \_ So I should obey just because someone like you made a
                       law?  Nuh uh, buddy!  At some point I *will* get a gun
                       pointed at me if I refuse to acknowledge your law no
                       matter how unjust.  You can't deny that.
                    \_ What if I lock the door to my house?  Will they knock
                       the door down?  What if I refuse to go by grabbing onto
                       a table, or a couch, or anything?  Will there be violence
                       done to my body then?  The government can enforce its
                       \_ Are you that radical that you can't see the need
                          to respect the authority of the courts?  If the
                          government can never use force, I can just come into
                          your house and shoot you myself.
                          \_ Ah.  The implicit or explicit threat of force.
                             Thank you.   BTW, some might even say that it
                             is the responsibility a free person to disobey
                             an unjust law.
                             \_ Funny, because the people who say that are
                                usually referring to altruistic motives, not
                                simply a desire to protect their stuff.
                                \_ There are few resopnsibilities as honorable
                                   as the struggle against tyranny.
                                   \_ OMFG the government is collecting taxes!
                                      Those tyrants!  Let's all live in an
                                      anarchical collective and grow our own
                                      food and die at 40 of cholera.
                                      \_ Taxation is the power to destroy.  If
                                         you put the tax rate high enough you
                                         will destroy someone's life.  Maybe
                                         you should find a history book and
                                         read about all the tyrants who were
                                         called that only because they levied
                                         outrageously high taxes.  Except a
                                         peasant in dark ages England paid
                                         lower taxes than I do now.
                                      \_ A friend once refused to pay the
                                         portion of his income tax that would
                                         have gone into the defense budget.  He
                                         was soundly slapped by the IRS for
                                         that, of course.  The government
                                         wants its money, even if you disagree
                                         with how the money is spent.
                                         \_ If you disagree, you vote them
                                            out.  Or you leave the country.
                                            That's your recourse.
                       will because it's stronger and more violent than I can
                       ever be.
                        \_ Hitler told the jews, you must respect his
        \_ The trouble is that I often don't agree with how the "society"
           spends its money to uplift the poor.
        \_ Darwinsm was very popular until WW2, when Hitler used it as a tool
           for his agenda. Afterwards, equal right/opportunity/weak-deservers-
           more mentality was much more accepted. So, thanks Hitler.
        \_ When you're ready to lower your GPA by a full point to help 5 others
           bring theirs from 1.8 to 2.0 to save them from being kicked out of
           school then we can discuss how far I'll allow you to reach into my
2004/7/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32516 Activity:very high
7/27    What's the argument against instant runoff voting? Are any of you
        actively against it?
        \_ Are you nuts?  They couldn't even figure out a ballot in
           Florida that was mailed to everyone months in advance and
           you want them to start ranking candidates???
        \_ I think instant runoff elections are great!  On a completely
           unrelated subject: motd liberals, are you not tired of the way in
           which the Democratic Party sells out the interest of the working
           man in favor of shadowy special interests, just like the Republican
           Party does?  Take a stand against corruption now!  Vote for a
           'minor party' candidate that speaks best for you. -- ilyas
        \_ Republicans oppose it because it would help the Democratic party.
           \_ Both major parties oppose it because it would help third parties.
              - Liberal Dem.
              \_ But the "liberal dems" won't go on record with that argument.
                 I was reading various articles and legislative actions about
                 IRV and other electoral reform and progress seems pretty slow,
                 although there are a couple exceptions. Jesse Jackson has an
                 interesting constitutional amendment proposal that would
                 state an explicit "right to vote" and require a winner to
                 achieve majority instead of plurality (leading to IRV or
                 something to that effect).
                 \_ Wait, isn't Jesse Jackson a liberal Dem?
                    \_ No.  JJ is all about JJ.
        \_ You need computers tabulating the vote.  When you have computers,
           you need a paper-based audit trail.  Ready for local elections,
           not ready for state or national yet.
           \_ Well what would make it be ready? In Texas they apparently can't
              even use it at a local or county level and bills to lift that
              restriction quietly died.
              \_ To hold a state-wide election, you would need computers
                 tabulating votes for all precincts, and a paper-based audit
                 \_ Right so why aren't we ready for that system?
                    \_ ... well, someone's got to convince all the little
                       bigwigs at the Capitol to install the suckers and
                       show they can't be manipulated.  I mean, I'm seeing
                       a drudgereport article talking about how all the
                       Florida 2002 gubernatorial data were accidentally
                       "lost due to computer failure".
                       I nominate YOU to go out and lobby the big wigs, and
                       be in charge of selecting the right system and
                       installing them all, and be responsible if something
                       goes wrong.
                       \_ Have you ever worked for/with a government IT guy?
                          I'm not at all surprised a government paid IT guy
                          would fuckup and lose the data.  That's far more
                          likely the reason for data loss than some cabal of
                          evil sysadmins destroying the records as part of
                          their plot to take over the Florida electoral system
                          for Halliburton.
        \_ What does instant runoff mean?
           \_ Instant runoff is a method where you get to rank your 1st, 2nd,
              3rd... choices.  If your first choice doesn't get a plurality,
              your vote falls back to your second choice and so on.
              http://www.fairvote.org has more info.
              \_ How does it work? Voters rank candidates in order of choice:
                 1, 2, 3 and so on. It takes a majority to win. If anyone
                 receives a majority of the first choice votes, that candidate
                 is elected. If not, the last place candidate is defeated,
                 just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted
                 again, but this time each ballot cast for the defeated
                 candidate counts for the next choice candidate listed on the
                 ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate
                 and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate
                 receives a majority of the vote. With modern voting
                 equipment, all of the counting and recounting takes place
                 rapidly and automatically. (from the FAQ)
                 \_ Compare this description to the current system:
                    1) vote for the guy you like,
                    2) the guy with the most votes wins.
                    The complexity of IRV is reason enough not to do it.
                    \_ It's not complex. Are you an idiot? The whole point is
                       to accurately account for more than two candidates by
                       letting voters express a secondary preference. Why
                       would anyone NOT want elections to more accurately
                       reflect voter desires? It's supposed to be democracy.
                       Having winners with less than a majority support makes
                       me unhappy.
           \_ It's an oral technique perfected by yermom.
2004/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:32446 Activity:insanely high
7/23    I wonder which "domestic terror" group they could be talking about?
        Have the Freepers formed their own militia?
        http://csua.org/u/8am (yahoo news)
        \_ yes.
        \_ There have been domestic terrorists practically forever.  Just off
           the top of my head I can name, the KKK, 1900's anarchists, the SLA
           and abortion clinic bombers.  Domestic terrorists are
           left or right wing fringe elements who believe violent means are
           justified in persuit of their goal.
           \_ Don't forget ELF and the various militias in the central north.
              \_ I'm sure I've forgotten a dozen groups, but I'm just saying
                 there's all kinds of terrorists.
              \_ Has the ELF actually injured/killed anyone?
                         \_ a.out
                 \_ You think Hummers don't feel pain?
                    \_ Idiot.  Look up "tree spiking" and why it can kill.
                      \_ Fatass. Look up why yermom is so fat that she
                         could kill somone if she sat down on them. But
                         she hasn't yet, so we don't call her a murderer,
                         just a fat ugly skanky Hummer driving hobag.
                         \_ When my mom spikes a tree, I'll let you know.  When
                            your idiotic 'heroes of the environment' stop
                            trying to kill people and destroy property, let
                            us know.
                            \_ "There is something slightly absurd about a
                                scenario in which those who want to destroy
                                a forest can accuse those of trying to perserve
                                it of property damage..." -Maines
                                \_ I was referring to the number of autos that
                                   were burned or spray painted, not trees
                                   spiked.  Re: "ugly skanky Hummer driving
                                   \_ and what about all the pedestrians
                                      killed by  drivers of monster suv's
                                      who can't see over the dash?  what
                                      about all the asthma deaths associated
                                      with excessive driving in urban and
                                      suburban areas?  When one persons
                                      actions lead to the death of another
                                      and that death is preventable, i call
                                      that violence.
                                      \_ Sue GM, Ford, etc.  RIDE BIKE!  Yeah,
                                         whatever.  Troll, troll, troll.  Not
                                         even a good troll.  Only ilyas
                                         bothered to respond.
                                      \_ You need to become familiar with a
                                         legal concept of 'main cause.'
                                           -- ilyas
                \_ most tree spikers (YES I KNOW NOT 100 PERCENT BUT FUCKING
                   CLOSE) make the tree with paint to let everyone know
                   they spiked it.
                   \_ so only some loggers are likely to get injured or die and
                      those who don't check for paint?
                      \_ I would say a small number of loggers have a slight
                         chance of being injured if they are dumb enough not
                         to LOOK AT THE DAMN TREE THEY'RE CUTTING.
                         \_ Does that include the ones where they glued bark
                            over the hole, or painted the nail so it wouldn't
                            shine and is harder to see?  How about they file
                            some lawsuits or vote or do something within the
                            legal bounds of society instead of forcing their
                            views on others through violence?
                 \_ Injured, yes.  Dead?  Not that I know of but only due to
                    luck.  Their stunts could easily have killed someone.
                    \_ FWIW, Earth First! disavowed tree spiking and never took
                       responsibility for any of it officially.  Their MO was
                       more blocking logging operations and camping out in
                       trees.  That's not to say their extremist rhetoric
                       couldn't have inspired others to do such things.
                       \_ EF != ELF.  Anyway, they're all shadowy .orgs with
                          no real official structure anyway.   Killing people
                          is killing people and *someone* was spiking trees,
                          whichever terrorist .org they belonged to.
                          \_ Tree spiking has not hurt or killed anyone,
                             in spite of logging company propaganda. And I
                             agree with you, killing people is killing people,
                             but tree spiking never killed anyone. Blaming
                             EF for tree spiking is almost as dumb as blaming
                             Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
                             \_ Well, it hurt this guy:
                                \_ That doesn't count!  He's white!
                                \_ Okay, I take it back. One minor injury.
                                   \_ You're an asshole: "This happened in
                                      California in 1987, where the operator's
                                      jaw was broken and several teeth were
                                      knocked out".
                                      \_ Yawn. Minor injury.
                                         \_ *laugh*  Now, I _know_ you're a
                                            troll.  Sub thread is now dead.
        \_ So are all these guys seriously trying to claim that ELF is
           the terrorist org that the FBI says is planning to kill journalists
           at the Democratic convention? Somehow, I kind of doubt it...
           \_ Earth Liberation Front.  I have no idea which ELF you're talking
              about and if the FBI says they're planning to kill anyone.
              \_ You really think it is the Earth Liberation Front that is
                 going to go after the Democratic convention eh? You are
                 battier that I had even thought, I and I thought you were
                 pretty batty. Did you come up with that one on your own,
                 or do you have some kind of source for it?
                 \_ 1) the person you're replying to (me) didn't state anything
                    about ELF attacking the DNC convention except to say I
                    hadn't heard anything about what the other poster claimed
                    about the FBI.  2) learn to read.  3)  given #1, there is
                    no need for #3.  See #2.
2004/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32445 Activity:very high
7/23    P Diddy launches election crusade:
        \_ Can P Diddy read?  Oh yeah, that's not required to vote anymore.
           \_ Are you kidding?  It's not even required for presidency.
              \_ Are you going to post that photoshopped "upside down book"
                 pic with GWB now?
                 \_ http://www.wtfomg.com
        \_ Why does his name sound like a word a child would use in place
           of "to urinate?"
           \_ He's a big admirer of R. Kelly
2004/7/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32428 Activity:insanely high
7/22    After giving it some thought, I think the real issue isn't 'communism'
        or 'fascism' but 'bureaucratism.'  Large, soulless bureaucracies are
        something Big Government and Big Business have in common.  In fact, the
        two Bigs are so similar, I am surprised people can be so vehemently
        opposed to one and not the other.  The issue is that people are small
        pack animals, they don't like big ant hill arragements, and so they are
        unhappy working as a part of a bureaucracy.  Ask anyone working with
        (or for) one of the above Bigs.  I think what's needed is to make
        our society more like a collection of packs and less like an ant hill,
        or to make us more like ants biologically. -- ilyas
        \_ Theory indicates that ant societies are as cohesive and
           altruistic as they are because siblings share 3/4 of their
           chromosomes, not just 1/2. Humans do not have this interesting
           reproductive scheme.
           \_ Interesting sidenote: in african mole rat societies (they are the
              only mammal to evolve eusociality), the 'worker rats' cannot
              breed because, apparently, they are too stressed out by the
              bossing around they receive from the 'queen rat.'  -- ilyas
        \_ Awsome! I've tried to convince you of this repeatedly, as have other
           poeple on the motd.  Now, the next step is to recognize that the
           libertarian stance that big business should have no restrictions
           on it is just as dangerous to individual rights as statism,
           particularly since the big business interests and the statists
           generally work hand in hand.
           \_ The problem is, your solution to Big Business is to sic Big
              Government on it.  I am a little sceptical of this, for obvious
              reasons.  The libertarians believe Big Business should have
              restrictions, btw, same as everyone else.  They shouldn't trample
              on people's rights.  My point is a wider, I think, point about
              what kind of society it takes to make people happy.  Even if
              Big Business was perfectly well behaved, I think people would be
              unhappy working for it, and dealing with it.  We as humans just
              don't like large hierarchies very much. -- ilyas
              \_ Ah, but libertarians admit that big government is needed
                 to defend against foreign enemies, even if it is a necessary
                 evil.  This is totally analogous.  When a corporation with
                 hundreds of thousands of employess is killing people by
                 dumping toxic waste into the water table, using big gov't to
                 fight them in court is exactly analogous to using it
                 to fight a foreign enemy who is trying to kill us.
                 \_ You seem to know a lot about libertarians that I, a
                    libertarian, find very new.  Are you sure you aren't
                    confusing libertarians and republicans? -- ilyas
                    \_ don't most libertarians vote republican?
                    \_ Libertarianism seems doomed as a practical model of
                       governance, because it is based entirely on ideal
                       models.  In this way it is very much like communism.
                       \_ ... moved.
                          \_ I didn't!  I don't think ilya is using motdedit,
                             so his posts are getting intermingled as he
                             edits them.  This happens to people a lot.
        \_ Tell us about the ant-people, ilyas
           \_ Read Hellstrom's Hive by Frank Herbert.  A really creepy book.
                -- ilyas
        \_ There is no such thing as society, only collections of individuals.
           -- some stupid old bitty
        \_ How can rational people be pro-Big-Government and
           anti-Big-Business?  Because they believe the former ultimately
           takes care of them, but the latter works them to death in pursuit
           of the Almighty Dollar.  How can a person be anti-Big-Government
           and pro-Big-Business?  By believing the former takes advantage of
           hard working folks, benefiting the lazy; and the latter is a
           creation of hard working people and raises the standard of living
           for everyone.  But everyone knew all of this already, right?
           \_ I think neither of those beliefs is very rational.  The two
              Bigs are not very different in their structure.  Their only
              difference is mandate (Big gvt can use force). -- ilyas
              \_ That 'difference' is B.S.  Big business can always get the
                 government to use force for it.  If there was no government
                 then business would just have private armies.
              \_ While you think that these beliefs are not very rational,
                 rational people do hold these beliefs.  (There is a subtlety
                 in that sentence.)
           \_ You may wish to consult this entry:
              \_ Naturally you can find rational people who are anti-both.
                 I was addressing ilyas' "surprise" at people being pro-one
                 and anti-the-other.
                 \_ Don't expect people here to understand what
                    is a logical fallacy and what is not.  Reading
                    comprehension is not a general forte here.
                    \_ I is a college student!
        \_ People don't like feeling like they aren't in control of their
           lives.  People by nature think large hierarchies reduce their
           freedom.  Big business and big government are both large
           hierarchies, so both are bad.  We should have smaller hierarchies.
           I think I've just summarized your thesis.
           \_ It's a pretty good attempt.  I would only add that even in
              situations where people understand that their freedom must
              be voluntarily given up (say to sit in a cubicle and program
              for a day), they will still be unhappy due to the incessant
              rain of little stupidities and injustices that you would get
              working in some large org.  Also, not only do 'people think that',
              it's actually true. -- ilyas
              \_ You could have just said:
                 Large hierachies *do* reduce happiness, and this occurs
                 whether people are voluntarily part of the hierarchy (as in
                 a company) or forced to be in it (as in subject to the federal
                 \_ I think the voluntary aspect is important. If I am truly
                    free to leave to form my own group or join another then
                    I can potentially be happy working as a group I believe in.
                    If economic pressures are too harsh then freedom will
                    depend too much on competitive advantage.
              \_ I don't think it's always true. I work for a large corp. but
                 operationally the only concern is my immediate group. There
                 is a common business hierarchy with a boss/director/VP. Any
                 time you have any kind of hierarchy there's potential strife.
                 Even small tribal societies, or wolf packs for that matter,
                 may operate seemingly ideally but are not free of strife.
                 I think this sort of strife is reduced when there are social
                 elements in place to avoid huge differentials in wealth and
                 power, fundamental rights are guaranteed, and power is
                 representational. Then there is a size beyond which this
                 power loses some meaning, and probably the US federal gov't
                 has grown to a size and power that is uncomfortable.
                 "But I was now escaped out of the shadow of the Roman empire,
                 under whose toppling monuments we were all cradled, whose laws
                 and letters are on every hand of us, constraining and
                 preventing. I was now to see what men might be whose fathers
                 had never studied Virgil, had never been conquered by Caesar,
                 and never been ruled by the wisdom of Gaius or Papinian."
2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32277 Activity:high
7/14    So I am curious how Conservatives feel about The House repeatedly
        "bending the rules" to get things passed at the last minute:
        \_ Sounds shady to me (the actions of the house leaders, not the
           reportage).  Got any better references than Joe Q. Blogger?  How do
           Liberals feel about the mutation in the Senate of everything
           requiring cloture?
           \_ This was widely reported.  You can do a search anywhere for it.
              On the Medicare bill last year, they held the vote open for
              almost 3 hours while they tried to convince people to change
              their votes.  This time it was only 20 minutes.  As far as I've
              read, this was unheard of before last year.
           \_ Weren't the new cloture rules proposed by Frist and Z.Miller?
              Why do you suggest this is a Liberal mutation?
              \_ I'm not referring to rules, but rather the practice of the
                 dems to filibuster anything they don't like, which basically
                 means that to get anything done you need cloture rather than
                 simple majority.
                 \_ That's the senate, son.
                 \_ As opposed to the filibuster free repubs in the senate
                    under Clinton?  Come on...  That's what the senate is for.
                 \_ As opposed to the filibuster free repub senate under
                    Clinton?  Come on...  That's what the senate is for.
                    It's a necessary check on the majority.  Democracy at
                    \_ We could compare the numbers between the previous and
                       current admins for filibusters.  The answer won't
                       come out in your favor.  You're also twisting the
                       issue.  It isn't a case of "filibuster free". It is
                       a case of now requiring 60 votes instead of the
                       Constitutionally mandated 50 because the Dems won't
                       let *anything* pass at 50 now.  It's an abuse.
                       \_ okay, i'm curious. care to cite sources for numbers
                          and post the math and results somwhere?
                  \_ I think it is a shitty way to run a democracy. -op
           \_ So I guess when the Republicans logjammed the congress in the
              '90s, that was really bad too?  Oh wait, Democrats BAD,
              Republicans GOOD.
              \_ Compare the numbers like I said above.  There's a difference
                 between stalling a few bills here and there and doing it
                 for nearly everything.
                 \_ And the dems don't do it for nearly everything.  Man have
                    you drunk the koolaid.  They have done it for a few high
                    profile cases, jsut like the repubs did.
2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:32274 Activity:high Edit_by:auto
7/14    How do i find out how each senator voted on a given bill?
        In particular, I'm trying to find out how each senator voted on
        the gay marriage ban today, and I can't find the actual vote in
        the senate records.
        \_ http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00155
          \_ you rock. thanks.
        \_ DUDE U R TEH GAY
        \_ Post it if you find it.
        \_ do you want to OUT them?
        \_ http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
           (just google for: how senators voted)
        \_ You can figure it out from this article. They list the
           party members who crossed lines:
                           _/_,---(       ,    )
                          /        <      /   )  \
                         |  (   / :: \ / :  \     |
                          \/ ::::::: :: \ :::) :: /
                          (_(::::\::( ::::>::::::\)
                           \\_(:_:<:::>_>'::::/ //
          - ------===;;;'====------------------===;;;===----- -  -
                                   ` ^'"`-' "
                         __   __ ,Z/V7V|HIH\\..  _  _
                __/~\___/  \_/  \XX/~~\##/~~\\\_/ \/ \__/~~\_/\_
2004/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32203 Activity:moderate
7/9     This is a report that should concern all patriotic Americans,
        no matter what their political affiliation:
        \_ Like duhhh, apparently you've never been in either civil service
           or in the army. Where did you think the backronim "snafu" for
           Situation Normal, All Fucked Up comes from? This is also why
           tax breaks are good, because private citizens and enterprise
           are a lot more efficient at containing costs than the U.S. Gov't.
           Welcome to reality.
        \_ All Hail the Special Skills Draft!  All geeks to the Pentagon, hut
           \_ Why would they want a bunch of smelly snarly know nothings?
              They want highly skilled technical people.  A very tiny number
              of motd readers have to even think about this.
2004/7/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32194 Activity:insanely high
7/8     "No analyst is going to say they changed their view as a result of
        specific pressure. No analyst is going to admit that. But there is no
        doubt and this report reflects the fact that there was tremendous
        pressure inside the agency. As a matter of fact, [CIA Director George
        J.] Tenet himself said, and this report reflects that, that he was
        told by analysts that they were under tremendous pressure. And what
        Tenet said is, well, in that case, just try to ignore that pressure.
        But the pressure was clearly there." -Carl Levin, a senior Democrat on
        the Senate intelligence committee today
        \_ just wait--soon we'll be hearing from the GOP that the whole
           thing was the fault of the Democrats because they failed in their
           responsibility as the minority party to question the actions of the
           majority and mindlessly followed to avoid looking unpatriotic.
           for once, i'd be in agreement.
           \_ Further proof of motd axiom #4: anything a democrat does, evil.
              Anything a republican does, good.
              \_ careful, the poster you're responding to just might be a
                 \_ if you mean that I hate the republicans, greens, socialists
                    and libertarians even *more* than I hate the democrats,
                    then yes, i guess i'm a democrat. -above poster
                    \_ I ve never understood the hatred of librarians.
                    \_ I ve never understood the hatred of libertarians
                       Do you just hate them in their capacity as a bookish
                       voting block?  Or do you have a problem with their
                       'live and let live' mentality? -- ilyas
                       \_ I'm going to assume you mean "libertarian."
                          I hate libertarians because it has been my
                          observation from reading stuff on their website,
                          reading publications of the self-proclaimed
                          libertarian cato institute, and reading motd
                          libertarian posts that while they claim to
                          care about freedom, they're really just for
                          corporate socialism.  When it comes to individual
                          freedoms, i agree with libertarians, but it seems
                          that their biggest issue is not with the freedom
                          of individuals but with the "freedom" of corporations
                          who in many cases have more power than any but
                          a handful of nations to do whatever they want.
                          This is a very simliar arguement to saying that
                          the "freedom" of governments must be preserved
                          by letting them oppress poeple, because that's what
                          governments do and they should have to the right to
                          do it.  when the government decides it has the right
                          to imprison citizens indefinitely based on secret
                          evidence, the libertarians are mostly silent, but
                          when the goverment tries to limit a corporations
                          "right" to kill people and cause birth defects
                          with pollution, they're up in arms.
                          \_ Some idiot changed my post.  Anyways, I don't
                             know where you get this thing about libertarian
                             silence.  Libertarians don't like the elements
                             of Bush policy involving the patriot act and
                             indefinite detention etc.  I certainly don't, and
                             said so before.
                             As for corporations, there are big
                             differences between corps and governments.  Corps
                             can't use force, for example.  Thus, while corps
                             are worth watching, governments are worth watching
                             ten times more.  I think it's a matter of picking
                             your villains.  There is no question in my mind
                             that corps do bad things.  But governments do bad
                             things too, and their bad things are much worse.
                             Look at Mogabe's [sp?] government, for example.
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ Corporations can't use force in the way of guns
                                (not counting mercenaries in countries we dont
                                like), but they can use almost any other kind
                                of force.  Their legal resources dwarf the
                                agerage citizen's.  They can basically buy laws
                                to make the governement do what they like
                                (within limits).  Ask someone who's had their
                                home taken away by eminent domain to build
                                a shopping mall whether the corporation or the
                                government used force.  Ask the good citizens
                                of Bohpal if a corporation's power is less
                                dangerous than their government.
                             differences between corps and governments.  Corps
                             can't use force, for example.  Thus, while corps
                             are worth watching, governments are worth watching
                             ten times more.  I think it's a matter of picking
                             your villains.  There is no question in my mind
                             that corps do bad things.  But governments do bad
                             things too, and their bad things are much worse.
                             Look at Mogabe's [sp?] government, for example.
                               -- ilyas
                                \_ I don't think you ll have a lot of luck
                                   blaming eminent domain abuses on corps.
                                   That's a government flavor of evil: "hey if
                                   we have a shopping mall on this land instead
                                   of this old grandma's home, we ll get a lot
                                   more taxes!"
                                   Libertarians really don't like eminent
                                   domain abuses, too.  Also, you seem to have
                                   \_ My great uncle's house was taken by
                                      eminent domain supposeadly to build a
                                      road.  He then found out the county was
                                      planning to sell the land to a
                                      politically-connected developer so the
                                      developer would essentially be able to
                                      buy commercial land at residential
                                      prices.  My G. Uncle sued to force them
                                      to build a road there.  This is in Clark
                                      County, NV.  There's a similar situation
                                      in NJ where Atlantic City tried to take
                                      someone's house to build a road to a
                                      parking lot for a Trump casino.  Is it
                                      really government being evil, or is it
                                      the power of corporations corrupting
                                      I guess you'd say government is
                                      dangerous because it wields power, while
                                      I'd say corporations are dangerous
                                      because they wield government.
                                   a weird way of assigning blame.  If the
                                   system is venal, who are more to blame: the
                                   folks who buy or the folks who are bought?
                                   I d say the latter, because if they acted
                                   morally, the former would be SOL. -- ilyas
                                   \_ In the current circumstance, the acts
                                      themselves are not _illegal_ on the part
                                      of the buyers; they're still unethical
                                      and immoral, and they contribute to the
                                      continuation of the corruption. It breaks
                                      the spirit of the Social Compact to game
                                      the system.
                                      \_ If the buyer is giving a kickback to
                                         someone in government, it is very
                                         illegal (though potentially hard to
                                         \_ So now back to my original question,
                                            Did anything I say sound
                                            unreasonable to you? -- ilyas
                 \_ I think that's ok.  this is an axiom of the *motd*, not
2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31196 Activity:kinda low
7/7     The congressmen who want  U.N. observers in U.S. vote
        \_ Because we need the third world to help us have clean elections?
           Ours are the cleanest the planet has ever seen and that includes
           the dirty ballot box stuffing in Chicago and Philidelphia every
2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:31174 Activity:very high
7/6     Bush down by 14 points in California in latest poll:
        \_ holy sheepshit, batman!!! in other news, bush to win texas, loose
           new york...
           \_ Hey!  Don't interrupt while we're mocking landslide guy!
           \_ why does everyone misspell 'lose'?
              \_ When you get to lose with your spelling your words loose
              \_ When you get to lose with your spelling you're words loose
                 \_ OW OW OW!
        \_ Burn motherfucker -- burn.
        \_ He lost last time, he'll lose again.  So?
        \_ I predict Nader will win California in a landslide!
           \_ With Camejo on the ticket, you're sure to be right.
           \_ http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1972353
              Campaign for Nader, but vote for Kerry.
2004/7/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31151 Activity:insanely high
7/2     Bush stoops to yet another new low. Hits up churches for names,
        money, and votes:  http://tinyurl.com/34v27
        \- if you think this is a new low, you need to check your
        \_ How is this any different than the DNC swapping donor
           lists with unions and NPR?
           \_ Unions pay taxes, churches do not.
           \_ how about separation of church and state? unions have
              always been political. NPR probably has an axe to grind
              for republicans trying to silence an independent point-of-
              view. Just shows how low Bush will go to be the prez.
              \_ There is no such notion of 'separation of church in
                 state' in the Constitution.  It is a contrivance of
                 leftist judges during the first half of the 20th
                 century.  NPR receives federal funding, exclusive
                 of other news organizations.
                 \_ Duh, like the founders had things all figured out.
                    Take some civics lessons to know that the constitution
                    is a living document that can add rights and protections,
                    though, the "right" wants to abuse even the constitution
                    to limit certain people's rights - not even taken in
                    account the un-patriotic patriot act. sheesh.
                    \_ The document is not *living*.  It says what it says and
                       has provisions for change.  This is not the same as
                       *living* which really means "we make it say what we
                       want it to say".
                    \_ You are an idiot.   I say this without malice, I just
                       think you should know.     -cuhdz
                       \_ I think you are a cock-sucker. I think you already
                          know. Probably from spending too much time down
                          there in the "Bush"-es.
                    \_ Yes there is provision to change to Constitution.  Its
                                                                    It's _/
                       called an Amendment, and there are 17 of them.  And
                       guess what else - judges were not designed as part
                       of the Amendment process, contrary to
                       what you see today.
              \_ You mean like the dems' political rallies IN CHURCHES?
                 \_ thank you.  jesus fucking christ this is a dumb thread.
                    it makes me ashamed to call myself a democrat.  of
                    course democrats campaign in churches all the time.
                    Didn't anyone notice that one of the candidates in the
                    primary race was a reverend? hello?
                     \_ Dems=good, republicans=EEEVIIILL, everything repubs
                        do is bad.  You are not being a good little CA dem.
                        if you think further than this.
                        \_ well, I don't live in California, so maybe that's
                           my problem.  Where I live, the parties actually
                           get things done together from time to time.
                           \_ !!!! WHERE DO YOU LIVE?!  I WANT TO GO THERE!
                              SEND HELP!   --CA resident
                              \_ so. you want to move to a state with less
                                 retarted politics, huh?  ok, i'll give you
                                 directions.  get out a compas.  go any
                                 direction other than south or west, and you'll
                                 be there.
                                 \_ Can't your state just invade and bring
                                    democracy to California?  The weather is
                                    so nice here.  Democracy is the only thing
                                    we're missing.
                                    \_ California suffers from excess of
                                       democracy, among other things. -- ilyas
2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:31129 Activity:very high
7/2     How will The Republicans respond to this?
        http://csua.org/u/80w  (Yahoo News)
        \_ their standard response: "Get over it!"  - pst
           \_ this coming from someone who falls at the feet of a group
              named "moveon.org".
        \_ An amusing stunt to be sure.  You might want a more descriptive
           line like: "Some Democratic Congresspeople request UN observe US
           election."  There's some loon who censors any link without what
           he considers to be an adequate description (presumably so he doesn't
           have to deal with the shock and awe of reading anything he might
           disagree with).
           \_ Idiot.  So it a) doesn't waste his time and b) avoids work
              unsafe links.  Moron, we aren't all surfing in our underwear
              at home with the motd in one window, pr0n in another and our
              dick in our hand.
       \_ The Republicans will not respond to it because the UN has no real
          jurisdiction here. I mean, what are you going to do if the UN
          Monitoring Committee finds that the elections are a fraud? Invade
          the US? The UN is merely a sock puppet for the U.S. anyway, and
          has no real power.
          \_ The UN exists so the 3rd world dictators can have a place to
             safely, and powerlessly, mouth off and feel important so they
             don't something stupid and actively harmful.  The UN doesn't
             have jurisdiction *anywhere* on the planet.
             \_ This is as stupid as standing on the porch of your
                trailerhouse with your shotgun in hand, declaring
                "them gubmint regulators ain't got no authority here"
                but you probably do that, too.
2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31123 Activity:very high
7/2     Sorry Ralph!  Guess the GOP couldn't help you in Arizona!
        http://csua.org/u/80s (yahoo news link)
        \_ you can still write his name in
           \_ "Writing Ralph Nader's name in" should probably be in the
              dictionary as a reference for the word "deluded."
        \_ Screw you Democrats.  A vote for Ralph is a vote for Ralph.  We
           will not stand by forever with your one-party, two-name system.
2004/7/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:31112 Activity:very high
7/1     <DEAD>www.smartmoney.com/onthestreet<DEAD>
        "There's no question that the FERC has leaned over backward to
        protect the industry at the expense of California," says Peter
        Navarro, associate professor of economics and public policy at the
        University of California at Irvine. "[Vice President Dick] Cheney
        in the middle of the crisis blamed the whole thing on
        environmental regulations that were too stringent. That was
        absurd. Now, we know that there was considerable market
        manipulation going on."
        \_ Fuck Cheney, capitalist scumbag at its best!!
           \_ The power generation and power distribution industry
              is very far from a free market.
              is very far from being a free market.
           \_ Go back to your butcher shop, Lupo.
2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:31100 Activity:low
6/30    Prostitutes ready to work overtime for family-friendly Republican
        National Convention!
        \_ Bringing back the Times Square of Reagan's day!
        \_ And here I thought putting most of the Repub delegates in hotels
           in Hillcrest was inspired.
2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:31099 Activity:very high
6/30    I'm being oppressed by Bay Area liberals!
        \_ Why has he forgotten about hispanics?  Their population rise
           all across bay area.  In a sense, you can say they are driving
           out the blacks and putting increasing pressure on the asians.
           \_ Stop bringing facts into the equation.
           \_ This is plain stupid, and racist. I use to live in a black
                                        \- hello, are you saying Thomas
                                           Sowell is a racist who hates
                                           black people? --psb
                                           \_ I think he is referring to
                                              the motd commentator, as
                                              indicated by the indentation,
                                              not the Thomas Sowell article.
              neighborhood. I still live at the same address, but most of
              this area is now filled with white people (near Alamo Square
              in SF). They tend to be young wealthy-enough white yuppies
              who are buying victorians in the area. They have bought out
              the black families who use to own these homes, and who knows
              where they've gone now. The only blacks in the area live in
              the nearby projects.
              \_ have you caught gay yet?
                 \_ only for you.
        \_ So the solution isn't to make sure all races have equal access to
           education so that you can have a nice mix of affluent races in the
           area, but rather to kill open spaces that are one of the things that
           make many bay area communities such a nice place to live.  Good plan!!
           \_ Wow, you're really stupid.  He's a nationally syndicated
              columnist.  That page has all his columns, and yet you know
              nothing of his opinions, and instead of finding out, (by
              reading one of his columns about education) you make really
              stupid assumptions.  Way to go!
              \_ yeah, if you read more of his opinions, you'd realize he's
                 a total wack job and not waste your time responding to his
                 \_ I'm not sure who the object of this sentence is.
2004/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31083 Activity:insanely high
6/30    People complain that Moore and Franken call themselves "comedians", but
        how come there is no MOTD talk about Jon Stewart? Do repubs hate him
        less bc he is willing to make fun of loser democrats as well as bush?
        \_ jon stewart calls himself a comedian too.
           \_ I think that jon stuart doesn't try to be serious sometimes, then
              hide behing the "hey I'm just a comedian" when he says something
              stupid. The way that Franken (and P.J. O'rouke for that matter)
              do.  Jon pretty much always has the attitude that "hey, i'm just
              a guy doing comedy".  He does, though, have the best take on the
              martha stewart conviction:
                http://tinyurl.com/3g5qt (comedycentral.com)
              Also, Jon is clearly a California Democrat, but he is not some
              by-the-book liberal-democrat the way Franken and Moore are.
              \_ Jon Stewart is very much a liberal, but he's also not afraid
                 to point out stupidity no matter who puts it out there.  He's
                 also very fair to his guests, Repub or Dem, and he'll often
                 call the audience to task for dissing a guest. (One exception:
                 the guy who wrote a book proposing a link between Iraq and
                 al Qaeda got pretty short shrift, but hell, the man was
                 really asking for it.)
                 \_ he was really nice to richard perle, don't know why
                \_ Yeah, that was surprising how he treated that guy.  I
                   watch pretty much every episode and I've never seen him
                   do that.  But, the guest was clearly trying to capitalize
                   on a lie, and he knew it, so Stuart just called it for
                   what it was.
                 \_ Yeah, that was surprising how he treated that guy.  I watch
                    pretty much every episode and I've never seen him do that.
                    But, the guest was clearly trying to capitalize on a lie,
                    and he knew it, so Stuart just called it for what it was.
                    \_ Jon did try to give the guy some credit by suggesting
                       that perhaps the recent capitulation could be traced to
                       the invasion, but then the guy himself pointed out that
                       Libya funded the recent assassination plot against the
                       Saudis.  Really, there was no helping that guy.
                    \_ As opposed to the tongue kiss he gave Michael Moore who
                       is capitalizing on several lies.
                       \_ Name one.
                          \_ Where have you been?  These links have been posted
                             more than once to the motd, and are very easy to
                             find, unless you restrict your google search to
                             site:indymedia.org like you probably do...
                             http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 - for the new.
                             http://bowlingfortruth.com - for the previous.
                             \_ The hitchens article blathers a whole lot
                                without saying much of substance. Please point
                                out the specific lies in question.
2004/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:31037 Activity:insanely high
6/28    Not quite unanimous:  Three Supreme Court decisions today.  8-1,
        6-3, 5-4.  President does not get blank check for detaining U.S.
        citizens indefinitely without a legal hearing during wartime (8-1).
        Non-citizen detainees also have access to federal courts (6-3).
        Guantanamo is in U.S. jurisdiction.  Padilla case rejected on
        technicality (should have filed in S. Carolina, not New York, since
        he is detained in Charleston) (5-4).
        \_ Sad that the Rheinquist court is the last bastion of sanity in the
           Federal govt.  But three cheers for these decisions.
        \_ My opinion had been that it would have been unanimous against
           \_ Think of it as the court voting to preserve the authority of the
              \_ I think of it as the court voting to preserve the authority
                 of the constitution.  You remember what that is?
                 \_ "The constitution?  Oh, that thing."
        \_ My opinion had been that it was going to be unanimous against
           detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without a legal hearing.
           Guess who the lone dissenter was?
           \_ What's odd is that Scalia and Thomas usually vote together...it
              had to be one of them, right?
              \_ If you say to yourself, Scalia prides himself on being the
                 smartest dude on the Supreme Court and won't go into history
                 books as clearly making the wrong decision -- what do you
                 have left?
                 \-Does anyone know what STEVENS J. wrote in the where
                   he wrote a separate opinion? Also I was crossing my
                   he wrote a separate opinion? I was also crossing my
                   fingers that the Ct would be the "last bastion of sanity".
                   I think it affirms their role in the checks and balance
                   system against the executive power and i think the very
                   idea of *anybody* should *never* get a day in *any* court
                   is completely shocking to any lawyer and undermines the
                   meta-principle of the "rule of law" rather than taking
                   sides on any particular law. --psb
                   \_ The process that gave Thomas a seat does damage to the
                      "last bastion" ideal - particularly as a raft of judges
                      are headed to the SC the same way. -- ulysses
                      \_ This must also apply to O'Connor then?
                         \_ What do you mean? Was there something particular
                            about the way O'Conner was apppointed to the court
                            or her voting patterns that you object to?
                            \_ She was a Reagan judge.
                          \- The SupCt isnt responsible for Thomas being
                             there. The executive is. The OCONNOR comment
                                     \_ the legislative branch must take some
                                        share of the blame as well, for politi
                                        cizing the consent process. -crebbs
                                        \-i dont think "advise and consent"
                                          leaves them with much room. yeah i
                                          suppose it is too bad they had to
                                          go in for all the anita madness
                                          when they just should have said
                                          "you are too short to be on the ct".
                                          and i think if anything the executive
                                          cyntically used the black factor
                                          to put the legislature in an awkward
                                          position. if you decompartmentalize
                                          from just talking about thomas to
                                          the bork as well, i suppose you
                                          have a point. but that doesnt
                                          mean you float thomas to "get even"
                                          and it certainly doesnt make him
                                          well qualified. --psb
                                          \_ It's not exactly "to get even"
                                             (though...), It is simply a
                                             case of "hey, you played politic
                                             with someone who was qualified
                                             so here's one at least as conserv.
                                             but who is immune to that tactic.
                                                 \- well really to "get even"
                                                    the went with souter the
                                                    stealth candidate who
                                                    didnt have a long record
                                                    like bork. and that sort
                                                    of backfired. but nobody
                                                    is saying DS isnt qualified
                                                    to be there. --psb
                                                    \_ C.T. was chosen also
                                                       because he is immune to
                                                       the type of character
                                                       assassination that hurt
                                                       Bork.  If there had not
                                                       been so much playing
                                                       politics by the Leg.
                                                       with exec. appointments
                                                       I do not believe C.T.
                                                       would have been
                                                       nominated. -crebbs
                             doesnt make any sense. Not only is OConnor
                             super-well qualified to be on the Ct [Rhenquist
                             was 1st in his law class at Stanford and OConnor
                             was 3rd in that class] but arguably she is more
                             influential than the chief because she is closer
                             to the center. It is amazing how many of the
                             most sig decisions have been written by her.
                             See e.g. http://csua.org/u/7yq --psb
                             \_ She *is* the swing vote, but she seems to favor
                                pragmatism over principle too much for my
        \_ I remember when I posted that the USSC would probably declare
           that it had jurisdiction over the Guantanimo detainees and was
           that it had jurisdiction over the Guantanamo detainees and was
           mocked for claiming this and especially mocked for using the
           qualifier "probably." Well, Right Wing Nutjob, I mock you back
           for being wrong and especially mock you for being such an
           idiot extremist that you only respect people who claim
           certaintly when they do not have it. Like the entire White
           House Administration, come to think of it. No wonder you
           are so lost.
        \_ Why does the Court hate America?
           \_ Why is it a "right wing nutjob" who you think was in favor of
              us upholding our own constitution?  --conservative
              \_ Claiming that Bush is above the law is upholding the
                 Constitution? Sorry a very conservative supreme court
                 voted 6-3 against your very vocal and strenuous claim
                 that Bush could do anything he wanted to in Gitmo.
                 All your quotes from WH lawyers to naught. You and
                 the WH are both way out on a limb and you don't
                 even know it.
                                \-this is quite a simplistic comment.
                                  her equal protection approach to in
                                  texas vs johnson is quite principled.
                                  part of the jobs of the USSC is to give
                                  practical advice lower courts can apply
                                  with some consistency, such as the
                                  lemon test. do you really have any idea
                                  what you are talking about. --psb
                                  \_ hun?  url please.  I went and read this
                                     case and do not see anything by her at
                                     all, let alone anything regarding
                                     "equal protection". -!principle boy
                                     \- sorry, my mistake. the case to look
                                        at is lawrence v texas, not
                                        tx v johnson [which was the flag
                                        burning case]. there are a lot of
                                        strange departures from "principle"
                                        in sup ct jurisprudence. it's not
                                        so simple as practical vs principle.
                                        like how to blanace sep powers,
                                        federalism, legis intent, article i
                                        powers, orig intent, stare decisis,
                                        process vs. substance, disparate
                                        impact ... see e.g. Benjamin Nathan
                                        Cardozo: Nature of the Judicial
                                        Process, A. Bickel: The Least
                                        Dangerous Branch etc. i assume that
                                        is the case you are asking about,
                                        not the "lemon test" case, which
                                        is lemon v. kurtzman interpreted by
                                        oconnor in various "establishment
                                        clause" cases like lynch v donnelly
                                        to define govt endorsement. --psb
2004/6/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30983 Activity:high
6/23    http://tinyurl.com/3yfaq (news.yahoo.com)
        Holy shit!  How do *I* get into the parties they're attending?!
        \_ I have invites...who wants them.
        \_ marry Jeri Ryan
                 \_ Is this the same one who played Seven Of Nine?
                    That dude is strange if he's married to Seven
                    Of Nine and wants to go the xxx clubs.
                    \_ this story wouldn't get nearly the attention that
                       it has if it weren't the same Jeri Ryan
        \_ He's a Republican who went to sex clubs.  Is this some bizarre
           conservative cross-pollination from Britain?  What's next, Jesse
           Helmes found dead of autoerotic asphyxiation?
        \_ He's a tried and true RINO.
        \_ His name is Jack Ryan and he's running for office?  That's too
           \_ Tom Clancy fans might get confused and vote for him. Maybe
              that is his angle.
        \_ Why do you hate sex?
2004/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:30905 Activity:high
6/18    Going to Arizona, what are some cool places to visit?
        \_ The Grand Canyon.  Do not let anyone talk you out of going.  The
           grandeur is overwhelming, especially at sunset.
                \_ http://csua.com/?entry=10510
        \_ Stay indoor to stay cool.  Arizona is quite hot this time of year.
        \_ TPC Scotsdale, great golf course.
        \_ what do you want to do/see?  There are many National Parks there.
        \_ Sedona is nice. Arizona is a big state, though. From Monument
           Valley to Bisbee is a long way! *WHERE* in Arizona? Flagstaff?
           Tucson? Phoenix?
        \_ Scottsdale Gun Range. You can rent a G36, Glock 18, MP5, UMP, P90
           all real, all full auto. None of that airsoft crap.
           \_ what the hell does that have to do with Arizona?  Why not go
              to a movie theater while you're at it?
              \_ have you tried to rent a fully auto gun at a range in
        \_ Meteor Crater:
2004/6/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30851 Activity:high
6/16    California Ordered to Refund Enron $270M
        WTF? Can I blame Bush for this??
        \_ Sorry, no.  We have to refund them $270m so we can get our $2.#b
           back from them.  We can blame FERC for not ok'ing our $9b complaint
           and Ahnuld for not following up on that.
        \_ what about Robert Rubin?
        \_ Yes, all bad things are Bush's fault.  All good things come from
           Kerry and higher taxes.
           arch liberal Kerry and higher taxes.
           \_ Well someone's gotta pick up the tabs. So you think we can just
              cut taxes for the fucking rich, blowing billions in a fucking
              war for the rich, and then all the debt will just disappear?
              \_ Cut spending if you don't have enough money?
                 \_ good idea.  let's start with cutting the war in Iraq.
                    \_ If you were serious you'd be an isolationist like most
                       real conservatives.  You want a big army to go into
                       foreign countries *you* feel should be invaded.
              \_ let's just save up for the war in the USA
2004/6/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:30780 Activity:insanely high
6/13    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040613/D836DRJ00.html
        So, after 50+ years of miltiary, economic and diplomatic warfare
        against extreme leftism, the Europeans are going to simply elect
        them to office.  If I cared about Europe, I'd be pissed off.  But I
        don't so I think it's funny.
        \_ Socialist governments elected are a far cry from what the Warsaw Pact
           countries were like.
        \_ Socialist governments elected are a far cry from what the Warsaw
           Pact countries were like.
        \_ And in other news, the Gipper's body is now spinning like a
        \_ "Overall, center-right parties won, taking between 247 and
           277 seats in the 732-member European Parliament, according
           to preliminary projections. The center-left group, which
           includes lawmakers from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's
           Labour Party and Schroeder's Social Democrats, finished
           second - with an expected 189 to 209 seats."
           So, what exactly are you talking about?  -tom
           \_ Way to ignore the important parts of the article where the
              Socialists are taking over the various governing bodies of the
              individual countries!  You score 1 twink point for bad trolling.
              No one cares about the EU Parliament.  They don't do anything.
           \_ I guess if any socialist anywhere has any power, the Cold War
              was lost, even if they were elected lawfully to a temporary
              position in an orderly democratic process.
              \_ You don't remember Chili, don't you?  they did democratically
                 elected a communist government.  we overthrew it.
                 \_ Chili is a stew, Chile is a country.
              \_ It's okay to say that you don't know.
              \_ Here we go... Do you know who else was lawfully elected to
                 power in the early-mid 20th century?  I won't say it.
                 \_ Awesome.  You Godwin'd an otherwise reasonable thread
                    in record time!  Way to go!
                 \_ You mean that damned Socialist Roosevelt?
           \_ Sweden has been electing Democratic Socialist governments
              to power for the last 50 years with no discernable ill
              effects, except for perhaps universal free health care.
              \_ Sweden?  You really think any large country can be run like
                 \_ you are right.  large countries should be run like India.
                    Small countries should be run like Singapore.
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30721 Activity:insanely high
6/10    Why is Reagan credited with "winning the cold war"? Isn't it basically
        Gorbachev's doing? All Reagan did was quadruple our national debt.
        \_ He is credited with it because he did.  I laughed my ass off the
           other day when one of the complaints from some leftist blog was
           bitching that Reagan destoying the Soviet Union put an end to any
           hope for detente.  Unreal.
        \_ In Soviet Russia, Cold War wins YOU!!
        \_ Well, Gorbachev himself credits Reagan with ending the cold war:
           \_ He says "made a huge, possibly decisive, contribution to creating
              conditions for ending the Cold War". That's not the same.
              \_ Pretty close though.  Within epsilon.
                 \_ So Hitler made a huge, possibly decisive etc. for ending
                    the Third Reich, by his various blunders. The conditions
                    for ending aren't the ending.
                        \_ Hilter didn't come out and say 3rd Reich is going
                           away and I'm going to make it happen. Reagan said
                           that he was going to bring about the end of Soviet
                           communism and he put into place policies to that
                           end. That is the difference. I know YOU don't care
                           but I still felt like mentioning it.
                    \_ Wow, talk about turning reality on its head.  A good
                       rhetorical attempt at twisting words to suit your
                       agenda but silly when presented to an audience with
                       more than 1 brain cell.
        \_ When the Soviet Union collapsed, I didn't hear anybody crediting
           Reagan.  I heard credit going to the collapse of their economy.
           \_ And the entire intel community saying "Holy shit.  We didn't
              expect that..."
        \_ Two words: Zero Option. Look them up.
        \_ USSR collapsed because Gorbachev was an idiot, really. Although
           his reforms that were meant to modernize the party and the economy,
           he accidentally unleashed forces that lead to the disolution of the
           soviet union. Today he might be writing in his memoirs that this was
           his original intention, but that's complete bs.  The truth is that
           he was plain incompetent as a leader. His reforms, specially in the
           economic areas, usually didn't go beyond rhetoric.
           \_ His reforms led to greater freedom and the breakaway of the
              client states and so forth... whatever he intended, incompetent
              or not, this was basically his doing. He clearly intended moving
              towards more openness and reducing the command economy.
           \_ Well, the ussr had their own expensive vietnam going on in
              Afghanistan. They had to spend hugh sums on this war, and on
              continuing the cold war with the US increase in defense
              spending (modernizing and expanding), and SDI. The ussr
              couldn't keep up, financially - their old economy collapsed
              on itself. Reforms were the result which we all know didn't
              work out so well. So the Reagan administration's was able to
              end the cold war w/o firing a shot by outspending the ussr.
              Probably a good use of the money considering the alternative.
              \_ so why didn't China and North Korea collapse? They never kept
                 up. it's just not that simple.
                 \_ You said it yourself.  They never kept up.  The USSR was
                    attempting to keep up and couldn't play that game.  China
                    and NK haven't tried and haven't kept up either.  If China
                    or NK was to engage in an all out WWIII style blood bath
                    like the US & USSR were prepared to do for almost 50 years
                    they were be crushed like bugs before it even started.  If
                    the same thing happened with the USSR, the odds are good
                    that all human life on the planet would have been snuffed
                    out.  If China or NK tried to keep up they would collapse
                    too.  Why?  Because our system, our culture, and our
                    society are superior.
                    \_ right... so if life would have been snuffed out anyway,
                       USSR could have really cut back without any particular
                       danger to their empire. So it seems to me the real
                       difference is that under Gorby, the USSR failed to
                       keep up the autocratic iron fist. China never let up.
                       \_ no, they couldnt because eventually something like
                          star wars would have worked and other tech advances
                          would have made their land forces obsolete as well.
                          if we had continued dumping billions into SW we might
                          have a functional system today which would make their
                          nukes useless, or useless enough.  our modern land
                          forces of today would have obliterated their forces
                          of 25 years ago.  I agree with the iron fist part,
                          except: 1) the USSR had to do something, Gorby tried
                          something and lost, 2) China has not kept up and can
                          not stand up to the US today.  China is not the US
                          military equal the USSR once was.
                 \_ exactly.  liberlize economy first, but retain strong
                    political control, like what putin is doing today.
        \_ It takes Leadership to cut taxes, recognize your enemies in the face
           of nuclear war, and spend on defense.
           (And defined in this way, as many Americans do, Democrats don't
           have Leadership.)
           \_ JFK? Reagan increased the total tax burden on the middle class
              btw. He cut income taxes and raised payroll taxes, shifting
              the overall tax burden down. Overall collections as a percentage
              of GDP changed only very slightly.
              \_ You need an unbiased URL to prove the first two sentences, and
                 not from an opinion column.
                 \_ Reagan DID lower income and corporate taxes but raise
                    payroll taxes.  It shoudlnt' be too hard for you to find a
                    URL. -second opinion
                    \_ Then find one.  Your opinion is worth the bits it takes
                       to print them.  Probably less.
                 \_ Look, I am not going to do your research for you. Taxes
                    as a percentage of GDP is a prety easily obtained stat.
                    Is the WSJ unbiased enough for you?
                    \_ Dumbass.  Yes, you, dumbass:
                       First two sentences.  That does not include "JFK?".
                       The person who makes the unconventional claim must
                       back it up.
                       \_ The only reason it is "unconventional" to you
                          is that you are economically uneducated. I do
                          not have the time to educate you, that is something
                          you have to do yourself. Here is more data:
                          Look at Federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP
                          in 1980 and 1989.
                          \_ Are you JUST NOT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING?
                             "First two sentences."
                             \_ Okay, I see the confusion. You should have
                                said second and third sentences. I will
                                research this and get back to you. I am
                                busy at work right now.
                             \_ It is in this book:
                                Look at the source of federal revenue through
                                out the Reagan Era. The percentage amount from
                                payroll taxes increases and from income
                                decreases. Reagan raised payroll taxes
                                numerous times. Here are CBO numbers:
                                Income tax dropped from 8.9 to 8.0
                                while Social Security went from 5.8 to 6.7,
                                perfectedly offsetting the decrease.
                       \_ and the ad hominem begins. conservatives lose!
                          \_ Actually, I'm a Democrat, and I'm not thinking
                             of switching.  I just can't stand it when
                             some liberal makes a claim far out of left
                             field without some backup.  Republicans think
                             we're all idiots, and I'm not going to help them
                             with that myth.
                             \_ No, we don't think you're all idiots.  If that
                                were so we would've destroyed your entire
                                movement decades ago.  We think that many of
                                you are well meaning but either confused or
                                simply wrong and the rest are simply selfish to
                                the point of being evil.  I do appreciate you
                                coming forward and trying to bring the level of
                                debate above the usual "yoo teh suk!" that we
                                see on the motd from the fringes and the echo
                                chamber.  --conservative
           \_ It takes Intelligence not to waste trillions on nukes and star
              wars and tax cuts while promising balanced budgets and accruing
              massive debts. Defined in this way, Republicans don't have
              \_ The same Americans would say that if we had Carter in there,
                 we wouldn't have spent as much, the Soviets wouldn't have
                 spent as much, and the Evil Empire would still be there.
                 The same Americans would say the deficit-spending was money
                 well spent, and without big government too.
                 \_ Reagan also passed some of the biggest tax _increases_
                    of any President.
                    \_ Do I have to continue this?
                       The same Americans would say that raising taxes was
                       necessary to support defense spending in the arms race
                       with the Soviets, to keep Social Security solvent,
                       and to not let the deficit go wildly out of countrol
                       and to not let the deficit go wildly out of control
                       (and it was wild) -- all worthwhile causes.
                       \_ But wait, so its okay to raise taxes to pay for
                          war and control the deficit?!  Why can't we do that
                          \_ Because tax cuts stimulate the economy.  Lowering
                             taxes asctaually increases revenue!
                             taxes actaually increases revenue!
                             -- voodoo economist
                             \_ Hehe, ok so you're saying that raising taxes
                                stimulates the economy?  That high taxes will
                                increase revenue *over a period of time* and
                                not just initially?  That high taxes create
                                private sector jobs?  Okey, dokey!
                                \_ Of course it is more complicated than
                                   that. Taxes spent in economically useful
                                   activity tends to grow the economy faster
                                   than when that activity doesn't happen
                                   or only happens at the whims of the
                                   market. Universal public education, paid
                                   for by taxpayers, has been shown to be
                                   a win by many diverse economies. I think
                                   universal healthcare is too, as
                                   demonstrated by countries like Canada,
                                   where they spend less as a percentage of
                                   GDP (by far) but get similar results. Tax
                                   money wasted stupidly or in fraud is
                                   always a drain on the economy. Compare
                                   The Netherlands vs USA economic growth
                                   rates over time to see that higher tax
                                   rates do not always strangle the economy.
                                   \_ So you're saying the command economy is
                                      better than the demand economy.  I think
                                      the failure of the Soviet Union and now
                                      China moving to a demand economy buries
                                      that idea.  Money siphoned off to the
                                      government can never be spent as
                                      efficiently as money spent directly in
                                      the private sector.  What the government
                                      can do that the private sector can not
                                      is big public works projects that benefit
                                      everyone such as building/maintaing the
                                      highways, defense, dams, and other large
                                      projects that are unlikely to yield
                                      direct monetary benefit or are impossible
                                      for the private sector to deal with.
                                      Re: Netherlands.  Uhm, yeah, let's
                                      compare a homogenous highly controlled
                                      tiny country that doesn't have a military
                                      or any of the other problems the US has
                                      as a large nation and only super power to
                                      the Netherlands(???).  It isn't even
                                      worth discussing.  How about you compare
                                      the US to some other country or group of
                                      high tax countries that can almost equal
                                      the US in some way?  You know, the apples
                                      to apples thing?  Try Germany, France,
                                      Britain, etc. combined.   Netherlands?
                                      That's laughable.  The mouse that roared.
                                      \_ Heh.  In my current game of Victoria,
                                         I am playing as Netherlands.  It's
                                         1850s, I still control Indonesia, and
                                         I am rivalling the US for the #2
                                         world power status (Britain is #1).
                                         Netherlands used to be powerful back
                                         in the days.  Didn't they make Japan
                                         a satellite state at one point?
                                           -- ilyas
                          \_ Those in favor of the war should pay more taxes.
                             \_ That would be great!  We could all choose
                                what government services we want to pay
                                for.  I have no kids, so screw education!
                                I also have no need for social security,
                                medicare, or welfare, so I'm not paying
                                for them either! I think you should run
                                for office on that ticket.
                                \_ Amen, brother!  I'm totally in favor of us
                                   each only contributing as much as we take
                                   out!  My taxes would drop from a total
                                   burden of just over 50% (fed, state, etc) to
                                   about 5%.
                                \_ Sure. Make sure to vote for me.  I'll
                                   be running as CSUA party in '08.
                                \_ You're using CSUA account...that's part
                                   of education.  As for social security,
                                   you'll need it unless you plan to
                                   die before 67.
                                   \_ I don't need the CSUA account, I'm
                                      paying way more in taxes for
                                      education than the value of a CSUA
                                      account. Do you really think you'll
                                      get back even a fraction of the
                                      money you put into social security
                                      now?  Here's a hint: save money.
                                      \_ No but it's more for helping out
                                         those who need it.  How do you like
                                         seeing those senior citizens sleeping
                                         out on your streets if there's no
                                         social security?  Here's my hint:
                                         MAX out your 401k.  Save money is
                                         not getting you anywhere.
                                         Same goes with welfare.  No welfare
                                         means more bums in yoour neighborhood.
                                         or maybe you pay extra tax to have
                                         govt to deport them somewhere else
                                         or pay extra to move to richer place.
                                         It's totally your choice.
                                         \_ No welfare means fewer crack heads
                                            after they either get jobs or
                                            starve to death.  I'll pay an extra
                                            1% for funeral costs for the first
                                            year or two it takes to shake the
                                            garbage people out of the country.
                                            \_ But what if the crackheads
                                               decide to start burglarizing
                                               your house and carjacking you
                                               so they can afford to eat?
                                               Now you've been robbed and
                                               possibly shot and you then have
                                               to help pay the $50K per year
                                               to keep them in prison.
                                               \_ Prison?  No, 2nd amendment.
                                                  Anyway I think more highly of
                                                  people than you do.  Most
                                                  will work if forced to.
                                               \_ It doesn't take much
                                                  carjacking to eat. drug
                                                  adicts rob to pay for their
                                                  habit, not their dinner.
                                                  (yet another legalization
                                                   arg.) -phuqm
                                      \_ I have to disagree whether you
                                         need education or not.  In someway
                                         you used the education fund already
                                         by having gone to public schools and
                                         UCB.  Just because you don't need
                                         it now doesn't mean you got ripped off
                                         by the govt.  Without this education
                                         fund, your parents would have paid
                                         a premium to get you educated.
                                         \_ Very little of your education costs
                                            go to teaching students.  If this
                                            was a pure undergrad school most of
                                            us could easily afford it with a
                                            part time job.
                                      \_ I think you pay education not solely
                                         for yourself, but for a better
                                         society.  Just imagine what's like
                                         to live in state with no public
                                         education.  You'll end with so many
                                         kids on the streets doing random
                                         \_ Duh, that's what the second
                                            amendment is for.
                                            \_ Yeah, that is working out
                                               real well in places like
                                               Afghanistan and Congo.
                                               \_ They don't have the other
                                                  body of laws or culture to
                                                  support a non violent pro-gun
                                                  culture.  The Congo?  Yes,
                                                  when barbarians get weapons
                                                  they kill each other.  Big
                                \_ You'll never know if you need welfare.
                                   \_ I'm hungry and cold.  Send me your money.
        \_ We PRC Chinese made the USSR collapse.  We kicked them out of the
           house and cozied up with Uncle Sam.  Then we did a punitive
           expedition against Vietnam, after which the USSR sent huge amounts
           of money to their Vietnam lackey.  USSR also had to deploy many
           divisions along the world longest land border.  Not long after
           we punished the Vietnamese for being traitors, the USSR invaded
           Afghanistan in part to surround China, and got their butt kicked
           there.  In conclusion, it is us who brought down the USSR.  We
           \_ Kind of true. If a large country was supporting Afghanistan/Iraq,
              I am sure the outcome would be different. Too bad the Soviet
              is too chicken to do what the US did to them in Afghanistan!
              \_ The Soviet?  What is the Soviet?  Whatever it is there isn't
                 a the Soviet anymore.  Perhaps that is why the Soviet didn't
                 do anything about Iraq?
           \_ The USSR invaded Afghanistan for oil and a warm water port.  Why
              would they want an even longer border with China?  Not only is
              this not even "kind of true", it isn't even internally
              \_ Really? Then how come Afghanistan has neither a port or oil?
                 They have invaded Afghanistan just to put another satelite
                 country under their belt. I think that was the main point,
                 though most Russians themslves don't know what was the point
                 of this war.  I have read somewhere that it was mostly
                 Brezhnev's idea who after having recieved lots of literary
                 awards for his WWII trilogy "Malaya Zemlia" imagined himself
                 to be the world's greatest military commander and ordered the
                 Afghanistan invasion right before his death.
              \_ Warm water port to a river?  What for?
                 \_ Uh, you're kidding right?  Russia and then as the USSR
                    has been trying to get a warm water port for _hundreds_
                    of years.
                    \_ I just don't see how a river port is worth invading a
                    \_ Yes, but their goal was to reach Mediterranean Sea,
                       not the Indian Ocean. They were actually pretty close
                       to reaching the Mediterranean but were prevented
                       by the British and other allies of the Ottoman empire.
              \_ Why would they want a longer border?  No, it's not that
                 they want a longer border, it's just that the USSR likes to
                 threaten and bully.  That's what the USSR is about.  Until
                 it fell apart.  Warm water port is just part of the whole
                 picture.  Mostly USSR wants to dominate the region, with
                 help from friendlies like India and Iran.
                 \_ So they conducted a 10 year war in Afghanistan just because
                    they're mean?  And a warm water port and a shitload of oil
                    was secondary?  Ok, yeah, that makes lots of sense.
                    \_ they thought it's gonna be just a few months.
                       countries that sent most aid to the mujahadeens:
                       us, china, saudi arabia.  china was poor and
                       stingy.  why would it send aid in this case?
                       and no, there is no oil in afghanistan. ussr
                       has plenty of oil, they don't need more oil.
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health/Women] UID:30714 Activity:insanely high
6/10    What did William Randolph Hearst, one of the most powerful man
        on earth during the early 1900s, see in Marion Davies? I mean, she's
        not particular pretty or anything, what exactly did he see in her?
        \_ One word: Rosebud.
        \_ I think she was quite beautiful.  And supposedly she was
           very funny and charming.
        \_ To judge a partner only by looks is extraordinarily shallow.
           I don't know if Hearst was -- perhaps he satisfied any need
           for "pretty" women with mistresses, common for rich men.
           \_ But MARION was the mistress, at least at first, no?
              In any case, she stayed with him long after she herself
              had become independently wealthy ... so maybe they really
              just loved each other.
        \_ lame question, but back in the 20s-40s, pre-pill era, what the
           heck did they use for birth control?
           \_ Condoms have been around for centuries.
                \_ I'd think the world's most powerful man would prefer
                   not using the condom because it feels so much better
                   \_ Syphilis URL nutcase to thread...
                   \_ I don't think he is the world's most powerful man,
                      perhaps the most powerful man in his castle.
           \_ Withdrawal.
        \_ Have you ever actually... you know... with a girl... *talked* to
           one?  And no, for-pay online sex-cam chat doesn't count.
        \_ Have you ever done the castle tour? According to the tour guides,
           they were very much in love with each other.
        \_ In the US maybe, not on earth you idiot.
        \_ http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/willh.html
                he hated Minorities and supported Hitler.
                \_ yes, which is another reason the myth of the liberal press
                   is absurd.  -tom
                   \_ I finally figured out why we let you stay here.  For the
                      humor factor.  Taken the right way you're actually a
                      really funny guy.  Sort of like the court jester or the
                      class clown, you're always there with something wildly
                      inappropriate, off topic, ridiculous, or just plain rude.
                      I hope to see you around some more.  The motd was making
                      too much sense without you for the last few months.
2004/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30654 Activity:insanely high
6/7     Was Starship Troopers 2 even in the theatres?
        \_ No, and it had a budget of roughly $6 million compared to the
           original's $100 mil.
           \_ Can't make it any worse.
           \_ Wow, it says the original oly made $65 mil.  (So it lost
              about $35 mil)  There IS some justice in the world.
              \_ enough justice to warrant a sequel.
              \_ Was that just theater tickets, or overall?
                 \_ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starshiptroopers.htm
              \_ If the original had tried to be anything like the book it
                 might have made money.  They stole the title and the
                 character names.  The rest was bullshit.
                 \_ Best review of original ever:
                 \_ it took a somewhat interesting book that had something
                    interesting to say for its time, discarded the stuff
                    which is no longer relevant for its shock value and filled
                    it in with other stuff which is actually relevant to our
                    current political climate.  What is bullshit about that?
                    \_ They took Heinlein's politics, turned it upside down
                       and made a bad joke of it, and then fucked up the only
                       other cool thing by ruining combat by turing the super
                       nuke and flame thrower wielding heavy infantry into sub
                       machine gun toting light infantry bug food who
                       shouldn't have stood a hope in hell of surviving 2
                       minutes on any bug planet much less actually winning
                       against them.  Bullshit.  Shall I go on?  I'd have to
                       dig up my copy to give you specific details but it's
                       more of the same.  Oh yeah, they also completely
                       skipped the Skinnies.  How long ago did you read the
                       book?  I re-read it a few months ago.
                       \_ Best review of movie ever:
                          http://csua.org/u/7n2 (independent review, humorous)
                       \_ Heinlein's politics ARE a joke. His stories are
                          1950's sci-fi fanboy fantasies. They're fun if you
                          are in your teens, but hardly great shakes. The only
                          real disappointment of Starship Troopers was that
                          Denise Richards didn't go topless. Now THAT is
                          something Heinlien would have pushed for.
                          \_ Hmm, service to one's country is a good thing...
                             joke... with rights come resposibilities... joke
                             earn voting rights by serving country... ok, yeah
                             you're right, it's just a joke, we're doing so
                             much better today with people selling their votes
                             and corrupt money burdened politics.  You should
                             go re-read your Heinlein.  It sounds like you read
                             him in your teens and missed out on what he was
                             really saying.  You also completely ignored my
                             point about the movie's silly version of combat
                             and the complete loss of the Skinnies.  Or maybe
                             you're just a troll and never read his stuff at
                             all and you're just taking the silly movie as
                             what Heinlein really had to say and what his
                             stories were like.
                             \_ That goverment model has a name, fascism. The
                                Italians tried this when WWI vets felt that
                                only they deserved to run the government. In
                                Heinlein, everyone puts out, women doubly so.
                                Pure fanboy. Tossing mini-nukes around makes
                                friendly fire so much more interesting. And
                                irradiating planets where you hope to inhabit?
                                Just a bad idea. The movie was tripe, feeding
                                off Heinlien's good name and an entertaining
                                read. But never confuse Heinlien with reality.
2004/6/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:30593 Activity:high
6/3     there are talks among inner hispanic circles like mesa to use
        the muslim tactic of breeding out existing societies to
        take control of california then succeed from the union.
        Like muslims they will want to claim an independent state.
        they estimate it will take 20 years.
        \_ we will bury you!
        take control of california then succeed from the union.
        Like muslims they will want to claim an independent state.
        they estimate it will take 20 years.
        \_ ^succeed^secede
        \_ Did it occur to any of them that they're gonna need an army to
           secede, and gang-bangers do not an army make?
        \_ In 20 years, California may be Hispanic, but in 20 years, all those
           new Hispanics will be Americanized.
        \_ US needs to make Mexico its 51st state, and get it over already.
        \_ What's an "inner hispanic circle"?  Since when did MESA represent
           anything more than some racist nutbags?  Are they passing fliers
           out to hispanic women asking them to breed for the cause?  And even
           if the state went 99% hispanic, why would any significant number of
           those people want to secede from the US?  This line of thinking is
           just ugly racism.  Summary of thought: someone who is hispanic
           authomatically hates all non-hispanics and loves all hispanics and
           automatically thinks just like we do only because they're hispanic.
           \_ RACIST!
2004/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30573 Activity:insanely high
6/3     If California declares independence, and the non-kookoo portion
        of US decides to invade California, how will it attack?  cross the
        desert to take Los Angeles first, then roll up Hwy 5?
        \_ It would take 21 days.  20 days for the rest of the US to stop
           laughing and realise CA was serious and 1 day to retake everything.
        \_ The US is all out of step except CA!
        \_ On a related note, let's say you're drawing a U.S. Diplomacy
           board. HOw would you divvy up NOrth America?
           \_ Red counties and blue counties.
        \_ If pigs fly out my ass, will they have bat wings or feathered ones?
           \_ Bat wings, duh!  Pigs are mammals.
        \_ Take Interstate 80 from Reno to Sacramento.
        \_ I think a lot depends upon how committed to a war the citizenry
           is. Will companies like Boeing and Lockheed with plants in CA
           support CA or the US? Will US soldiers attack Californians?
           What percentage of US soldiers are from CA?
           \_ Let's assume CA has a decent army.  Inferior and outnumbered
              by the US military, but capable of fighting a little.  It's
              mostly a military question, rather than a political one -op
              \_ The only part of CA with significant military is San
                 Diego, so I imagine San Diego goes first and then the
                 defense contractors in SoCal. Less important is Silicon
                 Valley and the navy in SF.
                 \_ ok, let's assume california inherited 1/8th of the
                    US military forces minus anything nukular.
                    \_ That's not fair:  A lot of submarines are based out of
                       San Diego.
                 \_ Another issue is who are CAs allies? Mexico? Japan?
                    \_ I don't think any country would provide military aid.
                       \_ Why not? They did during the Civil War.
                          \_ The South had a chance of winning, and the North
                             was way too busy to fight the other countries.
                             The US could easily lob missiles at any country
                             that help California.
                          \_ link?
                    \_ what a great thread!  How about we assume the forces
                       of nature rise to aid California?  (Pigs with wings of
                       all types...)  What then?
                        \_ Why would the forces of nature rise up to help us?
                           Have you any idea how many H2s are on the road?
                           \_ Good point.  But is it fair to assume they'll
                              bite the tires/tracks of both attackers AND
                              defenders?  And there will probably be more
                              attackers than defenders, so it would be of
                              net benefit to the Californians?
                    \_ assume california has no allies, but neither does the
                       US, and it cannot attack California from Mexico.
        \_ yea, but don't attack LA directly, isolate it, cut off its
           water supply, and wait for it to surrender.
           \_ That would cut off all of SoCal.
              \_ What if we approach this the other way? California goes
                 on the offensive against Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and
                 Arizona to claim water rights. We pretty much own them
                 now anyway.
                 \_ ok, that's interesting.  Let's give California the
                    advantage of a first strike, surprise attack.
                    where would you try to attack and hold?  Of course,
                    you want to control the Sierras for its water and its
                    defensive value, but other parts of Nevada is kind
                    of hard to hold even if you conquer it at first.
                    I am not too familiar with geography of Arizona.
                    As for Oregon, is there any point in attacking it
                    for a defense purposes?
                    \_ CA can't even pass a spending bill on time.  You think
                       CA can launch a first strike?
        \_ But we have ... the Governator!
           \_ But the governator cannot travel back in time with any metal or
        \_ Or look at it another way, how would you set up your defenses
           for California against a US invasion?
           \_ Let's keep it simple.  After we crack the launch codes, we can
              deter with the nuclear weapons stored in CA, and build more.
        \_ Hawiians have talked about secessions for a very very long time.
           In fact, they're still talking about it. They have nothing in
           common with any other state and they're always fucked no matter
           who the president is.
                \_ hawaii's governor is very pro bush
           \_ Convert Pendleton before proceeding.  We stand a much better
              chance with the marines with us than with them against us.
        \_ CA vs. the US: it lasts about 3 weeks.  That's 20 days for the US
           to stop laughing, 1 day to take over.
        \_ Substitute Calif with Taiwan, and U.S. with China.  Now discuss...
           \_ It would help a lot if the PRC supplies weapons to California,
              and it has good reasons to, since there are so many Chinese in
           \_ Question for the anti-Taiwan independence crowd.  Didn't China
              cede Taiwan to Japan in the treaty of Shimonoseki?  -- ilyas
              \_ China tried ceding Taiwan, but Taiwan declared indepen-
                 dence before the Japanese invaded Taiwan, then Japan
                 ceded Taiwan back to China after WWII.  Weird.  That's
                 why Taiwan should declare independence.  We have
                 superior US made weapons that will kick China arse.
                 Some association of US companies in Taiwan put out
                 an advertisement in some Taiwan newspaper last weekend
                 warning Taiwan government to negotiate direct
                 shipping, flight, etc. to PRC, or US companies will all
                 be dumping Taiwan companies soon.  Those traitors!
                 be dumping Taiwan soon.  Those traitors!
                 Taiwan will soon be spending another US$18 billion to
                 buy weapons.  Greedy Americans overcharges Taiwan by
                 an arm and a leg for the weapons since no one else
                 sells to Taiwan.  Those bastards!  But hey, those
                 are some cool toys to play with.  I was personally
                 aboard one of the Knox class destroyers when it was down
                 in Long Beach during handover training after it was
                 bought by Taiwan.  That was one outdated warship.
                 We need a few Aegis boats instead.  Please sell us
                 a few.  PRC commies recently been unofficially
                 publishing list of Taiwan actresses and singers and
                 stars who are pro-independence.  Heard that president
                 Ah Bian recently had trouble inviting any of these
                 money grubbing actresses and singers and stars to
                 his functions.  Those PRC commie bastard bullies!
              \_ yea but article 4 of the Treaty of Peace between China
                 and Japan states that:
                        It is recognised that all treaties, conventions,
                        and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941
                        between Japan and China have become null and
                        void as a consequence of the war.
2004/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30567 Activity:insanely high
6/3     Almost every single person I personally know are in California,
        and every single one of them hates Bush. Having this said, how come
        the poll still shows that Bush/Kerry are neck to neck? In another
        word, how come people outside of California like Bush? What did
        Bush do for them?
        \_ Do a google search on: "Pauline Kael" McGovern
        \_ Gah, why bother even asking here?  You're not going to get a
           coherent answer, and even if you do, it will instantly be drowned
           out by a bunch of name calling.  Oh wait, its the motd, maybe you're
           just trolling.
        \_ Move to Orange County.
        \_ I know a lot of people who don't exactly love Bush, but are
           tolerant of him because they really don't like Kerry or other
           Democrats. They live in CA. In the last election a lot of
           people in CA voted for Bush.
           \_ I predict Bush will win California in a landslide!
        \_ troll.  Let's see: I live in the liberal part of a liberal state and
           I don't understand why I don't know any Bush supporters!  Let's see,
           I hate Bush and I hate him loudly and refuse to talk to anyone who
           doesn't hate him and I wonder aloud why I don't know any Bush
           supporters... troll.
                \_ California has a very different economic/social makeup
                   than the rest of the nation. It has been fucked by
                   Bush's friends (Enron) and the little guys here have
                   benefited very little from Bush's administration.
                   Furthermore it receives less % of the share of Federal
                   aide than the other states. If anything, California
                   should at least attempt a Declaration of Causes
                   of Secession
                   \_ CA has received a lesser % of federal money than other
                      states for decades.  This is suddenly Bush's fault?  Did
                      you bitch about that from 1992-2000 and blame that
                      President for it at the time?  Did he do anything for the
                      little guys in CA?  Presidents don't do shit for the
                      little guys, the big states or anyone else.  That isn't
                      their job.  If you want a sugar daddy, go to SF, drop
                      your pants and someone will be along in a minute or two
                      to give you a few bucks.
                      \_ Is this really true? I would like to see some
                         statistics about this. I suspect CA used to get
                         its fair share back in the 70s and has been
                         on a downward trend since then, but I am interested
                         in seeing actual facts.
                   \_ BushCo would love that: military invasion of Cali,
                      followed by suspension of Statehood and negation of
                      those juicy anti-Bush electoral votes.
                      \_ Tinfoil.  Hat.  Nutter.  Prozac.
                         \_ Are you really so fucking stupid to think that
                            post is serious?
                            \_ With MOTD righties, it's sometimes hard to tell.
                               \_ Don't tell me you're still trying.
                      \_ would california be a good place to fight a
                         guerilla war?  like we have mountains, big cities,
                         small towns, farming communities, rivers, deserts,
                         etc.  should be fun.  hey, we may actually have
                         some real WMDs somewhere.
        \_ Our real enemy is not Bush but Bush supporters.
           \_ "Our"?  Who is "us"?  Enemies of the United States?  Pro-Soviet
              trolls who cry for loss of Stalin or maybe China's Mao?  'Enemy'
              is a harsh word.  You turn politics into a death match with
              words like that.  You can't afford to lose a death match.  I'm
              one of the people you declare as an "enemy" but I don't see you
              as such.  I only see you as young and misguided and not earning
              enough to get pissed off when you see your taxes being spent on
              buying votes at the next election which is the best way to kill
              a democracy or republic.  I'm not your enemy.
              \_ No, actually, you are.  I've been tracking you for years now,
                 and I will not give up now that I'm so close, so very, very
                 close.  Your time is coming, Moriarty.
              \_ Coulter and Savage has been calling anyone who disagrees
                 \_ I'm busted!  But you shall not have me before I destroy
                    all of London when the bomb goes off in Old Ben!
              \_ Coulter and Savage have been calling anyone who disagrees
                 with them "traitors" for a long time. Perhaps you should
                 work on muzzling the voices of hate on the right.
                 \_ That's it?  That's the best you've got?  A second rate
                    author and talk show personality and a third rate local
                    radio host?  How about you start at the top of your party,
                    then go to the NAACP, http://moveon.org, Soros, Hillary, Gore,
                    Kennedy, and I guess Kerry doesn't matter.  You can keep
                    Kerry.  He's useless to you.
                    \_ When have any of those people referred to the Republican
                       Party as "the enemy" or traitors? Oh, they haven't.
                       I guess that shoots down your theory about who
                       the haters are. Add Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly
                       and half of Congress to the Republican Hate Machine.
        \_ You and your friends are not a representative statistical sample of
           the population. Beware anecdotal statistics. -emarkp
        \_ I view liberalism (not classical) as a pernicious evil
           engendered by communism and secularism that has
           steadily eroded the foundation of this country.  Maybe this
           explains to you why I consider the GOP the lesser of two
           evils and why I will never ever ever sincerely vote for a Dem.
           And I live in Berkeley.
           \_ I view you as a Berkeley kook.
           \_ What is wrong with secularism?
              \_ Hitler, Mao, Stalin ... were all atheists.  WWII and Cold War
                 were effectively wars of theism vs. atheism.
                 \_ Hitler wasn't an atheist. He just wasn't a Christian.
                    Furthermore we allied ourselves with Stalin who did the
                    main work of defeating Hitler. The cold war was a war of
                    capitalism vs. command economies. But that was just how it
                    was waged; the real cause was the USSR's imperialistic
                    "An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of
                    nature, and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man,
                    on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism
                    (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as
                    he perceives that the state, in sheer opportunism, is
                    making use of false ideas in the matter of religion,
                    whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure
                    "If in the course of 1-2,000 years science arrives at the
                    necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not
                    mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's
                    always striving, according to the momentary state of
                    knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a
                    mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity which
                    is the liar; it's in perpetual conflict with itself."
           \_ Quite a few vocal white supremacists live in Berkeley.
2004/5/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Military] UID:30464 Activity:high
5/27    vote to lift the Assault weapons ban
        \_ Or, alternately, to extend it.
           \_ Why extend it?  In what way does it help? -- ilyas
              \_ I think poster is pointing that it could go either way.
                 half-empty versus half-full.
                 \_ I was just curious what the arguments are for extending the
                    ban, now that it's been in effect for a while, and we are
                    in a position to see how well it did. -- ilyas
2004/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30453 Activity:very high
5/27    Track Kerry's Position on Iraq
        \_ They really need something like this for Bush:
           Mission Accomplished!  Mission not accomplished!
           Baathists out.  Baathists in.
           Will significantly reduce troops in a year.  More troops longer.
           WMD.  WMD program.  No WMD or WMD program.
           Chalabi's the next president.  Chalabi is a crook.
           Eliminate all militias.  Negotiate with Sadr militia.
           Gitmoize Iraq.  Iraq is not Gitmo.
           There is an al Qaeda link (Dick).
           - There is no al Qaeda link (George).
           - Well, now they're all here anyway.
              \_ Shut the fuck up you piece of shit!
                 \_ With debate skills like yours, Bush will win California
                    in a landslide!
                    \_ Why do you hate America?
                       \_ Why do you hate white people?
           \_ w00t!
        \_ I find it humorous that with all of Bush's faults, the best dirt
           that they can come up with is that he *gasp* flip-flops!
           \_ I find it humorous that with all of ______'s faults, the best
              dirt that they come up with is that he *gasp* flip-flops!
              \_ If ____ were Kerry his faults would be more than mere flip
                 floppery but that's the easiest and most amusing charge to
                 level.  I voted for flip flopping before I voted against
                 flip flopping!
                 \_ Right, why argue policy or substantive issues when you
                    can just make up easy shit?
                    \_ "I HATE BUSHCO BECUZ DEYRE EEEVVVIILL!!"  When you're
                       ready to keep your personal hatred to yourself and
                       argue those substantive issues I'm here. -real consrvtv
                       \_ Nice strawman.  The only one frothing here is you.
                          [restored, censors and smashers can go fuck off]
                          \_ I never froth.  I'm just voting for things before
                             I vote against them.  You have *never* seen the
                             word "hate" come out of my keyboard unless it was
                             referring to someone else's use or state of
                             emotion.  There are very few things in the world
                             worthy of true hatred.  Politicians aren't worth
                             the energy it would take to hate them especially
                             since all you can really do about them in the end
                             is vote against them and that's not enough to
                             satisfy the deep hatred I've seen others express.
                             Have a nice day!  :-)
                             \_ You have a limited understanding of politics
                                if you believe that all you can do is vote.
                                I have helped put laws on the ballot that
                                were then passed, raised thousands of dollars
                                for my favored candidates, lobbied my
                                legislators and changed at least a few other
                                voters minds on the way. Don't diminish
                                your own power like that.
2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:30434, category id '18005#8.995' has no name! , ] UID:30434 Activity:high
5/26    http://www.csua.org/u/7gg
        "My prediction: Bush will win California on the way to a landslide
         victory." Thanks for the laughs, Bush worshippers. Still
        willing to stick with that "prediction"?
        \_ The Requested URL /y/7gg was not found on this server.
           \_ URL fixed. op slapped.
              \_ Umm. Thanks.
        \_ w00t!
        \_ I didn't make that prediction but the election is really going to
           come down to two things: 1) is there a major attack on American
           soil between now and then (and how do people respond to it) and
           2) how each candidate comes across in the 3 debates in October.
           Everything going on now is fluff.
           \_ how about 3) will OBL be caught before the election?
              \_ Maybe they already have him in Cheney's Dungeon.
                 \_ Cheney's DUngeon?  What level is it?  I've got this great
                    4th level Warrior that I want to use....
              \_ nah, capturing hussein didn't do a damned thing for the poll
                 \_ He got a ~ 6% jump in approval rating, but it dropped
                    soon after:
2004/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:30423 Activity:high
5/25    Don't believe it could happen?
        \_ it?  what it?  fucking trolls.  im not going to read your zero
           content teaser link.  that's almost as bad as a cock tease.  get off
           the motd you link tease.
           \_ It's not like it's a disguised freeper link.
              \_ It might as well be.  Why can't OP just say what "it" is?
                 Link tease!
                 \_ Operation Northwoods
                    \_ Which means what?  "Don't believe Operation Northwoods
                       could happen?  <url here>"  Ok, so what?
2004/5/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30362 Activity:high
5/22    Arnold policies help CA ecnomy recover... without raising taxes.
        I didn't vote for him and I don't like everything he's done or trying
        to do and I voted against his propositions but credit where credit is
        due.  If he pulls it off I might vote for him if he runs again.
        \_ shortened to http://csua.org/u/7eu --darin
        I didn't vote for him and I don't like everything he's done or trying
        to do and I voted against his propositions but credit where credit is
        due.  If he pulls it off I might vote for him if he runs again.
        \_ Ooh, the CPAs say we're doing better.  Tell that to grad students
           that now can't afford UC.
           \_ There's a grad school in some other state they can afford?
        \_ ok freeper whatever you say
           \_ SO... you think this didn't actually happen?
           \_ personal attack on OP -> OP post value++ && your value--
2004/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30275 Activity:high
5/18    http://www.csua.org/u/7c3
        hey ranty conservative poster:  you described this as "Just another
        partisan rant, full of wild assumptions and faulty conclusions."
        Now I'm curious.  What are the wild assumptions?        -!op
        \_ which rant are we supposed to read,
           "You fat fucking fucks need to stop eating so much fatty catby stuff
            You are fat because you don't like baby jesus. Fuck you. That's
            baby jesus says. Fuck you. Also, you fat donut eaters need to keep\
            eating donuts but must learn to shut up. Fuck you,"
            LOSE FAT AMERICAN!"?
            I just don't know where to start.
        \_ How about the first sentence.
           \_ Yeah, that'd be one of the wild assumptions. -evil conservative
        \_ Phew. I'm a lefty and think the post is farily off mark. -evil lefty
        \_ Phew. I'm a lefty and think the post is fairly off mark. -evil lefty
2004/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:30269 Activity:nil
5/17    Can some chemical engineering major tell me if these are real or some
        sort of elaborate joke?
        Molecules with Silly Names
        \_ I know Buckminster Fullerene, Unununium and Apatite exist, and I've
           heard of Cadaverine before. -!ChemE
           \_ But Cummingtonite?!
              \_ There is also benitoite, found in Benito, CA. -- ilyas
              \_ A mineral discovered near Cummington... plausible.
2004/5/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Transportation/Car] UID:30221 Activity:nil 53%like:30210
5/13    http://tinyurl.com/2bs2z (news.yahoo.com)
        Price of gasoline a little high for California?
        \_ "Price of gas at a station in Santa Barbara, Calif. Tuesday morning
            May 11, 2004, was $3.11 for full service, 91 octane. It was later
            changed to $3.13."
            Who buys _full service_ gas anywhere?  Premium yes, but full
            \_ Old people and others who have trouble standing up and walking.
                \_ oregon won't let you pump your own gas
                   \_ OMG, another reason why Oregon sux0rs.
                      \_ And yet they pay less for gas than we do...
                         \_ We should totally invade Oregon and steal all their
                            cheap gas.  Oh wait...
                            \_ w00t!
                   \_ Not a terrible thing in a rainy state.
                      \_ full service in a rainy state is not terrible...
                         *forcing* people to pay for full service is *always*
                         \_ It's different from full service, it's called mini
                            service. And Oregonians can alway vote to repeal.
               \_ Should these people be trusted behind the wheels?  Don't get
                  hit by them when you're on the sidwalk!
            \_ It's a luxury. People who couldn't give a damn about how much
               it costs to fill the H2 can spend the extra bucks to have
               someone making minimum wage to check their oil, wash their
               windows, and check their tires. Such places exist...
2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:30212 Activity:low
5/12    Cold Turkey, by Kurt Vonnegut (05/12/04)
2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Transportation/Car] UID:30210 Activity:low 53%like:30221
5/13    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040511/480/cajme10205111903
        Price of gasoline a little high for California?
        \_ "Price of gas at a station in Santa Barbara, Calif. Tuesday morning
            May 11, 2004, was $3.11 for full service, 91 octane. It was later
            changed to $3.13."
            Who buys _full service_ gas anywhere?  Premium yes, but full
            \_ Old people and others who have trouble standing up and walking.
                \_ oregon won't let you pump your own gas
                   \_ OMG, another reason why Oregon sux0rs.
                      \_ And yet they pay less for gas than we do...
                         \_ We should totally invade Oregon and steal all their
                            cheap gas.  Oh wait...
                            \_ w00t!
                   \_ Not a terrible thing in a rainy state.
                      \_ full service in a rainy state is not terrible...
                         *forcing* people to pay for full service is *always*
                         \_ It's different from full service, it's called mini
                            service. And Oregonians can alway vote to repeal.
               \_ Should these people be trusted behind the wheels?  Don't get
                  hit by them when you're on the sidwalk!
            \_ It's a luxury. People who couldn't give a damn about how much
               it costs to fill the H2 can spend the extra bucks to have
               someone making minimum wage to check their oil, wash their
               windows, and check their tires. Such places exist...
               \_ Most people driving an H2 can't afford full service.
2004/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:30201 Activity:high
5/12    My brother works as a janitor for a cleaning company while he goes
        to college.  He's paid well, so he doesn't want to quit.
        However, there's this guy he works with who he can't stand.
        Janitors have a lot of time to talk as they take out the trash,
        and this guy says really stupid things constantly.  He's racist,
        sexist, and always asking for computer help.  My brother asked to
        work with someone else, and his boss said that no one else could
        stand the guy either, but he had no reason to fire him.  Is
        "None of your coworkers can stand you" just cause for
        termination in CA?
        \_ Sure you can be fired for any reason whatsoever, or no reason
           at all. Unless you are under some kind of contract, like at
           a Union job. Is this guy in a Union?
           \_ Not in a union.  But I'm not sure you're right.  I've heard
              of people sueing for unlawful termination before, and I know
              it was a concern with my boss when I was a pizza boy.
              \_ whatchoo talkin' bout, boy? unless you can show some kind of
                 discrimination, or contract (union?) they can fire at will.
                 just make up stuff about the guy, or tell the boss he was
                 offensive and shit, that's a valid reason.
                 \_ This is bad advice. Just fire him. Don't give any reason.
                    Giving reasons is the #1 source of unlawful termination
                    lawsuits. It sounds mean, but it covers your ass.
                \_ I love listening to the advice you guys give.  It's
                   obvious none of you have owned or run a business with
                   employees.  Firing someone safely is VERY VERY HARD.
                   \_ his brother doesn't either.  he's a janitor.  i'm
                      clearly missing something about this thread.
                   \_ what state do you live in? I've seen enough CA layoffs
                      that I have to doubt that. other than the safety angle
                      of psychotic revenge with an assault rifle.
                      \_ layoff != firing.  and i've seen people file suit
                         after a layoff and the company settle.
                   \_ Firing one person is a piece of cake. You barely need
                      a reason. More than one person, then you have to have
                      good reasons. As the numbers grow, the better your
                      reasons need to be. Suing based on discrimination is
                      HARD since the onus of proof is on the person fired. They
                      would need to show intent of malice. Some folks sue, some
                      employers settle out of court because it's cheaper.
        \_ convince the other guy to quit.  have your brother tell him that
           he loves black/asian/hispanic/jewish/whatever people, that he
           can't wait to see a female POTUS, and some bad computer advice.
        \_ "Creates a hostile working environment."  Log all complaints.  Once
           the paper trail gets long enough, fire the guy with no cause given,
           and retain the paper trail for defense.  If you really want to be
           safe, create an employee handbook with strict rules against racist
           comments, etc. and reprimand him for violating the rules.  With
           luck, he might improve.  Otherwise, you'll have plenty of ammo to
           get rid of him.
           \_ His brother isn't the manager but this is what the manager should
              be doing.  And yes, like other people said above, it is very hard
              to safely fire someone in CA, at-will laws or no.
              \_ The best thing to do (as a manager in a situation like this)
                 is to reduce the hours the guy can work.  Reduce them far
                 enough, and it won't be economical for him to work for you
                 \_ Then he'll have grounds to sue you because you reduced
                    his hours for no reason while keeping everyone else the
                    same.  This is stupid.  Make policy, document violations
                    from that point on, then fire.
        \_ Maybe he's trying to get himself fired?
2004/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30178 Activity:very high
5/12    http://www.hillnews.com/news/051204/patriot.aspx confuses me.  Are
        we supposed to like republicans for opposing the patriot act
        extension because we hate the patriot act or are we supposed to now
        like the patriot act because republicans oppose it?  Or are we supposed
        to hate republicans *and* PA no matter what they vote for or against?
        \_ I think we need to be glad that more GOP lawmakers have found their
           balls again.
           \_ Exactly. We'll see how long it goes until they cave. Besides
              it's a rollback they should be shooting for as "libertarian-
              minded Republicans". -- ulysses
              \_ So since this is just their nature its ok to keep hating them?
                 \_ Say what? -- ulysses
           \_ Well, this is just for show.  They will quietly sign on later.
              And so will the democrats.
              \_ So we should hate democrats as well?
                 \_ Hate whoever you want, gays, liberals, feminists, or
                    free thinkers.  This is a free-to-hate country.
2004/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30166 Activity:kinda low
5/11    Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, on the beheading of Nick Berg:
        "From my own perspective, it validates Secretary [of Defense Donald]
        Rumsfeld and General [Richard] Myers' attempt to keep these initial
        photos from being published," Hunter said. ... "I think it shows
        they were trying to save American lives when they did that.
        Unfortunately, those pictures were released." -CNN
        \_ The beheading took place some time back.  This was not done in
           retaliation for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.  This was not done by
           Iraqis.  This was done by Al Qaeda.
        \_ I'll bet it would be even better if there was no torture to take
           pictures of.  Then we'd be really set!
           \_ Even though you don't provide any supporting URLs, I kind of
              believe everything you wrote.  Except, it's kind of hard to
              discriminate between Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda right now.
              \_ Actually, I was wrong about the timing.  Nick was beheaded
                 on Saturday.  Nevertheless, I think this was a calculated
                 move on the part of foreign insurgents in Iraq (i.e.,
                 Al Qaeda) to stir up precisely the sort of anger against
                 Iraqis we're seeing here. Their hope is that this will
                 drive a wedge between the Iraqis and US troops who have,
                 to this point, been trying to bridge the gap.
                 \_ The U.S. found his body on Saturday.  I guess it's hard
                    to believe the insurgents kept his corpse for a week.
                    Naturally, anti-U.S. forces killed Nick Berg and released
                    the video as an act of terror.
        \_ It's always good to know which congressmen would be happier if the
           American public were more ignorant. If we don't know bad things are
           happening, they they really didn't happen, right? Ooo shiny..
        \_ So what do we know about this Nick Berg guy?  Who was he there
           working for?  Why was he 'detained' by the US for over a week?  It
           was hard to tell from the news if he was even there legally or was
           just some random idiot who decided he was going to Iraq for his own
           random reasons.  Does anyone know for real what he was doing there
           and who sent him, if anyone?
2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30150 Activity:very high
5/10    Why do Republicans only support sodomy when it is nonconsensual?
        \_ NO COOKIE!  Play Again(Y/n)? ___
           \_ This sounds like a troll except it is true - it's hard to find
              a popular conservative who is not defending the tortures.  (Yes,
        \_ Those who do are partisan hacks with no core.  Your link appears to
           be down, BTW.
              it is torture.  Whenever we accuse other countries of doing it we
              always call it torture instead of abuse, hazing, or emotional
              release.  And no, they didn't cut off anything.  On the other
              hand, our arab and muslim allies have been cutting parts of
              prisoner and our goverment has been very supportive.  Amputation
              is a tradtional punishment in Arab and Muslim countries and it
              is not usually used for interrogation, with which torture is
              usually but nonexlusively associated.)
        \_ There's no sin in it if you don't enjoy it.
           \_ Bend over and think of Iraq!
        \_ Those who do are partisan hacks with no core.
        \_ How did you infer this from the article you mentioned?  If you want
           to help pick on Republicans, at least use a better example.
           \_ Inhofe is one of the most outspoken anti-gay activists in
              Congress. I assumed that readers would know that.
        \_ 'Inhofe, who visited Iraq in March, is described on his senatorial
            Web site as a leading conservative voice in the Senate,
            advocating "common sense Oklahoma values including less
            government, less regulation, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility
            and a strong national defense."'
           He's not a Repub, he's a Libertarian.
           \_ never mind the fact that "less government, lower taxes" are
              directly opposed to "strong national defense."  -tom
              \_ bzzzt!  Libertarians are in favor of a strong nation defense.
                 They understand, unlike most leftists, that without a strong
                 military, the long term survival odds for your country are
                 exactly zero.
           \_ No facts!  Anyone not with us is against us!  --JFK
              \_ "If you are not with us you are with the terrorists." -GWB
                 When did JFK say that? Oh, that's right, he didn't.
          \_ He is registered and elected as a republican.  He is a republican
        \_ Hey, let's take it easy on "our heroes." They probably don't have
           Skinamax or the Playboy channel, so they are forced to get the
           murderous, terrorist insurgents to act out Oklahoman heterosexual
           fantasies lest the cornfed troops get urges to lather each other
           up in the showers and betray the American God's Laws by thinking
           homoerotic thoughts. Hmm. Let's whip the savages some more Sarge!
           \_ Sweet!  That was so off topic and unrelated to anything in the
              real world yet managed to stereotype and disparage so many
              millions of people you've never met that you really should get
              sort of motd award.  Maybe for Most Racist, Frothing, Thought He
              Was Clever, But Is Really A Drooler Reinforced By Other Motd
              Droolers post of the hour?
              \_ I rool!
2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30050 Activity:high
5/6     Now THIS is hilarious.  2000 election results ranked by average IQ:
        \_ Assuming this is accurate... have you ever noticed how common sense
           seems to vary inversely with IQ?
           \_ No.  Your hypothesis is flawed.  That said, I mostly just thought
              this was funny and in no way illuminates any real truth.  IQ
              data is notoriously bad in all sorts of ways and shouldn't
              be a basis for any kind of policy.  --op
              \_ Though you really have to be a little challenged to vote for
                 people who back fiscal policies that directly or indirectly
                 hurt you.
              \_ yeah, it's very hard to believe that there are three states
                 with averages over 110, and five states with averages under 90
                 \_ Have you ever actually been to those states? I have,
                    and I don't find it that hard to believe.
2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:30047 Activity:high
5/6     Guys guys, PLEASE!!! 1 or 2 political posts are ok, but 8-10 posts
        on why Bush sucks, how his rating's decr, what he's doing wrong,
        that even the Rep. are losing faith, etc etc. is just too much.
        Most of the Sodans already hate eBush and are not gonna vote
        for him anyways, why not post something interesting and original?
        We have enough trash and spam to deal with already, please be nice
        and stop the motd spam.
        \_ learn to ignore shit if you don't want to read it.
        \_ Learn how to nuke the motd.
2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:30033 Activity:high
5/5     Does apple education store charge sales tax/shipping for CA? thx.
        \_ When I bought an iBook, shipping was free, but I did have to
           pay tax.
        \_ Yes, for recent G5 purchase. Funny, while you are filling out
           your order, sales tax doesn't show up, but after you click
           the "buy" button, it's all tacked on to your bill. I ended up
           going over my apple loan limit. It makes one appreciate
           http://amazon.com's checkout process.
           \_ This happened when I bought a refurbished G5.  I'd managed to
              talk my wife into the expense, and then the bill showed up
              with an addition couple hundred tacked on.  That really pissed
              me off.
2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29991 Activity:moderate
5/4     On Cheney (Guardian UK):  http://csua.org/u/76f
        \- i wish that had been a better article. the success of dick cheney
           is a product of people valuing niceness over principle ...
           "well he might be an evil fucker, but he is nice to me" --psb
2004/5/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:18852 Activity:very high
5/1     The 1st Amend says we can't abridge right to free political
        speech. How did this come to mean we have to air well-tuned
        propaganda on our national airways?  When did corporations begin to
        be counted as people for the purpose of free speech?  If you want to
        go the Founding Fathers route, remember that they had no clue that
        we would spawn an entire industry devoted to creating need for
        products (and, by extension, candidates).  I'm not a Communist, but
        I don't think you should get a bigger voice just because you make
        more money.
        \_ Sure, now figure out how to craft a law properly to make this happen.
           What we had passed recently clearly doesn't work for a number of
           reasons that have been stated already.  -- ilyas
           \_ It was a step in the right direction and a foot in the door.
              Let's put some pressure on that opening and wedge our way in.
              \_ Except a bad law is a step backwards, not forward.  It is
                 unlikely to be repealed, and will degrade political freedom
                 in the US.  I give no points for trying badly. -- ilyas
                 \_ I get where it didn't stop up all of the gaps, but even
                    reading back through Kai's motd, I have no idea where
                    this degradation of political freedom bit is justified.
                    \_ You haven't been reading kaismotd very carefully.
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ Sorry, o venerable Ilyas, but this wisdom remains
                          opaque to me.  Your reputation for being cranky,
                          however, is beginning to make sense.
                          \_ It's too bad people never tell me things to my
                             face (i.e. sign their names), with the possible
                             exception of Mr. Holub's famous 'you are an idiot'
                             line, although in his case I suspect he had
                             forgotten how to say anything else... -- ilyas
                             \_ you have to ask yourself why signing posts
                                is useful.  i very strongly believe that it
                                is non-useful, and that the main motivation
                                for signing is ego.  before you start blathering
                                about "accountability", let me point out that
                                first of all most people on the motd don't
                                know eacher in real life, so my knowing that
                                you are "ilyas" means nothing, and second of
                                all, signed posts are not verifiable in any
                                way and can be easily abused.  Finally,
                                signed posts lead directly to ad hominem
                                attacks which are just pointless(see above).
                                also, when people post anonymosely, they can
                                argue random sides of an issue to explore
                                different ideas rather than declare a personal
                                side of the issue and duke it out as a partisain
                                flame war.   and no, i'm not the guy giving
                                you a hard time in the above section of this
        \_ Is this just a freeper trying to make liburals look bad?
           \- if you ask a more pointed question, i may be able to answer
              in part. you raise too many issues. 1st amd law does distinguish
              between commercial speech and political speech ... it would be
              much tougher for a zoning law to be written that would disallow
              you to put "vote for X" sign in your front yard than "buy
              marlboro cigarettes". --psb
2004/4/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:13451 Activity:insanely high Edit_by:auto
4/28  GOP'ers:  How does the party's platform on Native Americans jibe with
      the current California initiative to tax the Indian casinos?
      http://csua.org/u/743 (GOP Platform, search for Native Americans)
        \_ Uh... 100%?  I see no problem with taxing those doing extremely
           well with their casinos.  The poor tribes (those without casinos)
           get almost nothing from the rich tribes.  I can go on at some
           length on the topic but really I don't see any non-jibing.  How
           much do you really know about tribes in CA vs. tribes in other
           states and exactly what we owe or do not owe any of them?  What do
           you really know about the rich vs poor tribes, conditions on the
           different reservations or anything else?  You need to pick a topic
           you're much better informed about if you want to poke a stick in
           someone's eye and make some trolling motd political points.
           \_ GOP Platform says:
              "Political self-determination and economic self-sufficiency
               are twin pillars of an effective Indian policy." and
              "High taxes and unreasonable regulations stifle new and
               expanded businesses and thwart the creation of job
               opportunities and prosperity."
              Explain to me how taxing Indian casinos jibes with these two
              planks of the GOP platform.  And you can take your ad hominem
              and shove it up your ass.
              \_ ITYM "jives"
               \_ dict jive
                  dict jibe
                  you are incorrect.
2004/4/23 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13344 Activity:nil
4/23    American Idol: Racism or not?
2004/4/22 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13338 Activity:nil
4/22    Greetings CHE GUEVARA, I heard you might be interested in either
        purchasing a new BERKELEY CA home, or a Refi at 333 SODA HALL 1776.
        Johnson and Robinson Services can be a cordially free help to you.
        -- Sylvia Hosking <sylviahosking@cheerfulassuagement.com>
2004/4/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:13334 Activity:moderate 62%like:13330
4/22    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2985728.stm
        [mr. t ?.  Right On!   ... duz he gots' some carea' somewhere?] --psb
        \_ A bit uh Mr. T. trivia: afta' de A-Team, Mr. T. nearly died uh one
           uh dose ho'rible degenerative diseases.  He survived and recovered
           but dun didn't wo'k fo' many many years durin' dat time and blew
           most uh his bre'd on treatment and simple daily livin'.  Mr. T.
           gots'ta only recently started wo'kin' again as some mino' characta'
           in some numba' of shows/movies.  He gots'ta done some lot uh charity
           wo'k ova' de years, mostly fo' childhood "fuck down yo' whole life"
                --Mr. T. #1 Fan
        \_ Little knode Mr. T fact: back in 1984, Mr. T reco'ded some album of
           incredibly stereotypical electro-funk-rap, sindesiza' solos
           included. It be called "Mr. T's Be Somebody (Or Be Somebody's Fool)"
           and features Mr. T "rappin'" about how pea' pressho' nuff be bad-ass
           and ya' should treat yo' moda' right.  Must be heard t'be recon'd.
           \_ I am curious. Is there more than one person who thinks rendering
              threads unreadable this way is funny or is it just a single
              person? -- ulysses
           \_ Post link.  Right On!    PLEASE.  Right On!
              \_ http://www.inzenity.com/mrt/index.html (Ice-T wuz producer,
              \_ Maybe if youse lucky, I'll put it down fo' waaay download
                 tonight.  Meanwhile, try Soulseek.  Dat's where ah' found it.
                 ah' doubt de RIAA gots'ta spank ya' fo' dis one.
                 \_ Dat's right, de RIAA wants's ya' t'respect yo' mama.
        \_ I would really like to see a Mr. T & Gary Coleman buddy movie.
           It could even have a Thunderdome scene where Gary rides on
           Mr. T's sholders and directs him to kill things.  Oh yeah.
           What chu talking about, Foo'?
           \_ If that movie could have Gary Busey and Ken Foree in supporting
              roles, it would be the Best Movie Ever.
              \_ Someone call the movie studios!  We've got a hit on our
                 hands, and it'll be really cheap to make. $4 an actor and
                 a black van rental!
2004/4/22 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13330 Activity:nil 62%like:13334
4/22    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2985728.stm
        [mr. t ?! ... does he have a career somewhere?] --psb
        \_ A bit of Mr. T. trivia: after the A-Team, Mr. T. nearly died of one
           of those horrible degenerative diseases.  He survived and recovered
           but didn't work for many many years during that time and blew most
           of his money on treatment and simple daily living.  Mr. T. has only
           recently started working again as a minor character in a number of
           shows/movies.  He has done a lot of charity work over the years,
           mostly for childhood "fuck up your whole life" diseases.
                --Mr. T. #1 Fan
        \_ Proof that polls are retarded!
        \_ Little known Mr. T fact: back in 1984, Mr. T recorded an album of
           incredibly stereotypical electro-funk-rap, synthesizer solos
           included.  It's called "Mr. T's Be Somebody (Or Be Somebody's Fool)"
           and features Mr. T "rapping" about how peer pressure is bad and you
           should treat your mother right.  Must be heard to be believed.
           \_ Post link!  PLEASE!
              \_ Maybe if you're lucky, I'll put it up for download tonight.
                 Meanwhile, try Soulseek.  That's where I found it.  I doubt
                 the RIAA will spank you for this one.
                 \_ That's right, the RIAA wants you to respect yo' mama.
2004/4/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13256 Activity:nil
4/18    If one is already living in California, what more does it take to
        become a resident?
              \_ Not sure, but these are the rules the UC plays by:
              \_ No, it is different for voting than for UC residency.
        \_ Driver's License, Voter Registration, pay Utility bills, Library
           Card.  Oh, and a couple of years.
           \_ I had all these but UC still turned down my in-state
              residency application.  Reason?  I was out of state for
              family reunion during Xmas.
              \_ How did they know?  Did you move out?
                 \_ credit card statements are often requested as
                    the burden of proof.
                    \_ So you're not allowed to leave California even on
                       vacation?  There's a very solid lawsuit in this for
                       you if you can demonstrate that this was the sole
                       reason they denied you resident prices.
                       \_ " Your intent will be questioned if you return
                            to your prior state of residence when the
                            University is not in session."
                       \_ Yup, that was the only reason they gave me.
                          The guy was an asshole about it too.  He said,
                          "you are lucky I didn't ask you to show proof
                           over spring break and Thanksgiving."
                          \_ Call a lawyer.  You should be able to make back
                             the difference, assuming that was the only
                             \_ This has been a requirement for residency for
                                at least 10 years, probably much longer. What
                                makes you think there is anything illegal
                                about it?
                             \_ The UC determines your residency status on
                                where they think you will live after you
                                graduate. If you spend every holiday away
                                from California, they rightly think you are
                                just trying to rip off the California taxpayer.
                                I am curious, did you stay in state after
                                you graduated?
        \_ One interesting note is that if you attended a CA high school for
           more than 3 years and leave the state, you are still entitled to
           resident tuition fees vs. out of state.  This is working for me
           since I graduated Berkeley moved out of state and am now moving
           back to do a graduate program.
        \_ If you pay taxes for two years equivalent to the taxes you would
           pay if you made $20K in income, you can gain resident status.
        \_ Marry.  No, seriously, if you marry in California, you gain instant
           residence in the eyes of the UC.  I imagine they don't check nearly
           as rigorously as the INS does for green cards.
2004/4/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:13246 Activity:nil 50%like:33208
4/16    Why gamers don't vote:
2004/4/15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:13213 Activity:nil
4/14    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14444-2004Apr15.html
        This is a fairly good run down on S. Korea's recent election.
        It's mainly interesting because most American's assume that this
        means Koreans are turning anti-American and pro N. Korean.  Which
        is true to some degree, but my wife (who is Korean) belives this
        has more to do with a backlash against GNP corruption, and the Uri
        Party (Roh Moon Hyun's party) being realitively anti-corrution.
        Impeaching the president really went over badly for the GNP.
        \_ when did you get married?
           \_ 1/31/2004.  You can see a picture or 2 of my wife on
              my csua webpage. -jrleek    BTW, who's asking?
              \_ congrats! -dwc
2004/4/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/HateGroups] UID:13197 Activity:nil 61%like:13196
4/14    What media bias?
        \_ I can't believe he's not going for the double-brass-ring and
           calling for both Byrd and Dodd to resign.
        \_ If a Republican praised an ex-KKK Republican member of the
           Senate, we would not hear the end of it.  But the liberal
           media will pass on this story.
           \_ Damn that liberal media! -- ulysses
              \_ Yes, actually damn them.  They have already destroyed all
                 credibility the media once had with the American people.
           \_ Why isn't the liberal media all over the story of a FORMER KKK
              MEMBER BEING IN THE US SENATE?  Don't you think that's maybe
              a slightly more egregious offense than generic praise of someone
              who used to be in the KKK?  It's not comparable to the Lott
              comments--Lott's comments were specifically about how racist
              policies might have been better.  -tom
              \_ I am a liberal, and I really don't like Lott.  However, I
                 don't think that was the intent of his comments at all, and
                 I believe he was unfairly attacked for it.  The republicans
                 decided to crucify him to make their party as a whole
                 appear to be something other than it is: a haven for racists
                 in general, and for poor whites in the south who vote against
                 their economic interests in particular.
                 \_ You fergot our guns! Yep yep yep yep yep! "We're gonna get
                    those Duke boys this time!  Aren't we Flash!!??"
                 \_ Yawn, Republicans = evil.  Democrats = good.  See?  That's
                    so much shorter to type and it's all you had to say.
              \_ You mean ol' Strom?  His views evolved over many years and
                 he publicaly renounced racism.  Lott implied recently that
                 he supported segragation.
              \_ According to the article, Byrd the ex-KKK member had to
                 apologize for using the "n-word" in a Tony Snow interview.
                 I'm not saying there are no racist Republicans.  I am saying
                 this public praise for a former KKK member by a Democrat
                 will not be endlessly paraded as an example of Democratic
                 racism, the way it would be if the praise for a former
                 KKK member came from a Republican.
                 \_ you think every time Strom Thurmond was praised that
                    it was "endlessly paraded as an example of Republican
                    racism"?  Be serious.  -tom
                    \_ Do a google on "racist strom"
                       \_ I see nothing other than references to Lott.  I
                          suppose it's possible that no one else praised
                          Strom in the 50+ years he was in the senate.  -tom
                          \_ Lott's mistake was claiming Strom should have
                             become president when he ran, as a
                             segregationalist.  This Dem. says this other
                             senator should have been a leader when he was
                             a segregationalist.  (And a pro-slaver)
                             That's why this is the same mistake as Lott's.
2004/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:29915 Activity:nil 54%like:29908
4/11    "My prediction: Bush will take California and win in a landslide."
2004/4/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:13109 Activity:nil
4/8     I'm driving up to Seattle/Vancouver on Sunday just for kicks. Any
        suggestions of places to stop on the way? So far I've been recommended
        the Tulip Festival in Skagit (tulipfestival.org).
        \_ I'm leaving Sunday and have to be in Seattle on Tuesday, so like
           the person below says... I am sort of "blasting" through. However,
           I would like to make a 3-4 detour either through a national forest,
           quaint town, or something like that. The suggestions below are all
           great... much appreciated.
        \_ errr ...  that's a very long drive with literally hundreds
           of places on the way worth visiting.
           \_ yes, that's teh problem, so much to do, so little time.
                http://traveloregon.com is a pretty good site.
           \- helo if you are interested in geology, there are some
              interesting locations in eastern oregon to drive through
              rather than blasting up 5. but yeah, you have to put
              more on the table for meaningful feedback.
        \_ If you're going through Portland, I recommend stopping at
           Powell's bookstore.  I've been told it's the biggest bookstore.
                \_ Powell's rocks.  Also in Portland is the nickel arcade
                   (very cheap arcade games) and Dot's, a dive-y bar with
                   a sock monkey tree.  I recommend the Lime Rickey.  -brain
                   \_ An arcade? give me a break...
        \_ Redwood national forest on the border btw Oregon and CA, and
           some volcanic lake the name of which I forgot somewhat more inland.
           These things stand out on any map so I guess maybe you are not
           into nature things if you bothered to ask.
           \_ Crater Lake.  It's cool.  I think it's a National Park.
              \_ I was thinking about going here. What's it like? Big holes
                   in the ground, volcanic ash?
                 \_ It's a beautiful deep blue lake that is very deep.  It's
                    surrounded by a cliff rim all the way around that drops
                    several hundred feet to the lake surface.  There's a
                    funny little island in the middle you can take a boat out
                    to.  You can also hike up to some of the little peaks
                    around the rim.
        \_ Portland's rose garden is nice, though probably not so much so this
           time of year.
        \_ The Bridgeport Brewery in Portland:
           Free tours at 2 and 5 daily.
        \_ don't forget to pick up danh on your way back
        \_ Lake Shastina. Say hi to Ponch while you're there.
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 451 - 600 of 1361   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California: [Arnold(228) | Prop(52) ]