Politics Domestic California - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California: [Arnold(228) | Prop(52) ]
Results 601 - 750 of 1361   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2020/01/28 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2005/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/BayArea] UID:38397 Activity:high
7/1     Economy's good in Republican states: http://tinyurl.com/9o829
        \_ Fuck God, fuck Texas, and fuck you.
           \_ How about your Buddy Jesus? Come on, you can't be mad at your
              good ole Buddy Jesus? His old man is just upset because some
              of the uppity kids at work won't listen to him. He'll get over
              it. Hey who's yer pal? Who's your friend? Your Buddy Jesus!
        \_ War profiteering is good business, too.
                \_ No to mention all those homeland security dollars going
                   to red states with nothing for terrorists to target.
        \_ Red states tend to have lower taxes and lower costs of living.
           I'd be better off working in Texas with a 10% pay cut than in
           \_ That's because California living costs have lost all touch with
              reality.  You could take a 10% pay cut and have a higher standard
              of living by moving to any other blue state as well (excluding
              New York City, but there you salary would go way up anyway.)
              \_ Not sure about that. Places like Massachusetts,
                 Maryland, Connecticut, and Hawaii are very expensive.
                 Pretty much anywhere with a big city that isn't in
                 The South. I was in Denver on business and was surprised
                 to see houses are costing $500K there, too, and they
                 make less $$$. You might get more for your money there, but
                 California seems like a bargain given all the other
                 advantages of living here.
                 \_ And what are all these advantages you speak of?
                    \_ Weather, people, geography, culture (museums,
                       shows, etc.), educational institutions, restaurants,
                       and so on. You can get almost anything you want here
                       locally. This is true in, say, NYC, but not in
                       most places. A place like Phoenix or Idaho is cheap,
                       but totally blows.
           \_ But then you'd have to hang out with all those damn Texans...
              \_ Who are *far* nicer on average than the people in the SF area.
                       \_ http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4127&n=3
                       \_ Ugh, I hate LA so much.  You couldn't pay me to
                          settle down here.  People and culture indeed. -- ilyas
                          \_ Seconded.  If I could take a job in a decent place
                             for salary X or in LA for salary 2X, I'd take the
                          \_ You are experiencing the idiocy that is
                             Westwood/Santa Monica. Lots of people went to
                             Berkeley and thus think the Bay Area is a
                             shithole, too, based on Berkeley, Oakland,
                             San Jose and limited experiences in SF.
                          \_ Third that.  I lived in LA and orange county.
                          \_ LACMA, The Huntington, The Guggenheim, The Getty,
                             MOCA, The Norton Simon...
                             Have you ever left campus?
                          \_ Have you been to the greater LA area?  It's full
                             of diversity nowadays, Little Taipei, Little
                             Saigon, Little Bombai, not to mention Japantown,
                             Koreatown, etc.  Also, there's quite a bit of
                             counter-culture as well.  Maybe not as much as
                             Berkeley, but it's not lacking.  LA's main prob.,
                             imo, is the lack of a real "city-climate." That's
                             something that SF & NY have in spades.  LA is
                             too "sprawling," with cultural pockets spread
                             between vast wastelands of suburbia.
                             \_ SF is a tiny city that feels big. LA is a massive
                                city that feels small. This is because LA has no
                                real center. I sometimes take out-of-town guests
                                around and they say 'Is that downtown?' when we
                                pass Glendale, Century City, Universal City, Westwood,
                                and so on. Each of those enclaves is a city unto
                                itself by the standards of most Americans.
                             \_ SF is a tiny city that feels big. LA is a
                                massive city that feels small. This is because
                                LA has no real center. I sometimes take
                                out-of-town guests around and they say 'Is
                                that downtown?' when we pass Glendale, Century
                                City, Universal City, Westwood, and so on.
                                Each of those enclaves is a city unto itself
                                by the standards of most Americans.
                                \_ agreed.  There's downtown. But there's not
                                   much there worth seeing. Nothing else is
                                   really centered around it, either.
                                   \_ Downtown has Chinatown and Little
                                      Tokyo. There's also Exposition Park
                                      and MOCA. The Jewelry District often
                                      appeals to women. The Biltmore is
                                      pretty historic and there are some good
                                      \_ Sure, but none of these is high on the
                                         list of things people want to see:
                                         For general interest, Monterey Park,
                                         San Gabriel, etc. >> Chinatown; Rodeo,
                                         Melrose >> Jewelry District; Getty,
                                         LACMA, Huntington >> MOCA.  I'm
                                         speaking in general terms, obviously,
                                         as all the places you mention have
                                         great qualities that make them worth
                                         visiting.  Just most of them get
                                         out-shone by other things elsewhere
                                         in the greater LA area, which is the
                                         general trend I was pointing out. cf.
                                         what's avail. near SF or NY downtown.
                          \_ Northern Californians like to rag on LA, but
                             LA is a lot closer to SF/NY than it is to, well,
                             just about every other city in the country.
                             Certainly by any cultural measure it's in the
                             top 5 even if you're being hard on it; it's
                             ahead of the Bay Area in theater and visual
                             arts.  -tom
                             \_ Given the huge density of actors, writers,
                                and almost every other Hollywood-related
                                profession in the Los Angeles area, it isn't
                                exactly a surprise that LA is ahead in theater.
                                The visual arts is likely because there are so
                                many more affordable places to rent gallery
                                \_ It's not a surprise, but it's a reality.
                                   It's cheap to rent gallery space in Des
                                   Moines but that hasn't made Iowa a
                                   cultural powerhouse.  -tom
                                \_ There may also be some synergy betw. acting
                                   and other creative arts.
                                   \_ Of course there is. Also, a lot goes
                                      into making a film other than acting.
                                      Set design, storyboard artists, and
                                      others have lots of artistic talent.
                                \_ The creative arts seems to be flourishing
                                   in LA much better than in the Bay Area,
                                   except for the acapella scene.  But I think
                                   the reason for that is that in LA, anyone
                                   with enough talent to do good acapella
                                   can actually work in the music industry and
                                   actually get paid.
                                   \_ Speaking as a huge fan of The Bobs,
                                      the rest of the "a capella scene" can
                                      bite me.  Most a capella groups are
                                      basically karaoke with better singers,
                                      and singers are a dime a dozen.
                                      \_ Out of curiousity, I wonder if you've
                                         come across my friends, Clockwork.
                                         they opened for the Bob's last F&S
                                         show (iirc).  Nearly all original
                                         charts, some original songs, and I
                                         think they're pretty damn tight.
                                         \_ Haven't heard them, no; I was
                                            out of town for the last Bobs
                                            show.  -tom
           \_ Ignoring CoL for the moment, wouldn't be you better off with that
              10% cut somewhere w/ higher taxes?  Then you'd drop into a lower
              tax bracket, pay (proportionally) less in taxes than you would
              in the low-tax region, and thus have lost less than 10%.
              \_ Unless you run into AMT territory because of the higher state
                 tax deduction, and end up getting screwed twice
              \_ Having lived in DC and LA, I would have to agree that
                 traffic in DC is indeed worse than LA.
          \_ Regardless of the posts above, LA traffic sucks. If you have to go
             through 405 or other parts of LA that you must go through, you'll
             be happy to move at 5MPH. Want to go to LACMA or Getty or whatever
             you think is cool? Try to get there first. You may have to leave
             2-3 hours in advance.
             \_ what about taking the rtd a.k.a. mta... or metro ???
                being a minority (asian), being in l.a. or the bay area is so
                much better than most places... i heard that in the south,
                minorities get ignored (as if the minority was non-human)
                in stores and shops..
              \_ Having lived in DC and LA, I would have to agree that
                 traffic in DC is indeed worse than LA.
             \_ Sure, LA traffic sucks. Got any other newsflashes? Traffic
              in every big city sucks. I think LA's freeway system is
              better than most. I shudder to think what many other large
              cities will be like when they reach 13 million people. LA is
              designed around the automobile unlike, say, DC.
              \_ Having lived in DC and LA, I would have to agree that
                 traffic in DC is indeed worse than LA.
              \_ this reminds me of a stat I heard once.  Some people complain
                 that LA is just one big network of freeways.  However, if
                 you calculate miles of freeway lanes per resident, LA ranks
                 45th in the nation or something.
                 \_ Cruisin' down the street(s) in my 6-fo'
                    Jackin' the bitches, slappin' the ho's
                    Went to the park to get the scoop
                    Knuckle-heads out there cold shootin' some hoo's
                    A car pulls up, who can it be?
                    A fresh elkomino rolly Kilo G
                    He rolls down his window and he started to say
                    It's all about makin' that GT A

                    Cuz the boyz in de hood are alwayz hard
                    You come talkin' that trash we'll bull your car
                    Knowin' nothin' in life but to be legit'
                    Don't quote me boy, cuz I ain't sayin' shit ...
2005/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/SW/Security] UID:38384 Activity:high
6/30       Whenever I watch celebrity news I hear so and so is guilty in the
           court and have to perform community service. They don't get fined or
           go to jail, but have to perform community service. What's so bad
           about serving your community? I mean, isn't it noble to serve food
           for the homeless, paint houses for the poor, and clean up highways
           trash? Imagine the United States drafting men between 18-25 to
           perform mandatory community service for just one year. We'd
           have a huge [free] labor force to clean up grafitti, recycle
           cans, and other wonderful things that make our community more
           beautiful. In our ever increasingly busy digital lives, we rarely
           have time to even help ourselves, let alone help others out. We
           are increasingly isolated from one another, and have very little
           understanding on this "sense of community" that our grandparents
           talked about. Perhaps incentives and rewards should be given to
           those that help our community, to make everyone's lives better.
           Community service is an honor performed by those who honor community
           and brotherhood. It is sad and ironic that criminals have the honor
           to serve our community. Just my two cents for today.   -2 cents guy
         \_ For reasons I won't elaborate on, I had to spend some time cleaning
            up trash with the other "community service" people in People's
            Park at one point.  There is actually a pretty huge pool of
            people who have "community service" hours to do at any given time.
            Several of the people there had 1000 hours of service they had to
            do.  I was, as far as I could tell, the only person there who was
            actually working.  Mostly people would just show up and loaf around
            all day, then get double that number of hours signed off for by
            the dude who runs the park.  If the dude who runs any given park
            doesn't want to be corrupt, people just migrate somewhere where
            it *is* corrupt.  Of all those community service hours that get
            handed out by judges, very little real service gets done (although
            I busted ass cleaning up the park).
         \_ This is a fairly old idea.  This was called a 'subbotnik' in
            USSR (only this was done on Saturdays, hence the name 'subbota =
            saturday'.)  You should ask someone who participated in a subbotnik
            what they think of it. -- ilyas
            \_ why didn't you participate in a subbotnik?
               \_ I was too young. -- ilyas
              \_ Switzerland requires you to serve the military or perform
                 substitute service (community service). Maybe John can tell
                 you all about it.
                 \_ Yes, and it's pointless, a waste of money, bad for the
                    economy (by forcing people to take a large, unproductive
                    gap between school and work, and by forcing employers,
                    including SMEs, to subsidize long absences), and exposes
                    young men to drugs and cigarettes.  In the abasence of
                    enemies or funding for all these recruits, there are many
                    make-work projects to occupy the ~60% or so who don't
                    manage to get out of it.  It's state slavery; totally
                    pointless and philosophically repulsive.  -John
            \_ One might obtain a somewhat less grim view of such matters by
               looking at the Works Projects Administration established in the
               US during the great depression.  I believe modern Germany has a
               similar program where one may choose between military or
               `alternative' civilian service, but don't know much about it.
               Also, why constrain this sort of thing to men only?  That seems
               backwards and silly.  That said, if you're going to encourage
               community service, I don't think picking up trash and cleaning
               up graffiti are particularly inspiring tasks or the most useful
               application of that sort of workforce.  What made the WPA cool
               was that it took on really ambitious projects.  Even if you take
               all this into account, I don't know how much it's going to do
               for instilling a sense of community in people.  I know there's a
               geographic component to this: Many of my grandparents'
               present-day friends are people they grew up with on the same
               *block* in Brooklyn.  They joined the service together.  After
               the war they settled on Long Island together.  In their later
               years, part of the group moved to the same communities in
               Florida.  Of your friends today, how many lived on the same
               street you did when you were young?  Do you still keep in touch
               with your friends from high school?  Personally, I think my
               sense of community is as strong as my grandparents, just
               oriented along different axes (e.g. cultural vs. geographic).
               \_ I think the CCC also did something similar in the same time
         \_ Why community service? Because we supposively live in a classless
           society. Billioniares pay the same amount for a moving violation
           as the average Joe. Community service forces the culprit to give
           up time, which means the rich don't get off easy and the poor
           aren't forced to pay fines. Both beat jail which puts the burden
           on society. All of this is separate from enforcing a draft
           (military or community works) or volunteerism. Much of the
           reasons behind why not lay with the relationship of citizens and
           government and society in general. And those discussions get ugly.
           \_ Where is the claim made that we live in a classless society?
              There have never been, and perhaps never will be a classless
              society. -- ilyas
              \_ I never claimed it was a classless society in reality.
                 It's just one of those things that American democracy
                 aims for. Probably a silly thing to put in the motd...
                 \_ I think the best you can say along these lines is
                    American society was in part a rejection of solidified
                    class lines of European society.  I don't think the
                    founding fathers were specifically aiming to create a
                    classless society, merely to reject aristocracy in the
                    European conception of the word.  Classless society is
                    probably impossible, and almost certain undesirable,
                    as a goal.  Even an ant colony has 'classes.' -- ilyas
                    \_ Yes, and we should never seek to surpass the utopian
                       efficiency and elegance of ant society.
                       \_ If you seriously want to make men into an
                          ant colony, you should read Hellstrom's Hive.
                          Also, a certain quote from John involving a baseball
                          bat comes to mind.  Do you actually maintain American
                          society has a classless society as an explicit goal?
                          Do you have a source for this claim, or are you just
                          making stuff up to suit your agenda? -- ilyas
                          \_ I think you were trolled.  -John
                          \_ I think you're being needlessly pedantic.
                             "classless" in the context of government applies
                             to equal treatment under the law, one-person-one-
                             vote, etc. I think this type of classlessness is
                             an explicit goal of American society; that people
                             have equal opportunity etc. --!op
                             \_ When someone talks about a 'classless society,'
                                especially if they talk about ant colonies
                                being utopian in the same breath,
                                I understand them to be using the common
                                definition the Marxists use.  I don't think
                                I am being pedantic at all, I think you
                                misunderstood the previous poster. -- ilyas
                                \_ I didn't write the "ant" comment, but I did
                                   write the original "classless society" one.
                                   The original thought was towards the equal
                                   treatment of Man under law as opposed to
                                   a more communistic "equality of Man" ideal.
                                   The followup use of "American democracy"
                                   was an attempt to point in that direction.
                                   Apologies to those who may have been misled.
              \_ What kind of "classes" do chimpanzees have?
                 \_ Chimpanzees have a society?  (Actually, to the extent that
                    great apes are social animals and live in hierarchies you
                    may well say they have 'classes.'  So do wolves.  An
                    interesting question I thought about recently is why do
                    all functional wolf packs have at least one Omega).
                      -- ilyas
                    all functional wolf packs have at least one Omega).-- ilyas
                    \- I have discovered a remarkable proof for this but:
                      (0. Hola)
                       1. it requires the Axiom of Choice
                       2. the motd is too small to contain it.
                       3. ok tnx.
2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:38318 Activity:high
6/27    God, I really envy the Japs. Why don't we have something like this?
        \_ Japan has a much higher population density?
           \_ You can't compare Japan to the US; you should compare to
              California, or the eastern seaboard.  Obviously you can't
              support bullet rail in Wyoming, but California has plenty of
              population density and travel to do so.  -tom
              \_ Japan also doesn't have the kinds of politics the US does.
                 http://tinyurl.com/7myk2 -- I recall midwesthsr being
                 throttled by every 2-bit politician wanting a stop in his
                 town in return for voting for it, sort of like the Washington
                 airport expressway.  By the way, the pic on that tinyurl link
                 is of a Zurich commuter train--very un-high speed.  -John
              \_ Japan is not at all comparable to California.  Try flying
                 above the CA coast and looking down vs. the same in Japan.
                 Japan is smaller than CA and 3.5x the population.
              \_ Hmmm, I wonder how a bullet train from SF to LA would do?
                 \_ There is a proposal for it, which of course the airlines
                    are fighting tooth and nail.  They killed a similar
                    project in Texas.  I think a high-speed rail connection
                    between SF and LA, with downtown embarcation, would
                    be heavily used.  -tom
                    \_ As someone who hates airports and flying with a passion,
                       I think this country could use more high speed rail.
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ Who do you expect to pay for the infrastructure to
                          build this high speed rail, oh libertarian?
                          \_ Charitable donations from Republicans, of course.
                             Big corporations rip off average consumers so
                             that they can make big donations to the poor.
                             All heil Waltons, Bushs, and Gates   -Libertarian
                 \_ "The train is expected to make the 360 mile trip between
                    Tokyo and Aomori --about the distance between San Fran-
                    cisco and Los Angeles -- within three hours ..."
              \_ Population density:
                 San Francisco:  16,632 per sq. mi.
                   Los Angeles:   7,990 per sq. mi.
                         Tokyo:  33,617 per sq. mi.
                 \_ California is not as populus as Japan, but it is as
                    populus as many places which have extensive rail networks.
                    \_ Whatever.  My numbers were for cities.  Also, high-speed
                       rail needs local city transportation as well, else no
                       one will ride if they can't get the last 1-5 miles.
                       \_ Yeah, that is why no one is willing to fly
                       \_ Yeah, that is why no one is willing to fly in
                          airplanes. They can't get out of the airport.
                          \_ I remember an article in the SFCron a few
                             years ago that driving to LA from SF was
                             superior to flying.  It took less time, and
                             you had a car when you got there.
           \_ Grammatical question for you. How do you know when to say
              "Japan has much higher population" and "Japan has A much higher
              population"? Ditto with "the" and others.
              \_ Yermom has rabies.
                 Yermom has a cold.
                 Yermom has the mumps.
                 There are general rules, but sometimes you just have to
                 \_ I seem to remember that when I was a kid people used to
                    say "the Ukraine", but now the "the" has disappeared.
                    What's that about?  Any Ukrainians want to comment?
                    \_ I think the difference is that now Ukraine is a
                       country, rather than an area of Russia.  On the
                       other hand, I still say, "the Ukraine."  Maybe it
                       should be Ukrania?
              \_ Plural vs. singular. In this case "Japan has higher
                 population density" would be incorrect; "population density"
                 is singular and requires the "a". Population is also properly
                 singular. Unless it's the verb form.

        \_ Yes, let's envy those whom we deride with racial slurs!
                          \_ I remember an article in the SFCron a few
                             years ago that driving to LA from SF was
                             superior to flying.  It took less time, and
                             you had a car when you got there.
                             \- i am surprised SF-LA train proposals have
                                found any "traction" at all [that really
                                was unintentional]. i am not sure what
                                problem it solves. it seems to me the only
                                people it is good for is people near the LA
                                terminus wo want to come to downtown SF for
                                a few days. how much would a SF<->LA fast
                                train ticket cost ... actual cost [without
                                weird cross subsidies] and what would the
                                out of pocket ticket price?
                                \_ The problem it solves is that flying is
                                   a pain in the ass.  Taking the train is
                                   fun.  -tom
                                   \- do you actually think that is a
                                      serious answer? a fun choo-choo
                                      train != multi-billion dollar rail
                                      project. is a fast train more fun
                                      than the Coast Starlight? you might
                                      take a trian for fun, but that isnt
                                      why you build one.
                                      \_ Actually, yeah.  I've both
                flown from Seoul to Pusan (Korea), and taken the new
                bullet train.  The train is superior.  It's more
                comfortable (wieght is not such an issue), runs more
                often, and you don't have to hang around the station for
                an hour and a half before hand. Of course, that doesn't
                mean it will be so nice here, but.. -jrleek
        \_ Yes, let's envy those whom we deride with racial slurs!  Is it
           so hard to type out "Japanese"?
2005/6/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38303 Activity:high
6/24    Libertarian purity test.
        Feel free to post scores/interpretation.  -- ilyas
        \_ Alarm bells should go off in your head any time some ideology starts
           trying to measure and compare the "purity" of its adherents.
           Reasonable people do not measure their politics or philosophy on
           a linear scale.
           \_ Dear GOD, man.  Is being a geek an ideology too?  They have a
              purity test.  How about being gay?  How about you get that
              stick out of your ass? -- ilyas
              stick out of your ass?  The 'purity test' tradition is
              an ancient part of Internet culture. -- ilyas
        \_ 16.  It called me a "soft-core libertarian", which I guess
           is true in the same way The Princess Bride is soft-core porn.
           If you score zero (meaning you approve of the current U.S.
           system of government), it calls you a Nazi nut.
           \_ Ditto here, with 30 points.  The test is bunkum, as it makes, as
              as with most such silliness, no allowance for shades of gray.
              Plus, "anarcho-capitalist?"  Nobody who calls him/herself a
              libertarian that I know of would describe themselves as even
              close to that.  Bzzt, sorry, try again.  -John
              \_ It may be bunkum to you, but I find it useful as an estimate
                 (it's unbelievably fashionable among some people to proclaim
                 social liberalism and economic conservativism).  For
                 \_ Does that make the stance any less valid?  I don't see the
                    problem with "mind your own busineess and be responsible
                    when spending other peoples' money".  -John
                    \_ Sure, but that quote you have in quotes is uninformative.
                       I have found when talking politics with my friends that
                       almost everybody sounds the same (reasonable).  This is
                       because people have a tendency to not start with the
                       more controversial components of their beliefs when
                       discussing politics.  This is why tests like this are
                       useful.  John and I might sound superficially the same
                       when we start talking, but there's a huge difference
                       between a 30 and a 76. -- ilyas
                       \_ Why is it uninformative?  I find that, no matter
                          how many shades of gray you have between extremes,
                          there's always a tipping point at which the majority
                          of educated individuals making up the center bit of
                          any bell curve will no longer see a certain bit of
                          politics as matching a given quality--this being
                          something like "responsible", "frugal", whatever.  I
                          refuse to be drawn into a discussion of "one should
                          always do xyz", where "xyz" is some predefined
                          action like "cutting taxes by 50%".  I believe that
                          it's the duty of said educated individuals to make
                          decisions and choices based on a well thought-out
                          moral and ethical foundation, and in careful
                          consideration of a particular situation.  Otherwise
                          we could replace the constitution with some all-
                          encompassing decision matrix, couldn't we?  I just
                          happen to have come to the conclusion that what I
                          put in quotes above works for me in most
                          situations.  -John
                       \_ It's no more uninformative than that test is
                          an accurate measures of your political beliefs.
                          What I put in quotes above works for me most of the
                          time as a common-sense litmus test for most
                          political issues, while still letting me take into
                          account the particular situation.  And frankly I
                          haven't found a "determine your political color"
                          test yet that I didn't find in any way valid or not
                          full of horseshit.  -John
                          \_ That's because a real political test would
                             be extremely long and read like a philosophy
                             paper.  At any rate, the 'purity test' might not
                             be a serious political test, but you can't compare
                             the information you get from it to your vague
                             platitute of:
                             "mind your own business and be responsible
                             when spending other peoples' money".  Don't forget
                             to mention something about not eating kittens.
                                -- ilyas
                             paper.  -- ilyas
                             \_ Why not?  It's a basic "gut test" for looking
                                at politics, as opposed to an attempt to
                                simplistically quantify a wide range of topics
                                in a binary manner, which simply doesn't work.
                                I have a few fundamental ideals that I believe
                                in, which I consider when analyzing various
                                political situations.  I find that gives me far
                                more satisfying answers than "should we sell
                                the federal government?  Yes/No (if you answer
                                No, you need to work on your answers.)"  -John
                                \_ Why not?  Because that line has a wide WIDE
                                   set of interpretations, many in conflict
                                   with each other.  At least with yes no
                                   answers you get a rough idea of where you
                                   are willing to bite the bullet.  With what
                                   you said, I get _no information_. -- ilyas
                                   \_ Ilya, we're arguing on two different
                                      levels here.  Of course my tenet is no
                                      more than a "wide" political ideal.  You
                                      will not be able to divine how I will
                                      vote on Prop X. from it.  However, I
                                      think it's entirely fair to state it as a
                                      basis for making political decisions, as
                                      opposed to a bunch of absolute answers
                                      to nonsensical questions with no context
                                      given whatsoever.   To be honest, I think
                                      that people who claim to have absolutely
                                      sure and immovable convictions about such
                                      topics without even bothering to consider
                                      surrounding "real world" factors, border
                                      on fanaticism.  -John
                calibration, my score was 76.  Point about libertarians
                 vs A-C people, the test ought to be more properly called
                 the 'anti-government purity test.'  If it wasn't obvious,
                 this wasn't a serious test, much like other purity tests.
                 A real test would be a moral philosophy test.  -- ilyas
                 \_ A 76?  Did you say we should abolish everything?  I only
                    managed a 17 and I consider myself a conservative with
                    libertarian tendencies. -emarkp
                    \_ The only things I am _sure_ the government ought to
                       be responsible for is the army and the justice system.
                       I am also thinking about dbushong's idea of 'commons
                       rent,' which the government collects and uses to maintain
                       the commons.  For instance, charging individuals
                       proportionally to the pollution they cause.  -- ilyas
                       \_ What about government funded basic research?  We
                          are still benefiting today from basic research done
                          at the Royal Society two hundred years ago, or for
                          that matter from Archimedes' research that Syracuse
                          paid for two thousand years go.  Were they all
                          Looters as well?  Are you a Looter?
                          \_ We're also benefitting from having wiped out the
                             Indians and seized their land.
        \_ 7 -moderate
        \_ 38 -nivra
        \_ another 16.  I hadn't remembered what a bunch of nutcases
           the libertarians were.  I *like* having regulators inspect
           elevator safety, and don't trust the "marketplace" to take
           care of that in the long run.
           \_ 17. agreed.
        \_ 12. Which system of philosophy advocates chemical castration and
           utterly transparent financial records for all elected officials?
           'Cos I'd vote for that. --erikred
        \_ I find it ironic that the anti-government party uses a government
           owned statue as its symbol. I got a 22, btw. -ausman
        \_ 20. I am intrigued at how these guys expect some of the schemes to
           work. I have heard of some of them but I'm not clear on for example
           abolishing the state altogether and having private law and money.
           Seems like this would involve joining private security groups, which
           would probably end up being bullied by larger conglomerates. Anyway
           libertarians seem to ignore certain realities such as environmental
           concerns. Air and water pollution, and open space preservation for
           example. Private entities might conceivably run a place like
           Yosemite, but to maximize their profit they might do undesirable
           things. I wonder what the monetary value of such places is. If
           enough people interested in outdoors pooled resources they might
           conceivably claim ownership I guess. But in general the wealthy
           would be able to wield more power such as blocking the public from
           various lakes etc.
           As far as international involvement goes, sure it sounds good to
           withdraw from everywhere but kind of ignores the possibility of
           foreign states bent on empire. -- a moderate
           \_ Did you read my post about 'commons rent?'  Commons are an
              acknowledged problem for _me_, I am sure it is for other
              libertarians. -- ilyas
        \_ No offense intended, but from the discussion above, it's apparent
           that this is more aptly called the ilyas Purity Test.
           (the closer you are to 76, the more you agree with ilyas)
2020/01/28 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2005/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38282 Activity:nil
6/24    Interesting. CA is one of a handful of states which have enacted
        further eminent domain protections than the federal law requires.
        \_ Yeah, my reading is that states can define how much "for public use"
           encompasses, and the Supreme Court will respect that.
2005/6/23-8/18 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38266 Activity:nil
6/23    The Blight of Eminent Domain
        \_ As wild as the language used in the article is, I believe the author
           does have a valid point.
2005/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38243 Activity:nil
6/22    Every year the House approves one of these idiotic flag burning
        amendments, and every year the Senate lets it die.  Is this the
        most important thing that they could be doing?
        \_ Was the Terry bill?  They love looking like they're doing something.
        \_ What's more important than rallying the base?
        \_ they should attach it to one of the annual fund the troops
           \_ Amendments take a bit more than that to pass.
2005/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38235 Activity:nil
\6/22   Supercomputers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4111866.stm
2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38240 Activity:moderate
6/21    DeLay is just a good honest Republican:
        http://csua.org/u/cgt (Yahoo news)
        \_ Dan Rostenkowski, and Jim Wright, are good
           honest Democrats too. Please! Both sides cheat,
           the trick is not to get caught. If you don't know
           who those two are, you are yet another person
           who thinks politics extends back only to Clinton.
           \_ The point is that he's the GOP House leader, and GOP folks
              are more hypocritical / much less apologetic about corruption,
              politicking, and screw-ups.
              \_ Heh. -- ilyas
        \_ Dan Rostenkowski, Jim Wright, and Jim Traficant are good
           honest Democrats too. Please! Both sides cheat, the trick
           is not to get caught. If you don't know who those three are
           you are yet another person who thinks politics extends back
              \_ Rostenkowski was what? Wright was what? Talk about less
                 apologetic - look at Traficant.
        \_ Shock!  Surprise!  Politicians are all scummy!  "Your politicians
           are scummier than my politicians!  nyah!"  Whatever on all of you.
           These sorts of "your guys are more corrupt and hypocritical than
           my guys are corrupt and hypocritical" noise is sheer idiocy from
           both parties.  I vote for people who believe in what I believe in
           not for a party.
        \_ delay is much more powerful than rostenkowski or traficant
           ever were.  my memory doesn't go back far enough to comment
           on wright.  it is funny that the 5th in command
           republican is such a slimeball. - danh
2005/6/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:38124 Activity:moderate
6/14    Even Alan Greenspan thinks the rich/poor gap in the United States is
        becoming a big problem.
        \_ The dumbing down of the average American is NOT the core of the
           wealth gap. The problem is that there are too many people
           getting smarter, thus creating and keeping wealth that the average
           American can't possibly have. The solution is to cut all
           education programs and reduce F1/F2 skilled-worker VISAs from
           India and China, which will hopefully reduce the educational and
           income gap in the U.S. Wait, it's already happening thanks to the
           guidance of our great President. Thank God and Bush for standing
           up to evil. The Good and Righteous will always prevail. God Bless.
        \_ You know, the Catholics have the Pope as the head figure. What
           about the Jews? So I asked my best friend who's a Jew, and his
           reply is that they have Alan Greenspan.
           \_ -5 Lousy excuse for a troll.
        \_ "America's powerful central banker hasn't suddenly lurched
           to the left of Democratic National Committee chief Howard
           Dean. His solution is better education today to create a
           flexible workforce for tomorrow - not confiscation of
           plutocrats' yachts."
           I'm confused.  When did Dean announce his yacht-confiscation plan?
                \_ High taxes == no yachts, because rich people can't afford
                   lawyers to avoid taxes.
                   \_ I think he meant
                      Yacht confiscation != Progressive taxation to check the
                                            wealth gap
                      You say the first thing if you're a Republican.
                      You say the latter if you're a Democrat.
                      \_ What's funny is that most of my entrepreneur friends
                         here have this ideal of America as a place where
                         people say "hey, he's rich, how can I be rich too?"
                         whereas in Europe people say "hey, he's rich, he
                         shouldn't be rich, that's not fair."  How about
                         making it easier for the poor to, I don't know, make
                         more money?  Given all the effort that goes into
                         coming up with taxation schemes, that might be an

                         idea, or am I just being hopelessly naive?  -John
                         \_ The standard Republican answer seems to be keep
                            taxes low on the off chance any of them do start
                            earning more money. The truly poor pay little in
                            taxes as it is so reducing their taxes further is
                            moot. The left response is provide things that
                            either give the poor money directly or make things
                            cost less for them so they can keep more of what
                            they make. Where, however, shall that funding
                            come from, if lifting the poor is one's actual
                            concern? -- ulysses
                            \_ Income taxes != sales taxes != inheritance
                               taxes.  I do not like the latter, and #2 are
                               regressive, except for "luxury taxes", which
                               are a logistical nightmare.  I have no problem
                               with cutting taxes for "the rich" (usually
                               including your upper middle class) thereby
                               creating incentives.  There's nothing wrong
                               with "the rich" getting richer, as long as
                               nobody's poorer overall.  How about better
                               education?  Scientific incentives?  Tax breaks
                               for successful industries?  And how to pay for
                               it?  How about greater accountability in
                               govt. expenditure, sensible military budgets,
                               and cuts in direct subsidies?  And yes, I'm a
                               hopeless romantic.  -John
                               \_ When taxes are decreased, the programs they
                                  made available are curtailed. This is most
                                  likely the exact intent of much recent and
                                  Reagan-era strategy. For people whose income
                                  is small to begin with, reducing programs
                                  such as socialized health care and public
                                  transit is making many people poorer overall.
                                  Succesful industries (oil, pharma) already
                                  receive frightfully large incentives. Is that
                                  the most effective way to help poor people?
                                  A sensible military budget would go a long
                                  way, at least at the gov't end of funding.
                                  That is not likely for quite awhile, though.
                                  Bless your hopelessly romantic heart.
                                   -- ulysses
                                  \_ I don't mind cutting programs.  In fact
                                     I would specifically want to cut spending
                                     on programs which I don't feel benefit
                                     "the poor" (or the country) at all-such
                                     as a lot of hopelessly inefficient pork
                                     in defense, agricultural subsidies, etc.
                                     I make no apologies for my stance on
                                     taxes--where I am willing to concede that
                                     I am unrealistic is in my strong belief
                                     that there _is_ a shitload of waste and
                                     inefficiency in government spending, and
                                     that, in an ideal world, this would all
                                     go away.  I am of the firm conviction
                                     that a government's expenditures will
                                     always rise to exceed any funds available
                                     to it.  -John
                            \_ Why don't you like the latter, which I assume
                               you mean inheritance tax?
                               \_ Because I feel it is the business of an
                                  individual to what he wants to give to whom.
                                  Note that I didn't say I don't see some
                                  justification behind having it, I just don't
                                  like it.
                            \_ If we really wanted to reduce taxes on the
                               poor we'd get rid of the lottery and reduce
                               tabacco taxes.
        \_ The new thing is Greenspan says there is a widening wealth gap and
           widening wealth gaps are bad for America.
           The questionable thing is he also implies the dumbing down of the
           average American is the core reason for this.
           It's true, though, that if the average American gets smarter, the
           gap should narrow.
           The question is whether this is "the core reason", or just one with
           the distinction of having approval from Dubya's people.
           He probably can't say:  "The wealth gap widened because the wealthy
           benefited most on the last tax cut, and don't forget the elimination
           of the dividend tax and of the inheritance tax."
                \_ If everyone gets a PhD who will dig the ditches and pack
                   \_ The answer is apparent in Europe. EVERYONE.
                      \_ Yeah, it's great, I just got back from my weekend
                         socialist-enforced ditch digging collective trip,
                         and we all sang people's ditch digging songs and dug
                         ditches for the glory of the EU constitution.  -John
                         \_ You know, you laugh, but I actually have been on
                            one of those.  Along with my mother, who was a
                            college-educated civil engineer. -- ilyas
                         \_ Why do you hate Socialism?
                            \_ Because there's a chance of being forced on a
                               peoples' revolutionary ditch digging gang and
                               having to listen to ilyas sing peoples' revo-
                               lutionary ditch digging songs.  -John
                               \_ I've been known to sing russian war songs
                                  when I had a bit to drink. -- ilyas
                               \_ Ironically, I would pay money to see ilyas
                                  forced to sing revolutionary people's ditch
                                  digging songs.
                                  \_ I've been known to sing russian war songs
                                     when I have a bit to drink. -- ilyas
                                     \_ And Russian peasant drinking songs?
                                  \_ Ironically, in a society in which he'd be
                                     digging ditches, you'd be right there
                                     next to him, bub.  -John
2005/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38074 Activity:low
6/10    http://csua.org/u/cbk (wapo)
        Finally, we drive that final nail in the coffin of the
        libidinous, treasonous PBS.
        \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PSB.
        \_ Oh, I read that as  libidinous, treasonous PSB.
        \_ Less PBS funding, less children's shows that promote diversity.
           Translation: Less PBS funding, less toxic exposure to my kids on
           topics such as faggots and AIDS. This is definitely good news for
           the Religious Right. All Heil GWB, bring them on, and God Bless.
           \_ Yeah, because Sesame Street was the prime target.  Sure.  Please
              apply for the job below, because you seem to be qualified.
              \_ Would it make it better if SS _were_ the prime target?
                 \_ No.  Though SS has declined dramatically in quality in the
                    last 5+ years, it's not exactly leftwing drivel.
        \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PBS.
                    \_ So to what, other than Bill Moyers (who may be leftwing
                       but to call drivel is your own failing), would you
                       \_ There is too much left wing drivel on public
                          broadcasting. They got all these brit shows like
                          Red Dwarf, HG2G, Antiques Roadshow, etc. They
                          need to put on more quality programming like
                          the 700 Club. I mean, Dr. Who is definitely
                          gay and that whole Tardis thing is just obviously
                          \_ I want to think this is a troll, but since it's
                             williamc, i'm never quite sure.
                             \_ No, it's not a flame, we're all serious here.
                                Especially you. Down with Wall Street Weekly!
                                \_ It's cute when you try to be funny. :-P
        \_ Wasn't this just about the dumbest thing the Republicans could have
           done, politically?  I mean, what with all this hugely wasteful
           billion-dollar pork everywhere and a trillion-dollar war that nobody
           wants, they decide to kill a very popular and very visible $500M
           program in the name of "cutting costs."  Way to go guys, I hope
           you enjoy President Hillary.
           \_ Hillary is unelectable. Come on, after the previous election,
              it's clear that this kind of stuff doesn't sway enough votes.
              They vote on gay marriage and stuff, and how the candidates
              look. I guess it all depends on what candidate the pubs come
              up with next time.
              \_ Rudy?
              \_ Powell?
                 \_ jeah right!
              \_ McCain
                 \_ Destroyer of the 1st amendment.
                    \_ Could you give a reference or some context for that?
                       I'm not as savvy about McCain as I'd like to be. -mice
                       \_ Think "McCain-Feingold" restrictions on political
                          speech.  As in "congress shall make no law..."
                    \_ Huh?
        \_ The votes of the republicans on that sub-committee do not reflect
           the opinions of many republicans.  Personally I feel that PBS is
           the most unbiased source of information currently available (I'm
           mainly speaking of things like the NewsHour, Nova and Frontline)
           on television.
           \- for the cockroaches in power, "fiat lux" is not especially
              desirable ... like televised hearings on judges, john bolton
              etc. and when they want to be on TV, its easy enough for them
              to get airtime. --treasonous psb
2005/6/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health] UID:38060 Activity:low
6/9     Sez the Canadian Supreme Court:  "delays in the [Quebec] public health
        care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients
        die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."
        http://csua.org/u/cb5 [nytimes]
        \_ Meanwhile, 40 million plus Americans have no health insurance of
           any kind.  And god help if you have a preexisting condition and
           become unemployed.
           \_ This fictional 40 million number.... why should the govt
              pay for health insurance for people who rather buy
              new cars and flat screen plasma TVs?  The number of people
              who could not afford health ins., should they actually
              choose to buy it, is very small.  Futhermore, by law no
              one is denied care at a hospital emergency room and
              socialized health care programs already exist.
              \_ I don't know if this is trolling or naivete. "Could not
                 afford" is, perhaps, a subjective term, but data I've seen
                 from at least Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake and Napa counties
                 indicate populations well into the thousands who cannot
                 afford heath insurance and are under-served by the local
                 publicly available health care options. Not to mention that
                 in those counties, as well as in Santa Cruz county,
                 facilities that serve primarily Medicare and Medical patients
                 are closing. "By law" is one thing but have you heard of a
                 "code red" condition? That means the ER at a hospital won't
                 accept any new comers. That said, I don't think any of the
                 folks I'm refering to would be buying new cars or flat
                 screen TVs either. -- ulysses
                 \_ so you know personally know 40 million people without
                    insurance?  "really can't afford health care" can denot
                    alot of categories.  As a graduate student making 30k a
                    year I could afford catastrophic health care or,
                    if need be, go on a government program, as we already
                    have Fed and state programs for people who cannot
                    afford health care.  Let me ask you this - would you
                    agree to tax cuts so people could pay for their health
                    care, or do these people you seem to know not work
                    \_ The populations to whom I'm referring make typically less
                       than $10,000 a year. Cutting their taxes would still not
                       give them enough money to afford health care. Sample
                       occupations include homecare workers, gardeners,
                       (non-union) custodians. There are many more but those
                       are on the top of my head. These are people typically
                       within two or three multiples of the federal poverty
                       line. You are certainly correct that you, as a graduate
                       student, have more options. The Fed and state programs
                       to which you refer (Medical? Medicare?) only work if
                       there are facilities around to take patients. This is
                       getting lengthy and narrow for the motd so I invite you
                       to sign your login or email me. -- ulysses
2005/6/9 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38055 Activity:very high 76%like:38044
6/9     [re-posted after motd censor deleted it (2x)]
        motd demographic/political poll, d-dem, r-repub, i-independent:
        white & christian:
        \_ Actively christian? raised christian?
           \_ active (you self-identify as christian, now)
        non-white OR non-christian: dd
        non-white OR non-christian: ddr
        \_ I'm torn.  I'd love to be I, but then I'd lose my ability to vote in
           primaries.  I see little value left in R (at least here in CA).
           \_ What's so special about CA?
              \_ Entirely dominated by D. -emarkp
                 \_ Have you ever considered moving to R friendly states, like
                    say... Utah? Everyone there looks happy, unlike pissed off
                    protesting satanic Liberal here.
                    \_ Hi anonymous troll! -emarkp
                       \_ Seriously though, do you really like California?
                          We have the most number of gays and lesbians.  We
                          also have the most druggies, criminals, jails, and
                          welfare & project leeches. In addition we have the
                          biggest minority population in the entire U.S., and
                          many people simply hate Jesus Christ. Put it another
                          way, if it were not for your career, wife, or
                          friends, would you stay in California? If I were a
                          Christian, I'd probably move out as well.
2005/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:38014 Activity:high
6/8     [ Re-posted after deletion by motd censor.  It's not even 24 hours
          old fer chrissakes - originally from 6/7 ]
        Taiwan assembly passes changes:  Future amendments will have to be
        decided by referendums, which means the Assembly has effectively
        voted for its own abolition.
        But, later on, it says this:
        However, analysts point out that the threshold for passing amendments
        - 50% of the entire electorate, not just those who turn out to vote
        - is very high, making it difficult to pass any controversial changes.
        Here, it says, typical turnout is around 60%...  http://csua.org/u/ca0
        That means, in the future, for any amendments to pass, 82% of voters
        need to approve, unless turnout is abnormally high.
        \_ The failed assassination attempt on Ah Bian proves that Four
           Eyes can't shoot.
        \_ Yes, DPP has set up Taiwan for Buku-Bucks and big time detente.
           Politically they're capitalizing on the KMT's pro-China visits.
           You know how GOP folks complain about Democrats co-opting their
           goals and vice versa?  Same thing.
           \_ Can you explain, elaborate, and/or provide url's? How does this
              generate cash(Beacoup Bucks?). How does this represent the DPP
              co-opting KMT's goals?  As far as I understand, this just
              makes it practically impossible to pass any kind of amendment.
              Does it also make it impossible to pass other legislation? -op
              \_ http://csua.org/u/cal (Post)
                 It makes it harder to pass changes to the Constitution, such
                 as:  Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country, separate
                 from China (PRC).
                 \_ That's what it sounds like... then why did the DPP do it?
                    I thought their platform was independence.  This legis-
                    lation basically cements the current status quo forever:
                    no independence, no merger, no changes, period.  I know
                    that the KMT wanted this, in fact, this was part of their
                    election platform, but I thought the DPP ran on change.
                    \_ They saw a dead-end following a hard-line approach.
                    \_ it's more than that.  DPP want to do it mainly because
                       this "reform" will squash smaller party, Taiwan
                       Solidarity Union," headed by Li Deng Hui.  the TSU
                       has becoming more of a threat to DPP than an ally.
                       Further, you would argue that DPP gained a small
                       victory because in the past, changing the soverign
                       territory (such as remove the Chinese mainland)
                       impossible.  With new rule, it's highly improbable, but
                       not impossible.
                       \_ Is there any significant difference left in between
                          the two main parties, then?  As far as I understood
                          the recent elections, the biggest difference was
                          their stance vis-a-vis re-unification/independence.
                          Now that issue is no longer on the table, so what's
                          left?  I guess this also pretty much resolves the
                          entire reunification/independence debate.
                          \_ in my eye, the differences is still there.
                             KMT still calls for eventual unification with
                             the mainland, under the condition that China
                             would become richer and more democratic.
                             DPP still want to be independent.  If it requires
                             USA to nuke China off face of the earth, then
                             they will do everything they can to drag USA
                             into it.
                             The blurr you see is more to do with the fact
                             that lousy economy has made people to think
                             "may be getting a job is better than pursuit
                             my own identity;"  And the fact that DPP was
                             ran on a "reform" platform... and it turned out
                             while KMT was corrupt, it left technocrats to
                             run most of its government / economic policies;
                             DPP is more blatently corrupted, and it has
                             essentially destroyed the civil servant
                             machines. Major government post are fill by
                             those who are loyal to DPP or made significant
                             contribution to the campaign.  Political
                             correctness overrides any economical / political
                             consideration.  This is why under DPP rule,
                             TW went from a meager 1% fiscal deficit to
                             30+% deficit today.        -live in TW now.
                             \_ thanks for all the replies.  What party, if
                                any, do you support? -op
                                \_ i am completely disillusioned with
                                   democracy for Chinese in general now.
                                   I prefer rapid unification with some
                                   degree of self-goverance for three reasons:
                                   1.  so TW can jump onto the Chinese economic
                                   bandwagon.  People in taiwan can make most
                                   differences, AND benefit most from China's
                                   2.  DPP build its power based upon fueling
                                   racial tensions.  Want to get rid of that
                                   before this racial tension turned into
                                   sectarian violence
                                   3.  it is only way to remove this potential
                                   flash point which may cost hundreds of
                                   millions of Chinese lives... i.e.
                                   full confrontation with United States.
                                        - denizen of Chinese Republic.
                                   \_ I'm not Chinese, and I know very
                                      little about this. However if I were
                                      Taiwanese, I think I would be very
                                      nervous about reunification until
                                      China makes some democratic reforms
                                      and builds up a better track record.
                                      Can't argue with 3 though.
                                      \_ I agree with you.
                                         Not many people in Taiwan is in
                                         a hurry to "re-unite" with PRC.
                                         However, it is important to
                                         get a dialogue going, and not
                                         constantly provoke PRC (mostly
                                         by DPP, etc. for domestic
                                         political consumption).  It would
                                         also be nice to reach some form of
                                         understanding with PRC on some
                                         guidelines, necessary
                                         conditions, etc. for co-existence
                                         and possible eventual unification,
                                         while Taiwan still has the
                                         political, economic, and military
                                         capital to do so, cause unless
                                         you think PRC will suddenly
                                         collapse, time is on PRC's side,
                                         unfortunately.  Very few in
                                         Taiwan are willing to pay the
                                         price for dejure independence.
                                         The best thing to do is to
                                         maintain defacto independence,
                                         not unnecessariy provoke PRC,
                                         set guidelines and conditions
                                         on what PRC needs to do before
                                         unification can be considered,
                                         and observe and bid time.  The
                                         problem is everytime someone
                                         tries to do that, the more
                                         extreme TI supporters will
                                         start yelling "traitors",
                                         "sellouts", and fan emotions and
                                         \_ I concur.
                                         \_ Interesting. These Taiwanese
                                            conservatives sound just like
                                            the NeoRepublicans of America.
                                            \_ Huh?  What do you think
                                 \_ DPP, because they don't buy votes and
                                   they're not full of wackos who think Chen
                                   shot himself.
                                   \_ I don't know whether he shot himself
                                      or not, but I wouldn't call people
                                      who think so wackos cause the whole
                                      incident and how it was handled do
                                      smell fishy.
                                      \_ ^wackos^Wackjobs
                                   DPP's biggest problem is it doesn't know
                                   how to handle corruption among its own.
                                         \_ wacko's version of assassination:
                \_ Wackjob.
                   If Chen really wanted to stage the shooting, don't you think
                   he would have done a lot better job acting?  Not, "Oh,
                   what's this blood on my shirt?" but "Shit, what the fuck was
                   that that just blew into my stomach?!"
                   \_ huh?  the wikipedia article pretty much supports
                      the claim that the whole thing smells fishy.
                      \_ Okay, I took out the URL and gave you the reason why
                         they're all wackjobs.
                         \_ otoh, it could just be ah bian being his usual
                            self: a clown and a bad actor
                            sorry, but I don't buy your "he couldn't be so
                            dumb" defense.
                            \_ Wackjob.  Go home.  Think about it.
                               \_ wikipedia article reposted:
        \_ what is the big deal?  we got a president who staged an
           assassination; his wife made millions in stock markets, put
           his house servant on government payroll,  sued and searched
           opposition newspapers and magazines, and allow cronies to escape
           island after embazzled millions, flare racial tentions for his
           political gain and completely ignore the
           Consititution since the it states One-China policy...  are you
           trying to say this "reform" is significant in some way?
           \_ Oh gawd, you're still on the assassination theory?
              \_ don't know about that, but ah bian's fat belly
                 (supposedly scratched by the bullet) is certainly
                 world famous now.
              \_ not to mention the suspect they "caught" died
                 one year ago. the will which suppose to proof
                 he was the assassint was burnt... and that is the
                 official end to this assassination... you don't call
                 this a cover up?
                 \_ ^cover up^conspiracy theory
           \_ url for these accusations?
              \_ google is your friend.
2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37977 Activity:kinda low
6/6     "In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block
        the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use":
        So what are you faggot-loving drug-using tree-hugging protesting
        LIBERALS gonna have to say about this? Ha ha ha ha
              \_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
                 this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
                 want you on our side.  This tramples on state's rights.
                    \_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
                       at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
                       marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
                       to deal with these issues.  -John
                  \_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
                     marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
                     the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
                     \_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
                     \_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
                        at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
                        marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
                        to deal with these issues.  -John
                     \_ I don't want to think about how you would get
                        sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
                        \_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
                           would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
                           \_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
                              than any other city in America.
                           2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
                           old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
                           \_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
                              could avoid them. -emarkp
                              \_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
                                 case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
                                 be disruptive to interstate commerce through
                                 the area with respect to gas stations, public
                                 accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
                                 falls under the "provide for defense" and
                                 provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
                                 perhaps we might instead expand the National
                                 Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
                                 Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
                                 locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
        \_ Since when did the motd become /.?  You must have missed the
           "Medical Marijuana, RIP" post.
           \_ Yeah I did, thanks                -op, conservative
              \_ If you're a real conservative, we don't want you on our side.
                 This tramples on state's rights. -emarkp
              \_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
                 this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
                 want you on our side.  This tramples on state's rights.
                 \_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
                    marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
                    the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
                    \_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
                    \_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
                       at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
                       marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
                       to deal with these issues.  -John
                    \_ I don't want to think about how you would get
                       sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
                       \_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
                          would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
                          \_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
                             than any other city in America.
                          2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
                          old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
                          \_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
                             could avoid them. -emarkp
                             \_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
                                case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
                                be disruptive to interstate commerce through
                                the area with respect to gas stations, public
                                accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
                                falls under the "provide for defense" and
                                provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
                                perhaps we might instead expand the National
                                Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
                                Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
                                locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
        [ threads merged ]
        \_ O'Connor complaining that it's not repsecting state rights?  I'm so
           confused.  Is this the Bizarro SCOTUS?
           \_ States rights are only good if we like what the right is, like
              citizens owning anti-tank weaponry and the government not knowing
              who those owners are.
        \_ Interesting that Justice Thomas dissented.
                \_ Along with O'Conner and Rehnquist (he's still alive I
                        \_ Is this in line with Rehnquist's record? Does
                           anyone think he's changed his priorities because
                           of his health?
                           \_ They're voting as "state's-rights" ideologs.
                              O'Connor also wants to be perceived as the
                              compassionate/sensible conservative.
                              Scalia is not a buffoon so will judge according
                              to law, along with the other 5 in the majority
                              opinion, even though it hurts people.
        \_ There's that all-inclusive "interstate commerce" line again. Just
           like "provide for the general Welfare", it's broken.
                \_ The reasoning in the opinion seems really weak.
                   \_ I read the opinion last night and I think that
                      Scalia's concurrence probably is more illuminating
                      than the majority opinion.
                      The way that I understand it is that the decision
                      is based on the 'necessary and proper' clause that
                      allows congress to regulate intrastate activities
                      to the extent that they affect interstate commerce.
                      As Scalia states the test is whether the means used
                      by congress are "'reasoanbly adapted' to the ...
                      legitimate end[s] under the commerce power."
                      Since Pot is a Schedule I drug (you may dispute
                      classification, but that was not at issue) and
                      Congress's desire to eliminate Schedule I drugs
                      from interstate commerce is legitimate (again
                      you may dispute this, but it was not at issue),
                      the question is whether it is possible to distin-
                      guish local pot from "imported" pot. Since it is
                      not, Congress's desire to restrict pot growing
                      preempts state law.
                      (1) I have not taken Con Law yet, so my understa-
                          nding of the commerce power and the necessary
                          and proper clause is a bit weak.
                      (2) The real problem is that pot is misclassifed
                          as a Schedule I drug. If pot is reclassified,
                          then the outcome should be different and these
                          people can go about their business.
                      (3) My agreement of w/ the outcome is colored by
                          my general dislike for things like pot,
                          cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, &c.
        \_ If nothing else I enjoyed hearing "The evil left-wing liberals
           are trying to steal our pot" on right-wing talk radio this
2005/6/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37971 Activity:nil
6/4     Protests in Azerbaijan!  (interesting pictures)
        \_ A Neocon Republican's dream come true.
           A Moderate Republican's nightmare.
           \_ Depends.  Guess what leads through there since May 25?  -John
              \_ It couldn't be a pipeline, because motd told me they weren't
                 working on one.
2005/6/1 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37930 Activity:high
6/1     God does not like Republicans.
        \_ I know you're just joking, but that's in LA, dem city.
           \_ The CITY of LA is 70% democrat but LA county is overall 55%
              democrat. In fact, it is a myth that Southern Cal is democrat.
              Most of Orange County, Malibu, Palos Verdes, and other extremely
              affluent parts of LA are Republican strongholds. These people
              are SOCIALLY liberal but are even more driven by money-- they're
              fiscally conservative, hence the party affiliation. Perhaps you
              should take a look at a Southern Cal map and get an idea how
              big it really is relative to cute little Bay Area. Lastly Laguna
              Beach is NOT LA. It's over 50 miles from it.
              \_ that's probably why he didn't say, "that's SoCal, dem region",
                 or, "that's LA County, dem county".  duh.
        \_ If God hates Republicans then 2500 Democrats (out of over 3000
           souls) would not have perished on 9/11. If anything, all indications
           show that God loves Republicans.
2005/6/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:37922 Activity:nil 60%like:37046
6/1     Ding Dong the Broadcast Flag is dead:
2005/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37856 Activity:nil
5/27    Not all republicans are anti-stem-cell...
2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37817 Activity:nil
5/23    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050523/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_139
        "Centrists from both parties reached a compromise Monday night to
        avoid a showdown on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees and the
        Senate's own filibuster rules ..."
        \_ Watch freepers scream and rant
           \_ Bill Frist got pwnd.
              \- how do you figure this isnt a 95% republican victory? --psb
                 \_ It's a delay of game penalty. When a Supreme steps down
                    and Demos try the same thing, the filibuster will fall.
                    In fact, I doubt it will be that close.
                    \_ So you're saying the 7 Democratic senators in on the
                       compromise will filibuster the next SCOTUS nominee,
                       and for that nominee, there won't be 6 Republican
                       senators to vote to prevent use of the nuclear option?
                       In any case, I could see use of the nuclear option for
                       SCOTUS nominees by both parties (initiated by the GOP
                       and tit-for-tat by Dems in 2008-2012), but a general
                       reluctance for appeals court and other judges.
                       I also give it a 50% chance that Dubya will nominate
                       a non-wacko SCOTUS candidate as the first one, obviating
                       the need for a filibuster.
                       \- without taking a stand on what that probability p
                          will be [and it may depend whether it is the CJ or
                          and AJ] i think the probability certainly is
                          affected by how bruised he is ... over Bolton,
                          over Social Security etc. This is obvious but the
                          point being you can score points that have an affect
                          down the road even if you lose early on.
2005/5/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:37814 Activity:nil
5/23    Fox's angle on Star Wars vs. Republicans:
        \_ I see everything twice!
        \_ "By and large, the rebellion's supporters were ordinary people who
            wanted self-determination, republican government, and free
            enterprise in place of the Galactic Empire's oppression, economic
            controls, and high taxes."
           Typical Fox handwaving, to imply that republican government is
           the equivalent of Republican-dominated government.
2005/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37792 Activity:nil
5/20    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/politics/main697013.shtml
        Bush says "the way to honor [Pope JP] is to continue to build a
        culture of life where the strong protect the weak."
        Is that why we're torturing Iraqis and bombing civilians, so that
        they will not terrorize other people?
        \_ No, dumbass, it's the reason why we keep brain-dead people
           alive against the wishes of those with the power-of-attorney
           and also why we are defunding stem-cell research so that we'll
           be behind every other industrialized country in biotech in the
           near future. The torturing Iraqis and bombing civilians has to
           do with this nation being good Evangelical Christians in
           general. Your propoganda fu is weak.
2005/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37775 Activity:high
5/19    Stupid prediction:
        Six Republicans will report to other Republican senators that they're
        going to compromise to prevent use of the nuclear option.  Republican
        senators, rather than face the embarrassment of not being able to
        execute on the nuclear option, will compromise with Democrats in some
        form.  Both sides claim victory; both sides will say they did not
        sacrifice on principles; the media will say a compromise prevented
        the nuclear option.
        \_ I don't see any incentive for Republicans to back down.  Not
           that I am all excited about filerbuster, just that I felt that
           judges should be confirmed with super majority, period.
                \_ Why in god's name do you think that Judges should be
                   "confirmed with super majority" ?
                   \- the rationale is ostenisbly like peremptory
                      challenges, which is another "negative selection" ...
                      to get rid of "tails". --psb
                   \_ Also, the precident is horrible:  The rules have
                      been a judge can be fillibustered, both sides have
                      done it many times before.  Changing the senate's
                      internal rules with a simple majority vote, by
                      effectively lying about what the vote is about
                      is really wonky.
                      \_ How common has judicial filibustering been?  Are we
                         talking hundreds of times in the history of the US?
                         Just trying to figure out the order here.
2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37764 Activity:kinda low
5/19    Irony is Dead: The Republicans are trying to use a bogus interpretation
        of the Constitution to force the confirmation of judges they believe
        will return us to an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.
        \_ Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.  -John
        \_ News flash!  Partisans redefine terms to look good!  Yeah, it's
           pathetic.  But then, I think all procedures which prevent the
           majority from passing legislation/etc. which aren't explicitly in
           the Constitution should be eliminated. -conservative
           \_ And to hell with that whole "protection of the minority" idea.
              \_ There are constitutional supermajorities required for some
                 \_ And the constitution also says the senate runs by its own
                    rules.  Those rules require a 2/3 vote to change.  If they
                    can be changed by a majority vote "because dick says so",
                    watch the fuck out.
                    \_ I was under the impression that only 50%+1 was necessary
                       to change rules.  Where did you find 2/3 to change
                       senate rules?
                       \_ Answering myself.
                          seems to say two-thirds.  But there are so many
                          run-on sentences it's hard to read.
                          \_ Since you view yourself as such a strident
                             Constitutional purist you might like to know
                             the aforementioned document specifies five
                             instances where a supermajority is required.
                             Guess what, appellate judge nominations is not
                             one of them.  The Founders were afraid of
                             judicial tyranny for a reason.  What is wrong
                             with a simple yes or no vote on the Senate floor?
                             \_ What is wrong with hypocrisy?
                             \_ did you feel the same way when Clinton
                                was President?
                                \_ none of Clinton's judge nominations
                                   were filibustered.  What precisely
                                   am I expected to "feel".
                                   \_ But they were not given a simple up
                                      and down vote in the Senate, were they?
                                      I would expect you to be consistent,
                                      or just admit you are only interested
                                      in power for its own sake, not in any
                                      notion of fair play.
                                      \_ An appointee should die in committee
                                         if the committee thinks he won't come
                                         close to an up vote.  That's the point
                                         of a committee.  Alternatively, the
                                         committee could just send the vote to
                                         the floor with a recommendation (which
                                         seems reasonable to me).
                                         \_ Is that what happened to Clinton?\
                                            All 60 of his nominees that were
                                            blocked in committee had no chance
                                            in an up and down vote? Is that
                                            what you believe?
                                            \_ FATALITY!!1!
                                               (ob follow-up about false
                                               dichotomies that ignores that
                                               he just got slammed)
                                               \_ How old are you?
2005/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37748 Activity:high
5/19    Some hopefully neutral background on the filibuster:
        According to Wikipedia, the filibuster has existed as an option to
        stall any issue in the Senate since 1806.  Since 1917 the requirement
        to terminate a filibuster has varied from two-thirds of the entire
        Senate (67 votes) to the three-fifths (60 votes) we have today.
        In 1974, we did change the rules such that budget bills could not be
        filibustered if they reduced the budget deficit (the exception to the
        rule is Social Security, though -- you can still filibuster bills which
        would change SS).
        We are now debating whether we can change the rules such that you
        cannot filibuster nominations to federal judgeships.
        Theoretically we can change the rules to eliminate the filibuster as an
        option for any particular class of issues if you can get 51 votes or 50
        votes + VP tiebreak.
        [re-posted in response to thread below]
        \_ What if they filibuster a bill to relax the rules to eliminate
           \_ Can't filibuster that.  It's not a law, it's just part of the
              senate rules.
        \_ Question:  This is what I thought was the case, but reading the
           senate rules suggests 2/3 for a rules change.  Everyone's saying
           it's only 50% + 1 for a rules change but I can't figure out why
           that's the case.  Do you have a cite for that?
           \_ This is the "nuclear option".  Basically, breaking the rules for
              changing rules so they can... change the rules.
              \_ Never have I read/heard it described as 'breaking the rules'.
                 Do you have a ref for that?
                 \_ Well, according to Wikipedia, [Reid said] "the
                    parliamentarian of the United States Senate has said it
                    (the nuclear option) is illegal."
                    Also, from a likely non-neutral source:
                    Reading this stuff, it makes me think that the nuclear
                    option is far less of a "you can certainly do it but people
                    just don't want to piss other people off that much" type of
                    issue than I thought.  If the nuclear option was arguably
                    illegal, then I could certainly see "successful" employment
                    of it causing all sorts of problems in the Senate.
                    \_ If it were so illegal, why would R's even have it as an
                       option?  Why have no pundits said anything about it?
                       \_ Even if it were legal (and we won't have a word on
                          that unless it happens, but some say it will be a
                          constitutional crisis), it flies in the face of 200
                          years of tradition in a body that thrives on
                          tradition.  At this point, I would be surprised if
                          Frist actually had the votes to get it done.  In any
                          event, it'll be interesting to hear the
                          constitutional scholars and SC weigh in.
                          \_ SCOTUS doesn't have a say.
                             Also, a senior Republican aide said, "[the
                             Senate parliamentarian] has nothing to do with
                             this. He's a staffer, and we don't have to ask his
2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37729 Activity:moderate
5/18    Yes yes yes! Enough with racial fighting, violence, and failing
        educational system in the second largest city in the US. DOWN with
        wealthy, out of touch white male politicians and in with a new
        minority mayor! It is about time. It's a huge victory for diversity,
        minorities, and average Americans       -white male politician hater
        \_ Why am I reading about a US mayor on the BBC?
           \_ uh, because your sense of perception is usually better when
              you're far away, whereas when you're closer things tend to be
              over-magnified or distorted? Or if you're asking why a foreign
              news cares about a sucky US city, is it because most of the
              world is well in tune with what goes on in the US, whereas the
              other way is untrue? This is, perhaps we are the most self
              indulgent species in the entire planet and we don't care about
              the world, or our perception by the world? Or maybe this is
              because unlike Europeans, we don't travel as much for
              whatever reason? Take your pick.
              \_ The Euros as a whole (massive overgeneralization) tend to
                 look at US politics as a pretty monolithic affair.  I
                 remember my gf watching Rumsfeld get the bitchsmack laid
                 on him at some Senate hearings and being extremely astounded
                 at how aggressively they were treating him.  You don't often
                 get that sort of depth of detail in most countries about
                 other countries' politics.  Who here heard of George
                 Galloway before he appeared in the Senate?  (You didn't miss
                 much) -John
              \_ What did BBC have to say about the District 2 special
                 election in Oakland? 'Cos I'm never heard of any of these
                 people, and I've been living here for six years and
                 worked for the City of Oakland for 3.5 years. --erikred
                 \_ Oakland is not the biggest 5 cities in the US, so it's
                    not really a city :)
                    not really a REAL city :)
                    \_ Damn you and your logic! :)
                    \_ I thought Oakland is the biggest US city by area,
                       although not by population.
                       \_ Not a chance, but you would be forgiven for thinking
                          so if you've ever driven down San Pablo and then
                          moved over to International all the way to San
                          Leandro. Speaking of which, are there any movie
                          theaters south/east of the Parkway?
                          \_ Follow-up: Oakland ranks 98th in area among
                             cities with pop > 100k.
                             \_ I love how the state of California is more
                                densely populated than the city of Anchorage.
        \_ This is not the first time LA has a non-white mayor, racist.
2005/5/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37681 Activity:low
5/14    "Where a government has come to power through some form of popular
        vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of
        constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted,
        since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been
        exhausted." --Che Guevara
        \_ try to go through that once yourself, then, you might have a
           different reaction.  Overthrowing Taiwan's government never
           went across my mind until I personally went through the election
           in 2004.
           \_ Are you saying Taiwan is ripe for a guerilla takeover?
              \_ not yet.  just that the government is no longer legitimate.
              \_ Gorilla takeover?  I thought the Chicoms were trying Pandas..
           \_ You tried to shoot President Chen in South Taiwan?
2005/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:37531 Activity:high
5/5     Heh.  It's hard to make a pinko happy: http://csua.org/u/byq
        \_ No, it's easy.  Just put them in charge.  It's more of an "I'm
           always right" ideology.
2005/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37517 Activity:moderate
5/4     http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/04/british.election
        Do YOU guys want Blair to win? Poll:
        No: .
        \_ It's pretty much a foregone conclusion.
        \_ I want Blair to step-down and have another Labour Party member
           step in as PM, saying, "Yeah, Blair lied.  I'm the new guy!"
           Or, I want Blair to say, "Yeah, I lied about these specific things."
           Then I would want him to win.
           \_ I want Blair to step-down and say "Yeah, I lied, in fact, Georgy
              promised me goodies if I lied."
           \_ They'll get Brown soon enough.  -John
        \_ We should start a letter writing campaign to tell regular British
           voters it's important for us that they vote Tory.  Yeah, that'll
2005/4/30-5/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37435 Activity:nil
4/30    These frist filibuster protesters are actually kinda creative and fun,
        I gotta hand it to them.
2005/4/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:37428, category id '18005#5.58125' has no name! , ] UID:37428 Activity:high
4/29    Coburn and Tancredo for 2008!
        Senate plots to get rid of doc (Pork-buster Tom Coburn)
        \_ why do you hide the free republic links?
2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:37406 Activity:nil
4/28    I have a lot of stocks and I get to vote for amendments. I see the
        following A LOT: "Approval of amendment and extension of the executive
        officer incentive plan" or "Amendment of bonuses and options to
        officers." I always vote no, yet, I always see them getting approved.
        What the fuck?
        \_ Unless you own or control 51% it doesn't matter what you vote for.
        \_ You don't have a lot of stock.  get 100,000 shares and then you
           still don't have a lot of stock in terms of moving those votes.
        \_ You know how you always read shit like "And the board of directors
           awarded the C*O with 14,000,000 shares of stock" -- That's money AND
           more votes for themselves.
2005/4/25 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37350 Activity:nil
4/25    Billboard for TV newscast has 'CA' crossed out, Mexico added
2005/4/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37319 Activity:high
4/22    Thoughts on the "nuclear option"?  Seems truly crazy to me.
        \_ Is this in relation to something?
           \_ Uh..  do you follow the news at all?
        \_ Until both sides are willing to do a 24-hr round-the-clock
           filibuster, I don't think it's reasonable to even talk about it.
           You can break a filibuster with endurance if you're willing to stay
           up late.  And if the other side is willing to stay and fight it,
           maybe the majority should reconsider.  On the other hand, I think
           the Dems are going nuts blocking judges.
           \_ 10 out of over 200 is nuts?  Maybe the majority should remember
              what "compromise" means. I bet you'll be the first screaming
              for cloture rules to be reinstated when the D's take back the
              \_ Well, "10 out of over 200" is misleading.  The Democrats
                 blocked 17 of 52 Bush appellate nominees, roughly 1/3.  Of
                 course, the Republicans blocked 16 of 51 Clinton second
                 term appellate nominees too.  So the Democrats are slighly
                 less accommodating, but both sides play this game.
                 \_ I really don't mind "this game".  For the most part, these
                    nominees are fine.  When someone leans far enough to either
                    side to get more than 40 people to say NO, it _should_ be
                    a red flag.
                 \_ Explain to me again how this is "going nuts."
                    \_ Did I comment on "nuts" one way or the other?  I merely
                       explained that "10 out of over 200" is misleading, when
                       it was really "17 of 52".  Nor did I single out the
                       Democrats, when I took pains to point out that
                       Republicans did the same thing.  You need to 1) calm
                       down, and 2) work on your reading comprehension.
                 \_ This is a bit deceptive.  The Clinton nominees were
                    blocked, but by the majority in the Senate, not by a
           \_ You can approve judges if you can get 51 votes out of the Senate
              (or 50 votes + VP Cheney) every time.  Considering you have 55
              Republican senators, all you need are 50 rubber stamps to pack
              the courts.  Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes.
              Filibustering is rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
              night when you could compromise?
              However, you can also get 50 votes to make a rule that says you
              can't filibuster anymore on judges.
              In which case, you can then employ 50 rubber stamps on any judge
              you want.
              Is this legal?  Yes.
              Is this good for America?  I really doubt it.
              \_ Don't you also need to attain cloture on a rule change?
                 \_ Apparently not.
              \_ Staying up all night sounds so theatrical and dramatic, but
                 in the modern Senate all that is required is for a senator
                 to state an intent to filibuster.  Requiring a senator to
                 pull an all-nighter might interfere with the real Senate
                 business of sucking up to special interests and banging
                 underage pages.
                 \_ What's your point again?
                    \_ Just correcting the inaccurate claim that a filibuster
                       requires a senator "to stay up all night".  Some of us
                       care about factual things.
                       \_ So all a senator has to do is "state an intent
                          to filibuster"?  What do they do after that?
                          Note how I haven't claimed "that a filibuster
                          requires a senator 'to stay up all night'".  Read
                          the wording carefully -- the words are "who wants
                          to stay up all night when you could compromise",
                          not "a filibuster requires a senator to stay up
                          all night".
                          \_ Well, the exact words were "Filibustering is
                             rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
                             \_ Why don't you answer my question, which
                                should address the key question of how
                                difficult it is to filibuster.
                                What does a filibustering senator do after
                                stating an intent to filibuster?
                                \_ Do?  Nothing.  If there are enough votes
                                   for cloture, fine.  If not, the filibustered
                                   bill gets tabled.  You might want to read
                                   the wikipedia entry on filibusters.
                                   \_ I did read it.  Please quote the section
                                      which shows (in more or less words):
                                      "If there are enough votes for cloture,
                                      fine.  If not, the filibustered bill gets
                                      Be very careful with your interpretation.
                                      \_ "What happens if the Senate fails to
                                         invoke cloture?   The debate
                                         continues. Generally, the Senate
                                         majority leader . in this case
                                         Frist . will simply give up trying
                                         to have the chamber vote on the
                                         measure in question and move on to
                                         another issue."
                                         \_ What's your problem?
                                            Why aren't you quoting wikipedia
                                            like I asked?  You're the one who
                                            brought up wikipedia.
                                            \_ I am large, I contain
                                               multitudes. --chiapet
        \_ The Constitution explicity names six instances where supermajorities
           are required, appellate judge nominations is not one of them.
           The use of filibusters to prevent nominations is historically
           rare, until Bush's 1st and 2nd term.
           A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and so
           they should.
           Lastly, it is a sad day indeed when espousing the beliefs of the
           founders, as did Janice Rogers Brown, makes you a controversial
           nominee.  Unfortunately this is not the first time.
           \_ "A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and
              so they should."  Just because you can doesn't mean you "should".
              Legal?  Yes.
              Good for America?  I really doubt it.
2005/4/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37295 Activity:nil
4/21    Yay!
        "Republicans on Thursday moved closer to a showdown with Democrats
        over filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees, sending two
        judges under dispute to the full Senate. ... Conservatives during the
        last Congress accused Democrats of being anti-minority for blocking
        Brown, who is black; anti-women for blocking Owen, and anti-Catholic
        for blocking Pryor."
        \_ Because it couldn't be that they're anti-psycho..
2005/4/20-26 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37291 Activity:nil 78%like:37794
4/20    Senior Java Developer opening in Pleasanton, CA: see /csua/pub/RHI-IT
        - jthoms
        \_ Maybe you mean /csua/pub/jobs/RHI-IT
2005/4/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37281 Activity:low
4/20    When democracy meets islam in the UK:
        http://tinyurl.com/9jg7d (telegraph.co.uk)
        \_ The absentee ballot system in the States is pretty much just as
        \_ I think your link description goes better with this one:
           \_ Not really.  George Galloway is, not to put too find a point
              on it, a cunt in the finest tradition of cuntness.  Read up
              on his past a bit; he's just getting his just desserts for
              a lot of really really bad shit that he's done.  Ironic that
              it's coming from an islamic mob, though.  -John
2005/4/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37227 Activity:nil
4/16    Doing the jobs American's won't do.  First aircraft mechanics, now
        ship builders for the Navy.
        Audit Shows Illegal Workers Hired
2005/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37220 Activity:nil
4/16    Evil Democrats are 'against people of faith':
        May conservatism be strong in the US, and GOD BLESS.
2005/4/15-16 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37206 Activity:low
4/15    Just curious, anyone pay use tax on the ca state return for internet
        \_ Yes, I wrote in I spent $500 on out-of-state purchases for both
           2003 and 2004 tax years.  $41 in taxes for being in L.A. County.
        \_ No I don't.
        \_ No.
        \_ Statistically speaking, no.
2005/4/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37154 Activity:nil
4/12    Whoever put that link to the Wayne Madsen article ( I didn't
        nuke it) still can't believe that there is a world outside of
        suburbs and cities that votes in a unison for the President.
        Visit a NASCAR game or listen to country and you'll see.
2005/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37150 Activity:nil
4/12    It is easy to dismiss this guy as a crackpot, but he is
        a Senior Fellow for EPIC, a retired NSA analyst and
        was an intelligence officer in the Marine Corp:
        http://csua.org/u/bnk (onlinejournal)
2005/4/9 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37128 Activity:nil
4/8     California campers attacked and robbed by Mexican Nationals (Illegal Aliens)
2005/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:37082 Activity:moderate
4/5     So it begins.  Welcome to the culture of death:
        \_ Big churches esp. Catholic, gives me this image of having a
           lot of clout like the ones mafias have. I would think that if
           pro-lifers seriously want her to live, [weathly] Churches like the
           ones in Utah would have no problem coming up with Save-a-Shiavo
           campaign. In addition, it would be a great public relationship
           stunt. The fact that none of the Churches offered a penny or
           had not organized any visible and successful campaign, shows you
           that either they don't give a damn, or that they're not as powerful
           as GodFather the movie portrays them to be.           -troll
        \_ WHY is it anyone not talking about bolemia and anorexia and other
           things that could have prevented Shiavo's death in the first
           place? I mean, an ounce of prevention is... you know.
        \_ i for one welcome our new culture of death overlords.
           \_ "Hail Death!"
        \_ How much of your tax money would you like to go toward keeping
           ABD (all but dead) people alive?  Would you rather that money
           went toward schools or prenatal care?  How much of your income
           would you like to pay in taxes?  As for me, if I am ABD, take
           the money and buy immunizations for the poor, and let me drop
           dead. --PeterM
           \_ The *real* question is *who* decides which people are ABD.
              \_ Who do you think is deciding now?  If you disagreed in
                 Schiavo's case, it was the doctors who decided she was
                 hopeless, and her guardian chose to end extraordinary
                 measures.  That seems the right way to me.
        \_ It is long past time for us as a society to have this discussion.
           I worked in a hospital and I used to watch doctors do stupid
           and expensive procedures on people who were obviously in their
           last few months of life.
           \_ And I've seen doctors not give a shit about whether someone lives
              or dies.  They're the ones we're bowing down to.
              \_ Where did you see a doctor like that? I worked in two different
                 hospitals for a total of 4 years and I never saw anything
                 close to resembling what you are describing.
                 \_ Radiation Oncology.
                    \_ This makes the case for a serious conversation about
                       how to handle these cases even more compelling.
        \_ We've always been a culture of death. Even those expousing the
           "Culture of Life" are enamored by death and have fetishized their
           beliefs to the point of ridiculousness.
2005/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36997 Activity:nil 50%like:37159
3/31    Job available at ISTI in Santa Monica, CA.
        Check out /csua/pub/jobs/ISTI.  Thanks
2005/3/30-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36988 Activity:nil
3/30    A critique of libertarian thought:
        \_ This is from a conservative perspective that the vast majority
           here are not going to be in tune with.  It also mischaracterizes
           libertarianism on a number of fronts.  Most egregiously when it
           suggests that libertarianism somehow has "contempt for
           self-restraint".  He approaches the real problem when he suggests
           that most libertarians don't realize how easy it is to infringe on
           another's rights (I'm fond of pointing out that this is especially
           true in densely populated areas), but the article is mostly
           pandering to the "drugs and porn are bad" crowd, muddled thinking,
           and the putting up of a utopian straw man.  (It is a small minority
           of libertarians that are utopian).  I'm sure there are better
           criticisms of Libs out there, as there is much to criticize.
           -a libertarian
           \_ Huh.  Thanks for the insight.
              \- libertarianism is a reasonably powerful and parsimonious
                 theory about government. but there is a lot more to philosophy
                 than the ordering of social institutions. and conclusions in
                 other areas in turn feed back into beliefs about the ordering
                 of social institutions. and that lack of a theory about
                 say "what we owe each other" or the right and the good,
                 justice, fairness etc is where libertaianism lacks in theory.
                 where it lacks in practice in my opinion and experience is
                 many adherent really are not committed to theory. they cleve
                 to the ideology because the conclusions are what they like
                 with rather than the fundamental principles and logic. the
                 extrme form of these are randroids. those people dont even
                 realize randianism isnt a philosophy any more. it is just
                 a bunch of prescriptions which a sham theory behind it [sic].
                 there are also a minority of honest libertarians who are
                 too obsessed with theoretical parsimony which is lacking
                 in some messy but probably more honest and powerful
                 theories [these are the nozick-heads. it is quite possible
                 you dont know any of these people. although if berkeley
                 you have some chance of meeting a few of these. they can
                 be worth talking to.]. --psb
                 \_ Interesting, though dense.  Thanks for taking the time
                    to elucidate.  It's all pretty interesting when presented
                    rationally without all the distracting acrimony.
                    \- oh there should be acrimony but maybe not distracting
                       acrimony toward randroids. there isnt enough acrimony
                       towards them. --psb
                        \_ agreed. -a libertarian
2005/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:36977 Activity:high
3/30    So what do people here think of the Minuteman Project in Arizona, and
        the response of the ACLU and Vicente Fox? -emarkp
        \_ I don't know anything about it, URL from CNN or http://Fox.com?
           \_ http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050330-125346-1389r.htm
              or just plain:
        \_ If they stick to never actually confronting immigrants, it sounds
           legal. It's certainly an excellent diversionary tactic given there's
           been no sign so far that any terrorists have tried to come up
           via Mexico. Blaming brown people has worked well as a pretty good
           rallying call for the right. I also predict Fox won't get any help
           from Bush this time since Bush doesn't need the Latino vote anymore.
            -- ulysses
        \_ If you ever lived in Southern California for over 10+ years and
           attended public elementary to high school there, you'll know exactly
           how you feel. If you're Latino, you'll feel that S Cal is a great
           place where you get free subsidy and support from your own people.
           If you're not Latino, you'll think S Cal is a shithole, a perfect
           example of great wealth inequality where the richest and the
           poorest people living in one place. This imbalance of wealth
           contributes to conflicts unique in S. Cal. For example, S. Cal
           having the highest car insurance rate (1/4 are staged for insurance
           money), gangsters, drive-by shooting (my school had drive by twice),
           ethnic fights, etc.
                -someone who lived there +10 years and witnesses a lot of shit
           \_ ...that's right, those pesky Latinos are getting all of those
              subsidies, and that's what's wrong with everything. Dude, I'd
              tell you to go to hell, but there's no place possibly worse to
              live in than your own mind.
        \_ I'm anti ILLEGAL immigrant but I'm not anti immigrant. Extra border
           patrol will discourage drugs and contrabands into the US as well
           as discourage desperate people coming into the US, who usually get
           taken advantage of. If people want to come to the US, they should
           first learn a bit more about the country (not from Hollywood or
           magazines) and come in LEGALLY.      -parents who came in legally
           \_ you're a moron.
              \_ why is he a moron? You need to explain so he'll stop being one
                 \_ morons don't stop being morons.
                    \_ if that's true, I will stop trying to change tom
                    \- there is a certain amount of  hypocrisy for free
                       traders to be in favor of the free movement of
                       goods and capital but not labor. much of the
                       rationale for the efficiency gains of trade/$
                       apply to labor as well ... labor is another
                       "factor of production". --psb
                        \_ Although I agree, there are other factors
                          that are relevant to people (e.g. overpopulation
                          concerns, cultural effects, etc.) that are not
                          relavent to other factors of production.  I
                          have been for open borders most of my life, but
                          i'm not sure it is a very pragmatic stance.
                          The history of the world has been a history of
                          poverty and income/power disparity.  The U.S.
                          has managed (along with some other countries) to
                          overcome that state to some degree.  It is perhaps
                          justifiable to try to insulate it, if for no other
                          reason than to act as an example of what is possible
                          (though, i have to say, this rings false) -phuqm
                          \- yes i understand what you say, but there are
                             "other factors" that also apply to harmonizing
                             IP regimes, high capital mobility etc. but the
                             fundamental argument about "let the factors of
                             production find where they will get the best
                             return" and the ideas of comparative and abs
                             advantage apply to labor too. yes, letting
                             a lot of Changs, Mohammeds and Singhs into
                             a lot of Changs, Parthas and Mohammeds into
                             the country has "side effects" but so do
                             coke and pepsi, monsanto etc. --psb
                             Coke, Pepsi and Monsanto. --psb
                        \_ Labor can come here, they just have to do it
                           legally. I don't advocate allowing drug money
                           to move unhindered to offshore banks either.
                           Nothing hypocritical about it at all.
                           \-i dont think you understand what i mean by
                             free movement of labor.
                             \_ Then explain yourself.
           \_ Agreed.  Those who break the law should be punished, not awarded.
           \_ Why can't we just shoot them? I am getting sick and tired of all
              those mexicans standing on the street of SF looking for work, and
              all of them are illegal. They are potential terriorists, let's
              do what we do best, shoot first, ask questions later. It WILL solve
              the illegal alien problem.
              \_ Keep a tight grip on your soap when you're in jail for
                 shooting the wrong one.
                 \_ it's still murder, whether a citizen or an illegal.
                  \- how about we impose public lashings for people employing
                     illegal aliens unless they can come up with say a
                     photocopy of the forged documentation. --psb
        \_ The big problem is what happens when the Border Patrol doesn't
           send someone out. Say the INS is busy dealing with something else
           and the Minutemen call with a possible illegal. The INS looks bad
           because they're overwhelmed. The MM get peeved. Say this happens
           a dozen times. Will the MM get frustrated and do something stupid?
2005/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36964 Activity:low
3/30    Pat Buchanan on democracies killing themselves:
        http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_28/buchanan.html  -John
        \_ Nice essay by Pat.  Wonder what he thinks of the power grab
           by the White House?  --PeterM
           \_ Good question--I don't recall PB being much of a statist, yet
              this article article seems to have a bit of a contradiction
              between "government must safeguard liberties" and be restricted
              by the constitution (the Jefferson quote) and "don't let the
              people decide anything".  Hmm.  -John
              \_ PB is a statist of the Old School.  I think "Conservative"
                 had a much different meaning in his day.  My favorite bit
                 from HST "The Great Shark Hunt" is where Pat talks about
                 how Chuck Colson wasn't a "real" conservative.
        \_ "the U.S. is a Republic not a democracy!!1!"
           Yes, yes, we know.
2005/3/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36851 Activity:nil
3/24    Just in case you think we're getting close to the end of the
        loopiness caused by the Republicans running everything:
2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36837 Activity:high
3/23    Modern Conservatism has truly become the party of Big Government.
        Now Jeb Bush wants to "take custody" of Terri Shiavo, away from
        her husband and away from her family. How can anyone who calls
        themself a Conservative really be in favor of this kind of thing?
        \_ I don't think that they do.  The polls I saw had 58% of self
           described conservatives opposing the federal intervention.
           This is a direct consequence of the religious right hijacking the
           Republican party.
        \_ "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts
           and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the
           process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the
           social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a
           violation of federalism."
           -(Conservative) Hoover Institute member
           "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate
           your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this
           country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."
           -Sen. John Warner (GOP), Virginia
           \_ Now it's around 32 different judges
              \_ every one of them is a tyrant!
                 \_ You misspelled "activist"
           \_ None of the judges other than Greer have ever looked at the
              findings of fact.  That's why they're trying to have his findings
              of fact reviewed 'de novo'
              \_ The standard for appeal is that findings of facts by
                 the trial ct are accepted as true unless there is a
                 showing of abuse.  There was no showing of abuse in
                 this case b/c Greer did nothing wrong.
                 While a de novo review may turn up something different,
                 this is unlikely. Absent some huge new revelation, the
                 facts found by the dist ct judge will be roughly the
                 same and if he applies state substantive law the tube
                 will stay out. Unless she finds some fed statute to
                 sue under (maybe disabled persons), she is SOL.
        \_ Personally I hope the USSC takes this case and lays down the
           law. Under Art. 3 congress cannot create subject matter jx
           over a particular state law claim in favor of a single citizen.
           What congress did was ridiculous and I hope that many of them
           lose their jobs over it and are replaced by true conservatives.
           \_ Please quote the section ofArticle 3 you are referring to.
           \_ Please quote the section of Article 3 you are referring to.
              \_ Art 3 Sec 2.
                 The original jx of the fed cts is limited to admiralty,
                 international disputes, federal question (arising under
                 the constitution/fed statues), or diversity (btwn two
                 or more states, citizens of different states, citizens
                 of the same state claims lands under grants of different
                 states, btwn a states/citizen of a state and a foreign
                 Congress cannot create more jx for the fed cts than
                 the constitution provides w/o an amendment. In the
                 Schiavo case, congress has created jx for the Dist
                 Ct in the Middle District of FL to hear a suit on
                 behalf of Schavio for violations of her rights arising
                 under the constitution.
                 While one might argue that providing a specific dist
                 ct w/ jx over constitutional claims is still w/in Art
                 3 Sec 2, what congress is really doing is creating
                 jx for a fed ct to hear claims that are already
                 subject to res judicata under state law. This is not
           \_ The SC will refuse to hear the case and send it back down with
              no comment. This is modis operadi. Shiavo will die and social
              conservatives will have a new face for an old issue to play
              with next election. Ooooo. Shiny.
              \_ I'm hoping the USSC has a vested interest in telling
                 congress that they can't overstep their bounds.
        \_ http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.03.22.GrandOldPragma-X.gif
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367722/posts
2005/3/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36787 Activity:low
3/21    What corporate greed does to a city.
        Original title, changed to above by MOTD communist:
        What democrats and Unions do to cities
        Documentary Shows a Ruined Detroit
        \_ I think you can blame the decline of Detroit on the incomes
           of the city and residents being dependent on the auto industry,
           then the factories moved off shore because it's cheaper
           there.  blaming it all on democrats and unions is stupid.
           \_ then why do foreign motor companies continue to build
              US plants?  GM outsources to China in the 1970s....
                \_ you know what, i don't know.  i doubt it's
                   because of those goddamn liberals though.
                   \_ you are right, probably a magical leprauchan
                      \_ yes, that's actually much more plausible than the
                         previous explanation.
        Documentary Shows a Ruined Detroit
        \_ Thar she blows, it is the fabled Freeper back from the dead!
           Do you really think you persuade anyone by posting these fanatics?
           \_ no
              \_ Why do you do it then?
                 \_ or more specifically, what does the freeper link add to
                    the first one, other than the spittle emissions of
                    the inbred?
        \_ San Francisco is a similarly pro-union and Democratic town,
           yet it is thriving. How do you explain the discrepancy?
2005/3/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health, Health/Disease/General] UID:36762 Activity:high
3/18    Best and worst states & public schools for raising healthy kids:
        California ranks 13th.
        \_ As someone who spent half his youth in their lowest ranked state and
           half in their highest, I just want to say that these people are
           *completely* full of shit.
            \_ indeed, because, like most people, they are idiots
               They didn't even measure how fit kids were in these states
                These are your standard liberal dumb asses who think that
                the way you get kids to be more fit is upping the "school
                requirements and recommendations for physical education and
                nutrition classes [and] playground safety"   Jeesh.
2005/3/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:36745 Activity:nil
3/15    Cut tax, cut funding,  every man for himself. Also,
        bring your own toilet paper. Is this every Libertarian's
        dream? Yahoo News:              http://tinyurl.com/4y5a7
        \_ No, the Lib dream is to not have these people working in government
           offices at all.
2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Dating] UID:36683 Activity:nil
3/14    http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html
        California gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional (state constitution)
        State:  "State law also says marriage is a contract between a man and a
        Plaintiffs:  ... cited now-overturned bans on marriage by interracial
        couples, or laws that treated wives as a husband's property
        \_ Why is the constitution so vaguely written!! God damn it.
        \_ Does this mean I can finally marry chiapet? Joyyyyyyyy!!!
        \_ So, in the plaintiff's argument, were those bans overturned by
           the legislature or the courts?
           \_ Perez v. Lippold (1948) - Supreme Court of California
              "Respondent refuses to issue the certificate and license,
              invoking Civil Code section 69, which provides: '* * * no
              license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white
              person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay
              \_ Mongolian or the Malay race?  So Chinese was somehow a better
                 race than Mongolian and Thai better than Malay in the American
                 eye back in 1948?  What caused such discrepancies?  -- Chinese
                 \_ Because Americans in 1948 knew what the opium trade did
                    to China! -Bud Day
                 \_ My interpretation:
                    They meant "Mongoloid" (Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
                    Filipino, Inuit, etc.).
                    \- The "keep the races sep" attitude was to be found
                       among the "educated and respectable" far later than
                       1948. See the quotes in WARREN''s opinion in
                       Loving v. Virginia: http://csua.org/u/bcv
                       In the last 15 yrs there were various southern school
                       principals getting into hot water over similar. --psb
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36612 Activity:very high
3/9     Sun Tzu's Art of Winning Election, Liberal Edition:
        - If you want to protest on the streets WEAR NICER CLOTHES for
          heaven's sake. Door-to-door salesmen and businessmen don't wear
          tie-dye shirts and jeans to persuade people. Neither should you.
        - Don't show conservatives how pissed off you are. Sun Tzu in The
          Art of War says to never show your emotions.
          \_ Perhaps Republicans are just more polite.
             \_ Very well. In that case, if you're a rude liberal, FAKE IT
        - Listen to Sun Tzu. Trick your enemies by feigning incompetence
          when you're strong. If you want to exterminate your enemies, you
          don't announce how you're gonna do it. You agree with them, party
          with them, drink with them, and when they're drunk and asleep in
          victory, kill them and their families when they least suspect it.
          \_ I'd keep their hot daughters.
             \_ Is their a site with "republicans we'd fuck"? I mean beyond
                the Bush twins and Coulter, both of which, well, yuck.
                \_ http://www.rilf.com
        - Attack conservative views aggressively, but with sensitivity.
          The more nasty names you call your foes, the more likely they'll
          disagree with your views (examples: idiots, Red necks, hicks).
        - Get a clear, simple & maybe stupid message this time, just make
          sure to stick to it. To some [sad] extent, it's not what you say,
          but how you say it.
        - Support liberal views early. Not 1 year before the election,
          not 1 month. NOW.
        - Talk about tolerance and the history of Civil Liberty EXCEPT
          in predominantly white/Red states because they hate "Nigers"
          \_ I disagree with this. Even in the South, most people are
             in favor of equal rights these days. Don't make this
             the focus when talking to uneducated whites, obviously.
             \_ In Mississippi and Tennesee, blacks and whites still don't hang
                out together.
                \_ You're an idiot.
                   \_ Have you been there?  I have.
                      \_ Not only have I been, but my gf is from
                         Mississippi. You're an idiot. Yes, they are more
                         backward than, say, NYC but your comments are
                         \_ If your gf from a different race? Why did she
                            leave Mississippi?
        - Tie in liberal views with family values. Just because you
          support gays and lesbians doesn't mean you must support drugs,
          rave parties, and swingers.
        - Do what your enemies do, and do it better. For example, work less,
          try to enjoy life more, and for heaven's sake PRODUCE MORE KIDS.
        You're more than welcome to add to the list, and God Bless Liberals.
        \_ Improve visual presentations better. The power of persistence and
           suggestion is great. Fox pioneered the flashing Red/White/Blue logo,
           so should liberal media. For example when you talk about gays &
           lesbians, flash those colors around.
        \_ Stop buying at Walmart and Dell! They write big checks to RNC.
           Check http://buyblue.org.
           \_ Low prices at Walmart are good for low-income consumers which
              are more likely liberals.
              \_ I agree but look at long term implications.
        - Stress your patriotism. Talk about your military service, if you
          have it, support the troops even if you don't. Sing along with the
          national anthem at football games. Let everyone know that you
          love your country, even if it is flawed. Dissent is not unpatriotic.
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:36609 Activity:high
3/9     http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/10/film.passionrecut.ap
        Re-release of The Passion. In another news, religious conservative
        membership increases and Republicans are expected to rule for the
        next decade or two. Also, Mel Gibson is running for president:
                \_ No, he's not.  Read the site.
        Hooray for the rise of conservative media and conservative actors.
        \_ All in favor, say "die".
           \_ Die. But it's not gonna happen, conservatives are reproducing
              faster than liberals.
              \_ Must watch episode AABF23.
              \_ You got whooshed by a Simpsons reference.
           \_ Gibson, the next Reagan for Republicans?
            \_ "I am Mel Gibson, and I see before me an army of my countrymen
               here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men,
               and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will
               you fight? FREEDOM!!! VOTE FOR ME!!!"
               \_ Haha, good memory!
                  \_ You do realize that quotes and scripts are available
                     online?  It's this handy little technology thingy called
                     a 'search engine'.
        \_ IIRC the re-release is a slightly different cut to get it under an R
           \_ ...which effort failed miserably. -John
        \_ I am a Christian and have always voted for the Democrats, but this
           anti-Christian rhetoric on the motd is annoying.  I think
           I am going to switch to Republican.  I mean, what did Mel Gibson
           do that people here hate him so much.
           \_ Produced a movie that plays on Christians' sense of religious
              persecution to ensure a steady profit base while inflicting
              gratuitous scenes of torture on said audience. It's exploitation
              of the worst kind.
              \_ I don't particularly like the movie, but if Mel Gibson
                 wants to make money, I am sure there are plenty of much
                 easier ways for him to do so.  I disagree that his
                 intention is purely, or even mainly for monetary gain.
                 And I think there have been way too few mainstream
                 movies about Christ, or other Christian related theme
                 for quite some time.  I applaud Mel Gibson for his
                 courage in making the movie.  And boy, did he get
                 attacked ^ for it, but I think he saw it coming, and did
                          sort of like jesus
                 it nevertheless ^.  The movie didn't do it for me
                 because it focused on the physical suffering of
                 Jesus, but that's certainly one aspect of Christ's
                 road to the cross, and if Gibson wants to focus on
                 that, I don't have a problem with it.
2005/3/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:36587 Activity:high
3/8     I'm in the process of writing a book called a Liberal's Guide
        To Become A Good Conservative. I need a list of suggestions.
        I'll start but I need your help:
        \_ If you post the same link to the motd enough times, everyone will
           eventually agree with you.  If it starts to get deleted, just
           post the ip address.  No one will think of that, because it's
        \_ Never admit a mistake, you don't want to show your weaknesses
        \_ Show people that you believe God. God Bless America.
        \_ Religion works all the time. God Bless America.
        \_ You are more important than anyone else, screw what other people
           think. Sometimes the right decision [for me] is not a popular one
        \_ There is only good and evil. You're either with us or against us.
        \_ Use simple phrases, like MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! BRING 'EM ON!!!
        \_ If something goes wrong, just point your finger at someone!
           Like "CIA mislead me! It's not my fault."
        \_ Accept that you're good and that everything else is Liberal Bias.
           There is good and evil. Mormon is good. Everything else is evil.
        \_ Cut taxes. Talk about God a lot. To set policy on a particular
           topic such as healthcare or energy, invite business leaders to
           tell you what to do.
        \_ This should be a really easy book to write. All you need is
           one page, and it should just read "remove head from ass".
           \_ According to Tom Holub, the motd is a bastion of conservativism.
              And he's right -- look at all the help this thread has gotten so
              quickly! -- ilyas
              \_ uh, when did I say this?  -tom
              \_ According to ilyas, motd is about him and tom holub. Just
                 look at these two dominating motd. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
                 \_ Have some compassion for ilyas. He seems to have a very
                    low self-esteem and he just needs acceptance. He is
                    unsure of himself and covers up his esteem with quick
                    snappy insults. And people like that usually have
                    a history of being ridiculed or not being able to
                    "fit in" in the physical world, so they find places that
                    are less painful to be in, like motd.
                    \_ I don't think ANYONE comes to the motd for acceptance.
                       I come here for the laughs mostly.  -- ilyas
                        \_ yet you do not deny that you have a low self-
                           esteem. You realise that people on motd usually
                           laugh AT you, not with you, yes?
                           \_ I admit everything!  The motd inquisition got me,
                              at last! -- ilyas
                              \_ Give him... the comfy chair!
        \_ Don't EVER defend the queer, you'll lose lots of allies.
        \_ Don't EVER bring up boring statistics like "87 Billion dollars in
           Iraq will give you 100,000 teachers for 20 years" unless you want
           to bore your audiences to death. BORING!!! Instead, talk about GOD.
        \_ If someone makes fun of your intelligence (Democrats), they are
           immoral people. Talk with your gun (and oh thanks, NRA!)
        \_ Liberty is not free, and is the historical exception not the
           \_ Odd one stands out, dummy.
        \_ Do NOT get an intern to suck your dick, it'll piss off Jesus' people
        \_ Remove your brain and trust your government.
           \_ Funny, I always thought that was the liberal/socialist view.
           \_ Correction: "Don't trust the government unless it trusts God"
        \_ If you get enough people to say it, anything, no matter how patently
           false, will sound convincing.
2005/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:36524 Activity:high
3/4     FYI for any other PEs here, as of July 1st, should the Gubernator get
        his way, the Professional Board is being folded into a single "Dept
        of Commercial Licensing". The implication is that, after 7/1, any
        complaints against your license will be processed by the same people
        who process complaints against hairdressers rather than a council of
        engineers. Google California AB 1024. -- ulysses
        \_ As much as I dislike Ah-nold, I'm inclined to agree with him on
           the consolidation of the state governing boards.  A lot of these
           board positions are just sinecures for retired politicians.
           \_ The BPELS has 13 seats and one Executive Officer. 6 of those
              seats and the executive officer are PEs with the remaining 7 being
              "public". You decide.
              "public". You decide. For comparison the CA Bar Ass'n Board is
              6 "public" out of a 23 member board. Hey, you don't care about
              who licenses the person who designed your roads, bridges,
              waterways, BART tracks, etc etc vs who licensed you real estate
              agent or your stylist, well, that's the will of the public at
              work, I guess.
              \_ Indeed.  Crap like this is EXACTLY why bureaucracies end up
                 sucking.  "Ooh, we can save money!" while the world falls
                 apart around you.
              \_ What's a PA seat vs a public seat?
                 \_ PE = Professional Engineer.
        \_ I know a woman who put herself through Berkeley EECS as a
           hairdresser who may very well be reading this.  Why don't you
           belittle someone else?
           \_ As someone who frequents the more expensive stylists and bemoans
              the lack of decent cuts this side of the Bay Bridge, I probably
              have more respect for stylists than you do (probably). Still, my
              guy Christopher out in South Beach is not likely to create
              something within his profession that could destroy property or
              lives...or to get into a more real scenario in my case, make
              toilets run backwards
                -- ulysses
2005/3/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36509 Activity:high
3/2     Dearliou cesr u am king te troll belw.
        Youatet o nk i  tilend bythe way it s meant as
        humrfothse fusw ve nbeen ndoctrinate by the
        Chrtanales.Te rlelowvealswhy your peple are
        oft oaed an y hkg inversig roles, mabe you can
        actly pahiz it  d le somehing from i, like
        sentvi, espc, nteranfor oher people. -agnostic
        \_ a dk,I dnt hkhe tl wascensored fo religious
           aon  assig elby n Anonmously is iiotic.  People
           olditer tac o relous pople" or whtever in general,
            heshuldsgntinamef the're going t attack someone
            am  ersnll, uld fer tat the motdstay anonymous,
           dth popl ptf e for, bu this whole"dear jrleek"
           a ijut cwrdynretad.  Snd him a fuking email.
           dnoI asntth eho cored t, but I ca see their point.
        \_ a dk,I dnt hkhe tl wascensored f religou
           aon  assig elby n Anonmously is iotic. Pple
           olditer tac o relous pople" or wtever n neral,
            heshuldsgntinamef the're going  attac seone
            am  ersnll, uld fer tat the motstay aonous,
           dth popl ptf e for, bu this whol"dear rlk"
           a ijut cwrdynretad.  Snd him a fking eai
           dnoI asntth eho cored t, but I c see teipoint.
        \_ o, w he gosi/heiscan frm their ow group of
           nbeieingbelivs anidicule anyone else who don't share
           hei pints ofvw. Ive been waiting for this to happen ever
           inc the fall f Communism in general. - fellow atheist of the
        \_ o, w he gosi/heiscan frm their o groupof
           nbeieingbelivs anidicule anyone lse wh d't share
           hei pints ofvw. Ive been waitingfor ths  happen ever
           inc the fall f Communism in geneal. - elw atheist of the
           church of ahteism.

>>>>>>> Your Changes Above
2005/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36453 Activity:very high
2/28    Baby Gap - How birthrates color the electoral map
        [anonymous reference to me deleted] -emarkp
           -disillusioned liberal still pissed off at the 2000/2004 campaign
        \_ So what's your excuse?  Are you busy making liberal babies, or are
           you part of the problem?
        \_ Don't worry, mexican immigration should help.
           \_ except they are leaning conservative thanks to the increasing
              huge Latino military population in San Diego bases.
              \_ Yes, and we all know that all Latinos live in San Diego.
        \_ Haven't you heard of youthful rebellion?  Parental politics !=
           politics of children.
        \_ "The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get."
           That's odd, I thought causality went the other way. The more
           actively pro-bush you are, the more babies pop out. That's what they
           taught us in health class in middle school...
           \_ Conservatives sleep in double beds, Liberals sleep together.
              This is why there are far more liberals than conservatives.
              \_ But two liberal men sleeping together don't produce babies.
                 \_ they can sure have fun trying, though.
        \_ I've found it funny for a few years that:
           Birth rate varies inversely with income and education.
           Evolution acceptance rate varies with income and education.
           Those who believe in evolution are evolving away.
           \_ The stupid shall inherit the earth.
              \_ No no no.  You don't understand.  The 'stupid' are those who
                 accept evolution but are choosing to have fewer children.
                 \_ This seems like where darin should step in.  He's the
                    only person I've met to decide to have lots of babies
                    because he believes in evolution and is smarter than
                    \_ [troll deleted]
                 \_ What? Why is it smart to have a lot of children? You take
                    care of a bunch of kids for years. Be my guest. You can't
                    win that game anyway and it doesn't benefit you either.
                    You're gonna be dead.
                    \_ Having many kids means that your genes are more likely
                       to be propogated.  That's why it's smart.
                       \_ You'd be smarter to learn to spell propagate. How
                          do you benefit by having your genes propagated?
                          Answer: you don't. Hey you know what? You'd have a
                          better chance if you went around killing other males!
                          Give that a try, let me know how it works out.
                          \_ Why are there still stupid people who think
                             that what's good for the propagation of their
                             genes is good for them.  Please, you are not
                             your genes!  Don't let your genes be your
                             \_ Because historically, the genes for smart
                                people who don't care about propagating their
                                genes don't last very long.
                                \_ What's your point?
                    \_ So does that mean there is a evolutionary
                       counter-pressure on intelligence?
                       \_ Which is why humanity is doomed.
        \_ At first glance I thought it was about the fashion company. :-)
        \_ Apparently, at some subconscious level, liberals understand that
           their genes are not worth passing on.
        \_ This much chatter over an American Conservative article? Holy
           moley, are we bored or what? Read this instead:
           http://csua.org/u/b78 (SF Weekly, punking white supremacists)
        \_ I thought the gun control part was incisive.
2005/2/27-3/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:36445 Activity:moderate
2/27    Intellectual Diversity in the Ivory Tower:
        \_ summary: only 1 Stanford professor believes in astrology and only
           1% believe in telepathy. There is no diversity in liberal colleges
           and these elitist Democrats should go to hell. It's written by
           Aaron Swartz. If only our Aaron Smith had written this...
           \_ This summary is taken completely out of context, and entirely
              misses the point.  The article is a sarcastic spoof of a
              supposedly neutral academic study that found only 30%
                       30%? I'd be SHOCKED if it was that high. _/
              of Professors at elite colleges were politically conservative
              and leaped to the clearly ridiculous conclusion, ``There is no
              diversity in liberal colleges...,'' that you cite above.
              Whatever your reason for posting such a weak summary (too caught
              up in your own agenda, too simple to recognize subtle forms of
              humor like sarcasm, not funny enough to carry the joke about
              aaron@csua), you should get a clue.  Please kindly refrain from
              breeding until you do so.  In the mean time, sign your posts so
              I know who I'm insulting. -dans
              \_ Say dans, before you start talking out your ass, might I
                 recommend actually _reading_ what the above piece is
                 satirizing? Hint: the link is at the top. "30%" is hardly
                 the same thing as "9 to 1". And unless you make the argument
                 of "well, the republicans are too stupid to listen to anyway",
                 which, I'd say, only further supports their point re
                 leftist brainwashing, I think there's definitely something
                 to think long and hard about there. -alexf, who, like
                   the authors of the PA weekly article, also votes largely
                   Democrat, and still thinks there's a major problem with
                   extreme political bias in academia
                 \_ Alex, you are a self-described libertarian.  I would be
                    curious about your reasons for mostly voting Democrat
                    as opposed to Republican (Note: I think either are
                    reasonable for a libertarian.  I have just been leaning
                    the other way myself, and I am curious for another point
                    of view that starts from mostly the same premises as me).
                    If you don't want to answer this here, but do want answer,
                    please send me a mail or something.  -- ilyas
                    \_ I'm not alex but I don't think the Republicans are
                       giving "less government". They cut some taxes, fine.
                       But that just goes into the deficit. Meanwhile they
                       pump up spending. A lot. And increased federal gov't
                       power with Patriot Act provisions etc. And engaging
                       in a costly unnecessary war doesn't seem libertarian
                       to me.
                       \_ It's pretty much common knowledge no mainstream US
                          political party is a 'small government' party.  Hence
                          my question.  I am perfectly open to the possibility
                          that the DNC is more in line with libertarian ideals
                          than the RNC, I just haven't found that to be the
                          case in practice. -- ilyas
                          \_ Given that this is the case I don't choose between
                             them on that criteria but rather my personal trust
                             and assessment of them in other areas.
                             \_ I choose based on issues. *shrug* -- ilyas
              \_ LOL, you realize that the post you're responding to is
                 a similarly sarcastic response to the original article,
                 don't you? I suppose that you yourself fail to understand
                 the subtle forms of sarcasm that you supposedly purport.
                 It's rather ironic that the troll got trolled.
                 \_ You do not seem to know what sarcasm means.
                 \_ And you most definitely do not know what ironic means.
                    Please refer to the appendix of Eggers' "A Heartbreaking
                    Work of Staggering Genius" for a thorough introduction.
              \_ I'm pretty sure you've been trolled.  I can't believe anyone
                 on the motd is as dense as pp appears to be.
2005/2/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36392 Activity:kinda low
2/23    Since I can't find a CA newspaper that talks about this:
        Calfornia goverment ties Alabama for worst state government
        \_ maybe you should try a non-moonie newspaper.
           \_ Sorry, here's the real source
              \_ here's a shock; a group funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts
                 (an evangelical "think" tank) gets reported by the Moonies
                 as thinking California has bad government.  -tom
                 \_ So, do you have actual issue with the results, or are
                    you just blowing smoke as usual?
                 \_ Uh, the Pew Charitable Trusts might have some religious
                    aspect, but they seem to give most of their grants to
                    center/left groups. Do you have any idea what you're
                    talking about?
2005/2/17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:36211 Activity:high
2/17    "No, the philosophy, as I recall, was that if you earn
         money, you deserve it (note "earn" in the the meritocratic
         sense.)  And are not wealthy, and don't work for money,
         you do not deserve it.  -John"
        \_ ok, few Q's. 1) what if you won the lotto, is that meritocratic?
           2) suppose you simply got lucky, say during the dot-com days and
           got 5 million dollars even though the poor bozo around you worked
           just as hard, is that meritocratic? 3) suppose you inherited an
           apartment building and all you do is you hiring someone else to
           manage it for you, and you get good and consistent income from
           that. Is that meritocratic? 4) suppose your ancestors left great
           wealth to you and the wealth "self-generates" with minimal input,
           is that meritocratic?
           Lastly, for each of the question, if the answer is no, should the
           solution be to redistribute the wealth via brute force?
           \_ Are you asking what John thinks, what we (other random motd
              posters) think or what Ayn Rand would have thought?
              \_ asking what everyone thinks, just a survey, not expecting a
                 right wrong answer, just want to understand what and why you
                 guys have certain opinions. open ended question ya know  -pp
           \_ (1) Yes.  You invested, you got lucky.  Question the system if
              you will, not the winner's right to the money. (2) Yes.  Life
              is not fair, sorry.  If he's starving, you may take a moment to
              think about whether you have an ethical burden to help him or
              not, but this is your prerogative. (3) Yes.  It's capital.  It
              was earned at some point by someone, you received it through
              legal means. (4) Yes.  See (3).  Of course I'm ridiculously
              stretching the meaning of "merit", but I fail to understand
              the source of all the resentment directed at those with money
              obtained through legal means?  I always thought the American
              ideal (compared to some wacko European marxists I know) was not
              "hey, he's not supposed to have that", but "hey, how can I get
              that as well".  And if you're going to quote me, do me the favor
              of correcting my ass grammar, would you please?  -John
              \_ I don't resent the wealthy.  I do think that wealth reaches
                 the point of diminishing returns fairly rapidly, and that
                 it is better for the society for a billion dollars to be spent
                 on, say, public health care, than for Bill Gates to be worth
                 $51 billion instead of $50 billion.  -tom
                 \_ I don't know what the exact endowment of his foundation
                    is, but it's accomplishing exponentially more than the
                    same amount of money would in the hands of, say, NIH
                    bureaucrats.  Yes, if you rely on private charity you
                    can't guarantee the flow of money from the hands of the
                    wealthy, but it's also pretty obvious that, without the
                    choice of what to do with the money (hence the idea of tax
                    deductions, I guess) the money would go somewhere else
                    (i.e. a Cayman account) pretty quickly and nobody would
                    benefit from it.  -John
                    \_ The argument you just made--you can't tax the rich
                       because they'll just hide the money--is a lot different
                       than the one you started this thread with, don't you
                       think?  -tom
                       \_ (a) I didn't start the thread, (b) I didn't say you
                          can't tax the rich, I objected to the idea of
                          taxing the rich out of principle (as in "because
                          they're rich and we're not") and (c) I'm pointing
                          out economic realities which any society trying
                          to come up with a usable and just taxation model
                          must consider--that enforced equality is bunk, that
                          exorbitant taxes will be seen as theft (rightly imho
                          but that's just a subjective opinion) and that very
                          often private disbursal of funds is more effective
                          than government spending.  -John
           \_ Having read only Atlas Shrugged, I would say that Ayn Rand would
              reply as follows: (1) No. Lotto is theft. (2) Possibly, depends
              on what you did vs. what others did.  Did you create value? Did
              your work translate into $$? Or was it plain dumb luck? (3) Yes.
              Capital begets capital. It's smart investment. (4) Yes. See
              previous.  Although, given Ayn's philosophy, she would likely
              say for (3) and (4), that if the previous generation earned the
              money via superior intelligence, ability, etc., they would most
              likely also have trained their progeny to be "men of ability,"
              who would be able to further the family line.  Ayn believed in
              what John says above, and also believed that certain ppl had
              inherent qualities that made them "men of ability," and that they
              knew hard work, were intelligent and capable, and would thus
              naturally rise to the top in a meritocracy - a system that
              rewarded those who earned money, and not those who didn't.
              \_ I have also only read Rand's fiction, just Atlas Shrugged and
                 The Fountainhead. I am having trouble seeing where you get
                 (1) from.  I don't remember gambling being mentioned in
                 either book.  Personally, I agree with "no. lotto is theft",
                 but where's the evidence that Rand did?
                 \_ Privately run lotteries would not be considered theft.
                    Whether a publically ran lottery would be something Rand
                    agrees with is not a question I know the answer to.  In
                    some sense the question is moot because government ran
                    lotteries make, rather than lose, money.  She certainly
                    wouldn't say it was 'theft', she might possibly say this
                    sort of thing lies outside the juristiction of government.
                      -- ilyas
        \_ Wealth becoming concentrated in the hands of a small minority
           of richer and richer landlords is a phenomenon seen in the
           dynastic cycle of China.  Usually, when a new dynasty is
           founded, land is redistributed to make it more equitable, and
           taxation would be working well, then as the years passed by,
           wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer number of
           richer and richer landlords.  Wealth begets wealth and these
           landlords gain power and can bribe local officials or become
           officials themselves, and through corruption, they don't pay much
           taxes, and the central government starts having problem collecting
           taxes, and the tax burden goes increasingly to the small farmers,
           and the dynasty weakens and eventually fails.  This
           phenomenon was well observed and documented in China's history and
           they even have a term for it.  A little simplistic, and probably
           not entirely relevant to the modern world, but it's something to
           think about.
           \_ Very astute and accurate observation.  Equally interesting is
              to chart out what happens to healthy economies and societies
              when the rabble finds that it can help itself to the wealth
              of its prosperous members at gunpoint in the name of
              democracy and equality (French revolution, Soviet revolution,
              Zimbabwe, Uganda under Idi Amin, etc.)  -John
              \_ The idea is that if the problem the poster above you
                 mentioned is not dealt with, it may eventually lead
                 to the problem you stated.
                 \_ Also completely accurate--however it's an fascinating to
                    compare upheaval-type attempts to redistribute wealth to
                    more gradual ones (viz. growth of tax systems in western
                    countries since 1700.)
                    \_ Yes, the gradual ones are known as 'boiling the frog.'
           \_ Of course, there is also a Chinese proverb that says wealth
              doesn't survive past 3 generations.  BTW, what is the chinese
              term that describes the phenomenon you described?
              \_ I only remember the second character is "tian2" as in
                 farm land.
        \_ I wonder how Marx and other various famous political theorists
           would respond to this question.
        \_ Take my girlfriend.  She just got her master in human
           resources from a above average school.  She is very capable and
           driven and I am sure she will do well in her career.  But
           because she is a foreign student, doesn't have any US working
           experience,  and also her English is not very
           good at all, after a few months of job search, all she got was
           a $47000 offer from a tiny company in the middle of nowhere.
           So she called up her wealthy and successful cousin who knows many
           wealthy and successful people, and viola, she got a $80000 job with
           nice annual bonuses of $20000+.  Now, people say most job offers
           are made through networking, but do you think this is meritocratic?
           \_ I don't.  I think networking is evil, and I don't do it
              professionally myself. -- ilyas
              \_ no wonder you don't have a job.  -tom
              \_ isn't academia very political as well? I get to know a few
                 people, write mediocre papers, submit to conferences in which
                 your buddies or your professor's buddies are chairmen of, and
                 get published? How about DARPA and NSF funding, don't
                 professors shmooz a lot to get those funding?
                 \_ Yes, academia is extremely political. -- ilyas
                 \_ Yes, academia is extremely political and schmoozy.
                    However, past a certain point, in academia (as in industry)
                    results speak for themselves without any of the crap.
                      -- ilyas
        \_ "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." -Honore de Balzac
2005/2/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/Space] UID:36111 Activity:very high
2/8     What's the best pen?
        \_ bic round stick. just ask any writer or john stewart.
                                                   \_ jon
           \_ they leak.
           \_ they're acceptable sometimes. not very slick.
        \_ uni-ball VISION, the micro version, blue.
           \_ how often does this thing leave a blot?
              \_ If you're not used to it, it can blot, and it depends on
                 your writing/drawing style, but I agree with pp that once
                 you're used to it, it's the best.
           \_ Uni-Ball Vision black, biyotch!
        \_ how are those Fisher Space Pens for general use?
           \_ Impractical but cute; they write just fine.  If you want really
              stylish, go for a Graf von Faber Castell fountain pen.  Never
              blots, nice heft, real pleasure to write with.  What are you
              looking for?  Drawing/drafting, writing, doodling?  -John
              \_ Just whatever. Not drawing/drafting. And uh, under $20.
                 \_ Ah.  I like Lamy Vista rollerball pens with M62 super
                    plus 205 ink cartridges.  http://www.lamy.de .  -John
                    \_ a pen connoisseur!  I have a Lamy 2000 fountain pen,
                       nothing else writes so smoothly - it's awesome!
                        \_ Well I just got it on a lark once when I bought
                           about 4 or 5 decent pens to try out.  I still
                           think the F-C fountain pen my gf gave me blows away
                           all the Cross or other expensive pens I've ever
                           had by a mile.  The really nice ones are at
                           http://www.graf-von-faber-castell.com although
                           <DEAD>faber-castell.com<DEAD> has really good quality pens too.
                           So does Caran d'Ache if you're into this sort of
                           thing -- http://www.carandache.ch .  $$$ but
                           really worth it.  -John
                           \_ Ever try a S.T. Dupont?  If so, how's it compare
                              to the F-C?  -nivra
                              \_ Not tried, seen.  Dunno, go to an expensive
                                 pen shop and try them all.  If they balk at
                                 letting you try out every pen in the place
                                 before you blow $700 on a writing implement,
                                 vote with your wallet.  -John
                    \_  The Lamy Safari is worth taking a look at if you
                        want to try a fountain pen. Quite decent, sturdy,
                        costs $25 to $30. -pvg
           \_ "During the space race back in the 1960's, NASA was faced with a
              major problem. The astronaut needed a pen that would write in the
              vacuum of space. NASA went to work. At a cost of $1.5 million
              they developed the "Astronaut Pen". Some of you may remember. It
              enjoyed minor success on the commercial market.
              The Russians were faced with the same dilemma.
              They used a pencil."
        \_ Pilot G5
        \_ I'm not a pen connoisseur, but these days, I usually buy whatever
           pen that uses gel ink.
           \_ That doesn't smear right? I don't know if I've ever tried it.
              It sounds like the hot ticket... no smear and water resistant.
              \_ I mainly like it, because they write smoothly. -pp
        \_ Why use pen anyway except for throw-away doodling?
           \_ Lab notebooks have to be in pen.
        \_ I love the Sensa, it actually uses the "Space Pen" refills
           mentioned above.  The plasium shell is great, it's very
           comfortible, molds around your finger (ergonomic).   Also
           equally counter-balanced and looks way too cool!  Had mine for
           3 years, works like a charm, highly recommended!
        \_ I thought people from China blowing off thousands for expensive
           watches were dumb.  Didn't know it's the same over here, just
           that it's pens.
2005/2/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:36091 Activity:nil
2/7     I was reading about how the US budget is ~$2.5 trillion. The debt
        is ~$7.5 trillion. Why not cut budgets 10% across the board and
        pay this back in the next 30 years? 10% cuts are not nice, but
        not crippling either.
        \_ your oversimplification starts with forgetting about interest.
           \_ An oversimplification that would make a libertarian proud!
           \_ Not forgotten, since interest is part of the budget. In fact,
              assuming that the debt gets paid back faster that will mean
              > 10% available in later years. I am assuming that there is
              not a *deficit* so the cuts have to be larger than 10% in
        \_ I can't remember the numbers, but Cameho had a similar argument
           when he ran for CA governor, which went something like this:
           We have a $20B deficit, but only 6 years ago our CA budget was
           $40B and now it is $100B.  We should be able to cut some stuff
           and have a surplus.  I think the simple explanation is that
           there is too much pressure (mostly promises to constituents)
           to spend money, and little political benefits to actually saving
           money. Just like how many people could get out of credit card debt
           just by not buying lots of crap for a while, but they won't do it.
        \_ heck let's tax the Iraqi people while we're at it.
        \_ I can't remember the numbers, but Cameho had a similar argument
           when he ran for CA governor, which went something like this:
           We have a $20B deficit, but only 6 years ago our CA budget was
           $40B and now it is $100B.  We should be able to cut some stuff
           and have a surplus.  I think the simple explanation is that
           there is too much pressure (mostly promises to constituents)
           to spend money, and little political benefits to actually saving
           money. Just like how many people could get out of credit card debt
           just by not buying lots of crap for a while, but they won't do it.
2005/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36070 Activity:high
2/4     Proof Enron turned off the lights in California:
        \_ uh DUH, everyone already knows that, what good is proof gonna
           do for Californians now? It's like the Clinton scandal, everyone
           knows that the dress has his sperm, what good is the DNA test
           gonna do? It's like the Bush war scandal, everyone knows that the
           war's a dumb & hasty decision, but what good is it to prove that
           it's bad via all the numbers? Shit. You're pissing me off.
        \_ what exactly do you expect companies to do when the PUC buys
           daily all of their energy on the spot market and even anounces their
           intentions?  It is called a free market for a reason.  This game
           sure had a big effect on LA, not.  You might as well
           rename the article "Company acts in a manner to maximize
           shareholder profit that is legal under existing system".
           \_ Except it wasn't legal.
              \_ it was unethical, but sadly, legal at the time.
                 \_ You are an idiot.
                 \_ It was illegal. Hence the billion dollar judgements
                    against them. Do you understand the difference between
                    criminal law and civil law?
                 \_ the government is the law and can change the law
                    as it sees necessary, including to retroactively
                    sue companies such as the tobacco industry.  Its funny
                    that none of the california legislature members never
                    returned the hundreds of thousands given by Enron during
                    the '90s, nor did Davis ever return the hundreds of
                    thousands he received.  The California taxpayer was
                    in fact screwed by its government.
                    \_ Which is why we recalled Davis.
2005/2/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36062 Activity:very high
2/4     Whoa, this is the first time I've heard anyone dying from H2O
        intoxication: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/fraternity.death.ap
        \_ Wooooo, Chico!  Home sweet home! -jrleek
          \_ The folks I did get out the vote beat-walking with in Reno were
             all Chico students. I liked them. -- ulysses
           \_ You shut yer mouth boy.  You don't live here no more. -emarkp
              \_ now i see where jrleek & emarkp's conservatism come from.
                 \_ Nah.  I moved here in 2000 after marrying his sister in
                    1996.  -emarkp
                    \_ Chico was the liberal big city where I went to
                       high school, Red Bluff. -ausman
                       \_ Yeah, actually Chico has a big liberal element
                          to it.  It is very Berkeley esqe in some ways.
                          Maybe it's Red Bluff meets Berkeley.  (I
                          actually just went to Jr High and High school
                          there.) -jrleek
                          \_ I was at the library the week before the election
                             and saw a group of Kerry supporters meeting to
                             discuss strategies on election day--including how
                             to stop Repub. voting fraud.  I wanted to go in
                             and ask how well their foil-hats fit.  -emarkp
                             \_ you're so cool.  -tom
                             \_ Sounds like they might be a little too
                             \_ So I am curious. Do you believe that
                                Republicans never ever engage in voter fraud?
                                \_ Was wondering if that question would come
                                   up.  Of course not.  But the topic was on
                                   the blackboard, etc.  Butte county votes
                                   very conservative usually and so I'd see
                                   little reason for vote fraud.  Especially in
                                   a presidential election in which everyone
                                   knew the Dem was going to win.  Aside from
                                   that, it appears that when Dems pursue vote
                                   fraud, it's by excessive votes.  Repubs seem
                                   to favor disqualifying votes. -emarkp
                                   \_ Would you be willing to agree that,
                                      regardless of any intentional wrongdoing
                                      by either side, that voting is a pretty
                                      broken system right now, which needs
                                      both legal and technical fixes?  I would
                                      like to see a system where we could hold
                                      a mock election with hackers of various
                                      types intentionally trying to break the
                                      voting, but failing.  Of course, we'll
                                      never have a perfect system, but I think
                                      the present system is a disgrace to this
                                      country.  I've done some research on this
                                      since 2000, and I'm convinced that most
                                      overcounted or undercounted votes are
                                      caused by idiocy, not malice.  However
                                      most politically active people seem to
                                      be more interested in malice than simply
                                      fixing the idiocy.
        \_ Best things to do in Chico:
           Get Drunk, lie on train tracks.
           Get Drunk, swim in dangerous river
           Get Drunk, drive into walnut tree.  (Friends cut down tree in
           Drink self to death. (alchohol)
           Drink self to death. (water)
        \_ I read about one of those now and then.  Not too long ago there was
           someone on ecstacy who drank too much water because she was worried
           about dehydration.  There was another woman who had some strange
           phobia about dehydration and always drank tons of water until one
           day she overdid it.
           \_ It is actually more common than people think. Hits folks who
              hike in hot/dry areas and don't understand the dangers of too
              much water.
        \_ It's common (especially in hospitalized people), but unless
           there's a specific reason it rarely makes it into the news.
           \_ When one drinks that much water doesn't one just urinate
              it back out? How much and how fast would one have to drink to
              be in danger?
                \_ It's not that hard to drink more than you can pee out;
                   it's not easy, but also not impossible. try it and see
                   (don't, obviously).
              \_ The cause of death isn't explosion.  The cause of death is
                 all that water flowing through your system leaches out
                 stuff from your system via osmosis.  Peeing the water out
                 won't change that.
                 \_ More to the point it causes your body's sodium and
                    potassium to become too diluted, and that interferes with
                    nerve and muscle function.
                \_ not exactly. osmosis causes the water you drink to
                   move INTO your cells. but the cause of death is cells
                   swelling up in your head, causing convulsions and other
                   nasty conditions like that. it also pushes your brain
                   through the one hole in your skull.
        \_ maybe Michael Moore should have a documentary on how he prevented
           suicidal people from drinking too much water.
           \_ Mmm, dumbass, and you nuked two people's posts
2005/2/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:36054 Activity:nil
2/3     http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/24_freshmen.shtml
        Liberalism outnumber Bushism by more than 4 to 1, freshmen liberalism
        on campus the highest since 1972. "Berkeley's white students are the
        most liberal ethnic group, at 59.9%. That is, white female students.
        White women were the most liberal group of all freshmen at Berkeley,
        at 65.9%"   Too bad this doesn't mean they will date Asian men -Asian
        \_ do we really have to encourage the Cal Patriot?
2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Consumer/Camera] UID:35995 Activity:moderate
1/31    Brain Washing 101
        \_ All that brainwashing, and he's still a knee-jerk dittohead.
           How depressing.
2005/1/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35982 Activity:nil
1/30    Not surprisingly, the following headlines appear:
        Fox: Bush Calls Iraqi Vote 'Resounding Success'
        CNN: Bush praises historic vote
        ABC: Iraq Voters Defy Threats, Boycott Calls
        MSNBC: History Vote
        \_ eh?
        CBS: Iraqi Voters Defy Insurgents
2005/1/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35973 Activity:high
1/29    Any Saturday night trolls want to predict what will happen on Iraq
        election day?
        \_ Lots of people will vote, some will be killed, and Iraq will
           continue to be violent and occuppied by the U.S. with very little
           real change.
        \_ Probably a coup.
        \_ we'll invade iran as a distraction
        \_ Kurdish independence.
        \_ Lots of motd wankery.
                \_ We have a winner!
        \_ There will be lots of polling booths and security in Shiite areas
           (where ~ 80% want to vote), and not very many or no polling booths
           at all in Sunni areas (where seemingly > 50% have said they will
           definitely NOT vote).  Why have polling booths somewhere where
           people won't vote, security will be an even more incredible bitch,
           and they'll probably mortar you to death anyway? -op
        \_ some will vote, some will not, but it'll be run democratically
           and people will slowly understand that democracy > dictatorship.
           In time the terrorists will understand as well and begin to
           accept democracy and appreciate what we've done for them. God Bless
           \_ basically, if all the shiites vote and the sunnis do not, it's
              like saying the sunnis don't want yer stinking election
              and will wage war / continue the insurgency with the shiites
        \_ Iraq is made up of a lot of different ethnic groups who hate each
           other. My guess is that the ethnic majority Shia will win the
           election, take over the assembly/congress/whatever and pass laws
           that will be favourable for them while screwing everyone else
           (since they got really screwed under Sadam's rule). It'll be like
           the Republicans taking over the country and passing anti-abortion,
           anti-gay marriage, and faith-based initiative laws and piss off
2005/1/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Travel/LasVegas] UID:35919 Activity:nil
1/26    http://tinyurl.com/724bd  (yahoo news)
        First, Phillip-Morris is sued, then McD is sued, and now...
        casino is sued...
        \_ We Americans like to blame others for our bad decisions.  That's why
           there are so many wacky warning labels in our daily lives.
           \_ http://bash.org/?4753
2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35872 Activity:nil
1/24    A military personnel must support his/her supreme commander, ie. the
        current president.  Doesn't it conflict with his/her freedom to vote
        for a challenging candidate during an election?
        \_ brain classification: small.
        \_ Premise is incorrect. Reevaluate and resubmit.
        \_ Supporting your commander-in-chief has nothing to do with voting for
           the next one (even though that could be the same person).
2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:35866 Activity:nil
1/23    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1324513/posts
2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35810 Activity:very high
1/20    How true is this "Trixter" thing, 20 somethings who live off
        their parents, change jobs often, and change SOs often?:
        \_ It's a widely reported phenom in Japan, too, where they're called
           "Furita" (from the the Japanese transliteration of "free time").
        \_ The "changing jobs often" is a direct result of the destruction
           of pensions in this country.  As to the not getting married until
           later, I think this is a definitely good change.  I think in the
           next generation you'll see a lower divorce rate because of it.
           People have realized "I don't need to enter a world-without-end
           bargain with this person I don't even know", and so they find
           their own way in the world while looking for someone they can
           go along with.  I think these trends started with women's lib,
           and are for the best.  My mom married a horrible guy, got out
           when my sister was born, met my dad, and has been married to
           him for 25 years.  My sisters and I learned from that. --scotsman
                \_ ah that's because you're born in a hippie family. Look at
                   all the evil things in media-- violence, first person shooter
                   games, reality shows based on cheating and lying, etc. You
                   liberals don't know anything about family values and faith.
                   Have you been to your local church lately? You may find
                   peace and stability there. God bless.
                   \_ Hardly.  Why would you say that?  Because my mom
                      divorced?  Because she's a churchgoer and school
                      teacher?  Because my dad served in Vietnam and is
                      a retired LtC?  Get your head out of your ass.
                      You prefer someone getting married right out of
                      high school and being miserable for years in a
                      bad marriage?  I weep for your children.
                      Are you the same person that complained about the
                      guys who weren't allowed to "defend" the kid from
                      the empty water bottle?  --scotsman
                      \_ Heh, I know the guy that posted the water bottle
                         link; it's not the same guy as the one you're
                         responding to above.              -mice
                      \_ With all due respect to your veteran status (you're
                         almost as old as me) please don't feed the trolls.
                      \_ to the other guy: I'm a conservative, but in this
                         case, lay off scotsman even if he may be a hippie
                      \_ you are probably being trolled
                         \_ duh.
                   \_ Your brain is so small...I am so sad for you, so sad.
        \_ Damn, what a bunch of horseshit.  If faculty outside of the
           technical fields are not going to spend their time teaching,
           we should just fire their asses so they don't pollute the world
           with their moronic ideas.  Yes, these kids exist in massive
           numbers, and yes, they're lazy.
        \_ "Twixter" and this sounds exactly like my 25 year old brother
           and his friends. I hear from older acquaintances that many of
           their kids are the same way. In spite of what the article says,
           I do think they are lazy.
        \_ Anyone got the full article?  Also, I agree with the poster
           above.  Most twixters I know are that way because they are
           allowed to mooch.
        \_ I was like that until I was 35, but I didn't live off my
           parents. -ausman
        \_ Here in Texas, we don't have Twixters:
           \_ what are the Liberal Parenting Mantras?  What are the
              Conservative Parenting Mantras?
              \_ Conservative:
                 Spare The Rod, Spoil The Child
                 Children Should Be Seen And Not Heard
                 A Family That Prays Together, Stays Together
                 Bitch Betta Have My Money
                 It Depends On What The Meaning Of "Is" Is
        \_ It is a worldwide phenomena, no doubt the fault of the Lib Media:
        \_ I see teenage moms on the bus everyday. Is this what Conservatives
           mean by "family values"?
           \_ funny, I've always thought they're liberal single parents
              like the ones you see in liberal media. Have you
              people ever wondered why conservatives are dominating
              politics? It's because they listen to people.
                Many people in America are pissed. People are sick and
              tired of liberal TV media that glorify late-20s/early-30s
              jobless comedians, minority ganstas, and gays & lesbians in
              NYC and Los Angeles. People are tired of seeing them
              sleeping with and/or shooting at each other. Call it
              evil media, bad influence, or liberal view, I don't care,
              but that is not America is about. Look, people want safety,
              security, stability, and family values, all of which
              conservatives have provided many decades ago.
                I know this thread is going to get a lot of flames.
              Typical liberal response.
              \_ The only thing in your list that any liberal would balk
                 at is "family values," and that's simply because of the
                 way social conservatives define it.  Of late (read last
                 2 decades), conservatives have not provided safety or
                 stability.  And many of the "family values" they offer are
                 not what I will try to instill in my family.
        \_ I'm not sure about in general, but in the south bay I think
           that more and more college grads are returning home after
           college. About 1/2 of my friends still live at home (we
           graduated 5-6 yrs ago). Some of us (including myself) still
           live at home b/c we are working on PhD or LS/Med school and
           don't want to pay rent in addition to tuition. Those who
           are working have taken over things like house payments or
           tuition payments for younger siblings.
2005/1/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35777 Activity:high
1/18    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/18/opinion/main667553.shtml
        An alternative inaugural speech.
        \_ Wow, I remember when PJ O'Rourke wasn't a raving ass.
           \_ when was that? I'm not fucking with you, I'm just curious, since
              I haven't really read much of his stuff.
        \_ That was a lot funnier than I expected.
        \_ I agree with the ass guy.
2005/1/16-17 [ERROR, uid:35739, category id '18005#9.23372' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35739 Activity:very high
1/16    Looks like there was some voter fraud in Milwaukee as well.
        Or the right wing blog version:
        This reminds me of a movement in Berkeley a few years back to
        allow "Same day voter registration."  I don't recall if it got on
        the ballot, but it failed either way.  I couldn't see how anyone
        could support something so transparently designed to facilitate
        voter fraud, but there were pleantly of young activists out
        telling us that it would never be used for evil....
        \_ Please don't delete this. -dgies, !op
        \_ you seem surprised by this... it is endemic.  Even illegals
           Texas County Cracks Down on Illegal Voting
        \_ my friend (US citizen) went from county to county to vote. There
           was no accountability whatsoever. You give you ID (driver's license
           or passport) and they let you vote. This has been going on for
           decades, why do you sound surprised?
           \_ What surprises me is not that it happens, what surprises me
              is how many people _support_ it.  I personally think we
              should shoot anyone who attemts voter fraud.
2005/1/15 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35728 Activity:high
1/15    Proof that conservatives have more manners:
        \_ The most polite cities aren't cities.
        \_ A real conservative should have better manners. Southerners
           are nothing if not genteel, at least the white ones.
        \_ Then again....
2005/1/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:35712 Activity:high
1/14    http://csua.org/u/ap3
        \_ I wonder if the moron parent who was all pissed off that her
           son wanted to be a fisherman has any idea what commercial fishermen
           \_ Actually, I'm curious how long the kid would last as a
              commercial fisherman.  It's a whole different boat from
              sittin' on the riverside with a pole.
              \_ Well, I did it every summer I was in college. Personally,
                 I can't stand the sitting around with a pole type of fishing.
                 Yes, it's hard work, but depending on what fishery you're in,
                 it's comparable to construction work in difficulty, but
                 with *much* better pay, and much more fun.  The big pay
                 difference partly comes from the fact that when you're at
                 sea you don't spend *any* money, so what you earn you actually
                 save, without bills, food expenses, etc.  And there's no
                 income tax in Alaska.
                 \_ No income tax in Alaska?  How oppressive!
                    \_ Yeah, but the sales tax is 12%.
                       \_ Nice try.  It's zero.
                          \_ Omg!  Poor poor people!  How can they stand it?
                             Clearly, someone has NOT thought of the children
                             in Alaska.
                             \_ Actually every resident of any age gets a check
                                from the interest on a fund from oil money
                                that was started in the late 70's.  It's
                                usually about a grand a year per person.
                                And yes, that includes children.
                 \_ But if you're a resident in CA you have to pay tax on
                    income made elsewhere as well.  Also, how's the mortality
                    rate on the boats?
                    \_ The danger level strongly depends on which fishery you're
                       in.  Crab is really dangerous, salmon hardly at all.
                       I mentioned the income tax thing because if someone
                       were to do it fulltime, that makes a big difference.
                       It made no difference to me, since I only worked two
                       months a year and was still in a low tax bracket.
              \_ I wouldn't last a day.  I hate sea-sickness.. -- ilyas
                 \_ You'd be suprised how many commercial fisherman have the
                    same problem, but just suck it up and take dramamine
                    until they get used to it.
                    \_ Heh.  Let me tell you something about dramamine.
                       Dramamine does not work in storm weather, if you are
                       on a tiny boat.  To the tune of continuous vomiting.
                         -- ilyas
        \_ Other cool career choices for 8th graders:
           Adult Film Star
           \_ If no one grew up to be an adult film star, about 75% of you
              would have nothing left to live for.
           Professional Prostitute
           Pawn Shop Proprieter
           Crack Dealer
           \_ Don't forget crack whore; it is a noble profession and quite
              necessary to help sustain our society's way of life.
           \_ Crack dealers make GOOD money.  It is a great profession if you
              don't fry your brain first.
              \_ How much would a street dealer make?  Not some distributor
                 who sells to the street dealer, but the guy on the street
                 pushing the shit. Are there really that many crack addicts
                 in a given area?
                 \_ Hollywood, and the 2nd floor labs in soda.
              \_ Rule Number One: Never use your own product.
                 \_ Don't get high on your own supply.
2005/1/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35677 Activity:nil
1/12    Where's the guy who predicted that the Republicans would
        get a do-over in Washington?
        \_  "A two-week delay is a small price to pay to restore confidence in
             this election," said Republican Rep. Mike Armstrong. "This is a
             historic time and we cannot afford to rush this process."
             Oh, the Irony.
            \_ Again, you confuse imagined disenfranchisement with dead
               people voting, mysteriously appearing ballots, and poll
               workers actively changing votes.
        \_  Thus ends democracy.
        \_  Uh, the Opinion Journal article ended like this:
            "[Gregoire] would do well to recall what happened in Minnesota
            after the 1962 election for governor there. Republican Elmer
            Anderson won a squeaker and was sworn in, but a recount of disputed
            ballots ground on. A hundred days into Mr. Anderson's term, a panel
            of three state judges ruled that Democrat Karl Rolvaag had actually
            won by 91 votes. To end the legal wrangling, Mr. Anderson dropped
            any appeals and calmly left office, allowing Mr. Rolvaag to move
            into the governor's mansion."
            \_ I lost all respect for that rag after they repeated the
               Drudge sourced Kerry intern rumours.
2005/1/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35669 Activity:moderate 50%like:33071
1/11    A vote for Al Gore is a vote for the complete annihilation of all
        possible worlds.
        \_ is this amusing?  I couldn't tell.  -tom
           \_ It is if you have ever taken undergraduate philosophy, and
              especially if you have had to read an undergraduate philosophy
2005/1/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35664 Activity:high
1/11    What's the libertarian/conservative repsonse to the mudslide
        in SoCal?  Should be be forcing Ilya, at gunpoint, to pay to
        try to rescue people who *choose* to live downhill from, um,
        anything?  Should surivors be able to sue the owner of the
        mud for damages?
        \_ I am no libertarian or conservative, but I think aid for people
           who built million dollar houses in obviously idiotic places is
           bullshit.  When a once in a hundred years tsunami floods your whole
           town, you can call it an act of God, but when you build your
           house in a fucking flood plane and it gets flooded you deserve
           what you get.
           \_ I don't mean extra aid, I mean digging bodies out of the
              mud.  And suppose the mudslide was caused because the owner
              of the land uphill cleared out the vegetation?  Lastly, calling
              the little bit of rain they're getting a tsunami is a stretch,
              given the widespread destruction of the real one.
              \_ [ bitch. ]
           \_ La Chonchita was hardly a place of million dollar homes, fyi.
        \_ If I remember correctly from yesterday's hate fest, ilyas would
           deny such basic assistance as food stamps to poor people.  Why
           would he want to waste money rescuing anyone?
           \_ It's not a waste to spend money to rescue people, but if I were
              in charge of the country, I wouldn't consider it my money to
              spend.  I would encourage people to not be fucktards and help,
              but I will not be a fucktard in return and make them help if
              they do not wish. -- ilyas
              \_ And while you're taking your time gathering support, real
                 people are dying buried beneath the mud.
                 \_ I think the libertarian solution would be to have people
                    donate in advance to a relief group which would help out
                    when necessary. --not libertarian, but trying to understand
                    \_ Or it could work kind of how home owner associations
                       work. Places have their own local organisations
                       responsible for providing or contracting private
                       emergency services. --also non-libertarian
                 \_ I will not force people to do good.  If you want to go
                    down that path, why have free will at all?  Just lobotomize
                    them into some sort of drone-saint and be done with it.
                    Of course, drone-saints are not moral agents, but that
                    probably doesn't bother you.  If you ever wondered why
                    Christians tend to not be liberal, it might be because
                    they have this intuitive notion that God considered free
                    will important as far as doing good.  Otherwise, he wouldn't
                    have bothered with it, and just made everyone act as they
                    should act.  Liberals ignore the issue of human goodness
                    entirely using the machine of government. -- ilyas
                    \_ Hmm, libertarians seem to take the notion of human
                       goodness for granted, and conveniently ignore the fact
                       that expensive life saving equipment and training is
                       usually outside of the range of affordability for me
                       and neighbor Joe.  That money's gotta come from
                       somewhere, and if that means through taxes, then so
                       be it.  Saying that this 'ignoring the issue of human
                       goodness' seems, at best, non sequitur.  Perhaps you can
                       give clarification.
                       \_ Eh, rescue stuff is sort of a gray area.  In
                          principle libertarians tend to not fund stuff other
                          than police/army.  On the other hand, rescue
                          operations are often done _by_ the army, since they
                          tend to be very qualified for this kind of work
                          (see the tsunami thing for example).  Personally,
                          I don't consider rescue efforts, and general
                          'good samaritan' stuff to be the province of the
                          government, though I recognize government agencies,
                          even in limited government, tend to be good at it.
                          Anyways lifesaving equipment/training maybe outside
                          the scope of the average Joe, but so are blood
                          transfusions, or AIDS research.  This does not mean
                          average Joe would not contribute, and that effective,
                          fast acting charity based rescue orgs cannot exist
                          (in fact they exist now).
                          I ll modify my original claim somewhat, and say that
                          short term crises of any kind can be reasonably
                          claimed to be the province of the army/law
                          enforcement agencies, which are tax-funded.
                          Or they may not (also reasonable).
                          The 'human goodness' comment is more of a general
                          comment on how libertarians view acts of charity
                          and decency.  -- ilyas
                    \_ Eh, rescuing people in need of immediate disaster
                       response is part of the reason IMO we have government.
                       Long-term aid should be through private groups, etc.
                       Rebuilding should be done (if at all) via funds from
                       private insurance. -emarkp
                       \_ This mostly makes sense to me.  I don't understand
                          why this would be 'ignoring the issue of human
                          goodness', though.           -mice (a moderate)
                 \_ Haven't you been keeping up with motd?  God punishes the
                    unworthy (esp if they're poor and ideologically unsound).
                    It's their fault, so sit back and enjoy yer stuff and feel
                    no conscience about (or need to participate in) society.
           \_ Dig them out and then mail them a bill.
        \_ Rescuing people is a reasonable government action.  Paying them
           relief money so they can rebuild in the same spot isn't.  Morons who
           drive around barricades to cross a river which was a road should be
           charged the cost of the rescue.
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:35634 Activity:very high
1/10    John Fund explains some of what happened in Washington's recent
        race for governor.
        \_ Restored.
        \_ He omits that Rossi won the first two machine counts and
           only after a hand recount only in overwhelmingly Dem.
           King County did Gregoire come out ahead.  The Dems. have
           refined their election stealing skills since 2000.
           \_ Source?  Everything I've read indicated that the dem led
              in all the recounts, which was why the repub. wanted a
              \_ Are you kidding?  I've never read anything like that.
                 http://csua.org/u/anl    (5th paragraph)
                 Also just search on http://news.google.com.
              \_ Seriously, where did you hear this?
                 \_ I suspect he just mis-read the articles.  Since they
                    usually just use the names of the canidates, it could
                    be easy to mix up.
            \_ They recounted the whole state. Pretty funny to watch
               the Republicans whine when the shoe is on the other foot.
               Want some cheese with that whine?
               \_ And pretty funny to see the Dems who were all worked up
                  about making sure everyone got their vote be suddenly
                  silent in the face of ACTUAL fraud.
                  \_ You mean like all the Florida fraud in 2000? Admit it,
                     you are just a big fat hypocrite.
                     \_ Honestly, I was out of the country during that
                        time, and I completely missed the whole 2000
                        controversy.  I don't know how that makes me a
                        hypocrite, but you're welcome to try to come up
                        with something. -jrleek
                     \_ I read the full report about FL.  There was absolutely
                        zero evidence of fraud.
                        \_ You don't know how to read then:
                           "After carefully and fully examining all the
                            evidence, the Commission found a strong
                            basis for concluding that violations of
                            Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)
                            occurred in Florida."
                            \_ You don't know how to read the whole thing:
                               \_ Did you say "zero evidence of fraud" or not?
                                  There is certainly plenty of evidence.
                                  \_ Um, no there isn't.  There's a lot of
                                     handwaving, but no evidence. -emarkp
                                     \_ Wow.  You know how to present the
                                        dissenting opinion and claiming it's
                                        fact.  I think I remember you posting
                                        the same link before.  From now on,
                                        I'm going to live life according to
                                        the body of law made up by Clarence
                                        Thomas's dissents.
                                        \_ I see you haven't read the dissent.
                                           Show me in the conclusions what the
                                           evidence was then. -emarkp
                                           \_ There are none so blind as he
                                              who will not see. It is right
                                              there in front of your face.
                                "It is impossible to determine the total
                                 number of voters turned away from the
                                 polls or deprived of their right to vote.
                                 It is clear that the 2000 presidential
                                 election generated a large number of
                                 complaints about voting irregularities in
                                 Florida. The Florida attorney general?s
                                 office alone received more than 3,600
                                 allegations 2,600 complaints and 1,000 letters"
                                              Here is a whole bunch more
                                              evidence you can deny ever
                                              \_ Error 404
                                      \_ Facts are such inconvenient,
                                         stubborn things.
                                         \_ Yes, especially when made up.
                                            \_ So your contention is that all
                                               the people who claimed that
                                               they were turned away and not
                                               allowed to vote are lying?
                                               \_ Hey assmonkies! Why don't
                                                  we let the politicians and
                                                  pundits shout at eachother
                                                  about who "committed fraud"?
                                                  Us techies should be sticking
                                                  to a single message: "voting
                                                  in America is innacurate."
                                                  It can be fixed with common
                                                  sense, better laws, technology
                                                  and hard work.  Claiming that
                                                  the "other guy", whoever
                                                  he is, is at fault really
                                                  helps nothing. Both sides
                                                  did that for four years, and
                                                  in 2004 the voting was just
                                                  as broken.  Sure, there was
                                                  a clear winner, since he won
                                                  by such a large margin, but
                                                  the system is still broken,
                                                  and shouting like
                                                  children/pundits helps
               \_ I don't know if John Fund is a Republican, but he his
                  pretty famous for being an expert on voter fraud.  He's
                  pretty bi-partisan in that area.
2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35624 Activity:nil
1/9     I thought I'd post this seperately.  Here is the breakdown of
        the Jooish vote in U.S. presidential elections going back to 1916.
        Hell, even Mondale and McGovern managed to clean up in this demographic.
        And in case anyone cares, I'm both a Democrat and a (secular)Joo.
2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:35617 Activity:high
1/8     Chinese American who spies for US and then arrested for sleeping with
        her handler freed.  Judge accuses presecution of serious misconduct.
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316268/posts
           \_ Thanks.  It is almost always amusing to read the comments
              by the freepers.  It is also very informative -- not about the
              original article but about the freepers themselves.  They appear
              mostly to be poorly programmed robots.  Despite all their
              mistrust of the government all but one seemed to know for sure
              the fed is right and she is guilty of spying for China.  In fact
              they seem to know the right answer to everything.  If only we
              could have a regime change to put them in power.
        \_ This is an old case....
           \_ But dismissed only now.  BTW, what is the special relevance of
              the pics on the last link? to the case?  Any pics of her is
              evidence of guilt?
2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35614 Activity:very high
1/8     Why are movie stars mostly liberal democrats?  I thought most people
        with seven figure incomes were ususally republicans.  Doesn't this seem
        \_ First, just how "usually" would you expect 7-figure-makers to be
           Republican?  There are large numbers of wealthy people who are
           liberal.  Secondly, acting requires a very empathetic personality.
           People that are drawn to it will tend to have a circle of concern
           well outside themselves, and a curiousity in humanity that
           supercedes the urge to condemn what they don't understand (or simply
           don't like).  Do you know any actors?
           \_ This argument is amusing.  Why does having an empathetic
              personality and having a tendency to curiosity over
              condemnation make one a liberal in the US sense?  Those
              virtues belong to western secular liberalism as a whole.
              The distinguishing characteristic of a US liberal is a certain
              frame of reference that sees government as 'family,' and
              prefers communal decision making at the expense of individual
              wishes.  See Lakoff for more on this.  Anyways, liberals, if
              soda is any indication, condemn what they don't like with far
              more spittle than pretty much any other group. -- ilyas
              \_ You have the definition of the liberal world view from
                 non-liberals.  This discussion will go nowhere.
                 \_ Lakoff is a liberal.  Not a stupid one, either. -- ilyas
              \_ Uhm, huh?  Have you visited freerepublic?  I don't exactly
                 think of that site as 'spittle-free' or even 'spittle-
                 reduced'.  I think this tendency of vocal condemnation has
                 far more to do with people as a whole rather than a single
                 unrealistically simplified political affiliation.    -mice
                 \_ Eh.  Freerepublic people are idiots.  Soda people are
                    Berkeley students or Berkeley graduates.  I hold soda
                    folks to a much higher standard.  -- ilyas
                    \_ "...liberals, if soda is any indication..."  This
                       would seem to imply that you're extrapolating
                       liberal behavior based on the soda population...
                       which you just said you hold to a higher standard,
                       in effect implying (perhaps not correctly, I hope)
                       that you're holding liberals to a higher standard.
                       A system of labels that reduces the political
                       landscape to one of two affiliations doesn't seem to
                       be serving a very useful purpose in this
                       conversation -- esp if you're going to start holding
                       specific segments to variable standards. -mice
                       \_ It's very simple.  I accused liberals of 'spittle.'
                          You countered with freerepublic.  I pointed out
                          that freerepublic are random internet idiots, whereas
                          soda people are Berkeley students/grads.  The cream
                          of the crop, so to speak.  It's not really reasonable
                          to expect a 'better behaved statistical group' among
                          liberals than college grads from such a good school
                          as Berkeley.  So I am extrapolating from this group
                          to liberals as a whole, who, I conclude will likely
                          only be worse than soda people.  Is anything I said
                          unreasonable to you? -- ilyas
                          \_ Some of it, yeah -- but it's the weekend, so I
                             hope you'll not be too hurt if I take my toys
                             and play somewhere else.  Have a decent weekend,
                             ilyas!    -mice
                          \_ The fact that you regard soda members as
                             representative of anything forces me to downgrade
                             my opinion of your intelligence. -ausman
                             \_ My intelligence seems to come up a lot on the
                                motd.  In the interest of avoiding useless
                                repetition, let's just all agree I am an idiot,
                                and move on to other things. -- ilyas
                          \_ Cf. talk radio, the neocons, Safire, Davids Brooks
                             and Horowitz, Orson Scott Card, and Fox News in
                             general for a rebuttal of the spittle comment.
                             \_ DailyKos, DU, Al Franken, etc. on the
                                democrat side.  He's talking about
                                average people.  I'm not saying he's
                                right, but I am saying you're argument
                                misses the point.
                                \_ Good point. Cf. Freeper troll, ChiCom
                                   troll, etc.
        \_ I find white liberal guilt pretty odd too. -- ilyas
        \_ 1) Hollywood is a liberal town, and most actors are stupid. If
           Liberal arguments are the only ones you hear, and your stupidity
           makes you easily influenced, then you'll be liberal, too.
           2) Making millions acting is mostly a matter of luck. They may
           suffer and work hard, but making it big is a matter of luck, and
           is much less correlated with talent than in the business world.
           Hence the guilt and resulting liberal bleeding-heart mentality.
           3) But where does the liberalism originate and renew itself
           from? This may smell racist, but I think it comes from the Jewish
           contingent in Hollywood. The Jewish faith and culture has a long
           tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Jews are much
           contingent in Hollywood. The Jooish faith and culture has a long
           tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Joos are much
           more likely to retain these values even as they grow older and
           rich. They are also much more likely to be strongly steeped in this
           culture as children, as opposed to WASP and Catholic families.
           Later in Hollywood, among a lot of stupid people, their conviction
           wins out. And it certainly has its merits. But there aren't many
           fundamentalist Christians in Hollywood to compete with their
           "eye-for-an-eye, the poor get what they deserve" mentality.
           \_ 3) doesn't make you a racist, it makes you a moron.  If "exposure\
              to Joos" infects people with liberalism, how come the finance
              industry is so god damn conservative?
           \_ Wow.  Stupidity incarnate.
           \_ such guilt made more sense in the era when blacks had to sit in
              the back of the bus and many whites thought this was a fine idea.
           \_ You don't have to be dumb to embrace a worldview, left or right.
              If you are dumb, however, I'll mock you whichever way you lean.
        \_ One party makes money off the way they make you feel when you watch
           them on the silver screen.
           Another party makes money by dicking you around, and say "suck it
           up, it's America, land of equal opportunity" when you complain.
           What's so surprising?
           \_ I don't understand how they make money in the 2nd part.
              \_ you must be a movie star!
        \_ Much of wall-street and hollywood is leftist because secular
           jews (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
           joos (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
           \_ Next time someone brings up the tired The Left Is Anti-Semite!
              crap I'd suggest they remember this stupidity first.
              \_ The left *is* anti-semite. Jews vote Democratic anyway
                 as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Jews lean
              \_ The left *is* anti-semite. Joos vote Democratic anyway
                 as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Joos lean
                 Republican but Republicans won't have them. As for
                 actors, it's because most are not businessmen and as such
                 have no ties to big business. It really is similar to
                 a lottery winner. Most wealthy people are tied to
                 big business and hence are Republican.
                 \_ Care to back up your left = anti-semite claim?  Come on I
                    dare you.  I double dare you.  Oh and neocon = filthy jew
                    dare you.  I double dare you.  Oh and neocon = filthy joo
                    is not backing up your claim, cause that is patently false.
                 \_ God damn it, would you please use that brain of yours to
                    get your mind around the idea that you can be against the
                    Israeli government's handling of the Palestinian issue and
                    not be anti-Zionist or anti-semitic?
               \_ most of the earliest Communists / leftists in USSR and Europe
                  were Jews.  There are historical reasons for this - look them
                  up rather than revealing your ignorance.  "Jews lean
                  were Joos.  There are historical reasons for this - look them
                  up rather than revealing your ignorance.  "Joos lean
                  Republican" ... WTF are you talking about.  Where do you
                  people come from - your knowledge of history is appalling
                  and dangerous.
                  \_ Are you judging by numbers or by influence?  If by numbers
                     then can you back up the 'most' claim?  If by
                     influence, was Vladimir Lenin a joo?  How about any
                     USSR Gensec?  I say you are full of shit. -- ilyas
        \_ Most single digit millionaires are Republican but most wealthier
           people are Democratic. There is an amusing article about f*ck you
           money and how it influences people's politics in a recent issue
           of The Economist.
2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/Networking] UID:35596 Activity:low
1/7     I'm driving from LA to SF tomorrow. Is there a website that can tell
        me how I can get there? I am hearing rumors that I5 might be closed
        and also that 101 sometimes has mudslide issues.
        \_ google "caltran" yields url:
           \_ yes, thanks, but that doesn't really give driving directions
              based on closed routes, or even alternate routes.
        \_ rain+LA=complete misery. Are you ready for complete misery?
           \_ I believe this is true for all of southern CA, I lived in
              Bakersfield.  brrr...
        \_ http://sigalert.com
2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:35584 Activity:high
1/7     Anyone has any luck suing a person/business outside of California
        through small claim court?  How can the court order the defendant
        to appear in this case?
        \_ The same way that they order people in the state to appear.
           Just because a person is out of state doesn't mean that he/she
           can't be sued and required to show up in court. The only issue
           here is whether the court will uphold that it has jurisdiction
           over the case.
           \- this is not strictly correct. a business has to have
              "dealings" in california to be sued in a CA court.
              in the case of a person, this is more unlikely unless
              possibly the suit is over some issue that required being
              in CA ... like say a car accident or some tort involving
              such a physical act. there are things called "long arm
              statues" which is how corts can compel non-residents/remotely
              incorped busness to appear, but i am not sure if small claims
              courts have differnt long arm statues. for a real/large business
              it is highly likely that they have enough business presence
              in CA .. in which you can probably check with the sec of state's
              office who the califnornia agent is for process service/summons.
              for somebody who runs a hotdog stand in louisiana, you probably
              cant sue them for food poisioning in CA court. on an amusing note
              on the jurisdiction question you may want to look at Mayo v.
              Satan and His Staff. --psb
              \_ Yes, psb, we know this. What do you think "jurisdiction over
                 case" means? It is strictly correct. If you don't know what
                 \- as someone i know used to say "i dont mind tautologies;
                    they're always true!". saying you can sue in court X
                    if court X has jurisdiction i suppose is meaningless and
                    unhelpful more than true/untrue. "the court feels" ...
                    is driven by guidelines such as the ones i discuss.--psb
                 "jurisdiction over the case" means don't comment. Also, you
                 don't need a business presence in CA to be sued in CA. All
                 that is required is that the court feels that it has original
                 jurisdiction on the matter involved. Under the UCC this means
                 the place of business, and if the business was conducted
                 in CA then the court will find it has original jurisdiction.
                 If all fails, you can go file a suit in Federal Court, and
                 there will NOT be ANY questions about original jurisdiction,
                 but for a small claims matter it's not worth the money.
                       \-mr. d. ass: you also misuse the term "original
                         jurisdiction" ... that is in contrast to appelate
                         jurisdiction, not geography or "diversity juris-
                         diction". as you suggest, federal ct may be an
                         option, but whether it is worth the money is not
                         fully up to the plaintiff, but there is a minimum
                         specified in the USC and USCA. See e.g.
                         \_ Uhm, no, there is really only the concept of
                            "original jurisdiction". It encompases what you
                            refer to as "geographic jurisdiction", which in
                            reality is a fiction. So STFU dumbass. Original
                            Jurisdiction always comes from the lower courts,
                            and appellate courts have original jurisdiction
                            in certain types of cases. There also isn't
                            really a term caled "appellate jurisdiction,"
                            which is a fiction also. However, since it's
                            unfortunately come into common usage I suppose
                            that it can be considered as such.
                            Read up on some Prosser/Keaton.
                 \_ I belive the problem here is that the two of you
                    are confusing two separate ideas: personal jx and
                    \- i'm not the one confused. the OP is the one
                       specifcally asking about the geographic/diversity
                       \_ Sorry. The guy who was responding to you is
                          a doofus, and I should be doing hw instead of
                          writing about jx...
                          writing about jx on the motd...
                    subject matter jx. A ct must have both in order
                    to hear a case. SMJX is sometimes refered to as
                    "original jx" in the context of fed cts.
                    In order for a ct to hear a case, it must first
                    have SMJX. In general state cts are cts of general jx
                    and have original jx over all cases. Fed cts are cts
                    of limited jx and have original jx only over two types
                    of cases, federal question (USC Title 28 Sec 1331) and
                    diversity (USC Title 28 Sec 1332). The jx of the fed
                    cts are limited by Article 3 of the Constitution.
                    In order for a case raise a fed question the complaint
                    must arise from the constitution, treaties of the US
                    or laws of the fed gov.
                    In order for a case to be in diversity two requirements
                    must be met: (1) the claim must be greater than $75K (if
                    you are trying to sue in small claims, you can't meet
                    this) and there must be complete diversity in citizenship
                    "across the v". Complete diversity means that no plaintiff
                    and no defendant must be citizens of the same state. A
                    corporation is considered a citizen of 2 places, the
                    place where it is incorporated and the place where it has
                    its primary place of business. The primary place of bus.
                    can be determined using one of two tests: (1) the nerver
                    center test (where are the admin offices located) or (2)
                    the muscle test (where the manufacturing occurs).
                    Personal jx is a different idea. It is refers to the
                    power of a ct to compel a person to appear before it and
                    defend a suit. PJ is proper in a state if the defendant
                    (1) resides there or (2) was personally served with
                    process in the state. PJ may also be proper over non-res
                    defendants IF the state has a long arm statue authorizing
                    the exercise of PJ over non-res defendants. Almost all
                    states have such statues. Some states (ex NY) enumerate
                    the circumstances under which PJ may be properly exercised
                    by the states cts over non-res, while others (ex CA) say
                    that any exercise of PJ consistent with Due Process is
                    Even if there is a statue that says that PJ can be
                    exercised by the ct, that exercise must be consistent
                    w/ the requirements of Due Process which according to
                    the USSC means that that the defendant has to have min
                    contacts w/ the state AND the exercise of PJ must be
                    consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
                    substantial justices (see Intl. Shoe)
                    If the case is related to some specific action of the
                    defendant w/ or in the state, then even a single
                    contact may be enough (specific jx). If the case is
                    unrelated to the contacts of the defendant in the
                    state, then lots of contacts are need.
                    There are lots of factors that a ct considers when
                    figuring out if PJ is fair: (1) the burden on the
                    defendant to defend in the state, (2) the interest
                    of the plaintiff in efficient resolution, (3) the
                    interest of the state, (4) interests of other states
                    and (5) shared interests of many states.
                    I'm sure this was WAY more than you possibly wanted
                    to know. Anyway, the upshot of all this is that if
                    you are suing a non-resident corp in small claims
                    ct you will probably not have any basis for being
                    in fed ct and you will probably have a hard time
                    compeling the corp to appear.  However, you may be
                    able to get a judgment by default and then via
                    Full Faith and Credit get a lean on the corp's
                    property in its home state. Then you can show up
                    at the annual shareholders meeting and say that
                    you are not leaving the bldg until the deadbeat
                    corp makes you whole. This is an effective way
                    to get your money and your ass kicked in one go.
              \_ http://www.tamerlane.ca/library/cases/humour/mayo_v_satan.htm
                          \_ Sorry, you're wrong. If you actually understood
                             substantive law instead of merely googling for
                             stuff you'd understand what
                             "original jurisdiction":
                             really means. And PSB, stop junking up the motd
                             with your google transcripts. I'm sure we can
                             all cut and paste from the web. That doesn't mean
                             you know shit about the law.
                             \- are you the person whose orginal contribution
                                [sic] was the tautology above?
                                \_ My friend, if you actually knew anything
                                   about law you'd realize that it is filled
                                   with tautologies. Res ipsa loquitur.
                                   An example of this include the following:
                                   the description of cause-in-fact or
                                   actual cause
                                   the description of proximate cause
                                   the concept of what a reasonable person is
                                   the concept of what negligence is
                                   the definition of intent
                                   the definition of voluntary
                                   Take a 1L course in substantive law,
                                   see if you can pass it. Then come back
                                   and we'll talk.
                                   \_ First time poster, long time listener
                                      here.  The description of 'actual cause'
                                      is not as simple and tautological as you
                                      may think.  Email me for technical
                                      details. -- ilyas
                                   \- the law may be filled with tautologies
                                      but your first respose was totally
                                      useless. Well 99% useless. You claim
                                      1. you may be able to reach out to
                                      someone in another state 2. and you can
                                      do so if the court decides you can.
                                      while i suppose point #2 is sort of a
                                      "legal realist" answer [the law is what
                                      courts say it is ... as opposed to some
                                      metaphysical body of a priori principles
                                      of justice], it's not helpful to the OP.
                                      if you are an attorney and gave me
                                      advice like that, i'd not only think the
                                      "law's an ass" but my lawyer was too.
                                      some tautolgies ... or "analytic
                                      statements" are trivial, some are
                                      merely uninteresting and some are
                                      useful or insightful. 1=1 is trivial.
                                      x^23+x^5+x+5=8 has solution x=1 is
                                      a useless factoid. sum 1/2^x from 1
                                      to infinity = 1 is "interesting" ...
                                      so all of these are "tautologies across
                                      the equal sign", but only one is a
                                      valuable observation.
           \_ Thanks.  I am doing this for someone.  I have sent two
              emails to the debtor and I was never able to reach the
              debtor by phone.  Small claim court is the next logical
              \-email is pretty worthless. send a demand letter by registred
                or cert mail or whatever it is called.
              \_ If the person you are trying to sue is a non-resident
                 the ct may not have any effective way to compel them
                 to appear and defend (provided PJ is proper in the
                 state in which you bring your suit). Since the cap on
                 small claims is $2,500, many non-residents will just
                                 \_ Not neccesarily true, certain
                                    districts allow you to sue up to
                                    $5000. It depends on the district
                                    and the state.
                 decide that it is not worth the hassle and won't appear.
                 You will be given a judgment by default, but in order
                 to enforce this judgment you will have to travel to
                 a state where the defendant resides and ask a ct in
                 that state to enforce the judgment (the ct has to b/c
                 of Full Faith and Credit).
                 Enforcement is a bit easier if the non-resident has
                 property in the state in which you sue. As part of
                 your suit you can ask the ct for a pre-judgment
                 attachment of the property. If the defendant is a
                 no-show, then you will be awarded judgment by default
                 and you can ask the ct to order a sheriff's sale of
                 the property to satisfy your judgment.
                 \- law person: for a good time you may wish to look up
                    789 F. Supp. 395 ... also avail at:
                    Last line is sort of funny, w.r.t. jurisdiction.
2005/1/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35581 Activity:nil
1/6     Inflation disinformation: http://csua.org/u/am2
        \_ Oh yeah, objective research from Gold Bullion dealers.
           C'mon, people, let's get facts from credible sources, eh?
                \_ Why don't you refute their claims instead of
                   the source.  Do you believe oil prices can jump
                   40% year over year and have no effect on everything
                   else, even though oil underpins every aspect of
                   our economy?
2005/1/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35571 Activity:very high
1/6     Someone please list possible neocons who post on motd. I'll start.
        Remember this is just a suspect list, and they're innocent till
        proven guilty:
        emarkp (believes the war has made the world safer, preemption, etc)
        \_ Nope, wrong. I'm not a neocon. I've already stated publicly that
           I was against the Iraqi war. I also have stated that I'm a
                 \_ some neocons, like that fujimoron, are against the war
           devout atheist, support universal healt-care, same-sex marriages,
           and abortion. I just don't like non-criticial self-rightous
                  \_ neocons are all secular and mostly atheist, unlike con.
           radicalism of the left. It's funny, but a reporter friend of mine
           (who is by no means a republican) stated that after having
           interviewed a number of people, she found that liberals are
           basically "stupid" because they spout off their dogma without
           checking facts. Having said that, my offer to help you be
           deported to Canada still stands -williamc
           \_ Right, and the Other Facilely Labelled Team *ALWAYS* does.
              Can you at least try for some objectivity here?
              \_ Well, I don't hear libertarians nor conservatives
                 whining when they lose. They don't threaten to
                 leave the country. OTOH, very conservative people
                 I know who belong to a Churcn and are devout
                 Christians DO put their money where their mouths
                 are and actually take sabbaticals to 3rd world countries
                 to spread their faith. I don't agree with their religion,
                 but I admire their faith. Unfortunately the same cannot
                 be said of the liberals. I find it somewhat fascinating
                 that someone like John Kerry can vote FOR the Iraq war
                 and then claim he's AGAINST it during his campaign
                 run. And not only that, he actually ALLLOWS the
                 right to paint him into a corner. The world is hardly
                 ever black-and-white. Both sides contain valid criticisms
                 of the other side. However, not practicing what you preach
                 makes you look very stupid. Let this be a lesson to you
                 liberals, what comes out of your mouth is considered,
                 weighed, and judged. If you want to be taken seriously
                 by the American public, speak seriously, think seriously,
                 and most important of all, practice what you preach.
                 Otherwise you will continue to be targets of ridicule.
                 \_ I thought Kerry voted to authorize the use of force
                    in response to terrorism.  Since Iraq HAD little to
                    do with terrorism directed at us, how would that be
                    voting for an Iraq war? Granted, he said some stupid
                    stuff after the vote where he tried to have it both
                    \_ Uhm, no, he voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
                       You're getting his "spin" confused with the actual
                       vote. If you don't believe me you can go read
                       the resolution online and see what he voted for.
                       If he thought that the resolution stated otherwise
                       then shame on Kerry for not actually reading
                       the resolution before voting for it. Sorry, you
                       can't have it both ways. What you vote for is what
                       counts, not what you say after the vote.
                       \_ He voted to agree to allow the President to take
                          action in Iraq.  That's not the same as authorizing
                          the invasion.
                          \_ Wrong point.  Kerry voted to give Bush the
                             authority to go to war if he exhausted all
                             other options to disarm Iraq.  Bush didn't.
                             Specifically he didn't fulfill section 3b of
                             the resolution.  Nor has he performed any of
                             section 4.
           \_ So if I happen to get a job in Canada, will you pay my
              relocation costs even if I don't become a Canadian citizen
              and am not moving for political reasons?  This sounds like
              a potentially sweet deal.  How does one qualify for the
              Williamc Canadian Fellowship?
              \_ Nope, the conditions of the Alec Baldwin Fund are as follows:
              \_ Nope, the conditions of the James Baldwin Fund are as follows:
                 1) We pay you to relocate to Canada
                 2) You have to sign an affadavit that you will renounce
                    your American Citizenship and never return to the U.S.
                    or any of its territories.
                 3) You need give us documented proof that the U.S.
                    Government has received and accepted your renouncement
                    either in the form of an official document from the
                    INS or other State Dept. office.
                 4) You need to submit your cancelled American passport
                    to us.
                Failure to meet these terms will disqualify you.
                Thanks for playing. -williamc
           \_ Devout atheist?
           \_ Did *anyone* move to Canada, France, or some other paradise of
              \_ No.
        \_ I find it somewhat ironic that you're looking towards making a
           blacklist of people and refuse to sign your own post. Perhaps
           you should put up or shut up.
        \_ Being a neo-con is a crime?
        \_ Restored.  When someone can tell me what a neocon is, I'll let you
           know if I'm one.  -emarkp
           \_ As far as I know, the standard left-wing definition of
              neocon is just "evil."  So I guess the question is, are you
           \_ well I don't care about politics but this is time for shameless
              self-promotion. You can find past posts and definitions here:
              Political posts go in endless & pointless circles so why not just
              read past posts and not create any more trash? thanks.
              \_ It was a rhetorical request.  The definition isn't exactly
                 settled.  The wiki lists:
                 - militant anticommunism: yep
                 - more social welfare spending: nope
                 - sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda: nope
                 - being more inclined than other conservatives toward an
                   interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is
                   sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy
                   and international law: yep
                 So what does that make me? -emarkp
                 \_ You are a conservative. What I would call a "rightist"
                    conservative, to be exact. This discriminates you from,
                    say, libertarian conservatives.
                    \_ Hmm.  What about if I add this?  I believe we should
                       drill in ANWR but also that we should put a huge
                       boatload of money into researching nuclear fusion for
                       power generation and hydrogen for power distribution.
                       And I bike to work.  -emarkp
        \_ People called me a neocon before.  Heh.  I love how the motd
           meaning of 'neocon' drifted from 'hawkish jew' to 'believes
           Iraq war was a good idea.'  I always thought neocons were people
           who wanted to drill for oil in Alaska. -- ilyas
           \_ I never saw "hawkish jew" and "neocon" is a set including some
              but not all of "believes Iraq war was a good idea". Neo = new
              and "con" is conservative. It's for people, like say David
              Horowitz, who were liberals (or radicals, in his case) and are
              now conservatives. I'd like to see where this "standard left wing
              definition" appears. I've only heard it from people who are not
              left in the least, like the poster above. -- ulysses
              \_ I am sorry, I don't know whose fault it is exactly,
                 but the 'neocon' label has been hijacked and misused to
                 such an extent, that it's really kind of laughable to use
                 this word seriously.  In my opinion. -- ilyas
                 \_ I respect your opinion and certainly the poster above
                    has provided a perfect example of misuse (or at least
                    erroneously broad use). I don't believe the term has been
                    as badly hijacked as that. The most common misuse I see is
                    right here by one or more posters who never sign their
                    names so who can say? -- ulysses
                    \_ Wiki suffers from some of the same problems as the motd
                       does.  There was a /. article on this very subject
                       recently. -- ilyas
                       recently.  People seem to use wiki as a 'mainstream
                       authoritative source' these days.  -- ilyas
        \_ I can categorically state that I am not now and never was a
           member of the Communist Party, er, I mean neocon.
        \_ Conservative = Small government, lower taxes mainly; family values
           Neocon = Everything that happened in Afghanistan, Iraq
        \_ See the wikipedia article,
        \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html.
2005/1/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35529 Activity:high
1/3     Where does all the money go that people donate? Who distributes it and
        who buys stuff with it? Does it go directly to the area governments?
        \_ Short answer: it depends on where people donate the money.
           \_ ok assume Red Cross since that seems to be the big thing here.
        \_ similar question (I'm not the op), what % of the money I donate
           to Red Cross/Salvation/Good Will goes to admins and what % actually
           gets distributed to the needy?
           \_ Heh.  Good question. -- ilyas
              \_ How much research funding for ilyas' group goes to support to
                 his motd habbit?
                 \_ None.  I work far more hours than I am paid for.
                    There is also the notion that certain kinds of work
                    cannot be adequately measured by hourly rates anyways.
                    Like, say, programming or research.  There is also
                    the matter that you are an idiot. -- ilyas
                    \_ I see.  You're underpaid, so that's the justification
                       for a libertarian living off the taxpayers' nickel.
                       \_ Are you dense?  Didn't we have this conversation
                          already?  Do you not understand that the only people
                          on whom this complaint does NOT work are those who
                          are perfectly happy with the way our current society
                          is.  Because you know, if you happened to NOT like
                          something about society, you almost certainly
                          are benefitting from this feature you don't like in
                          some way, somewhere.  You hypocrite bastard.
                          Too little taxation = more business investment,
                          too much taxation = more public good, etc. etc.
                          Do you think people who conceived of western
                          secular liberalism did not benefit from the
                          fucked up societies they had the misfortune
                          to be born into?  Were they hypocrites to believe
                          in what they did?  You are a pretty sad case even
                          for the motd. -- ilyas
                          \_ I think op is just saying you should practice
                             what you preach.
                             \_ I d be happy to, if ever I am elected into
                                public office.  Wouldn't everybody?  And at
                                any rate, where are the complaints against
                                environmentalists taking advantage of the
                                benefits provided by the evil soulless oil
                                companies?  Liberals pocketing Bush tax cuts?
                                Practice what you preach, bitch!  -- ilyas
                                \_ http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/comics.php
                                   \_ Stop bothering me, can't you see I have
                                      a deadline! -- ilyas
                                      \_ My tax cut went straight back to the
                                         DNC.  Stick to talking about things
                                         you know something about, hypocrite.
                                         \_ Except it shouldn't go to the DNC,
                                            Aaron.  It should go back to the
                                            state.  I _wish_ I could spend my
                                            taxes how I want politically.
                                            Dumbass.  -- ilyas
                                            \_ It's about reinvesting the money
                                               into the state rather than
                                               actually spending the money on
                                               myself.  Get a clue, doofus.
                                               \_ So the DNC = the State now?
                                                  Wtf?  Also, who says
                                                  libertarians spend money
                                                  on themselves? -- ilyas
                                                  \_ Who cares if they spend
                                                     money on themselves?  What
                                                     are you babbling about?
                                                     The issue is your willing
                                                     use of state money to
                                                     coast along, despite your
                                                     prolific and long winded
                                                     posts about your
                                                     libertarian Utopian
                                                     ideals.  Hello?  Earth to
                                I'm not libertarian but you're being dumb. _/
                                He was pointing out that a libertarian can
                                choose to invest in the state if he wants,
                                rather than being taxed for it (in theory).
                                \_ He's also being dumb by not answering the
                                   other objections: DNC != State,
                                   environmentalists driving cars,
                                   shopping at republican donor businesses,
                                   etc.  Probably not actually dumb, but
                                   playing dumb for trolling purposes.
                                     -- ilyas
                                   \_ heh, 3 ilyas points, but I still lost the
                                      bet.  well, shucks.
                                      \_ What were the terms of the bet?
                                           -- ilyas
                                         Would you prefer my default reaction
                                         to motd posts be outright dismissal
                                         and derision?  -- ilyas
                \_ don't you think it's amusing to be a hardcore
                   libertarian AND a grad student at the largest public
                   university in the world?  i see a lot of humor in that.\
                   i think you belong at Pepperdine with ben stein. - danh
                   university in the world?  i see a lot of humor in that.
                   i think you belong at Pepperdine with ben stein. - danh
                   \_ I find it no more amusing than seeing you employed
                      at some soul-sucking corp you probably hate.  Actually,
                      I find it quite sad.  And I am not a 'hardcore'
                      libertarian.  I am actually fairly moderate.  Unless
                      it's one of those obligatory adjectives, like
                      'cold-blooded killer.' -- ilyas
                      \_ 'Cold-blooded libertarian' has a nice ring to it,
                         \_ That was the insinuation, yes. -- ilyas
           \_ I remember the Red Cross ranks #1 in this regard.  I don't
              remember the actual numbers though.
              \_ $0.19 to raise $1.00.  9.9% overhead, 91.9% goes to programs.
                 \_ Dont donate to the United Way.  They are terrible.
        \_ On a more positive note, I read in the Economist that each dollar
           spent on charity results in a > 1 dollar net economic benefit.
           That is, 1 dollar spent in helping someone get back to her feet,
           etc. eventually results in a > 1 dollar return (eg. she starts
           contributing to society again).  Don't ask me how the Economist
           did its calculations.
           \-why does this come as a surprise? it is more or less axiomatic.
             charity goes to those with very little and it is just the law
             of diminishing marginal returns. if you want to spend your
             money to go from having no fishing net to having a finshing net
             obviously that has a bigger return than going from gold to
             platinum jewelry. --psb
             \_ Fishing nets won't get you laid; platinum jewelry will.
                \_ Fishing nets catch fish which can be sold for money which
                   can be used to buy platinum which can get you laid.
                \- suffering from amoebic dysentary probably wont either --psb
2005/1/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35508 Activity:insanely high
1/1     Randoids go berserk, disagree with tsunami aid.
        http://csua.org/u/ajf (Ayn Rand Institute)
        Money sentence is the one about how "most" of the victims were hurt
        through "no fault of their own."
        \_ Ah, yes, the age old question of governmental aid. The fallacy of
           the article, like most of Objectivism, is its failure to acknowledge
           interdependency, much like the failure of it's diametric opposite,
           Communism, albeit in a different manner. Complex social systems
           rarely break down into over-arching theories of what should and
           should not be done. But it does raise an interesting issue, when
           should aid be given and when should it not? If someone disagrees
           with an agenda and questions its efficacy, shouldn't we take time
           to consider it rather than outright rejecting it? It appears
           that the left and the right are both ramming things down their
           respective throats without evern considering the other side...
        \_ Like all libertarians, they are right wing shills: take a look
           at their essays on Iraq from the 90's when Clinton was in power, and
           then what they have to say when Bush is in power.  They use the
           same rhetoric about how "our leaders lack moral certainty," but
           the message is clear: Republican good, Democrat bad.
           Libertarians: Republicans, only more pompous, and with more lies.
           \_ This is flat wrong, which explains why you don't provide URLs.
              Among libertarians many faults is a tendendcy to be overly
              isolationist (politically).  As with the vast majority of the
              libertarian ideal, it is absolutely wrong in theory, but since
              society is so far gone in the opposite direction, the policy
              implications are mostly correct.
              Libertarians, particularly the libertarian party, have been among
              the most outspoken opponents of the war in IRAQ and this Bush
              administration in general.  I don't know what The Ayn Rand Inst.
              has to say and don't care.  She is an idiot and her followers are
              worse.  All groups have their fanatic/moronic fringe, and when
              you are a fringe group to begin with, well ...
              \_ The URL to back up what I said is simply the OP's URL.  I
                 clicked around and read their essays on various subjects.
                 They sounded exactly identical to our loudest local
                 libertarian here on the motd.  I hope I am wrong about
                 libertarians at large.  Do you want to point me to what
                 you consider to be a representative libertarian
                 \-For "respectable" academic Libertarianism, see
                   R. Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia. --psb
                   \_ Thanks! I'll check that out.
           \_ 1st, The left-right dichotomy is lame (see other threads).
              2nd, going with it anyway, the greens are shills for the left
              much more than libertarians are shills for the right.  As i've
              said before: Libertarians gloat when they take votes away from
              Republicans.  Contrast this to Nader supporters.  Libs under-
              stand that one corporate bought, pandering, fear-mongering
              aristocrat from one faction of The Party is effectively the same
              as the other.
           \_ While Randroids are libertarians, they represent libertarianism
              about as well as the PETA folk represent Evironmentalism.
                I.e. not at all.
        \- As with racist and bigots, this seems to be one of those cases
           where I want to see them "talk more" and undermine themselves and
           reveal themselves for what the are. A good essay is "The Procedural
           Republic and the Unencumbered Self". It is avail from JSTOR. BTW,
           "randoid" has been deprecated in favor of "Randroid".
                     \- re: "all libertarians ..." i think there is a
                        respectable academic argument to be made by
                        libertaianism.  however i think many libertarians
                        outside academia are "accidental libertarians"
                        ... meaning they are really not interested in where
                        the philosophical arguments take them, but the cleve
                        to a philosophy which seems more respectable than
                        simple Hedonism to justify [sic] being the way they
                        are [selfish hedonists]. i think the philosophical
                        sophistication totem pole looks something like this:
                        hedonists [people who say things like "i need to be
                        true to myself"], then randroids ["altruism is
                        corrupting"], then libertarians ["contractualism" is
                        a pretty powerful argument]. there are a few
                        reasonable libertarians ... like by best friend, who
                        is one of the most considerate persons i know ... but
                        they are generally not "libertarians unius libri".
                        This is sort of a funny story about the Academic
                        Libertarian-in-Chief: http://csua.org/u/ajg ... one
                        Berkeley people can relate to. ok tnx.
                        \_ I am a little confused by the (lack of) distinction.
                           Hedonism is a moral commitment, libertarianism a
                           political one.  Related to be sure, but not the
                           same.  Are you saying it's unsophisticated to be
                           concerned with political philosophy?  I think
                           adopting a position to see where it takes you
                           is quite a bit more phony than adopting one you
                           actually believe in (because of how you are).
                           Life is not a rhetoric class.  -- ilyas
                           \-what is phony is shopping around for a
                             justification that sounds better than
                             "do whatever you want and take whatever you
                             can get" whent that is what you believe.
                             some people answer the question "what do we owe
                             one another?" with "whatever!" [in the sarcastic
                             sense of "i dont care to talk about this"], some
                             with "nothing." and still other with "nothing,
                             because...". what i am saying is the reasoning
                             in many people's case is an appendage adopted
                             for the sake of form, not truly to explain why
                             you have arrived at a particular place. BUSHCO
                             didnt invade iraq to free the iraqi people,
                             although it's convenient to trot out. on the
                             flip side, meaning you dont get moral credit
                             for someting done out of inclination rather than
                             duty, as sondheim writes "nice is different than
                             \_ Partha, you are projecting.  People who are
                                hedonists tend to view selfishness as a
                                virtue, not a vice in need of justification.
                                Whether you get credit for something done
                                out of inclination or out of dity depends on
                                your ethics.  Not everyone's a Kantian.
                                  -- ilyas
                             \_ I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I'm just
                                curious: why *do* you think BUSHCO invaded
                                Iraq, exactly?
                                \- i think they believed in WMD. I think they
                                   were wrong. i think they should have been
                                   fired for being wrong. i think they are
                                   incapable of admitting it. i think thier
                                   reputation in history should have been in
                                   \_ No, believing in WMD (which i agree they
                                      did) is just like believing that tax cuts
                                      for the wealthy are the right thing for
                                      the economy.  They believe it because it
                                      justifies what they want to do.  WHY they
                                      wanted to invade IRAQ is because it was
                                      an untennable situation with a leader who
                                      hated america growing in power while his
                                      country(and the world) suffered due to
                                      sanctions that we couldn't/wouldn't lift.
                                      The only people benifiting from the sitch
                                      was the UN and
                                      thoze embezzling from their program(s).
                                      It was a bad situation and many leaders
                                      in the bush admin felt it was a giant
                                      loose end that they wanted to tie up.
                                      They just grossly underestimated the
                                      aftermath of occupation (as historically
                                      countries have). -phuqm
                                      \- another value of non-anon posting is
                                         it's either to figure out who is
                                         not worth talking to. you cant compare
                                         facts [existence of WMDs] and values
                                         [progressive taxation] and theories
                                         [what econ effects of policy X will
                                         be]. --psb
                                          \_ I wasn't comparing facts with
                                            values, i was comparing MOTIVATIONS
                                            and rationalization.  Politicians
                                            wanted to cut taxes on those that
                                            contributed to their campaigns, so
                                            when some Academics came along and
                                            told them that was what was good for
                                            the country, they were quickly able
                                            to believe that.  When (other) pols
                                            wanted to invade Iraq and the intel.
                                            community said Iraq had, or soon
                                            would have WMD, they found it very
                                            easy to believe. -phuqm
                                            easy to believe. To paraphrase and
                                            distort: "The facticity of a
                                            proposition has little to do with
                                            it's believability." -phuqm
                                            \_ Apostrophe abuse! Three demerits!
                                                \_ ugg, fixed. -phuqm
                                                   \_ Demerits retracted.
                                      \_ I somehow doubt that last bit.
                                         Everyone else was talking about the
                                         aftermath problems. They chose to
                                         simply ignore that because it would
                                         provide support for opposition. The
                                         whole war was done this way: build up
                                         troops without a war, oh now we have
                                         to fight, it would look stupid to
                                         withdraw all those troops, oh look
                                         things are fucked up, well we can't
                                         cut and run, you have to give us a lot
                                         more money, sorry bout that, support
                                         our troops and all, etc.
                                \_ http://www.newamericancentury.org  -tom
2004/12/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:35469 Activity:high
12/29   For those who think the US is stingy:
        "According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, we gave
        nearly $241 billion to charity last year and have increased our giving
        every year for the last 40 except for 1987.
        "Clearly, Americans are a generous people, and we are willing to spread
        our wealth outside the country. Last year Paula Dobriansky, State
        Department undersecretary for global affairs, reported 'Americans
        privately give at least $34 billion overseas annually.'"
        \_ The quote should say that the American govt is generous.  Unless
           it's put up to a vote of the people, you can't conclude that the
           people are generous.
        \_ I wonder how badly the weak dollar is hurting the recipients of this
           US aid.
        \_ And yet we lag behind many other countries in giving in terms of
           \_ And your source is?  My understanding is that is only cash
              transactions from our government to another government.  This
              private giving isn't tracked at all.
              \_ E'ist:
              \_ http://tinyurl.com/6vhdu (economist)
                 Though looking at their source (http://www.jhu.edu/~cnp
                 I'm going to stop talking.  Our numbers don't look too shabby.
        \_ "That does not include the $10 billion in official U.S. foreign
            aid, though it does include $18 billion in remittances immigrants
            send to their home countries."
           In other words, Americans send $16B overseas annually, though how
           much of that is charity is unclear.
        \_ yeah, I believe that. US is owned, controlled, and run by the
           Corporation and the people who run the Corporation, and the
           government is just a facade.
2004/12/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35465 Activity:high
12/28   http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/28/academic.freedom.ap/index.html
        Conservatism, it is not only a trend, it is the future.
        \_ Make sure you read all the way to the end so you can see David
           Horowitz calling liberal professors "sissies".
        \_ "To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect
           to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom:
           students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught."
           That's just beautiful... simply marvelous.  The liberal navelgazing.
           \_ My God, it's full of lint!
           \_ There are two institutions that try to protect and grow democracy
              without actually practicing it themselves: academia and the
              military. There are good reasons for this.
              \_ Yes, one is to indoctrinate the young with the propaganda
                 required by the state, the other is offer security to the
                 state. The former provides the cadre of youth to feed into
                 the latter.
              \_ I'm calling bullshit on this.  Academia doesn't "protect and
                 grow democracy".
                 \_ The more educated the populace, the more effective
                    democracy is.
                    \_ Wow, one unfounded assertion backing up another.  Sorry,
                       education is not always an improvement.  Many highly
                       educated people don't have much common sense.
                       \_ Nor did they have such before they became educated.
                          With education, however, there is the slightest
                          chance of improving understand and critical analysis;
                          without education, there is no such chance. As for
                          unfounded assertions, this is the motd, not usenet.
                          Expect less, and be disappointed less.
        \_ The lawsuit is something I agree w/. Why should an eng. student
           (not sure these people were eng.) have to read some book about
           the Koran? Total waste of time. If you are interested, then you
           should learn about it on your own a la psb. If not, the school
           should let you get on with your life (ie doing homework and
           playing counter-strike).
           \_ If you want field-specific education, consider vocational
              training.  A University-level education is supposed to expose
              your young mind to a variety of topics and opinions so that you
              will have more experience of the world around you.  Its success
              or failure, however, range wildly.
              \_ That's what the diverse student body is for, not one of
                 the core class requirements. The core class requirements
                 are supposed to teach you basic universal cognitive skills
                 so that when you go interview you know how to speak in
                 a coherent manner. Reading the Quran should be relegated
                 to things like Eastern Culture Studies or Theology.
                 If we make people read the Quran, why don't we make them
                 read the Bible then, or the Book of Mormon, or recite
              \_ WOW. You have really bought into all that humanities bs.
2004/12/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35461 Activity:insanely high
12/28   Is it me, or is $35 million the US has pledged seems rather
        small? I mean we are the fucking United States of America and
        all we can give in a tragedy of this magnitude is 15 million?
        \_ It's just you.  How many of our tax dollars should the US government
           pledge to help another nation?
           \_ Yes, help someone in need that you will have nothing to gain
              from, that's obviously a new concept to you.
              \_ It's not new at all.  But that giving should be done by
                 individual citizens, not by allocation of our tax dollars.
           \_ None. Our tax dollars should only be used to bomb them.
        \_ I agree that it is rather small, compared to the amount
           we have spent so far to invade another country.
           \_ like Darfur, this is another opportunity which we can use
              to counter Osma Bin Laden's propaganda.  We should of dragged
              those Arab satellite TV stations along with us, show them that
              we do help out people, including those Muslim as well.
        \_ the USA is not socialist!  We have low taxes so that people can
           keep most of their money from wasteful bureaucracy, and more
           efficiently and voluntarily give to charities people can
           individually select! -New Republican l0ser who STILL p0wn5 4ll u
           dem0cr4tic l0s3r5!
           (sarcasm aside, the problem is that Democrats intuitively know
           there is a problem with the above argument, but just sit there
           and fume about rich/ignorant freeper bastards instead of giving a
           persuasive counter-argument)
           \_ 0mgz!  n3rf tr0015!!!!``111!!~@!
           \_ I d like to hear some.  I became a libertarian because someone
              changed my mind.  It could certainly be changed again. -- ilyas
              \_ The problem is that, left to their own devices, people will
                 donate inefficiently.  We need a coordinating authority to
                 make sure the money is spent wisely.  Of course, the
                 government also seems to do a bad job of steering money to
                 projects that have the greatest positive impact.
                 \_ I agree that given perfect information, and given
                    incorruptibility, a central planning agency will do better
                    than a set of independent agents.  However, since those
                    assumptions are both incorrect when applied to governments,
                    and since independent agents have shown to be more effective
                    in resource allocation for investment, for instance, than
                    a central agency, what makes you say the same is not true
                    for charity? -- ilyas
                    \_ fyi, "The problem is that ..." guy is not the same guy
                       as the "sarcasm aside, ..." guy.
                    \_ Note that I agreed that the government seems to do an
                       inefficient job of allocating charity money.  So my
                       argument is not so much individual vs. the governemtn,
                       but rather the individual vs. a "charity planner".
                       Individual investers often (usually?) do a bad job of
                       managing their own investment strategy and they would be
                       smart to leave the job up to professinoals (mutual
                       funds managers, financial planners, etc.)  Why not use
                       the analog for charity giving?  Instead of individual
                       persons making donations based on personal whim or
                       public appeals, why not use follow the recommendation
                       offered by a charity expert?  Why not donate money to a
                       mutual fund of charities, just as a person would
                       investment in a mutual fund of stocks?  This is likely
                       not the optimal strategy (for both charitable giving
                       and investment), but it'll probably yield better long
                       term results than going it on your own.
                       \_ I see no problem with this, as long as people, just
                          as with mutual funds, have a choice of where to
                          donate, or whether to go at it alone.  In fact, isn't
                          this how charity works now? -- ilyas
                          \_ Do I get a choice to opt-out of paying for
                             the war in Iraq?
                             \_ There are a few possibilities here:
                                (a) You are an anarcho-capitalist.  Then I
                                sympathize with your plight.
                                (b) You don't believe in democracy as a form
                                of government.  Then I sympathize with your
                                plight and agree.
                                (c) You are a liberal troll.  Then I advice you
                                to go stick your head in a pig. -- ilyas
                                \_ Dude, you just said "Why do you hate
                                   America?" and you didn't even realize it.
                             \_ Hahahaha, you are my hero!
                                \_ You two both took the choice of not
                                   volunteering for the citizen-soldier armed
                                   forces!  Freedom is not free!!  Now get back
                                   to work traitors!@1! -Troll
                             \_ So long as the rest of us also get to opt out
                                of paying for the things we disagree with, sure.
                       \_ Um, you do realize that >90% of managed mutual funds
                          perform worse than the market as measured by major
                          indices (e.g. DOW, S&P 500, etc.), and that's

                          *before* deducting commissions, management fees, and
                          other overhead.
                          \_ 1.  Do you think Moses came down from Mount Sinai
                             with the lists of stocks that comprise the Dow
                             (not an initial, BTW, unless you say DJIA),
                             S&P, etc.?  2.  Asset allocation is everything.
                             The effect of selecting particular securities
                             is secondary.
        \_ How much did you donate? How does the $35 million compare to
           what other nations contributed? How much do they donate to us
           when we have a disaster?
        \_ $35 million is a lot of money for countries like Sri Lanka.
           Anyway, we've donated enough money to 3rd world countries over
           the years, and we've bailed them out countless times.
        \_ you have to put things in perspective.  Taiwan donated whopping
           $50k USD to Thailand for the relief effort :p
           \_ I'm sorry to say this but the wealthy Taiwanese people are one
              of the most self-indulging people in this world. They drive
              nice cars and eat expensive Chinese seafood yet do not
              understand the meaning of charity. They don't seem to care
              about anything other than keeping their blood and money in
              their own circles.        -dated an X-gf who was Taiwanese
              \_ What about reallocating a week's worth of aid to Israel
                 to this earthquake/tsunami relief fund.  That will be at
                 least $50million.
              \_ Yea, but that's because they have to pay US$18 billion
                 (multiple times what other countries pay for them)
                 to the US for its outdated older generation weapons.
                 Generally speaking I agree with you.  Part of the
                 reason is that Taiwan has too few Christians (2%).
                 \_ Hello, are you a conservative? Are you a Republican?
                    Do you think the war has made the world safer? Do you
                    think the world will be a better place when everyone
                    is converted to a Christian?                -moderate
                 \_ "have to pay"?
                    \_ Yes, or surrender to commie China.
        \_ Some one asked how much other countries have donated. Here:
           The United States is offering a total of $35 million, followed
           by Japan with $30 million. Australia has now pledged $27
           million, Saudi Arabia $10 million and Germany $2.7 million.
           \_ Australia and Japan have more incentive to contribute,
              being the major players there. What about France, Russia,
              and so on?
2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35405 Activity:very high
12/22   The Confederate flag is fighting back, the Red is the latest fashion!
        In other news, rural area is expanding and the Conservatives are
        way out-reproducing the Hippies:
        \_ The Latinos are way outproducing both.
          \_ true, and they are Conservatives who hate you Hippies.
             \_ Why do they vote overwhelmingly Democratic then?
                \_ Depends on their income and generation. They vote more
                   and more Republican the more money they make.
                   Middle-class Latinos tend to be Republican and all
                   are conservative by virtue of their religion.
                \_ overwhelming? In 2000, they were 25% Rep 74% Dem.
                   In 2004, the were 44% Rep 54% Dem. Go figure.
                   \_ That 44% is a Republican fantasy. Bush got
                      about 40% and that is far better than your
                      average Republican. He also got 35% in 2000,
                      not 25% as you imply. Been listening to Rush
                      Limbaugh again? You really should fact check
                      that guy before repeating his falsehoods.
                      Latinos are over 3:1 currently Democratic.
                      Latinos are currently over 3:1 Democratic.
2004/12/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:35353 Activity:nil
12/18   This is about a month old but hadn't seen it on the motd or news.
        Tara Reid had a wardwobe malfunction, sure some of the guys on the
        MOTD would appreciate it:
        \_ tangent: that much makeup looks gross IMO.
           \_ Yeah, I was really looking at the makeup too (shrug)
              \_ Of course I looked at the tit first. "okay, a large tit."
           \_ Yeah, between the makeup and the scars from her implants
              she's not really all that attractive.
2004/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35314 Activity:high
12/15   So did anyone see the California Quarter coming out next year?
        The 7th largest economy, birth of modern cinema and the PC
        industry the gold rush, and all they could think of was
        John Muir and Yosemite? Shouldn't they have pictures of things
        like The Golden Gate?
        \_ I think you're overestimating both the seriousness of this program
           and the information density of engravings on one side of a quarter.
           Look at what some of the other states have:
           \_ Well, some of the other options had a lot more interesting takes.
              There was a page up some time ago to vote for the quarter design.
              A number of them pulled in icons from all over the state, and
              some actually looked nice.
        \_ 7th largest?  I thought it's the 4th.
           \_ 5th, according to the state website:
        \_ golden gate does not represent california anymore than disneyland
           or hollywood.
2004/12/9-10 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35238 Activity:nil
12/9    I good overview of what has been happening in Ukraine during the
        last month:
2004/12/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35233 Activity:very high
12/9    "...troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing
        centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their
        identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would
        receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at
        all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the
        deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned."
        http://csua.org/u/a9s (boston.com)
        Hmm...required to wear badges.  Remind anybody of anything?
        \_ at least they pay a flat tax
        \_ Well, it's not like the Fallujans are missing anything.
           It was much worse under Saddam. Anyway, Mr. Liberal Troll,
           do you actually have a point? See, the problem with you is
           that you say "blah blah blah, U.S. is acting very badly
           in Iraq." But the problem is that Iraq was much worse
           during Saddam, so your argument doesn't hold. It's like
           like saying "Oh, the Americans are evil because they
           interred the Japanese." Well, the Japanese killed over 8
           million Chinese, so out goes your argument.
           I mean, seriously, are you brain damaged?
           \_ damn. There's that argument again.  At least we're not as
              bad as Saddam.
              \_ I think it's the same guy.  His knee likes to jerk.
                 \_ He also doesn't seem to understand that people of a non-
                    liberal bent can disgree with him, too.  Poor fellow.
           \_ let me explain why you might be brain damaged instead, ok?
              suppose you're a civilized human being, which implies that
              you must not exude offensive smell.  if you go around saying
              "i don't smell like shit. i smell a little bit better than
              shit," you're not going to get people to say "oh yeah, you do
              smell good." now, here's the tricky part. think of this, except
              replace smelling like shit with "acting like a nazzi". And see
              if the little lightbulb in your head lights up. ok?
              \_ Let's imagine this situation.  Say a bunch of people in
                 Compton, CA, decided to stop killing each other, organize,
                 and start regularly setting off bombs in major metropolitan
                 areas in the US.
                 Now what do you suppose the appropriate course of action is,
                 for the US gvt?  (No acting like Nazis now!)
2004/12/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35219 Activity:very high
12/8    Torture in our name? Unacceptable.
        http://csua.org/u/a8z (Dallas Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
        \_ If you're trying to portray texans as decent human beings, you're
           going to have to try harder.  Ivins lives in Austin like all
           civilized texans with above a sixth grade education.  Austin is
           about as much a part of red state america as los angeles.
           \_ Damn, you're right.  Travis County voted 56% Kerry, 42% Dubya.
              L.A. County was ~ +7% more blue than that, but still.
           \_ The 'red states/blue states' myth always amuses me.  There
              are more republican voters in CA than in in almost any given
              are more republican voters in CA than in almost any given
              red state. -- ilyas
              \_ Indeed.  Here's the popular vote shown as shades of purple:
              \_ Wow, that's the first thing I've agreed with you on.
2004/12/6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35184 Activity:nil
12/6    http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=477
        \_ I like this one. Couldn't sound more wingnutty if he tried:
           http://csua.org/u/a7j (onlinejournal.com)
2004/12/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35139 Activity:high
12/1    Ah.. Michael Moore looked quite Republican the other night on Leno.
        \_ care to describe the incedent?
           \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292105/posts
              \_ Well, he's still pretty ugly, but at least he's
                 presentable.  The shave and the haircut are big
                 \_ Yeah, what's wrong with tailored suits?  They look good,
                    and you don't have to be a mega-rich Republican to afford
                    \_ Michael Moore is far more mega-rich than most
                       Republicans I know...
                       \_ So what you're telling us is that most of the
                          Republicans you know are poorly dressed?
                          \_ Pretty much everyone I know is poorly
                             dressed, I live in CA.
                             \_ You mean the Bay Area.  Other parts of CA
                                are not nearly as bad.  For some reason,
                                Bay Area folks think polar fleece is
                                appropriate attire at a fancy restaurant.
                                \_ For some reason, people from southern
                                   California are assholes.  This is my
                                   unbiased opinion as someone born and
                                   raised outside California who lives
                                   outside California now.  There are
                                   exceptions, but I'm sure beyond a shadow
                                   of a doubt that you're not one of them.
                                   \_ Can you give specific examples, including
                                      where you were?
                                      Perhaps you are confusing this with
                                      rich people in general?
                                \_ Perhaps in Berkeley. Certainly not in
                                   San Francisco. You sound like a provincial
                                   spoiled Orange Country brat who spent
                                   four years on campus and thinks that
                                   what he saw on Telegraph Ave represents
                                   "Northern California."
2004/11/29 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35106 Activity:high
11/28   Hypothetical motd poll, which of the following is the worst
        100 fraudulently cast ballots:
        100 people not allowed to vote:
        Both are equally bad:
        \_ Hi ilyas!
           \_ Hahaha. No.
        \_ 100 morons voting legitimately.  -John
        \_ Whichever one is more likely to change the outcome.  This would
           probably be the 100 fake votes, because they'd all go one way, while
           the disenfranchised would have voted like individuals.
           \_ On what do you base your assertion that the fake votes would all
              go one way?  In any system where fraud is possible, wouldn't there
              be an equal temptation from both sides to engage in it?
              \_ Temptation, yes.  Opportunity, no.
        \_ There's a pretty good book on election shennanigans.  "Stealing
           Elections" by John Fund.  It's very non-partisan, has a lot of
           stories of voter fraud and such from both parties.
2004/11/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35105 Activity:nil
11/28   The first post-election analysis that makes sense:
        \_ Let's do a Stalin on the Reddies!
2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35093 Activity:nil
11/27   http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/27/bush.radio/index.html
        If drafting can't be possible, let's try a bit of advertisement,
        guilt trip, and peer pressure.
        \_ And this is different from Clinton's praise of the military
           while he sent them to Kosovo and godknows where because?
           This only after he realized they could win votes did he decide to
           stop kicking them out of the White House.
2004/11/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:35070 Activity:nil 54%like:35065
11/24   Republicans are winning everything, even in Washington!!!
        http://tinyurl.com/639oc (cnn.com)
        \_ If it's a state-wide hand-recount, I bet the DemocRAT wins!
2004/11/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Languages] UID:35066 Activity:high
11/24   Hispanic and Latino: which term(s) are politically correct?
        \_ Both are, but they refer to different things.
           \_ So a Hispanic is someone with spanish ancestry and
              a latino is someone who lives in a latin american country?
              I'm confused. Please elucidate.
        \_ I can tell you spic is not.
           \_ Yes, the preferred term is 'wetback'
        \_ similar questions: Latino vs. Chicano: What's the diff?
        \_ chicano = mexican
        \_ Both refer to the same thing, the guy who replied to you is
           wrong. Latino is more PC west of the mississippi, hisapnic
           on the East Coast. Dunno why, but that is just the way
           it is.
           \_ Uhm, no.  Hispanic is someone of Spanish descent.  Latino is
              someone from latin america.
              \_ So the only difference between these two overlapping
                 groups is Brazlians, who you claim can be called Latino,
                 and Spaniards, who you claim can be called Hispanic. Right?
                 Personally, I think you are wrong on both counts, but I
                 will ask my Brazilian and Spanish friends what they think.
                 Do you believe that Latin Americans of 100% native background
                 cannot be referred to as Hispanic? They are not of Spanish
                 descent, afterall.
                 \_ Well gosh, maybe my 30+ years as a Hispanic male have led
                    me wrong, what with having extended spanish speaking
                    family etc.  Not to mention my relatives that are still
                    living in mexico....   Hispanic is a very general term,
                    what with the Spaniards having conquered half the freaking
                    new world.  Latino is a subgroup within the domain of
                    Hispanicity; it's an ethnic grouping in a cultural sense
                    more than a racial one.  As for 100% native background
                    people, I have no idea how they group themselves.
                 \_ Well gosh, maybe my 30+ years as a Hispanic male have
                    led me wrong, what with having extended spanish
                    speaking family etc, not to mention my relatives that
                    are still living in Mexico....  Hispanic is a general
                    term, what with the Spaniards having conquered half the
                    freaking New World.  Technically, Latino is a subgroup,
                    though it only really covers Central and South America;
                    it's an ethnic grouping in a cultural sense more than a
                    racial one, but I suspect most Latinos would resent the
                    application of the Hispanic label.  Chicano is the term
                    for an American from Mexico, though I doubt a Mexican
                    living in Mexico would refer to himself as 'Chicano'.
                    As for someone of 100% Native American background in a
                    Spanish speaking country, I have no idea how they group
                    themselves.  In Argentina I suspect they'd group themselves
                    as 'rebels' and in Venezuela as 'normal' -- but now I'm
                    just being silly.
                    \_ Hmmm, why would people in South America refer to
                       themselves as "Latinos"? I thought they always
                       considerd themselves either as South Americans
                       or as people from their own country. In fact, I've
                       never heard someone from South American refer
                       to themselves as "latino" or "hispanic". I think
                       that these terms were produced by the U.S. to
                       create a false "race" of people who didn't speak
                       english but were for all practical purposes white
                       with a bit of mestizo mixed in. In fact, I've never
                       heard of anyone in Mexico refer to themselves as
                       "Latino" or "Hispanic." The only people who use
                       these terms are people in the U.S.
                       \_ *sigh*  The original question was 'which is more PC'
                          and the proper answer has *NOTHING* to do with the
                          damn Mississippi.  I've tried to explain what the
                          terms mean (not whether everyone accepts in all
                          geographical locations).  Good luck.
                          \_ Well, it's pretty apparent to me that the terms
                             mean essentially the same thing. Trying to say
                             that one term artificially means A and another
                             term artificially means B doesn't mean that
                             what you say is correct. Since they're both
                             essentially artificial constructs to denote
                             people originating from people south of the
                             people originating from south of the
                             border they're both as "pc" as you are going
                             to get. One may as well argue whether chicken
                             should be called poultry or when exactly a
                             stream becomes a river. Completely a nonsenical
                             \_ I would argue that this whole thread is a
                                nonsensical discussion because pc language
                                is all bullshit anyway.  Language should be
                                used to communicate, not to express political
                                and academic trends.  If you want to know what
                                to call someone, you should just fucking ask
                                them.  I think the worst example of PC idiocy
                                I ever encountered was when I called some guys
                                "Chinese" because they were a bunch of Chinese
                                sailors on a Chinese boat who were hired in a
                                Chinese port, and an American told me I should
                                call them "Asian American."  Obviously the
                                person who said this knew there was nothing
                                *American* about these guys, but once someone
                                starts thinking in PC speak, the brain just
                                turns off.
                       \_ For the same reason a caucasian American of
                          European descent probably wouldn't refer to himself
                          as "white" or "Germanic".  All my friends who were
                          born in S. America identify themselves with their
                           countries.  -John
        \_ you're all wrong...
           in short: Hispanic - of Spanish heritage
                     Latin - from the geographic region of Latin America
                     Chicano - Mexican (sometimes meaning Mexican in the US)
           \_ Er?  I see at least 3 posters that are in agreement with you.
           \_ That dude is hardly an authoritative source.
2004/11/24 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35065 Activity:nil 54%like:35070
11/24   Republicans are winning everything, even in Washington!!!
        \_ If it's a state-wide hand-recount, I bet the DemocRAT wins!
2004/11/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35057 Activity:nil
11/24   Hmm.  Reports that the Russian military is being used against the
        Ukrainian protesters.  Intereeeesting.
        \_ The Russian Army.  It checks in, but it don't never leave.
        \_ With Putin appointing the governors these days, how long until
           Ukraine rejoins the Russian Federation?  In Russia, Russia
           federates you!
2004/11/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35049 Activity:high
11/23   Ukraine to go FOOM!
        "Tens of thousands of opposition supporters surrounded Ukraine's
        presidential offices after their pro-Western leader declared himself
        president ... Official ballot counts so far show 54-year-old
        Yanukovich won 49.39 percent of the vote compared with Yushchenko's
        46.71 percent, with 99.48 percent of polling stations reporting. Most
        independent exit polls handed victory to Yushchenko, but some of those
        commissioned by Yanukovich's team showed the prime minister as the
        \_ Doesn't Ukraine have some number of nukular weapons?
           \_ http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/ukraine
        \_ Why didn't Al Gore do that?
           \_ I. JUST. DON'T. KNOW.  More importantly, it speaks volumes as to
              how little we believed in Kerry's chances of actually winning.
           \_ No Bush minions tried to kill Gore by poisoning him before the
              election.  No massive formerly imperial neighboring country
              making massive amounts of pressure.  No criminal conviction of
              winning candidate.  No massive government corruption.  Among
              other things.  -John
        \_ I have been following this saga since the beginning (and was rooting
           for the opposition candidate) but I still can't find an answer to
           this question: What evidence of vote rigging does Mr. Yuschenko
           and all those outraged European and American election monitors
           have other than that some of the exit polls don't match the official
           results too well?
2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35022 Activity:high 50%like:35088
11/22   Hey script people, did he "ilyas" the motd again?
        \_ Basically, we've determined ilyas' Kryptonite: just mention how
           he's a hypocrite for being a libertarian who lives for free
           off of the UC system.
           \_ This is as moronic as blaming wall socialists for not moving
              to Cuba.  Rather than sitting in CA, and reaping the benefits
              of the evil, worker exploiting capitalist society with
              BushCo at the helm. -- ilyas
              \_ I don't know of anyone on wall advocating socialism.
                 \_ Heh.  Then I am not a libertarian, but a Queen of
                 \_ Heh.  Then I am not a libertarian, but the Queen of
                    England. -- ilyas
           \_ I thought you could always make ilyas look like an idiot just by
              deleting one of his posts or signing his name to something he
              wrote.  It never fails.  He always does something stupid in
              \_ Since he insists on strict ordering, and prefers everyone
                 sign their posts, why doesn't he wall instead of posting
                 on the motd?  Is it because he can't nuke the wall log??
                 \_ Because on wall he can't pretend to be 5 different people.
2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:35009 Activity:insanely high
11/22   so what is the justification for eliminating the tax deduction
        for providing your employees with health insurance?  evil?
        assholeness?  true conservatism?  freedom is on the march?
        i don't get it.
        \_ If you are asking a serious question, some people believe
           controlling/encouraging behavior through taxes is not a good
           idea.  Why Bush did this is another matter, of course. -- ilyas
           \_ I don't think the gwbush administration is doing anything
              because of deeply held conservative principles that are ingrained
              in them after long years of study of Smith.  They just
              want to stick non ultra rich people with the bill for
              their spending habits. - danh
              \_ Neat Dan, can I borrow your direct line into W admin's heads
                 sometime?  I mean seriously, is it completely inconceivable
                 to you that there may be a non-evil explanation? -- ilyas
                 \_ so what is their justification?  the war on terror? - danh
                    \_ It's not like Dubya woke up one day and decided to cut
                       in this particular way.  He has some idea of what he
                       wants, and he asks his advisors, who in this case would
                       be high powered econ people, for plausible
                       implementation.  Your beef is probably with them, but
                       I bet they _are_ governed by principle (and understanding
                       of econ).  You may not agree with the principles, but
                       painting them as mindless evil is silly.  -- ilyas
                       \_ No, he didn't wake up and think this.  He's said
                          all along that this was what he wants to do.  His
                          whole plan of the ownership society is about "encour-
                          aging investment".  Unfortunately the HUGE majority of
                          the population does not have sufficient investment
                          to benefit from these policies nor available cash
                          to increase their holdings.  This is a massive tax
                          burden shift from investments to income.
                          \_ Actually, insofar as Bush wants to encourage
                             any sort of behavior (even 'good' behavior, as I
                             see it), I disagree with him.  On the other hand,
                             moves to make out tax system less progressive and
                             more flat make me happy.  I d be annoyed if he
                             copped out of the vague flat taxish motions he was
                             making in early 2004. -- ilyas
                       \_ you don't believe there are evil people in the
                          \_ No, I don't believe Bush's econ prof advisors are
                             evil, no.  Do you?  Can I have some of the good
                             stuff you are having? -- ilyas
                             \_ I believe Grover Norquist bathes in the blood
                                of liberal virgins every night. - danh
                             \_ don't be an idiot!  no red blooded texan
                                listens to sissy econ prof from academia.
                                he just finds an econ prof whose theory
                                happens to fit his agenda.
                \_ whether they are evil or not doesn't matter so much to me
                   lately, whoever is in charge of fiscal policy appears to
                   be completely delusional as they continue to increase
                   spending while deliberately cutting off the gov's revenue
                   streams.  maybe grover norquist has gay blackmail photos
                   of everyone?  can you find a non faith based economist
                   who actually thinks cutting off revenue and running huge
                   budget and trade deficits is a good thing for the US
                   economy?  i think the dollar is going to plummet,
                   debt service is going to become a huge chunk of our budget
                   just like several third world countries, but at least
                   gay people won't get penalized by the death tax. - danh
        \_ Link?  I have no idea what you're talking about.
        \_ http://csua.org/u/a2h
           [stuff about the administration trying to further cut capital gains
           "The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the
           administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and
           local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business
           tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers
           said." - danh
           \_ Do people here live in caves?
              \_ More or less.  I don't watch TV, and read the news that shows
                 up on google.
        \_ I particularly like the $2m to buy the presidential yacht.
        \_ The justification is that the current administration is
           against gay marriage and terrorists.  Get it?
        \_ What will screw me is eliminating the deduction for state and
           local taxes. It would be just like Kerry winning. The biggest
           reason lots of Repubs vote Repub is because of taxes. If Bush
           is gonna sock it to high-income people living in states with
           high tax rates then the Repubs are ruined.
           \_ Welcome to the ownership society.
           \_ Dude, Bush is spending massive amounts of money while slashing
              taxes for obscenly wealthy, leading to record debts.  Where do
              you think the money is going to come from?  Just because the
              Republicans claim to be the party of financial responsibility
              doesn't mean they are.
              \_ "If Bush is gonna sock it to high-income people"...
                \_ He isn't socking it to the ultra-high income people.
                   \_ There aren't enough ultra-high income people to make
                      any real difference to government debt one way or the
                   \_ Ultra-high income people are still getting screwed
                      by this, because they pay a lot in state taxes. If
                      you make $10 million per year you are paying $1
                      million to CA and Bush's stupid idea costs you real
           \_ No.  Those states voted Kerry anyway.  Bush's power base is
              \_ Haha, it would be awesomely evil if Bush implemented a
                 blue state agenda in blue states.  Democracy would work
                 then! -- ilyas
                 \_ This was not a blue state agenda in any way shape or form.
                    \_ Raising taxes is always a blue state agenda.
                     \_ Until you start actually questioning this are
                        you just going to keep being surprised that the
                        republicans are fucking you tax wise while claiming
                        the opposite and then forgetting about it until the
                        next time your ass hurts?
                 \_ Oh, you mean CA.  A state with blue state budgetary
                    priorities and the predicted blue state problems?
2004/11/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:34984 Activity:very high
11/19   All discussion of voter fraud censored for The Good Of America.
        \_ Why do you hate voter fraud?
           \_ ain't no fraud gonna make up 3million votes
              \_ but 200k votes is enough to turn the election.
                 \_ republican: good, democrat: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil
        \_ You go girl!
           \_ Are you a hoser?  Do you have any idea the effect of ilyasing
              the motd has on the CSUA??
              \_ Wear a uniform when ilyasing the motd, or you may be legally
                 shot on sight!
                 \_ You must also act as part of an organized military force
                    while ilyasing the motd, or you may be tortured.
                    \_ You must also hate freedom, America's god given right
                       to rule the world, welfare (except corporate welfare),
                       cute puppies, apple pies, and yermom.
2004/11/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34976 Activity:high
11/19   The motd readership seems to have an excess of free time and
        mathematical education.  Why doesn't someone here analyze the
        election data themselves to look for anomalies and put it in
        /csu/tmp? I'll bet if one of you conservatives can use the numbers
        to show convincingly that there was *not* a problem, you'll be
        on a foxnews talkshow faster than you can say "spin."  Why not?
        \_ on a related note, anyone wanna play nettrek later?
        \_ I think the burden of proof is on folks who say there _is_ a
           problem.  (Who do stupid things like observe some things, and
           \_ And the right wing ignores evidence such as a county in
              ohio where only 600 votes were cast, yet Bush received
              over 4000 votes.  Nothing wrong there.
              \_ url-p.  Evidence-p.  -- evil right-winger fact-checker
                 \_ http://csua.org/u/a1a (Washington Dispatch)
                 \_ More evidence at http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp
              \_ Would you like some cheese with that whine? Give it up.
                 You lefties lost this year and you are going to go on
                 loosing because people are finally realizing that you
                 losing because people are finally realizing that you
                 guys have never had a good idea and that its time to
                 take our country back from the New Deal and the Great
                 Society or this great nation will end up a hell hole
                 like Europe.
2004/11/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34962 Activity:nil
11/18   Can someone give me a link on how much BASE taxi drivers/waitresses
        make? I always thought it's illegal to make below minimum wage,
        but I guess that's not the case in certain industries.
        \_ First hit on google "minimum wage tip".  Something like
           $2.13 per hour (with maximum of $3.xx of your tip making up
           the rest of the minimum wage).
                \_ http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
                   In CALIFORNIA the min wage is $6-8.
        \_ taxi drivers are often hilariously classified as independent
           contractors so they have no benefits, pay their own gas,
           and get raped by the taxi cab license holding companies
           with gate fees. - danh
2004/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34927 Activity:high
11/14   Straight from "Red America"
        \_ "Evolution is the religion of scientists who laugh at God."
        \_ oh. my. god. I can't believe this crap.
        \_ Straight from Ontario, California, the land of cheap houses and
           ultra under-educated overly-patriotic white trash
           \_ Are you callin' me a faguht!? Ahm gonna kick your ass!
2004/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:34852 Activity:very high
11/11   The media's Barack Obama feve
        \_ thanks!  can you imagine if malkin was your mother?
           how is the suicide rate among 3 year olds?
        \_ Oh, look the Queen of self-hating Asians is back on the motd.
           I am curious, is the guy who keeps posting this some kind
           of white guy conservative with an Asian fetish?
2004/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34732 Activity:moderate
11/5    isn't it really weird that where paper ballots were used,
        the exit polls were accurate, and where electronic ballots
        were used, the exit polls were wildly inaccurate?  like
        every single time?  republicans and stat nerds,
        please defend yourself.
        \_ I'm not going to defend anyone, but you might find this interesting
           http://ustogether.org/election04/florida_vote_patt.htm and
           I don't see obvious evidence of machine based voter fraud, but
           I did not really look as carefully as I could have.  This site
           is nice, though, because it has raw data.  If there was fraud, it
           should be apparent in these numbers somehow.
        \_ Well, what I found odd was that CNN's exit polls moved in
           Bush's favor AFTER the election.  I'm still scratching my head
           about that one.  It was a shift of almost 4% in some cases.
           \_ Seek knowledge.  The exit poll system broke late evening and
              didn't get another update until after 1am so they did this
              horrible thing: they used the real returns counted from real
              \_ What do you mean?  How can you get how many women voted
                 for Kerry vs men from real returns?  Did the final exit
                 poll results include real returns or not?
        \_ It is weird because it isn't true.  You saw very early returns
           released to the net without any information about where those polls
           where taken, how many were polled, nothing.  Please take Stat 2
           because you continue to spread further misinformation.
        \_ Stop smoking the Democratic Underground crack pipe. -liberal
2004/11/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34723 Activity:nil
11/5    someone told me that the votes will all be hand counted 11 days
        after the election. If that is the case, where are the vote
        stubs kept? aren't they subject to contamenation?
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34710 Activity:nil
11/4    http://losangeles.craigslist.org/pol/47987927.html
        Voter IQ. Republican vs. Democrat state intelligence.
        \_ Yes, we all know that.  Democrats are really really really smart
           and Republicans are really really really dumb.  You're also good
           while we're all evil.  You are the smartest, most beautiful, best
           educated, correct thinking, most well spoken, and closer to God
           than (well ok not that since you don't believe in one) us.  We are
           moronic bible thumping mouth breathing pig fucking red necks
           (thanks to the wall on election night for that line) while you are
           the peak of billions of years of the evolutionary process.  Since
           you got crushed that must mean the world is just an evil place full
           of stupid and bad people.  Your only hope is to flee to Europe.  We
           shall miss you dearly.  With you gone, what will we laugh at?  The
           French are just too easy a target.  The Brits we feel sorry for.
           The Spanish are craven.  The Germans are beneath contempt.  And the
           rest don't add up to enough to fill a piss bucket.  Please excuse
           me while I go knock a pig unconcious with a bible so I can give it
           a good old fashioned Republican fucking.  Maybe in 4 years you'll
           learn to treat the opposition as something more than subhuman and
           actually get some votes from those people.  I doubt it.
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34708 Activity:high
11/4    Glitch gave Bush 3893 extra votes in Ohio. A technician from
        the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election
        Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the
        \_ Assuming the election was by and large fair, as liberals and
           conservatives have asserted, such glitches would on average affect
           both Kerry and Dubya votes, such that a > 130,000-vote win would
           be well outside the margin of error.
           Anyways, IMO, WHY THE FUCK do we have voting machines which don't
           leave a paper trail?  Liberals are just standing around scratching
           their heads trying to figure out whether THEY were fucking with
           the exit polls; or that the original exit polls were right and they
           GOT FUCKED by e-voting machines, with no real evidence either way.
           \_ I think the simple answer is that politicians of all stripes
              are retarded about technology.  They think that more expensive
              and complicated is always better.  And since the folks who make
              expensive machines pay for their campaigns, they tend to listen
              to them.  That's why NIST needs to start a division to deal
              with the problem of voting device accuracy.   If we had formal
              standards for what constitutes an accurate, reliable voting
              machine, then politicans, companies and the public could
              actually talk about this rationally instead of all the shouting
              we have today.
                \_ The reasons are numerous (listened to a program about it)
                   but I think the primary reason is the revolving door between
                   the makers of the voting machines and the voting
                   commissions, and that the opinions of the companies selling
                   the equipment are crowding out common sense.  And why oh
                   why should there be any laws that make it difficult to
                   verify election results?  There can be no reason for it
                   unless you wanted to hide fraud!
        \_ Omaha, Nebraska is a godamn redneck place.
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34691 Activity:nil
11/5    Electoral vote map by County:
        \_ http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg
2004/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:34685 Activity:very high
11/04   Holy Jeebus.  The CDN dollar hit $0.83 today.
        \_ where's a good site to see exchange rates plotted as a function of
           \_ http://finance.yahoo.com/currency?u
        \_ Move your assets into something non-US dollar denominated. I did
           so two years ago and have doubled the S&P gain each year. The
           dollar is in for a mighty drop soon.
           \_ What has it been doing other than dropping?! Soon, indeed.
              \_ You ain't seen nothing yet.
                 \_ What is the timeframe for an Argentina-style currency
                    crisis?  Would it take 5 to 10 years or could it happen
                    more quickly?
           \_ Why do you think it will drop more?  It's dropped a lot already
              in the last three months. -ignoramus
              \_ Short answer: The Economist says so.
                 Long answer: huge and unsustainable budget deficit,
                 ditto with the trade deficit, an administration that
                 refuses to admit that this is a problem and in fact
                 intends to borrow even more, a Japan and China growing
                 weary of financing it, a real competing currency
                 (The Euro) for the world to put its capital into.
                 \_ How did the dollar do when confronted with
                    Reaganomics? The dollar is falling because the US
                    wants it to fall. It makes it easier to pay back the
                    $$$ we borrowed. We'll prop it up when we're ready.
                    \_ nah, it's the chinese and japanese who've been
                       propping it up, and they are the only ones who
                       can continue to prop it up.  Dollar falling
                       ain't bad, makes our products more competitive.
                       US dollar once went down to 1.4 Singapore dollar,
                       then bounce back up to 1.84 Singapore dollar
                       during the gogo internet years, now it is at
                       1.67.  I think it will fall back to 1.4 or lower
                       in the next year or two.
                       \_ Products more competitive? Hello, McFly.  We're
                          running a HUGE trade deficit, which the dollar's
                          fall has done nothing to help.  Currency crisis
                          here we come, although I happen to think it won't
                          really hit hard until W is out of office.
                 \_ Don't forget the international dollar glut and Russia
                    moving to Euros for intl. oil payments.  -John
           \_ One way to bet that the dollar will fall is to buy
              an international short term bond fund like BEGBX
              (some international bond fund are hedged to eliminate
               exchange rate changes vs the dollar, but not this
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34664 Activity:kinda low
11/4    If the Bush campaign is indeed using the churches to GOTV, why the
        fuck do they have tax-exempt status?
        \_ Don't most political organizations have tax exempt status as
           non-profits anyway?
           \_ My donation to MoveOn was not tax-deductible, if that's what
              you mean.
        \_ Churches don't formally endorse politicians.  At any rate, black
           churches are also a huge democratic source of votes.
           \_ This is no longer as true as you might think.
           \_ churches are no longer a huge democratic source of votes.
            Blacks, especially apathetic ones, just don't go. And
            they don't seem to give a damn. New black voter turnout
            was proportionally the LOWEST of all ethnic groups. Kerry
            pretty much counted on them and took them for granted, not
            realizing how much they've changed.
        \_ And every election there is video of the Dem candidate openly
           campaigning INSIDE A CHURCH.  Why do THEY have tax-exempt status?
           \_ During a service or not?  The clergy are very careful to say
              everything up to but not including, "Vote for So-n-so."  As
              long as they do this, they are not in violation of their tax-
              free status.  This was covered in great detail by CBS, NPR, and,
              frightneningly enough, the Daily Show.
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34656 Activity:high
11/04   alright, some final thoughts for any interested... dont think i can
        bear to keep this up much longer, so....
        \_ I did something similar in Nevada.  I should have stayed
           home and purchased cocaine. - danh
        \_ Well, thanks for getting all those people out to vote.
        \_ You poor besieged intelligent people, surrounded by idiots as you
           are.  Give me a fucking break.
           \_ A huge percentage of Bush supporters still believe that Saddam
              Hussein had WMD and helped UBL to take down the WTC, and you
              don't understand why intelligent people might feel surrounded
              by idiots? --erikred
           \_ I was unable to parse this...
              \_ I think the problem lies with you, not the sentence above.
              \_ Welcome to Motd-land.
           \_ The Democrats keep thinking that, and they're never break out
              of their loser niche.  Me, I'll take a guy who goes to work
              everyday and manages to put food on the table every night over
              a Soda "intellectual" any day of the week.
              \_ Fuck you in the eye.  I do that and I voted for the Democrat.
                 You're just countering one stereotype with another.
                 \_ Tell me you make $35k a year with a wife and kids and then
                    you'll have my apology.
                    \_ What the fuck does that have to do with anything?  I'm
                       not the person calling everyone an idiot...
                    \_ This has got to be a troll.
                 \_ And BTW my comment is aimed at rory's lament about "me and
                    the rest of the (intelligent people) left in this country".
                    I wonder how many of rory's poor huddled masses can take
                    a vacation to Florida to entertain a political masturbation
                    whim.  Just give me the guy who's working hard to feed
                    the family and spare me that "poor intellectual me" lament.
                    \_ So voluntary participation in a get-out-the-vote effort
                       is a "political masturbation whim"? -- ulysses
                       \_ seriously. while the pp was probably home on a literal
                          masturbation whim to ascii pron some of us were out
                          volunteering to try and inform and mobilize people
                          in a way we believe to be beneficial for all. i wont
                          deny that there is a certain psychological element
                          that derives some pleasure from "doing good" although
                          that exists in the 30% of evangelicals in our country
                          just as much. i took 2 days vacation from work which
                          i dont think you could consider such an extreme
                          privelage either. and the trip was paid for from
                          donations around the country. and if you consider
                          donating to a liberal cause a privelage as well,
                          perhaps you should look into the percentage of
                          christian americans across the socioeconomic spectrum
                          tithing their wages.          - rory
                    \_ Yeah, rory is pretty much being an unfavorable caricature
                       of a CA liberal. -- ilyas
                       \_ well replace CA with "CA/NY" and you've pretty much
                          nailed my target audience, so no doubt that I'm taking
                          certain liberties with formality in an effort to be
                          bit more humorous to them. I could have replaced
                          "intelligent" perhaps with some description of those
                          us left with the privelage of being well-informed
                          enough to vote for the best interests of ourselves
                          and the majority of the nation.
                          Though I do agree that the image of the left in this
                          country as intellectual is damaging for progress and
                          not true... if I didnt crack myself up with that
                          parenthetical witicism I'd probably remove/correct
                          the stmt.     - rory
        \_ all that bickering and name calling is the exact reason
           why the Republicans kicked our ass.
        \_ rory, you and the DNC are brain dead. While you're busy
           knocking doors on apathetic negros, the RNC only had to
           make a few phone calls to church pastors to get hundreds
           of people to vote for Bush. Total stupidity. I've lost
           faith in DNC, a bunch of unorganized hippies  -disillusioned
           \_ uh, well I appreciate the anon insult and the hyperbole...
              just keepin it real on tha motd I guess. anyway...
              (1) I am neither a hippie nor a DNC organizer, so I cant
              take any credit for that.
              (2) I agree that the DNC needs to focus on religion instead
              of random attempts to get the msg across. I'm currently of
              the opinion that the primary reason for the recent GOP
              success is the artifical conflation of various social issues
              with Christian values and the effective hijacking of the
              religious "right" by Karl Rove, et al.            - rory
              p.s. - out of all my current frustration my current plan is to
              exert a bit of energy in working on this as much as I can. If
              would like to stop frothing on the motd and do something about
              it as well feel free to email me.
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:34654 Activity:high
11/4    With all the garbage about "liberal" vs. "conservative" (both horrible
        misnomers) floating around, I seriously am trying to find out if/where
        I fit into the political spectrum.  I've put together a list in
        ~john/politics.txt am curious about what the MOTD peanut gallery
        thinks.  -John
        \_ I look at that list and see a strong modern left position.  And
           I suspect it pretty much mirrors a lot of what us commie pinko
           socialist bleeding heart liberal scum on soda beleive in. Modern
           "liberals" (whatever the fuck that means) are not the same thing
           they were 40 years ago, but are still stuck being painted that way.
           For Europe you are probably pretty middle of the road, but in
           America you'd be a flaming liberal.  So sad.
        \_ huh.  I agree with you on all points you list, and I consider myself
           to be a liberal.  I think that's out of step with what most people
           call a liberal, but fuck them.  I believe that these principles
           coincide with what liberalism is supposed to be.
        \_ You have contradictory requirements.  First, you wish for low taxes,
           but then you also want to fund a moderate liberal agenda (keep the
           poor off the streets, good public education, etc).  You have to
           choose what is more important to you, low (and in particular
           progressive or no) taxes, or the nifty stuff you want to buy with
           taxes.  As described, you would be called a centrist, somewhat
           left of center, or a moderate liberal, in this country.  You are
           probably somewhat right of center in EU. -- ilyas
        \_ here's an idea: if you can't explain the views of one side without
           making them look like evil morons (ex: the conservative view
           below), then you don't hold that political philosophy.
        \_ I applaud your rigorousness, but I strongly suggest you frame
           this in specific, in-your-face examples.
           Iraq - liberal view:  America should have waited for Blix to finish
           Iraq - conservative view:  America was right to use its military
           superiority to remove Saddam, even if he had no WMDs and even if
           we don't have a track record of building a democracy in a country
           like Iraq, and it's worth the cost of innocent Iraqi and American
           lives that we are directly responsible for.
           Consensus view:  If you have WMDs, we produce a smoking gun, and
           we think you may take us out or blackmail us, we'll take you out.
           Social security - liberal view:  As-is progressive system where
           rich contribute more relatively to help out poor
           Social security - conservative view:  Give everyone IRAs, if you're
           poor when you're young and working, you're still poor when you
           retire.  Sorry!  America is the land of OPPORTUNITY, not handouts!
           Consensus view:  It shouldn't be as bad as Western Europe.
           \-i think your list is sort of "bottom up" ... here is what i
             think about 10 issues ... what do i fit into best ... rather than
             a "top down" view which would take as it's starting point some
             kind of "big question" like "what is the purpose of govt" or
             "what do we owe each other" and have more of an essay form of
             answer [or if we take the essay to the extreme, you get say
             nozick: anarchy, state and utopia, or rawls: a theory of justice].
             also a lot of the "hard questions" involves aspects of process ...
             like the role of money in politics, what should be civil penalty
             vs criminal [say a company pollutes] ... so in your list is it
             not clear what should happen to the "victims" of free trade,
             not much on health care ... and without some kind of "philosophy"
             it's hard to guess where you would come down on issues not
             explicitly delineated. it's not clear to me why you believe in
             public education, for example. oh your list is also subject to
             the a sort of wilt chamberlain problem [where you have initial
             condition you like, but nothing prevents things from evolving in
             a direction you dont like ... without an encroachment on liberty
             you also dont like ... you can look up "wilt chamberlain nozick"
             on the WEEB probably]. --psb
             \_ Good points, thanks for the critique.  That list was just a
                sort of brain dump in reaction to "issues" discussed during
                the election.  I have a sort of naive assumption that someone
                who stands for election would possess the kind of intelligence
                and flexibility that would let them adapt to changing
                conditions;  I am wary of platforms or grand sweeping
                documents that go too much into detail (see the US vs.
                European constitutions).  As for W. Europe vs. US social
                security, they're both bad and in the shits, but at least the
                W. Europeans are getting something from it right now :) -John
             \_ Well, I've always thought that if you can't explain it to
                a four-year-old, you don't really understand it.  I'm taking
                this approach.  Why theory-build when you don't need to?
                \-because a complicated society involves hard questions.
                  the simple theories like "strict constructionalism" either
                  have limited power, or arent as simple as they pretend to be.
                  know any 4yrs old who can follow say the federalist papers?
                  how do you balance between minority and majority interests?
                  you cant just say "vote on everything". not only is there the
                  interest of minorities but problems like the arrow problem.
                  what about trade offs between equality and efficiency [see eg
                  arthur okun's essay by that name]? not all social choice is
                  pareto improving ... if it is kaldor-hicks efficient, how are
                  losers compensated? i think "can you explain X" is a decent
                  test of your understanding, but the 4 yr old test is setting
                  the bar a little low. books i've read which i find have some
                  bearing on this include: the republic, dworkin: taking rights
                  seriously, cardozo: nature of the judicial process, bickel:
                  the least dangerous branch [no, the bible isnt on this list].
                  \_ You're right, but at some point, as a citizen, you have
                     no choice but to abstract and simplify political
                     principles;  one of the major tasks of a government is
                     to outline a set of guiding philosophies, and to work
                     within these as much as possible, taking into account
                     "operational realities".  Simple, 4-year-old statements,
                     such as "wealth is good" and "crime is bad" are perfectly
                     valid; however, at some point it should become possible
                     for someone with an average level of education and
                     intelligence to identify and formulate some coherent
                     beliefs without the benefit of an in-depth knowledge
                     of political theory.  You pay your elected officials to
                     deal with the minutiae of making these work.  -John
                     \- sure, there are some guiding principles like: freedom
                        to contract, social safety net, coase theorem/learned
                        hand rule, checks and balances, stare decisis,
                        federalism, due process, equality before the law ...
                        but entire books have been written on the single word
                        "equality" [http://csua.org/u/9sw] so again while
                        these are useful tools to have in your mental cabinet
                        with which to analyze problems like prop 187, they
                        are not simple tools. people who use one or two of
                        these has hammers and reduce problems nails [like
                        most libertarians] are falling short of the reflective
                        ideal, imho. curiously, some of the issues most people
                        would see as the most inherently moral questions, i
                        see as pretty empirical, like abortion and the death
                        penalty. i think another interesting and hard question
                        is "what is the role of govt outside of solving
                        'problems'" ... like why should there be a NASA ...
                        clearly NASA is not as "practical" as DARPA. if there
                        is one question for conservatives: what should be the
                        limits of the freedom to contract, and for liberals:
                        how would i justify progressive taxation. aff. action
                        is also a rich topic for debate ... also not something
                        clearly address in your list [metatopics being: how
                        do you trade individual rights for social agendas,
                        are there 'group rights' etc]. --psb
                        \_ I think the limits of the freedom of contract should
                           be the death of the individual (to prevent
                           feudalism).  [ I had some other stuff here, but I
                           removed it, because I realized the problem is harder
                           than it looks.  I want to say that the individual
                           should be free to sell his life however he wishes,
                           but I am not sure I can bite the bullet on the
                           ensuing ick.] One nifty argument for
                           progressive taxation I heard is that the rich make
                           a more effective use of the money they have,
                           because they have more of it, and so in some sense
                           a proportional tax isn't really fair. -- ilyas
                \_ i don't know a lot about this stuff and i really hate
                   encouraging you, but is there a first world nation with
                   a flat tax besides Iraq?
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34644 Activity:nil
11/3    We underestimated rednecks. Now what?
        \_ No -- we chose a candidate that no R or conservative would EVER
           vote for.  Time to start playing a smarter game in the primaries.
           \_ I pray the Dems put up someone reasonable next time, and I
              pray the Republicans can get someone better than Bush.
              But they probably learned the wrong lesson. -voted for Bush.
              \_ I suspect the R can't put up Cheney in 08, so who then?
                 McCain or Powell, I'd vote for (as a D/I).  Frist?  Lord,
                 I hope not.  If all D can put forward is Obama or La Clinta,
                 then it's going to be a pretty one sided race.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34639 Activity:very high
11/3    I'm seeing an argument around the net today that seems strangely
        compelling.  I think the most viable argument for blue states may
        be to start arguing strongly for federalism and states rights.
        The red states can have their theocracies, so long as they don't
        interfere with what the blue states want for themselves.  Less
        centralized federal government, less transfer of resources between
        states, and more equitable distribution of federal resources such
        as they would be constituted.  It would be a very uphill battle, but
        it strikes me as the only rational response.  What's really scary
        is that this is precisely the argument that led to the Civil War.
        \_ Do you even understand what you're saying?  It is only a strong
           Federal system that allowed the Civil Rights Movement to break  the
           evil (D)emocratic South/KKK.  It is only a strong Federal system
           that allows a poorly written legal opinion like Roe v. Wade to make
           abortion a nation wide right instead of each State being allowed to
           decide the issue for itself.  Same thing for a number of other
           issues I'm sure are close to your heart such as environmental laws,
           work place protection, health standards, OSHA, etc.  Calm down, stop
           reading the net for a week and *think* about what you're saying.
           Stop *feeling*.
        \_ good luck. Bush said he's gonna screw stem cell research,
           reduce abortion, and use YOUR tax money on programs like
           abstenence in public schools. And I pledge allegiance
           to the United States, under God...
           \_ The sheer horror of a reduced numbers of abortions, abstinence
              instead of random sex, and only 25 million in FED. FUNDED
              embryonic stem cells.  What is this country coming to?
        \_ Yay, decentralization, ho!  Maybe those crazy libertarians aren't
           as evil as they seem. -- ilyas
           \_ Most people don't think libertarians are evil or stupid.  They
              think they just oversimplify things.  Often, to simplify is
              to falsify.
           \_ I never thought they were evil, just a little naive.  Am I
              making a libertarian argument here?  I'm not arguing that the
              individual states should be libertarian - I'm sure the reds
              would want plenty of authoritarian power over people's personal
              lives, and I can imagine some blues wanting more socialized
              medicine etc. etc.  More power to them.  But it is clear that
              this nation is coming unglued, and we need to reach an
              equitable compromise.  The California stem cell law (which was
              flawed and which I opposed for various reasons) is one example
              of what could be possible.
              \_ Your argument is driven by practical considerations, but at
                 its core, and driven to its logical conclusion, it is
                 a libertarian argument.  If you have your way and the
                 federal gvt loses its former prominence, what's to stop
                 the recursion from proceeding further?  What if some
                 besieged county decides it wants more local power from
                 the state gvt, etc.  Libertarians are very happy to
                 see power localize in the communities. -- ilyas
              \_ I think your historical appreciation of US politics is
                 \_ Prepare to be deported to Jesusland.
                 \_ Elaborate.
              \_ I think it's pretty obvious the Dems can't handle being
                 out of power.  Dems have controlled congress for, what,
                 50-100 years?  Now that power has shifted you're all
                 running around screaming about how the world is going to
                 end if we don't put you back in power.  Newsflash:
                 Democrat != Ruling Elite.  When Dem's were in power,
                 centalized goverment was good, now it's bad.  Go fig.
                 \_ Wow.  You're so partisan it's a little sickening.
                    NEITHER party wants to be out of power and both will
                    kick and scream like a stuck pig when deprived.
                    Attributing that to D as though it's unique to them and
                    sets them apart from R is just silly.  You've really
                    not been paying attention outside of the Rightwing echo
                    chambers/spin machine if you think it can be so easily
                    reduced to that.  I think mainly it's not about being
                    out of power as it's about a damaged, morally bankrupt
                    presidency that really has almost NOTHING in 4 years
                    that it can point to as a success.  This is what got
                    reelected.  Once the emotion dies down, and all the
                    recriminations and stupid gloating ease back, what's
                    going to be found is that D couldn't field a candidate
                    that had appeal to anyone other than other D's....which
                    led to a less ideal presidency being reelected since
                    the opposing view was unable to field anything better.
                    It's emarrassing for the D's, but really has little to
                    do with your infantile and absurdly facile 'analysis'.
                    Rise above your party's spin, kid -- that's what your
                    education is supposed help you with; critical reasoning
                   \_ "Kid" funny insult from a guy who can't even
                       remember back to 1995.
                       \_ Your contentless reply only goes to confirm my
                          opinion of you.  Here, have a lollipop.
                 \_ Did I say I was a Democrat?  I'm concerned about the
                    divide in the country and ways to solve it.
                    \_ I never said you were.
                       \_ Actually, your post rather strongly implied that.
                          \_ Your post strongly implied you were.  So
                             we're even.
                             \_ Uhm, seeing as you're replying to my first
                                post to this subthread, I'm forced to conclude
                                that you're an imbecile.
                                \_ Because you sign your post so everyone
                                   knows when YOU'RE posting huh?
                                   \_ Okay, fine.  We're BOTH imbeciles.
                                      \_ yeah.
                                         \_ Well, good!
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34636 Activity:high
11/3    A logical plan for secession: http://house.style.net/usa.jpg
        \_ "God Bless Our Gra-cious Queen ......"
        \_ Looks like Iowa will go to Jesusland instead of USC.
n       \_ At first glance I thought the green part reads "Jerusaland".
        \_ At first glance I thought the green part reads "Jerusaland".
        \_ We'll have to get rid of that "we stand on God for thee" part. -tom
        \_ Ah yes. We should ethically cleanse the rednecks out of Indiana
           and Ohio first though. We don't want to drive through Jesusland to
           get to Michigan. We could let them have half of Indiana... they
           need the Brickyard for their NASCAR activities.
        \_ Your man lost.  Get over it.  Keep in mind that CA voted 55/45, not
           \_ Well, keep in mind your man won by only about 150k votes in
              Ohio, so let's not all kid ourselves.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34627 Activity:moderate
11/3    Historically, what is the longest duration which we had a
        republican president? what about democratic?
        \_ see
        \_ see : http://tinyurl.com/5hna3
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34626 Activity:nil
11/3    BTW, fellow liberal hosers:
        The number one problem we have is the image of the "liberal elite":
        Unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, rich, not hard-working
        and lounging at sushi bars (thanks psb for that latter idea),
        saying and believing anything to win the election (gay marriage?),
        valuing spotted owls above jobs, being critical instead of optimistic,
        and not supporting our soldiers.
        (I'm stressing "image" of the liberal elite.  I am not saying this
        is how it actually is ... if you don't know what I'm talking about,
        do two things.  (1) Watch Team America: World Police.  (2) Read this
        thread:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269267/posts
        \_ I did a study 1998-ish where I tried to talk to the occupant of
           any house that sported an American flag.  Most of them are
           initially surprised by my knocking on their door, but they became
           quite talkative once I explained myself.  Out of 23 houses that
           I visited in Northern California (mainly around the Peninsula)
           and in suburban Boston (around Wilmington and Norwood), 21 self-
           identified as Republican.  The other 2 households were around
           Boston and were Pats fans.  This has no scientific value, but I
           thought the result was interesting nevertheless.
        \_ I disagree. It's a combination of uncharismatic leaders, the
           image of giving free stuff to poor "welfare queens" etc. and
           the abortion/gays/guns/god stuff. Culturally, John and Teresa
           are out of step with regular people, just the way they talk.
           A guy like Clinton had much better rapport with people.
           \_ Yeah, I also wanted to add "out of touch with the average
              American" to the list.  Remember, it's the perception of
              what a liberal is.  All those freeper posts about how happy
              the libs lost -- they are talking about this image. -op
              \_ bullshit.  the liberals tend to lose because of pussies like
                 you.  do you think that if bush lost, they'd all be sighing
                 on the freeper boards about how their extremist rightwing
                 religious agenda is out of the mainstream?  of course not.
                 they'd be shaking their fists over it, and demanding blood
                 in 2008.
                 \_ Whatever you say man. -op
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34623 Activity:moderate
11/3    If the deficit continues at the current rate, what would it imply?
        I mean, what does all the deficit really means?
        \_ Deficit/surplus as a percentage of GDP:
           1976, -4.2%
           1983, -6%
           1992, -4.7%
           2003, -3.5%
           \_ Any figures for national debt as % of GDP?
           \_ Looks like we'll have to raise taxes to get out it.
              \_ Taxes were coming regardless of who won the election.  The
                 question is who is going to get taxed.  Kerry would have taxed
                 the rich.  Bush will likely gut the EITC among other things.
                 \_ One of the problems with taxing the rich that
                    raising taxes often just makes them put their money
                    in shelters, which doesn't help the economy OR tax
                    revenues.  Notice how Kerry's wife only pays 15% of
                    her income in taxes?
                    \_ Shhh... We're not supposed to talk about Teresa.
              \_ Raise taxes or pray for the economy to get hot, but
                 unfortunately the current bunch in Washington is religious.
                 However, we've clearly been here before, and the chicken
                 littles are likely overstating their case.
              \_ Nah, we'll just keep borrowing until total collapse.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34616 Activity:kinda low
11/3    Bush first president since Bush Sr. to win > 50% of popular vote:
        (article written in 2000)
        \_ uh, so it was Bush Sr. > 50%, then Clinton < 50%, then Bush Jr.
           Term 1 < 50%, now Bush Jr Term 2 > 50%?
           \_ yes
              \_ What about Clinton Term 2?
                 \_ Clinton got < 50% of popular.  See infoplease link below.
        \_ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34608 Activity:nil
11/3    So much for the youth vote. Hahahahahaa.. Have fun in Canada, eh?
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34595 Activity:nil
11/2    Bush 57.4 mil, Kerry 53.7 mil popular vote. How is this
        even close? A difference of over 3 mil vote is, in my mind,
        winning in a landslide. This is just pathetic.
        \_ Well, it's 3%.  You know, like 51% to 48%.  They start thinking
           about "landslide" when it's 5% or more.  That's just how it is.
           Imagine the 3-4 million votes in the City of Los Angeles deciding
           the fate of the nation.  There you go.
           \- come on, this is a product of the "objective function"
              which was to win in the EC ... kerry didnt and shouldnt have
              been trawling for a couple of more percent of the CA or
              NY vote. note: i also thought the ALGOR people were foolishly
              whining about the popular vote in 2000 ... it is one thing to
              say "this is a good reason to get rid of the EC" but given what
              the rules were, this is like claming the wimbledon winner
              lost on games although he won on sets was robbed. --psb
              \_ Well, I think the Dems were more pissed that the Supreme
                 Court stopped the recount when there were good reasons
                 that it should have left it to the Florida Supreme Court.
                 Then again the Dems erred morally and legally by
                 asking only for recounts in Dem-heavy counties.
        \_ A landslide is what Reagan had.  This is still historically close.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:34593 Activity:nil
11/3    What an election: What I do know is that this has been
        one hell of a slam bang election season.
        Tony Blankley worked for Newt Gingrich and is editor
        of Wash. Times
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34589 Activity:nil
11/2    Fuck looks like Prop 69 is going to pass.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34582 Activity:high
11/2    Democratic soul-searching begins now:  NY Times op-ed piece
        "The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted
        Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to
        get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them
        economically." ... Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge,
        and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own
        working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.
        \_ I find the comment that comes up time and time again, about poor
           southern whites voting 'against their self-interest' revealing.
        \_ yeah, tax breaks for billionaires.. totally dead-on!
           \_ isn't this true?  You know, with the vast majority of the tax
              break going to the $200K+ bracket, the removal of the dividend
              tax, the removal of the inheritance tax?
              Well, to be accurate, it should say "millionaires and up".
              \_ It is true, but it misses the point.  Is it not possible to
                 vote against one's direct self-interest because, perhaps,
                 principles are involved?  A libertarian might accept a higher
                 tax rate because he believes a flat tax is fairer than
                 progressive tax.  Why is this so incomprehensible?  -- ilyas
                 \_ Um, someone moved my post.  My post was in response to
                    "tax breaks for billionaires".
                    Anyways, who says I didn't comprehend what you just wrote,
                    My post was meant to convey the FACT that most of the
                    tax breaks are going to the rich -- not the rightness
                    of it, which is different for every person, as you've
                    \_ Not you.  I was talking about the author of the article,
                       and his seeming incomprehesion of southern voting
                       patterns 'against their interest.'  This is a common
                       complaint from liberal circles, and I find it odd.
                       Those guys down south don't live in the same 'fight
                       for a piece of the public pie by any means necessary'
                       world as you do. (again I don't necessarily mean 'you').
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ the article is quite clear that it is talking
                          about poor, rural voters voting against their
                          "economic interest", which means the rich get more
                          money, the poor get comparatively less -- for the
                          short-term at least.  It's a point of debate whether
                          a less progressive tax system works long-term.
                          It is also quite clear that the author believes
                          these voters are voting for their "social self-
                          interest" (my quotes on that one), which is voting
                          their values -- such as no gay marriage for queers.
                          their values.
                 \_ Ok how is a flat tax "fairer"? no one is forcing you to
                    earn more. If you believe an income tax is fair in the
                    first place then what's the big deal with progressive?
                    If it's too high you just don't work, and have a lot more
                    free time. If it's too high you're probably screwing your
                    economy. But that's a separate issue than fairness.
                    For example, a high tax on income over $1m/y wouldn't
                    truly hamper anybody's "pursuit of happiness", and would
                    be fair: anyone earning that much gets that tax.
                    \_ Look we are not going to have a long ass ranty
                       discussion about a flat tax, ok.  For most people,
                       in most contexts, fairness = proportionality.  Fairness
                       != proportionality only if you are in magical liberal
                       taxland.  -- ilyas
                       \_ proportional? not proportional to services used,
                          not even a flat tax does that. so it's already
                          unfair in that sense. once you're there, i'm arguing
                          there's no "moral" difference going to progressive.
                          \_ *sigh*  If you want proportionality for services
                             used, charge for them directly.  This argument is
                             stupid.  You are not convincing me, and I am not
                             convincing you (nor am I particularly interested,
                             as far as I am concerned CA liberals can rot in a
                             hell of their own devising, I am getting out of
                             here first chance I get). -- ilyas
                             \_ Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
                                This argument is no more stupid than your usual
                                motd rantings. You just refuse to see outside
                                your chosen worldview. I suppose CA's liberal
                                hell is why so many people have been coming
                                here. Why are you here anyway? Using our
                                subsidized university system? Shouldn't you
                                already be out in Georgia Tech or something?
                                Oh wait that's public too... ok, Duke.
                                \_ I think your next line is to complain about
                                   me using the phone system and the freeways.
                                   This conversation is SO over. -- ilyas
                                   \_ Not quite.  While you might not be able
                                      to avoid using the freeways and phone
                                      system, there were plenty of private
                                      universities, including top tier ones,
                                      yet YOU CHOSE to attend the evil govt
                                      funded public school.  The free market
                                      provided you with alternatives, but
                                      YOU CHOSE to force all of us "at
                                      gunpoint" to pay for your education.
                                      Way to stand by your principles.
                                      \_ Sure, I can avoid using the phone and
                                         the freeway if I go become amish.
                                         Similarly, I go where I am accepted.
                                         Though a private school would probably
                                         be better, understand that all
                                         universities in the US, private or
                                         not, are heavily gvt subsidized, so
                                         the point is kind of moot.  Plus,
                                         I where they let me. -- ilyas
                                         I go where they let me. -- ilyas
                                         \_ Stay on topic: we're talking about
                                            your decision to attend a public
                                            university instead of a private
                                            one.  Are you saying that *no*
                                            private school would accept you?
                                            \_ No private school out of a
                                               reasonably large set to which
                                               I applied accepted me.  Again,
                                               because there is little moral
                                               difference of kind (only of
                                               degree) between a fully gvt
                                               funded school (UCLA), and a
                                               partially gvt funded school
                                               (Stanford) I don't really see
                                               your point.  It reduces to
                                               freeways.  -- ilyas
              \_ They only vote on abortion, anti-queer stuff, and whoever
                 thumps the most bible. They think this is their self interest.
                 They bang their cousins and mope around in their hick towns,
                 and send their kids to the army, why not vote Bush. Bush says
                 "y'all" and plays country music at the rallies.
                 \_ If you believe NPR; the Dems lost because the Reps
        were better able to motivative their base. This was especially
        true in Florida with the Christian Right ( Hah! What a &%*$
        oxymoron) who viewed this election as an actual war against
        their belief system; disturbingly similar to what all of those
        racist groups used to blather on about. Who would think that a
        country like ours could become more intolerant. The whole
        youth vote thing never materialized as expected; more due to
        apathy than anything else; according to at least some of the
        networks; something akin to only people who pay taxes are
        motivated to vote. Sad.. really really sad
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:34581 Activity:moderate
11/2    Why is Orange County so red? San Diego-- easy, a lot of dumb
        and patriotic servicemen. But Orange?
        \_ I am glad you can disparage those "dumb" serviceman with your
           freedom you owe them but hey, what can I expect from those
           selfish many who never served.
           \- i feel sorry for them ... i think they are being taken advantage
              of by BUSHCO, halliburton etc.
              \_ I'm glad they feel that way 1 out of 3 times. Don't forget
                 Halliburton was hailed by Clinton for their work in Kosovo.
                 Please, BTW, tell me just what other companies provide
                 the same services and take the same risks ?
                 \_ Bechtel.
                 \_ so, no bid contract is ok?
        \_ Rich, hard-working people live there.  Rich, hard-working people
           want smaller government, less taxes -- they don't want handouts for
           lazy poor people or higher taxes for inefficient govt bureaucracy.
                \-a recent study suggests there is more willingness to fund
                  social welfare programs when it is visibly and obviously
                  going to "people like you" ... that may in part explain why
                  some areas are more willing to have social welfare ... some
                  people are suggesting the support for social welfare programs
                  in europe is declining with brown people immigration.
                  also the OC people dont feel bound by principle to suck it
                  up when the "going isnt good" ... think state bailout
                  after OC investment fiasco. i think the OC is still the
                  largest municipal banruptcy in american history. --psb
                \_ Why would you vote for Bush if you wanted a smaller
                   \_ "Free Heathcare for Everyone!" answer your question?
                      \_ Do you even know what that plan entailed? FYI:
                         it didn't cover everyone. Providing basic health
                         insurance to those who can't get it from employers
                         doesn't require too much. Those people end up costing
                         money regardless, in emergency rooms for example.
2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34573 Activity:moderate
11/2    "If Bush wins, this country is filled with a lot more pigfucking
        inbred moronic loser bible-thumping assholes than I originally
        Mmm.  Tolerance.
        \_ That's just dumb anyway.  Sure, Bush is about to win solidly, but
           it's still within the margin of error of the polls we've all been
           watching for weeks, so where's the suprise?
        \_ The Dems will continue to struggle until they realize why some
           people see this as unjustified elitist bullshit. 'Know your
           enemy and keep him close.' --Kerry voter
           \_ Yeah I agree.  Watching wall tonight was both fun and revealing
              for me.  -- ilyas
              \_ 'Rednecks' in Louisiana voted for their first Republican
                 senator since Recontruction. Think about that next time
                 you call them 'pigfuckers'. California is the state that
                 voted for Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan!
                 \_ The 'Southern Democrat' isn't what you conceptualize as a
                    California or New York Democrat.  This statement shows that
                    you really don't much understand the South.
                    \_ The fact that Pete Wilson was a Republican senator
                       and later governor (who went to UC Berkeley!) shows
                       you don't understand anything at all. The very fact
                       that a Southern Democrat is different is the point
                       I am illustrating! Likewise, so is a California
                       Republican (see: Arnold). No one wants a New England
                       liberal! GWB is *soooo* much better than a Southern
                       Democrat, huh?
                 \- yes, i suppose in the edwin edwards vs david duke
                    they made the "right choice". however, a state that
                    nominates duke ...
        \_ Fuck you.  We will have 4 more years of this country going down
           the toilet that's why I walled that.  If seeing massive deficits
           with no end in sight, universal hatred of our country, erosion
           of civil liberties, weakening of environment protections, crony
           capitalism running amok, chaos and instability in the world, etc.,
           makes me "elitist" then you can call me that.  At least all the
           bad shit Bush is going to put into motion the next 4 years won't
           make me feel guilty since I didn't vote for him.  Plus I've got
           another country to move to if this whole deck of cards known as
           the US economy collapses. - eric
           the US economy collapses.   Oh BTWM, just for the record, I'm
           equally annoyed at the extremists on the other side, you know,
           the pseudo-intellectual surrender monkey pussies who think that
           the proper reaction to 9/11 was to send a basket of flowers to
           bin Laden and that we should give communism just one more chance
           ... It's just that there are a lot more of the former than the
           latter in this country, you know it's true - eric
           \_ Eric, don't take this the wrong way, but you come across as a
              ranty, intolerant, close-minded bigot.  That the liberal
              movement has come to be defined by people like you is why you
              lost at the polls yesterday, and why you will lose again and
                \_ Hey, I know I'm way out of the American mainstream, and
                   you can attack me personally if you wish.  But at least
                   give me some credit for caring about the state of the
                   \_ You may care about the country, but if you insult its
                      majority in the way you do, your care seems a little
                      cold and distant and abstract.  It's the people, not the
                      country, that are important.
                        \_ I never said the majority of the country were
                           "pigfucking inbred moronic loser bible-thumping
                            assholes" ... Although I do believe that group
                            is much more likely to vote Bush than Kerry.
                            is much more likely to vote Bush than Kerry. -eric
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34561 Activity:nil
11/2    So it took Bush less than 5 minutes to vote? wtf? It took me
        over 10 minutes just to read through all the questions. What did
        he do? Just voted for himself as the president and skipped the
        rest of the question? Does that sounds like someone qualifying
        to lead a country? Yeah, I stand firmly behind my 5 minute
        \_ Most states don't have a bunch of propositions on the ballot like
           CA always does.
        \_ Maybe you're just slow. It took me about 3-5 minutes to vote. What's to
           read? Props are yes/no and the rest is just finding the name you want
           on the ballot.
        \_ He had a cheat sheet.
           \_ Don't a lot of people write down their choices on the sample
              ballot before they get to the polls?
        \_ And how long did it take Kerry to vote?
           \_ 20 minutes.  He kept flip-flopping between himself and Nader.
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:34537, category id '18005#2.16825' has no name! , ] UID:34537 Activity:high
11/2    http://storage.nfshost.com/bush
        this was awesome
        \_ Post that to freeperland
        \_ if you like this then you'll like these:
           \_ Actually I found these boring, even though I liked the op's link
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:34532, category id '18005#8.1975' has no name! , ] UID:34532 Activity:high
11/2    Why Alaska's election matters:
        1) very very close U.S. senate race
        2) may soon become the first state where it is *totally* legal
           to grow, sell, use, and give away pot.
        \_ #2 is important because...?
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34528 Activity:kinda low 66%like:34249
11/2    VOTE!
        \_ Stay home if you're a clueless bastard that still has no idea
           what's going on after some of the most intensely active campaigning
           from both parties ever.
           \_ There's still time to learn enough to have some idea of who you'd
              prefer and vote.  Not that these people read the motd anyway.
              \_ At this point, on the morning of ED, they should just stay
                 home.  I don't care who they'd vote for.  Clueless people
                 should stay home.
                 \_ I hate to tell you this, but if clueless people stayed home,
                    the turnout would probably be in the 10 million or less
                    \_ I'm totally ok with that.  What's wrong with that?  Does
                       having lots of stupid people voting mean we get a better
                       \_ I don't think having a majority of overeducated,
                          self-important nitwits is all that desirable either,
                          you silly arrogant fuck.
                 \_ What about clueless people who made up their mind a long
                    time ago?
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34527 Activity:insanely high
11/2    Vote early.. vote often!  Let's hope this isn't true:
                      \_ you can vote more than once?
                         \_ No, they kill you after you vote.
        "Before voting even began in Philadelphia -- poll watchers found
        nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered throughout the
        city... One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St.,
        Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4
        machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly
        500... A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute,
        Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of
        day... INCIDENT: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION:
        7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia,
        Pa.; INCIDENT: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION:
        12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa... MORE...
        A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30,
        division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and
        surrounded the location..."
        \_ Source conveniently omitted.  So, has this been reported anywhere
           *other* than Drudge yet?  I notice that Drudge also doesn't bother
           to say where he got this information.  Maybe that's because he
           made it up...again.  http://www.drudgereport.com/vote1.htm
           \_ Yay, counterfactual Drudge strikes again!
        \_ It doesn't say who the votes were for?
        \_ http://www.drudgereport.com/vote1.htm is updated.  Kerry says it
           didn't happen at all.  Bush is suing.  Election official have an
           explanation for something that didn't happen.
           \_ Philadelphia city official says:
              "Recent press reports have stated that machines in at least one
              precinct were not properly calibrated to ensure an accurate
              accounting of the number of votes cast.
              "These allegations are completely unsubstantiated and have no
              factual basis whatsoever."
              \_ "Democratic party hack makes lame excuse: says sorry we got
                  busted and is now in major spin mode"
                  \_ Any "proof" besides the Drudge-i-nator?  He's not known for
                     his accuracy.
                     \_ Damn, dude, it's all over the place.  Point browser.
                        The question isn't whether or not something happened
                        but exactly what happened.
           \_ Woot! Kerry's adviser gives the motd response!
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34520 Activity:nil
11/1    Why is the media so obsessed with the national polls when it is the
        electoral votes that decide the outcome?
        \_ obBanTheElectoralCollege, obItsARepublicNotADemocracyStupid!
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34517 Activity:moderate
11/01   if i put in Chimp for pres, does GWB get the vote?
        \_ In florida? Probably.
           \_ Not if they're black or not smart enuff to use a butterfly ballot
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34515 Activity:nil
11/1    http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm
        CA to be safe?
        \_ Based on a rather biased translation of UBL's speech.  Cf.
           houris as grapes instead of maidens, and maiden instead of
           virgin in certain religious works.
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34509 Activity:low
11/1    I haven't received the big book about election, you know, the one
        that talks about all the measures and things that I am suppose to
        vote on. Do they have one at the voting place? Is the info online?
        Can I just vote Kerry and be done with it? (ie, skip the rest?)
        \_ For the state props, see http://www.ss.ca.gov
           For your local props/candidates google:
           <your county> registrar of voters  They may have candidate
           statements and info on the local propositions.
        \_ http://www.smartvoter.org
        \_ Are you sure you're registered?  They screwed me once.
2020/01/28 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 601 - 750 of 1361   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California: [Arnold(228) | Prop(52) ]