| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/27 |
| 2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32583 Activity:nil |
7/29 John Kerry will rip off your head and shit down your neck. |
| 2004/7/29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32568 Activity:nil |
7/29 Hmmm...so CNN, the "evil liberal network," immediately followed up
Edwards speech with 15 minutes of Ralph Reed basically saying whatever
he felt like. How likely do you think it is that they'll give us 15
minutes of Howard Dean after Cheney's speech during the RNC...I'm not
laying any bets...
\_ You get hours every night. 15 minutes? Pshaw! If only we
could get 15 free minutes a month instead of each 4 years.
\_ Heh. You haven't watched any of the convention coverage have
you? CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the lot have been an
embarrassment. C-SPAN is the standard. Now here's the part
where you call C-SPAN an evilllllll socialist plot, or perhaps
a tool of the international Jewish conspiracy. |
| 11/27 |
| 2004/7/29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32567 Activity:high |
7/29 What was wrong with the links about the anti Kerry vets and
the failure of diplomacy in the Iran nukes thing? Please restore
what you destroyed for no reason.
\_ eat shit, wiseass
\_ Criticisms of our New Fearless Leader will not be tolerated. |
| 2004/7/29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32560 Activity:insanely high |
7/29 'Hanoi John' Gets Unwelcome Reception From Veterans
http://csua.org/u/8dk
\_ it's my buddies at the MRC! http://csua.org/u/8dl
\_ Do you mean 'cbsnews'? Is it the part of the article where
it talks about Kerry going sailing with his Vietnam buddies?
Or is it the part of your link that you failed to wrap around
correctly? A secret code, Lassie? Tell us! Give us your
insight, mighty Socrates! -John
\_ somebody deleted the shortened URL. Its ok.
\_ you deleted the fact i pointed out the Media Research Council
is behind this link, fucking coward.
\_ I think you overestimate your importance. The whole thread
was deleted so I reposted the link.
\_ Hmm, some veterans don't like Kerry, but some do. It's not too
hard to find groups of vets who don't like 'Riyadh George', |
| 2004/7/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32557 Activity:nil |
7/28 Hi, I'm John Edwards and I want to give you money from the
US treasury so you will vote for me. I want to encourage
racial unity by discriminating against whites and asians!
Hope is on the way!
\- I am also a fully evolved human, not a semi-simian
meatpuppet nor an evil cyborg operating out of a hidden
secret base.
\_ versus you would only get money from the US treasury if
I make more than $200,000 a year?
\_ w00t! w00t! hurray! |
| 2004/7/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32553 Activity:insanely high |
7/28 Since the convention began, so far I haven't seen Kerry tough or
decisive, as much as Bill, Al, Barack, or Teresa like to say so.
Every time they bring up his wartime duty, I think of his coming
back a brooding Vietnam vet, today past his prime, somewhat
flabbergasted he managed the Democratic nomination. With Dubya as
his (arguably) pathetic adversary, he has yet to demonstrate
toughness or decisiveness to me. -a liberal
\_ Conservative point of view: I was soooo glad Dean lost the race.
Kerry is one of the only people on the planet Bush could have
beat. You guys went with the boring old guard nothing guy and
now you're stuck trying to fluff his ancient Vietnam record into
a Presidency. With 19 years in the Senate, how come his short
time in Vietnam is the only thing we ever hear about? Because
he didn't do jack for 19 years in the Senate. Can someone name
a major piece of legislation with his name on it or the really
bad piece of legislation he lead the fight to burying? Kerry
is a nobody. All the talk from the left is anti-Bush, not
pro-Kerry because Kerry has nothing going for him. Dean worried
me because he had brains, passion, and balls. If you had kept
Dean and he learned to tone it down slightly you'd probably get
8 years. Now you only get another shot at it in '08 with that
silly woman of all people.
\_ It's too bad the MOTD is anonymous, since this is almost
certainly the same guy who was saying Dean is unelectable back
in January. -tom
\_ *sigh* I agree with your analysis completely. -another liberal
\_ Well, I supported Dean but I'm not convinced about the win/lose
situation. Dean was a wildcard, with his grassroots funding and
anti-Washington talk he could energize lots of people. But seeing
Dean get destroyed by the concerted attacks in the primaries it's
reasonable to think that Kerry would be safer. After all, they
take for granted that the "energized" voters will transfer to
Kerry anyway (a somewhat dangerous assumption... by November the
generic Bush-bashing angle may get old and then you're left with
a guy who like Gore doesn't seem different enough). Dean would
have been a wildcard since his talk about repealing tax cuts and
the antiwar stuff was easy to attack in soundbites, and required
multiple-sentence explanations that only satisfy intellectuals.
The dem party is not comfortable with a clear antiwar message.
They're mostly avoiding the topic now. Things are pretty much
as people predicted before the primaries. -moderate
\_ The 'safe' choice is usually a bad choice in politics. It
really means useless boring autocrat like Kerry who can
only get elected if his weak opposition royally fucks up
their own campaign. The left had a few other decent choices
as well but for some reason beyond me chose this useless
knucklehead. He's going to get his head handed to him. This
is going to be sad. Dean didn't just energize the party
base. Those people mostly always vote anyway. He was able
to touch the common man. The only common man Kerry has ever
interacted with was serving his lunch. --conservative
\_ what other choices? i mean, I think Kucinich was a good
candidate for what he is, but he's too left for even Dems.
Clark and Edwards, who knows. Edwards feels generic to me.
Clark was... mysterious and didn't deliver a message.
Anyway Kerry is better than Gore. It won't be a landslide.
\_ He hasn't been at the convention all week, jackass.
\_ You know, you're right. Regardless, I still feel the same
way ... moron. -op
\_ Not that it will really matter in the popularity contest that
will decide the outcome, but he's actually got a sage and
decent voting record in the Senate. I respect him for that,
and hope that the goofily handsome veteran/antiwar activisit
photos will get him into office so he can do the right thing
there.
\_ To put it another way, Kerry may have brains, but does he
\_ yeah, landed on the aircraft carrier in Jumpsuite helps.
That scene on TV is a much credible yardstick to judge a
person than decades of voting record.
have guts? Bush may not surpass Kerry on brains, but he appears
to have guts (roll eyes). -op
\_ yeah, landed on the aircraft carrier in Jumpsuite helps.
That scene on TV is a much credible yardstick to judge a
person than decades of voting record.
\_ I'd only modify your comments to change "guts" to "balls".
Going into a poorly justified war that has "ulterior motive"
written all over it isn't so much brave as brazen.
\_ Nah, I think Bush really thought Saddam had WMDs, and
\_ that is what you think. it is more like he think
Saddam is a bad person and wanted to settle the old
score. We all know he had WMD. He *USED* against
Iranian with our blessing.
even if he didn't, it was a good idea to take him out now,
since he had used WMDs in the past and could give them
to al Qaeda at some point -- the consequences of that
too dire (hence, why Bush keeps saying "it was the
right decision", after all). -op
\_ that is what you think. it is more like he think
Saddam is a bad person and wanted to settle the old
score. We all know he had WMD. He *USED* against
Iranian with our blessing.
\_ Bush thinks all his decisions are the right decisions.
That's one of the benefits of having no connection with
reality.
\_ duh, everyone always thinks their decisions are the
right ones. you got into berkeley?
\_ And of course, when it's the wrong decision it's
*always* somebody else's fault. I mean, geez,
accountability is a hard word to spell.
\_ so how many Vietcongs has Kerry killed?
\_ 1 unarmed surrendering vietcong, 60+ unarmed women & children
\_ Lying sack of shit. One armed with an RPG who had just
pointed it at his boat. Why do you GOP trolls lie
constantly about things easily disproven?
\_ Dude, I'm pretty sure that was what we refer to as a
"joke." Look it up in the dictionary. Learn the
meaning any maybe you won't come off as such a jerk.
\_ Yeah! That bastard! It was way more than 1 surrendering
and 60 women and children. After all, he told congress
he committed atrocities on a grand scale, the same as any
American in Vietnam. It *had* to be more than 61 innocent
murders. Give the man his full credit for being the
butcher he is. I mean strong leader with nuance and the
correct amount of French left liberal east cost elitism.
\_ yeah but the 60 unarmed women were most likely supplying
the VC military, so... GO KERRY!
\_ this is true , sadly, he was runner-scumming in a speed
boat shooting blindly into villages
\_ This is a contentless thread. You are basing a discussion on the
pop culture soundbite images of these people. Idiotic.
\_ What is the purpose of the the Democratic National Convention
this year, other than to make people believe/vote for Kerry?
The thread is to show one person's reaction. -op
\_ I just hope it makes people stop saying "i don't think
he's got any plan". If you wanted to see his plan, you
could read his website or go to hear him speak, but that's
too much trouble for the huge majority of people. We're
media driven so these conventions are still necessary.
--scotsman
\_ To put it another way, it wouldn't hurt if Kerry were
more charismatic, and I use that term in its purest sense.
-op
\_ no one gives a shit what you think.
\_ or you either. carry on.
\_ Until he announced Edwards as running mate, you would
have no way of knowing whether he's charismatic or not
because you'd never get more than a 10 second sound
byte. I urge you not to get stuck with single source
media. If you really want to get a sense for a
candidate, watch them on the floor on cspan. Watch
their speeches in their entirety. If you haven't done
anything like that, don't make up your mind on things
like that -scotsman
\_ Until he announced Edwards? WTF does that have to
do with anything? Everyone has been calling him
Lurch for a year and not because of the physical
resemblance.
\_ To put it another way, it wouldn't hurt if Kerry
could make a speech to Americans as well as he
gives a Senate speech. -op
\_ Like I said, go to a rally if you really want
to know. Or at the very least wait until you've
seen his speech tomorrow. The words you're
choosing here parrot what I've heard all over
the media. If you haven't made the effort to
look, don't make up your mind. --scotsman
\_ I didn't but a friend who is very anti-GWB
went to Kerry's appearance locally and walked
out early. You decide.
\_ I've read all the newspapers, seen all the
news, still hold out hope that the media
opinion doesn't end up as fact, and hope he
doesn't flub it Thursday night. Anyway,
even though I got off topic, my main point
was that, between all the Democrats spouting
the party line of Kerry as "decisive and
tough", and the mass media labeling him as
an intellectual, and from all I've read and
seen, I tend to stay with the latter. -op
\_ There isn't enough red, white, and blue crap at this dem
convention. I don't see enough American flags. They must
indeed hate America. Seriously, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, did
you watch her? I have the feeling she might personally
kill the election for Kerry. Does she think Americans can
identify with that weirdo feminist-environmentalist
hippie talk?
\_ Worked for the people cheering her on. Ask a woman.
Ask 20. As for the environment, a large majority of
the population of this country count the environment
as a major concern.
\_ I went to the Central Valley one time and saw this
beat up truck with a bumper sticker that says
"fuck the environment, give me a job." I believe
an even larger number of population cares about
economy than the stupid environment.
\_ You might believe that, but polls show that
you are wrong.
\_ What polls?
\_ And economy versus environment is a glaring
false dichotomy.
\_ Well so do I but watching her speak was painful.
Talk about lacking charisma. She was dour, rather
boring, and took too long to get to the point.
She also had an almost accusative tone, like she
was criticizing all of America and not just Bush.
And focussed a lot on America's duty to the world.
I can imagine some Berkeley hippies liking her
but the mainstream isn't going to be enthusiastic.
She reinforces negative popular perceptions.
\_ English as a 3rd or 4th language.. Besides, she's
not on the ballot.
\_ It isn't an ESL problem. She's a weirdo and
it shows.
\_ As his wife she is part of Kerry's image.
\_ Yes and as such I see her as very brave.
She's gonna take more shit than Hillary
ever had to.
\_ It isn't bravery when you're completely
apathetic. What does she have to be
afraid of anyway? She's worth $600m
of inherited money. She doesn't and
doesn't have to give a shit what
anyone thinks about her. It isn't
bravery in the face of adversity. There
is no adversity in her life.
\_ My dour, accusative, critical mom loved her;
she now thinks Hillary is too political.
\_ I have actually seen him speak in person and he is much more
charismatic in person than on TV. Having said that, I agree
with you in part, he is not a forceful personaliy, more of
a thoughtful and careful one. That is who I personally prefer
with his hand on the nuclear trigger anyway. He does not come
across as weak or soft in any way, more patrician or senatorial.
\_ is that why I can picture Kerry wearing a wreath and toga
and motioning for another beer? I'm not kidding! Can't you
picture this too?
\_ Wasn't he in Skull & Bones too? Makes me wonder, what their
parties looked like. "Bring me ano-thah bee-ah, pledge
Dub-yah." -John
\_ Yes, actually I can. And it made me laugh to think about it.
Thanks!
\_ Kerry is oh so boring. I want Howard Dean back. YEEEEEHAAAA!!!!!!! |
| 2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32538 Activity:nil |
7/28 Why Does Dubya choose a ranch and then play vacation?
I have literally a dozen photos of him relaxing at a golf course or
his ranch.
\_ Are you trying to claim Kerry does not do this?
\_ At least Kerry can ride a mountain bike without falling.
\_ But not a regular bike or a pair of skis. Whatever. If
this is the basis upon which you cast your vote for President
of the United States of American, please do yourself and the
rest of us a favor and stay home. --apathetic to both sides
\_ Not to the really weird extent Bush does. The guy
has not been criss-crossing the country playing vacation.
\_ Uhm, yeah. How many votes has Kerry missed because he was
either on vacation or was out campaigning? How many of
senate intelligence committee meetings on terrorism for the
same reasons? There are a zillion Kerry-on-vacation photos
out there. Your buddy, Drudge, even didn't a full page of
them with some typical cutesy headline. You're blinded by
your own partisanship. --apathetic to both sides |
| 2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32533 Activity:nil |
7/28 Kerry Toured Shuttle That Supplies Space Station He Voted
Against. See all the pics
http://www.rnc.org/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=4477 |
| 2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32525 Activity:very high |
7/28 Why does Kerry choose a sport/activity and then play dressup?
I have literally a dozen photos of him dressed up in different
costumes.
\_ Kerry's basically an android. He's just trying to use camouflage
to blend in with the humans.
\_ Why do you collect so many Kerry photos? Do you have a Kerry fetish?
\_ That's his business and knowing that doesn't answer his
question.
\_ He likes trying new things?
\_ Maybe he should try showing at a Senate vote or an intelligence
committee meeting sometime....
\_ http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc8.htm
\_ would you like some gwbush in a kimono pictures
\_ would you settle for Putin in a kimono?
http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=167
\_ I'd like to see Bush in a cheerleader uniform.
\_ http://www.funnycelebpics.com/items/39.gif
http://zhongwen.com/bush/w-cheer.gif
\_ Real ones? Yeah, I would.
\_ Are you trying to claim Bush does not do this?
\_ At least Bush can throw a strike over home plate.
\_ Not to the really weird extent Kerry does. The guy
has been criss-crossing the country playing dress up.
\_ Let's see, I see Bush in a flight suit, Bush in a
Kimono, Bush in a tanker jacket, Bush as a cheerleader...
\_ Flight suit: he should be in a jet without one?
Kimono: do as the Romans (or Japanese) do.
Cheerleader: duh, photoshop.
\_ At least Kerry doesn't need to "stuff"
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushflightsuitstuff.htm
\_ He's just trying to appeal to gay voters. |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32513 Activity:nil |
7/27 will vote for Hillary in 2008 if Kerry doesnt win. = republican
\_ why?
\_ hahahhahahahhahaa |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32506 Activity:insanely high |
7/27 Watch kerry get booed at the Sox game and he is unable to throw
a baseball across the plate from half way to the mound.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178385/posts?page=1137#1137
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178385/posts?page=1169#1169
Usually I wouldn't be so petty but it is hilarious!
\_ Hrm. He got it to the plate. The catcher is a local reservist
returned from stints in Iraq and Afghanistan. This take on the
event is petty and sad. --scotsman
\_ Fuck you.
\_ You know, if you want the canidates to drop their pants and measure
their erect penises to figure out who to vote for, you should just
ask and stop hiding behind this facade of watching their physical
feats to figure who is more "manly" and who is the "girlie-man."
\_ Kerry in space suit looks like a Sperm cell, at nasa
\_ Yeah, because throwing a baseball is a more important qualification
for a President than forming coherent sentences and using valid
English words.
\_ Don't misunderestimate Bush.
\_ Five words: Dubya as a monkey .jpgs.
\_ I'd vote for Ashcroft if he were to run because he can sing really
really well (watch F911! It converted me to a Republican) and
he actually looks good on television.
\_ second that, if he weren't a politician he'd make a pretty
decent singer/actor.
\_ Nonetheless, his looks and the signing ability weren't enough
to defeat a DEAD opponent in 2000 Missouri election for senate.
\_ Bush threw a pitch once before a game. Catcher told him
not to bounce the pitch or else the crowd would boo him.
Bush threw a strike to the plate.
\_ George W. Bush was president of his fraternity at Yale. What
do you expect?
\_ This comment and the one above re: Ashcroft are a very good
approximation of the level of analysis we're going to see of
this election from the TV news.
\_ Who takes TV news seriously? Hey, who even watches it?
\_ Sadly, quite a lot of people.
\_ Dubya had another bike accident yesterday.
\_ Let's mail some more pretzels to the White House.
\_ Uh, yeah, and Kerry has had a bike fall and a ski wreck he
blamed on some poor bastard from his security detail. Does
that make them both stupid and incompetent or does it make
Bush stupid while Kerry is athletic?
\_ My love is bigger than your love, Sing it. |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32498 Activity:very high |
7/26 So does anyone find it kinda pathetic that the Iraqi TV stations are
giving more coverage to the conventions than our own network TV
stations? This is a bi-partisan thing, BTW - the RNC is going to get
just as shafted as the DNC.
\_ The conventions are just partisan wank-fests anyway. That's why the
US networks aren't covering them much. The Iraqis just don't know
any better.
\_ oh! Your penis is so big and truth free!
\_ No one mentioned Ann Coulter.
\_ I don't see it as getting shafted. I'm a political junky but
there's no way in hell I'd waste 5 seconds of my life watching any
moment of either convention. If something truly interesting
happens, it'll get rebroadcast a zillion times, downloadable off
the net, etc, etc. Conventions? Pshaw!
\_ You should watch the really good speakers from both sides
in real time. Clinton, McCain, okay maybe there are only two.
\_ Bill Clinton is a talented speaker so I watched him. I think
Howard Dean might be interesting. That's about it. Kerry and
Edwards themselves bore me to death and so do all the pubs.
\_ You should watch William Buckley Jr. and Dinesh D'Souza.
Both extraordinary speakers. |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:32497 Activity:insanely high |
7/26 And here's why Kerry isn't polling up 15 and isn't going to win.
Clinton was right, "it's the economy, stupid",
"Consumer confidence hits two-year high"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040727/D843769O0.html
\_ Well, the Dems have been hammering Bush on the economy for at least
the last year, cherry-picking stats to talk down the economy even as
it's been recovering. Now that the economy is in robust recovery,
they've lost that point and look a bit silly. On top of that they
said that Bush's tax plan would ruin our economy. Tax receipts in
June were the highest for the month of June since 2000, so not only
is the economy rolling, but the federal budget is doing well too.
\_ ha we are like 30 trillion in debt up to our assholes, so doomed
\_ Thanks to FDR, LBJ, and leftists. [formatd on all this]
\_ i am reasonably sure this country did not have huge
trade and budget deficits until the early 80s,
after someone ramped up spending while simultaneously
slashing government revenues. are you still pissed
about that new deal thing?
\_ Whoa. So how long have you and reality been divorced?
\_ 30 trillion? I'd love to see the URL for _that_!
\_ Here's a guy who says we are 52 Trillion in debt,
counting unfunded pension and Social Security
liability:
http://www.fulcruminquiry.com/article76.htm
The Economist says that it is only $10.5 B though.
You can come up with almost any number for a
liability 75 years from now though.
\_ 10.5 B or 10.5 T ?
\_ Learn to indent. Yes, the fed. gov't needs to cut spending.
But the point is that tax receipts are now higher than in 2000
(well, we'll see if we're in a trend). That puts us in a
great position to pay down some debt. Unless of course Kerry
gets his way and (1) gets universal health care and (2)
relaxes restrictions on the immigration of people with AIDS.
\_ Both fears are bogus. If we established universal
healthcare (which Kerry has not even proposed) we could
fund it with all the money employers are now spending on
for-profit HMOs. Listing restrictions on immigration of
AIDS patients would not change immingration restrictions in
general. We would not be flooded with diseased poor
Africans because we are not flooded with poor Africans
right now.
\_ HMO money goes from corps to HMOs to give health care
to employees. Universal HC as you describe it would
take money from corps to the government to give HC
to everyone. That guarantees fewer dollars per person
and therefore lesser health care. No thanks.
\_ No, not really. See Canada vs. US health care
spending. Single payer appears to be a more
efficient way of allocating resources. You can
get better overall health care with fewer dollars
spent. That is what I believe, anyway.
\_ Oh, I see. You've got yours so screw everybody else.
\_ So you're in favor of helping those in need at
the expense of others? Ok, how about this: would
you be willing to lower your GPA from 4.0 to 3.0
so 3 other people can raise theirs from 1.7 to 2.0
and not get kicked out of school? Didn't think
so. You got yours and screw everyone else.
\_ yes, I am for providing help to students
to help them learn better, and hence improve
their GPA.
\_ Great. What classes will you be taking
next semester? (Assuming you normally
would pull up the curve, of course.)
\_ This is bankrupting Europe and it would
bankrupt us. Do you want to provide free
health care for all of Mexico?
\_ It is not bankrupting Europe. Who told you
such nonesense. Canada is doing better than
ever and they have single payer healthcare.
\_ I wonder how many people who waxes
rhapsodic about the Canadian healthcare
system ever had to rely on it. My
grandfather was covered under the Canadian
system, and he was given the choice of
either wasting away slowly and painfully
while waiting > 1 year for back surgery or
paying his own way in the US.
\_ Oh, trolling for anti-immigrant sentiment now
eh?
\_ No. It is the immigrants that are
bankrupting Europe and they will also
bankrupt the US if we adopt the same
policies.
\_ Uhm, they're not immigrants until they've
left their country of origin, dumbass.
\_ Huh?
\_ really? so how come we are still the
most powerful country in the world
after these centuries of immigration?
\_ Because we don't provide free
universal health care and other
socialistic perks. Immigration is
great. Giving money away to
anyone who wants some is not.
\_ No. Criticizing ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is not
anti-immigrant sentiment. When will you
knee-jerk lefties learn that?
\_ According to the Economist, immigrants are
a net win for Spain because they're supporting
the pension system which is strained because
Spainiards of the past few decades decided to
have fewer children.
\_ Net win? There are other variables than
budget numbers. This idea of needing to
bring in a bunch of people to support the
welfare apparatus is complete bullshit. If
they structured the system properly, instead
of setting up a ridiculous Ponzi scheme,
then they would have a long term solution.
\_ These incoming immigrants are having
more children of their own. Who will
support them?
\_ I'm pretty sure I've heard John Kerry say that everyone
should be covered by the same insurance that members of
congress have.
\_ how does universal health care in europe and other countries
work from the doctor's point of view. do they have to be
part of the system? can they set their own rates?
\_ They do not have to be and many are not. You pay
cash. Doctor's salaries are low overall and there is
a shortage of doctors. Hospitals import immigrant
doctors from, say, Russia and pay them low wages.
They accept it because otherwise they get sent back.
\_ Well, there really are two economise in America today. The rich
are doing very well, fueld by tax cuts, but middle income and
lower middle class sorts are seeing lower real wages and actual
overall tax increases, since the states have raised taxes so much.
So I am not so sure that the Republican line is going to play
too well with the Wal-Mart voter. Also, the leading indicators
are looking pretty bad according to these guys:
http://www.businesscycle.com
\_ Today the party announced that the chocorat is being increased to
25 grams.
\_ That a good economy benefits the incumbent is an accepted fact,
but I think Bush has bigger problems. In fact, I see the
population throwing out Bush as it stands up on its feet after 9/11.
\_ I see the prolitariat throwing off the shackles of
capitalism after they realize the evils of tax cuts. |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32496 Activity:very high |
7/26 "Poll shows support for Kerry weakens on issues and attributes"
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/kerry_poll_040726.html
Not a good sign since the lead up to the convention is supposed to be
a big boost time for a candidate, not a time they *lose* ground. He
should be up 15 points right now to win in November.
\_ When did you stop beating your wife?
\_ You're off topic. This isn't a wife beating post.
\_ So you haven't read any of the poll data about how polarized the
electorate is? No one is going to be 15 points up in this election,
ever. November will all come down to razor thin margins and (most
likely) Diebold and Florida Elections Authority intervention.
\_ So you're already preparing the propaganda for a loss in advance?
\_ Head. Hole. Ground. |
| 2004/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32491 Activity:insanely high 50%like:33071 |
7/26 motd poll: If you had to vote today, who would you vote for?
George/Dick: ...
John/John: ........
\_ How many of the Kerry voters are voting *for* Kerry and _not_
merely *against* Bush?
\_ are you confused "what the meaning of 'is' is"?
\_ no, but I did not have sex with that woman (enough times to
get bored of her)! when did you stop not inhaling?
\_ The neighborhood's going down the tubes. -John
\_ Dems - no voting if you are dead, a felon, an illegal or a pet,
and no voting twice.
\_ What if your name sounds like a dead person's?
\_ Then you're allowed to vote twice in Penn. and three times
in Chicago.
\_ Felons: If you've served your time and are no longer on parole
you can be reinstated to the voter rolls.
\_ Not in all states.
Ralph! ..
\_ Yes! I am not alone! Since most of you are in CA which is going
to Kerry anyway, you should do the right thing and vote Nader.
Your CA vote doesn't mean anything anyway, so you should give it
value, purpose and meaning. Send a message! -Nader'04
\_ unless of course you actually hate nader *more* than bush, and
think he would destroy the nation in two years with his moronic
trade policy...have any of you idiots considered what would
actually happen if he won?
\_ Yeah. I'd vote Green if they had a candidate other than
Nader.
\_ If you really honestly just don't like Nader, I'm ok with
that. Everyone should vote for the candidate that would have
the policies you-the-voter would want. But for the rest of
us who would normally vote for Nader but are now voting
against Bush, if you're in CA, please reconsider since your
CA vote doesn't matter anyway. Help send a message! Thank
you. -Nader'04
\_ So NaderGuy, doesn't it bother you that your "compatriot"
is probably in fact ilyas? Do you know anything about
ilyas' politics?
\_ Why should it? And only what I've read here which is
the same mix of "I agree" and "Don't agree" that I
have with other motd posters.
\_ Ha, you really don't get it, do you?
\_ don't fuck around.
\_ do you really honestly believe Kerry won't win CA by a huge
margin? and why would you want Kerry anyway? -Nader'04
\_ Nader royally screwed the country last time around and is
too damn self-important to admit he might do it a second
time. Even if he might have better policies than Kerry,
why should I encourage someone who cares more about his own
political advancement than the real-world outcomes on
issues he says he cares about?
\_ That's DNC propaganda. How could he or anyone else have
possibly known a few votes in one state where the RNC
governor's brother was in charge would make the
difference? Nader cares about the people. Kerry cares
about his wife's money. Bush cares about Cheney's oil.
It's an easy vote for a Californian. -Nader'04
\_ The Bush/Gore margin was close enough in several
states that a couple percent for Nader probably
flipped it. People were warning about Nader costing
Gore the election and the response from the Nader
camp was "Maybe, but there's no difference between
Bush and Gore anyway, so so what?" Well there's a
big difference and if you can't see it, maybe you
should poke you nose out of the Green Party
headquarters for a little while.
\_ There really isn't but I'm not going to argue
with you about it. I've learned from the motd
responses that there really are people who
think the Democrats are different in some
meaningful way from the Republicans and I'm ok
with that. I respect your decision to be a
Democrat. You can respect mine to be progressive.
\_ I respect your right to believe what you want,
but I do not respect your stated right to
ignore reality. Gore would not have invaded
Iraq; Gore would not have brought Enron in on
shaping energy policies; and Gore would not
have pursued outdated and demonstrably
harmful Reagan-era economic policies. Those
are huge differences.
\_ You don't know what Gore would have done.
Hindsight is magic. -Nader'04
\_ are you a troll, or have you not noticed the RNC's
local efforts to raise money for the Nader campaign?
do you honestly believe 4000 more years of Bush is
worth your vanity vote? I don't get it.
\_ I condiser myself progressive, but more than
that I am a pragmatist, not an idealist. The
net effect of supporting Nader is to help
elect Bush, and to me that is anathema.
\_ Not as a CA voter. -Nader'04
\_ It isn't a vanity vote. Your CA vote doesn't matter
anyway. That's what I was told when I last brought
this up. Since that's true I don't see why progressives
in a place like CA would vote for anyone but Nader. -N04
\_ Uhm, because he's a self-important nitwit with no
political savvy and stooopid ideas about government?
\_ The only message I want to send Nader was best said by Cheney to
Leahy.
\_ http://www.fuckyouralphnader.com |
| 2004/7/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32469 Activity:nil |
7/24 Bad news. Bush is ahead on electoral votes. http://csua.org/u/8b9 We need to do more than just mouth off on motd. The way I see it, it will take either Iraq blowing up big time or the economy \- between "iraq fatigue" and the "soverignty xfer" "iraq blowing up big time" wont do it unless there were a lot of american deaths [like beiruit] and i dont see that happening. bushco has limited their downside and takes little flack from the daily trucker beheadings, or any kind of civil rights disasters for iraqis ... but they can still get credit for anything they can spin into WMD, like a piece of oraange with mold growing on it. --psb seriously tanking to unseat Bush. Not much we can do with Iraq, but we can certainly help the economy to tank. Guys, stop spending money as much as you can. Stop going out to dinner, stop buying any kind of discretionary purchase, and take your money out of the stock market and the banks for the next few months. I am sure you can come up with more ideas. And if you're in the position to stop working, quit! If you're in a position to hire, don't! Drive up the unemployment rate. We need to do everything we can here, people! \_ Dem convention should give Kerry a boost. \_ Proabably just a couple of points of pop. Then the Republicans have their convention pop, and we're back to where we are now. \_ Really silly troll. |
| 2004/7/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32467 Activity:nil |
7/24 Bad news. Bush is ahead on electoral votes. http://csua.org/u/8b9 We need to do more than just mouth off on motd. The way I see it, it will take either Iraq blowing up big time or the economy seriously tanking to unseat Bush. Not much we can do with Iraq, but we can certainly help the economy to tank. Guys, stop spending money as much as you can. Stop going out to dinner, stop buying any kind of discretionary purchase, and take your money out of the stock market and the banks for the next few months. I am sure you can come up with more ideas. And if you're in the position to stop working, quit! If you're in a position to hire, don't! Drive up the unemployment rate. We need to do everything we can here, people! \_ Dem convention should give Kerry a boost. \_ Proabably just a couple of points of pop. Then the Republicans have their convention pop, and we're back to where we are now. \_ Really silly troll. |
| 2004/7/23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32451 Activity:very high |
7/23 I'm not anti-Republican. I'm anti-Bush. McCain 2004 write in.
Who's with me on this?
\_ i am!! - democrat
\_ Alright! a Nader for the republicans! yeah, go vote McCain all you
republican scum.
\_ i am!! - demoRAT
\_ i'll be anti-Bush after he finishes off Iran, Syria, N. Korea
\_ Sorry, no dice. I don't like McCain on abortion and gun control.
\_ I don't like him on these issues either. But I think he'd
be the best leader in terms of foreign policy, which is
very important right now. -op
\_ Are you trying to create some sort of Nader-like movement on the
other side? You're holding your nose and voting for Kerry.
\_ This is a troll, like all the rest of political rant. Sodans
don't even vote. They sit glued to a pc and write to motd.
\_ I see. I wasn't sure if it was a troll or propaganda attempt.
\_ Not a troll. -op
\_ You don't seriously believe this, do you? |
| 2004/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32444 Activity:high |
7/23 For the conservative in all of us, Michael Ramirez political cartoons
http://csua.org/u/8an
\_ Oh those about Kerry/Edwards being rich are real clever.
\_ Look, it's like the Freepers/Fox News have their own cartoonist!
And he's got an Hispanic name, so the lefties can't touch him!
Lame.
\_ The left has no problem bashing blacks, hispanics or anyone else
on the right. In fact, conservative minorities have been
smashed by many on the left in public forums with terms like
Uncle Tom and "not really black", etc. Because, hey, being a
minority means being a leftist is in your genes, right? Any
brown people who don't stick to the party line must be
ostracized and expelled from the race!
\_ Shut up, white boy.
\_ Bwahahahhahahaa!! |
| 2004/7/23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32442 Activity:nil |
7/22 Former Sen. Bob Kerry confrontation with protesters at capitol.
Expletives included.
rtsp://a3.v9854a.c9854.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/3/9854/v0001
/nbc.download.akamai.com/9854/t_assets/20040722/8dc5576fd64
25858cf252b5c86637ecbb0821e9a.asf |
| 2004/7/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32441 Activity:insanely high |
7/23 Washington Post editorial on the Sandy Berger affair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7523-2004Jul22.html
"Whether it was a mistake or not, Mr. Berger's conduct, the subject of
a criminal investigation by the FBI, was reprehensible, and he was
right to resign as a Kerry adviser."
\_ "IT'S STILL NOT clear why former national security adviser
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger improperly removed secret documents
from the National Archives last year." How 'bout waiting for
the investigation, that's been ongoing for ALMOST A YEAR, to
finish, instead of making allegations purely based on leaks
from the white house.
And if there is any doubt this is being pushed into the press:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003195
Mmmm... Tucker "Pull it straight from my ass" Carlson... -scotsman
\_ The aren't leaks. He and his attorney admitted it.
\_ How can it be a mistake? He repeated the behavior six times.
\_ uh, how about "As happened so often during the Clinton
administration, [Republicans] are treating a real but
apparently limited case of misconduct as an opportunity to
misuse congressional oversight powers to wage partisan
warfare."
\_ WTF Limited case of misconduct!!??? He stole documents with the
highest security classification.
\_ He stole documents six times - how could this possibly be
a mistake?
\_ If he didn't know he couldn't take documents out of the room,
there's no reason not to do it six times. If he knew he was
breaking the law, might he be slick about it and only risk
getting caught once?
\_ There's no way he didn't know. Do you know how
hard it is to get clearance to see that stuff? It's WAY
higher clearance than nuclear weapons data.
\_ "As happened so often during the Clinton administration, they
are treating a real but apparently limited case of misconduct
as an opportunity to misuse congressional oversight powers to
wage partisan warfare."
Whaaa...? Since when is stealing classified documents from
the national archives and destroying evidence needed in
reviews of National Security limited misconduct? You people
realize this is worse than Watergate, right? You know, what
Nixon got impeached for? He was just stealing the other
party, this guy was doing the same with the FREAKING NATIONAL
ARCHIVES! No liberal Bias in the media my %$@.
\_ I don't know, I think spying on your political opponents and
organizing burglaries and covering it up is a bit more serious
than what basically amounts to misshandling library materials.
\_ Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. If I
work at a national labratory, and I take out nuclear
weapons data and give to to Al-Queada, am I
"misshandling library materials?" Please. This is
stealing from a highly secure government site, not
accidentally dropping a library book in the toilet.
\_ That's stretching a bit don't you think? Was any harm
actually caused by taking the materials out of the
archives?
\_ How would we know? Some documents just seem to
have dissappeared. Do you know what they said or
where they went? The point is, once they're out,
you don't know. I doubt they were really
dangerous, but you can't rate the crime on how
dangeous the documents are once they're gone.
That's something you do before they're gone and
assign them a classification.
\_ It's a BushCo frame job. I know because when I heard the story
on KCBS, the reporter just mentioned in passing the Republicans
think it's a big deal, then the Democrats rated a 5 sentence
quote on why it's all just a dirty political trick. |
| 2004/7/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32436 Activity:high |
7/22 NY Times critic to write Manchurian Candidate more partisan than
Fahrenheit 9/11 - http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm
I really can't stop laughing. :D
\_ The movie is a remake, so...
\_ Not really. They're just stealing the name and *very* basic
plot outline.
\_ DAMN ... YOU ... LIBERAL ... MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\_ Does the movie have anything to do with Manchuria? Thx.
\_ The original did, but I might give it away if I say too much.
\_ Evil and devious Chinese tries to fool honest but simple-minded
Americans and take over the country. |
| 2004/7/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32431 Activity:nil 71%like:32426 |
7/22 So, and the one-on-one do Kerry you how think do will Bush in debates?
Is it those the say of one to where Democrats going things be they
won won say independents and they and the Republicans are 50/50?
(Bush Kerry Kerry's the say voters say flip-flopper, a voters Iraq war
wasn't worth it.)
\_ like the attitude Yup, on else. The dominant everything right
and typified News Michael by and the these Fox days, left Moore,
is thing opinion. is a no such that there only fact, as The only
thing interpretation. is sell matters you how well your that Why
shouldn't the debates apply to as that well?
\_ thing, was I funny Yoda wish. |
| 2004/7/22 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32426 Activity:nil 71%like:32431 |
7/22 So, you how do think in Bush Kerry will one-on-one and the do debates?
Is it say the be going those of to Democrats where one things they
won Republicans won and they independents are and say the 50/50?
(Bush Iraq say Kerry a say flip-flopper, voters voters the Kerry's war
wasn't worth it.)
\_ everything like else. The attitude the Yup, dominant on right
and News Fox the these Michael left and typified by days, Moore,
is there only a thing fact, such as opinion. The is no that only
thing well how that your matters interpretation. is you sell Why
shouldn't the apply to that as debates well?
\_ Yoda thing, funny was I wish. |
| 2004/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32379 Activity:high |
7/20 Bush vs Kerry:
http://www.wonkette.com/images/doublebasket.jpg
\_ um... what?
\_ crotch shot
\_ more amusing bush vs. kerry: http://www.jibjab.com |
| 2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32373 Activity:high |
7/20 Nader relinquishes whatever is left of his principles:
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/nader20_20040720.htm
(Detroit Free Press article)
\_ How is that? You mean like the communist party USA endorsing Kerry
because they hate Bush so much? Or other parties which are
ideologically opposed to Dems or Pubs getting out of the race in the
hopes that one or the other will win?
\_ Oh, bitch, please. Don't try to sneak in a cute name for the
Repubs. They do not get those kinds of snaps.
\_ It's been suggested that Perot was trying to throw the election
for Clinton, maybe Nader is throwing it for Bush?
\_ As unlikely as this conspiracy theory is, it's getting harder
to argue against it with every new level of GOP support for
Nader that his organization just accepts. If he is standing on
principle (since he is certainly not trying to get elected) why
dilute his supposed righteousness in this way?
\- er doesnt something have to be covert or hidden to be
a conspiracy? --psb
\_ I won't be baited. There's no reason to respond to your
freeper links or even read them. --Nader'04
\_ freep != freerepublic
\_ http://www.freep.com is the Detroit Free Press website. |
| 2004/7/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32313 Activity:low |
7/16 The BEST bi-partisan Flash humor, EVER! http://www.ava.nu/thisland.htm \_ page cant be found \_ It's in flash. It can't be funny. \_ SPeaking of bi-partisan, Jon Stewart did a good job of cutting into the democrats last night. |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32281 Activity:kinda low |
7/14 Happy Bastille Day!
\_ Tonight on Fox News: Some people say John Kerry, LOOKS FRENCH.
\_ Lance even let them win this one. -John |
| 2004/7/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32270 Activity:nil |
7/14 BUSH GOOD!!!! !!!! !!!!1!!! KERRY BAD!!!!!!!!!!!11!! DELETE ME AND I
WILL ONLY POST AGAIN!!!!!!!
\_ !TOOW
______
< w00t >
------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| || |
| 2004/7/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32267 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Malpractice maelstrom
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040713-080936-3867r.htm
Vote Kerry-Edwards!
\_ what is your point...that it should be OK for neurosurgeons to
remove as many cervical disks as they want?
\_ my point is if you think channeling children born with CP to
win malpractice settlements is good for the US medical industry
vote Kerry-Edwards. Is that so hard to understand?
\_ Penalties for malpractice are good for the medical profession
(not the same as medical industry) as it provides an incentive
to not screw up. Manipulating the emotions of a jury is
standard good lawyering. If Edwards has been a robo-lawyer
you could have complained that he was failing his clients.
\_ And if I close my eyes, all the bad things go away!
Penalties for malpractice is one thing, manipulating
jurys to punish the innocent is completely different.
In this link, one guy destroyed a doctor's life, and
killed hundrends by forceing all the neurosurgeons out
of the state. Woohoo! Go Lawyers!
\_ compare with a guy who lied to go to war to settle old score?
sure.
\_ Wow, this is the only criterion allowed? Bush has driven
this country into a fucking ditch, asshole.
\_ How so? Funny since I consider all of the problems the
result of leftist policy.
\_ yes all bad things come from clinton, all good things
from bush.
\_ While conservatives have made mistakes, they
have also manage to do things right from time
to time. The leftists have *never* done anything
right. Some of us vote for the lesser to two evils.
\_ nah, clinton got everything right. bush got
everything wrong. compared to bush, everything
is a lesser evil.
\_ Which ditch is that? The economy is fine, there were
a hundred reasons to invade Iraq, he picked a big one
to push with, but there were plenty more. Since prety
much everyone thought Saddam had WMD, it's hardly a
lie. Maybe he was wrong, but so was everyone else.
I keep hearing how Bush has destroyed the country, and
I don't agree with everything he does, but I see
little base for your accusations.
\_ nah, everyone knows bush says iraq has wmd.
everyone gives what he says a some measure of
credibility because he is the US president and
has the cia, the supposedly most technologically
advanced intelligence agency in the world. now,
he and his subordinates have been shown to be
liars. neither the US presidency nor the cia
has any credibility in the world anymore.
economy is at best sputtering even with the
historically low interest rate and huge fiscal
stimulus, with record budget deficit and
trade deficit, rising oil prices, threat of
inflation looming, threat of housing bubble
bursting, it's much better not to have the huge
drain of money into the Iraq sinkhole, which
is likely to continue for a few more years.
\_ Who gives a damn about what the world
thinks? Most of the world is living on
handouts from the US taxypayer, the rest
is a festering socialist mess. And when
the world gets into trouble, guess who
gets to pick up the pieces, US.
As far as Iraq is concerned, I guess you
are one of those guys who would have
prefered that Saddam got a NK nuke and
gave it to Bin Laden to drop of @ JFK
or something before we took the threat
seriously and started negotitating with
them.
\_ Uh... because they provide us intelligence
and help us catch terrorists...
\_ "Most of the world is living on handouts from the
US taxypayer." Are they? Last I chacked, aid
to foreign governments was a tiny part of the
Federal budget. I seem to recall most of the
world works for a living. But your theory is
good too.
\_ Maybe we should do like Pat B. say and
complete isolate ourselves from the world
for a few yrs and see how the world gets
along w/o the us market to export things
to. The fact that most of the world has
free access to our market is a huge
subsidy by the taxpayer (we are passing
up all the money from tariffs, &c.)
Don't forget all the "loans" we made
and forgiven over the years. Most of
the world would in shambles if we didn't
keep it solvent by forgiving loans and
such over the years.
\_ go ahead, try it. If the US isolates
itself economically from the world,
the country that will be in economic
shambles would be the US itself.
\_ Don't forget we depend on other parts
of the world for oil. That has been
main reason we have all these conflicts
in the Middle East.
\_ Actually, we are in a shitload of debt from
loaning from the rest of the world, mostly
through selling treasuries. 1.4 trillion,
IIRC. Just go to economist and add up the
foreign reserves of countries like China,
Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, India, Spore and HK,
and you will get a rough idea. As for
Saddam, much better to neutralize him the
way we neutralized Gaddafi of Libya.
It takes a little patience and a little
diplomacy, but hey, that's what adults are
good at.
\_ We neutralized Gaddafi only after we
invaded Iraq and scared him shitless.
\_ that's a stupid theory the bush
admin put out.
\_ Its what happened. We invade,
he rolls over.
\_ we haven't seen N. Korea roll
over. What about Iran and Syria?
In fact, some these are more
hostile than before.
\_ Desperation. They know
better than to try
*anything* though, because
the result will not be some
stupid protest in the UN,
it will be total destruction.
\_ Iran is always been
relatively benign. But
in case of NK, they could
do some SERIOUS damage
to Asian economy before
you and your 7 carriers
arrive. That is assuming
they don't have nukes
yet.
\_ I am amazed how many people
bought the stupid theory.
Gaddafi didn't roll over when
we bombed his home and almost
killed him (got his infant
daughter instead). why would
he suddenly roll over because of
iraq?
\_ zzzzzz
\_ Sounds like a deviated septrum. Let's operate!
\_ yea, even deviated septrum makes a more interesting topic
than the above.
\_ Septum.
\_ septrum. search google. |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32264 Activity:high |
7/12 So for those afraid that Bush will declare himself Caesar (stealing a
line from Jon Stewart) by postponing the federal election, what would
you like the government to do if San Francisco and NYC got hit with a
dirty bomb on election day?
\_ Women and minorities would be hit hardest.
\_ Go to the polls and vote like a proper democracy and not be
cowed like a bunch of fucking maggots. Although in Florida's
case it'd probably cause weeks worth of bitching about lost
vote results. -John
\_ First of all, the answer to your question doesn't change whether
the city hit with a dirty bomb votes mostly Democrat or mostly
Republican. Second, the concern isn't that Bush is lengthening
his term (this part is just a joke), but that postponing the date
might benefit him -- seeing as how the elections in Spain favored
the liberal party after their terror attacks (a real and
contemporary example) -- because if Bush couldn't protect you, then
why not try Kerry? Third, the Bush administration is looking at
changing the date if a terror attack occurs arbitrarily close to
election day -- it does not have to occur on election day.
\_ This doesn't answer the question.
If a major attack happened the day of, or shortly before the
election, what do you think the gov't should do?
\_ The question is flawed, as explained above, but to answer
your question: If Houston or SF got hit with a dirty bomb,
the government should -- before the terror attack occurs --
have a policy in place on the question of whether or not to
postpone the election, and it should be bi-partisan. Also,
assuming the above, the election should not be postponed so
far out that it extends Bush's term, as much as it can be
helped. Bi-partisan is the key word here.
\_ So early inquiries about the legality of the possibility
didn't deserve the flak it got in the press? People having
fits about Bush as president-for-life need to get a grip?
Yeah, that was my point.
\_ They had fits because it was discovered that Bush
was looking into this unilaterally. If, on the
other hand, Republicans and Democrats announced they
were studying this issue in a joint press conference,
it would be ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
\_ That's just plain stupid. The initial inquiries were
about the legality of the possibility, which is a
logical first step. The next step would be to have a
committee work on the specifics.
\_ If you don't tell the other side you're looking
into it, it looks like you're trying to postpone
the election, to your own benefit, using
terrorism as an excuse.
Here's a question for you: If President Gore did
this, what would Republicans say?
(Do you see my point yet?)
\_ This is pure fantasy. Why would they hit the Bay Area? That
only be slightly more likely than them bombing Tehran.
\_ Why not hit any major city where people aren't expecting it?
\_ Insert-your-favorite-metro-area there then. |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32262 Activity:moderate |
7/12 Interesting study of Campaign Character i http://csua.org/u/86a (journalism.org) Despite media reports that constantly characterize Kerry as being "out of touch" with the common man and Bush being "down to earth," only 20 percent perceive Kerry as a "wealthy elitist" compared to 27 percent for Bush... \_ But the majority think Kerry's a wuss. \_ When's the last time he fell off his bike? |
| 2004/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32254 Activity:high |
7/12 My perspective as a Nader voter:
\_ I stand in awe of your trolling prowess. This has got to up on the
top fifty fastest-growing threads I've seen. The bullet list o' bile
is an admirable innovation I shall emulate in my future efforts.
\_ BTW, during the 2000 election Nader stated "There is no difference
between Gore and Bush" ... I haven't seen him admit that was totally
wrong, but I did see him being interviewed stating that "anyone is
better than Bush, Bush is horrible (paraphrasing)".
\_ We already discussed before how you're severely deluded. Nader is a
bad choice for many reasons, and he won't win either. So do what you
want, it's not really worth discussing anymore and you're not
persuading anybody to support Nader. Your idealistic enthusiasm is
cute though.
Bush: Pro Iraq War
Kerry: Pro Iraq War
Nader: Anti Iraq War
\_ To put Kerry and Bush in the same camp here isn't exactly fair
\_ Yes. It is. Kerry and Edwards both voted for it based on the
same info Bush had. It is 100% fair. -N'04
\_ That doesn't mean the same thing. While I agree that
Kerry's voting for for the resolution was stupid and
troubling, he wasn't the guy pushing for the war at any
cost. Nor was he the one making up intelligence to give
to congress/the american people as proof we needed to
invade and that sactions/inspections weren't working.
That being said I suspect you are a troll, but hey...
\_ Uhm, I don't think unilaterally pulling out of Iraq is a terribly
responsible thing to do. If that's what Nader espouses, then he's
an imbecile.
\_ It isn't. He wouldn't have put us there in the first place. -N4
\_ Right, and you know factually that Kerry would have? Prove
it.
\_ Doesn't matter, now. We are there. What solutions does he
offer for cleaning up the mess?
Bush: Pro Life
Kerry: Pro Life
\_ You do know that you can be pro choice and still abortion is wrong,
you just let other people make the decision instead of taking it
away from them, right?
Nader: Pro Choice
\_ uhh, where did you get the Kerry pro life bit?
Bush: Pro Big Business
Kerry: Pro Big Business
Nader: Pro Little People
\_ I'm pro little people too! Midget POWER!
\_ I love little people. It's like Thailand without AIDS.
It goes on like this. Kerry is Pro UN, while Bush is anti UN and
Kerry would raise taxes on the rich to slightly higher levels than
Bush, but overall they're both 'Business As Usual' guys. As a Nader
voter how could I even consider voting for either of these men? They
are more similar than different. What does Kerry offer me other than
a lot of noise that he simply "isn't Bush" and "We hate Bush so vote
for the other guy! (me!)"? I hear nothing from the Kerry camp that
would make me want to vote for him. The entire message coming out
is "I'm not Bush!" which really isn't true anyway. --Nader'04!
\_ If you live in a non-battleground state, your vote doesn't matter
anyway. There's no point in debating this in California which is
going to the dems anyway. Save your effort at soap box politics
and go do something constructive, like saving the whales...
\_ My vote always matters. If enough others who have the same
opinion as you showed up we'd make a good showing to establishing
the party for the future. The Republicrat party hasn't always
been the only choice. There used to be many parties in this
country. There can be again. --Nader'04
\_ Well, since you probably share all those positions with Nader,
why not just write yourself in? You have about as much chance
as becoming president, and are probably about as qualified.
Hell, if you post your name, i'll bet you could get a couple
poeple from the motd to vote for you also. Then you can say you're
voting "your conscience" without pretending you're actually
participating in our democracy.
\_ See my reply above about staying home. Same answer. --Nader'04
\_ Let me make this a little more clear. If i had to choose
between some random dick on the motd and Nader, I would
actually vote for the random dick on the motd.
\_ Kerry is a lot better then Bush on a lot of issues, abortion, the
enviornment, international relations, civil liberties... He's not
a dream candidate, but voting for Nader will only help Bush win, and
I can't condone that. If we had a parlimentary system or instant
runoff voting, then I could see voting for Nader, but under a winner
takes all republican form of government, the pragmatic thing for a
liberal to do is vote for Kerry. Idealism is nice, but it put that
asshole in power last time around.
\_ Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. To then say
he thinks abortion is ok is to legally condone murder. He's
just trying to "position" himself politically. He has no real
conviction. He just wants to be elected and powerful, the same
as Bush and many others. He's no different. --Nader'04
\_ Nader has a history of lying to improve is position politically,
at the cost of "little people's" jobs. Wait, why would I want to
vote for him again? He screws things up enough even when he's
NOT in power. [reformatted - formatd]
\_ Yeah, like when he tried to ban RWD cars. That fucker.
\_ Lying? I'll accept that if you can come up with a real URL. -N'4
\_ Kerry is a moderate. Bush and his puppet masters are a dangerous
bunch who can mess up the country badly. I am surprised a
supposed Nader supporter cannot see the difference, and in
particular, the danger of another 4 years of Bush. I think you
are a Bush supporter in disguise.
\_ Kerry is just as beholden to his masters as Bush. There is no
difference. Kerry isn't a moderate, he's got the same hungry
power madness Bush has. 4 more years of power mad vs. 4 years of
power mad followed by a potential 4 more isn't useful. -N'04
\_ Kerry is a moderate? I suppose that's true compared to
Berkeley liberals, but to the rest of the US, he's pretty
dang far left.
\_ it doesn't matter. he will have to move to the center
if he isn't there.
\_ For the election rethoric, yeah. I'm more interested
in the 4 years that follow.
\_ congress is republican, and supreme court has
shifted to the right. whole democratic party has
moved to the center. thus no danger of kerry
moving things left.
\_ Kerry is pro-life? Is that why NARAL gives him a 100% rating?
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103
I am trying to figure out if you are a Conservative troll or
a seriously ill informed Nader voter. Please educate yourself
on Kerry's actual voting record in the Senate, not your
fantasy of it, and get back to me. According to the National
Review he is the most liberal member of the Senate.
\_ Is National Review one of those right-wing think tanks?
\_ No it is one of the more respected right wing magazines.
Sort of like The Nation, but for conservatives.
\_ Kerry can't figure out WHAT he is. I'm catholic, but I'm a
democrat and therefore pro-choice. Cognitive dissonance!
\_ That sounds like a whole lot of Catholics to me. They like
the Catholic Church, but think church doctrine has a lot of BS
\_ He didn't say he thought it was BS, he said, "I
oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I
believe life does begin at conception... I can't take
my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate
it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist..." That's
just stupid. To paraphrase, "I think you're all
murdering babies, but I wouldn't want to stop you from
murdering babies. That's your choice." Huh?
\_ Bullshit. This is the finest point of the separation
of church and state. He separates his faith from his
responsibility as a civil servant. As a father, he
may have prayed that his daughter would never have
to make such a choice. As a senator, he supports her
right to that choice.
\_ Thanks for tagging your post as Bullshit, since
that's what it is. The government makes all
kinds of laws based on morality. You know it's
against the law for me to murder you? That's a
morality based law. If he really believed that
life begins at conception, it makes no sense to
say that abortion is not murder. The fact that
he REALLY wants that not to be the case does not
change it.
\_ I submit that John Kerry, thankfully, has a
more nuanced view of the world than you do.
I further submit that you need to do some
growing up before treading into political
discussions.
\_ Wow, I never realized that nuanced was a
nice way of saying soft/non-logical
thinking! Thanks for improving my
venacular! Hey, if I get a "nuanced"
enough world view, does that mean I'll be
able to act without consequences too? Cool!
\_ The real world that real people
live in is not black and white.
Maybe someday you will understand that.
You have never changed your mind about
any moral issue? You have never been
conflicted about any decision you have
ever made? You have never been able to
see both sides of an issue? You must
be very immature.
\_ No, he's just a geek. Geeks don't
understand any sort of politics
beyond the Mr. Spock sort (IF x THEN
y ELSE z).
\_ You do realize that morality != religion, yes?
The entire assertion that morality based law
falls into the same category as religion driven
law is completely based on this fallacious
equivalency.
\_ Way to completely miss the point. The
point is that if you believe humans life
starts at conception, abortion is murder.
(Ignoring the possible out mentioned
later in this thread.) It doesn't matter
if that belief comes from religion or not. A
religious person's morality is defined by
their religion. Since Kerry is CLAIMING
that his morality is based in
Catholisism, he should think clearly and
vote accordingly. Since he doesn't, he's
either stupid or a liar.
\_ Catholicism is a very big tent and
includes plenty of room for varying
viewpoints. Which you would know, if
you knew anything about Catholicism.
\_ Your premise "humans life starts at
conception, abortion is murder." is flawed
precisely because of the 'out' that a
Christian can plausibly argue that the
human soul does not begin at conception.
By focusing on the start of life you are
mis-framing the debate. Few medicine-aware
abortion supporters would disagree that an
embryo is alive, but the point of contention
is whether they have souls and whether that
sort of philosophical question should be
made a matter of public policy.
\_ I'm a pro-choice atheist and I believe life begins
at conception. Abortion kills a unique human
life, but it is not murder because that life is
so undeveloped that it lacks all of the qualities
that make human life deserving of protection.
\_ That's fine if you're atheist, but if
you're Catholic the kid goes to hell for
eternity. Hence abortion is wrong.
\_ Catholic dogma is that unbaptized infants
go to limbo, and will be brought into
heaven when Jesus returns. -tom
\_ Kerry may have said he believes life begins
at conception, but did he say the soul
begins at conception?
I don't think Catholics believe all
unbaptized sould go to hell. I believe they
made a specific exception for the stillborn.
\_ I don't know. If he does think
that, he should state it clearly and
explain why abortion is wrong but
ok. Instead he's just trying to have
it both ways. I would be just fine
with that position, I would also be
fine with him rejecting the Catholic
belief that all unbaptized children
go to hell.
\_ D00D u r going to H3LL!
\_ You don't know many Catholics, do you?
\_ Yes I do, and it's true that many of them have the
same problem. Is that an excuse?
\_ This "problem" you speak of is common sense and
Christian compassion, not cognitive dissonance.
Not all Catholics hold all tenets of Catholic
dogma, and this is _not_ a problem.
\_ Yes. They're trying to do the right thing while working
within a shitty system (calcified Catholic leadership).
\_ No, in typical soft-thinking fashion, they're
trying to avoid making hard choices and to have
things both ways.
\_ A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Good troll, by the way. |
| 2004/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32250 Activity:high |
7/12 My perspective as a Nader voter:
Bush: Pro Iraq War
Kerry: Pro Iraq War
Nader: Anti Iraq War
\_ To put Kerry and Bush in the same camp here isn't exactly fair
\_ Yes. It is. Kerry and Edwards both voted for it based on the
same info Bush had. It is 100% fair. -N'04
\_ Uhm, I don't think unilaterally pulling out of Iraq is a terribly
responsible thing to do. If that's what Nader espouses, then he's
an imbecile.
\_ It isn't. He wouldn't have put us there in the first place. -N4
\_ Doesn't matter, now. We are there. What solutions does he
offer for cleaning up the mess?
Bush: Pro Life
Kerry: Pro Life
Nader: Pro Choice
\_ uhh, where did you get the Kerry pro life bit?
Bush: Pro Big Business
Kerry: Pro Big Business
Nader: Pro Little People
\_ I'm pro little people too! Midget POWER!
It goes on like this. Kerry is Pro UN, while Bush is anti UN and
Kerry would raise taxes on the rich to slightly higher levels than
Bush, but overall they're both 'Business As Usual' guys. As a Nader
voter how could I even consider voting for either of these men? They
are more similar than different. What does Kerry offer me other than
a lot of noise that he simply "isn't Bush" and "We hate Bush so vote
for the other guy! (me!)"? I hear nothing from the Kerry camp that
would make me want to vote for him. The entire message coming out
is "I'm not Bush!" which really isn't true anyway. --Nader'04!
\_ If you live in a non-battleground state, your vote doesn't matter
anyway. There's no point in debating this in California which is
going to the dems anyway. Save your effort at soap box politics
and go do something constructive, like saving the whales...
\_ My vote always matters. If enough others who have the same
opinion as you showed up we'd make a good showing to establishing
the party for the future. The Republicrat party hasn't always
been the only choice. There used to be many parties in this
country. There can be again. --Nader'04
\_ Well, since you probably share all those positions with Nader,
why not just write yourself in? You have about as much chance
as becoming president, and are probably about as qualified.
Hell, if you post your name, i'll bet you could get a couple
poeple from the motd to vote for you also. Then you can say you're
voting "your conscience" without pretending you're actually
participating in our democracy.
\_ See my reply above about staying home. Same answer. --Nader'04
\_ Kerry is a lot better then Bush on a lot of issues, abortion, the
enviornment, international relations, civil liberties... He's not
a dream candidate, but voting for Nader will only help Bush win, and
I can't condone that. If we had a parlimentary system or instant
runoff voting, then I could see voting for Nader, but under a winner
takes all republican form of government, the pragmatic thing for a
liberal to do is vote for Kerry. Idealism is nice, but it put that
asshole in power last time around.
\_ Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. To then say
he thinks abortion is ok is to legally condone murder. He's
just trying to "position" himself politically. He has no real
conviction. He just wants to be elected and powerful, the same
as Bush and many others. He's no different. --Nader'04
\_ Nader has a history of lying to improve is position politically,
at the cost of "little people's" jobs. Wait, why would I want to
vote for him again? He screws things up enough even when he's
NOT in power. [reformatted - formatd]
\_ Yeah, like when he tried to ban RWD cars. That fucker.
\_ Lying? I'll accept that if you can come up with a real URL. -N'4
\_ Kerry is a moderate. Bush and his puppet masters are a dangerous
bunch who can mess up the country badly. I am surprised a
supposed Nader supporter cannot see the difference, and in
particular, the danger of another 4 years of Bush. I think you
are a Bush supporter in disguise.
\_ Kerry is just as beholden to his masters as Bush. There is no
difference. Kerry isn't a moderate, he's got the same hungry
power madness Bush has. 4 more years of power mad vs. 4 years of
power mad followed by a potential 4 more isn't useful. -N'04
\_ Kerry is a moderate? I suppose that's true compared to
Berkeley liberals, but to the rest of the US, he's pretty
dang far left.
\_ it doesn't matter. he will have to move to the center
if he isn't there.
\_ For the election rethoric, yeah. I'm more interested
in the 4 years that follow.
\_ congress is republican, and supreme court has
shifted to the right. whole democratic party has
moved to the center. thus no danger of kerry
moving things left.
\_ Kerry is pro-life? Is that why NARAL gives him a 100% rating?
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103
I am trying to figure out if you are a Conservative troll or
a seriously ill informed Nader voter. Please educate yourself
on Kerry's actual voting record in the Senate, not your
fantasy of it, and get back to me. According to the National
Review he is the most liberal member of the Senate.
\_ Is National Review one of those right-wing think tanks?
\_ No it is one of the more respected right wing magazines.
Sort of like The Nation, but for conservatives.
\_ Kerry can't figure out WHAT he is. I'm catholic, but I'm a
democrat and therefore pro-choice. Cognitive dissonance!
\_ That sounds like a whole lot of Catholics to me. They like
the Catholic Church, but think church doctrine has a lot of BS
\_ He didn't say he thought it was BS, he said, "I
oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I
believe life does begin at conception... I can't take
my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate
it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist..." That's
just stupid. To paraphrase, "I think you're all
murdering babies, but I wouldn't want to stop you from
murdering babies. That's your choice." Huh?
\_ Bullshit. This is the finest point of the separation
of church and state. He separates his faith from his
responsibility as a civil servant. As a father, he
may have prayed that his daughter would never have
to make such a choice. As a senator, he supports her
right to that choice.
\_ Thanks for tagging your post as Bullshit, since
that's what it is. The government makes all
kinds of laws based on morality. You know it's
against the law for me to murder you? That's a
morality based law. If he really believed that
life begins at conception, it makes no sense to
say that abortion is not murder. The fact that
he REALLY wants that not to be the case does not
change it.
\_ I submit that John Kerry, thankfully, has a
more nuanced view of the world than you do.
I further submit that you need to do some
growing up before treading into political
discussions.
\_ Wow, I never realized that nuanced was a
nice way of saying soft/non-logical
thinking! Thanks for improving my
venacular! Hey, if I get a "nuanced"
enough world view, does that mean I'll be
able to act without consequences too? Cool!
\_ You do realize that morality != religion, yes?
The entire assertion that morality based law
falls into the same category as religion driven
law is completely based on this fallacious
equivalency.
\_ Way to completely miss the point. The
point is that if you believe humans life
starts at conception, abortion is murder.
(Ignoring the possible out mentioned
later in this thread.) It doesn't matter
if that belief comes from religion or not. A
religious person's morality is defined by
their religion. Since Kerry is CLAIMING
that his morality is based in
Catholisism, he should think clearly and
vote accordingly. Since he doesn't, he's
either stupid or a liar.
\_ I'm a pro-choice atheist and I believe life begins
at conception. Abortion kills a unique human
life, but it is not murder because that life is
so undeveloped that it lacks all of the qualities
that make human life deserving of protection.
\_ That's fine if you're atheist, but if
you're Catholic the kid goes to hell for
eternity. Hence abortion is wrong.
\_ Catholic dogma is that unbaptized infants
go to limbo, and will be brought into
heaven when Jesus returns. -tom
\_ Kerry may have said he believes life begins
at conception, but did he say the soul
begins at conception?
I don't think Catholics believe all
unbaptized sould go to hell. I believe they
made a specific exception for the stillborn.
\_ I don't know. If he does think
that, he should state it clearly and
explain why abortion is wrong but
ok. Instead he's just trying to have
it both ways. I would be just fine
with that position, I would also be
fine with him rejecting the Catholic
belief that all unbaptized children
go to hell.
\_ D00D u r going to H3LL!
\_ You don't know many Catholics, do you?
\_ Yes I do, and it's true that many of them have the
same problem. Is that an excuse?
\_ This "problem" you speak of is common sense and
Christian compassion, not cognitive dissonance.
Not all Catholics hold all tenets of Catholic
dogma, and this is _not_ a problem.
\_ Yes. They're trying to do the right thing while working
within a shitty system (calcified Catholic leadership).
\_ No, in typical soft-thinking fashion, they're
trying to avoid making hard choices and to have
things both ways. |
| 2004/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32247 Activity:nil |
7/12 My perspective as a Nader voter:
Bush: Pro Iraq War
Kerry: Pro Iraq War
Nader: Anti Iraq War
Bush: Pro Life
Kerry: Pro Life
Nader: Pro Choice
Bush: Pro Big Business
Kerry: Pro Big Business
Nader: Pro Little People
It goes on like this. Kerry is Pro UN, while Bush is anti UN and
Kerry would raise taxes on the rich to slightly higher levels than
Bush, but overall they're both 'Business As Usual' guys. As a Nader
voter how could I even consider voting for either of these men? They
are more similar than different. What does Kerry offer me other than
a lot of noise that he simply "isn't Bush" and "We hate Bush so vote
for the other guy! (me!)"? I hear nothing from the Kerry camp that
would make me want to vote for him. The entire message coming out
is "I'm not Bush!" which really isn't true anyway. --Nader'04! |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32246 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Joe Wilson's allegations were plastered over paper's front pages
for days and received extensive TV coverage. Wilson was identified
by NPR and the media as Kerry's de facto campaign spokesman. Now
that he's been proven a liar by the Senate and MI6 where is coverage?
\_ Proven a liar... You're pushing it a bit. Pat Robertson
\_ Proven a liar... You're pushing it a bit. Pat Roberts
opines in an appendix of the Senate Intelligence report,
and suddenly Wilson is a shameless liar. Never mind that
he was right.
\_ Ok you are right and MI6 and the senate are wrong. Any
other pontifications?
\_ MI6 is often wrong. Note that they just withdrew their
Iraqi WMD report because it was wrong.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=10596
As for the Senate... -John
http://talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0713_wilson_plame_intel.shtml
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB62OSSGWD.html
\_ News flash! Anonymous motd crank doesn't like Kerry!
\_ Attack the man, not the message. Good way to prove your
point and disprove any allegations. How'd you do in
Rhetoric 1A?
\_ As opposed to the hatchet job on wilson?
\_ It isn't a hatchet job if it's true. The seriousness of
the charge can not be so easily dismissed.
\_ Sure it can.
\_ what did he allege, i am not paying attention.
\_ this is the guy who went to nigeria to investigate iraqi
attempts to acquire uranium ore and the same guy with the cia
wife that got her ID exposed. he then lied about his work in
nigeria, his wife's role in getting him, a partisan democrat,
the job in nigeria, and a whole bunch of other things.
\_ Niger, not nigeria. The rest of your charges are all
unsubstantiated Right Wing smears.
\_ Ok you are right and MI6 and the senate are wrong.
Any other pontifications?
http://talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0713_wilson_plame_intel.shtml
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB62OSSGWD.html
\_ I don't know his politics, but previous to this mess, he
gave (unapologetically, like most people playing the system)
to both parties. (e.g. he have $1000 to both bush and gore
in 2000) -phuqm
\_ Don't forget the press crucifying Novak for stating his wife's name.
Now that we know she suggested him for the job and all the denials
were partisan, where are the apologies to Novak?
\_ Not for stating his wife's name, but for identifying her as a
CIA agent. federal offences deserve a little crucifixion. |
| 2004/7/10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32209 Activity:nil |
7/10 Republicans Give to Nader Campaign
http://csua.org/u/854 |
| 2004/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32199 Activity:high |
7/9 Senate Report Sees No Formal Iraq-Qaeda Ties.
http://csua.org/u/84t (Yahoo! News)
\_ How is it possible to have a formal tie to an organization such
as Al Qaeda that has no official structure?
\_ "there is no evidence" == "We just don't know! There isn't
anything confirming it, or anything to knock it down." -Dick Cheney
\_ So, I am curious, does this kind of reasoning convince anyone?
\_ Democrat _____ evil, Republican _____ good.
\_ "There is a relationship" -Dubya
"There were definitely links" -Dick
"no established formal relationship" -Senate report
\_ Before Cheney claimed the link was neither proven nor disproven
he claimed it had "pretty much been confirmed". When confronted
about the contradiction he lied. The lie occurred during
a CNBC interview, I believe.
\_ the problem is, there have been Iraq-Qaeda links; those *are*
pretty much confirmed
\_ Does anybody like Cheney? Would you Bush lovers be happy with
President Cheney?
\_ it doesn't matter what they say now. if cheney becomes
president, their republican media spinmasters will declare
him to be a Great Leader, and they will obey.
\_ Cheney rocks. I'd vote for any ticket with Cheney on it.
I might even consider something as sickening as a Kerry/
Cheney ticket if Kerry had cancer or something.
\_ No, all they have to say is, "Do you trust Cheney or
Kerry? Who do you trust to ensure the U.S. doesn't get
all blowed up?"
\_ So what? Security isn't important?
\_ I have met both Cheney and Kerry (and Gore). I am
not sure I trust any of them, but in general they
get too much and too little credit at the same
time.
\_ FWIW, One of my few republican friends is voting for Bush bc
of Cheney.
\_ If you were nicer, you'd have more friends. We're
everywhere, we just don't tell you because you're all
such bastards about it. |
| 2004/7/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32189 Activity:insanely high |
7/8 Kerry getting big monetary support from the little people he's going
to help as President. So, do you really think all these big shots are
spending (not giving since they're buying a Senator and possible
President) what they're spending on Kerry and don't expect personal
benefit for their money?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm
\_ you'd rather have a president who's on Kenneth Lay's payroll?
\_ WJC isn't running.
\_ what's your point? Bush has far more large contributors than
Kerry. -tom
\_ BZZZT! Please back up random off the cuff fact free statement
with URL. Thanks. And toss in http://moveon.org numbers while you're
at it.
\_ Total Receipts: Bush $215M, Kerry: $148M
# of $2000+ contributors: Bush 56K, 55% of all contributors
Kerry 23K, 37% of all contributors.
http://opensecrets.org.
Now will you go away? -tom
\_ See? Tom isn't so bad.
\_ It's a well known fact that Bush's campaign has more money,
and a larger percentage of $2K contributors, as tom has
pointed out.
\_ Motd Axiom #5: All assertions not accompanied by an URL
from an acceptable and reasonably unbiased source, no
matter how obvious, are assumed false. Example:
The sky is blue.
\_ Proof? Url please.
\_ Everyone knows that Texas energy executives are much more
ethical and honest than Hollywood movie stars...
\_ This site is pretty cool. http://www.fundrace.org |
| 2004/7/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32184 Activity:high |
7/8 Another reason to vote for Kerry:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5388509/site/newsweek
\_ Edwards's idea sounds like a good one to me.
\_ Yup, it sure does. After all, the Democratic party is all
about institutionalized domestic spying. I mean, the Reps
and their crap about Homeland Security, they're just too
damn lenient. Oh wait....
\_ Damn, Isikoff gets around...
\_ There's a reason to vote for Kerry? Really? Other than amusement? |
| 2004/7/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31218 Activity:moderate |
7/8 The July Surprise?
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904
"...a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that 'it would be best
if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six,
twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July'--the first three days of the
Democratic National Convention in Boston."
\_ If only the liberal media would follow this up!
\_ They're too busy cheer leading Kerry and Edwards.
\_ Bzzt! Tom Ridge just announced another nonexistent Al Qaida
plot!
\_ this is a precurser to declaring martial law in nyc
during the RNC in August. just wait and see.
\_ Is it a surprise if everyone knows?
\_ You expect anyone to actually pay attention to the inside
baseball? |
| 2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31209 Activity:insanely high |
7/7 Concerned senior citizen speaks out in support of Kerry:
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/04/Jul/kerry.html
\_ Dear Mr. Bush, Since the start of your presidency, membership in
our club has grown by leaps and bounds; donations have quadrupled,
and media coverage has been daily and constant. Keep up the good
work. Yours, Osama bin Laden
\_ Yeah, and when they stated as early as '93 they were out to
get Americans, what did Clinton do?
\_ he tried to kill him. Mind you that at the same time, you
were busy trying to impeach Clinton, completely ignoring
all threats imposed by Al Qaeda.
\_ Laaaaaame.... try harder.
\_ no lamer than the original. -tom
\_ The original was actually quite amusing. The followup
just tried too hard and doesn't ring as true.
\_ I'd like to think you're joking, but I'm afraid I'd be
terribly mistaken.
\_ Apparently you have no sense of timing. I bet you find
knock-knock jokes still funny...
\_ but true.
\_ Uhm, no...
\_ It was cute the first time but now it's old as dirt and
best forgotten. Don't beat a dead horse.
\_ Kerry has the support of foriegn leaders!
\_ And Al Gore invented the Internet, and Ketchup is a vegetable,
and you REALLY need some new material.
\_ Bush has the support of Al Queda!
\_ Anyone that does not agree with me is a terrorist and
hates America!
\_ I know you're being sarcastic but I hope you don't
believe anyone actually ever said that for real.
\_ Anyone on the motd, the Bush administration, or
the right-wing press? Take your pick. I bet I
can find examples from all three. Poster below
just found one from Bush himself.
\_ "Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists." -GWB |
| 2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31196 Activity:kinda low |
7/7 The congressmen who want U.N. observers in U.S. vote
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39318
\_ Because we need the third world to help us have clean elections?
Ours are the cleanest the planet has ever seen and that includes
the dirty ballot box stuffing in Chicago and Philidelphia every
year. |
| 2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31172 Activity:high |
6/7 He reaches to the bottom of the barrel, scrapes, fishes, panders,
and...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/politics/campaign/06CND-KERR.html?hp
Kerry selects Edwards as running mate.
\_ I really didn't expect that.
\_ I did. Anything else would have been stupid.
\_ Well, it could've been worse... and it could've been a lot better.
\_ Curious, who do you think would have been better?
\_ John McCain!
\_ Yeah right. He didn't want it. It would be political
suicide for him.
\_ I love how quickly GOP spin makes its way onto the motd.
\_ Where's DrudgeGuy so we can mock him?
\_ Mock away. I'm here. I posted insider speculation which was
properly labeled as speculation. There is nothing to mock.
\_ People who think Edwards is scum: Is there any reason other than
that he was a personal injury lawyer?
\_ It's not even that. Repeat after me. He's a deh moh craat.
\_ He made his millions convincing juries that Cerebral Palsy can be
caused by the OB. It's schmucks like him that have been
principle contributors to the mess of current health care
insurance. -hates trial lawyers
\_ Oh yeah. And pharma's massive direct ad campaigns have
nothing at all to do with it. Do the math. The lawsuits and
associated insurance costs are higher but they are a red
herring. Have you gotten through an evening of TV lately w.o
at least three ads for
\_ Cf. http://www.discountblogger.com/archives/003001.html
The first comment draws on CDC and CP Foundation to support
the idea that malpractice _can_ lead to CP. As said there,
ambulance-chaser he may be, but quoting junk science he's not.
\_ Thanks for this link. I still think Edwards is a slimeball
but I'll look into the CP issue more. -hates trial lawyers
\_ OB/GYN?
\_ Lawyers don't make things bad. They don't make things good.
A good lawyer represents their client as well as they can. If
the law is 'flawed' and they take advantage of that for their
client's benefit successfully then they are a good lawyer who
does their job right. |
| 2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31148 Activity:nil 50%like:31142 |
7/2 Democrats suck. I will *never* for *any* of your guys again.
[non-shortened URL deleted]
\_ ha! ha!! haaaaaa!!!! There is justice, after all.
\_ shutting down a rival candidate through dirty legal tricks is
justice? thats good for democracy? get a real candidate and
you wouldn't have to worry so much about second party
candidates. your guy is dirty and ugly and has no honor.
\_ but Nader smells! Nader also can't get laid.
\_ Yeah, but you never voted for any of our guys before, so it is
no loss.
\_ I did before I learned you're the same as the other half of
your party. I won't again. Nor will many others. -eyes open now
\_ Actually, I used to be a Green. I even spent weeks on
Telegraph Ave collecting signatures to get the Green
Party on the ballot. But I have decided to switch to
Democrat precisely because of immature whiney actions
like Nader's. He has no "right" to be on the ballot and
if he can't gather the signatures then he should just shut up.
\_ Hello? This is America. He has *every* right to run. It
isn't a "right". It's a right. An important one. If he
can't get the signnatures then why are the dirty Dems so
worried and impassionaed about him? If he was such a weak
candidate why are they so concerned? You're no different
than Bush and his cronies. You're all cynical and evil.
You weren't a Green. You were a power hungry leftist with
no sense of the importance of clean government. You're all
about winning at any cost. Some costs are too high.
\_ He cannot get the signatures or he would be on
the ballot. Stop twisting my words. The "dirty
Dems" just asked him to verify his signatures and
he could not. If he can't get a mere 20,000 signatures
in a state the size of Arizona, his campaign is
pathetic. I was part of a group that got 10,000
signatures in 6 weeks. There were 10 of us volunteering
our time. We collected them all from San Francisco
voters. This implies that Nader can't get 20 dedicated
volunteers in the whole state. Where was your
outrage over The Republican Party illegally helping
Nader get on the ballot in Oregon?
\_ If your eyes are "wide open" now, then you'll realize
that there is no such thing as a clean government. You
will also realize that Nader had 0% chance of being
president. Nader is on a crusade to punish the Dems. He
did it in '00, and he wants to repeat the same in '04.
The greens must have been shitting some serious spinach
the last four years, and have realized that backing
Nader was the most horrible "naiive" mistake they've
ever made. Nader should go back to doing what he's good
at: consumer protections. That's all he was ever good
at doing.
\_ I voted Nader twice, and now that I know he is anti-Israel,
I would rather vote far-right or Republican. |
| 2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31142 Activity:nil 50%like:31148 |
7/2 Democrats suck. I will *never* for *any* of your guys again.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040702/ap_on_el_pr/nader_1&printer=1
\_ ha! ha!! haaaaaa!!!! There is justice, after all.
\_ shutting down a rival candidate through dirty legal tricks is
justice? thats good for democracy? get a real candidate and
you wouldn't have to worry so much about second party
candidates. your guy is dirty and ugly and has no honor.
\_ but Nader smells! Nader also can't get laid.
\_ Yeah, but you never voted for any of our guys before, so it is
no loss.
\_ I did before I learned you're the same as the other half of
your party. I won't again. Nor will many others. -eyes open now
\_ Actually, I used to be a Green. I even spent weeks on
Telegraph Ave collecting signatures to get the Green
Party on the ballot. But I have decided to switch to
Democrat precisely because of immature whiney actions
like Nader's. He has no "right" to be on the ballot and
if he can't gather the signatures then he should just shut up.
\_ Hello? This is America. He has *every* right to run. It
isn't a "right". It's a right. An important one. If he
can't get the signnatures then why are the dirty Dems so
worried and impassionaed about him? If he was such a weak
candidate why are they so concerned? You're no different
than Bush and his cronies. You're all cynical and evil.
You weren't a Green. You were a power hungry leftist with
no sense of the importance of clean government. You're all
about winning at any cost. Some costs are too high.
\_ He cannot get the signatures or he would be on
the ballot. Stop twisting my words. |
| 2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31137 Activity:high |
7/2 How soon till it hits Drudge Report???
link:csua.org/u/814 (Kerry overly friendly with young woman)
\_ You're kidding, right? Overly friendly? It looks like a
woman hugging a tree. A really, really, extra wooden tree.
\_ Kerry=Lurch Addams.
\_ The guy is dead. Why must you insult him? Let him RIP.
\_ Who is that? Is it his daughter? |
| 2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31123 Activity:very high |
7/2 Sorry Ralph! Guess the GOP couldn't help you in Arizona!
http://csua.org/u/80s (yahoo news link)
\_ you can still write his name in
\_ "Writing Ralph Nader's name in" should probably be in the
dictionary as a reference for the word "deluded."
\_ Screw you Democrats. A vote for Ralph is a vote for Ralph. We
will not stand by forever with your one-party, two-name system. |
| 2004/7/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31111 Activity:very high |
7/1 I don't get what all the hoopla is with the Irish interview of Bush.
I haven't watched the video, but based on the transcript, it seems
to me like he gave reasonable responses to all the tough questions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html
When I read that Bush "lost it" in the interview, I thought he
Howard-Dean lost-it. Or Steve Ballmer lost-it.
\_ I see the interviewer was an *@#hole.
\_ And I see you're a fucking prude!
\_ I don't know that there's that much hoopla. He did that "let me
finish! please! can i finish?" thing a billion times which is
funny though. That interviewer seemed kind of unintelligent
though, unable to explain the point about the world being less
safe. There is a rational argument to be made there but she just
said (twice) "i don't know if you can see that".
\_ Well, yeah. The interviewer was being really rude. Maybe
he should have just walked out after the 3rd time. It
looked to me like Bush handled it really well.
\_ walking out could have looked pretty bad. i think the
interviewer was just impatient with the predictable answers,
but it's her own fault for not asking the right questions.
\_ I have to admit that I thought the question about God
guiding him was pretty funny.
\_ Just listened the an audio version. Interviewer comes off
badly. Bush comes off as pretty competent for someone
constantly bashed for his poor public speaking.
\_ link? |
| 2004/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31045 Activity:nil |
6/28 Interesting non-partisan 1995 documentary gives some funny insight
into political spin. Pretty large download for the mpegs though.
http://www.illegal-art.org/video/popups/spin.html |
| 2004/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31040 Activity:insanely high |
6/28 I watched F911 and frankly I don't see anything controversial except
its choice of targets. This movie does not stand out at all in the
technics it employs to make its pointed criticism. OK, It does not
compare to the artistically great but evil propaganda from the last
century, nor is it for publication on Nature or Daedalus. It is about
as wicked and biased as the all the mainstream network news,
documentaries, or frontline exposes, i.e. the normal media you immerse
yourself in and rave about on the motd, freerepublic or slashdot.,
perhaps even a tiny bit less so. If you have a problem with its
fairness, you can't just cherry pick this one. You should disconnect
yourself from TV, printed media, internet etc even when they are just
picking on M$, EPA, or Bangladesh. On the other hand, if you hate F911
because you think strong criticism of our Leader is unpatriotic and
challenge to the upper echelon of society is subversive, you can
and should make your point directly without shame.
\_ I disagree. I think Moore is qualitatively different from mainstream
news. His vibe as entertainer reminds me of Limbaugh, only he
uses film as his medium, not talk radio. -- ilyas
\_ I disagree. I think Moore is qualitatively different from
mainstream news. His vibe as entertainer reminds me of Limbaugh,
only he uses film as his medium, not talk radio. -- ilyas
\_ What is the big deal about this movie? The dude sounds like a huge
retard who doesn't know jack about anything and just goes around
mouthing off. Whatever.
\_ The "big deal" seems to be created by the staunch right-wing
who have never seen the movie (or anything by Michael Moore)
but telling others that it is an un-American movie and that
they shouldn't watch it.
\_ Ad-hominem attack #2.
\_ How the hell is this "ad-hominem"?
\_ I was wondering that too -AH#1
\_ I don't care what movie people go and see. You want
to pay $9 and see the movie, bully for you. Whatever.
To me it doesn't look like a good movie and the comments
the director makes make it sound like a terrible movie.
But then again, maybe I'm not the best judge of such
things since I only watch movies with the words 'Star Trek'
in the title.
\_ Well, I personally didn't like the movie myself and,
like so many movies I've seen, wished I didn't pay
$10 for it. But whether a movie's good or bad is a
matter of opinion from people who've seen it. What
I think is absured are all these people who haven't
seen the movie and are telling others to boycott the
movie and calling them unpatriotic otherwise.
\_ Ad-hominem attack #1.
\_ It's not ad-hominem since Moore is the director and also in
the movie.
\_ people, please stop putting a hyphen in ad hominem. do it
for the children.
\_ OMG, YOU HUGE RETARD, U DONT NO JACK, QUIT MOUTHING OFF!!!1
\_ Yes it is. You insulted MM without adressing any of the
content of the movie.
\_ Would it be better if he said "He seems like a huge/fat
retard, speaking through a megaphone outside the capital"
He's in the movie, so attacking him is attacking one of
the characters/protaganists of the film. I vaguely
" He's in the movie, so attacking him is attacking one
of the characters/protaganists of the film. I vaguely
enjoyed the film, but not really the parts that he was
\_ Saying he made an ass of himself in front of the
\_ the british calls it arse
White House is a criticism of the movie. Just saying
he's "a huge retard who doesn't know jack about
\_ who's jack?
anything" is a personal attack. If you had said
"MM says foobar, which is wrong." that would be
\_ what's MM?
\_ what's foobar?
a fair criticism.
in. I don't like watching fat people in movies/TV.
\_ Whatever. I've read speeches/interviews with this guy
(about this and other movies). He has a very one sided
view about stuff and passes it off as informed and
objective. If he was honest about the fact that his
movies and writing are anything but objective then he
might not come off as such a huge jackass.
\_ When did Moore ever say he was objective? As far as I
know, he has always tried to push his agenda.
\_ This is one of those things I don't need to see to know I won't
like it. I heard enough about the Passion of Christ to know I
wouldn't want to see that. I eventually saw Titanic but wished I
hadn't. Really, MM is just about self glorification. In some ways,
he is very much like Limbaugh. The difference I see is that I can
pick up the phone and challenge Rush 5 days a week any time during
his 2 to 4 hour show and put him on the spot and make him explain
if he said something I disagree with or if he twisted something. I
do not have that option with MM. I only have people like this to
"talk" with about him:
Boredcast Message from 'brain': Mon Jun 28 08:34:19 2004
if someone who is not a raging asshole sees that movie,
I can pretty much gaurantee they will vote against Bush
\_ Interesting. This is the usual trick of defending your
opinon by taking an example of your opponents out of
context (like when he is stoned or walling) or
representativeness and ridicue it. This is something MM
might been guilty, but see it is SO mainstream.
context (like when he is stoned or walling, which is same)
or representativeness and ridicule it. This is something MM
might been guilty of, but see it is SO mainstream.
\_ I indented your interruption bc it looks like a continue
of the rest of my post. So, the wall log is there. What
did I take out of context? What exactly is the context
on the wall log that I have unfairly smeared brain or
taken his post out of context? It's there. Maybe I'm
blind or something. Please explain. As far as stoned or
walling goes, I get the same replies on the motd and the
wall is covered in that sort of noise. I picked the
first one I saw related to the topic. I didn't dig for
a special case. I didn't have to. It was said, that's
who I have the opportunity to discuss anything with and
I still can't chat with MM and I can still call Rush 5
days a week. Please explain my 'trick' and maybe answer
some of my other questions and points as well. Thank
you. --c
\_ Um, perhaps becuase you WEREN'T discussing it with
brian, and pulled his quote from wall to try to
illustrate an impervious liberal veneer. If you
had engaged him, on wall, or by email, you might
have the chance to find that he is intelligent,
reasonable, and possibly could give you something
to think about on the subject. But you seem to
like your blinders. --scotsman
\_ I must be an asshole -- I am voting Nader. This
brain fellow better be using some sort of
hyperbole, because it sure sounds like he is
mouthing off mindlessly on wall. -- ilyas
\_ Why don't you go ask him? Something like:
"Hi brain, I don't know you, but on wall today
you sounded like you were mouthing off
mindlessly. Were you using some sort of
hyperbole?"
\_ you'll notice I said "against Bush" ilyas.
Not "for Kerry." You don't know me, so you
don't know my politics. But you haven't asked.
go ahead, ask me! I'm not a hostile person.
most of the time. Unlike most people, I'm not
offended that you don't agree with me. It's a
free country, and it doesn't make you less of an
American. My point with the movie is: regardless
of your politics, it is pretty hard to see thepain
of a mother who has lost her son to a war cometo
grips with the realization that there may not have
been a good reason for it. And this experience
will make you ask yourself questions; perhaps
questions you should have been asking yourself
previously. To ignore the possibility of a new
experience is a sign of intellectual and in this
case moral weakness. Just think about it. -brain
free country, and it doesn't make you less of
an American. My point with the movie is:
regardless of your politics, it is pretty hard
to see the pain of a mother who has lost her
son to a war come to grips with the realization
that there may not have been a good reason for
it. And this experience will make you ask
yourself questions; perhaps questions you
should have been asking yourself previously.
To ignore the possibility of a new experience
is a sign of intellectual and in this case
moral weakness. Just think about it. -brain
\_ Heh. I am voting for Nader because CA is
not a battleground state, and because I wish
to splinter the liberal vote further by
encouraging Nader to run again.
I sympathize with people (both American and
otherwise) who were harmed by Bush's
policies, but I think your conclusion on,
for instance the worth of the war, seems a
little premature. Even if Bush lied through
his teeth about the reasons, the actual
positive effects of the war (of a
humanitarian nature, for example) is
something neither you nor indeed the mother
of a slain soldier should discount quite so
readily. As for ignoring the possibility of
a new experience, with all due respect to
Mr. Moore, I do not consider his films an
intellectual experience at all. I have
plenty of intelligent liberal friends to
argue with. -- ilyas
\_ off topic I guess but I'm not totally
convinced that Bush has zero chance here.
anyway, I'll vote for Kerry just because
I believe he's a better human being. I
don't think the Iraq action itself should
be the basis of voting. Bush bothers me
across a lot of fronts independent of
conservative/liberal politics. -IND voter
\_ and what is my conclusion on the worth
of the war? I have never even brought it
up, and honestly it's not the reason I
think Bush is a terrible leader. You need
to understand that, at his core, Bush does
not value your welfare, nor that of
America, and that his policies, not just
with regard to Iraq, are self-serving
and evil. Look at the results of Leave
No Child Behind, or what has happened to
the FCC or EPA's policies. The Clear
Skies Initiative. Even a little research
will show you a larger picture than just
Iraq. Not the ideology, I'm talking about
the actual, measurable results. This is
important stuff here, and unless you
personally own a gigantic manufacturing or
oil corporation you have personally not
benefitted from any of these things. Do
the math on the dividend tax cut- how much
money did you save? How much money was
saved by others, never to be circulated
back into our economy? -brain
\_ I find Brian often weighs in on things
he has not given much thought to or
is not especially knowledgeable about.
In some cases I assume it is just
immaturity, but in this case I think he
is carried away by emotion. I've known
him for a little while and I'm not a knee-
jerk liberal. I think part of his problem
is he gets all of his news from web sites
and soundbite sources. But there are some
niches he does seem knowledgeable. But
they are sort of superficial subjects.
\_ I'm guessing you are referring to the
tax law discussion, in which I was shouted
down for trying to save you fools a few
thousand dollars. If someone shows me I am
misinformed, I always apologise. Always.
But I'm not going to argue with you on wall
when I can tell you are not interested in
discussion. While you guys snipe and rotin
your cubes, other people are running around
thousand dollars. If someone shows me I
am misinformed, I always apologise.
Always. But I'm not going to argue with
you on wall when I can tell you are not
interested in discussion.
While you guys snipe and rot in your
cubes, other people are running around
the world accomplishing great things. So
forgive me for voicing an opinion, or sharing
a piece of very expensive information it cost
me a great deal to obtain. Information that
forgive me for voicing an opinion, or
sharing a piece of very expensive
information it cost me a great deal to
obtain. Information that
came from my corporate tax lawyer. -brain
\_ It looks like someone made Brian cry.
\_ nah it's cool. I enjoy spending
your tax money. -brain
\_ You'd have to, if you like Moore's
movies with good conscience.
\_ I'm not sure what you mean.
Michael Moore is funded by
tax dollars?
\_ I agree with this point as well. The "conservative"
poster has taken the wall of one user and generalized
it to be the mindset of all liberals. This is not a
convincing way to make an argument, and ironically makes
the op look close-minded.
Now then, what's the point of even trying to talk to some of you
when disagreeing with you or your media heroes make me an asshole
in your eyes? I don't think any of you are assholes simply for
\_ It doesn't, and I never said that. Interesting that you didn't
bring this up when I said it... No, what makes you an asshole is
writing this Rush Limbaugh diatribe in which you ascribe all
kinds of motives to a single portion of my conversation with
Rand. Maybe O'Reilly actually... Limbaugh never cut his
guests' microphone. -brain
\_ It doesn't, and you know that's not what that wall meant.
Interesting that you didn't bring this up when I said it...
No, what makes you an asshole is writing this (anonymous)
Rush Limbaugh diatribe in which you ascribe all kinds of
motives to a single portion of my conversation with Rand.
Maybe O'Reilly actually... Limbaugh never cut his guests'
microphone. -brain
disagreeing with me. I don't even think most of you are assholes.
If you are an asshole, you know it and you're proud of it and I'm
ok with that. But don't call me names because I don't like your
hero or I disagree with your political philosophy. If I said the
same as the above but turned it around you'd call me a right wing
nutter and dig up your motd watch logs to find out who I was so
you could give me some twink points or try to get me squished. As
far as watching MM goes, I don't have the time or money to waste on
things that get reviews like the above. --conservative
\_ This is why I thought F911 was a weak movie. Contrary to brain's
suggestion, I don't think it'll win over any conservative votes.
At best (and I don't think it'll do this either), it might
"energize the party base".
\_ It doesn't have to do that stuff to not be a weak movie. I'll
probably watch it at some point. I never watched Bowling just
because the subject matter seemed too boring. I don't expect
it to be a religious experience, but some insight and
entertainment.
\_ Why would I want to pay $9 and waste 2 hours to watch MORE
crappy propaganda? Or even GOOD propaganda for that matter?
\_ Or any movie. period.
\_ You watch for the footage they don't show on CNN.
The Emperor has no clothes, and we want to see that. ;-)
\_ good point. You could probably get a bootleg, or sneak into the
movie... or just go to a matinee! |
| 2004/6/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31035 Activity:high |
6/28 I'm tired of people calling the LA Times the liberal newspaper (they're
guilty of Ah-nold bashing, that's true, but he is clearly a groper)
when the NY Times is the champ, and the Washington Post is running
Kerry ads with polling data like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/charting.html?nav=1b
... which lists registered voters, not likely voters, where Bush
leads.
\_ The liberal media? That's so 1993...
\_ And 1973 and 1983 and 2003 and....
\_ Yeah GE, Westinghouse and NewsCorp are all so .... liberal???
\_ you forgot Disney, Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, and
ClearChannel. |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30994 Activity:very high 57%like:33376 50%like:33798 |
6/24 New CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll!
Most Americans now think the Iraq war wasn't worth it, was a mistake,
and made America *less* safe from terrorism (55% less safe, 37% safer,
6% no change, 2% on opinion), AND, Bush would still make a better
commander in chief, AND Bush leads by a statistically insignificant
amount among likely voters.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm
\_ Ok, and?
\_ American people are stupid and clueless from the start.
\_ No. It is a comparison. It says that despite whatever
mistakes a number of people feel Bush has made, they
still believe he would be better than Kerry. It does
not say they believe he is doing a great job. Just
better than Kerry and *that* is what wins elections.
\_ one small change to what you wrote:
it's "better commander in chief" where Bush leads,
not "who would you vote for for President", which is
where they are tied.
\_ I stand corrected. No problem. So my followup
is that being a better commander in chief is not
the only thing people are using to decide their
votes. The idea that the American people are
clueless and stupid is not backed by this poll.
\_ World would be even more blowed up if Kerry was
President.
\_ And, the poll URL ("Poll: Iraq a mistake") disappears off the
http://cnn.com front page. Story of 100+ people dying and 300+ wounded
in 1 day in Iraq is moved down. New lead story: NASA's future.
\_ Uh huh, and...?
\_ Do I really need to say it?
\_ Say what, exactly? Stale news gets moved aside in favor
of less stale news. Hello? Information age?
\_ Actually it got moved back up to the front page today.
Guess they didn't want to be accused of burying this,
when they had prominent stories on all previous
CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls. Guess they also want
to appear non-partisan, but not piss off the Bushies
too much. I really doubt it has to do with "stale"
news, especially since the original story had been
released 8:30pm Eastern Thursday night.
\_ Be serious. CNN's news portal is a business, a
business that gauges success by the number of
clicks. You bet your ass they keep track of which
articles are being clicked on, and when that
click-rate drops below a certain threshold, new
stories are rotated in. I think you *drastically*
overestimate the degree of politicization.
\_ I basically agree with this; I don't think
mainstream news outlets care that much about
what they're reporting, but they do pander to
what people will want to hear/read. Except in
cases like talk about media mergers, where the
reporting is all on the side of how great they
are.
The idea that the media is biased towards liberal
is totally ridiculous, but I don't buy into
the vast right wing media conspiracy either. -tom
\_ this is exactly why I don't understand people kept saying that
news media has a liberal bias. At least for TV media, if
anything, the bias seems favors republicans.
\_ How is splashing the death of 100 Iraqis across CNN, when
8000 Americans die daily of cancer, heart disease, and
doctor error, not liberal bias?
\_ Are you trolling? Or are you really that dense?
\_ If you don't have a real response, just don't say
anything. Leave space for those who have a response.
You're wasting precious bits.
\_ I agree with op. You are trolling, dewd.
\_ Hey "dewd", that was my first entry on this
thread. I didn't post the part about 8000 vs 100
dying. So at best it is 2:2. And there's still
no reaponse of any note. This is all bullshit
meta-response.
\_ OK, on the off chance you're not trolling...
It's not liberal bias because the job of the news
media is only to report stories that are newsworthy.
100 people dying in Iraq in a single day is a news
event. 8000 people dying of heart disease and cancer
is an everyday event, and hence not news. Is it
right wing bias for the news to not report the
hundreds of Americans killed by handgun violence
everyday? No it's not. Individual events might be
news, but a general trend is not.
\_ Soldiers returning from Iraq are much more
terrified of Iraq portrayed in the news here
in this country, than they are there patrolling
the streets. Are the thousands of construction
projects carried out by our soldiers (patching
homes, re-opening schools, delivering supplies,
etc. covered by our news media day to day? They
are not, thus combined with continuous reports
of casualties, we get results from "polls" where
Americans ask "[Why are we there?]" We're there
*nation* *building*. When you clear a nest of
hornets, you're going to get stung many times.
This is the greatness of America, we are strong
and rich because this is one of the last nations
not drowning in corruption. Any of the soliders
are worth 100 times any CSUAer myself included.
So splashing a statistically insignificant
number of deaths, and not reporting the
thousands of good things that happen every day
is liberal bias, IMHO.
\_ That's not liberal bias for the reasons
outlined above. 100 Iraqis dying in a single
day is unusual, and hence, newsworthy. Things
being rebuilt in Iraq is an everyday occurance
and hence not newsworthy.
\_ An everyday un-reported occurrence.
\_ An everyday un-reported occurrence. When
things like thousands of positive daily
news events go un-reported, and deaths
and casualties lead the news nightly,
then "polls" become worthless.
\_ "If it bleeds, it leads" has been the
motto of news editors for as long as I
can remember. If you want news of the
Army's good deeds read Stars and Stripes.
As for the worth of polls, they tell us
what the public thinks, not what is the
true state of the world.
\_ I don't think people have a problem with the
current "Why are we there?" (nation building),
but "we shouldn't have been there in the first
place." Myself included, there are many
who are, and were against our involvement, but
aren't screaming to bring the trooops home NOW
\_ "100+ Iraqis die in single day of attacks; meanwhile,
8,000 Americans died of cancer, heart diseases, doctor
error. Fair and balanced, from Fox News!" |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30990 Activity:high |
6/24 http://www.pvponline.com Online idiots hate Captain America! (In the news section) \_ Heh, when I play online and people have idiotic sound-bite names (Bush sux, etc.) I just start team-killing. Much more fun that way. |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30987 Activity:moderate |
6/23 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Voter-Drive-Felons.html Kerry campaign gives Felons a new chance to scout the area for houses to rob and children to rape. \_ Why do you hate Kerry? \_ The felons already had the chance to scout the area. This just gives them an excuse to be at some mother's door with a clipboard in hand gathering personal information from people. It's still woefully stupid. I prefer to think Kerry's people are so blinded by hate and ambition they would do anything to win rather than they are outright evil which is what you imply. thunk that our guys aren't all raping murderous bastards? This WAPO story must be a lie. |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30986 Activity:insanely high |
6/24 You know the release of interrogation memos a couple days ago?
Notice they did not include any State Department letters, ones that
argue against Ashcroft and the Justice Department's legal conclusions?
The Washington Post got one of the State Dept letters. Guess who
also gets bashed? Boalt Law Professor John Yoo. If you read to the
end of the article, you'll also find that the military intelligence
officers at Guantanamo who were supposed to be doing the abusing
complained and ultimately reversed the policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A759-2004Jun23.html
\_ Bush/Cheney 2004!
\_ Yeah! Bush/Cheney! http://www.georgewbush.org
\_ Why do you hate Ashcroft?
\_ Bush/Cheney 2004!
\_ Holy shit! You mean our soliders aare actually good guys and thus
the half dozen knuckle draggers in Abu Graib are an aberation and
not taking their orders straight from Dubya? Would ever woulda
not taking their orders straight from Dubya? Who ever woulda
thunk that our guys aren't all raping murderous bastards? This
WAPO story must be a lie. |
| 2004/6/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30983 Activity:high |
6/23 http://tinyurl.com/3yfaq (news.yahoo.com) Holy shit! How do *I* get into the parties they're attending?! \_ I have invites...who wants them. \_ marry Jeri Ryan \_ Is this the same one who played Seven Of Nine? That dude is strange if he's married to Seven Of Nine and wants to go the xxx clubs. \_ this story wouldn't get nearly the attention that it has if it weren't the same Jeri Ryan \_ He's a Republican who went to sex clubs. Is this some bizarre conservative cross-pollination from Britain? What's next, Jesse Helmes found dead of autoerotic asphyxiation? \_ He's a tried and true RINO. \_ His name is Jack Ryan and he's running for office? That's too funny. \_ Tom Clancy fans might get confused and vote for him. Maybe that is his angle. \_ Why do you hate sex? |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30938 Activity:very high |
6/21 Nader taps Camejo to be running mate:
http://csua.org/u/7ul (Reuters)
It will break my heart if Bush wins CA because of this.
\_ you and a lot of other people.
http://www.dontvoteralph.net/start.htm
http://www.fuckyouralphnader.com
\_ All of them hard core Democrats. Their opinions have no value
to Nader supporters. See my reply below.
\_ What about http://repentantnadervoter.com.
I used to be a Green and I voted Nader in 96 and 2000.
I left the party, joined the Democrats and gave Kerry
money because of Nader's bull headedness. This should
concern you.
\_ I also voted for Nader in 2000, and have also given several
hundred dollars first to Dean, and now to Kerry.
\_ We've been over this. Nader voters do not *owe* Kerry or the
Democrats their votes or support. We are in a different party.
We don't like your guy any more or less than we like the other
guy. If Nader wasn't running, most of us would stay home or vote
for a different second party candidate.
\_ I think it is your duty as a reasonable and moral human
being to get out of the house on election day and vote
for the candidate most likely to beat Bush.
\_ I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I don't care what you
do? I'm much more concerned with those people who actually
might think a Green vote would make a difference now.
\_ Exactly. If you can honestly say "Nader or nobody" then
the Dems, the GOP and me don't care a rat's ass about you. The
problem is, contrary to their rhetoric, a great deal of
Naderites *would* have otherwise have voted for Gore and are
getting ready to do the same thing *again*. They are between
3 and 6%, depending on who you ask. -- ulysses
\_ Hey you guys, leave Nader alone. I am voting for him.
He is doing a lot of good for this country. Heh. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, you know I respect you, but I'm having trouble
controlling the boot of death right now. --erikred
\_ We've been over this. If another guy runs who they like
better then they should vote for that guy. If the choice
was GWB or Stalin, you'd be voting for GWB but not because
you like Bush but because Stalin would be so much worse.
The same is true of the Nader voters. Some would vote for
Kerry if their candidate wasn't available but not because
they wanted to as a preference, only because they feel
the alternative is further from their own beliefs. I don't
see how voting for the lesser of evils is healthy for
Democracy. It is a good thing that Nader is there for us.
If Bush wins with Nader running, then Democracy wins, even
if that might have been the difference and Kerry loses.
I would happily vote for Bush over Stalin. I would vote
for Kerry over Bush *if* I bothered to show which I am
unlikely to do for Kerry. My preference is Nader and if
that means Bush wins and Kerry loses because Nader "stole"
votes from Kerry, then so be it. They weren't his in the
first place if they're going to someone else. I think some
of you are so blinded by your anti-Bush rhetoric that you
can't see or acknowledge that other people who share some
of your beliefs don't share all of them. We are the other
party in this country, not a third party. --Nader'04!
\_ No, democracy does not win in a scenario of 3 parties,
where 1 guy gets 40 percent and the other two get 30.
without runoff voting, you may very well have the
situation of most people disliking the choice. The way
our political system works, the place for building the
coalitions and hearing minor candidates is in the
party primaries. I would prefer runoff voting but this
is reality. In many ways the democrats and republicans
both suck, but they are what pan out from our political
process. Why can't the Greens win even a single congress
seat?
\_ If we had 3 parties that might be true. We have 1
party and are working hard to make a second. Vote
Nader in 04 for Democracy! And how exactly is it
that minor candidates are heard in primaries? The
primary system is for the Demopublicans. It is not
an official part of the Constitution. And why should
I want to hear about 'minor candidates' from the
major party anyway? I want to hear from the 'minor
party' which never happens to any degree because the
press won't report on them. Why won't the press
report on them? Because they don't get enough votes.
Why not? Because the people don't know enough about
them. Why is that? Because the press won't report
on them enough. Hmmm....
\_ Ah so the evil press is why not one single
congressional district can elect a green. Actually
in the primary both Kucinich and Dean offered
similar rhetoric to Nader. Both got a bit of
support but failed to win the primaries. They
got tons of coverage. They couldn't win over the
mainstream. I'd say that was a pretty fair war
of ideas. This country's policies ultimately
come from Congress and you can't just sweep in
at the top in some ultra-liberal coup.
\_ Barbara Lee qualifies as a pretty radical
member of Congress.
\_ a democrat... point?
\_ Healthy democracy also implies 'compromise.'
\_ But not endless capitulation. Compromise means both
sides give something up. If all Nader supporters
voted for Kerry what exactly would we get that we
wouldn't have gotten if Kerry won without us? Nada.
\_ Kerry is much more liberal than Gore.
\_ I'm sorry, but this "democracy works" arguement is so
fucked up. In short, i am hoping you live in California
instead of some other battleground state, as your vote
wouldn't of made a difference anyway. |
| 2004/6/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30918 Activity:very high |
6/18 Stuff like this always confuses me. Why do activists always
preach to the choir? Shouldn't liberals demonstrate and put of
flyers in, say, Bakersfield? Where they might actually be able
to find people who don't agree with them? (And therefore convert
them)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/19/DDG7R781041.DTL
\_ ok, now i'm confused. I thought you morons believed that
liberals control all the media. doesn't that mean we have a
*much* better way of telling the world about our evil agenda,
which we force on the world every day?
\_ hi troll! people in bakersfield don't read your newspapers
or watch your tv news anchors. mostly, they either ignore it,
shake their fists at it, or laugh at it. so, if you want to
preach to the unconverted you have to go to them. bye troll!
\_ so they don't watch any tv news or read any newspapers
in your world? well, if that's true, why are you so
concerned about the Liberal Media Conspiracy? What harm
is it doing if no one ouside of the Evil Liberal cities
like Jew York actualy watch the Commie News Network?
Why not come up with a self-consistent set of paranoid
delusions?
\_ You score 2 points for selectively choosing which part
of my post to reply to and at the same time putting words
in my mouth. I never said they don't witness your
media's drivel. Go re-read what I said and respond to
that and we can try again, troll.
\_ The great thing about the Liberal Media Conspiracy is
that it provides a convenient bogeyman that can never
be voted out of office.
\_ So I went over to http://nytimes.com today to check out the
apparently rather vicious review of Bill Clinton's new
book. And what do I see on their site if not an advert
from the Kerry campaign asking for 50 bucks. I've never
seen any republican campaigns advertise there. Why do
you suppose that would be? -- ilyas
\_ We know that anyone who might donate to Bush is
obviously either evil or stupid and all those
red necks and hicks can't read anyway so it would
be stupid to advertise in the NYT. The Republicans
only collect money during Church services I'm told.
\_ Because if liberals actually did that they'd realize how futile
and naive their "cause" is. Reality bites.
\_ Yeah, right. It's obviously soooo much better to be an apathetic
cynical 'realist' like you. Get serious.
\_ For the same reason they scream and protest when some knuckle
draggers take some silly pictures of naked Iraqi dudes but don't
say a peep about honest to god genocide in other countries. |
| 2004/6/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30844 Activity:very high |
6/16 Did any of you convert from: Liberal to Conservative or
Conservative to Liberal?
\_ libertatian to liberal
\_ what's the url for the libertatians? sounds interesting!
\_ Highschool: conservative ->
Berkeley: "I don't want your fucking fliers" ->
Post-collegiate: Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/PatriotAct/ReligiousRight
scares me silly.
\_ High School: Conservative/Republican (especially on foreign
diplomacy) -> College: Libertarian (minus Lyndon) -> post-college:
Liberal.
\_ High School: Far Left -> College: Liberal -> post-college: Moderate
to Liberal. My HS was the time of Newt Gingrinch et al. In college
I decided I had nothing in common with the BAMN and ISO, etc.
My political movements have mostly been due to exposure to political
archetypes.
\_ you just described my experience exactly.
\_ liberal --> conservative
\_ what made you convert?
\_ going to berkeley.
\_ There seemed to be a pattern in the early 90s: enter
doe-eyed and open-minded; get blasted by liberal profs
and rabid Young Republicans; exit moderate as long as you
don't touch my money.
\_ I only met 1 YR and he annoyed me. --doe-eyed->consrv
\_ Berkeley Republicans are very amusing - they have this
whole "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Now you
see the violence inherent in the system!" thing going
on, but they are without fail upper-middle class white
kids with plenty of prospects, inside connections,
and money from daddy.
\_ Way to label! Good smear! How many have you met?
\_ high school: blank. berkeley: heard it all. post-cal: conservative |
| 2004/6/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30841 Activity:insanely high |
6/16 Time magazine this week:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040621/faith_poll/3.html
Does President Bush's religious faith make him a strong leader?
Bush supporters: 85% yes
Arch liberal Kerry supporters: 15% yes
If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Bush: 49%
Arch liberal Kerry: 48%
\_ The Reagan bump rears its ugly head. Wonder how long it will last.
Now, where are all those people that were saying polls mean nothing
at this point? Can I get a repeat, please? Or do they only
mean nothing at this point when your guy is behind?
\_ Polls mean nothing until after the GOP convention. Dukakis
had a similar lead in June, see where it got him.
\_ Reagan bump? How can reminding us of Reagan give anyone but
Kerry a bump? We all hate Reagan, don't we?
arch liberal Kerry a bump? We all hate Reagan, don't we?
\_ We all hate Reagan? Not according to the media.
\_ http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2004/06/14
\_ Kerry's basically off the radar lately. Even negative Bush news is
better than no news. Kerry's too boring and impersonal to compete.
\_ Arch liberal Kerry's basically off the radar lately. Even negative
Bush news is better than no news. Arch liberalKerry's too boring
and impersonal to compete.
\_ Bzzzt! Everything is off the radar lately because the media
went "REAGAN! REAGAN! REAGAN! OMG WTF!!!!!@#!@#2@!!11!" for
like a week. You know things are bad when NPR runs more Reagan
stories than Fox News.
\_ Kerry was out of the news before Reagan died. What has Kerry
said or done in the last 2 weeks? Bush stopped doing fund-
raisers in _APRIL_! Kerry hasn't been doing his job as
Senator. He hasn't been doing much of anything but raising
cash. Between his personal efforts and groups like http://moveon.org
Kerry has more money than Bush yet it is never enough for him.
\_ Kerry has more money than Bush? Where the fuck did you come
from? The amount of money has has pales in comparison to the
hundreds of millions that Bush has. That's why you see lots of
Bush shit commercial on TV. All he has is money. Give me a
fucking break.
\_ Yeah, Bush has 5 times as much money on hand as Kerry
presently. However, Kerry is raising money at nearly
twice the rate of Bush and just raised something like
a record $100 million in 3 months. So maybe that's
what above guy was thinking of. He's still a dumbass
though. --!the above guy
\_ MORON! ALL DEMOCRATS WANT IS TO TAKE ALL YOUR MONEY
AND SODOMIZE YOUR DOG!!!!
\_ Arch liberal Kerry was out of the news before Reagan died.
What has Kerry said or done in the last 2 weeks? Bush
stopped doing fund- raisers in _APRIL_! Arch liberal Kerry
hasn't been doing his job as Senator. He hasn't been doing
much of anything but raising cash. Between his personal
efforts and groups like http://moveon.org Arch liberal Kerry has
more money than Bush yet it is never enough for him.
\_ Arch liberal Kerry has more money than Bush? Where the
fuck did you come from? The amount of money has has pales
in comparison to the hundreds of millions that Bush has.
That's why you see lots of Bush shit commercial on TV. All
he has is money. Give me a fucking break.
\_ Yeah, Bush has 5 times as much money on hand as arch
liberal Kerry presently. However, arch liberal Kerry
is raising money at nearly twice the rate of Bush and
just raised something like a record $100 million in 3
months. So maybe that's what above guy was thinking
of. He's still a dumbass though. --!the above guy
\_ I am sorry for being a dumbass. However, I can do
math. Kerry+moveon.org $$$ >>> Bush $$$.
\_ what about Kerry+moveon vs. Bush + his PACs?
I've seen no evidence that Kerry and related
groups have more money than Bush and related
groups. -tom
\_ Quite amusing to hear a Bush supporter complain about
how much money Kerry is rasing. Bush is the most
venal presidency in history, bar none. Kerry isn't
even close. Kerry took last week off in respect to
the country and President Reagan, that is why you
haven't heard much from him. He did not campaign
or fundraise in that time.
math. Arch liberal Kerry+moveon.org $$$ >>> Bush$$$.
\_ what about arch liberal Kerry+moveon vs. Bush +
his PACs? I've seen no evidence that arch
liberal Kerry and related groups have more money
than Bush and related groups. -tom
\_ What about it? Arch liberal Kerry+others >>
Bush + others. You haven't seen it? Have you
*looked*?
\_ Quite amusing to hear a Bush supporter complain about how
much money arch liberal Kerry is rasing. Bush is the most
venal presidency in history, bar none. Kerry isn't even
close. Arch liberal Kerry took last week off in respect to
the country and President Reagan, that is why you haven't
heard much from him. He did not campaign or fundraise in
that time.
\_ I'm not complaining. I'm stating a fact. If he is
raising more money then he has earned it in some way.
No one is giving anyone money for nothing.
\_ Kerry said that Dubya shouldn't have asked the Pope to
influence Roman Catholic leaders in the U.S. on the abortion
\_ Earned it == awarding government contracts for it.
Your adding of "arch liberal" in front of every
mention of Kerry is simply childish.
\_ Arch liberal Kerry said that Dubya shouldn't have asked the Pope
to influence Roman Catholic leaders in the U.S. on the abortion
and same-sex marriage issues.
\_ Ok, and? You posted this for some reason?
\_ I don't believe the second survey. The 'undecided' number is never
that low.
\_ The polls are really meaningless until after the conventions, if
you ask me.
\_ Or really after a few debates. But it gives us something to
talk about in the mean time.
\_ Vietcong and Sandinista Vets for Kerry!!
\_ Vietcong and Sandinista Vets for Arch Liberal Kerry!!
\_ And Cuba and our friends in NK, too.
\_"Either you're with us or you're a godless commie" -GWB
\_ URL? The Vietcong, Sandinistas, Cubans and NKans have all
come out in favor of Kerry. thanks for playing.
come out in favor of arch liberal Kerry. thanks for
playing.
\_ Still too close to call in all the polls.
\_ Too soon, padawan. The election isn't for another 4.5 months.
Expect the ratcheting of campaign volume in early September and
full-court blitz by middle of October. Those are the numbers that
will tell the story.
\_ If you checked the URL, "Master" jedi, you would see that
only one question deals with who will win between Kerry and
Bush. The focus of the survey is on religious views between
Kerry and Bush supporters.
\_ If you checked the URL, "Master" jedi, you would see that only
one question deals with who will win between arch liberal Kerry
and Bush. The focus of the survey is on religious views between
arch liberal Kerry and Bush supporters.
\_ So Bush supporters are conservative and arch liberal arch
liberal Kerry's supporters are God-less. We knew that. If
that was the only reason to post this, there was no reason to
post this. |
| 2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30817 Activity:insanely high |
6/12 Fox News gives positive review to "Fahrenheit 9/11." Damn liberal
media!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
\_ Damn liberal movie critics! Damn liberal movie goers! Damn liberal
movie renters! Who else did I miss?
\_ Damn liberal movie directors! Damn liberal movie distributors!
Damn liberal people in damn liberal documentaries!
\_ "Damn hippies" -S. Crothers. You forgot that. -- ulysses
\_ It's called "Fair & Balanced". Fox isn't a conservative news
outlet. They do shit like this all the time, you just ignore it
in favor of the other stuff you don't agree with.
\_ Sorry, I call bullshit. Editorial policy drives bias no matter
how much is done to prevent it - hence rightward tilt in WSJ
articles or leftward tilt in NYTimes articles. Truly
"objective" reporting is an impossible fantasy, and striving
for it usually does more to obscure the truth than to reveal
it (i.e. "White House reports sky is green; some Democrats
disagree"). Fox reporting oozes bias.
\_ objective "reporting" a fantasy? ok, sure. reporting is
crap anyway. the only media model i'll accept is a combination
of original source material, like cspan, with a moderated
comment forum, like slashdot. until we go to that model,
the press will continue to undermine, not bolster our
democracy.
\_ HAHAHA! moderated comment forum! jeezus. And CSPAN isn't
original source material, it's politicians blabbing.
\_ Let me guess, you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC,CBS, LAT, are
all centrist sources of information?
\_ They are corporate sources of information. They will
print whatever they thinks makes money. Let me guess,
you buy into the "liberal media" myth?
\_ LAT, NYT, WP do not apply -- these newspapers are
driven at least equally by personalities as well as
corporate profit. TV stations, it's debatable either
way.
\_ Let me guess, you buy into your own "corporate media"
myth? The newsrooms and editors are predominately
liberal. Why is that so hard to understand?
\_ well, they are (1) corporations and (2) media,
therefore: corporate media. What, you think they
do this for free?
\_ Since they control all information and they're
mostly liberal, there is no competition so they
can charge for their own version of the news.
Only very recently has more centrist news been
available which in the last ~5 years has over
taken their leftist competitors in TV viewship,
and radio listenership. AFAIK the newspapers are
still left controlled. I'm not aware of any mass
market printed news that isn't left biased.
\_ It's not hard to understand, it's just untrue.
\_ Uh, whatever. That's been checked a few times
over the years. You're simply ignorant or lying.
Don't bother coming here with one liner bullshit.
\_ I bow to your superior 3-liner lying ignorance.
\_ Sure, most reporters are liberal. Most owners
are conservative. They kind of balance each
other out, but when push comes to shove the
owner fires the liberal reporter.
\_ Reporters don't get fired unless they fake stories
and even then it takes dozens of stories and years
to come out. The owners are not vetting stories
and you know it. The editors who are mostly on
the left do it. How far do you think a reporter
would get in the typical newsroom if he was known
to be a registered Republican? His career would
be dead and you know it. It does not balance out
in any way in the general case.
\_ "Fox isn't a conservative news outlet."
So if you compare Fox to CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, would you
say Fox is the "least liberal" of the aforementioned stations?
\_ Good try. I would say CNN and the others are losing ratings
share to Fox because they cater to the left, not the center
where most people, by definition, live.
\_ Are you insane? Are we watching the same stations?
The same CNN that ran like a gajillion fawning non-news
reports about Reagan last week? THAT is a liberal media
outlet? I'd like some of what you're smoking, if you don't
mind.
\_ Reagan is not a good example. Every station wanted
to out-do the other in pro-Reagan coverage; now he's
dead, the liberals don't want to appear as if they
are dancing on his grave.
\_ Nice dodge. I suppose the coverage of the run-up
to the Iraq war isn't a good example either, or
anything else substantial? Nope, the boogeyman of
the Liberal Media is still out there, never to be
defeated!
\_ Hey, all I said was that Reagan was not a good
example.
\_ Pre-war, everyone but whatshername in Ber/Oak was
in favor of it. We didn't instantly find 100 tons
of WMD (until it recently started showing up in
other countries) so that makes them sycophants?
How many times have you seen Kerry described as
"arch-liberal, John Kerry, jr. Senator from Mass,
under Ted Kennedy"? Never. How many times have
you seen, "arch-conservative so-n-so, Senator from
xyz"? All the fucking time because anyone who
isn't a Democrat has a 50/50 chance of being
tagged as an arch conservative. Or better yet,
extreme or ultra conservative. You will *never*
see an extreme ultra arch leftist like Kerry
described that way.
\_ You are confusing cause and effect. Fox *is* a
conservative news outlet -- whether the cause is corporate
profit, a vast right-wing conspiracy, the little green
men in your pants, or all of the above -- the effect
is still the same.
\_ Fox provides left, right and center. You only see the
right because you're blinded to how left the left
really is. Left looks normal to you so only the right
stands out for you.
\_ Wow, you really need to look in the mirror and think
about this statement. The center, as defined in this
country is somewhere between the democrats and the
republicans, and most mainstream media outlets run
stories that give voice to both of the major parties.
Those newspapers that endorse candidates endorse both
republicans and democrats. In other words, they are
centrist, at least to those not blinded by their
right-wing prejudice. Fox news aligns itself with
the extreme right wing of the republican party, and
doesn't give any voice to the opposition. They only
look "normal" to extremists like you.
\_ Once William Hung's CD sold 100k copies, everything, including
this, is possible. -- Coming soon -- flying pigs and hell
freezing over.
\_ I have to admit that I bought 99,998 of them. He bought one
for his mom and this drunk dude picked up the other copy.
\_ thank you, NERFAMC |
| 2004/6/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30765 Activity:nil |
6/11 Clinton >> Carter > Kerry. -dem. What's the republican take?
Or maybe Clinton > Carter >> Kerry ? |
| 2004/6/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30693 Activity:high |
6/9 How does one get rm -W to work?
\_ I've been giving money to the Kerry campaign as well as the
DNC and http://moveon.org, but we won't know if it worked until november,
will we?
\_ In the amount of your tax refund?
\_ So... rm -W removes movey from your pocket and gives it to
the Democratic party? |
| 2004/6/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30683 Activity:high |
6/8 Why doesn't Zogby have Bush winning California?
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=833
\_ Yeah, well he doesn't have Kerry winning Alaska either, but you'd
have to smoke a solid pound of Matanuska Thunderfuck to think
Kerry has a chance of winning Alaska. And no one gives a shit,
which is really the point.
\_ He's only considering states that are close, like Washington and
Oregon. Bush has a whelk's chance in hell of winning California,
so he's not even considering it. The same goes with Texas, except
in the opposite sense. Notice that his poll is only conducted
in certain states at the moment:
http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=212
\_ Zogby is trying way too hard. Reputation go down. -a libural
\_ Why don't we just let Zogby decide months in advance who the next
President will be and save all that money and time on the whole
election process, debates, etc? Since we know for a fact that
Zogby can accurately predict elections with 100% accuracy, we no
longer have need for the election process, right? |
| 2004/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30651 Activity:high |
6/7 Hey, http://latimes.com has a neat Flash map where you can click on states to assign electoral votes to Bush/Kerry. It looks like if Kerry loses Florida, he won't have a chance. If he wins Florida, he can't lose too many battleground states. Click on the map on the bottom right. It plays music when you hit 270 votes, though, so turn off your sound. I actually got it to 269-269, and something interesting pops up. \_ Ah, Florida, where election reform has gone... nowhere. \_ Sure it has! The Florida legislature banned recounts! Oh... right... \_ Kerry could win with Ohio, too. \_ True, I didn't notice all the undecideds in Ohio. \_ You guys dont have a clue about OH. It's gun country, thus Bush's. \_ They can dream. Don't take that away from them. They have so little else. \_ Lets face it, its all gonna end up in front of the Supreme Court again anyway... \_ What, before or after Dubya takes California in a landslide? \_ Its thinking like yours that will destabilize California for years to come! \_ Why do you hate California? \_ They said the recall campaign would never get enough names. Then they said the recall campaign would never kick out Davis. Then they said even if Davis gets kicked out, a Republican wouldn't win, especially with 2 big names splitting the Republican vote. Then they said even if the Republicans do win, it won't be Arnold, he's an actor, a Nazi, and not very smart. \_ The stupidity of the California Bush-landslide guy speaks for itself. \_ It does? I'm too dense to see it. Please explain in a few sentences using short words so a moron like me can understand why it is impossible and as you say stupid to think Bush can win CA. Thanks in advance for supplying any data, URLs, or facts to explain to me and others who might question your profound logic. \_ Point 1: "CA Bush-landslide guy" != "Bush-wins-CA guy". First guy == moron Second guy == optimistic (??) \_ Nah, they are both delusional. Bush is behind behind by 12 points in the latest Field Poll (including Nader on the ticket) and his popularity is at an all time low and falling. Why do you bother arguing with an obvious nutter? \_ Because polls go up and down and every which way. You would have been insane to bet a buck that Kerry was going to be the Dem candidate before his *surprise* win in Iowa. If you have nothing to say except the other guy is an obvious nutter then say nothing because you're still saying nothing this way, but you're also wasting precious bits. \_ It's not impossible. For example, following the democratic convention, Kerry could start publicly expressing a sexual attraction to prepubescent boys, or an admiration for Osama bin Laden. But, realistically, Gore won california by a huge margin, Kerry leads in the polls here by a huge margin, lots of people are bitter about the energy crisis, and given all of the above Bush will probably spend only a token amount of his time and money campaigning here (as he did in 2000). If you are willing to bet on Bush at odds of less than 10 to 1, I'm sure you will find plenty of takers. \_ tradebetx, which provides an online forum for betting on these things has Bush at 8:1 odds in California. For comparison Kerry is at 5:1 in Virginia and North Carolina and 8:1 in Georgia. \_ The only thing that matter is who shows up to the polls. Bush won't spend any time or money here but neither will Kerry. CA is just an ATM machine for both parties. How's it feel to get sucked dry no matter which side of the aisle you're on? \_ Bush I somehow won CA. Not to mention Reagan, Deukmejian, Pete Wilson twice, and Arnold govs. \_ If you can't see how California has changed since Wilson, you aren't paying attention. Arnold is a liberal, married to a Kennedy. \_ I think that one side or the other will win decisively enough that this will not happen. that this will not happen. This is a Pro Bush website and he projects the electoral vote to be Kerry 330, Bush 200: http://www.electionprojection.com \_ Nononononononononono! You can't say Bush/Kerry will win a state based on job approval ratings ("Is the country headed in the right direction?"). You must ONLY use "Who would you vote for today?" data; and if you want, you can use job approval ratings on undecided votes. This projection is FUCKING LAME. -libural \_ Sigh... I read your link, I'm not sure why, and no it doesn't say 330:200 but if it makes you feel better to pull random numbers (which you got wrong) out of context from 2 weeks ago then sure. He also says Bush has done worse in the numbers than he is now and he's done better than he is now. It's a long way from here to November. The dude can't even figure out how to use PayPal and you think he's got the election all figured out. Ok, whatever. \_ Did you see where he says Electoral Votes: Bush 201, Kerry 337? It is right at the top. Here is a Pro Kerry site that has it at 332:226 http://www.geocities.com/numbers_04 If it makes you feel any better, here is another that has Bush winning: http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html I personally think that it is "too early to tell." \_ Yes, that is what it says and you are an idiot who is unable to comprehend even simple English. Go to that URL. Look at the top of the page. See where it says Kerry 337 Bush 201? That is the projected electoral outcome. I rounded to the nearest 10 for morons like you. Nice job deleting the rest of my links. |
| 2004/6/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30624 Activity:high |
6/5 Doesn't the party out of power usually have a VP chosen by this point
or am I just delusional? It seems odd and a bit distracting that
Kerry doesn't have a running mate yet. In theory, I thought the
convention is supposed to be approving both nominees and in theory
the VP is his own man, not the P's lackey.
\_ i think the reason the current situation looks odd to you is that
the presidential nominee is not generally known yet at this point.
\_ Hmmm, possibly. I guess they're starting the election cycle
earlier every time. Pretty soon they'll start campaigning more
than 1 election in advance. :) --op
\_ Seems normal to me. He's extending the drama. And, he's finally
making headlines with some of his criticisms WHILE not appearing
anti-American or political AND appearing statesmanlike.
\_ Heh. Kerry is not statesmanlike. Kerry is a drip.
\_ Shrug, works for me, and even a Republican could say he
could be doing a LOT worse. (Gore? Dukakis? Dean?)
\_ "John F. Kerry. He could be a LOT worse."
\_ He would need to be that bad to be worse than Dubya.
\_ It would be hard to be doing worse. He *should* be ahead
by 10-15 points in all those so-called battle ground states
but is break-even at best. The economy is improving, the
Iraqi situation is calming down, and if there's another
serious terrorist act on US soil, Kerry is forced to either
'support the President' or get accused of turning a serious
security situation into election year politics. Hosed.
\_ If you saw the CBS poll numbers, the Democrats have
stayed at 80% support of Kerry for the last couple
months. Republicans supported Bush at 91%, and dropped
to 84% in one month. The small shifts have been from
Bush losing Republican support, and the relatively fewer
independent voters going with Kerry. I would have to
disagree with you on Kerry's prospects too. The CIA
director just resigned, and there are SCATHING reports
coming out about WMD. Bush will not have this go away
by election day. Iraq situation calming down? That's
a fair opinion, but Rumsfeld also just warned of
increased attacks near and after the handover.
Terrorist attack handing it to Bush? Actually, my
scenario is Kerry supports the President. Americans
think, "If Bush can't stop terrorism, when this is
the only thing the majority of Americans support him
for today, then why not give Kerry a chance with a
less bull-headed approach to international conflicts?"
since, you know, the U.S. only has the UK as a real
friend right now. People might remember when we had a
lot of friends like Gulf War I or around 9/11. People
might remember that the majority of Americans only
supported attacking Iraq if Bush could get UN support.
\_ Drama? There isn't any drama in it. There aren't even any real
\_ If it's the same poll I saw that was registered
voters, not likely voters. Polls at this point are
just amusement anyway. It's a good thing Tenet was
forced out. That allows the admin to say they are
fixing the intel problem and takes care of those
up-coming scathing reports which is why he resigned
anyway. WMD doesn't have to go anywhere. If people
cared about WMD Bush's numbers would be way lower.
They keep finding just enough stuff to hint that
there is more there. Rumfeld warning us in advance
that we expect more violence around June 30 helps the
admin if there is and helps if there isn't. If there
is, they just say, "see? we said the desperate
terrorists would try to stop a free iraq!" and if
nothing happens they will claim the terrorists have
been so weakened by the successful campaign to free
iraq that they can't do anything to stop it. I
think people understand that terrorism can't be
stopped that easily. Many countries around the
world, including the US, have been victims of
terrorism for decades and it has been getting worse.
The answer for many will be, "Bush kept them from
attacking us since 9/11 until now almost 3 years
later. It would've been worse with the other guy!"
Look at how many Gore supporters wrote post-9/11
they were glad Bush won instead of Gore. And last
on this sub-topic, most Americans don't see our
foreign policy as bullheaded, IMO. This country is
full of people with a kick-ass attitude, especially
if it isn't their foot that has to go do it and like
seeing us blow up other people. 'They all hate us,
we know it, we send them all lots of money, they
still hate us, fuck em, bomb em'. People won't
remember or care about GW1. That's for political
hacks and dirt diggers doing oppo-research to make
hay. The typical American doesn't think well of the
Europeans, the UN, or anything else. This is an
isolationist country at heart. People are just as
likely to remember, or not, that the UN did come to
Iraq after we took over and left the moment they lost
a few people in one bombing. That was a UN security
foul-up btw. They ignored their own security people.
\_ "Polls at this point are just amusement anyway."
You're the one who brought up polls in the first
place ("He *should* be ahead ..."). Hello?
Tenet's out, but I think the damage will still
be significant up to election day.
And I remind you again: The majority of Americans
supported an attack only if we could get UN
support. This has been shown poll after poll.
You haven't disputed this.
\_ I love how people on the motd always
assume followup posts that agree with
this op on some point must be the op.
-jrleek
\_ There's a difference between supporting the
attack 18 months ago with(out) UN support and
seeing the UN dilly dally about and then being
where we are now or will be in 6 months during
an election. Current polls are roughly even
as to how well Iraq is going and if it was a
good idea or not. In fact, current polls run
at about the same level as likely voters from
each party, so really all the pro/con Iraq
polls are showing is party support for each
candidate. As far as polls themselves go, they
*are* only for amusement at this point *but* we
have nothing else to use to judge across the
nation how each is doing. It's just mental
masturbation but it feels oh so good!
\_ drama? There isn't any drama in it. There aren't even any real
names floating around. I think the above is correct that
election cycles are starting/ending sooner than I'm used to. --op
\_ If he picks a boring VP candidate now, he'll look stale.
He's waiting for the right time where a VP candidate
selection would bring the most press, whatever situation
that might be. |
| 2004/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30588 Activity:high |
6/3 I'm not sure which is better, the part about Connerly being part-black,
CNN's Rhetorical Arsenal, or The Kerry Echo chamber. Anyway, this is
how the left looks to the right every day:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005163
Oh yeah, there's also some nice polling numbers and a link to the
Iowa Electronic Markets so you can put your money where your mouth is
and buy contracts betting that Kerry will win.
\_ See, why you gotta hate? I'd rather read Joe Bob Briggs:
http://www.joebobbriggs.com At least he's got style. |
| 2004/6/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30548 Activity:high |
6/2 The woman in the Drudge-created Kerry intern "scandal" tells her
story: http://csua.org/u/7ka (new york metro link)
\_ I was going to say "Yeah, now that she's had plenty of time to
work out a consistent story." But she's so supid and vapid,
and the story's not all that consistent anyhow, it's hard to
believe it's not real.
\_ You really are blind, aren't you? BClinton killed 324 people
while Hillary took pictures, right?
\_ The last time a President was fooling around with an intern
in the White House my stock portfolio was looking a lot better.
I say "bring it on!"
\_ If you think there is some correlation between the two
you deserve your losses.
\_ Maybe a strong market helps the president get head.
\_ If you think these are serious comments, you need to
watch less Fox News.
\_ Why do you hate blowjobs?
\_ How else do you think the stocks had risen so high without
all the "rise, baby, rise." during those intimate moments
in the White House?
\_ So, you're saying we should have elected Bob Dole?
(He advertised Viagra for a while)
\_ The Right Wing Hate machine will do and say anything in their
effort to hold onto power. Does this suprise you in some way?
\_ RACIST! Whoops, wrong hate machine. COMMIE!
\_ Actually, I think its pretty much just the Stupid Lazy
Reporting Machine. There's a quote near the end of the article
which puts it pretty well: "I am struck by the pitiful state
of political reporting, which is dominated by the unholy
alliance of opposition research and its latest tool,
the Internet."
\_ Can someone send this to Drudge for posting? |
| 2004/6/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30537 Activity:very high |
6/1 young MOTDers (and all young Americans): I fear for you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1228331,00.html
Summary: THere are two congressional bills, both approved
and sitting in committee, to reinstate the draft as early
as June 15, 2005. No college deferment or sanctuary in
Canada this time.
\_ Nice way to ignore context. The draft is *not* being reinstated.
Maybe if we all vote for Kerry, there won't be another Vietnam
and we won't need a draft because Kerry's plans for Iraq are just
like Bush's except they require more troops.
\_ How is the military going to deal with its manpower shortage?
I think the draft is coming back no matter who is elected.
The military is already drawing heavily into the Reserves
and has even started tapping the IRR. Last time I checked
there was still a Stop Loss order in effect. That is pretty
much everything they can do short of a draft.
\_ We can start by closing bases in former NATO ally countries.
Then we can get out of places like Kosovo/Bosnia/Former
Yugoslavia. 6-9 months later we can leave Iraq and then
Afghanistan.
\- there are only a few 1000 troops in bosnia. bush said to
the european coalition "we went in together and we'll
leave together". mr. resolve has already said the us
will be unilaterally pulling out. do you read any news
at all or does ti cut into your xbox/ps2 time? try leaving
the the news on instead of the p0rn channel in the
background. --psb
\_ nice personal attack after ignoring the parts of my
post that you couldn't refute. way to go, genius!
how many #1 Fans do you have now? you can't be psb.
he just isn't that stupid.
\-i lack the ability to explain "why isolantionism
is a not a simple choice for the us" in 100words
or less. however youir posited a number of facts
clearly suggesting you are unaware of the underlying
state of affairs which i did answer. yes i am
accusing you personally of ignorance. --psb
\_ Everything? Why not just pack up in places our troops are
doing nothing? The Soviet Union is dead. Let's stop
pretending we need NATO and NATO bases in Europe. Why are you
so hellbent on expanding the size of the armed forces? I'm
staunchly conservative and I'm honestly shocked that I'm the
only one on the heavily liberal motd that would mention this
obvious (to me, anyway) option.
\_ The chances of getting drafted will be small. Do the math.
The Army only needs, at most, a few hundred thousand troops.
There are 20M Americans in the 18-23 cohort. So your chances
of getting drafted couldn't be much more than 1%.
\_ But those chances are not random: the military is very
fond of those with computer skills.
\_ Yeah, but getting drafted for computer skills is better than
being drafted to patrol the streets of Iraq.
\_ But the draft starts with the youngest first, and it's a
proven fact that the motd is composed of old farts.
\_ Yet another discussion revolving around the time honored
geek motto: "If its not happening to me, fuck em."
\- the vietnam era draft was much more avoidable for
the upper middle class than the brad draft during ww2.
congressmen dont want their kids drafted so there will
be lots of loopholes if anything like the draft came
back ... which it wont. --psb
\- if you are interested in "american and the imperial
will" [my phrase] read Niall Ferguson's book
Colossus http://csua.org/u/7k6 --psb |
| 2004/6/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30536 Activity:insanely high |
6/1 The Carter doctrine was such an unparalled success Kerry
wants to do it all over again:
Kerry's Plan: Ban U.S. Weapons to Stop WMD Threat
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/1/220814.shtml
\_ what a bunch of distorting crap. all bush can do is smear,
because he can't run on his record. hey, what's the worst
kerry could do, go to war based on the lies of an iranian
spy and blow $300bn, our credibility, our int'l goodwill,
and thousands of lives? yeah, that would suck. --aaron
\_ So aaron, how is that rabid liberalism working out at google?
Does google even hire conservatives?
\_ What Bush has accomplished towards limiting the proliferation
of WMD is phenomenal; the battle against militant Islam has been
relocated to the Middle East where our military can kill
all the jihadis. What is your policy for shifting foreign
policy from a Cold War paradigm? Oh that's
right you, like all the leftist appeasers, don't have one.
You rather pay lip service and kick the can down the road for
someone else to clean up.
\_ LIAR!
\_ Nonononono, that's "American credibility around the world has
been destroyed for generations!!!" And the official Iraqi $$$
is currently $120B give or take a few $B. Not that that's a
small number on its own but you're so far off from reality that
your credibility around the world has been destroyed for
generations! If you need to lie and make up numbers to make your
point, you don't have one. Get it next time, "American
credibility around the world has been destroyed for generations!"
Like Partha said on the wall, you must repeat it until it
becomes the new truth, just like in the old Soviet Russia.
\- just out of curiosity are you counting the $700m
funded by congress for afgansitan xferred to iraq?
also what fraction of the $25bn the administration
refused to separately earmark between afgansitan and
iraq are you counting? the troop levels are around
an order of mag higher in iraq. finally, i mentioned
that cheney and the other chieckenhawks should
continuously be referred to in that light. finally,
the whole idea of the importance of labelling issues
is inspired by frank luntz, the chief labeller of the
GoP. it seems only reasonable for the demos demos to
play the "abortion card" on their apathetic
constitutency. surely that is more valid than "if
we elected kerry, osama will end up in the lincoln
bdrm" --psb
\_ On money numbers since the rest is off topic and
uninteresting: I'll grant *all* your numbers. The
$300b is still off by more than a factor of 2 and
thus makes the whole message look like the made up
bullshit it is. Get the facts straight first and
then try to forcefeed your agenda.
\- while i try to be conservative with numbers
[i think it is fair to use $200bn, i usually
say "cost $100bn, 800 us combat deaths, 25k
us casualties, 10k iraqi deaths vs lies on
WMD"], does it really matter whether it is
$300bn or $200bn? i'm not defensing sloppy use
of statistics, but do you really change your
mind based on this number?--psb
\_ if you think Iraq is going to end up costing us less
than several trillion or you actually think we are
ever 'leaving' Iraq, you are deluded.
\_ maybe he is just projecting into the not
too distant future for a conservative
guestimate of the final total cost?
\_ Nah, they didn't destroy American credibility, just the
dumb and dumber Bush regime credibility. huh huh.
\_ yea 120 bn no biggie, just a small fraction of the 400 bn
budget deficit. huh huh.
\_ It's Beavis! -- beavis #1 fan
\- Butthead said "I am really cool Beavis, but I cannot
predict the future." Which makes Butthead smarter than
the NeoCons. --psb
\_ So I am curious what your point is here. Are you claiming
that American credibility has been enhanced?
\_ My point is that there is no such thing as 'credibility'.
In international affairs there is only power and will.
\_ I think he's trying to say "... destroyed for generations"
is an exaggeration.
\- point worth raising ... and that is why BUSH must
be voted out. if neither rumsfeld nor BUSH is axed
than that essentially gives them a "mandate" in the
eyes of the world. --psb
\_ Yes, and so what? Why does it matter what the
Europeans think? They have their goals, the US
has other goals. Sometimes those goals conflict
and their rabidly left press kicks us in the
teeth for it. This isn't Europe.
\- because if you are trying to get NATO to help
out in iraq it matters. --psb
\_ NATO? NATO isn't the world. NATO is an
alliance of EU/US military powers formed for
the sole purpose of holding back the
Soviets. I don't think NATO should even
exist. It's a Cold War relic along with the
rest of the trappings such as huge US bases
in Germany, etc. Close them down, end NATO.
Who else do we need to care about and why?
\- ok i will try to make this my last
commit: i suppose you are unaware that
bush is going to istanbul at the end
of the month for a nato summit where
nato involvement in iraq will be the
main topic? are you the same person/
idiot asking about europe? that question
i answered. if you want to talk about the
rest of the world, look at 6party talks
w.r.t. north korrea. --psb
\_ I'm aware. I think it's a mistake.
Just because Bush does it doesn't mean
I'm blindly in favor of it. Do you
blindly favor anything the opposition
party puts forth or does? The 6 party
talks have achieved nothing.
\_ Clearly he hasn't traveled abroad lately.
\_ Time will tell. I suspect you are right, but if
America continues on the imperialism and conquest
course laid out by the PNAC, he will have been right.
\_ http://www.bushflash.com/ma.html |
| 2004/5/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30501 Activity:insanely high |
5/30 The road to serfdom
Is it one of the best books ever written?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144892/posts
\_ Contrict your anus 100 times a day -- Malarkey,
or effective way?
\_ could Dianetics really be the Owner's Manual for the Human Mind?
\_ can I sell mine? I need a new ipod.
\_ Scientology were around the UCLA campus one day, with a big
friendly yellow tend, and attractive young 'volunteer ministers'
giving out 'stress tests' and so on. Scientology amuses me so.
-- ilyas
\_ I took their personality test. I think I failed. They
didn't want my money or my soul.
\_ Yeah, the girl that they post outside the Scientology
office in SOMA SF is super cute - until you think about the
fact that she's in a cult...
\_ So what? Cult chicks can't put out? Cult chicks have
already proven to be weak willed. She'll fulfill all
your fantasies and do anything you want as long as you
promise to consider her cult material.
\_ More to the point, cult chicks are programmed to
pretend to be willing to put out so that you'll go
through the motions of joining the cult. Be careful
when you scam scammers, lest you get scammed.
\_ How scammed could I get? I wanted to get laid with
a hot chick who does anal and has a cute friend to
join us. If I get that, what scam is there? You
think they'll empty my wallet while I'm in the
bathroom wiping my dick? What scam?
\- f hayek has an interesting critique of command economies
based on price signals but i think anarchy state and utopia
is more intersting. --psb
\_ is that a line from the fortune program? it should be.
\- hello does anybody recall who said something like
"rousseau believe man was inherently good and his
philosophy leads to totalitarianism. hobbes believed
man was basically evil and his leads to a theory of
freedom." [it's posibble it was voltaire, but pretty
sure JJR. it is also possible this isnt a famous line
from a book or article but just something someone said
that stuck in my head]. ok tnx.
\_ Submitting to the Leviathan doesn't strike me as a
'theory of freedom.' Furthermore, it's unclear
Rousseau romanticist conception of people necessarily
translates into 'people are inherently good.' The
noble savage is still savage, after all. How Rousseau's
writing leads to totalitarianism is a tortured line of
reasoning I want to witness for myself. -- ilyas
reasoning I want to witness for myself. It is believed
the American Revolution was all but directly inspired by
Rousseau, after all. -- ilyas
\_ If ilyas and psb fell in a forest, would there be
a sound? |
| 2004/5/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30496 Activity:insanely high |
5/29 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A689-2004May29.html This article was up the other day. I'm not sure why it got squished, except that it was somewhat informative. Anyway, Kerry makes a few good points, but his understanding of North Korea seems glaringly bad. -jrleek \_ Kerry has 20 years in the Senate on the Foreign Relations Committee. GWB is a draft dodging crack head. JFK will save us all from the quagmire in Iraq that shrub created and will restore American credibility around the world for generations to come! If only he had some real passion like Dean or was a decent human being non-partisans could vote for like Edwards, he would stand a good chance. he would stand a good chance in November. I'm voting for Nader since Kerry is just more of the same. His Iraq plan is "do more of what GWB is doing, do it with more troops and try to get our EU and UN allies in there to spread the death around". \_ Have you heard any of Kerry's speeches? He has passion. He just has very little press coverage. If he picks Wes Clark as his running mate, they'll have 8 years. \_ He has fake passion. He "speechifies". He doesn't give speeches. Artificial pauses and talking loudly an octave lower than your regular voice is not passion. Clark brings nothing to the ticket. They both have military experience. They both have foreign policy/diplomacy experience. What do you think Clark brings to the ticket? He's from the South? So are others. The only reason to put Clark on the ticket is if Kerry's military background isn't doing it for him. Putting Clark on there would be an admission of weakness in an area Kerry claims is his strength. I think Kerry and his advisors are smarter than that. \_ If you really believe that Kerry is the same as Bush, you really owe it to yourself to read the man's speeches and get to know his policy ideas. I think you'll find that the differences are stark. \_ I seen a few and read a few. The differences are minimal. My example above was policy in Iraq. The only difference is that Kerry wants to put more troops in. The NYT did a write up on this a few days ago and went point by point. There's very little difference. It's just a matter of degree. The basic policies are the same. \_ Me too... Go nader! \_ I'm with you, brother! Don't let them get you to vote for a lesser man with that stuff about Nader "stealing" votes from Kerry or Gore. He has the same right to run as any US born citizen, of age, etc, as per the Constitution. When the Democrats remember that power is not their right, they might get my vote again. There *are* other options for people with principles. \_ Damn straight, America! Vote your conscience, America! Especially when it draws votes away from the one man who can end the Bush nightmare. This message brought to you by Americans for a New Century. \_ Again, you fail to understand. We don't see your guy as any different than the other guy. We want *our* guy in office. Why is that so hard to understand? I already understand why you find it hard to accept. Your party doesn't have a right to power. I don't want your guy in any more than I want the other guy. *Both* are nightmares to me and people like me. It will always be so until you get a real candidate or we get a real multi party system in this country. My vote is *not* being drawn away from your guy. You *never* had it. \_ What is it you like about Nader? Is Larry Elder also ok? \_ For starters, Nader isn't a lying two bit sack of career politician scum like the others. He has a track record of making good things happen for the people, not just talking about it until after the next election cycle. I like what he says, he says what he means, and he means to do good for all of us. What else is there to like about any office holder? \_ I'm not a Democrat. I don't believe in the Dems. I'm pro-choice, pro-Death Penalty reform, anti- huge deficits and trickle-down economics, pro- campaign finance reform, pro-globalization, pro- Science, and pro-Bill of Rights. I think the current Administration is against everything I believe in, and I know that the only candidate who stands a chance in hell of reversing the course of the current Administration is John Kerry. That's why I'm voting for him. If I thought Ralph had a chance, I'd vote for him. He doesn't, under the current system, so I won't. \_ As long as people like you continue to make it that way it will be that way. You know this country didn't start out with parties? You know the parties we have now are not the first parties the country has had? Parties are not eternal. If you don't like the candidate(s) from one or more of the parties you have the duty and obligation to yourself and your country to vote for the best candidate, not make a game out of it. Game makers have killed the electoral process. There is nothing wrong with the process as it stands now except the people voting in it. \_ This is starting to remind me of the perennial write-in candidate for the CSUA presidency, !psb. "Vote John F. !GWB. End the nightmare and save America!" -- ilyas \_ Like it or not, we live in a system where the person who gets the most electoral votes in a single election wins all. If you have three candidates, and two of the candidates have more in common with each other than with the third, and yet you split the like-minded vote evenly between them, you're reducing the probability that either of those two candidates will defeat the third candidate. If you don't like the system, reform the system, and then vote for the candidate you truly support with a clear conscience. If you vote for Nader without reforming the system first, you're simply drawing votes away from Kerry's chances of defeating Bush. If you're going to game the system, have the good sense to make sure the rules support your attempt to game it. Anything else is simply petulancy. \_ You *still* don't get it. Your guy is *nothing* like my guy and *everything* like that other guy already in office as far as I'm concerned. If my guy wasn't running I would stay home, I would not be voting for your guy. Your guy is useless. You keep talking about how voting for Nader is drawing votes away from Kerry which reduces the odds of defeating Bush. I don't care which of Bush or Kerry wins. They are the same to me. If Nader doesn't win, Bush might as well win as far I'm concerned. It doesn't matter at that point. Not all of us share your obsession with defeating Bush. Your party uses all it's constituents like that and rules them with fear. "I know we did nothing for you since the last time you supported us and the many times before that but think how much worse it'll be under the other party!" Enough! Give me my country back! \_ I really hope you do an in-depth analysis of Kerry and Bush before you make your final decision on their similarity. In the mean- time, as I wrote above, you really need to get either Instant Run-off elections or the Parliamentary system set up here if you want a Green vote to be worth anything. \_ Bush: scum. Kerry: scum. We don't need a new system. We need new candidates and voters willing to vote for them. We have the right people running. Now we just need new voters who don't see the process as some sort of game that needs to be cynically won. \_ I would recommend all CA libertarians to vote Nader. Why? Bush will not carry the state as things stand. Therefore, a vote for Nader is actually more useful than a vote for Bush, since it will encourage Nader to run again, and splinter the socialist camp. Once that's done, I would probably advocate voting for Buchanan, or whatever, to similarly splinter the non-libertarian Right. -- ilyas \_ And you believe libertarians would want to vote for Bush because...? \_ A libertarian may do a number of things, some of them counterintuitive. I think most libertarians, if they choose to vote for a major party, will generally take a republican over a democrat. In some sense, that's the fault of the democrats. -- ilyas \_ In terms of the game, I agree with you. \_ It isn't a game. \_ Edwards a decent human being? Yeah, right. He's a trial attorney. I've scraped better things off the bottom of my shoe. He made his millions convincing juries that doctors were at fault for children being born with cerebral palsy. He later admitted that he knew that doctors can't cause CP. \_ Nonsense. He made money giving people fucked up by bad doctors a chance to put those incompetents out of business and get enough money from their insurance to have a chance at a semi-normal life. He serves the little guy, not evil corporations, criminals, and other scum. I'd take Edwards over that piece of plastic the Democrats have now any day. \__\_ Link? EITHER OF YOU? \_ Edward's legal battles are a matter of public record. Google and you'll find plenty. \_ "n 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John \_ "In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl." From the nytimes: http://csua.org/u/7im \_ Nicely taken out of context of both the article and more importantly, the trial. \_ Out of context?!? It's the first line of the article! \_ I'm curious: who are you planning to vote for, Jim? --darin \_ I haven't descided yet. GWB does a few things that I think, are imortant, well. He does most other things REALLY badly. On the other hand, he's honest about what he wants, which is nice. I haven't read much of Kerry's stuff yet, but at least he says here that he's not planning to pull out of Iraq. Which is good because that would be really stupid. If Kerry promises the rest of the stuff I think is important, I may well vote for him. On the other hand, for a self described expert on foriegn policy, that little paragraph about NK (which is also quite important to me) looks really stupid and naive. I'll wait for the debates I guess. What about you? -jrleek PS. Oh yeah, I'm nervous about ANYONE NK endorses for President. On the ohter hand, if he plays his cards right, that could mean he might be able to do some good with them. \_ I've been in favor of getting Bush out of office since reading 'Scientific Integrity in Policymaking' see http://soda/~darin/sip.pdf for details. \_ The problem with voting against someone is the last time we did that, we got...Jimmy Carter. Whee. \_ Nader > Clinton > Sharpton > Gore > Dean > Edwards > Kerry > McCain > Bush > Buchanan. But I'm voting for Kerry because the ppl above him in the chain either aren't running or don't stand a chance. \_ Sharpton? Who? Buchanan? What? Why are these two even on the list? I'd vote for my dog first. At least he's cute. |
| 2004/5/29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30488 Activity:very high |
5/29 My boy Kerry doing business-as-usual in foreign affairs. Talk with
a few dictators, prop up a few thugs/allies, ignore human rights,
and say you're going to get us off middle east oil but have no plan
to do so like just like the last 7 Presidents. I love JFK!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A689-2004May29.html
\_ Hmm. a pragmatist with the right goals in mind. sounds pretty
damn american to me. You think the outline is unreasonable?
\_ Americans are idealists. America is an idealist country.
Think about it. |
| 2004/5/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30469 Activity:very high |
5/27 How do you figure the recent terror alert was bogus and non descript
when they released names and photos of 7 people they're looking for?
Isn't that *exactly* what we should all want from a terror alert? Or
did you want something like, "Don't go to the baseball game at the
stadium this sunday because the following 7 people will destroy it at
precisely 7:03pm localtime with 5.8kg of WMD materials with composed
of the following compounds:, x,y,z"?
\_ It came from Ashcroft, not from the Homeland Security Dept. as
required by law. It contained "no new information" according to
a number of quoted analysts, law enforcement, and legislative
people. The BOLO announcement about those 7 was a re-release.
\_ It came from Ashcroft so we should ignore it and give it no
value and rag on the admin for it? Okey, dokey! Brilliant!
You keep reading those laws while the rest of us keep an eye out
for people trying to kill us.
\_ Way to ignore everything i said. fucktard. Tom Ridge
came out saying "Uh, asscrack say what?" BY LAW, these
announcements are supposed to come out of the DHS. DHS
people got really huffy after this one, too.
\_ fuck tard? Yes, that's a way to win converts. Poor tom got
his toes stepped on so that makes the warning useless? You
are a true genius! A partisan of the darkest sort. Win
at all costs, huh?
\_ Are you changing any behavior because of this
announcement? Is your local police department?
This was a purely political play. You haven't
addressed anything I said.
\_ If I see one of them which is unlikely I'd report
it. I have better odds of spotting one now that I've
seen them and their names than I did if it wasn't
announced. I haven't asked my local PD. Maybe they
are. Maybe some highway cop will notice when he
pulls one over for a traffic stop. I've addressesed
everything you've said. Until now you've
focussed on who made the announcement which is
totally pointless. No one but you or some other
ultra partisan hack gives a damn which government
flunky holds the press conference.
\_ Yes, anything less than that is Bush lying to us. He KNOWS he
KNEW about 9/11, and he knows about the next terror attack!
The CIA is reading the terrorists minds! They used to do that
to me too, until I got this great hat...
\_ Did you make it yourself or buy it on the net? I want them to
stop putting thoughts into my head, too!
\_ Hey wait, on second thought how can I trust you not to send
me to some fbi run site? Or how do I even know I can trust
myself enough to go to a good site if you're legit?
\_ My girlfriend works at the FBI and says the people working the
phone on a night shift really *do* get calls from people
complaining the FBI put microphones in their teeth and could you
please tell your extraterrestrials to stop tailing me.
\_ Man, I wonder if I can get a job there? That's rad.
No, actually if I wanted to meet crazy people, I could
just be a bus driver.
\_ Only agents get to man the phones at night. And agents
have to work 60-hour weeks.
\_ Do they still require a law degree?
\_ No. They require a 4-year degree and prefer you to
know another language and have some law-enforcement
experience.
\_ I watched every episode of CHiPs and Starskey and
Hutch when I was a kid. |
| 2004/5/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30459 Activity:high |
5/27 Not that it will probably work out that way, but a hypothetical
Kerry/McCain presidential ticket beats Bush 54-39% in polls.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/opinion/polls/main619786.shtml
\_ Bush is burnt toast, but please don't tell the motd freepers that:
they might get disheartened and stop posting, which would make my
days that much less amusing.
\_ Uhm yeah. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a freeper.
I'm sure you find it easier to smear the opposition with labels
instead of engage in anything resembling honest debate. Or you
can just keep up the smear campaign and preach to the choir.
\_ d00d, 91% of Republicans supported Bush a month ago. Now
only 84% of Republicans support Bush. You won't be running
out of Republicans anytime soon.
\_ In a close race, losing 7% of your constituents in a single
month is pretty bad.
\_ I'm so freaking out! I need to go back to the freeper site
to get a dose! Or I'll have to visit Rush's site and see
him on the 24x7 cam to assure myself I'm ok! Or I could just
chill like the rest of the 'red states' and laugh at how
Kerry is *supposed to be up 15 points in all those battle
ground states but is either tied or losing.
\_ Not according to Zogby.
\_ Bush/Powell 2004 - Powell/Rice 2008
\_ Powell + (anybody *other* than Bush/Cheney) would win easily.
\_ What's all this Powell stuff? I thought we decided Powell was just
the token minority on the Bush team and sold out his principles
when he outright lied to the UN about WMD? I'm confused. Who are
we supposed to hate today?
\_ Who's smearing the oppostition with labels and not engaging
in honest debate now? |
| 2004/5/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30452 Activity:insanely high |
5/27 New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
\_ Mommy, why does the WSJ want me to reigister?
\_ csuamotd@csua.berkeley.edu
\_ As if the WSJ editorial page had any fucking credibility.
\_ Thank you.
\_ Funny, I find that nothing that disagrees with me has any
credibility either.
\_ The WSJ has really gone downhill since Jan or so. Remember
the whole Kerry intern disinformation campaign? WSJ was
part of it. In general, they have become very partisan.
Read The Economist if you want pro Free Market opinions
without the Republican Party slant.
\_ Yeah. Anyone remember Vince Foster's suicide note?
\_ Kerry was fucking some hot chick. Nothing wrong with that.
He has a life long history of womanizing. It didn't hurt
Clinton any. Women voted for him in droves. Kerry should
revel in it. It makes him much more human than his endless
drumbeat about his very short Vietnam stay and his endless
speachifying. It isn't disinformation if it's true. I
think it can only help his campaign.
\_ Is there any way to get the LA or NY Times w/o the
democaratic party slant?
\_ Easy: Don't just read the LA/NY Times. Try BBC, CBC,
and some of the east Asian online mags.
\_ East asian magizines? The Korean newspapers I
read have plenty of party slant... -jrleek
\_ Not really. Read lots of stuff, read between lines.
Apply brain. Most importantly look for what they
*don't* say because that's where they hide their a lot
of their bias. For example, are we still losing 2-5
soldiers per day in Iraq? Is the power and water
situation stable? Are kids going to school? Are people
eating? How many people there are looking forward to
their first real vote in their entire lives? How many
of Sadr's men were killed by anti-Sadr Iraqis? If
Sadr and friends have 10,000 people total, doesn't that
mean there are still ~26 million others who haven't
taken up arms against us? Why hasn't the Shia/Sunni
war broken out? Why haven't the Kurds broken away from
Turkey? Why does nothing good ever seem to get reported
about anything going on in Iraq? Is it true that there
is nothing at all good happening there? If it bleeds,
it leads. Welcome to American 'journalism'.
\_ Americans want news about how we'll be leaving
a nice democracy in Iraq, and no more American
deaths. Americans also want to hear any news about
why this won't be coming soon.
\_ Christian Science Monitor is a great source, without
any discernable partisanship. There is probably no
replacement for the Washington Post, alas. The Week
is good if you only have time to spend two hrs/week
on news. Yeah, if you have time, read everything and
make up your own mind, but I don't have time for that.
\_ The CSM? It's run by evil Xtians! And the WAPO is
run by the Moonies!
\_ No, the washington post is a decent paper. The
washington times is run by the moonies, and it's
a total rag.
\_ If Bush or Condi say something about it, maybe I'll start paying
attention. In the mean time, it's just Republican catnip.
\_ Catnip? Yes, all registered (R)'s get a free subscription to
the WSJ. It's a better written paper than the NYT which has a
rather poor track record for clean reporting these last few
years and those are just the ones we know about.
\_ (1) "The New York Times publicly took itself to task for its
pre-Iraq war coverage, admitting it was taken in by spurious
information from Iraqi exiles with their own agenda to oust
Saddam Hussein." - May 26
(2) The WSJ published the name of a juror in the trial
against the Tyco exec. I've read about WSJ's excuse.
(3) Republican catnip. Circumstantial evidence is what
circumstantial does. Look what it did to Bush. The
weight of credibility lies on him now. I'm going to wait
for him to support the next claim, since everyone is now
watching him carefully, since he has no one left to blame
(already blamed the CIA, already blamed Chalabi, who's left?).
\_ Is this that whole thing from the wall about repeating the
"American credibility is destroyed for generations!" until
it becomes 'truth' Soviet style? You need to be more
\_^Soviet^Bush
consistent if you're going to put over the Big Lie on
everyone. You don't post that crap nearly enough to get
the rest of your audience repeating it.
\_ Do you have any idea how bad the image of America is
overseas right now? Do you ever leave the country?
Read polls? I dunno about the generations bit, but
Bush has destroyed American credibility overseas.
\_ Given that America is as powerful as the next 20
countries put together, perhaps a better question is,
what credibility do the overseas have with us?
\_ Wow, talk about missing the point.
\_ Nuke the rest of the world and we won't have any
credibility problems. Fuck the foreigners!
\_ Alas, no, I am not the person who posted about
credibility earlier. I am still waiting for you to
dispute my points. |
| 2004/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30444 Activity:very high |
5/26 Politically motivated threat warnings?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27terror.html
"' ... There's no real new intelligence, and a lot of this has been
out there already,' said one administration official who spoke on
the condition of anonymity."
\_ Yet another BushCo conspiracy to destroy American credibility around
the world for generations to come! So, if something blew up and
10,000 people got killed would you be the first one here screaming
that they didn't warn us? And then next you'll say they warn us
too much and you're 'terrorist alert weary'.
\_ General warnings count for shit, even if something does happen.
What matters is that they take the right precautions to keep
security tight. If they know of a specific threat, then by all
means warn us and take precautions, but just saying "something
bad might happen" is no better than fear-mongering.
\_ Rice got smashed for the last time when they had non specific
warnings and they didn't tell the world. Now they tell the
world about non-specific warnings and you bitch about it.
\_ Well, there's no new information. They haven't raised the
threat level. Why all the sudden warnings? Don't be such a
tool.
\_ Because Memorial Day is traditionally the kickoff for the
summer vacation season. And the suspicion is that there might
be an attack during the summer vacation season. Didn't you
see how Condi Rice got hammered for not doing anything after
the memo a month before 9/11 with no new or specific
information?
information? -emarkp
\_ But are they doing anything that they wouldn't be doing
anyway, besides trying to make big headlines that
essentially say, "WATCH OUT! BAD MUSLIMS! FEAR!"
The Condi threat memo is a nice attempt at a dodge, but
doesn't relate to this case at all.
\_ Uh, if they were doing anything different, you probably
wouldn't know about it. And how is the threat memo a
dodge? As I read it, the administration is getting
criticized for saying anything now, but would get
criticized later if they didn't say anything now.
-emarkp
\_ It's just the "I hate Bush no matter what" contingent
on the prowl. There's no point in talking with them.
\_ Read the polls lately? Looked around? Bush isn't
exactly Mr. Popularity these days.
\_ Are you the same person who was whining about
lack of substance above? Either you're here
to disucss things seriously or you're here to
fuck around, make noise, and tell us all
(again) how much you hate Bush. You can't have
it both ways. And you totally ducked what
emarkp had to say.
\_ Bush's strongest support comes from anti-terrorism. If there's
a successful attack and he didn't sound some warning, that will
take away from his #1 strength. Can't let that happen. Wouldn't
be prudent.
Raising the terror threat level costs money. If there's no
attack, or god-forbid the attack occurs after the threat level
is lowered, then this again takes away from his #1 strength.
\_ I have credible evidence that the Administration will attack
John Kerry in the near future.
\_ You think they'll send Ashcroft out with a bat to a Kerry
campaign stop and whack in his knees?
\_ They outsource that type of thing.
\_ I have no details of where or when they intend to attack,
but I think it's important that the American public be
reminded of how serious this is.
\_ That ice skater chick survived to get a silver medal.
John Kerry will ski again! |
| 2004/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30425 Activity:insanely high |
5/25 CNN: "Sources: Major terror attack possible this summer"
Should I change my summer plans?
\_ yes. they're on to you.
\_ flee before the motd reports you to the fbi
\_ It'll be fun to watch Rummy say how terrorists will try to
influence the November election ala Spain. Vote Bush or the
terrorists will win!
\_ You've been alive for at least 6 months, right? 2 seconds after
the Spanish bombings, *everyone* was saying they'd try to do the
same thing here. Where the hell have you been sleeping?
\_ You misunderstood the remark. I want to hear the Republicans
state outright "Vote for Kerry and the terrorists win." There
has been lots of talk of the terrorists attacks influencing
the election, but no one big has yet politicized them to this
point. Fun! Fun! Fun! Feel the dark side!
\_ I see. My misreading. Nevermind. Are you also waiting
for the Dems to say, "See? If Kerry/Gore was in office,
these things would have never happened because the UN would
have been involved!"?
\_ Try googling
"would have never happened" "UN involvement"
and nothing turns up. Of course, I'm sure you feepers
and the Office of Information Manipulation will put
up a fake Dem website that says "If Kerry/Gore was
in office, these things would have never happened
because the UN would have been involved!"
\_ You understand the difference between the past which
would be a google search and the future which is what
the word "waiting" means, right? Now go back and
try again after going to http://dictionary.com instead of
http://google.com and typing "waiting" into the box.
\_ You lose. Everyone already says that. Even Neocons will
state, if Gore were in office, Saddam Hussein would
still be in power, implying no war on Iraq, therefore
no mess in Iraq. Of course, Bush is now pushing the
terrorists / Al Quada == Iraq which is now true thanks
to the war. Ah, I love self fulfilling prophecies. It
makes me feel more an Evangelical Christian!
\_ Iraq? We're talking about terrorism in the USA. If
you were remotely on topic I might lose but since
you're off in babble land your post is bit-waste. |
| 2004/5/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30398 Activity:nil |
5/24 Hahah. Beautiful.
"It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose," the spokesman
said. "You know this president. He likes to go all out. Suffice it
to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."
So, the weather in Crawford has been in the 80s and bone dry for
weeks. What's so hard about just saying "He fell off his bike."
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ He was riding 17 MILES and he fell at the last one! I'd like
to see Kerry do that!
\_ 17 miles is nothing on a bike in Texas. -tom
\- kerry is in pretty good shape. he'd done some long windsurfing
trips for example --psb
\_ How totally irrelevent. It wasn't raining. Why say it was?
\_ No, what you'd really like to see is Kerry fall after the
first mile. If you're gonna hate, be honest about it.
\_ Kerry is a stud - I wish he would inseminate my sister.
\_ Kerry has already fallen off of his bike twice in the past
month and a half. He has also had shoulder surgery in the
past after falling off of a bike.
\_ clutz |
| 2004/5/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30385 Activity:very high |
5/24 Very Presidential, but it was "off the record" so it's ok:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040523-112924-2653r.htm
\_ you freepers are really reaching for shit now.
\_ nice imagery, really!
\_ The more of this silliness they post, the better I feel about
Kerry's chances of kicking W's ass this November.
\_ As if I don't hear enough "Bush is a dumb" propoganda
from the left. Guys, this post is dumb, but it's no
worse than what I've been hearing from you for the last 4
years.
\_ "did the training wheels fall off?" is reasonably clever
if he came up with it on the spot--dubya would need a
committee of speechwriters
\_ Are you trying to prove my point?
\_ "Did the training wheels fall off?" is a direct
reference to Bush's speech a few days before about
the Iraq handover. Printing this without that context
is pretty damn disingenuous. Or perhaps just stupid.
--scotsman
\_ Ok, I'm not familiar with the speech, so
maybe the joke was fairly clever. Basically,
the point still stands. That is, this article
is stupid, and so is all the propaganda I
hear from the left. All dumb.
\_ on Thrusday Bush made a major speech saying
it was times for Iraq to take off the training
wheels and have a go at democracy or something.
\_ You think this article is propaganda from the
left? Talk about stupid.
\_ Hello? Can you read english? What
language should I write in so you have
a hope of parsing a simple sentence?
\_ Okay, I'll explain slowly. Reporting
a comment like this out of context paints
Kerry as petty and mean. In context, yes
it's still petty, but it makes sense as
a witty political joke and not an off-
hand comment.
For yet more context, check the final
line at
http://csua.org/u/7ff (apnews)
\_ Dude, READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN!
Above I say: "That is, this
article is stupid, and so is all
the propaganda I hear from the
left." The response is: "You
think this article is propaganda
from the left?" If you can read
english it is obvious that I felt
this was stupid right-wing
propaganda much LIKE the
propaganda I hear from the left.
That response to my comment MAKES
NO SENSE. Your further response
AGAIN has NOTHING to do with my
comment. What the CRAP do you
think you're responding to?
\_ Ah, so what we have here is
failure to c'municate. Your
composition leaves much to be
desired. "just as" instead of
"and so" would have made your
statement much clearer.
desired.
\_ Umm.. right. Your reading
comprehension could use
some work too.
\_ English discussions are as
boring as freeper links.
However, that plank there
is preventing you from seeing
my cornea.
\_ Just keep thinking
whatever makes you
feel the most
self-rightous pally. |
| 2004/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30370 Activity:high |
5/23 So what do you think about Kerry delaying his nomination until long
after his tax payer funded nomination? What would you think if Bush
did the same thing for the same reason?
\_ Is this a hypothetical? Because Bush can't...the RNC is after the
DNC.
\_ No, it's been all over the news for 2-3 days. Kerry is
seriously considering doing this so he can raise more private
cash. The RNC *can* delay exactly the same as the DNC if they
want, but that's beside the point. I only mention that to put
it in perspective for the knee-jerkers.
\_ It's going to be a close election, so Kerry has recently (a)
tried to talk Nader out of it early and (b) wanted to schedule
the nomination date the same as Bush, so they are both restricted
to federal funding at the same time. Sounds fine to me.
Kerry isn't the one misusing the material witness provision,
getting it so wrong on intelligence, and paying in American
credibility on an undermanned war. If Bush didn't do any of these
things, and just extended the nomination to match the Democrats, it
wouldn't be a big deal to me.
\_ Kerry is using tax payer dollars to have a party. The
convention is supposed to result in a nomination. If they want
to move the whole convention back, that's fine but this is
ridiculous. Your anti-bush rhetoric has nothing to do with
this thread's topic. |
| 2004/5/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30354 Activity:insanely high |
5/21 More and more pics and videos from Iraq. Some at the washingtonpost.
\_ Is there some reason I'd WANT to see more gruesome pictures?
\_ Why, as explained by a Washington Post editor:
http://csua.org/u/7ek
\_ Not compelling to me.
\_ Well, now you know, at least.
\_ Expect ongoing politicizing of the images slowly leaked out
by the media until the election. And people wonder
why the left is accused of treason.
\_ You should raed the above URL, first. Then you can come back
and call the liberal left treasonous. I don't care.
\_ You should read the above URL, first. Then you can come back
and call the liberal left treasonous. There's nothing I don't
like more than an uninformed Bush supporter.
\_ Uhm, I think we all know bad shit happened to some Iraqis
in US custody. Is it necessary to see all 1000 photos and
17 videos spread out over every 3 days between now and the
election? No, it is not. I mostly support the original
revealing of what was going on. I do not support the
politically motivated trickling we're now seeing.
\_ Well you should care, because the media is trying to
recreate Vietnam all over again. Its disgusting and
treasonous. Please explain to me how I am uninformed.
I am waiting to be enlightened, please deign to do so!!!
\_ Do you agree with suspending our obligations in the
Geneva Conventions?
\_ Like this section: "..shall encourage the
practice of intellectual, educational, and
recreational pursuits, sports and games
amongst prisoners"?
A combatant is someone in the military
service of a country that wears a uniform with
a fixed distinctive insignia, openly carries a
weapon, obeys the laws of war and answers to a
chain of command. American military forces
diligently follow these rules. Terrorists that
the American military is fighting in Afghanistan
and Iraq do not. Even under the Geneva
Convention, spies, saboteurs, terrorists and
criminals may be tried and punished (up to death).
So in conclusion there are no "obligations".
\- fine. if there are no obligations than
"the media" has no obligations not to
publish these. in addition to looking
backwards toward the "obligations" how
about considering the "repurcussions".
do you think it would be better if the
non-american press covered this and the
us press was silent?
\_ Yes obviously the policies should
be reconsidered but that does not
necessitate invoking Geneva. What
I am speaking to is the use of this
by the media as a political tool
to bludgeon the President and
by extension the effort in Iraq. What
will happen is the media will continue
to leak photos until the election in
an effort to recreate Vietnam. Its
disgusting, transparent, and
treasonous. I would gladly trade a
Bush loss and Iraq victory. The Dems have
decided to do anything to win, country
be damned.
\- arent you conflating "the dems" and
"the press". let me ask you this:
if corporations can take out ads
and write checks to parties and
congresspersons, why cant editorial
boards express their opinions?
what change to the status quo are
you recommending. it's not like
BUSH CO is saying "lets wait for the
legal process to work" ... they are
certainly promoting their "few bad
apples" position. you know the 1st
amd doesnt just apply to rep senators
from oaklahoma.
\_ dems = the press. whats the problem
with that statement?
\_ No problem with editorial boards.
To pretend the media has no
left bias is patently absurd.
So you trot out the totemic evil of
the GOP - the corporations - igoring
the largest constuencies of the Dems,
trial lawyers and unions. Unlike
the left, I have no delusions about
politicians who 'care' for the little
guy. I operate from simple principles
extolled by the founders: government
is inherentely evil.
\_I hold it to be self-evident that
you're a fucking idiot.
\_ Lawyers gave more money to Bush
than Gore, and corporations gave
an order of magnitude more money
to republicans than unions gave
to democrats. -tom
\_ source? I don't think you
know what you are talking about.
\_ http://opensecrets.org works. Labor
has given $90m in each of
the last 2 election cycles.
Add up the corporate sectors
and the order of magnitude
claim holds true. The site
groups lawyers and lobyists,
but on
http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/sector/AllCands.htm
his claim again holds true.
--scotsman
\_ Then how is it that the
Bush and Kerry campaigns
have roughlt the same
amount of money when you
add in proxy groups such
as http://moveon.org? Got math?
\- making hay out of something like
does BUSH go to his daughters
graduation is silly and probably
deperate partisanship. The AbuG
Show is not a "vast leftwing
conspiracy". Maybe the legit
press has a leftwing bias but
the right uses media as a means
too, eg. the fake press reports.
if you cant tell the difference
between the WP and partisan
hacks, you are simply not use-
ful to talk to. The WP editor
above is hardly Michael Moore.
Why dont you also add "all the
climate scientists are leftwing
freaks, as are development
economists and most law profs."
\_ Well, yes, that would be
true. They mostly are.
\_ Which is directly opposite of what Rumsfeld has
stated this week. You don't keep up all that well
do you...
\_ To clarify on what this person just said,
Rumsfeld's subordinate said that the Geneva
Conventions apply to Iraq (but not Guantanomo).
\_ They are bowing to political
expendiency. You can read it
yourself, article 4 is very clear:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
\_ So, have you read the URL yet?
\_ Why don't all of you understand? The geneva conventions applies
to America only to the extent it protects our soldiers, because
we are the good guys. Why we are acting on order of God and
punishing the bad guys, it does not apply to us.
\_ Not hard core enough to me.
\_ Why do you bother writing sarcastic nonsense like this? You're
not going to get a real response that will further debate in any
real way. Does it make you feel good to spit in the wind? It's
just you and the echos when you go off all frothy. |
| 2004/5/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30349 Activity:high |
5/21 Bravo Pelosi! You have more balls than most politicians.
Fuck Bush!
\_ all balls , no brains. Her answer on her way to win
the war on terrorism: "Education"
\_ On the left, this passes for political rumination.
\_ On the right, this passes for terrorism.
\_ wewt!
\_ Also more money (richest woman in congress). Also more plastic
surgery (okay, that's speculation).
\_ Wait, how many women are there in congress? And how rich is she?
\_ This kind of talk puts American lives at risk!
\_ http://politicalresources.com/You_Asked/Richest.htm
Amend that to one of the richest people in congress.
\_ what does that have to do with anything?
\_ No less than the op.
\_ uh, what?
\_ Lest we omit that 8 of the top richest congresscritters
are also Dem.
\_ "The San Francisco/Boston Democrats led by John Kerry have now
adopted 'Blame America First' as their official policy," RNC
Chairman Ed Gillespie said..." Why does Pelosi hate America??
I'm George Bush, and I approved this message. |
| 2004/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30328 Activity:high 60%like:30327 |
5/20 Kerry divorced and remarried. Has there ever been a president who
divorced and remarried?
\_ Uh... Reagan.
\_ thanks
\_ why do you hate us divorcees?
\_ Divorcees hate America.
\_ I love BDG! -bdg #3 fan
\- BUSH was arrested for Drunk Driving. Given that Ted Kennedy
will never be elected, has there ever been a president who
was arrested for DUI/DWI? --psb
\_ AFAIK, Bush is the first president EVER with a criminal
record (upon entering office).
\_ Bush had the strength of will to go off the bottle,
and the leadership to not have to apologize for it.
\_ Leadership means never having to say you're sorry?
\_ I'm just saying that's what conservatives like
about the guy. What's worse than a Limbaugh /
Fox News fan having to apologize to a liberal?
With Clinton, and all his "feeling your pain" --
well, Republicans think this was all horseshit.
\_ Right. Now wonder he choked on that pretzel-- he
was drinking O'Doul's. |
| 2004/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30327 Activity:nil 60%like:30328 |
5/20 Kerry is divorced. Has there ever been a divorced president?
\_ Uh... Reagan.
\_ thanks
\_ divorced someone else but remarried to Nancy (1st lady)
\_ i've always wondered the same thing. |
| 2004/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics] UID:30311 Activity:high |
5/19 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040519/234/726q1.html Would someone who's older than me please explain Andy Kaufman? \_ I'm not older, but I think he's nuts. \_ It's a press release, not news. I think it's a complete hoax. \_ http://Snopes.com on the case: http://csua.org/u/7dn (Uploaded 5/20) \_ Everything I know of Andy Kaufman, I got it from watching Man on the Moon. How accurate is it? \_ not sure, but I found him to be a totally annoying opinionated bastard and I don't care if he's dead or alive \_ Not completely accurate (but what biopic is?). Kaufman had an odder sense of humor than most, but it was wasted on people who never understood the absurdity of it. In retrospect (and when it was spelt out for people in MotM), people now appreciate his brand of humor. Back then though... in terms of today's comics, his fame varied between Robin Williams and a half-step above Carrottop and Gallagher. |
| 2004/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30275 Activity:high |
5/18 http://www.csua.org/u/7c3 hey ranty conservative poster: you described this as "Just another partisan rant, full of wild assumptions and faulty conclusions." Now I'm curious. What are the wild assumptions? -!op \_ which rant are we supposed to read, "You fat fucking fucks need to stop eating so much fatty catby stuff You are fat because you don't like baby jesus. Fuck you. That's baby jesus says. Fuck you. Also, you fat donut eaters need to keep\ eating donuts but must learn to shut up. Fuck you," or "KEEP EEATING DO-NUTS AND VOTGING DUBAYOU KERREY IT MAKE NO DIFFERENCE YOU JBOS STILL WILL COME TO US!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE FAT AMERICAN!"? I just don't know where to start. \_ How about the first sentence. \_ Yeah, that'd be one of the wild assumptions. -evil conservative \_ Phew. I'm a lefty and think the post is farily off mark. -evil lefty \_ Phew. I'm a lefty and think the post is fairly off mark. -evil lefty |
| 2004/5/17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30257 Activity:high |
5/17 Of the remaining six veterans pictured in the photograph,
"one is deceased and three do not wish to be involved
in any manner; only two of the 19 are believed to support
Kerry," the group said in a Monday press release.
Swift Boat Vets Accuse Kerry of Vietnam Photo Fraud
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/17/135458.shtml
\_ i think we can all agree NEWSMAX is not a credible news source
\_ Ok then go straight to their site. But your're right
admirals and captains have no credibility.
http://www.swiftvets.com/Index2.htm
\_ if you have some time to blow, the forums
on that website are interesting. - danh
\_ Amusing experiment. Do a google search for: swift boat kerry
Look at the links that come up. http://Newsmax.com, http://cnsnews.com,
http://nationalreview.com, and http://usvetdsp.com. This last one is the
most interesting. We do a whois and find the administrative
contact is ted sampley. We do a google for "Ted Sampley" and
find this: http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm
He's a shill. You're being played. This whole story is
manufactured. Repeated enough times until it's "true".
\_ http://archive.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift
\_ So an admiral and the other members are lying that
they were Vietnam contemparies of Kerry's? Go
to their website - its the same guy that
debated kerry in the '70s. I think its you who
are being played. They have given several
talks at the National Press Club now, all covered
by CSPAN. Either they are lying / frauds or
you are full of shit.
http://www.swiftvets.com/Index2.htm
Of course the media is ignoring them, its to
be expected.
\_ If you want to keep score, there are scores of vets
who have come out in praise of kerry, and a handful
that have ties to Bush's PR groups, many of whom were
the same names that popped up criticizing McCain's
record in the 2000 primary, coming out blasting him.
At the same time, even with a reward offered, no one
could be scrounged up to praise Bush's record. You're
the one who's clouded, my friend.
\_ Bush is not running as a war hero, and doesn't mention
Vietnam is every sentence he utters. Kerry does.
\_ No, Bush is running as being good for national
defense by draining the treasury, playing
political games with funding requests, starting
wars under the name of fighting terror that
do more to foster it, and then turning around
and attacking Kerry's war record. Pointing out
Bush's dubious war record is just icing.
\_ You have no comments about the facts
in the stated website, choosing instead
to parrot vapid DNC rhetoric.
Why waste your (or my) time writing such
nonsense?
\_ salon is a left wing rag. The author of this article's book
is described as: the seminal book on the vast right wing
conspiracy that attempted to undo democracy by trying to
impeach Clinton. The book, of course, is "The Hunting of the
President."
\_ Sampley deserves to be hacked to pieces with a hoe.
-son of Vietnam Vet
\_ You know Swift Boat is a GOP front, right?
\_ Only the Officer Corp should be allowed to vote.
\_ part of the vast right wing conspiracy no doubt.
\_ newsmax and swift boat are quite clearly
part of the vast right wing conspiracy
\_ It's not a conspiracy when it's right out in the open.
\_ So what are you accusing them of... lying? 17 or 19 don't
want to be in the picture yet Kerry is widely
distributing it.
\_ So, Nam is important again? Can't people stop flip flopping on this?
\_ John Kerry was in Vietnam!!!!?? I had no idea... he never
mentions it!
\_ Notice that the entire swiftvets site never specifies anything
wrong or bad that Kerry has done, aside from protest the V. War. |
| 2004/5/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30232 Activity:moderate |
5/14 whack jobs of a feather flock together (reform party endorses nader):
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=32
\_ I'm voting for Nader - he rocks. |
| 2004/5/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30222 Activity:insanely high |
5/13 Kerry shafts the unemployeed: http://tinyurl.com/35ukj \_ you're reaching, troll. \_ How precisely is this a troll? And why are there so many polemical attacks on anything criticizing Kerry? -emarkp \_ it sure sounds like the republicans tried to frame kerry for this. what do you think emarkp? \_ It's easier to just scream "troll!" and walk away then actually say anything intelligent to defend the undefendable. \_ I'll defend Kerry: It's better for him to be out campaigning than for him to be tied up in the senate by political games. \_ Then he should resign his senate seat and let someone do the job instead of getting paid not to be there, and in this case letting legislation that he's ostensibly for fail. -emarkp \_ When you're a manager and a guy who works for you is out interviewing instead of doing his job, you'll be ok with that? Please ping me when you become a manager. \_ the american people are gwbush's manager, do we call for his head every time he appears at a NASCAR game? ok i do but i am an extreme case. \_ if he's applying for a higher-level position in the same organization? Of course you support it. Or do you think the job of a manager is to make sure his staff never advances? -tom \_ what? what topic are you replying to? if this the fucked up motdedit merge 'feature' gone awry? \_ I'm replying to "When you're a manager...". "the american people..." put his post in between. -tom \_ Sure you can interview for another position in the same organization, but not if it impairs your ability to do the job you're currently holding. \_ The difference is, if one of my employees were interviewing for another job in the organization, I would take that into account in terms of scheduling tasks for him, rather than using the opportunity to play cheap, disingenuous political games. -tom \_ Do you have proof of "cheap, disingenuous political games", or is it just a conspiracy theory? \_ The Democrats had been pushing for a vote for weeks, and the Republicans bring it to a vote when Kerry has a scheduled campaign stop. It's not proof but it's pretty fishy. Don't make me dig up the congressional record to show the Dems tried to get a vote, it's reasonably well-documented in the news. \_ In other words, no proof and just a conspiracy theory. \_ The proof is prima facie. -tom \_ the american people are gwbush's manager, do we call for his head every time he appears at a NASCAR game? ok i do but i am an extreme case. \_ It IS kinda trollish. That title doesn't match the article very well. A better one would be: "Kerry ironically continues to igonre his senatorial duties, even when his vote is vital to the issues he claims to care about" or some such. -jrleek \_ It's a troll because the vote was staged. The Republicans had plenty of votes to make the bill go down, and Bush had threatened to veto it. When the GOP leadership learned Kerry would not be present for the vote, they arranged to have some R-senators change their vote so that it would fail by 1 vote. Even if Kerry had magically apeared at the last minute, Bush would still have vetoed it. A more fair title would be: "Kerry humiliated by staged vote." \_ URL proving this was staged? \_ Ding ding ding. We have a winner. \_ Not until he backs up his bold assertions. \_ It's impossible to prove that the GOP conspired to rig the vote, but the fact that the vote has been put off for weeks and then was suddenly announced just the night before, while Kerry was away, looks a little suspicous. No one can dispute the fact that if Bush vetoed it, Kerry's vote would note have mattered. Some URLs below: Newsday columnist: GOP stacks the vote to make Kerry a loser http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists ny-vpmcc133799370may13,0,7114735.column?coll=ny-news-columnists CNN: Senate rejects jobless benefits extension http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/kerry.vote \_ So you can't prove a god damned thing. This is just more "I HATE BUSHCO!" conspiracy theory. Thanks for clarifying that. \_ Wow! didn't know republicans are so childish. \_ Amazing that you believe this crap without so much as a misquote from some public figure. No URL. No nothing. Oh well. The moon is made of cheese, too. \_ If the Senate had done this and Bush had done that, then it wouldn't have mattered if Kerry voted or not. If Nasdaq stayed 5000, I would have been rich. I'm not rich, and the vote lost by 1, Kerry's. |
| 2004/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30195 Activity:high |
5/12 Kerry says first choice for SecDef would be John McCain
http://tinyurl.com/2kd82 (politics.com, Reuters article)
\_ Yes but would he be superb?
\_ that's because he and Kerry are best buds. It would be funny
if Kerry got elected and still chose McCain. I can understand
why he named Levin, though. He was real sharp yesterday.
McCain, Warner, Kennedy -- they all sounded not as bright.
\_ hmm ... Kerry-McCain sounds mighty good to me.
\_ How about McCain-Kerry? |
| 2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30159 Activity:nil |
5/11 Kerry ahead by a point in CA.
http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/CA040507pressen.pdf
I hope the Iraq prisoner abuse bounce kicks in soon!
\_ "surveyusa.com"?
Try the LA Times: http://csua.org/u/79b |
| 2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30150 Activity:very high |
5/10 Why do Republicans only support sodomy when it is nonconsensual?
http://csua.org/u/793
\_ NO COOKIE! Play Again(Y/n)? ___
\_ This sounds like a troll except it is true - it's hard to find
a popular conservative who is not defending the tortures. (Yes,
\_ Those who do are partisan hacks with no core. Your link appears to
be down, BTW.
it is torture. Whenever we accuse other countries of doing it we
always call it torture instead of abuse, hazing, or emotional
release. And no, they didn't cut off anything. On the other
hand, our arab and muslim allies have been cutting parts of
prisoner and our goverment has been very supportive. Amputation
is a tradtional punishment in Arab and Muslim countries and it
is not usually used for interrogation, with which torture is
usually but nonexlusively associated.)
\_ There's no sin in it if you don't enjoy it.
\_ Bend over and think of Iraq!
\_ Those who do are partisan hacks with no core.
\_ How did you infer this from the article you mentioned? If you want
to help pick on Republicans, at least use a better example.
\_ Inhofe is one of the most outspoken anti-gay activists in
Congress. I assumed that readers would know that.
\_ 'Inhofe, who visited Iraq in March, is described on his senatorial
Web site as a leading conservative voice in the Senate,
advocating "common sense Oklahoma values including less
government, less regulation, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility
and a strong national defense."'
He's not a Repub, he's a Libertarian.
\_ never mind the fact that "less government, lower taxes" are
directly opposed to "strong national defense." -tom
\_ bzzzt! Libertarians are in favor of a strong nation defense.
They understand, unlike most leftists, that without a strong
military, the long term survival odds for your country are
exactly zero.
\_ No facts! Anyone not with us is against us! --JFK
\_ "If you are not with us you are with the terrorists." -GWB
When did JFK say that? Oh, that's right, he didn't.
\_ He is registered and elected as a republican. He is a republican
senator.
\_ Hey, let's take it easy on "our heroes." They probably don't have
Skinamax or the Playboy channel, so they are forced to get the
murderous, terrorist insurgents to act out Oklahoman heterosexual
fantasies lest the cornfed troops get urges to lather each other
up in the showers and betray the American God's Laws by thinking
homoerotic thoughts. Hmm. Let's whip the savages some more Sarge!
\_ Sweet! That was so off topic and unrelated to anything in the
real world yet managed to stereotype and disparage so many
millions of people you've never met that you really should get
sort of motd award. Maybe for Most Racist, Frothing, Thought He
Was Clever, But Is Really A Drooler Reinforced By Other Motd
Droolers post of the hour?
\_ I rool! |
| 2004/5/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30139 Activity:nil |
5/10 John Zogby: The Election is Kerry's To Lose
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews825.html
Bush at 46% approval/51% dissapproval
http://csua.org/u/78r (USA Today link)
\_ Yes, all us liburals hope Kerry can't be WORSE than Gore.
\_ Bush can lose the election, but Kerry can't win it.
\_ Really sad to see that a majority of American's now
hate America. |
| 2004/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30136 Activity:nil |
5/10 What does it mean when they say Kerry is a "Boston Brahmin"?
\_ Means he's one of the richie influential types in Boston,
kind of like the "princes of Silicon Valley."
\_ i really don't think any non media pundit freak type
cares about that label, but i am amused it keeps getting
repeated, kind of like arguing over vi and emacs in
the real world
\_ I haven't heard the term at all. Is this just a troll to get me
to say, "Actually, I hear Massachusetts Liberal a lot more"?
\_ cf. http://slate.msn.com/id/2096401 ("What's a Boston Brahmin?") |
| 2004/5/7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30091 Activity:nil |
5/7 Shocking news flash! Michael Moore is a self-promoting lying scumbag.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901
\_ self-promoting? sure. everyone in the industry is. lying? The
crux of his charge is that disney decided not to distribute his
film because of pressure from politicians. when he knew about it
doesn't change the validity of the charge. scumbag? i'll leave
that to people who know him. Keep in mind that he was already on
the cannes festival shortlist.
\_ i can handle one little white lie by mm versus
well just about 1000 other things going on right now.
\_ Non sequitur.
\_ If you read what Mickael Moore really said, that article does a very
good job at taking stuff out of context to make him sound a lot
worse that he really is. Shocking news flash! The Independent is
a totally partisan rag!
\_ You can't really fault a filmmaker for trying to create free
publicity. MM is indeed a lying scumbag, so much so that this is
\_ Yes I can.
like criticising the devil for smoking (though, i have to admit,
i still am a bit of a fan), but it is his affinity for dishonesty
*IN* his movies that is dispicable, not his self-promotion. -phuqm
\_ Of Satan or Michael Moore? -- ilyas
\_ shrug, what's wrong with having an agenda to make Disney look bad?
He didn't lie in this instance. He just held the news until he
could exploit it to maximum negative effect. Seems to me the
reporter is just swallowing the freeper spin hook, line, and sinker. |
| 2004/5/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:30074 Activity:very high |
5/6 To whoever was suggesting the Branch Davidians were murdered in cold
blood without provocation, these are the names of the four ATF agents
killed when they tried to serve a search warrant:
Conway LeBleu, Todd McKeehan, Robert Williams, Steven Willis
\_ I'm one (the other?) guy who argued with ilyas. Call me "fascist".
Now, I've read some conspiracy theories out there purporting that
a) ATF agents opened fire first and b) the first 3 ATF deaths were
friendly fire, which forensics supposedly corroborates. Then c)
pissed off feds try to cover the thing up. I don't really know
the truth here. The official inquiries don't support that, and if
that was true then just what they were negotiating about during
the weeks-long siege. I don't believe the Davidians were meekly
unresisting. I do think it was a royal fuckup which wasn't
adequately resolved.
\_ why did the ATF call a local tv station to come on down
and film them busting the doors down at le compound? they
in the US after WTC I.
could have just called david koresh to come to the station
and turn himself in. instead someone unwisely turned
it all into a clusterfuck.
\_ Okay, quit it. You aren't Walter Cronkite. Give it a rest.
-williamc
\_ Bullshit, six Davidians also were killed in the initial
shootout. It has never been established that the Davidians
fired first, more likely the ATF. Koresh used to walk
around town by himself a few days a week and had gone
shooting with ATF agents in the past. It was
never proven any of their arms were illegal. And I
suppose you think Randy Weaver's wife and son also
had it coming?
Furthermore, this is the shit the intelligence agencies were
up to during the '90s, all the while Islamicists were festering
in the US after WTC I. -Mr. Bullshit
\_ 'more likely the ATF'? What are you talking about? Do you
really have a reasonably legitimate source showing that ATF
is composed of trigger-happy psychopaths, or is this just
juvenile anecdotal 'I Hate Mom and Da--err Cops!'? I find it
very, very unlikely that federal agents serving a warrant would
have just started randomly shooting people, "Hey! That guy is
ugly! <BLAM!> That dude is short! <BLAM-BLAM!>" Get fucking
serious. I find it much more realistic that they tried to serve
the warrant, were fired upon, and in turn fired back. People
do tend to die in shootouts -- it's a proven fact. Honest! If
you can provide even semi-credible sources to back your claims,
I'll gladly concede the point (and be very pissed off at the
gross incompetency that my tax dollars are paying for).
\_ What was the warrant for? Weren't they entrapped by the Feds
into buying an illegal shotgun or something stupid like that?
\_ Proof that the Feds are a bunch of trigger happy jack boot
thugs? Ruby Ridge. Concede anything?
\_ I'm not going to try to debate or defend the ATF raid, but
someone very smugly said NO federal agents were killed, the
Davidians never fired a shot, and challenged people to name the
agents killed if there were any. -dgies
\_ what is this davidian thing all about? it kind of reminds
me of what we are doing to falluja.
\_ And why the hell are you guys arguing about it NOW?! There's
a lot more heinous things going on in the world RIGHT NOW.
JESUS.
\_ You see, son, there's this thing called HISTORY. Some
people are interested in it because it can often provide
context to this other thing called the PRESENT. The two
are often very strongly related to each other. Use a
dictionary, you might find it elucidating.
\_ Yes, history is important. However, rehashing idiotic
message board arguments from ages ago is not illuminating
in any way. Absolutely nothing I've seen here wasn't
run into the ground by every wingnut on every side of
the issue 10 years ago, and it didn't help anything then
or provide context. Oh yeah, and as to your cute
little dictionary comment, obFuckYou.
\_ It educated some people at the time as to the evils
the Government can inflict upon the People. We
rehash it (this is the History Lesson part) in an
effort to educate those, apparently such as yourself,
that the Government still acts like that and it is
unacceptable. |
| 2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30013 Activity:very high |
5/5 Donna Brzile says Kerry campaign and Democratic party lack diversity;
only white people in highest policy making positions, while Bush
campaign says its campaign extensively staffed by minorities at top
policy and stategy-setting levels. .... I find this very troubling.
When did our party become so RichWhiteMale elitist while they were
putting all these tokens out there for PR?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040504-110932-5540r.htm
\_ duh? democratic party is white slave owner, mass minority
slavery. THe whities know what is best for the minorities
\_ Duh. Most minorities, recent immigrants, are conservative.
There's alot of "Fuck you, I already got mine!" mentality;
we could go on about the "struggling to find identity in a
new place and thus latching onto conservatism" psychology but
if you think about it; most immigrants are religious, don't
want lots of taxes, supportive of the corps that sponsored 'em,
and not educated in liberal universities.
\_ Kane has this theory that my formative moment, the moment when
I became a libertarian, happened when I first entered an
American supermarket, and saw the wall o' cheese. Oh and:
"I got my cheese -- fuck you!" -- ilyas
\_ Is this satire, or what?
\_ There was this other JFK....
\_ I find it quite odd that the Dems are STILL managing to fool
people into thinking the Dems are in any way "pro-minority."
They've always treated them like token people to be pushed
around.
\_ Actually, they've taken them for granted, and that's almost
worse. They need to wake up before some third-party candidate
sweeps them away. OTOH, anyone who thinks the GOP is on the
side of minorities is really not paying attention. If you're
a member of a minority, your best bet is to have a Dem in the
White House, but keep pressing for reform; if you're rich and
you want to stay rich, stick to the GOP.
\_ The GOP is actually quite good for high-income minority
groups (e.g. Chinese and Indians).
\_ If you want more money, yes. If you want civil rights
and more Chinese and Indians in politics or positions
of real power, no.
\_ Affirmative action. If you (non-privileged minority)
care about getting treated fairly by the government
and schools, then GOP.
\_ If the playing field were already level, I'd agree
with you. Since it is peppered with Old-Boy-
Networks, I do not.
\_ How is the playing field skewed in favor of
the Chinese or the Indian?
\_ It's not. It's skewed in favor of rich white
men.
\_ Wow, he actually stepped right into it.
You lose, on grounds of having no
connection to reality.
\_ Naw, I lose because I couldn't pass up
an obvious troll. We all lose because
the playing field is skewed.
\_ Then why is affirmative action punishing
Chinese and Indians? That's the original
question. Why the Chinese and Indian (and
other successful minority groups) should
vote GOP.
\_ We all have defining issues. As a Chinese parent,
mine is affirmative action. GOP.
\_ I would think the GOP is good for anyone that pulls
their own weight, and does not continuously see all
slights as "racism." and thinks a gun owning
society is an excellent deterrent to crime, and
that babies should not be murdered at the altar of
career.
\_ You forgot the "I worked hard for my money and deserve
to keep it" and "Everyone should be able to accomplish
as I have" (both are sort of extensions to the "pull
their own weight" slant and both are utter bullshit for
a society of more than a small town).
\_ But what about people who think the government should stay
out of their personal lives? What about people who think
a fetus isn't a baby until it has a brain at least as
developed as a slug?
\_ You pro-life fascist! It's not a baby until it has a
brain at least as developed as a mouse! Bastard.
\_ You take a poll asking which of them would have liked
to have been killed in the womb before birth, and
when abortion is exposed as a hypocritical
and selfish sham, they are defeated. Society dies
quickly when abortion is common. Since 1973 we
have had 40 million babies die in the womb, who
will step to bat and say we are better off without
them? Who among us has wished for more friends, or
is unmarried and has not wished for a spouse?
\_ Asking who would like to have been aborted is a
straw-man argument. You might as well ask who would
like to have never been concieved and then use that
result to force every women to be pregnant all the
time. I for one think we are better off having
40-million fewer babies. That's 40-million fewer
kids born to parents who weren't ready for them.
- dgies
\_ And who among us is married and wished he were
not?
\_ In other words, for idealist believers in meritocracy,
people who don't understand that the current society
still institutionalizes racism, zealots who don't think
our current system of justice protects them, and
misogynists who want women barefoot, pregnant, and in
the kitchen.
\_ But now they have careers, and the national birth
rate is at an all-time low, so we might not
have enough workers in a generation to pay for
all the government spending we have deemed critical.
\_ 1) It is not the responsibility of women to have
more babies to create more potential workers,
friends, or mates; if you want a society based
on this, then start growing babies in creches.
2) Forcing people who are not ready to be parents
to have babies will not produce well-adjusted
future citizens; you're just going to over-
populate lower-income areas and flood the
welfare system. As for adoption, there are
thousands of children waiting to be adopted;
making more babies for an already over-
whelmed system is not going to help.
\_ This is why I don't understand why GOPers try to
make fun of liberals. Why bother? They make fun
of themselves by saying inane things like this with
a straight face.
\_ Hehehe, you so funny, man-who-doesn't-understand-
irony.
\_ The best results are with fundamental theocracy. Lets start one! |
| 2004/5/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30006 Activity:insanely high |
5/4 Some Vietnam vets slam Kerry
http://csua.org/u/76i
\_ Now (Iraq torturing) is probably not the best time to doubt claims
of atrocities committed by US forces in Vietnam.
\_ Taking photos of nude prisoners is not torture.
It is hazing - similar activities take place
is fraternities.
\_ And this illustrates why all the libruls are just brain
dead, if they had any brain to begin with. Hazing is a
priviledge. Even in America, very few of the incoming
students who beg for it would have the honor of getting
hazed. To think the Iraqis are getting it for free,
witout even so much as asking for it, should make every
American green with jealousy and want to become an Iraqi.
\_ yawn, this is the best you can do? I'd expect
more from a high school sophmore.
\_ Kerry claims everyone in Vietnam did it (except him of
course)
\_ in all the 4 months Kerry was runner scumming in
his speed boat, he managed to kill 1 unarmed vietcong
and many innocent civilians
\_ How the heck do you know? I'd like to. Link?
\_ some guys have a beef with him from 1971, who cares.
\_ '"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of
the U.S. armed forces," said retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann,
chairman of the organization.'
My father served in Vietnam and Somalia, and he doesn't think
W is fit to lick shit off a vet's boots. So why should you care
what either of them think?
\_ Was your father Bush's commander in the Air National
Guard? Some of the signees were Kerry's supervisors
in Vietnam. Did Bush protest against Vietnam and
Somalia for political gain? Nor does Bush portray
himself as a war hero, Kerry does. Consequently
the opinion of Kerry's contemporaries is pertinent.
\_ One guy questioned one of his three purple hearts.
A few other didn't like him because he was anti-
war. That's all they had on him. Smells partisan
to me.
\_ How many times does this have to repeated???
An overwhelming majority of the veterans are
not condemning his participation or medals,
but his despicable actions after the war.
He was in the vanguard of leftists
undermining of the Vietnam war effort. He
and his ilk are why a free Hanoi subsequently
fell and the millions fled on rafts. All
of his behavoir is well documented if you
would bother to investigate:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry
\_ Bush is running as the hero/furer/messiah for 9/11+iraq. |
| 2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Finance/Investment] UID:30001 Activity:high 88%like:29992 |
5/4 Economy up, Kerry doomed:
http://tinyurl.com/2jloj (sfgate.com)
\_ Yeah, but Bush is a corrupt asshole. I'd vote for an inanimate
carbon rod over Bush.
\_ Did you actually get to SEE the rod?
\_ In rod we trust.
\_ Is that why Bush's numbers keep dropping?
\_ No, that's the effect of the Communist Media.
\_ http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/05/04/rtr1358052.html
\_ Wow, the economy is picking up after hundreds of billions of
dollars of stimulus and 2 wars. But we're turning into a nation
of burger flippers/Walmart employees and rich CEOs with no one in
between. |
| 2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:29994 Activity:very high |
5/4 ...Kerry got bad press over throwing
the medals (and just about every single charge of waffling
I've seen) because there are plenty of hack journalists more
than willing to trim stories to fit their talking point du
jour. --scotsman
\_ No, Kerry got bad press because he earned it.
\_ Just for the record, how. Can you come up with a story that
could reasonably be called waffling? My favorites are the
ones which take quotes from 20 years apart, or the ones that
claim he's against noble goal X because he voted against a
really shitty bill that had a line item about X. --scotsman
\_ I voted for the $87B before I voted against it.
I won't make Pres. Bush's service an issue. Oh wait, I will.
Hell, just read that right-wing rag Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540
\_ The $87B claim... This falls squarely under part 2 of
my favorites. --scotsman
\_ Um no. That was Kerry saying he VOTED for it before
voting against it. What did he vote for? An amendment
to the bill which would repeal some of the tax cuts.
He wants to have it both ways.
\_ God forbid someone should see shades of grey in an
issue. I prefer all my politicians to have a black
and white view of everything.
\_ Yes, it is called the "balanced budget act" and
Kerry was voting to follow it. BushCo just wanted
to borrow the money, which is irresponsible and
reckless. No waffle here, just a Senator trying
to do his duty.
\_ Bush's service has been an issue since his governor
races. It became more of an issue when he decided
to attack Kerry's service. All I've heard from Kerry
on the subject is that they have no place to attack
him on it.
\_ John Kerry specifically said he wouldn't bring it up.
Then he brought it up. I have seen nothing from Bush
about Kerry's vietnam service. Furthermore, I wish
right-wingers would drop it.
\_ If not from Bush, it's come from Cheney, Karen
Hughes and any number of others. I bet I could
find a Bush quote, though.
\_ Kerry has plenty of people to attack Bush for him
starting with Ted Kennedy. It remains the case
that Kerry said he wouldn't say it, and then said
it. It wouldn't be a problem if it were only one
thing, but this waffling is pervasive.
\_ Gotta love all these 100% recycled anti-Gore
talking points. Who needs new ones?!
\_ Gotta love your ducking the issue.
\_ That's the point, there's no issue to
duck. The "Kerry is a waffler" argument
is a tired Republican talking point
that has been around since Clinton in '92.
There is no issue to duck because the
accusation has no basis in facts, only
in out-of-context quotes and creative
use of ellipsis.
\_ Hell, why not just point to a freeper page and get it
over with.
\_ Uh oh, someone posted an example (two actually) and you
can't deal with the truth. Hurts?
\_ He voted for the $87B by taking the money out of
the tax cuts. That means he voted against taking
the money out of other programs. That's not a waffle,
and claiming so just proves you are a tool and a troll.
And Kerry didn't make Bush's record and issue until
Bush someone thought he could makes Kerry's record
an issue. That sort of changes things.
\_ He voted for an amendment to the bill, and then
voted against the bill (the amendment didn't pass).
He can't honestly say he voted for it before he
voted against it.
\_ Reasonably called waffling by a troll like you? No. I no
longer feed trolls, anonymous or named. |
| 2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:29992 Activity:high 88%like:30001 |
5/4 Economy up, Kerry doomed:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/04/financial1419EDT0159.DTL&type=printable
\_ Yeah, but Bush is a corrupt asshole. I'd vote for an inanimate
carbon rod over Bush.
\_ Did you actually get to SEE the rod?
\_ Is that why Bush's numbers keep dropping? |
| 2004/5/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29975 Activity:insanely high |
5/3 Controversial Tillman cartoon (i.e., idjut liburals can draw)
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall
\_ This guy is an idiot, I think most conservatives (and liberals)
would agree.
\_ as a liberal, i agree. however he also can't draw for shit.
personally even if i *like* someone's message(not that i like
this guy's message), if they can't draw for shit they have
not business being on the comics page. Here's a liberal who
actually knows how to draw:
http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks
and another:
http://www.andysinger.com
and another:
http://www.ucomics.com/doonesbury
\_ agreed. A little tact could have gone a long way. -- liberal
\_ It's not only tact. He had the guy saying, "Will I get
to kill Arabs?". This is just plain bad. -another libural
\_ Why? He could have joined the CIA, FBI, or Homeland
Security in order to fight terrorism. He joined the Army
with intent to become a Ranger, who get to play judge,
jury, and executioner on people they feel are terrorists.
\_ No. By the time Rangers or regular 11B's are called in,
someone else has alreday played judge and jury. Even
Spec Ops guys are usually called in only after the big
decisions have been made by some grey-haired guy in an
office.
\_ No. Ranger training is geared towards jump missions
and taking over air ports and other air related
activity. Anything after that falls under standard
special forces training that anyone in the military
can get if they're a notch above the cut.
\_ I don't understand why people have to insult people even
when they do something cool. Why make fun of this guy? Why do
republicans try to tear down Kerry's Vietnam record? It's
petty. Why did Doonsebury try to make fun of Bush's visit to
Iraq? When someone does something cool, let 'em have it.
Sheesh.
\_ The point of contention is that he incessantly portrays
himself as a Vietnam war hero. But you can't have it
both ways - yes he went and deserves credit but his
subsequent actions were despicable, to put it nicely.
\_ How is "despicable" putting it nicely? What sort of hate
filled vitriol would be "calling it as it is"?
\_ You know, the above discussion leads me to believe it's not that
controversial a cartoon -- basically nobody likes it, and they are
all right. Re: republicans trying to tear down Kerry's record, I
think even Limbaugh is giving him due credit. (When was the last
time Bush got credit for anything from the other side? Did he
truly accomplish nothing?)
Perhaps Kerry might have gotten a little bad press about that whole
medal throwing thing, since some people view that as trying to sit
on two stools at once. -- ilyas
\_ What should Bush seriously be given credit for? Afghanistan seems
to be the main thing that most people agreed on. Bush has gotten
a lot of credit in the press about "leadership" with the 9/11
stuff, besides the background rumblings about intelligence
failures, which in the end is true, if the buck stops at the top
then Bush's administration is responsible for failing to prevent
9/11, although obviously not from some egregious personal wrong-
doing. He gets rightfully criticized for foolish political stunts
like the mission accomplished thing. And you can't expect "the
other side" to cheer for republican policy items, although he
is certainly 'given credit' for those. About Iraq, actually I
felt that a lot of people approved of his tough stance towards
Saddam, myself included, however this feeling dissipated when I
watched the subsequent farce unfold.
\_ Don't forget Lybia. If you are an economist of a certain
stripe you also think "tax cuts cause recovery", so you
would probably attribute the recovery to Bush's insistence to
cut, cut, cut. At any rate, it seems pretty clear Bush did
some good. My point is that he gets no credit for the good
he did, which is unfortunate. Actually I think all the
anti-Bush bile is having a counterproductive effect (if you
want to get Bush out of office). -- ilyas
\_ I tend to think of Lybia in the same way I think of the
Berlin Wall coming down: it was in the works, and it was
just a matter of time. For the sitting President to take
responsibility for it is rather disingenuous. And as for
Afghanistan, props to Bush for pursuing the removal of the
Taliban, and props for finding Karzai, but a bakers-
dozen of wtfs for not finishing the Taliban off and for
withdrawing all military and most financial support for
the new govt. Seriously, wtf?
\_ Libya was in the works? In what sense? Do you say the
same for Syria which has just started to cooperate? Will
you say the same for Iran if there's an uprising and
the crazies are kicked out and replaced by some sort of
republic/democracy? The world doesn't get better
without people trying to make it better. Bad people
don't just quietly go away. They need to be threatened
or killed to make changes.
\_ Libya, not Lybia!
\_ I thought it was Libia.
\_ Very true. It's not controversial. It's just bad. Has anyone
seen any interviews with Tillman or the like beforehand? I'd
be surprised that a story like his slipped past sports journal-
ists unnoticed. I'd be very interested to hear Tillman's own
point of view on why he would enlist. As for Bush's accomplish-
ments, the only things I've seen that have approached notability
are things which later proved to be all lip service and no funds
(Education, Jobs Training, AIDS Research, Terrorism Funding,
Military Funding, etc.). Kerry got bad press over throwing
the medals (and just about every single charge of waffling
I've seen) because there are plenty of hack journalists more
than willing to trim stories to fit their talking point du
jour. --scotsman
\_ No, Kerry got bad press because he earned it.
\_ Kerry did significantly more than throw his (actually someone
else's depending on the day of the week) medals over a fence.
He was in the vanguard of leftists undermining of the Vietnam
war effort. He and his ilk are why a free Hanoi subsequently
fell and the millions fled on rafts. All of his treasonous
behavoir is well documented if you would bother to investigate:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry
\_ "free Hanoi"? You are a moron.
\_ thanks for adding so much to an otherwise intelligent
discussion. -!the person you're replying to.
\_ huh huh ... you call the above an intelligent
discussion? you are a moron. |
| 2004/4/30-5/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13502 Activity:high |
4/29 http://csua.org/u/74u Sinclair not to air Nightline's The Fallen \_ McCain for 2004. Please. \_ Yar. It's nice to see someone else saying this. I've been hoping for the past two years that he would pull a coup. \_ Please. John "I hate the 1st amendment" McCain got my vote in the Republican primary in 2000, but will never get it again. Nightline's name-list is obviously politically motivated--it was originally going to only air the names of troops killed since Bush announced an end to "major hostilities". \_ Why are you so ashamed of the war dead that you want them hidden away? \_ There's a difference between hiding them and not using their deaths to further your own political agenda. We all know how many have died since it gets announced a zillion times a day on tv and in every newspaper. \_ You would have a point here, except the issue is that Bush is hiding them to further his own political agenda. Both sides are equally bad, but Bush is the one going against all historical precedent here. \_ "I hate the 1st amendment"? Explain. \_ Regulation of political speech. McCain-Feingold. Note that the ads this year are even nastier than before, and the little guy can do even less to get his voice out. \_ Money as speech is a fat fucking lie. \_ You are a fat fucking idiot. \_ Set up a webserver. Post a blog about a lying politician. You've most likely gone over the limit and have to register with FEC. And you can't do this within 90 days of federal election. \_ TV time costs money whether individuals pay or corporations pay. Are you saying a television spot isn't speech? \_ I support campaign finance reform, and I support the elimination of big money in politics. Give the candidates a month to campaign, give them all equal broadcast time, and penalize the hell out of them for violating that. All you're telling me is that John McCain is my boy. \_ Cool, then we'd never be able to get rid of a bad incumbent. \_ That of course guts the 1st amendment. It also is impossible. Now we just have groups like http://MoveOn.org slamming Bush's policies, with funding from foreign nationals like George Soros (and I'm sure there are examples on the Republican side of the aisle). \_ No, our boy is an american. \_ McCain-Feingold, does little good and some harm. CFR is compicated and there are real speach issues involved. Speaking of Soros, his website has a good primer: link:tinyurl.com/2th23 -phuqm \_ Source for the end to major hostilities bit? Also remember Nightline dedicated a show to the names of those who died on 9/11, so this isn't totally out of the blue. \_ Can't find it now. However, why aren't they doing this on the anniversary of the *beginning* of the war? \_ Someone is being nice enough to post a job listing. If you don't like recruiters, fine don't apply for the job. Just don't try to deprive other people of the job opportunity. \_ Is there a particular reason you're hiding the name of your company? It may explain why this posting keeps being removed. \_ I assume there's the poster, his recruiter, and the company the recruiter is recruiting for. The op may likely not even know the name of the company. \_ I'm guessing the company might be http://geac.com -!op \_ Not a clue. I'm the one doing the restores and not the OP. I just think there might be people looking for jobs. Call it public service on my part, and I assume the OP's. \_ There is no company. It's a recruiter. The guy posting gets a referral cut. Evil. \_ how do you know? \_ Why would he post a recruiter add on the motd? \_ Who cares? Even if he does get a cut, that's one more job going to a csua'er. Better that than no cut, but the job goes to somebody else. NEPOTISM! \_ He's doing other motd readers a favor? I've often pointed friends at recruiters with just a "he's looking for X" and no additional information. \_ Because the motd censor is much wiser than the rest of us. \_ Yeah, right, like resumes and job applicants are such hot commodities right now. \_ I have recruiters contacting me a couple of times a week for unsolicited job offers these days. |
| 2004/4/26 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13380 Activity:nil |
4/26 Kerry doesn't own an SUV, his family does:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4009850,00.html
\_ Oooh! Tell us about Roger Clinton!
\_ Funny how he both uses his wife as a dodge, by saying it's not
really *his* car, and sets himself up as a hero for buying
an American car. So, is owning a Chevy SUV good or bad Mr.
Kerry?
\_ 'Cos when your own candidate is suffering due to a war he created
and the lies he told, it's best to point to his opponent's car.
\_ The point here is that Kerry lied about owning the car
because he didn't want to look bad. He should've just told
the truth. He is a career politican in the worse sense.
\_ 1 SUV is less expensive than 80 billion to invade iraq
\_ unlike Bush?
\_ Oh Bullpucky. I hate my wife's car and would sell it in
a hearbeat if I could, but since she bought it before
we were married I just have to put up with it. I am sure
with a millionaire wife, she can buy whatever car she
likes, with or without her husbands permission. It is not
"his" car unless he drives it. Does he drive it?
\_ This is just sad. The man's wife's car is about as relevant
to this campaign as Laura Bush's formerly liberal ideals.
\_ As I pointed out above, I don't care what he drives,
but the fact that he's making such pathetic attempts
to lie about it. Not to mention, but since they are
married, it IS "his" car.
\_ I am pretty sure married people can own property
seperately. Am I wrong here?
\_ For those who espouse traditional family values
as republicans do, marriage is an absolutely form
of bondage. Yes.
\_ Don't be an idiot. It has nothing to do
with republicans. They didn't set up the
marriage and divorce laws.
\_ When you get married to an independent woman, check
back in with us. Until then, get a life.
\_ So says the same sort of idiot that put in place
the "divorce means the woman gets half the man's
stuff" laws. According to the law, just
property is jointly held. (Unless they have a
prenup that says otherwise.)
\_ Which state? California is a community property
state. How about Massachussetts? And if you
ask me if I support Windows, I'll tell you no,
because I own and use a Mac exclusively; my
wife's PC is nothing to do with me, despite my
community property interest. This is pure
bullshit semantics.
\_ You don't know what you are talking about:
http://csua.org/u/72l
"Separate property is property that each spouse
owned before the marriage. Separate property
also includes inheritances and gifts (except
perhaps gifts between spouses) acquired during
marriage. During and after the marriage, each
spouse may keep control of his or her separate
property." She came into the marriage worth
$400M, surely she is able to afford to buy
her own seperate car, unless they have
comingled their accounts. Do you have any
evidence otherwise? |
| 2004/4/23-9/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13359 Activity:kinda low |
9/9 http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com \_ republicans critisizing kerry for his war record is pretty funny, it makes them seem cranky insane and stupid, keep up the good work! \_ Go figure. It's registered to some douche bag from Texas. \_ agreed. \_ It seems JK has gotten many medals in Vietnam, while Bush can't even seem to make himself show up in the National Guard. I mean what else do you people need?? On one hand, you have this rich boy who manages to fuck up everything he gets his hands on, and on the other hand you have this dude who actually was in the military and has gotten some medals. I don't know about you, that is enough for me. \_ As the John Kerry camp says every time JK is critized for his service: We'll put JK's service record up against the other parties' existant or non-existant service records ... \_ Bush: hmm, now that I've gotten elected, let's find a good enemy to spend all those surplus on. Let's see, China!! the perfect target! Until Bin-ladin shitted on his face. You don't hear so much about the China threat theory now a days do you? Despite being the 'free' media we are led to believe, the government can influence what we \_ Taiwan and Iraq are not equivalent at all \_ Because WE CAN, so bite me!! \_ formatting to fix please, how to set 80 cols? \_ Oh the horror... the Bush campaign advertising that Kerry is unprincipled and the most liberal Senator in Congress. How about this part of his 'heroic' record that the media seems to ignore: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry \_ Most liberal? You make it sound like proposing health care reform is worse than being talked into preemptive war, or cutting taxes and then telling soldiers that they'll have to take up the slack by cutting benefits. Oh yeah, and if you get wasted over \_ He is rated the most liberal by a number of sources, here is but one: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm \_ He serves a very liberal area as a senator. A senator's responsibilities are very different from a president's. I'm more concerned whether he means what he says. That he will be up front about where things stand. That he will work with the government rather than try to sell them/us a bill of goods. That he won't stifle or simply ignore dissent. \_ Well obviously he doesn't mean what he says given he takes every position he can on the same issue. He has espoused leftist beliefs his entire life - predating any political office. there in the desert, we'll make it policy to keep the public from seeing your coffin, because we want them to support the war that killed you. Or perhaps we'll just talk about the "patriot" act, \_ This has been military policy for decades, nothing to do with Bush. \_ It had to do with _a_ Bush. Policy was set in '91. Hardly "decades". --scotsman \_ Moreover, it was not enforced until 2000. \_ You mistyped 2001. the religious dichotomy we've set up, where you're either with us or with the terrorists. How about "free speech zones"? How about DOJ that thinks porn is somehow a priority? Kerry fought with bravery, and yes, heroism, and he came back and was principled enough to tell the entire nation that the war he fought was a mistake. Meanwhile, you see fit to assert that war crimes weren't happening, that little kids weren't going nuts and killing women and children. Bravo. \_ You lost me here. I reject the structure of your argument. If Kerry wants to wrap himself in the mantle of Vietnam 'heroism' you can't be selective. He should commended for going. That said receiving a purple heart for a bruise and another for an injury that required what was effectively neosporin is suspicious. As discussed \_ Um. Soldiers don't request purple hearts. The military give medals along their own guidelines. Try to talk away a silver star. --scotsman \_ This is besides the point, it is what he did when returned that is the subject of the site. You can read the purple heart forms, one is for a contusion = bruise, the other required topical treatment of an ointment = neosporin. on the site linked his subsequent actions were borderline traitorous and perpetuated numerous myths about the war in Vietnam, some you apparently still buy into. South Vietnam was free and democratic after WWII and after the Treaty of Paris. I'm not interested in liberal platitudes but would be happy to debate factual statements. BTW, Bush's circumstance is different as he has never portrayed himself as a hero, but simply as a member of the Air National Guard. \_ This was already answered yesterday, but someone deleted the whole thread soon after the reply. \_ And I actually answered it again, and it was deleted again. \_ And since when do libs care about the military. Clinton, the prototype liberal today, wrote how he 'loathed' the military and everything it stood for. Why the vacillation? \_ go the the FAQ, and scroll down to his excerpted hate mail. funny. It makes the motd look pretty high class. |
| 2004/4/23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13345 Activity:nil |
4/23 JOTD: What's the difference between John Edward and John Edwards?
\_ who the hell is John Edward?
\_ A guy who claims to talk to people's dead relatives. He has a TV
show "Crossing Over" and is the subject of the South Park episode
"The Biggest Douche in the Universe"
\_ One's a big phoney and the other claims he can talk to dead people.
\_ Sen. Edwards, during a trial on behalf of a dead child's family,
did claim in front of a jury that he was channelling
the deceased kid. --elizp, big-time Edwards supporter
\_ what exactly do you find appealing about Edwards? Aside
from being a young southerner who looks good on TV, he
strikes me as some of the worst of what the Democratic
party has to offer.
\_ (1) Electability (getting a Dem into the White House
is about pandering to the South and/or the Midwest;
never appreciated this until I moved to Southern
Indiana 8 months ago); (2) my lust for class warfare.
Were merit & positions my primary determinants, I would've
gone for Kerry or Kucinich (and Kerry's still got that
doesn't-play-well-with-others-in-the-sandbox problem).
But this time I wanna win. --elizp
\_ Heh. I thought that was John Kerry? Or was it Dean? Oh
I forgot, whichever Democrat is under discussion is the
"worst the Democratic party has to offer." All Democrats
are evil. Heil Bush!
\_ actually, I voted for Kerry in the primary, and would
have voted for dean had he not dropped out. I also
like Clark. None of them are protectionists, and
all of them have a clear message. Edwards is an
extreme protectionist with, as far as I can tell,
\_ Edwards' positions on NAFTA are more moderate
than his "two Americas" stump speech suggests.
--elizp
one clear message "hey, y'all! I'm southern!"
\_ His best "clear message" parses the implications
of Dubya's tax cuts for the very wealthy: that
shifting the tax burden from capital to labor
marks an egregious change in national values
regarding social opportunity and responsibility.
It's a shame that Edwards' class analysis got
dumbed down in "two Americas" (which, while
resonant, didn't do much to counter his Breck
girl image). And I still don't know what Kerry
stands for! For more on Edwards & class:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085343.--elizp
and to top it all off, he's a fucking trial lawyer.
\_ What were Clark's problems? I thought he should
do a better job of not flip-flopping. I hear
some people found him a little creepy. But I
thought he looked good overall.
\_ Gotta wonder. The guy made millions milking malpractice
insurance by suckering juries with emotion over science.
\_ Yeah, he should have made his millions through
securities fraud like GWB |
| 2004/4/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13325 Activity:nil |
4/21 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kerry-Purple-Hearts.html?hp Wow! Kerry's military records were just stellar! He may be diplomatic and charismatic, but he sure is decisive when fighting those vietcongs! \_ Explains why the French like him. \_ he's a runner scum in a speed boat shooting civilians |
| 2004/4/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:13269 Activity:nil |
4/18 Saudis want Kerry to win, raise oil prices.. hmm. this
means I definately will vote for Bush
\_ I need first learn spelling and gramar also
\_ Bush no care grammer, Bush everyday man
\_ Ironic since Republicans were pissed recently about foreigners
rooting for Kerry and that only Americans should decide our
President.
\_ Also ironic since an article on CNN that directly contradicts this
baseless assertion keeps getting censored:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi
\_ CNN has a new article on the front page where the
Administration refutes this.
\_ And we all know how this Administration ALWAYS tells the
truth.
\_ Bush wants to keep oil prices down to keep the economy
humming, exerts pressure on Saudi Arabia. Election
effects are a side effect; Saudis fall in line to
Bush's strong leadership. Saudi rep misspeaks when he
says the primary purpose is the election.
\_ Keep towing that line!
\_ Apparently 51% +/- 4% of Americans do, and if
this trend holds, Bush will be your President
for 2004-2008.
\_ If the upcoming election for president
were held today, for whom would you
vote?
John Kerry (D) 49%
George W. Bush (R) 45%
Undecided 6%
Source: Knowledge Networks / Program
on International Policy Attitudes
\_ Check http://cnn.com and http://washingtonpost.com for
new data, boy-o
\_ that's dated 4/19.
\_ I am surprised to see that. Anyway,
so are the CNN/USA Today/Gallup and
the Washington Post polls, and
they're much more well known. The
other one I found on some strange
Canadian site via google.
\_ Looks pretty even to me:
http://www.pollingreport.com
\_ That's because the page is
showing the Zogby data, which
is the only major one that
shows Kerry ahead, and is
also current to 1 week.
Even so, CNN/USA Today/Gallup
and Wash Post > Zogby
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
\_ What happened to "I predict that Bush will
win California and the presidency in a
landslide" of three months ago? How's that
prediction working out for you?
\_ It's "toeing the line".
\_ So why not do it 6 months ago? a year ago?
http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm
\_ LEADERSHIP STRONG! |
| 2004/4/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13235 Activity:nil |
4/16 And the scary part is, he's the smart one:
"If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or
three years, the kind of tax increases that both Kerry and Edwards
have talked about, we would not have had the kind of job growth
that we've had." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, on http://pogothemonkey.com
\_ Yep, smarter than you apparently.
\_ He's right; if we'd had the Kerry/Edwards tax plan, we'd've had
less hoarding by the rich and more money in the market, meaning
a significantly higher job growth.
\_ Huh? Who are you replying to, and what are you trying to say?
\_ The point is that most people know that the Bush admin is
the first since Hoover to lose jobs during the term. If
Cheney claims that that is "job growth" it's comical.
\_ And like Hoover they're taking flak for an economy
that couldn't possiably be their fault.
\_ No one is talking about taking flak for an economy.
This is about Cheney believing that job LOSSES is
Job GROWTH. It's really simple.
\_ They're responsible for some part of it, and the
policies chosen to address it. They can't dodge the
deficit.
\_ You know the great depressions depth and length
is largely due to FDR, right? Also, Cheney's
point is that it would have been worse (if
approached in an FDR like fashion.) Not
to meantion, the unemployment rate is pretty
friggin' low.
\_ But implying that Kerry/Edwards policy == FDR is
just flat false, plus referring to "job growth"
when jobs were lost is also false.
\_ I'm just saying that we've seen "tax in
time of need" style econ, and it don't
fly. As for job growth, why does Cheney
have to be refering to exaclty the time
from when Bush took office, and not, say
from the depth of the recession?
\_ "tax in time of need" = red herring
\_ How did FDR prolong the great depression?
\_ "couldn't possiably [sic] be their fault" is extreme
and likely incorrect, with the monetary cost of the
Iraq war and psychological effect on the nation --
and with the increasingly supportable position that
the Iraq war was not necessary.
\_ Ok "couldn't possibly be their fault in a world
where time passes in a linear fashion."
\_ I'm sure you're making a point here, but I
don't understand what you're trying to say.
\_ Sorry, I'm saying: The bad economy
preceeded the Iraq war, and there is no
evidence to show that the economy
was affected by it.
\_ It goes without saying that the Iraq
war had no effect on the economy before
the Iraq war was started.
You are saying there is no evidence
to show that today's economy has been
affected by the Iraq war?
\_ Why do you HATE AMERICA??? |
| 2004/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13142 Activity:moderate |
4/12 Kerry makes up his own measure of the economy to criticize Bush:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry_x.htm
(Historically, the "Misery Index" is unemployment + inflation.)
\_ Really people, is it that hard to shorten a freaking URL?
\_ I prefer not to shorten them. Please don't delete my URL.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/gobush/2004-04-12-kerry_x.htm |
| 2004/4/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13096 Activity:kinda low 50%like:12375 |
4/8 John Ashcroft, Work Safe:
http://www.wonkette.com/images/work%20safe.jpg
\_ Depends on what resolution you view it at.
\_ NWS version: http://www.pmbrowser.info/hublog/images/gashcroft.jpg
\_ what's up with putting urls/img in < > lately?
\_ There's some RFC that says that URIs are supposed to be
enclosed in angle brackets in plaintext media. It's not a
new development; never seen email addresses in angle brackets
back in the days of yore?
\_ Days of yore meant using !s instead of @s.
\_ The suggestion, if that's what it says, is misguided.
\_ why? it lets you put URLs into sentences without having
to worry about the punctuation screwing them up. -tom
\_ Please provide an example of a URL in a sentence
where punctuation screws things up.
\_ "Go to link:google.com/."
"The requested URL /. was not found on this server."
\_ If the terminating period is a representative
example, then I prefer the non < > URLs.
I guess you could say that's just my opinion.
\_ You've also got quotes, commas, slashes,
apostrophes, parentheses and others. I
do think the astute reader can do just
fine without brackets.
\_ I would go as far to say that only the
class of "moronic" users would have
trouble with non-bracketed URLs, and
actually bracketed URLs might give them
a similar level of problems. The
class of "moronic" users should
eventually learn not to copy the
terminating period.
\_ How about URLs containing spaces?
\_ Use %20. (You don't see URLs
with spaces for this reason)
\_ Sometimes people just click on the
link in their email app without first
copying. So it's up to the email app
to include or exclude the terminating
period.
\_ (1) We are talking about the motd,
I believe
(2) E-mails apps I've seen ignore
the period, comma, semi-colon
\_ period is a valid character in
a URL; brackets are not. What
reason is there to *not* use
brackets? -tom
\_ IMO, they're superfluous.
\_ how can it be
superfluous to separate
intended URL characters
from valid characters
which are not intended to
be part of the URL? You
think email and terminal
programs should just
guess which characters
are part of the URL?
Why not tell them? -tom
E-mail programs I've seen don't have problems _/
ignoring trailing punctuation in the URL.
\_ you haven't seen them all--I've seen errors of\
various kinds, in various programs. And it's
*incorrect* to ignore trailing punctuation; URLs
with trailing punctuation are valid. -tom
\_ In this case, I side with the "incorrect"
approach being the better one. It happens
all the time with English usage; what's incorrect
becomes accepted. Most text-based e-mail
newsletters I've received for several years
don't use < > brackets, which lends support
to the "widespread practice" argument.
In any case, I also found
out that Outlook supports < > when the URL
has spaces (even though there's an RFC which
says space chracters should be encoded as %20
in the URL), so that's neat.
\_ This is the motd. We are not subject to RFCs. We can
barely get people to indent.
Aiee! Chaos! _/|\_ nowhere did I ever say I was trying to get other people
| on the motd to use angle brackets. I'm only justifying
Whee! my own usage.
\ this is a great thread! / \
/-----------------------/ motd became -> \ ^ ^ |
\--------| self-aware and /\ \__/ /
| tries to mimic \ \____/
| that scene in \
/--------------/ "The Abyss" \
| \
\-------------------> Follow the magic dancing penis pigeon! |
\_____/ |
| 2004/4/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13091 Activity:nil |
4/8 Kerry wants to go up in a speed boat up the Tigris in Iraq.
\_ urlP? And please don't say drudgereport or something... |
| 2004/4/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13058 Activity:nil |
4/7 How does an ugly droopy dog faced guy like Kerry get all these
women? http://www.kingpublishing.com/fc/white_house/story2.htm
\_ In America, first you get the money, then you get the power, then
you get the women. -- Tony Montoya
\_ First you get the sugar.
\_ cuz democrats are sluts and have poor taste
\_ BUt Kerry's current wife was a Republican until he
started running for the Oval Office.
\_ why republicans always gots to be playa hatin'?
\_ Its not the Republicans, its all the Libertarians on soda
that never get any play.
\_ I can't reach the site, but here's the google cached
version: link:csua.org/u/6so It's not related to your
question at all.
\_ My link is directly related to my question. What are you
talking about? --op |
| 2004/4/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:13051 Activity:nil |
4/6 Hold on to your porn, boys, the gubmint is after it:
http://csua.org/u/6sk
\_ Is the fbi still run by repressed gays?
\_ Did you stop raping your dog yet?
\_ Are you still Ann Coulter's bitch?
\_ Your penis is so LARGE and TAX-FREE!
\_ W00t!
\_ Yes?
\_ Better Ann's bitch than, oh say, Molly Ivins. Yech!
\_ Well, it's run by John Ashcroft, so draw your own conclusions.
\_ Ashcroft is a closet human [restored, fuck censorship!]
\_ Ashcroft does not dance for religous reasons.
\_ Let's hate the quakers too for the same reason.
\_ You don't know many quakers, do you.
\_ historically, although the Quakers are pacifists,
they have bankrolled some of the most anti-social
efforts in American history!
\_ urlP
\_ Q: Why is Ashcroft against premarital sex?
A: Could lead to dancing. |
| 2004/4/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29905 Activity:high |
4/6 Wow. http://Salon.com running an ad for John Kerry for their free day pass. Nice work for objective journalists: http://images.salon.com/src/pass/kerry/kerry_splash2.html \_ when did they ever claim to be objective? \_ So why does anyone take them more seriously than freerepublic? \_ Uh, that means that Kerry is paying them to run ads. Did you know all the TV networks run ads for whoever pays them money? It's like bribery or something! \_ A political ad to donate money to a candiate--while going to an article criticizing bush. |
| 2004/3/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:12923 Activity:nil |
3/29 http://www.fundrace.org/moneyindex.html This speaks for itself. \_ The little know issue of party fundraising is that the Reps. traditionally receive small donations from a large number of contributors. Dems on the other hand receive large donations from two primary groups - trial lawyers and unions. |
| 2004/3/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12922 Activity:nil |
3/29 I missed the thread on Kerry and Catholics and all that but I didn't
see anyone point out that Kerry is really a Jew, not a Catholic so
it doesn't matter what the Pope or anyone else says about his faith.
\_ He also is from France and has a history of pretending to be
Irish to attact voters in Taxachussettes. |
| 2004/3/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12913 Activity:kinda low |
3/29 Kerry self-imploding. Haha. 'faith but no deeds' about Bush
then gets kicked out of Catholic church by Bishop because
Kerry has no deeds that are Catholic.
\_ he should quote scripture "remove log from own eye before
removing spinter from GWBs"
\_ I'm just waiting for Kerry to say he's a metrosexual
\_ Who says it's about Bush? It was a scripture quote within a church
where no funds were collected. The Bush-Cheney campaign is way too
paranoid. And you obviously have no idea of what the RCC considers
good deeds. Sigh, Christians. So ignorant of what they stand for,
so misguided. No wonder your God has spurned you.
\_ so "current administration" != Bush? during an election?
yeah right moron. also, I guess the Bishop has no clue
either, since he's the one that said Kerry can't take
Communion in the Bishop's entire state.
\_ he said ""our present national leadership.", that sure
isn't Bush..
\_ Kerry's pro-choice stance has been known for years. The RCC's
position on abortion has been known for years. The RCC is trying
to have an influence on American politics; a Catholic Senator stood
up against this, and now you're calling this a self-implosion?
This is a fine show of his moral character, and it stands in sharp
contrast to Bush's lip-service to the Religious Right. Faith but
no works, indeed.
\_ wow. never believed how blind people are. america is going
into the dumper soon
\_ soon?
\_ Yes, it's amazing that conservative Christians can be duped
into thinking Bush is with them when he has as much chance
of getting an anti-gay marriage amendment passed as they do
of being taken seriously. The piper leading the blind....
\_ I am not an expert on theology, but can you be a pro-choice
catholic? -- ilyas
\_ http://suewidemark.com/prochoice-catholic.htm
\_ Most Catholics are pro-life but most Catholics I know are
pro-choice. You can disagree with Vatican dogma and not be
any less Catholic. I don't know if the same is true of, say,
being Seven Day Adventist or Mormon though. -- ulysses
\_ But see, I don't understand. The Pope, according to
Catholics, is the divine representative here on this Earth.
Questioning his dictates is questioning God. Wouldn't that
make you ... a bad, sinful Catholic? -- ilyas
\_ Perhaps, but you'd still be Catholic. You're only not
a Catholic (of your own free will) if the Pope
excommunicates you.
\_ there are liberal and conservative catholics.
Liberal catholics are those who don't really practice
Catholicism and are just borrowing the name, like Kerry.
\_ So the only true Catholics are the ones who follow
Mel Gibson's brand of pre-Vatican II Catholicism?
\_ there are a lot of Orthodox Catholics out there.
\_ http://godhatesshrimp.com
\_ irrelevant
\_ do you have the URL?
\_ Do you really think that The Bible belongs to the GOP?
\_ no, but GWB didn't use scripture to tear down opponent
like Kerry does, is Kerry above us all? He's perfect in
his religion. *cough*
\_ all in all, Kerry said he has freedom of choice, and his
answere is "f$ck you pope, I can do whatever i want"
\_ i dunno, he went skiing on Sunday instead of going to mass.
\_ One thing about Catholics is that they represent a broad spectrum
of voters. You have gay Catholics, conservative Catholics, etc.
\_ aka Priests
\_ isn't that the Epsicopalian bishop? |
| 2004/3/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12889 Activity:moderate 92%like:29881 |
3/27 Massive top level corruption in the UN? Say it isn't so!
http://csua.org/u/6m9 http://www.nzherald.co.nz
\_ [ references to trolls deleted. The article is not a troll.
Do not question the troll censor. ]
\_ yet another right wing conspiracy. if it were true, it would
have been covered by reputable news sources instead of just
the partisan wsj and some nz rag.
\_ when it turns out to be true, will you stop being a
blind ass twink?
\_ no, he'll just deny reality or claim it's a conspiracy again
or say it wasn't *really* like that and it's really not so
bad and gwb is evil and opposes the un so the un must be good
and if only we paid our dues on time things like this wouldn't
happen. or something like that. i've seen it before.
\_ partisan? you're putting the wsj in the same category as the
nyt and the star? i'll bet you put your faith in the nyt which
has had multiple scandals in the last few short years. anyone
who would accuse the wsj of making up news needs to get their
head examined or is a troll. and that 'nz rag' happens to be
one of the top notch papers in that part of the world. what's
on your reading list, trollboy?
\_ I read only USA Today and the Daily Mirror.
\_ I didn't read the link and I don't doubt it. This is hardly news.
UN is a bunch of corrupt criminals with diplomatic covers wanting
to take over America. Why don't we just get rid of this
immunity thing the put them in camp X-ray?
\_ troll harder.
\_ I think the US media outlets are tanking this story since
its an election year. |
| 2004/3/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12835 Activity:nil |
3/24 Kansas City Kerry - at 1971 meeting where plans to assasinate
US Senators were discussed.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6331
\_ Gave up on the Drudge Report intern rumor, eh?
I see you found an even more respectable publication
to follow.
\_ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37706
http://csua.org/u/6l2 |
| 2004/3/22 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12793 Activity:high |
3/22 Walter Cronkite schools Kerry.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E29003%257E2026871,00.html
\_ Man, I'm conservitive, but I've still always wondered about
this.
\_ Those of us who watched Dukakis self-destruct have been
worried about this for some time. If only the Dems would
send John to apprentice under Bill for a while.... |
| 2004/3/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12791 Activity:nil |
3/21 Kerry Supporters at NYC Peace Protest
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102246/posts?page=1,50 |
| 2004/3/17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12720 Activity:nil |
3/17 John Kerry foreign policy speech. Who says he's not a leader?
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0317.html
\_ Err.. this is the same guy who a few weeks ago was saying
Bush was going too far. Let's flip a coin too see what side
of the issue he'll be on next!
\_ Nice use of talking points without reading speech. Excellent
job of not thinking for yourself. Yay!
\_ Oh, I read the speech. Mostly it was the usual political
crap saying, "When I am president, money will fall from
the sky, and [you whoever you are] will have the newest
and best of everything! Don't worry, there will be no
problems when _I_ am president!"
\_ Nothing like the motd for cynicism, shortsightedness,
narrowmindedness, and stupidity!
\_ And insults with no point! And blaming everything
on the guy you don't like! |
| 2004/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12712 Activity:high |
3/16 New York Times/CBS poll: 11% think Kerry is a conservative, 12% think
Bush is a liberal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606465.shtml
\_ which really means between 12 and 23 percent of those polled are
ignorant morons.
\_ Yup. Which is probably the biggest problem. The leader is elected
based on television personality, and soundbite carpetbombing.
A truly wise leader would probably bore people, and probably
would avoid the job and the associated bullshit in the first
place.
\_ A truly wise leader isn't a technocrat or paper pusher. It
takes leadership to lead. Carter != leader. Reagan = leader.
GHB != leader. BC = leader. GWB = leader. Kerry != leader.
If personality weren't important we could get a computer to
do it.
\_ ob: Hitler was a leader too. Having a TV personality isn't
a requirement to be an effective leader. It's only a
requirement in the USA to manipulate public opinion. China
for example doesn't need a dancing figurehead to make
forceful national decisions. More to the point, leadership
doesn't go hand in hand with wisdom.
\_ Not a good troll. You just combine catch/key words and
bad formatting. A lazy troll.
\_ I'll feed you the cookie: China is a heavy iron fisted
dictatorship that rules by fear and force. They don't
rule at the whim of their populace. That's a good
model that would allow us to have wise but zero
charisma leaders. How about GWB declare martial law,
disband the government and do what he thinks is best
instead of poll following and wasting his time trying
to answer all those annoying reporter questions? Let's
try it for a few years and see if our country ends up
doing as well as a nice place like China.
\_ what gives you the impression that Bush answers
annoying questions from reporters? His press
conferences are 100% scripted.
\_ duh, all press conferences are. what is new about
that? you're right, press conferences are
controlled so let's use the Chinese system.
\_ I'm just wondering what you're saying. When
does Bush answer "annoying reporter questions",
if his press conferences are controlled?
\_ are u surprised? lots of the lib. vs con. stuff is nonsense.
Here is something neither of them would like to admit: GWB is a lot
like BC as a president, minus the libido. The unilateralist
interventionist PAX Amerika approach was started by BC, not GWB.
BC = GWB + sex drive.
\_ UR so KOOL saiing AMERIKA w/a K!!! hahahahahaha!!!!11
\_ and that's why I may not be voting for bush this fall. unlike
my liberal counterparts i don't froth and hate blindly just
because there's a (d) near a name nor do I fall in sycophantic
enthrallment to anyone with an (r). both BC and GWB are bad for
the country, just in different ways. the problem for me is that
kerry is like BC but stupid and ineffective and elitist. well
actually i guess that makes kerry nothing like BC. -conservative
\_ The corruption in BC's administration was unparalled in the 20th
century. The DNC has returned millions in campaign contribution
from the Communist PLA. How many contributions were never
caught? China has all of our nuclear weapon designs and
literally thousands of front companies performing industrial
espionage. What was Billy Bob's N. Korea policy - send his coke
head brother there on a tour.Between militarizing the IRS,
Forest Service, and other agencies, ignoring five or six
terrorist attacks, Waco, Elian, demoralization of the military,
etc. etc. BC was the second worst president with a tie for 1st
between FDR and Wilson. I remember posting links here in 2000
describing the 'diversity quilts' and PC other policies
Clinton's administration was pushing in the CIA. We know now
the results of these 'policies'. William Casey met with BC once
in the two years he was head of CIA. On the domestic agenda,
yes GWB is similar to BC. [motd formatd was here] [then the real
motd formatd fixed it for real]
\_ Whoah. I got sprayed with spittle just reading this onscreen.
\_ Why bother posting if you have nothing to say?
\_ The fact that you think FDR was the worst president ever says
a lot about your mindset.
\_ Yes and pointing that out says nothing about the poster,
or your differing opinions. Your implied assumption that
FDR = good and anti-FDR = insane says you really haven't
read your history or studied the long term social costs of
FDR's programs or actually the abuse of their growth and
continued existence long past their useful life span.
\_ Anyone who can't find some good in him has a problem.
You don't have to love him, but there must be something
you liked.
\_ There is 'some' good in everyone, mostly. That
doesn't make them a good president or mean they had
good policies, or more specifically in this case mean
that their policies were good beyond the time period
they were written and should have been kept and
expanded into the horror they've become today.
\_ So you're blaming FDR because later presidents
didn't end his programs when they outlived their
usefulness? How many federal programs come with
a sunset provision? |
| 2004/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12710 Activity:very high |
3/16 This is a perfect example of what I was saying the other day about
why I don't want my President to be tremendously popular in foreign
nations. This doesn't in any way endear me to Kerry or anyone else
who gets this sort of high praise from foreigners. Remember, everyone
has puts their own interests first, yours second, if at all.
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/03/15&ID=Ar00104
\_ shrug, Bush is a moron anyway. Can't blame them for liking
the less idiotic candidate.
\_ Call me when Kerry has an opinion on something.
\_ Kerry is nothing special. He's done nothing of note in the
Senate. He's an elitist pig and his campaign was only able to
just pull up even with Bush after 8 months of free Bush bashing
during the (D)em primaries. You think his ratings will
suddenly improve now that Bush is fighting back? You think
to know him is to love him and his ratings will somehow go up
as time goes on? This election is a referendum on Bush. He
could be running against any loser/winner and it wouldn't
matter. Kerry's running mate won't matter. Debates won't
matter. In November we'll all find out for real if voters want
or do not want Bush and his policies. The desires of foreign
leaders, their people, the UN, and non-voters are unimportant.
\_ And when the bill for Iraq pops up again, I'm sure those
foreigners will pop in a few hundred million to help cover
the tens of billion dollars the US is spending there. Who
cares what they think?
\_ A few hundred million is *nothing* compared to the 160
*billion* we'll have put into Iraq and Afghanistan by
this summer. The price of their 'friendship' is too high.
Do the math.
\_ foreginers pretty much foot the bill for the entire
gulf war one. this iraq war two is illegal and immoral.
US is a very bad friend in asking its allies to support
its illegal and immoral war. it's right to refuse
instead of succumbing to us pressures and bribes.
\_ Yes, because having the world despise Bush has helped the US so much.
\_ If they loved him it wouldn't matter. Foreign intelligence
services (including France, Germany and Russia) are still
working very closely with ours. The French have 200 elite
special forces guys working closely with ours on the Afghanistan
Pakistan border looking for bin Laden conducting active missions
and the leaders of other Muslim countries that should hate us
according to your theories such as Saudi Arabia are working with
us and actively tracking down and killing terrorists where ever
they find them. How exactly would good Bush PR around the
glone help?
\_ So the whole Iraq thing doesn't count anymore?
\_ What are you talking about? What do you mean by "doesn't
count"? Huh? I honestly don't understand what you're
getting at. |
| 2004/3/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12709 Activity:nil |
3/16 "It--mah' view uh--uh de situashun wuz dat he--he had--we--we recon',
de best intelligence dat we had and oda' countries had and
dat--dat we recon'd and we still do not know--we gots'ta know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld 3/15/04
\_ I like poking him in the ribs and listening to him squeal. Hey
inflamed gallbaldder boy, squeal some more!! <poke> <poke>
\_ You realize that was ashcroft?
\_ No, he doesn't; he's an idiot.
\_ there's that Princeton education talking...
\_ Then again Saddam's 20,000 strong nuclear weapons program
discovered after the first Gulf War was a big surprise to...
Let's hear what Kerry had to say from the Congressional Record:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States
the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm
Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
\_ Funny, Kerry seems to be the only one to believe that
there were WMDs. Even Bush said (usually), only that
they were being "assembled", not that they were
stockpiled.
\_ I don't really care what Kerry said. Maybe he's an idiot
and was duped. The point is that the intelligence data
did not match the adminstration's talk, and Rummy's
comical verbal dancing is the result. It is fact that
the administration suppressed contrary intelligence and
presented their agenda with certainty before the public,
and even invented ridiculous stuff like the niger thing.
\_ It is opinion that anything was suppressed.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary
actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile
strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons
of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
\_ Hahahah 1998. How many chemical weapons have a shelf
life of 5 years?
\_ All of them. Disprove it. And until we went there we had no
idea if *new* ones were being made or not. Scott Ritter said
the WMD programs were only 90-95% destroyed when they left in
1998. That means *not* 100% destroyed and thus still capable
of making WMD. Based on Scott Ritter's info alone we had
reason enough to go in.
\_ http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15854
Yawn. Another lie of yours exposed.
\_ alternet? oh please. I've seen Ritter say on live TV
before it was cool to say there was nothing there that
there was something there. That was before he took $300k
in Saddam's blood money, btw.
\_There's no need to attack the source, this is the
exactly the same type of idiocy that _Time_ or any
other "reputable" news magazine would regurgitate.
\_ And the DIA and CIA.
\_ So you admit that you lied when you said that
all chemical agents have a shelf life of 5 years?
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960705/73919_01.htm
\_ You understand that the "uhms" and "ahs" and other pauses and gaps
are normally cleaned up for *all* politicians and other government
figures. By putting them back in you're not making him look stupid
to educated people who actually understand how the media works. I'm
sure this impresses your ignorant friends, though. Watch CSPAN for
a few minutes.
\_ Okay, why don't you assemble it into something intelligent.
He only stumbled that much because he had no response.
\_ remove all uhms and ahs. next!
\_ there are no uhms or ahs in the quote, retard. |
| 2004/3/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12702 Activity:nil |
3/16 "It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe,
the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and
that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld 3/15/04
\_ I like poking him in the ribs and listening to him squeal. Hey
inflamed gallbaldder boy, squeal some more!! <poke> <poke>
\_ You realize that was ashcroft?
\_ there's that Princeton education talking...
\_ Then again Saddam's 20,000 strong nuclear weapons program
discovered after the first Gulf War was a big surprise to...
Let's hear what Kerry had to say from the Congressional Record:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States
the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm
Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary
actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile
strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons
of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 |
| 2004/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29870 Activity:nil |
3/14 1971: Kerry negotiates with Viet Cong for US surrender...
from the Congressional Record
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097828/posts
\_ Think about how many more US lives we could have saved if
we'd pulled out four years earlier.
\_ Tell that to South Vietnam, which was free for 2 years,
and the millions of Cambodians slaughtered by Communists.
\_ Cambodians? Cambodians were mostly slaughtered
by the Khmer Rouge, which the Vietnamese overthrew
not long after South Vietnam was no more.
\_ Khmer Rouge were formally known as the
Communist Party of Kampuchea. Saloth Sar and
his coterie established their Marxist
credentials in Paris and Eastern Europe.
North Vietnamese were Communists aligned with
the Soviets.
\_ all patriots need to read the following masterpiece by a blonde hot
kinky conservative knockout and you will get a hard on exposing
the true faces of liberals around you -- http://tinyurl.com/2vx63
\_ Just out of curiousity, does anyone think Ann Coulter is
anything but psychotic? "Liberals relentlessly oppose the
military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national
defense..." Does anyone truly believe any single portion
of this sentence? -scotsman
\_ w00t! |
| 2004/3/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12657 Activity:high |
3/14 http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert153.shtml goes a long way to proving why the media bashes Bush. Because he's a monkey and fucks up everything he touches. \_ But Kerry is a lying crook who made more bizarre and corrupt votes than Ted Kennedy... funny they never meantion that... \_ Kerry is as good and honorable a man as Kennedy and don't you forget it! \_ d00d, they need Fox in that study |
| 2004/3/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12646 Activity:moderate |
3/12 American Research Group: Kerry Increases Lead Over Bush, Democrats more
united than Republicans:
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/presballot
\_ If I was a foreigner I'd be cheering positive Kerry news, too.
\_ why? foreigners cheer for bush. outsourcing, big trade
deficit all good for foreigners.
\_ gee, and here the left has spent 3 years telling us how the
rest of the world now hates us because of bush. which is
it? having your cake and eating it too? don't be stupid.
\_ oh, that's mostly just the nato allies, and some moderate
used to be friendly muslim nations. But India and
the east asian nations love bush. In short, the
ones with whom we should have good relationships
hate us, while those that take advantage of us love
us. Bush screwed up both politically, and
economically.
\_ not really. Which East Asian (i presume you are talking
about north east asian countries) you are talking about?
Anti-American sentiment is running all time high here
in North East Asia. South Korea's president
in North East Asia. South Korea's president won
won election on his tougher stands against Americans
(even though it's all election rhetrics). In short,
many countries think Bush is being a big bully, which
has a lot of truth in it.
\_ there you go. even s. koreans, who honored the US
as an old friend by sending troops to iraq, think
the bush gang is a big bully and warmonger.
\_ no this is just a case of "what have you done for
me lately?" france is the ultimate example of
this. without the US france wouldn't exist today.
how much thanks do we get for that? its just the
way the world is. everyone has their own best
interests at heart which makes sense and is the
way it should be. this is totally normal and has
nothing to do with who the president is. if the
rest of the world loved our president i'd wonder
why and what it was costing *me* and my country
so the president can feel popular around the
globe. i'd vote against the residing president
on that basis alone.
\_ without France, there will be USA today.
There are more casuaties on the French side
than American soldier during the Revolutionary
War.
\_ yes and so what? at what point did we
backstab france? this has nothing to do
on that basis alone.
War.
with anything i said.
\_ huh? so you prefer that the rest of the world
hate us like say how they hated the
soviet union? that will be proof for you
that we have a good president?
\_ they didnt hate the soviet union anymore
they ever hated us. they were just the
other super power and all the little
countries you're so concerned about played
the 2 off each other for most of the 20th
century. hating us isn't proof we have a
good president, liking us isn't proof we
have a bad president but each is evidence
in that direction.
\_ Complete bullshit. Who loved the Soviet
Union? Pretty much all of Europe admired
the USA and most of the rest of the world
the bush gang is a big bully and warmonger.
on that basis alone.
that we have a good president?
have a bad president but each is evidence
in that direction.
too. The USSR was simply an empire, and
only opportunist dictators found profit
in alliance with it.
\_ no one ever said anyone loved the USSR
where are you getting this shit from?
if youre going to post please try to
read what you're replying to and dont
reply to your own self created straw
man arguments that others never made.
\_ I think you've got the two directions
confusd. each is evidence of the other
direction. And no, it wasn't about
playing offthe two superpowers. It had
always been about supporting the US for
what it respresented.
\_ Why are you guys babbling about foreigners? The link is
a poll of AMERICANS.
\_ Because, if you read a news paper or read it online,
you'd know about Kerry's recent quote about unnamed
foreign leaders who are pulling for him. Of course this
was a provable lie, but hey, it's only politics. |
| 2004/3/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12638 Activity:low |
3/12 Can't his advisors get Kerry to STFU and stop mouthing off?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040312-120719-7926r.htm
\_ Can't his advisors get Reverend Moon to stop trying to destroy
our government? |
| 2004/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12597 Activity:nil |
3/10 "It is Nader's doing, more than anyone else's, that
the federal bureaucracy includes an Environmental Protection
Agency, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
and a Consumer Product Safety Commission..." -The New Yorker
\_ nonono, we were told right here on the motd only a few weeks ago
that kerry has done far more than nader could ever dream of.
\_ All he needs now is Slick Willie's charm and an intern scandal
to prove it!
\_ Was that praise or criticism? |
| 2004/3/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:29861 Activity:nil |
3/8 Ashcroft surgery a success! Blessings to him and his family.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42534-2004Mar9?language=printer
\_ However, giant stick in up ass thought to be inoperable. |
| 2004/3/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:12549, category id '18005#15.0625' has no name! , ] UID:12549 Activity:high |
3/5 For the Ashcroft haters out there: do you see this as divine
retribution? Does he deserve it? Do you wish him dead?
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/389373|top|03-05-2004::17:07|reuters.html
restored. leave it to the motd to delete actual real national news
that has actual real national implications while leaving so much other
drivel. way to go!
\_ http://csua.org/u/6b3
restored. leave it to the motd to delete actual real national news
that has actual real national implications while leaving so much other
drivel. way to go!
\_ if you're NOT a troll, it sounds like you are only capable of the
same absolutist thought that makes Ashcroft stupid and unpopular.
And one day your body will fail you as well, and you will wonder
if you are a bad person. But don't worry, you are just dumb.
\_ Nobody "hates" Ashcroft or Rumsfeld or Bush (except a bunch of
lunatics with whom you won't be able to argue anyway.) They're
just scary, incompetent and dishonest to varying degrees, and
don't belong in charge of large portions of a democratic
government. Nice flamebait. -John
\_ The whole point of good government is to be robust to idiots.
Idiots are a problem for any form of government. (I am not
necessarily calling any of the above idiots, though, just
pointing out expecting philosopher-kings at the top is naive).
-- ilyas
\_ Idoitic or not is not an issue, nor do I believe Bush and
his team are incompetent. They are just a bunch people who
put ideology over pragmatism, put interest of the few over
interest of the masses, *AND* lie to the masses so they will
pay for their agenda, with cash and blood.
\_ no, yes, yes.
\_ yes, yes, no.
\_ no, no, no.
\_ yes, no, yes |
| 2004/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12527 Activity:kinda low |
4/3 Nader voters make the difference between Bush & Kerry victory if
the election were held today.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040304/D813PD7G1.html
\_ uh oh, Bush just started campaigning today.. that means
it's over already..
\_ It ain't till the fat lady sings and she hasn't even
showed up on stage yet.
\_ But... but... But then what will all the motd know-it-alls
do until August?!?!
\_ you mean it aint over until the supreme court hands the
election over.
\_ Give it a rest. And format your posts twink.
\_ Restore the rightful winner, and we'll talk. And
learn how to use commas, buck.
\_ Apostrophe's, not comma's. -John
\_ Proof-p
\_ oh dear god, we've been over this so many times. no
matter how the press counted and recounted after gore
lost. that's your lefty press that was dying to find
a story there. there wasn't one. move on.
\_ K1N6 60R3 15 T3h R1t3f00l w1nn3R!!~!@@@@#!!!!!! |
| 2004/3/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:29857 Activity:very high |
3/3 MOTD conservatives: Which Democratic candidate was the least offensive
to you? I'm asking now that the nomination is all but complete so any
paranoid people can give a straight answer without fear of giving away
'the secret plan'.
\_ In Georgia, there was overwhelming Repub and Ind. support for John
Edwards; that should tell you something.
\_ Dean was the most acceptible. Clinton was the best; there is no
way she could have won and such a setback would have shattered the
democratic party keeping america safe for years.
\_ I was asking who you liked, not who you think would have lost
to Bush most easily. --op
\_ I liked Dean. He was practically a Republican.
\_ This was answered in depth and is in the archives. I'm not going
to restore it for the 15th or so time.
\_ none of the above. Can you think of any conservative democrat
right now? |
| 2004/3/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:29856 Activity:high |
3/3 Sigh... Why do I find myself agreeing with a slime like Dick Morris?
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19568.htm
\_ Liberal, shmiberal. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and the
invasion of Iraq. He's a moderate. Get over it. Now Edwards
wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor, and he all
but called for a class war. You want liberal, that's liberal.
\_ How dare you bring facts into this debate?
\_ Uhm yeah except now he says it was all a mistake. Which is it?
\_ When did he say that? Btw, Bush said you're an idiot.
\_ If Edwards, Dean, and Clark pull out all of the stops and campaign
for Kerry, you can kiss Bush goodbye. If they go all petty and
divisive on him, however, it's four more years.
\_ No. Once it's over, no one ever gives a shit what the losers
say about anything. How about Gephart and the others? Shit,
I can't even remeber who they are now.
\_ I think Edwards would be great to have stumping around the
south, possibly as a VP. Clark, Dean et al have faded from
the public eye.
\_ Because you're an idiot?
\_ if you have something to say I'd respond to it.
\_ Sandanistas for Kerry 2004!! |
| 2004/3/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12498 Activity:high |
3/3 Political Ghost story,...Creepiest Kerry Flip-Flop Yet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/10905136/posts
\_ Our friend the Freeper! Posts stupid shit, so you don't have to!
\_ Yea http://opinionjournal.com is a rag... you better stick
with the color bar graphs in USA Today.
\_ Dude, the wall street journal editorials are one step
up from the new york post. One very small step.
\_ Either the event took place, as reported by
New Republic, or it didn't, dude.
\_ Yeah remember when they repeated the Kerry
intern rumors? Sorry their credibility is
quickly going down the toilet.
\_ Kerry fucked some 23 year old. So what?
\_ Posting a FreePer link is lame, but editing that link so's it
goes nowhere is even lamer.
\_ fixed
\_ Thanks for reminding me what a partisan hack GOP outfit the
WSJ has turned into. I just cancelled my subscription. -ausman
\_ I'm sure they care.
\_ The humanity!! Well I you should cancel your subscription
to the New Republic while you are it because they reported
it first. |
| 2004/3/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12494 Activity:nil |
3/2 Are the 2 parties actually any different, and will Nader really
threaten the dem candidate?
part one: http://tinyurl.com/3ffcl
part two: http://tinyurl.com/3dl6n
\_ Kind of nice how they can put up graphs and images to illustrate
their points. |
| 2004/3/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12489 Activity:moderate |
3/2 Early reports say Kerry is making a clean sweep today. Oh well,
4 more years for GWB.
\_ Edwards to drop out tomorrow.
\_ you mean become Vice Presidential Candidate
\_ no way that vain Boston prig would pick someone who'd
upstage him, even if Kerry/Edwards is in the party's
best interest
\_ don't understand what do you mean. you mean Edward with his
anti-trade, protectionist platform has better shot at winning
votes from the undecided?
\_ ^undecided^undecided and Southerners^
\_ why Kerry won Ohio? you would imagine a state lost 250k jobs
would find Edwards more appealing.
\_ Yes. More than Kerry. Where have you been? A lot of people
in this country lost jobs to NAFTA, overseas outsourcing, often
paid for with their own tax dollars and they're pissed off.
\_ why Kerry won Ohio? you would imagine a state lost 250k jobs
would find Edwards more appealing.
\_ It's the "Most Electible" vote.
\_ duh, it isn't a general election. they had to vote for
even though they create jobs OVERSEAS. May be tha corporate
someone. and tell me this: how many stayed home?
\_ just part of globalization, my friend, bite the damn
bullet. USA as a whole has benefited from this trend,
it would be foolish to roll back. My problem with the
current system is that we offer tax break to companies
even though they create jobs OVERSEAS. May be the corporate
tax code should be rewritten so it only rewards companies
that offer jobs within USA border. This wouldn't stop
moving jobs to overseas, but it will stop unnecessary
job migration.
\_ I don't disagree with you. I'm just telling you what you
already know: there are a bunch of pissed off people out
there who are going to vote against pro-global candidates
if at all possible.
\- why should companies be given tax breaks for job creation
again? isnt that just a subsidy to the owners? how about
giving tax breaks to people who buy "american cars" or
"american shoes".
\_ what is considered "American " is no longer clear.
\- that is why i quoted "american". i think it
was actually a good thing that the developing
countries said "fuck you" in cancun. can you
imagine india trying to protect "chai" like
the french protect champagne? or the mercan-
tilism of the RIAA and MSFT? --psb ...
\_ In cancun, it's less to do with intellectual
properties right, more to do with government
subsidies on agrecultural product, and
Brazil and India and rest of developing
nation wants to got rid of it. Besides,
this entire IP fiascal started by USA,
and the rest of the country is just trying
to do the same thing.
again? isnt that just a subsidy to the owners? how about
giving tax breaks to people who buy "american cars" or
"american shoes".
But when the chosen people grew more strong,
The rightful cause at length became the wrong:
The moderate sort of men, thus qualifi'd,
Inclin'd the balance to the better side:
--john dryden
Toyota Camery is made in USA, is that considered
an "American" car? When American product flooding
other nations, USA was being a such arrogant asshole
saying that this is part of globalization and eventually
offer consumer better/cheaper product is best interest
for everyone in the long run. It's kind of funny that
other nations start to beat USA with USA's own game and
USA start to bitching about it. I never said the trade
rules are fair, but it is HEAVILY favors American
corperations that most other nation is actually compete
at much of a handicaps. The irony is that American
citizens (aside from wealthy share owners of these
corporation) start to loose out, as they too become
victims of corporate expoitation.
\_ There's no longer any such thing as a USA corporation
among the large companies. They're all
multi-nationals which means they're going to screw
anyone and everyone they can if it makes them a
penny. When some dumb cunt like 'Carly' at HP says
and does some of the evil stupid shit she has, you
can be certain that "USA" is the last thing on her
mind.
\_ And just how is Bush and his "outsourcing is good" policy
going to appeal to the people who have lost jobs? You're
\_ 1) It's not, 2) Bush never said that. Some paper pusher
knee biters 9 layers deep in the beauracracy said it and
were repudiated the next news cycle by the admin.
\_ Actually, it was the head of Bush's Council of
Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw. And the Bush
"repudiation" was a lukewarm "the president is
strongly committed to creating jobs here at home"
from mouthpiece McClellan. Not inspiring stuff. |
| 2004/3/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12476 Activity:low |
3/1 Kerry Will Abandon War on Terrorism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/10188396/posts
\_ "No Such Thread"
\_ Exactly, he abandoned it.
\_ Someone decided to modify the link. It's fixed now.
\_ I love the way Freeper articles always cite the media's support
for anything they, the Freepers, find morally corrupt. Nothing
like media persecution to make young white males feel empowered
as a misunderstood pseudo-minority.
\_ why is it always just young white males? Your stereotype?
\_ Freepers and serial killers, same demographic.
\_ racist
\_ Yeah, keep telling yourself that, Whitey.
\_ RACIST!!!
\_ I'm no Whitey. Racist!
\_ Yeah, keep telling yourself that, Whitey.
\_ What resemblance do you see? |
| 2004/2/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12382 Activity:nil |
2/24 Kerry fucks over POWs/MIAs from the Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php
\_ Damn that right wing conspiracy. It's even infected the Villiage
Voice! |
| 2004/2/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12352 Activity:nil |
2/22 Who will Cal Deaniacs support now that Dean is out of the race?
\_ I wasn't a Deaniac, but I think most people will do what I do:
not necessary get involved in the process, nor donating money, but
*WILL* do his/her part cast his/her vote to make sure Bush out of
office.
\_ oh yeah? which of the half dozen or so states where your vote
actually matters are you planning to move to before november?
\_ No one can get elected without the support of independent voters.
If you put up some zero like Kerry who has no draw from that
demographic you're doomed. Instead of worrying about the other
guy with that "anyone buy Bush" theme, why don't you support a
real candidate that you actually like? Success will follow.
\_ I'm not the guy above, but there were two candidates who
I actually liked, and they've both left the field before
I even had a chance to vote. By super tuesday, it's
already become a lesser of evils game.
\_ So Deaniacs should just go ahead and vote for Dean in the
general election no matter what? I'm sure that will work.
\_ no, your party already screwed it up by voting for someone
based on their belief about his ability to defeat the
other guy as opposed to their faith in him as a person.
meaning they think they know how independent voters will
vote and tried to second guess them by presenting the
candidate they believed would get the most (I) voters,
but instead ended up with a passionless elitist cog who
is going to get his ass handed to him. as one of those
(I) voters you so badly need I assure you that Kerry isn't
on my short list.
\_ Passionless elitist cog? are you talking about
George Bush, who achieved NOTHING on his own?
got into Harvard with 1200 on SAT, using family
connection to get him out of Vietnam (serving
national guard instead), won presidency by asking
his brother perform what I considered as vote
fraud.
\_ Can you please elaborate on what he 'asked'
his brother to do? Jeb Bush recused himself
from the recount.
\_ As an (I) I'm totally turned off by your anti-Bush
rhetoric. This is exactly the reason you're going
to lose to Bush again. You attack the other guy
but say nothing about why I should vote for your
guy. As an (I) I prefer the evil I know to the
unknown but certain evil of your guy. You don't
even like your own guy, so why should I?
\_ You don't get it. Most of the time, people vote
*AGAINST* someone than *FOR* someone. I have no
idea who Kerry is, but I know that 1. He is not
Bush, and 2. everyone around me who think like me
will vote for him. and that is good enough. For
many of us, nothing can be worse than President Bush
right now.
\_ And your friends are a fair mix of the general voting
public? I doubt it. Give people someone to vote
*for* and you'll see Bush out of office by a landslide
but instead you give us (I) voters no choices.
\_ You need to wake up. Everyone is basically an (I). You
are obviously liberal, therefore you're stuck with the
Democrats. That's the way it is, kid. The conservatives
don't all like Bush either. Kerry and Edwards are the
candidates the most people are comfortable with. They
never act weird like Dean, and have a political history
unlike Clark. Sorry the world is too boring for you.
If you don't like it, voting for a third party doesn't
change anything. It's a lazy way to pretend you actually
care while doing nothing. Just stay home.
\_ I'm not liberal. I'm also not conservative. I am
definitely *not* stuck voting for Kerry. I can stay
home or vote for Bush or Nader or anyone else I like.
I'm not voting for Kerry if I show up.
\_ Go away, Naderboy.
\_ whatever, wrong call.
\_ I'm a decline-to-state and I hate Kerry and Dean both as
well as Bush. If Clark or Kucinich made it I'd probably
vote for them, and perhaps for Edwards. I might vote for
Kucinich anyway. I despise Bush, but I'm not voting Kerry
to keep Bush out of office.
\_ why do you "hate" all those guys? |
| 2004/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12350 Activity:nil |
2/22 It's official. Ralph Nader is running.
\_ Read the far far far left debating Nader's presidential bid:
http://publish.portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/281004.shtml
About the same level of dialog as freerepublic, on the other side.
\_ God dammit. I hope he runs off the edge of a cliff. It's not
worth another 4 years of BushCo just to have a "viable third party"
that no one would want in power anyway!
\_ Actually, it would be great to have a *viable* third party.
One egotistical asshole running as an idependent in a few states
and getting about 1% of the vote has no relation whatsoever to
establishing a viable third party other than making poeple
mistrust future third party attempts, however.
\_ Go Ralphie go! Four more years!
\_ Whee. I wonder how many states will have <1000 vote margins this
year? Freeper and Naderboy should go get drunk together.
\_ When is BushCo going to start donating to Nader's campaign? |
| 2004/2/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12336 Activity:high |
2/20 Ralph Nader is 2004! Go Ralph go!
\_ That roaring you hear is thousands of Republicans celebrating
and writing $2000 donations to Ralph's campaign.
\_ Now if only we Democrats could convince Perot to run again...
\_ One more monumentally egotistical American.
\_ http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=nader
No decision until Sunday. Then the lynching begins.
\_ Lynching? Fuck you. He has the same right to run as any
American born citizen over 35. He *can't* be 'stealing' votes
from anyone because they aren't 'owned' by anyone but each
individual owner and their concious. You think democracy is
all about lack of choices to force the election of a lesser evil?
I hope he runs because this country can really use a third
party. The other two have failed us as a nation.
\_ There's a time to stand for your principles. There's a time
to act like an adult and realize that standing for your
principles is going to get you fucked up beyond recognition.
This is one of those times. Kerry != Bush.
\_ he's not taking about running as a third party, he's talking
about running as an independent.
\_ yes, and? so what? that changes nothing re: what I said.
if he gets a measurable chunk of votes under any banner
his voice will carry weight for positive change.
\_ No, his voice will carry weight for getting Bush
reelected. God you hard lefties are stupid.
\_ Haha, you like Nader? Why bother with Nader? You could just
vote for Kucinich. At least Kucinich is respectable and knows
how to talk to a crowd. Why didn't Kucinich win? Whatever the
reasons it shows that the public seems to want people like
Bush and Kerry. They get what they deserve. Now stoofoo.
\_ Nader has a public record of success. Kucinich? Whatever.
I'm in favor of more political choice, not throwing my vote
away on the left most wing of the democrat party.
\_ A "public record of success"? One campaign against
a dangerous car, 40 years ago? Kucinich has been
in public office for 25 years. -tom
\_ I actually think the Green Party would have a lot
higher chance of success if they chose someone other
\- higher chance of success for what?
than Nader. Someone who actually stood a chance of
winning. At this point, Nader support is basically
just a cult of personality. He'd probably do more
harm for this country than good. In my opinion.
If they got a better representative, I'd probably
vote green, though. -sax
\_ PIRG, Public Citizen, The Foundation for Taxpayer
and Consumer Rights were all founded by Nader.
Because of Nader we have OSHA, the EPA, the FOIA, the
Clean Water Act and The Consumer Product Safety
Division. Kucinich isn't even close.
\_ Yes, I really enjoyed my college tuition being
redirected by a front organization for eco-terrorist
causes all under some vague name as CalPIRG
\_ which planet are you on?
\_ What has Kucinich done, tom?
\_ Look anyone who knows the history
of OSHA and the EPA knows that
Nader's Raiders were instrumental
in getting them passed. Research
them yourself and you will see.
\_ http://www.kucinich.us/about.php
The guy was elected to public offices.
Nader wasn't. Nader didn't create those
bloated gov't bodies, because he wasn't in
government. Nader had a long career as a
"consumer watchdog". That has zero relevance
to presidential appeal.
\_ That's a laughable comment. Look, the bottom line is
that America doesn't want Nader as president. It's
obvious. All the posturing and righteous, "outside the
system" superiority won't make people vote for him
which thankfully is the only way to win. Compromise is
part of the process and why there are primaries.
\_ What has Kucinich done?
\_ He invented the Internet, cured the common
cold, and designed the Mars rover. If
you're just going to make up
accomplishments, I will, too.
\_ Good thing you didn't sign your name:
http://www.votenader.org/biography.html
http://www.nader.org/enbio.html
http://csua.org/u/63s (US State Dept)
http://www.gleitsman.org/citizen/honoree.html
\_ what, two sites sponsored by Nader,
and one by a self-congratulatory
citizen's group that has Nader
on the same page as such notables
as Mike Farrell (BJ Hunicutt from
MASH) and Jack Kevorkian. Wow,
that's some creds.
\_ Look anyone who knows the history
of OSHA and the EPA knows that
Nader's Raiders were instrumental
in getting them passed. It is not
my fault you are ignorant.
\_ That's a laughable comment.
in getting them passed. Research
them yourself and you will see.
\_ That's a laughable comment. Look, the bottom line is
that America doesn't want Nader as president. It's
obvious. All the posturing and righteous, "outside the
system" superiority won't make people vote for him
which thankfully is the only way to win. Compromise is
part of the process and why there are primaries. |
| 2004/2/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12333 Activity:nil |
2/22 The motd Gang of Idiots: Chicom Troll, Peakoil Troll, Pretty Boy,
Humorless Motd Censor, and now Ralph Nader #1 Fan. Did I miss
anyone?
\_ You forgot the Freeper.
\_ Strange part is, the only person I know that actively participates
at http://freerepublic.com simply does so as a troll. I often wonder
what the ratio of trolls/true believers is at so-called political
discussion sites.
\_ would Freeper be the same person as Mouthpiece-Of-Bush ?
\_ Hey, conservatives are great fans of Ralph Nader. |
| 2004/2/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12308 Activity:nil |
2/18 why does the press keep dropping references to Kerry as a
"Brahmin"? yes i know it's a caste in India. Do they
expect everyone to know this? Interesting.
\_ He's a Brahmin? WOW.
\_ Maybe they just mean Brahmin in the fallout sense of
the word (i.e. a twoheaded mutant cow).
\_ And Bush is Chuck Dunton...
\_ UrlP
\_ Presumably they are not refering to that Brahmin. Rather the
"Boston Brahmins".
\_ What is a "Boston Brahmin"?
\_ A "Brahmin" is member of a hereditary upper class in
\- class != caste --bengali brahmin
India. A "Boston Brahmin" is a member of a hereditary
\- India != Hindu --indian hindu
upperclass in Boston. There is no doubt that they meant
Boston Brahmin.
\_ is that a common expression on the east coast?
\_ among bostonians i know, yes.
\_ Among people who are well-informed, yes.
\_ Not a Brahmin. You mean Bruin.
\_ They're just saying he's the typical upper crust elitist east coast
liberal. Don't let it bother you. He's a man of the people. |
| 2004/2/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12293 Activity:very high |
2/17 So this is the end of Kerry since the primary reason people were
voting for him was his 'ability to beat Bush'. Here's the link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
The nation is finally coming to it's senses. Putting up a dog like
Kerry for such a lame reason made no more sense than the (R) putting
up Dole in 96 "because it was his turn". Voters don't give a man "his
turn" anymore than they will accept a man because he's has nothing more
going for him than a claimed ability to beat the opposition. In fact,
since that is Kerry's only claim to the nomination it seems to me that
he actually has no claim at all. In the end people vote for a man and
what he stands for. Since Kerry stands for nothing but himself he
would have gotten killed in November. It's better this way. By the
convention it'll be Edwards and then there will be two competing men
and their different philosophies to choose from, not the lesser of
evils as usual. This is going to be the best election since the first
Kennedy/Nixon election.
\_ At last, the Voice of Reason speaks. Look, genius: just a few
weeks ago, all the professional pundits were convinced that Dean
was an all but unstopable frontrunner, with Clark as a close runner
up. Guess what? They had zero ability to predict the future
or the will of the voters. Not because they're all idiots,
although many of them are, but because it's basically a next
to impossible task. Zogby's personal prediction at this point
is that no matter what happens, it's going to be very close, and
damn near impossible to predict, and I sure believe him more than
some random motd pundit. After all, he actually predicts things
for a living, rather than getting some group of partisain
fans all worked up, as most pundits do for their paycheck (
except for those who write code for a living.)
\_ Actually, the media tanked the Dean nomination after the
allegedly hyper speech after the loss in Iowa. The liberals
in the media want to win, and a liberal that is not ashamed
to talk like a liberal always loses in a landslide. Dean
gave them an opening to start bad-mouthing him, and they took it.
In the same way that the Bush talking point of "Gravitas"
made it's way through all television media in a day, so it
was with tanking dean.
\_ Also putting an (R) in front of a tax and spend liberal social
and fiscal like Arnold doesn't make him a Republican either.
I wish the Republican party did not sell out McClintock
in order to secure a "win" with a man totally opposed to every
Republican ideal. Congratulations to the Democratic party for
winning the recall election.
\_ Your own Rasmussen report seems to think otherwise:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Democratic%20Nomination%20Analysis.htm |
| 11/27 |