| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/16 |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34601 Activity:nil |
11/3 AP reports that Kerry just called Bush to concede.
% date
Wed Nov 3 08:07:01 PST 2004
\_ Must...not...gloat....
\_ Quoth the aaron: ONE TERM FAILURE, JUST LIKE DADDY!
\_ All hail big government conservatism!
\_ Let's revise this: AMERICAN FAILURE
\_ Take that, queers! |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34598 Activity:nil |
11/3 Why hasn't Kerry conceded? He lost the popular vote already.
\_ He talked a lot about how Gore "gave up too early." I think
he's still trying to figure out where to sue.
\_ Does this mean I'm NOT going to have to hear Dems whining about
Republicans stealing the election for the next 4 years?
\_ Not from me. OTOH, after a lot of research, I became convinced
that they didn't really steal it in 2000. 2000 sucked in just
about every other way, though. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34595 Activity:nil |
11/2 Bush 57.4 mil, Kerry 53.7 mil popular vote. How is this
even close? A difference of over 3 mil vote is, in my mind,
winning in a landslide. This is just pathetic.
\_ Well, it's 3%. You know, like 51% to 48%. They start thinking
about "landslide" when it's 5% or more. That's just how it is.
Imagine the 3-4 million votes in the City of Los Angeles deciding
the fate of the nation. There you go.
\- come on, this is a product of the "objective function"
which was to win in the EC ... kerry didnt and shouldnt have
been trawling for a couple of more percent of the CA or
NY vote. note: i also thought the ALGOR people were foolishly
whining about the popular vote in 2000 ... it is one thing to
say "this is a good reason to get rid of the EC" but given what
the rules were, this is like claming the wimbledon winner
lost on games although he won on sets was robbed. --psb
\_ Well, I think the Dems were more pissed that the Supreme
Court stopped the recount when there were good reasons
that it should have left it to the Florida Supreme Court.
Then again the Dems erred morally and legally by
asking only for recounts in Dem-heavy counties.
\_ A landslide is what Reagan had. This is still historically close. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:34593 Activity:nil |
11/3 What an election: What I do know is that this has been
one hell of a slam bang election season.
Tony Blankley worked for Newt Gingrich and is editor
of Wash. Times
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20041103.shtml |
| 5/16 |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34583 Activity:nil |
11/2 Kerry now only has one scenario in which he can win:
(1) Kerry wins OH and WI
Kerry's people are saying there could be as many as 250,000 provisional
ballots in OH to review. These ballots will not be reviewed until
11 days have passed, for emotions to cool.
IMO, Kerry should fight, and he should not feel bad about it.
\_ Yeah, but Kerry is down by 125,000 votes on OH.
\_ Yeah, currently, with 99% of precints reporting, the gap is
144,000 votes.
\_ If Kerry wins Ohio, he only needs WI, which he looks to have.
\_ Yeah, I just came to this conclusion myself, too. Corrected.
\_ IA and NM are somewhat longshots, but not as bad as OH. It'll
be hard for Kerry to win OH. I think it's over for Kerry, it
seems very unlikely he will sweep. NM looks very much like a lock
as is OH.
\_ Well, you'll need to wait 12 days before OH declares a
winner. I don't think this will change even if Kerry
concedes OH.
\_ This is ridiculous. BC's margin's in PA is smaller
than OH but they called PA for KE. And yet they
expect 90% of the provisional ballots to overcome 144K
and growing difference?!? Not to mention the popular vote
which for the first time since '92 there is a majority.
Please tell me how the popular vote is going to be out-of-
sync with the electoral vote with 4mil+ ?
\_ It's 250,000 provisional ballots.
But yeah, if that number were correct, you'd need
4 out of 5 of the provisional votes to go Kerry.
You might have called it ridiculous too when Gore beat
Dubya by 500,000 votes.
\_ 500K is not 4 mil
\_ Yeah, and 4 million ends up being a 3% difference.
So, where do you draw the line?
\_ Look, mr. "Where do you draw the line." You got
pwned at the polls today. Time to do some
thinking. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34582 Activity:high |
11/2 Democratic soul-searching begins now: NY Times op-ed piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?hp
"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted
Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to
get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them
economically." ... Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge,
and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own
working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.
\_ I find the comment that comes up time and time again, about poor
southern whites voting 'against their self-interest' revealing.
\_ yeah, tax breaks for billionaires.. totally dead-on!
\_ isn't this true? You know, with the vast majority of the tax
break going to the $200K+ bracket, the removal of the dividend
tax, the removal of the inheritance tax?
Well, to be accurate, it should say "millionaires and up".
\_ It is true, but it misses the point. Is it not possible to
vote against one's direct self-interest because, perhaps,
principles are involved? A libertarian might accept a higher
tax rate because he believes a flat tax is fairer than
progressive tax. Why is this so incomprehensible? -- ilyas
\_ Um, someone moved my post. My post was in response to
"tax breaks for billionaires".
Anyways, who says I didn't comprehend what you just wrote,
ilyas?
My post was meant to convey the FACT that most of the
tax breaks are going to the rich -- not the rightness
of it, which is different for every person, as you've
implied.
\_ Not you. I was talking about the author of the article,
and his seeming incomprehesion of southern voting
patterns 'against their interest.' This is a common
complaint from liberal circles, and I find it odd.
Those guys down south don't live in the same 'fight
for a piece of the public pie by any means necessary'
world as you do. (again I don't necessarily mean 'you').
-- ilyas
\_ the article is quite clear that it is talking
about poor, rural voters voting against their
"economic interest", which means the rich get more
money, the poor get comparatively less -- for the
short-term at least. It's a point of debate whether
a less progressive tax system works long-term.
It is also quite clear that the author believes
these voters are voting for their "social self-
interest" (my quotes on that one), which is voting
their values -- such as no gay marriage for queers.
their values.
\_ Ok how is a flat tax "fairer"? no one is forcing you to
earn more. If you believe an income tax is fair in the
first place then what's the big deal with progressive?
If it's too high you just don't work, and have a lot more
free time. If it's too high you're probably screwing your
economy. But that's a separate issue than fairness.
For example, a high tax on income over $1m/y wouldn't
truly hamper anybody's "pursuit of happiness", and would
be fair: anyone earning that much gets that tax.
\_ Look we are not going to have a long ass ranty
discussion about a flat tax, ok. For most people,
in most contexts, fairness = proportionality. Fairness
!= proportionality only if you are in magical liberal
taxland. -- ilyas
\_ proportional? not proportional to services used,
not even a flat tax does that. so it's already
unfair in that sense. once you're there, i'm arguing
there's no "moral" difference going to progressive.
\_ *sigh* If you want proportionality for services
used, charge for them directly. This argument is
stupid. You are not convincing me, and I am not
convincing you (nor am I particularly interested,
as far as I am concerned CA liberals can rot in a
hell of their own devising, I am getting out of
here first chance I get). -- ilyas
\_ Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
This argument is no more stupid than your usual
motd rantings. You just refuse to see outside
your chosen worldview. I suppose CA's liberal
hell is why so many people have been coming
here. Why are you here anyway? Using our
subsidized university system? Shouldn't you
already be out in Georgia Tech or something?
Oh wait that's public too... ok, Duke.
\_ I think your next line is to complain about
me using the phone system and the freeways.
This conversation is SO over. -- ilyas
\_ Not quite. While you might not be able
to avoid using the freeways and phone
system, there were plenty of private
universities, including top tier ones,
yet YOU CHOSE to attend the evil govt
funded public school. The free market
provided you with alternatives, but
YOU CHOSE to force all of us "at
gunpoint" to pay for your education.
Way to stand by your principles.
-meyers
\_ Sure, I can avoid using the phone and
the freeway if I go become amish.
Similarly, I go where I am accepted.
Though a private school would probably
be better, understand that all
universities in the US, private or
not, are heavily gvt subsidized, so
the point is kind of moot. Plus,
I where they let me. -- ilyas
I go where they let me. -- ilyas
\_ Stay on topic: we're talking about
your decision to attend a public
university instead of a private
one. Are you saying that *no*
private school would accept you?
-meyers
\_ No private school out of a
reasonably large set to which
I applied accepted me. Again,
because there is little moral
difference of kind (only of
degree) between a fully gvt
funded school (UCLA), and a
partially gvt funded school
(Stanford) I don't really see
your point. It reduces to
freeways. -- ilyas
\_ They only vote on abortion, anti-queer stuff, and whoever
thumps the most bible. They think this is their self interest.
They bang their cousins and mope around in their hick towns,
and send their kids to the army, why not vote Bush. Bush says
"y'all" and plays country music at the rallies.
\_ If you believe NPR; the Dems lost because the Reps
were better able to motivative their base. This was especially
true in Florida with the Christian Right ( Hah! What a &%*$
oxymoron) who viewed this election as an actual war against
their belief system; disturbingly similar to what all of those
racist groups used to blather on about. Who would think that a
country like ours could become more intolerant. The whole
youth vote thing never materialized as expected; more due to
apathy than anything else; according to at least some of the
networks; something akin to only people who pay taxes are
motivated to vote. Sad.. really really sad |
| 2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34574 Activity:moderate 66%like:31021 |
11/2 I am depressed. Fuck!
\_ move to Canada. It is a civilized country.
\_ well you shouldn't have nominated a buttfuck like Kerry
\_ Seriously, you only have yourselves to blame. This should
have been an EASY victory. Few people really LIKE Bush.
But you nominated El Douchebag.
\_ Why is he a douchebag? Do you even have an answer, or are you
just puking back your party's spin mindlessly?
\_ a year ago everyone was talking about how Bush was
inevitable. Just because Kerry got way slimed doesn't
mean he is a douchebag.
\_ Why is he a douchebag? Do you even have an answer, or are
you just puking back your party's spin mindlessly?
\_ You expect a serious answer while calling Bush Chimpy?
Douchebag for Kerry is a lot more believable.
\_ Uhm, huh? I've never called Bush 'chimpy'. I abhor
his politics, and can give a lengthy answer why (which
seems to be far better than you're able to do).
\_ Looks like the turd is going to win.
\_ I've never heard a Republican call Kerry a douchebag.
I formed that opinion by watching him. I answered
this question once before in more detail, look it up.
\_ Yeahhh. Seeing as you don't sign your posts, that's
a pretty useless and empty answer.
\_ Mainly because of his personality, and his career as a
relatively undistinguished and uninteresting politician.
Kerry just didn't bring much to the table, just the Vietnam
crap which in the end probably isn't important. It actually
shifted a lot of limelight away from relevant issues and
onto tired Vietnam angst, and the scrutiny put him on the
defense. Kerry's campaign was unable to stay on message, and
his Iraq war talk wasn't credible due to his voting record.
I don't have any reason to like him other than that he
generically represented the Bush opposition. --Dean guy
\_ few people in California. But the Confederate states adore
Bush. And the US is 1/2 Confederate rednecks. What do you
expect?
\_ we were referring to the primaries
@ |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34566 Activity:high |
1/2 Oh fuck, Bush is ahead with 102, ^%@$#^%@#@Q!!
\_ Rural places tend to vote Bush. Rural places also have less
votes to count so they'll report early. Things might tip as
the night progress.
\_ get a clue. did you really expect Kerry to win Alabama?
\_ Makes you wish we had let the Confederates secede, huh?
\_ Daily Bruin editorial today:
"If Kerry cannot succeed, CA must secede." For once,
I agree. -- ilyas
\_ If you have TX for Bush and CA for Kerry then it is almost even.
\_ but Bush is ahead in FL with over 50% reporting, and may
get OH.
\_ Independents are breaking 3-2 for kerry in FL. It's gonna
be tight. In OH, kerry's leading in exits.
\_ Dubya is leading in Florida by 270,000 votes, with
67% of precincts reporting. May not be that tight.
Democrats may have gotten margin-of-error'd in the exit
polls there.
\_ Populist precincts in FL report last though. -- ilyas
\_ It's now 76% of precincts reporting, and the
lead is now 264,000 votes, you know what I'm saying?
If I were Fox News, I'd call FL now. |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34565 Activity:nil |
11/2 5pm, on the dot, re-posting what tom walled:
CNN calls IL, MD, NJ, CT, Mass, ME for Kerry
TN, AL, OK for Bush |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34561 Activity:nil |
11/2 So it took Bush less than 5 minutes to vote? wtf? It took me
over 10 minutes just to read through all the questions. What did
he do? Just voted for himself as the president and skipped the
rest of the question? Does that sounds like someone qualifying
to lead a country? Yeah, I stand firmly behind my 5 minute
decisions!!
\_ Most states don't have a bunch of propositions on the ballot like
CA always does.
\_ Maybe you're just slow. It took me about 3-5 minutes to vote. What's to
read? Props are yes/no and the rest is just finding the name you want
on the ballot.
\_ He had a cheat sheet.
\_ Don't a lot of people write down their choices on the sample
ballot before they get to the polls?
\_ And how long did it take Kerry to vote?
\_ 20 minutes. He kept flip-flopping between himself and Nader. |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34559 Activity:nil |
11/2 4pm on the dot
"CNN projects Bush wins in Indiana, Kentucky and Georgia, Kerry wins
in Vermont."
\_ "CNN predicts that 2+2=4! Maybe! More are 7." |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34554 Activity:nil |
11/2 I need to drop off my absentee ballot for the Alameda County. Is
Fremont the closest Alameda city to Sunnyvale (where I work)? If so,
where (URL's?) can I find the closest voting area to drop off my
ballot? Thanks.
\_ Fremont is closest. Give the Registrar a call (510) 663-VOTE (8683)
for a close polling place.
http://www.co.alameda.ca.us/rov/faq.htm |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34549 Activity:kinda low |
11/1 Damn this is a close race. Bush and Kerry are completely tied
right now!
\_ d00d, at least get the date right
\_ oops |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34546 Activity:nil |
11/2 mypolling{place|site}.com don't actually have maps of nearby polling
places for me to drop off my absentee ballot. Help? This is for
Manhattan Beach, CA.
\_ http://lavote.net/locator |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign] UID:34543 Activity:nil |
11/2 I finally figured out how to find out the political
slant of different news organizations. COLOR!!! Look at
http://foxnews.com as the most obvious example. It's very red...
menus, icons, etc. It must be a RED neck right wing nut
news corporation, something many people will agree to. -troll |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34540 Activity:high |
11/2 It's been fun. Whatever happens tonight remember that we're all
Americans. We all have the country's best interest at heart. We
simply disagree on the path to follow. No one is evil. No one will
bring down civilisation. Someone will be elected and life will go on.
Then we can do it all over again in 4 years. You can thank the great
wisdom of our nation's Founding Fathers for creating a system of checks
and balances and short election cycles to minimise any damage from
poor voter choices. However it turns out we still have the best
political system ever devised. It isn't perfect but no one's ever
done better.
\_ Actually, the vast majority of the civilised world wants us to
kick Dubya out.
\_ Majority of uncivilized world too. -- ilyas
\_ You forgot the fact that 1/2 of the US population is
not civilized, that they are fanatics who
believe that global warming is a myth, that gays and
minorities are bad, that privatizing and trusting
the corporation is much better than trusting the
government, that if you are not with them then you are
against them, that talks are for pussies (Reaganism--
spend as much as necessary to defeat the evil), that if
you don't make a vote that helps in their cause you will
go to hell.
\_ I would say a lot of Dubya-voters are afraid of what kind
of mess Kerry will get them into. They are thinking:
At least with Dubya, there has not been a 9/11 repeat.
Kerry the liberal will just let in all the terrorists.
\_ As China always say, we will not let foreign influence interfere
with domestic politics.
\_ You're joking right? Go google for foreign lobbying groups
in the US, you'll find the Saudis, the English, etc all are
represented way more than you'll ever be in DC.
\_ Heh, I always think it's funny when people site this as a
point for Kerry.
point for Kerry. \_ cite |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34538 Activity:high |
11/2 Well in regret and sadness, I checked the latest polls and
everything is looking towards a landslide to kerry,
It looks like again a few states with just slim margin of
victories are going to sinch the win for kerry.
The silver lining is that the GOP does indeed look to finally
gain a lead in the senate (I don't count that ass hole from
arizona as a republican). Basically bush has been really hampered
by the lack of a clear leading party in congress. So now with
Kerry in the white house and a firmly republican congress, what
is going to happen is that the congress is going to push through
republican bills and Kerry will have no choice but to sign them
exactly as Bush would do.
Everyone will rejoice.... nothing will change. Bush will leave
with a big FUCK YOU to the american demoncratic populace and will
only hope that things continue down a road of increasing
volatility. Now I didn't say increasing hostility, I mean
volatility.
There is a major change going on in the US. All those kids I grew
up with, with attention spans of 3-5 second (the MTV generation),
are gaining control. Ideals will change with the wind, and having
someone like Kerry that supports that behavior is not what I like
to see... but I don't care.
Volatility brings opportunity. But my heart will indeed sink if
bush doesn't pull this out. (btw I also think that the current
increasing volatility in everything will continue under either
regime and is brought on by 2 things - technology and the youth
out there)
hope all is well and hope everyone votes often, votes for as many
of your friends who are not voting, votes in every state possible
and most of all hope you all vote for Bush. --kinney
\_ Boy, you really bought into your own party's spin, didn't you?
Honestly, I think it works best when senate and president don't
align. It means there has to be bi-partisan cooperation if they
want anything to be signed by the pres.
want anything to be signed by the pres. I think you also SERIOUSLY
underestimate the youth in our country -- a common maliase amongst
old people that don't understand or can't accept change.
\_ kinney, don't overwrite people!
\_ where's the kinney police when you need him? |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34519 Activity:nil |
11/1 What the media should have covered. Instead they reverted to
documents made at Kinkos.
Ex-Navy sec to Kerry: Open up your records
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41230 |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34514 Activity:nil |
11/1 CBS: Kerry Wins Florida
Dan Rather just broke in to normal programming to report
Kerry has won Florida
\_ please don't post freeper text that even freepers call lame |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34513 Activity:high |
11/1 And you thought that Florida e-voting clip was a joke right?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/1/155428/889
"Some people who selected Kerry are seeing BUSH in the summary of
whom they voted for! They had to get the poll workers involved, and
the second time around when they re-selected Kerry he properly showed
in the summary."
\_ one of the other groups out canvassing with us talked to some people
who had this happen. I'm posting some updates now... with video(!)
of 2 hour lines at the poles. - rory
\_ I'm waiting for those updates still...
\_ how about video showing the evoting machine actually broke in
real time? we can see lines on tv.
\_ uh... if I'm successfully able to follow anyone into the
polling booth with my digital camera you will be the
first to know.
\_ Also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/travis.asp
\_ Eh. Verified? How do you verify that the woman really voted
correctly?
\_ Multiple reports? Admission from the "elections division
manager" that certain selections caused the bug to surface? |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34510 Activity:nil |
11/1 "A Failed Presidency", LA Times editorial (no endorsement for Kerry)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-bush1nov01,0,6861797.story
"If elections were solely a job performance review, President George W.
Bush would lose in a landslide. He has been a reckless steward of the
nation's finances and its environment, a divisive figure at home and
abroad. It's fair to say that Bush has devalued the American brand in
the global marketplace. What keeps this a close race is voter
discomfort with Sen. John F. Kerry and the success of Republicans in
stoking concerns about Kerry's fitness for office. But the thrust of
the Bush campaign message -- essentially, you are stuck with me in
this frightful time because the other guy is too unreliable -- is a
tacit acknowledgment that he can't allow the election to be a
referendum on his record."
\-i think framing this in personal terms, i.e. you are not just
voting for bundle of policies A or B, is good. however evaluating
BUSHCO with sort of a "wall street journal metric" i dont think
is adequate ... i think he deserves moral condemnation as well.
presiding over something like abu graib goes beyond he didnt deliver
enough shareholder value. and delivering shareholder value doenst
make up for allowing something like that to happen ... we hopefully
have higher standards for heads of state than for pro-athletes.--psb
\_ It'd be like if Michael Eisner let some low-level Disney animation
department create a Mickey Mouse hentai film.
\-it would be like if michael eisner kept a japanese schoolgirl
in his basement. us presidents:bush :: musicians:r_kelly --psb |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34509 Activity:low |
11/1 I haven't received the big book about election, you know, the one
that talks about all the measures and things that I am suppose to
vote on. Do they have one at the voting place? Is the info online?
Can I just vote Kerry and be done with it? (ie, skip the rest?)
\_ For the state props, see http://www.ss.ca.gov
For your local props/candidates google:
<your county> registrar of voters They may have candidate
statements and info on the local propositions.
\_ http://www.smartvoter.org
\_ Are you sure you're registered? They screwed me once. |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34508 Activity:nil |
11/1 A Failed Presidency
LA Times editorial criticizing Bush (no endorsement for Kerry)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-bush1nov01,0,6861797.story |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34506 Activity:very high |
11/1 Party of the little people - 8 out of 9 top 527s donors are Dem
Also, 8 of 10 top 527s total. McCain - Feingold was a huge
success.
http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/irs_ef_527.exe?DoFn=&sYR=2004
\_ wow, swift boat veterans for slime earned as much as http://moveon.org?
I'm sure that was based on grassroots contributions from former
swift boat veterans! -tom
\_ wow, what about the other 7? what about Soros? what about
oh nevermind, your mind is closed. anyway, the swift boats
was mostly vets and small private contributors. you'd know
that if you were reading conservative blogs where they got
most of the donations from. but don't let facts get in your way.
\_ Soros is one guy. There are numerous sources which show that
Bush gets more of his money from big contributors, and has
more big contributors. Speaking of facts getting in your
way. I guess I should be getting my "facts" from
conservative blogs! -tom
\_ Yeah he was one guy with billions to give to diff.
groups. Vs. a bunch of vets.
\_ Yawn. So Repubs contributed the obligatory $1,000 per member of
household, including Manuel the pool-boy, Maria the maid, and a
menagerie of pets. Sure, it looks like less, but add it up: it's
more.
\_ Stop making shit up. If you have some sort of proof that someone
is making illegal contributions, post it.
\_ Oh, please. Don't kill the messenger if you don't like the
message.
\_ It's all bad: http://csua.org/u/9r7 |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34503 Activity:very high |
11/1 Wow, one more day til Election. By Wed we'll know who's the next
president, how exciting!
\_ According to the highly-accurate slashdot poll, Kerry will win by
about a 5:2 margin
\_ I am going to be really pissed if Bush wins again.
\_ Don't you mean...for the FIRST TIME?!?!?!? HA HA HA HA HA
*cough* *hack* *wheeze*
\_ What is the CSUA motd opinion on some of the CA measures?
\_ if a h07 42n ch1x supports it, so do I!
\_ hot asian chicks don't vote. hence http://www.leastlikely.com
\_ Oh I want to have sex with a hot asian chick!!
\- by Wed there will be riots. If Bush wins ppl will get mad and send
out lawyers. If Kerry wins the Fox news network will distort more
views and Bush will send out troops, impose martial order, and
scare the minorities to not cheer for Kerry. |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:34501, category id '18005#13.2525' has no name! , ] UID:34501 Activity:moderate |
11/1 I know this is old, but I just found it. Pat Buchanan interviewing
Ralph Nader on why conservatives should vote for him (Nader.) I
don't support either Nader or Buchanan, but I thought this was
a really interesting read.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html
\_ Maybe you want to post the much more recent Pat Buchanan articles
on him saying conservatives should vote Bush?
\_ You didn't read the link, did you? Buchanan never endorses
Nader, he just asks him some questions. I think the answers are
interesting, and I think that the fact that Nader is attempting
to appeal to conservative voters is interesting. If you post
a link to the more recent Bush endoresement, I'll also read that.
\_ It won't be a NYT URL. Would you still read it?
\_ I'm the one who posted a link to American Conservative
Magazine, remember? Damn, you're dumb. Just post the
fucking link, and I and probably quite a few other people
will read it. |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34497 Activity:low |
11/01 I can think of 2 reasons why a traditional Bush voter might want to
vote for Kerry this time around:
1) Bush might be able to push 4 rightwing justices into the Supreme
Court and upset the balance, while Kerry can't push 4 leftwing
justices into the Supreme Court because the Senate is run by
Republicans.
2) Kerry will actually veto spending bills!
\_ You have to think of reasons? Why don't you just ask one of your
traditional Bush voter friends over lunch or something like that?
\_ I can think of X reasons why a traditional Republican might
not vote for Kerry no matter the reason.
1) religion
2) abortion
3) gay
4) minorities, min wage
5) they're Amish
Come on. The election was never about anything but the above
items that some people hold dearly as the one true core
value in the world. People who value the above dearly, don't
give a damn about Iraq or deficit or whatnot.
\_ I was talking about the sector of Bush supporters who are
more concerned about issues as opposed to "keeping the Queers
in line"
more concerned about issues as opposed to the "keeping the
Queers in line" group, who will always be immune to reason. |
| 2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34474 Activity:high |
10/31 You guys still remember the Rodney King case? When the verdict
came, people were so pissed that they started a riot? Well
\_ No, the mayor gave them the OK to riot. B4
that news conference LAPD had no calls.
me thinks the election will trigger 10X the resentment between
people of very different beliefs, each side genuinely feeling
that it is right and the other side is wrong, causing mayhem
we have not seen since the Civil Rights riots. Your opinion on
me opinion?
\_ Not likely. It's not a question of how mad people are, it's a
question of *which* people are mad. The people who rioted over
the King verdict probably mostly don't vote, or see Kerry as
just as much "the man" as Bush. Conversely, the people who think
the sky is falling are mostly professionals and intelectuals who
have never even participated in a riot and wouldn't know how to
start one.
\_ I don't think Republicans will riot if they lose.
\_ why not Democrats?
\_ you live/school in berkeley and wonder about the left
rioting? "To the Gap!" |
| 2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34470 Activity:very high |
10/31 According to cnn, Democrats waaay outspend the Republicans on
campaign ads. How can that be? Aren't Republicans a lot
wealthier?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/campaign.ads
\_ There has been a huge groundswell from the dems. The huge
majority of dem money this cycle has been from $100 or less
contributions. There are a LOT of people that want change.
\_ not, considering the top 4 Dem donors have spent well in
excess of 60+ million. More self-delusion on the Dem's
behalf, party of the little people indeed.
\_ Kerry raised 32% of his money from donors of $200 or less
(and 35% from $2000 or less). "Huge majority"? Riiiiiight.
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp
\_ 2002, percentage of donors giving following amts, dems/reps:
$200-999: 39/61
$1000+: 49/51
$10k+: 55/45
$100k+: 67/33
$1M+: 92/8
Billionaires for Kerry!
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.asp?cycle=2002
\_ Um... What about contributions to the DNC/RNC? I was under
the impression that the big donors give to the parties because
it hides from comparisons like yours.
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.asp?cycle=2002
\_ R gets 2X D.
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp
But party money is more restricted than, say, 527 money,
and D leads in 527 money.
\_ No one should "lead" in 527 money. The very concept is
the antithesis of the campaign finance reform laws that
created 527s. Most of them are operating illegally.
\_ I'm sure it's just an oversight, and not you trying to spin
the numbers, which caused you to leave out the fact that Bush
has twice the number of $2000+ donors as Kerry, and a
significantly greater portion of his overall contributions
from that group. Kerry's not Dean, but his support is still
far more grassroots than Bush's. -tom
\_ "Far more grassroots"? 32% of both candidates' support is
from donors of $200 or less. Kerry has 10% more supporters,
but I think it's hard to say "far more grassroots". Howard
Dean was "far more grassroots". John Kerry is not.
\_ whatever. i don't care. guess who i'm voting for? - danh
\_ so you're ok if your guy won with the help of
supporters who might have violated campaign finance
reform laws? you want to win "by any means necessary"?
that sort of thinking opens up a long list of places
that no one in this country should want to go. neither
side is so darkly evil or different from the other that
we need to destroy the country in order to save it.
\_ I'm sure it's just an oversight but these numbers don't
count the tremendous amount of raw cash pumped into leftist
527 groups created under the bogus "campaign finance
reform" laws. How can you forget the money pumped in by
the likes of George Soros?
\_ I believe soros donated 10 million, not the 80 million figure floating around
\_
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp?level=C&cycle=2004
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004 |
| 2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34460 Activity:nil |
10/30 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137163,00.html Bush over Kerry by 2 points, Kerry is fucked despite help from Clinton and OBL. \_ A Fox poll of Fox viewers thinks Bush will win? That's insane. \_ No you moron. An Opinion Dynamics poll. Similar to ABC polls, etc. however 2 points in one poll (inside margin of error) doesn't matter. Basically it's a tie in many states and we won't really know until Tuesday (or Tuesday + a few weeks) who the winner will be. \_ *shrug* Zogby (who nailed 2000, and has a very good track record) puts Kerry up by 1 in a 3 day tracking poll. Polls are a useful tool, but you have to remember 1) the pollster may be biased,and 2) polls are very coarse tools. -mice \_ Polls are not useful in this election, given that we know it will be very close. -- ilyas \_ Well, yeah -- I thought that was rather obvious from the context, but thanks for clarifying. -mice \_ sheesh, sorry. -- ilyas \_ Um, no. Zogby did not nail 2000, according to the records I've seen (multiple places). Are you going to back that claim up? \_ Okay, you got me: He predicted Gore would win. I think I was meaning the popular vote. You can google that and find scads of links. My bad. -mice \_ Last I checked Zogby polling at this time (a few days before the election 2000) had Bush ahead in the popular vote. \_ 1) Yes and you can't ever know in which direction, 2) yes. As far as Zogby goes, he did well in 1996 and "ok" in 2000. However, in 2000, the other pollsters stopped polling before the weekend when the DUI claims were made so of course their polls don't catch that. Zogby continued polling through that period. His numbers were similar to everyone else's pre-DUI Surprise. In 2002, his predictions simply sucked. He may or may not know WTF he's talking about this time. The likely voter numbers are the most random ones between pollsters because they're all using very different models to determine who is likely to vote or not. You, me, Zogby, and everyone else can make a guess, but no one really knows and *can't* know, that's why we have an actual election and don't just ask some pollsters to pick the President. \_ Good point. Of course, if I was willing to let a (potentially biased and coarse) pollster decide my vote for me, I'd deserve to be shot. -mice |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34453 Activity:high |
10/29 Given that the Dems likely aren't going to carry any of the
Southern states (with a possible exception of Florida), do you
think they would have fared better in some other traditionally
republican states if John Kerry picked someone else to run for VP?
\_ no. |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34452 Activity:kinda low |
10/29 Bizarre. The media is in spin-overdrive, declaring the OBL tape a
"big win for Bush."
I don't get it. Please, someone explain this to me.
\_ Is it TV you're watching? Which stations?
\_ "The airing of a tape of Osama bin Laden capped a week of
bad news for President Bush that threatened to derail his
candidacy in the final days of the presidential election" --CBS
\_ CNN is saying pretty much exactly the opposite, that the tape
"completely wipes away the events of the last week."
\_ Perhaps meaning that it supercedes it... it's a statement
that says nothing about being good or bad for Bush.
\_ NBC Nightly News: ""The Bin Laden tape has erased any
momentum that John Kerry may have had during the past
week". Go TV news! How can he even pretend to know
that?
\_ I think it's reasonable to expect that the release
of the tape will change the dialog over the next
couple of days; that's not the same as "erasing any
momentum," since it could wind up being positive for
Kerry. -tom |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34448 Activity:nil |
10/29 Bush and Kerry respond to Bin Laden.
http://csua.org/u/9q8
% cat bush_quotes_from_article | wc -w
46
% cat kerry_quotes_from_article | wc -w
128 |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34442 Activity:nil |
10/29 Osama bin Laden: "It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief
of the country [Bush] would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to
face those horrors alone ... because he thought listening to a child
discussing her goats was more important. ... Your security is not in
the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. ... To the U.S. people, my
talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster. ... I
tell you: security is an important element of human life and free
people do not give up their security. ... If Bush says we hate
freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It
is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like
those of the 19 blessed ones ... We fought you because we are free ...
and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our
security we undermine yours."
\_ it would be funny if osama came out with a tape blaming
the wtc crashes on jews pilotting the planes filled with
defenseless arabs.
\_ Kerry using bin Laden to gain votes?
\_ You partisan spinning must be topping 10k rpms. Take a step back
and try to get some perspective here.
\_ Uhhh....huh?
\_ The very first sentence "It never occurred ...... was more
important" sounds like Kerry.
\_ This is a translation. Comparing speaking style in
different languages is not easy.
\_ Bush using fear to gain votes?
\_ Is there a full or even partial transcript URL? I'd like to read
the whole thing or at least as much as is out there. Or was this
the whole thing? Thanks.
\_ Isn't it great that Osama Bin Laden is irrefutably accepting
responsibility for the attacks now that Muslims don't have to
cling to that Jews-did-it conspiracy story anymore, since the
whole world hates our guts anyways?
\_ It was a Jewish actor masquerading as Osama. It's a devious
plot to pin blame on Islam. |
| 2004/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34423 Activity:high |
10/28 Here is a stupid question of the day. Since butterfly ballot doesn't
work, and electronic voting machine sucks, why don't we just use
*SCANTRONS* for ballot? Anyone who attend a year or two of high
school would be very familar with this system, and scantron is a
relatively fast accurate means of casting a vote, no?
\_ not sure why anyone uses the butterfly ballot, good question
\_ This is how we do it in my county (Northern CA). Each issue on the
ballot has a rectangle next to it. We use purple felt-tip pens to
fill in the rectangles. These systems are referred to "optical"
systems among the voting machines. They have the lowest rate of
ballot spoilage of all methods IIRC.
\_ We're using scantrons as of 2004 in L.A. County too, I believe.
\_ San Francisco uses Optical scan as well. It is by far and away
considered to be the best overall method, but I believe the
machines are very expensive compared to the Diebold type
devices. Counties don't want to pay for expensive things like
that.
\_ Well, you know there's a government subsidy on voting
machines with easily fakable vote counts.
\_ Hey, Oregon has mail-in balloting only. They should do this
nationally. No more long line, wrong precinct problems.
They just have to mail them by some postmark, let's say, or drop
them off at specific locations by a certain day.
\_ Absentee has the most possibilities for fraud. I'm for outlawing
it.
\_ Sutter County uses scantrons as well.
\_ How about if people are too stupid to write legible ballots /
vote they have to live with their own actions?
\_ A scantron card is easy to use if you can figure it out. A
butterfly ballot can get fucked up by quite a lot of reasonably
intelligent people. A Diebold machine can crash and lose all
votes on its little Windows brain forever, or have its Microsoft
Access "security" hacked and have votes changed, without any
record.
\_ As balloting methods go, scantrons are a lot better than many of
the other methods out there, but still far from perfect. If memory
serves the most common problem with scantron style ballots are
entry errors, e.g. partially filled in bubble/rectangle, filling in
multiple rectangles for a single race, etc. Though better than
punchcards with their hanging, pregnant, dimpled, etc. chads there
is still the possibility of inaccuracy when interpreting voter
intent.
Scantrons are *WAY* cheaper than computerized touch-screen
DRE voting systems, but most of the scantron voting systems are
made by the same companies that make DRE voting systems. Since
there's more profit to be made on DRE systems than scantrons, the
companies are much more aggressive about selling the DRE systems.
It's a pretty easy sell since many election supervisors are fairly
clueless when it comes to technology, and the DRE systems have a
much higher ``gee-whiz, ain't computers cool'' factor than
scantrons. The money allocated by HAVA (Help America Vote Act) can
only be spent on election equipment/maintenance, and if local
officials don't spend it, it disappears so there's no incentive to
buy scantrons for price reasons.
One other thing to consider is that scantron ballot counting
devices are potentially hackable, though, IMO, much less so than
most DRE systems. Of course, you have a paper trail for manual
recounts which is definitely an improvement over DRE's.
-dans |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34418 Activity:very high |
10/28 Jude Wanniski, father of supply-side theory, endorses Kerry:
http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3935
\_ Can someone please tell us why he's wrong?
\_ HMX is only needed for implosion-type fusion nukes.
Terrorists can still make gun-type fission nukes fairly easily
as long as they have the highly-enriched uranium.
Terrorists can still make gun-type fission nukes fairly
easily as long as they have the highly-enriched uranium.
\_ So, that's all you need to know to forget about what
the father of Reaganomics has to say? Alrightie. |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34403 Activity:moderate |
10/28 Here you go, Partha. Actual Economist endorsement of Kerry:
http://csua.org/u/9oz (economist.com)
\_ The editor, Bill Emmott, put it this way: "It was a difficult
call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the
war in Iraq. But in the end we felt he has been too incompetent to
deserve re-election."
\_ Summary: Guantanamo bad!!! Waaaaaa!!! Nothing to recommend for
Kerry. And apperently they haven't actually read the Geneva
Convention resolutions.
\_ where does it say "parade people around naked and make
them masturbate into the mouths of the prisoner over there
and have some dumbass from virginia take photos of them"?
\_ Um, that didn't happen in Guantanamo you idiot. That was Abu
Ghraib in Iraq.
\_ That's what you think! - seymour
\_ Why do people keep forgetting that in a two-candidate system,
any refutation of one candidate automatically recommends the
other candidate?
\_ "You're either with us or against us in the fight against
terror." -GW Bush
America, Fuck Yeah!!!!1!
\_ Which is why you should always vote *for* someone instead of
*against* someone.
\_ If your choice is between handing a loaded gun to the guy
who just shot you in the foot and some guy who hasn't shot
you in the foot yet, go with the guy who hasn't shot you
yet. He *might* shoot you, but the other guy *will* shoot
you.
\_ I'm voting for the guy who isn't George W. Bush!
\_ Hint: it's not "instead of". You do both, unless you don't
vote at all, which would accomplish nothing.
\_ Holding people indefinitely without trial or right to council
or right to defend themselves or even know what the charges
or right to defend themselves or even to know what the charges
against them are seems fundamentally unamerican to me. -ausman
\_ Yeah, at least Dubya could have done what the JAGs
argued very strenuously for: some way to vet all the
detainees and some kind of a process.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34395 Activity:high |
10/27 Economist endorses Kerry. Come on, someone be snarky!
\_ GIRLY MAN ECONOMICS!!1!!1!!!
\_ Ok. BUSH/CHENEY! THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES EVEN CONSERVATIVES HATE
\_ let's see the URL
\_ It's in their subscriber only content for now. But here's
someone who was kind enough to transcribe the print for you:
http://csua.org/u/9ou (foreigndispatches.typepad.com)
If you do happen to have a subscription, the article is here:
http://csua.org/u/9ov (economist.com)
\-I think the E'ist will endorse Kerry if they do endorse
somebody [and I'd be surprised if they didnt ... they
live for this kind of thing]. The E'ist was really angry
about AbuG and Guantanamo, they are not religious fanatics,
the dont get nervous when the hear the "dont change horses
midstream" rhetoric ... they know Kerry wont give Manhattan
to the UN, the Louisiana Purchase back to France and TX back
to Mexico. The may be slightly worried about some of Kerry's
tax plans and protectionism and I think Kerry's recent semi-
disingenuous claims may have slightly tainited his position
in academic terms, but it's a nasty election and BUSHCO made
it that way. We'll find out in the next 24 hrs. The trajectory
of my thinking at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP --psb
of my wondering at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP --psb
\_ Wow. Check out the big brain on psb. After reading a
magazine for how many years? he finaly picks up on how
they think. Way to go,psb. And thanks for sharing. -saarp
\-you've been alive for how many yrs and have yet
to pick up how to think? [is this really you?] --psb
\_ I see. So by inference, since you supposedly
have picked up this skill, you have free license
brag about it? One thing I have picked up:
those who boast usually have little to boast
about. And for the record, it is I. -saarp
\- i guess we'll have to recalibrate.
this is like finding out absolute
zero is lower than you thought it
was. --psb
\_ Bush made this election season nasty? Bush was dead silent
through the entire Democratic primary season where they
spent their time trying to out-smear the man. Sheesh, how
much more deluded or self blind can a guy get? For a guy
who claims to know so much and be so informed, you come
across as very ignorant and biased.
\_ Why is the free link dated in January?
\_ Sorry, I linked to the wrong article. Sully mentions the
new article here and quotes a paragraph of it:
http://csua.org/u/9oy (andrewsullivan.com)
I will try to find a link to the real article.
Here it is, for free from the Economist itself.
I'm going to delete the old links above:
http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3329802 |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34388 Activity:moderate |
10/27 Form 180. Bush signed it. Kerry did not. Where is the media?
\_ It was probably there when Bush announced that he signed it.
\_ Bush did not sign it: 'At the White House, press secretary
Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether
Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did
request and release his own military records in February.
"I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize
making his military records available publicly," Mr. McClellan
said.' Why do you and Rush Limbaugh keep lying about this?
\_ He ordered the release of his records as an Executive Order as
some flashy PR stunt. What has Kerry done?
\_ So, has Dubya signed Form 180, as op has written?
\_ Nope. Do you think an Executive Order is less than F180?
What has Kerry done?
\_ Do you think just repeating Executive Order actually
defines what the order actually specified?
\_ You tell me which of these EOs applies and I might
be able to answer your question:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/wbush_subjects.html
\_ So I am still waiting for the number of the executive
order that Bush supposedly signed to release his records.
I went through all of them and could not find one that
could possibly be it. I think the Bush campaign is lying.
Again.
\_ No, a random Bush supporter was wrong. Some of us Bush
supporters are just as hacked-off at Bush for not signing
form 180 as we are at Kerry for the same thing. |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34383 Activity:moderate |
10/27 The dead registers to vote. http://csua.org/u/9oi \_ BBC scoops voter intimidation campaign underway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm \_ Uh huh. Imagine trying to keep people from voting who would be voting illegally. So intimidating! \_ And those thousands of millions of hundreds of dead people with their collusion and fake registration! Such a clear conspiracy! \_ Did you even read the URL? You're not even on the same vaguely general topic as the rest of us. \_ Nice fallacies in that story. A bunch of names in a largely black region. Did the author check to see if the names actually belonged to black people? Did he check the felony rolls? \_ Wow. It seems like you actually read the link. Neat-o! \_ Weir and Lesh are both voting for Kerry. \_ You can read a transcript of the story at the RNC site. Nothing in the story that points the finger at one party or another if you ignore the RNC supplied headline. http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=4996 |
| 2004/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34380 Activity:very high |
10/27 http://csua.org/u/9oh An 18-year-old Marine recruit remained in jail on Wednesday, charged with threatening to stab his girlfriend over her choice for president ... The enlistee, Steven Scott Soper, of Lake Worth, became enraged Tuesday night when his 18-year-old girlfriend said she was leaving him -- and voting for John Kerry for president. \_ Give him six months on IED sweeper duty, and see whom he votes for. \_ Obviously you never served. \_ Oh, this is so much better than that tired old WDYHA. \_ See how crazy Kerry can drive people? |
| 2004/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34379 Activity:insanely high 71%like:34376 |
10/26 Woohoo! Kerry's got the mo!
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=909
http://csua.org/u/9n5 (Post graphic)
\_ Kerry's people have been telling us for a long time that the
polls don't mean anything. Now they do?
\_ Gallup is the poll that is really fucked, at least with their
LV model [restored]
\_ The real poll will be on November 2.
\_ Uh... Zogby's numbers going back:
11 days to go: Bush +2
10 days to go: Bush +2
9 days to go: Bush +3
8 days to go: Bush +3
7 days to go: Bush +1
This is momentum? Please, take Stat 2. This is all well within
the margin of error in each case.
\_ Zogby is weak as you noticed. That's why I helped the op with
the Post URL. -!op
\_ I wonder how much of the Kerry bounce in the last couple of
days is due to Al-Qaqaa. Had NYT/CBS stuck to their original
plan to release the story immediately before the election,
that might have been a decisive blow for Kerry. Now Bush will
have a week to recover, and he has proven to be resilient and
slippery in the past. So the outcome is less clear.
\_ Are people troubled by the CBS attempt to game the election
by timing the release of the missing munitions story?
\_ No! Any dirty lying trick is ok to beat Bush!
\_ If you could rig the election to get Kerry to win
even if you knew he hadn't really won, would you?
\_ I give this motive a 50/50 chance of being true (not
"It sure looks like it!" or "I doubt it!"). They were
taping interviews and fact checking -- they don't want
another Font-gate. Of course the Republican spin is
that CBS was definitely trying to game the election
after what happened with Rather.
\_ No more troubled than I am by Fox News' obvious
attempt to swing the election for the last two years.
\_ Fox doesn't claim to be neutral. They claim to be
balanced. They put on people from both sides of
every issue. Example: Bush did the O'Reilly show
but Kerry is ducking it. O'R has been trying to get
Kerry for months but he won't go on the air. Is it
somehow biased of Fox or O'R that they aired one and
not the other?
\_ Kerry wouldn't get even treatment. Besides, since
Fox bias is well established, it doesn't make
sense that Kerry would legitimize it and reward it
with his appearance. Your example here is a straw
man. Nobody ever claimed the O'Reilly Bush thing
itself was bias. But O'Reilly has clearly
demonstrated bias in other instances. It's
reasonable to assume Kerry wouldn't have as
respectful a treatment as Bush.
\_ I also think part of it is from the general atmosphere that
a lot of newspapers are endorsing Kerry, or not supporting
Dubya. There is definitely an effect if newspapers which
had endorsed Dubya in the past start looking wavy on
supporting Dubya, and other newspapers remain rock-solid
in solidarity with Kerry.
\_ Newspapers? Do you really truly seriously in your heart
of heart believe that anyone who votes makes their
decision on national well-known figures based on a
newspaper endorsement??
\_ "general atmosphere", "There is definitely an effect"
!= "votes makes their decision ... based on a
newspaper endorsement"
Duh. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34372 Activity:very high |
10/26 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html (username / pw = bobbob) Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test. \_ The difference is that Kerry didn't spend his 20s and 30s doing blow. \_ That explains a lot. :-P \_ Boy, it sure is a good thing that IQ tests and ratings are such a meaningful and credible measure of an individual's intelligence. I'm glad I can estimate either candidate's intellectual fiber based on this decisive piece of information. -John \_ Whoops, there's a small problem here. Gottfredson, the psych. prof. who made the correlation, took the candidates' rankings on their respective Officer Qualifying Tests and directly correlated those ranks to IQ tests. Since Bush was in the 95th percentile of his class for the AFQT, Gottfredson extrapolated that he had an IQ of corresponding rank. However, the 1960s AFQT, like the ASVAB, was an aptitude test, not an IQ test. Drawing correlations between the two is more like comparing Fujis to Grannies than apples to oranges, but it's still prone to significant errors. What the AFQT does tell us, however, is that GWB is not a moron, but Bush-watchers already knew that; he's much too cunning to misunderestimate. \_ psb said Bush was a ChimpBrain. Surely, the great psb was not wrong. You have a fault in your reasoning somewhere. \- When Bush first emerged on the scene, I thought he looked like Alfred E. Newman. I have since decided he looks more like a Chimp. I do not believe he is an especially bright fellow, but I also dont believe most people are especially bright. I agree that he is smarter than a lot of the people who call him an idiot ... same goes for Rush Limbaugh. Most of the people calling them idiots could not give a 30min talk and a fair number of them probably could not tell you who Francois Mitterand was. Of the presidents since 1980, Bill Clinton is the only one I would call "really smart". BUSH's and RUSH have serious character defects but they arent idiots [which doesnt make them geniuses either]. It's actually fun to ask people ranting about how dumb Bush is "do you think he is dumber than <name some dull acquaintance>". As I asked on wall previously, "who would you rather have as president: bush or saarp?" --psb \-BTW, I also think intellectual curiosity counts for a lot. A friend of mine at Berkeley who used to get A+ in upper div physics classes [including from people like Steiner, if that means anything to you] once said "I thought Cambodia was in Africa ... because that is where all the starving people are." This guy was a genius when it came to physics problem sets but you dont want him running the world. I am not sure I want somebody who says "jesus is my favorite philosopher" or "sovereignty is sovereignty" running much of the planet. Yes, I know Bush understand legislative nuance and is being disingenuous with comments like "he voted for/against it". Yes I agree not one person in 50 who laughed at the sovereignty comment could have defined sovereignty. --psb \_ Wait, not being a moron somehow equates to not being a chimp- brain? Being smart is no defense against being wrong and morally bankrupt (cf. Richard Cheney). \_ I'm confused. I keep hearing Bush is stupid and incompetent. If so, how did he get the Whitehouse, is ahead in polls for a second term, foll John Kerry and others into voting for the war, fool millions of Americans and the media on a continuous basis and pack the supreme court with right wing partisans? \_ You *are* confused, but it has nothing to do with the fallacious "points" you bring up. \_ Could you please explain? Thank you. \_ Sure. You believe that getting into the White House, maintaining a good approval rating, and lying to a bunch of Senators about how he's only going to use war as a last resort somehow requires intelligence and the ability to be a good President. It doesn't. You can do much the same with a well-oiled political machine, a popular tough-guy image, and a heaping serving of arrogance and bravado. That's where you're confused. You're welcome. \_ Hey confused boy: Dubya delivered his GOP convention speech very well, spreading the gap as much as 51% Dubya, 39% Kerry. Yet, he looked like a total d00f during the debates, especially debate 1. Therein will you find your answer. \_ Who would win in a debate between W and PSB? \_ That's easy, PSB would just get thrown in Gitmo. As for "foll [sic] Kerry ... into voting for the war", Kerry voted for war authority, not for war. Purportedly only the President has the best intelligence and perspective to make the final call to take the country to war. Let me remind you that the Senate never saw conflicting reports on aluminum tubes from the Energy department, unlike the President. \_ Kerry wouldn't have seen any reports anyway since he hardly ever showed at any Senate Intelligence meetings. \_ Now I'm reaaaally confused. Since the polls you're implicitly citing changed their voter mix calculations at the same time as the debates and I keep reading that the polls don't mean anything anyway, at least when GWB is up. Please help! \_ Where do you keep reading this? Certainly not on the motd. Wherever you keep going to read misinformation, stop it. \_ It's standard (D) spin. I watch the news shows, I see the Kerry people saying the polls don't matter. The Kerry campaign is my source of misinformation. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34367 Activity:insanely high |
10/26 Lawrence O'Donell exposes O'Neill of SVFT as a liar. This
must be what the media means when it says these guys have
been discredited.
http://64.91.230.181/~recycler/videos/windbag.WMV
\_ Well O'Donell is also the guy who has stated he doesn't
care if troops in Iraq become demoralized, that they should
shut up.
\_ This sounds like either a quote taken out of context,
or a very liberal paraphrase. Do you have a URL or decent
news source showing the quote and its surrounding context?
Honestly, both of those gentlemen strike me as partisan
mouthpieces furthering The Party's agenda with, at best,
coincidental regard for the truth.
\_ "MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about
war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what
they feel."
"MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized.
They have to go to war and be prepared ..."
\_ gee I wonder why you didn't provide the context. -tom
\_ It's a McLauglin group transcript.. search for it,
I don't want to corrupt you with the link I'd give.
\_ what's so bad about
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=434?
All he's saying is that you can't bury your head
in the sand and squash all debate about whether
the war is a good idea, just because you need to
"support the troops." Lying about the war
doesn't support the troops. -tom
\_ True, lying about the war doesn't support
the troops. Write a letter. Ask your media
to tell us both the good and the bad, not just
the bad.
\_ This is yucky, and really proves nothing -- aside from the fact
that both sides are pretty passionate.
\_ Well O'Donell is also the guy who has stated he doesn't
care if troops in Iraq become demoralized, that they should
shut up.
\_ This sounds like either a quote taken out of context,
or a very liberal paraphrase. Do you have a URL or decent
news source showing the quote and its surrounding context?
Honestly, both of those gentlemen strike me as partisan
mouthpieces furthering The Party's agenda with, at best,
coincidental regard for the truth.
\_ "MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about
war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what
they feel."
"MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized.
They have to go to war and be prepared ..."
\_ gee I wonder why you didn't provide the context. -tom
\_ It's a McLauglin group transcript.. search for it,
I don't want to corrupt you with the link I'd give.
\_ what's so bad about
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=434?
All he's saying is that you can't bury your head
in the sand and squash all debate about whether
the war is a good idea, just because you need to
"support the troops." Lying about the war
doesn't support the troops. -tom
\_ Wow. That O'Donnell is a fruitcake. When someone talks over his
opponent, it pretty much proves to me that he doesn't know what he's
talking about.
\_ Shrug. It suggests to me that the guy is too emotional at the
time to make a reasoned argument, unless he does it all the time.
\-Hmmmmm ... ok, I sort of agree LO'D went a little nuts there,
but your characterization of his comments on McL Groups is
preposterous [I saw the show]. If anything I think Bush's
comment during the 3rd debate:
BUSH: The best way to take the pressure off
our troops is to succeed in Iraq.
is more incoherent and insensitive. That comment is also
in line with his view "it's not a draft if we dont call
it a draft". The troops are not demoralized because of
Kerry suggesting Iraq has bogged down, or has suggested
our allies are few and far between, but because they are
being kept there longer than promised and are being blown up.
To be a little more charitable than LO'D: you are either a
liar or stupid. --psb
\_ The military vote is roughly 80% for Bush, that should
\- what %age of teachers vote for the "education
president" ?
\_ wrong question. "what %age of parents vote for
the education president?" is what you're looking
for.
\- the military is the group paid to deliver
"national security" ... everyone is a
comsumer of national security. similarly
parents are the consumers of ecucation,
not the agents to deliver it. anyway, my
point was that military number doesnt mean
much. --psb
\_ That's fine about the military number. My
point about parents still stands. I don't
care in particular if teachers like/dislike
the president as a block. They're a left
wing union group. I do care if parents are
happy with the education system. They are
not an organised political block. Parents
are real people, not an axe grinding PAC.
tell you something. The military is especially cognizant
that Kerry, in his antiwar antics and petitioning to
completey abandon Saigon, is a traitor. You can not
sign on to war and then say, 'oh that's not what I really
intended' - its a complete disgrace and is not behavior
befitting a CIC.Exactly which allies are you pining about?
The French, who in GWI sent an aircraft carrier
with no planes?
\- i am not pining for any allies. i think the un and the
rest of the world fairly reasonably see this as america's
mess to clean up. if a serviceman feels he can never
forgive kerry for his antiwar activities after vietnam
i think that is reasonable enough, just like i think
people are entitled to have been anti-clinton on the
grounds he was a draft-dodger who also cheated on his
wife. i just think it is odd they are not equally
disgusted with a coke addled rich kid who used family
connections to not even set foot "in country". --psb
\_ You were ok until the last line. At that point you
became "false, but accurate" as CBS would say.
\_ Could you post a URL for that 80%? All I found was this:
<DEAD>www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655<DEAD>
which gives 57% Rep among soldiers, in general (I think)
and 66% Rep among officers. Those show a stronger lean
than the country at large but far from 80%. The same
article also mentions that "Rep officers outnumber their
enlisted counterparts 9:1" according to "surveys" (no
source given) -- ulysses
\_ Why do Cons love to go over and over how they have "the
military vote"? Do soldiers count for more vote or
something? I think it is an implicit coup threat,
personally. If we have another Florida 2000 on our
hands, do you plan on calling out the troops to enforce
election results when half the country goes ballistic?
\_ Coup threat? Damn, dude, stop eating tinfoil! You're
supposed to wear it on your head. It is not a food
product.
\_ Why do Libs love to go over and over how they have the
"insert random small demographic here" vote? Does
"random small demographic" count for more vote or
something? The point is the military is just another
of those demographics. There isn't a plot. Stop
eating tinfoil. Wear it on your head for safety.
\_ You see, I remember a time when two people on a news show would not
shout over each other, when a moderator would not put up with such
behavior, when guests would not hog the mic, when longwinded
discourse actually lost you credibility, and when the integrity and
logic of your argument counted for more than the volume of your
voice. When did we agree to accept the opposite?
\_ When ratings went up with all the yelling on certain shows. I
agree they've gone way too far and I see it swinging back the
other way now.
\_ God, I hope you're right. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34365 Activity:very high |
10/26 So now that almost every major newspaper has endorsed Kerry does
this prove the notion of a liberal media? Why would newspapers
controlled by mega-national corporations throw in with Kerry?
\_ No, and because Bush is a radical.
\_ Dude! I totally agree! Bush is gnarly!
\_ If you're not trolling, you may wish to look up the word
'radical'
\_ Try googling "define:joke"
\_ This will be only the 3rd time that the democrat presidential
candidate has had more endorsements from newspapers than the
republican, since Editor and Publisher magazine started tracking
them in 1940 (the other two were Johnson in 1964 and Clinton in
1992). At least 35 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 are endorsing
Kerry this time, while only four who endorsed Gore are endorsing
Bush. And this is despite a tendency of papers to endorse sticking
with incumbents. So no, it doesn't "prove the notion of a liberal
media," it helps demonstrate just how terrible Bush has been.
\_ Nooo! Do not you bring your facts here! They are not
compatible with my blind partisan indoctrination!!! -op
\_ Question: if Bush wins, does that mean the print media is out of
the mainstream? Shouldn't the paper endorsements roughly follow
the country's nearly-even split?
\_ Yes. No, unless you want the papers to tell the people
what they already think.
\_ BZZZT! on point 2. These are editorial opinions. If the
newspaper people are "just like the rest of us" then they
should have roughly the same opinion split. Unless of
course you feel newspaper people are somehow more
enlightened and posses superior intellect and moral
status. If you believe that you haven't met enough
newspaper people.
\_ newspaper editors have significantly more education
than the general population, and also pay more
attention to the news; therefore they should, on
average, have "better" opinions than the median
American. -tom
\_ Am I the only one who sees a certain circularity
to this argument?
\_ No, it's just a tom thing. At least he's honest
about his mistaken belief that newspaper people
are better than the rest of us.
\_ What is mistaken about my belief? Specifically,
I think newspaper editors have more education
and pay more attention to the news than the
median American. I think they are more likely
to know Kerry's and Bush's positions on the
issues, for example. I don't think they are
"better"; they just have a more educated and
informed opinion than the general population.
The same is probably true of computer
programmers. -tom
\_ Here tom, let me spell it out for you.
Newspaper editors help create the news we
see. Therefore, when the editors 'pay
attention to the news' as you say, they
are paying attention to something
that other newspaper editors helped create.
There is a circularity in this system.
\_ I gave a specific example; I think
newspaper editors are more likely
to know what Bush and Kerry's positions
on the issues really are. I don't have
a poll of newspaper editors to show you,
but there are a number which show that
the American public has no fucking clue.
-tom
\_ You guys should be arguing specifics,
say, the Washington Post.
I don't think you'll get anywhere talking
about "newspaper editors" and "the
median American", apart from irritating
each other.
\_ Link? Which papers? I don't care about the Podunk Review in
Lincoln, Nebraska. I disagree with the definition of 'major'
below but certainly it is not so wide as to have 35 papers
flipflop. I am not sure the universe includes 35 papers.
\_ You should care about the Podunk Review. Millions of people
read the PR across America and take it seriously.
\_ http://csua.org/u/9nv [editorandpublisher]
\_ Thanks. So what do you think a reasonable cut-off for
circulation is?
\_ Since the circulation numbers are being rigged (they're
outright fabrivations to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
outright fabrications to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
make sense to have a circulation based cut-off.
\_ The alternative? I imagine they are 'rigged'
equally. Only relative size matters, not
absolutes.
\_ Why do you imagine all newspapers are equally
criminal? But let's follow your reasoning
anyway: a newspaper with a real 100,000 readers
inflates by 10%, another one with 1,000,000
readers inflates by 10%. The first has created
10k non-existing people, the second has created
100k.
\_ Uh, so? The idea is to identify the
largest papers, not to guess at their
actual circulation.
\_ Your "universe" is small and tiny, as yermom described among
other things.
\_ Even if we grant that newspaper people
may know better what each candidate's
beliefs and policies are (which I
still dispute but enough on that), to
know more about a topic is not the
same as being correct about ones
conclusions on that topic. Having
knowledge does not make one's opinion
more "right". Don't confuse raw fact
oriented knowledge with wisdom.
\_ The major newspapers are:
The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. (the latter three have not
made an endorsement)
\_ Don't forget The San Francisco Examiner and the Washington Times.
\_ These are tier 2 or lower, along with:
the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, and all the other
newspapers.
\_ Tribune owns the LA Times.
\_ These aren't even second tier. Neither one is in the top 100
papers in the country by circulation.
\_ The Washington *Times* has endorsed Kerry? Seriously?
\_ Follow the sub-thread, please! The topic is:
Identifying the major newspapers.
\_ funny, how most of these majors also called Kerry a crackpot
for making a link between Iran/Contra and CIA cocaine trading,
and after the CIA said it was true years later, put the news
well behind the front page. irony.
\_ What are you talking about? The CIA has never admitted
links to cocaine trafficking.
\_ CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz admitted that "there are
instances where the CIA did not, in an expeditious or
consistent fashion, cut off relations with individuals
supporting the contra program who were alleged to have
engaged in drug trafficking activity."
\_ Which is nothing like, "The CIA engaged in the cocaine
trade to fund secret off-book programs" which is what
the original accusation is about. The Cold War was a
dirty fight for survival. The CIA existed to do
exactly that sort of dirty work and deal with those
sorts of people. Lesser of two evils and all that.
\_ Shrug. The original thread was about how Kerry
was not off his rocker about there being a link.
It also directs evidence against the guy who wrote
"What are you talking about? The CIA has never
admitted links to cocaine trafficking".
\_ A "link"? Of course there was "a link". That
is who the CIA was created to deal with, duh.
Did you really prefer the Carter version of
Cold War intel where the CIA wasn't supposed to
talk to "bad people"? You're still mixing two
different issues: a "link" vs "selling" cocaine.
A "link" is meaningless FUD.
\_ You're off-topic, sodan. The comment was
directed toward the "CIA never admitted" guy.
\_ Isn't it obvious by now... based on Sandy Berger, Jayson Blair,
ANG Memos, SVFT, Kerry's post war activities and now this
'missing explosives' fraud??
\_ I can't see all that through the bottom of my kool aid glass.
\_ When the media pushes Kerry as hard to sign Form 180 as they
beat up Bush over his military records, I'll believe they're
something other than partisan left wing hacks. When they tell us
about Kerry meeting Madame Binh in Paris while still an active
duty officer for the US military, I'll believe. When they say
they're sorry and they fucked up with the bogus Bush documents
instead of spinning it into some bullshit "false but accurate"
which only an extreme leftish partisan finds acceptable, I'll
believe. When they stop write large print headlines in response
to positive Bush admin job news that say, "BONDS DROP ON JOBS
REPORT!", I'll believe. The list goes on, but my fingers are
getting sore. You get the idea.
\_ It's hard work. I know how hard it is.
\_ Yes, being an honest and unbiased media person is hard
work. Our mainstream media has failed miserably. Mostly,
because they're not even trying.
\_ Bush still has not signed his form 180 and Bush documents
are still leaking out.
\_ Thank you for making my point. The media has bashed the shit
out of Bush on this issue but has completely ignored it in
Kerry's case. In trying to attack Bush you have made my
point on this thread's topic which is about the biased Media.
\- Does anybody know how many papers that endorsed BUSH2000 are
endorsing KERRY04. Are there any papers that endorsed ALGOR
who are now endorsing BUSH? Even 1? [chicago?] --psb
\_ There are about 37 switches for kerry. i can't remember
how many for bush. one of the links above has the totals.
http://csua.org/u/9nv --scotsman
http://csua.org/u/9nv
Better: http://csua.org/u/9o7
--scotsman
\_ The Denver Post endorsed Gore and is endorsing Bush.
There are two others.
\_ Fortunately, the people decide, not newspaper editors in
this country. Endorsements will carry little weight as
most papers have a bias which leads to readship which
shares that bias. The SF Chron wouldn't survive in OC,
for example. The OC Register wouldn't make it in SF.
\_ you don't think nazi sympathizing and union busting
would play in OC? The SF Chron recently fired a
reporter for attending an anti-war rally; they are
not any kind of liberal bastion. -tom |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34360 Activity:nil |
10/26 Discovered papers: Hanoi directed Kerry
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41106
\_ Yes, but what is Weekly World News' take on the story?
\_ KERRY IS A SPACE ALIEN!
\_ ALIENS ARE TAKING ORDERS FROM THE COMMIES!
\_ WWN >> WND |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34354 Activity:high |
10/26 BoingBoing has a list of news organizations that typically stay away
from political endorsements (or otherwise would predictably be in the
Bush camp) that are currently endorsing Kerry:
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/26/boingboing_endorses_.html
\_ My favorite are when they advertise articles from anti-Bush
conservatives but when you read closely and look up the authors
they're all card carrying libertarians. I got a big kick out of
the Cato Institutate article that Salon posted in full for free
because they felt the message was "so important". |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34350 Activity:high |
10/26 so i asked earlier what major media outlets have actually
endorsed bush this time around, besides the washington times
and ny post. I was accidentally watching oreilly last night
and he was touching on this topic too, and said that
the LA Times and NY Times had shockingly endorsed kerry but
that it really didn't matter since no one reads the
NY Times. Then I decided ilyas needs to rape oreilly with
a falafel. - danh
\_ Too squishy. -- ilyas
\_ Out of curiosity, dan, any liberal figures you think need
to be raped with a falafel? -- ilyas
\_ probably that coombs guy just for making everyone look
bad - danh
\_ Who?
\_ I've been watching H&C since they started. I've decided
Coombs is actually a really smart guy and is a real liberal
but he's also honest and has a good heart so he can't force
himself to spit out ridiculous DNC talking points like
Hannity does for the RNC. I think he's a good, smart and
honest man.
\_ I would agree with you, but if he were so good and
smart he would quit or get someone combative enough
to counteract hannity, or quit in disgust. - danh
\_ Most people have bills to pay. It's just a job, not
a religion. I think that's the difference between
him and, well, I won't slam anyone. I like Coombs
even though I disagree with 99% of what he says.
\_ Maybe Andrew Cockburn. Naomi Klein also comes to mind. That guy
on crossfire, too, for being such a shill. !danh
\_ I think the guy on crossfire just plays a liberal on TV.
-- ilyas
\_ Ilya: Why do you hate liberals?
\_ Why do you say 'Why do you hate liberals?'? -- ilyas
\_ My suspicion that ilyas is actually an eliza program
have been confirmed.
\_ Tell me about yermom. -- ilyas
\_ Poor ilyas can never tell when he's being baited.
\_ This is probably related to having no sense of humor.
\_ The LA Times hasn't endorsed any candidate (yet). They have not
since 1972, but there is discussion about doing it this year.
If he were an honest critic, he would mention the Post endorsement.
Maybe he did.
\_ Big shock, the LAT is going to endorse Bush!
\_ Big shock, the Washington Post and the New Republic both
endorsed Kerry!
\_ Andrew Sullivan also endorsed Kerry.
\_ Big shock!
\_ Apparently you know nothing about Sully.
\_ That he puts his sex politics above all else?
Nothing new there. |
| 2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34337 Activity:low |
10/25 The New Yorker magazine endorses a presidential candidate for the
first time in its 80-year history. Who? George W. Bush! Not!
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors
"As a variety of memoirs and journalistic accounts have made plain,
Bush seldom entertains contrary opinion. He boasts that he listens to
no outside advisers, and inside advisers who dare to express unwelcome
views are met with anger or disdain. He lives and works within a
self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation. Nowhere has his
solipsism been more damaging than in the case of Iraq. The arguments
and warnings of analysts in the State Department, in the Central
Intelligence Agency, in the uniformed military services, and in the
chanceries of sympathetic foreign governments had no more effect than
the chants of millions of marchers."
\_ has any major media outlet endorsed bush except
the new york post and the washington times?
\_ I was stunned that The New Yorker would would endorse Kerry.
Stunned, I tell you. And I was so sure that they were pro-Bush too.
\_ The American Conservative magazine endorses Kerry:
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
"Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing
president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office
will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations."
\_ which part of "major media outlet" did you not understand?
\_ you funny guy! that comment posted OUTSIDE this thread,
and AFTERWARDS. Americans so fucking illiterate!
\_ Right. This is a mucher stronger endorsement. I would lead
with this and mention The New Yorker in an OBTW.
\_ The take-home message is that Dubya is perceived to be so
bad (IMO, he is that bad) that sources that have
traditionally sat it out or endorsed the Republican are
endorsing Kerry or not endorsing any candidate.
\_ Now, if only we can get David Duke or some other Klan guy
to endorse Kerry because Bush has behaved like the caricature
of a racist... |
| 2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34330 Activity:high |
10/25 Can this be? Will Bush really win again? I hope that http://CNN.com poll is not accurate of the american public's true opinion.. \_ The poll results are diverging; there's too much noise in the system. -tom \_ What is your source for diverging polls? Try this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com http://www.realclearpolitics.com \_ http://pollingreport.com but they have the same data. Try plotting the polls against each other; they were much closer to converged in August and September. -tom \_ http://pollingreport2.com/#bars http://csua.org/u/9n5 (Post graphic) CNN uses Gallup. Zogby said Gallup sucks. \_ "My competitor sucks! Buy my product instead!" \_ http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/050971.php "While being diplomatic, Zogby basically said Gallup's numbers are junk. They use different methodologies but Gallup's variations from poll to poll are too big to be creditable. In Zogby's polling Kerry and Bush both bounce between 44 an 48, and haven't deviated from that range." blah, blah, you can read the rest. \_ Translation, "Buy my election reports! I can only make real money every 4 years with a small bonus lump during mid-terms!" \_ You're supposed to also check both URLs to see how Gallup compares to other polls. The Post also has Kerry over Dubya today by 1% (yes, statistical tie, but the trend is up). IMO, Zogby is trying to make an honest analysis of why the other guy sucks - but the only vindication will come the day after the election (and it would be really funny if the numbers came out exactly half-way between Zogby and Gallup). \_ So? Zogby has Bush up 48%-45%. The 3% spread is within the MOE, but it's still hardly cheery news. \_ Zogby's poll has 6% Unsure, and that number has consistently been in the 6% to 9% range since July. That is very odd, since almost every other poll has the unsure number in the 1% to 3% range. \_ Traditionally you get the Not Sure number down by nagging the respondent for an answer "which way do you lean" until they break down. This suggests that Zogby's people didn't nag that hard. \_ It's a possibility/nightmare. My big hope is that the huge turnout combined with cell phone only young crowd will prove the pollsters wrong. \_ Sheesh, you guys put up a hugh douchebag as your canidate, and then you're surprised when he has a hard time beating the opposing idiot? \_ Can you coherently explain why Kerry is a douchebag? Or are you just a right wing troll trying to assuage your unease by tossing around ad hominem nonsense? If you can explain coherently, then please -- I'd welcome the post. \_ Dubya has never lost a debate! (until this year) \_ They are both douchebags. Don't kid yourself. \_ That's my point. When you're whole campaign is "Don't vote for that douchebag, vote for THIS douchebag!" Don't be surprised when it's hard to get a majority of the vote. \_ obhttp://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com \_ Don't let the wrong lizard get elected. \_ The poll numbers are way off. They don't take into account a sizable number of people who vote for Democrats every election but don't have land lines: dead people. \_ Do you have any evidence at all for this endlessly repeated assertion, other than the Cook County, Illinois allegations from 1960? \_ What happened in Cook County, Illinois in 1960? \_ There was some evidence that Richard Daley's machine was using the names of dead people in Cook County to cast votes for John F. Kennedy. Nixon decided not to pursue it, perhaps because he thought that even if a lot of votes were invalidated, he still would have lost. \_ JFK would have won even without Illinois. \_ And the battleground states in this election don't have dead people. So even if the dead do determine the winner in IL, it still won't matter. Right. \_ Wow. You never responded to my question. You have absolutely no evidence of any of this, do you? You need to stop blathering. \_ I'm not the original Cook County poster. I'm merely questioning the logic of the poster that implied that dead people voting in this election is immaterial since the dead votes didn't affect the outcome of the 1960 election. -pp \_ Of course you have no evidence of dead people voting in this election either. So you are either paranoid, or just making shit up. Or both. \_ You do realize that claiming that there is no evidence of a huge turn-out amongst the dead in this election (what you just claimed) is quite different than claiming that a turn-out by the dead would be irrelevant (which is what a poster tried to imply earlier). I have no problem with the no evidence claim, especially since I'm not the dead-voter guy to start with. I do have a problem with the irrelevant claim, since I am somewhat fond of logic. \_ You cannot make that claim until *after* the election is over. I think that one side or the other will win pretty handily. |
| 2004/10/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34314 Activity:kinda low |
10/24 Washington Post endorses John Kerry for President.
\_ annnnnd... so?
\_ Duh! |
| 2004/10/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34303 Activity:moderate |
10/22 Sinclair Bends Over For Kerry
i.e. boycott threat worked:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1254113/posts
\_ Haha, how do you like it boys? c.f. "The Reagans."
\_ The Reagans was full of made up crap chock full of scenes the
writers couldn't possibly have witnesses to such as Ron and
Nancy discussing AIDS in America tucked in at night. Sinclair
has video of people who were in Vietnam telling their own
stories. If you can't see the difference between the two there's
no point in discussing it with you. As far as how do I like it?
I don't care either way. I downloaded the video out of curiosity
but haven't viewed it.
\_ So... you didn't inhale?
\_ Yea... real funny. Depriving war heroes, who an average lost
4 years of their lives as POWs defending you, from telling
their story. What a victory. |
| 2004/10/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34295 Activity:high |
10/22 Diversity, tolerance, and all that good liberal vibe in LA.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
\_ This pretty much matches my expectations.
\_ Actually, this matches the soda experience pretty well also.
\_ I thought the article was rather funny and well-written, but as
far as the social phenomenon it's not really fair. Ignoring the
strong geography aspect (people in California are either democratic,
apathetic, or too rich to care; things might be different in Texas)
I think the scorn for Bush/Cheney is appropriate-- these men have
proven themselves to be whatever people see them as, while Kerry
remains a wildcard. You can't hate a man for thinking he can do
better, but you can hate a man for needlessly taking your country
to war. See the difference?
\_ Right. Thanks for the confirmation.
\_ Right. Thanks for the confirmation.
\_ Presuming you're op: being angry with people for proven
reasons is not an indication that liberals are hypocrites,
or whatever it is you're trying to imply.
\_ Just a bit sensitive, aren't you?
\_ Only my nipples. Or were you not being sarcastic?
\_ So a guy wore a Bush/Cheney t-shirt in a liberal area, and
the worst thing that happened was a couple of people muttered
"asshole" under their breath? "Help Help I'm being oppressed!"
\_ Compare that to people attacked and beaten for being
Kerry supporters in Texas.
\_ Link please?
\_ If this is true, fucking Nazi bastards. They should
go live under Hitler, Hussein, or some such.
\_ And if it isn't? And if there are Republicans
out there getting attacked and beaten is that ok?
\_ I've been looking, but I can't find anything from the
news on this. All I found was a blog report where
some Bush supporters were assulted at a Kerry rally in
Milwaukee. Which I take with a grain of salt...
http://disjointed.org/archives/001032.html
\_ Kerry supporters are all peaceful victims. Bush
supporters are all evil and we can't trust them not
to lie about this. Not even that woman at the (R)
campaign office that got her wrist broken by some
piece of shit union thugs.
\_ Link?
\_
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=70201
What happened to that guy who was claiming a
month or so ago that only the American right
wing has a history of violence, and the left
wing is never violent?
\_ This always amuses me; the notion that because
people ascribe to one philosophy or another that
it somehow magically makes all its devotees
special and somehow superhuman. They always
seem to ignore that these are aspects of basic
human nature, and in any large enough group,
there will ALWAYS be vile, violent and unethical
people...and that this doesn't necessarily
reflect anything on the philosophy or group
(obExceptBlatantlyEvilGroupsLikeNazisOrSlavers). |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34277 Activity:high |
10/21 Kerry took the opportunity to attack Bush, making references to
Bon Jovi songs. "John actually has two songs about the
administration's policies. He didn't know it, but he wrote a song
called Bad Medicine' that's about their health care plan. And he
wrote a song about their economic plan it's called Living on a
Prayer.'"
\_ Kerry is funny, he should be a commedian!
\_ Yea, Kerry's great idea - turn the medical industry into
the DMV.
\_ This is such ripe bullshit that farmers in Wisconsin would like
to talk to you about buying up your stock to ferment their
fields.
\_ Why is there such hatred about government sponsered medicare
program? I live in Santa Clara and all the government provided
service is miles ahead than what I can get if I hire private
contractor and pay shit loads of money. This including sewage
cleaning, tree trimming, etc, everything! What do I do now? I
now checks to see if the city provides the kind of service I
am looking for, if not, then I go out and get private contractors.
Remember the key difference, private contractors are there to suck
your money, governments are there to provide you a service. Don't
believe all the shit that's coming out of Bush/Cheney's mouth.
The current administration is what you get if you try to run
the government like a money greedy blood sucking corporation.
\_ So you'd rather want the medical industry be like Hilberton (or
whatever the fuck Cheney's company is called)? Where the only
answer is money? You want to live? Give me all your money? |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34272 Activity:very high |
10/21 This is just sooooo wrong:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641817.shtml
Kerry hunting to get rednecks to vote for him is like GWB
playing classical piano to get snobby liberals to vote for him.
\_ He's been a hunter all his life. Get off it.
\_ Nonsense. He only hunts in election years. Stop drinking it.
\_ Link for this?
\_ He is anti-gun to the core. Here's a Kerry quote on Deer
hunting:
"I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl
around on my stomach I track and move and decoy and play
games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of
play the wind. That's hunting!" What a twit.
\_ 12-gauge shotguns are legal.
\_ Please. Give me a quote from GWB that makes him sound like
a real hunter. And stop shotgunning Bud. It's not helping.
\_ I don't recall GWB ever claiming to be a hunter. |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34270 Activity:high |
10/21 http://csua.org/u/9l8 (Yahoo!) Laura Bush proves herself not to be a cog in the Dubya machine: "She [Teresa Heinz-Kerry] apologized but she didn't even really need to apologize," Mrs. Bush told reporters at a coffee shop ... "I know how tough it is and actually I know those trick questions." \_ NOO!!!!1!! MUST MAKE PARTISAN ISSUE OUT OF THIS!!!! YELLING AND SCREAMING IS THE STANDARD!!!1!!! MARY CHENEY!!!1!!! BUD DAY!!!!!!1 \_ In other news, expect no apology from Karen Hughes. \_ A cog is the Dubya machine? It was the most mild rebuke of the most clownishly stupid woman to ever set foot on a political stage. This must be a troll. Please tell me you don't really believe what you're saying. \_ Who are you talking about? |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34261 Activity:high |
10/21 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp Pretty interesting analysis of Kerry and Bush with regard to Iraq, and how it is the single most important issue. \_ NYT analysis? Is this anything more than a "Vote Kerry!" piece? \_ RIGHT ON BROTHER! SWITCH OFF THE NYTIMES AND SWITCH ON FOX NEWS!!!11!! \_ NYT on a good jobs report, "BONDS DROP ON JOBS REPORT!" \_ AP on a 3 point Kerry lead today: "Race tied." Reuters on a 1 point Bush lead, different poll for same time period: "Bush with narrow lead." What liberal media? \_ Reuters doesn't appreciate margins of error. \_ "The big question about Kerry is, 'Will he pull the trigger?' ... And the big question about Bush is, 'Can he aim?'" |
| 2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34257 Activity:nil |
10/20 Kerry, from 1994, clarifies what constitutes a "global test"
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/KerryBalkans01.wmv |
| 2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34253 Activity:very high |
10/20 Just read that Theresa Heinz Kerry was born in Mozambique.
Will this be the first time a first lady will have not have
been born in the US?
\_ Damn subversive Mozambicans trying to control the gubmint.
\_ Louisa Adams was born in England.
\_ Oh that's the same. Maybe it's not a "real" country
\_ maybe Kerry will be the Mozambiquian Candidate.
\_ I just read that John Kerry speaks fluent French. Is this the
first time we have a presidential candidate who can speak French?
\_ Maybe in the last 50 years, but no.
\_ Is it the first time we've had a candidate who "looks French"?
\_ He's a Czech Jew, you moron. Stop being a hater long enough
to get your slurs right.
\_ I think your sarcasm meter is broken.
\_ Vote for me! I'll be the first president to speak fluent
Korean! I bet that'll bring NK to the table. -jrleek
\_ Does sky speak Korean?
\_ Just certain words.
\_ Kerry's not going to win, so your question is moot.
\_ there had to be someone to say this.
\_ yes, motd, fair and balanced.
\_ I know that the first three or four first ladies were not
born in the United States. |
| 2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34251 Activity:very high |
10/20 The snobbery of the elite liberals continues:
http://csua.org/u/9km
\_ I wonder what kind of ketchup they serve in the White House?
\_ Maybe W ketchup. Supposedly bush supporters put out their
own brand of ketchup because "You don't support Kerry, why
should your ketchup". I mangled that, but it was something
similar.
\_ *shrug* It's not like the left side of the theater has a monopoly
on elite snobbery.
\_ It's sounds to me more like Mrs. Heinz-Kerry has never had what
I would define as "a real job."
\_ What are you talking about?
\_ A woman worth $1 billion that she inherited should not
be talking about who has or has not had a "real job".
\_ Are you saying she does not have a real job?
\_ Yes, and never has.
\_ Have you done any research into her previous job
history?
\_ I am sure she worked at Wendy's and did
tricks to come up with the last $100 of rent
money. She's basically a billionaire
philanthropist. She's never had to work.
\_ I take that as a no. Please stop talking
out of your ass next time.
\_ I think this is particularly ironic,
considering Teresa Heinz later apologized
for not knowing Laura Bush worked as a
librarian and a teacher.
\_ There is no irony. I'm the same person
who posted that fact at the bottom
of the thread, and the same person
who's been responding to you.
\_ Oddly enough, I'm not "you" nor any
of the other posters on this sub-
thread.
\_ Too bad it doesn't change my point.
\_ I was merely pointing out an
incorrect assumption on your
part.
\_ Like, duh!
\_ Hey, even I knew that, and I don't
pay attention to this kind of stuff
and don't care. -- ilyas
\_ Not sure what Teresa Heinz's job history may be, but she is
snobbish and a bitch. So says my brother, who know the Heinzes
and roomed with Chris Heinz in college. I think most people
will say that the W's make better house guests and dinner
companions, but I don't know what relevance that has to the
election.
\_ Instead of "snobbish and a bitch", how about: knows what
she feels and will tell you honestly about it instead of
backstabbing with gossip?
\_ I don't imagine that my brother has been backstabbed
by her. I do know that he has been snubbed by her for
not being worthy. Perhaps you've had a different
experience with her. Care to share?
\_ No, I do not have any second-hand experiences from
a brother to relate. I do trust these interviews, where
her personality leaks out, more than what your brother
says, obviously.
\_ You'll understand that I trust my brother's personal
experiences more than what I can infer from some
staged and prepped interviews.
\_ Sure, you can believe your brother, since it's
your right to believe what you want to believe.
\_ I'm glad you approve. And I'll be happy to
extend to you the same privilege of believing
whatever you want to believe.
\_ It's an inherent right. No one is extending
anyone anything. Duh.
\_ As you wish. I'll go back to watching
interviews to see if I can infer more
about my politicians from them.
\_ Note I did not posit any request to
you for you to say "as you wish".
I would urge you to evalute interviews
on a case by case basis as well,
instead of implying that they're
all less useful than stories from
your older brother.
\_ Let me see... On one hand, I have
my brother, who roomed with Chris
freshman year, still exchanges
occasional emails with him, and
has met Teresa several times over
the course of a year of living
with her son. On the other hand,
I can study Teresa under the
artificial condition of a staged
interview, where she was no doubt
on guard to try to present a good
image of herself, and where she
was likely prepped by handlers
on how to answer the interview
questions and on how to conduct
herself. Tough choice.
\_ I don't believe we are
covering any new ground.
I've said my piece, you've
said yours.
said yours. If we were on
O'Reilly, this is where he'd
say, "Now we let the viewers
decide".
\_ Tell you what... I'll ask
Chris if his mom is a snob
when I see him at my bro's
wedding next spring. Would
that be a definitive enough
answer for you? Or will
you still cling to your
interview inferences?
\_ Probably won't help, but
thanks. I think what
could help more are highly
descriptive stories
(rather than just the
concluding label of "snob"
or "bitch") from which
people can make their own
judgments.
\_ I'll just note that
it's interesting to
see how your position
has shifted over the
length of this thread.
\_ Please state in
one sentence what
has shifted.
Please think about
this sentence
carefully before
you post. Thanks.
\_ Nope, I can't do
it in one
sentence. Why
this silly
requirement?
\_ instead of "snubbed by her for not being worthy", how
about: she didn't want to hang out with your brother
but wanted to hang out with someone else instead?
\_ Oh you were there too! That must have been a
crowded dorm room.
\_ Clearly I am suggesting a reasonable alternative
to your brother's interpretation of what
happened; and clearly everyone understands that
your brother was there and I was not; and clearly
everyone *should* understand there is weight in
both positions.
\_ Alex Kerry (John's daughter) doesn't like her either.
\_ John Kerry married an ice-queen! He's clearly unfit to be
commander in chief!
\_ I don't know that the nicest and most friendly people
also make the best presidents. However, attempts to
buff up Teresa Heinz's character clearly implies that
some people do think so.
\_ She's a South African Republican bitch. The fact
that she and Kerry have a lot in common
(apparently) is scary and worth noting.
\_ I thought we had gotten beyond denigrating people for
where they came from.
\_ The conservative spin machine goes into overdrive. Determining
there is an insult where there is not: "Well, you know, I don't
know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in
her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real
job -- I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her
validation comes from important things, but different things. I'm
older, and my validation of what I do is a little bit bigger --
because I'm older, and I've had different experiences."
\_ Actually it's just annoying because she's stupid. I never
thought it was an insult, but I usually figure that you
should keep your yap shut if you don't know what you're
talking about.
\_ But apparently you think it's ok to be president of the
United States if you don't know what you're talking about.
amazing.
\_ Did I say I was a Bush supporter? You're an idiot.
\_ "stupid"... from what do you gather this? "snobbery"...
from what do you gather that? I smell Limbaugher.
\_ To state that you don't know anything about someone
and then go on to postulate about what kind of jobs
they've held in the past is, well, stupid. The
assumptions she makes about said jobs is snobbish.
\_ You are really reading into this too much.
Bang!
You've just been spun by the conservative spin machine.
\_ Umm.. the quote is directly above this post.
Which part of is has been spun by the
"conservative spin machine?"
\_ *All* of the quote above. Taken in context, it
is not an attack on Laura Bush.
If you don't know what the "conservative spin
machine" is, recall "sensitive war on terror"
and Dubya having said the same thing.
\_ Wow, you have some reading problems don't
you. As I said above, I never thought it
was an insult, or an attack, on Laura
Bush. It's just stupid.
\_ Nah, I just think THK got used by the
Republican spin machine. I don't think
what she said was stupid.
\_ The AP is a conservative spin machine! Call out
the tin-foil corps!
\_ What she said makes sense to me.
She should realize that Republicans are evil when it comes
to taking quotes out of context.
It's not stupid not to realize this.
\_ Some people just seem to have a real skill for pedial-oral
insertion.
insertion. [ don't change this, make your own joke ]
\_ And the Bush folks miss the point:
'Karen Hughes, an adviser to President Bush, criticized Heinz
Kerry's remarks as "indicative of an unfortunate mind-set that
seeks to divide women based on who works at home and who works
outside the home."'
So even Karen Hughes seems to think that Laura Bush has always been
a stay-at-home mom.
\_ Republican - spin - machine.
I doubt Karen Hughes really thinks that.
On a note of fairness, Teresa Heinz-Kerry issued a press release
apologizing for not having known that Laura Bush was a
teacher and librarian. I doubt Heinz-Kerry didn't know that.
Democratic - unspin - machine.
\_ Which sounds more likely?:
THK knew Laura Bush's history and decided to talk smack about
it in the face of logic. -OR-
THK was uninformed but talked out her ass anyway
\_ I'm putting my money on the latter. THK is very proud
of her record as "opinionated" and "outspoken." In
other words, she proud of her ability to talk out her
***. |
| 2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34247 Activity:very high |
10/20 "I thought I'd miss my boyfriend when he went to Iraq.
How ironic that I got drafted and killed!" -Missie in Miami
http://www.enjoythedraft.com
\_ Boy, I'm glad I'm an ordained minister. To be honest, currently
you have a bunch of people who at least to some degree want to be
there, there. What happens when you get a bunch of angry fuckups
who don't want to be in the military decked out with all kinds
of nasty hardware, and royally pissed off about being sent to east
palookistan to inculate the friendly natives with concepts of
democracy? Great prospects. Add to that that every military guy
I've spoken to about this (several friends are/were mid-grade
officers) hates the idea of a bunch of untrained/untrainable losers
hanging around, breaking the equipment and using up what few spare
parts they have... -John
\_ Why are people worried about a fictional draft? Only Democrats have
tried to make it happen. Kerry actually supports compulsory service
if you want to go to college, etc.
\_ Cuz it's getting worse over there and we're running out of
bodies.
\_ One of the best recent moments in the campaign was the Bush
speech accusing Kerry of using "fear tactics," followed by a
Cheney speech the next day implying that a vote for Kerry would
result in terrorists nuking a city.
\_ Dubya has promised not to implement the draft.
Kerry, on the other hand, just might do it.
\_ Dubya has promised not to implement the draft. (The implication
being he won't let the situation get to this point, and perhaps
if we really did need people, he would appeal to his base's
patriotism to enlist in a time of need.)
Kerry, on the other hand, leaves it as an option.
\_ "read my lips..."
\_ Kerry has said explicitely that he wants to increase our
forces, especially special forces. He has also said he wants
to increase pay and work on getting our traditional allies to
give troop support. Bush has said he will not implement
a draft. He also has said that we have a strong coalition,
that Iraq is getting better, and that the troops are well
supplied. If we need a draft, we need a draft. I hope we
don't. But believing yet another lie is foolish. --scotsman
\_ George will institute a skills draft, but rename it to
something else, so he can claim to have kept his promise.
You heard it here first. -ausman
\_ Nah, a draft is a draft is a draft.
I don't see you sysadmins getting drafted.
\_ "We will not have an all volunteer army." -GWB
\_ Lots of cutesy photoshopping. Nothing but leftist partisanship here
\_ Why is satire so hard to grasp?
\_ Because people are tired of grasping the same thing over
and over and over and over and fucking over again.
\_ If you want to see blatant partisanship, fear tactics, and hate
mongering, check out the Issue 1 ballot measure race in Ohio.
\_ Well, if the purpose is to get me to never spend a dime of
my money in ohio, and to attempt to boycott products from
ohio, i guess it could work. we are on the road to civil
war. the tinder is there, all that is needed is the match.
\_ Oh, BS. You all act like the US has never seen
partisan politics before. Get a grip.
\_ Hehe, if one listens to the stereotypes, liberals will
not do so well in a civil war. They don't have guns,
for example. -- ilyas.
\_ I'm not particularly liberal (more apathetic) but I
think Bush & Co., not to put too fine a point on it,
are a pack of cocksmokers, and I have plenty of guns
(and ammo! W00t!) -John
\_ Hey John, can I buy those old sig assault rifles
in .ch still? They are nice. -- ilyas
\_ Use motdedit. Don't squish posts.
\_ Sorry--hard to check who's really editing motd
with so many goddamm motd archivers running.
Ilyas--yes, but only semi-auto. I'd rather
recommend a Karabiner 31--way more fun. And
I have no clue where you'll find GP11 ammo in
California. -John
\_ If bush wins, I've already said I'm buying an AK-47
and a pistol and training in their use. I've got
pretty good eye hand coordination, and I'm pretty
sure I can catch up with the fat ass republican
gun nuts in about a year.
\_ Not in CA you are not. -- ilyas
\_ Well, just keep listening to those stereotypes, ilyas.
\_ MISSILE GAP! MISSILE GAP!
\_ Yes, JFK campaigned on that bogus belief against the Republicans
back in 1960, when in reality the Soviets were far behind.
\_ Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!
\_ MEIN FUEHRER, I CAN VALK! -John
\_ My honorable shaft shall leave no gap in your mineshaft,
Marilyn. |
| 2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34246 Activity:high |
10/20 Fuck. Motd is boring. I'll kick it off: John Ashcroft = teh gay.
\_ Actually, this the highest S/N ratio motd in quite some time.
Are you saying a high S/N == boring?
\_ yermom makes lots of noise
\_ I'll take that as a yes.
\_ What else can it mean when yermom's noise is "Yes ... YES
... YEEEEESSSSS"?
\_ She's faking. Can't you tell?
\_ Really? But she's very wet. |
| 2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34245 Activity:high |
10/19 John Zogby breaks down the electorate. Very interesting regardless of
what "side" you're on, especially the bits about the "missing center."
http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/050971.php
\_ fantastic link! thanks. this is the stuff zogby is always trying
to get people to pay to read on his website.
\_ Good stuff. In the meantime, has stock in Pepcid and other
heartburn medicine companies seen an appreciable jump yet?
\_ Why do bloggers love the word "eponymous" so damn much? seriously
\_ Bloggers get no respect. They're using big words to try to sound
smarter.
\_ Interesting but to save others the trouble. This guy went to a
\_ Because so many blogs are named after their creators in some way?
Zogby speech and took notes. These are his notes about what Zogby
said interspersed with his own opinion. Here's his summary at the
end, "My thoughts: Zogby has an obvious personal bias to Democrats
but I take him at face value when he says his research is
impartial. His speculation that the race is Kerry's to lose didn't
convince me, but nor do I buy that it is Bush's to lose either. I
think the struggle for both candidates now is to go and win the
race. Otherwise his thoughts on the missing centre certainly make
sense and gel with my impressions of American politics (admittedly
from afar). The small amount of undecideds are the key
battleground, but I'm not sure they will break for Kerry in the
numbers Zogby expects, especially given the reluctance of many to
change Presidents during times of war. What is clear is unless the
margin is reasonable, which is unlikely, there's going to be one
hell of a mess."
\_ Thanks for overwriting my post, asshole.
\_ The key point for me was Zogby saying Gallup was crap. When
election time comes, we will see if this is true. |
| 2004/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34239 Activity:moderate |
10/19 Nice tactics - were these guys Union thugs?
Anti-Kerry Film Showing Canceled
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/101904_nw_stolenhonor.html
\_ Hey, I thought republicans were the violent ones, but no one
showed up to fight at F9/11!
\_ My grandparents used to live in Levittown. Great place to grow
your homophobic, mysogynist football jock kids, is all I'm
saying.
\_ you sound like a sissy metrosexual
\_ If you were from Levittown, you'd just call me a fag.
\_ You're John Kerry's butt boy --Tucker Carlson
\_ You're still a dick. --Jon Stewart |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34236 Activity:kinda low |
10/18 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135932,00.html Poll: Bush Lead Over Kerry Widens Kerry is fucked!!! You liberals can't godamn unite and defeat the evil one, and look what happens. -moderate against bush \_ WSJ's poll has them dead even among likely voters, and they actually publish their internals, unlike fox. Gallup is the only other that has the poll that wide. \_ So did Fox put up a banner saying "Call in and tell us who you're going to vote for"? \_ It has to do with the definition of "likely voter". Gallup has caught a lot of flack lately for weighting their likely voter sample much heavier to R's than the actual turnout numbers from the last few election cycles. Who knows how valid this is, but it certainly doesn't take into account the increases in D registration and massive D mobilization. \_ It's not the liberals, it's the American people who don't decide on political issues but on perceptions like gays, god, guns, and taxes. It is impossible to get past that among those people. \_ And abortion and stem cell research. \_ Don't get discouraged. This one is still tied going into the top of the 9th. |
| 2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34234 Activity:nil |
10/19 Fun quiz as of 5:45PM, match the following headlines with the
stations. Don't cheat boys and girls!
1 "Poll: Bush Lead Over Kerry Widens"
2 "Poll: Bush Hits 50 Percent. Bush Passes Critical Number But
First-Time voters Could Help Kerry"
3 "Bush Kerry Deadlocked"
4 "Bush Holds Narrow Lead In <station>Poll"
A MSNBC B Fox C CBS D ABC News
\_ Educated guess: 1 B, 2 D, 3 A
\_ NBC has em tied among likely voters.
\_ NBC/WSJ has em tied among likely voters. |
| 2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34233 Activity:nil |
10/19 John Edwards - Breck Girl
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100
\_ I'll run my fingers through the Breck Girl's hair any day. |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34219 Activity:moderate |
10/19 Drudge pwns himself again. Kerry excommunication story that he is
pushing turns out to be a hoax.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405749.htm
\_ Drudge reposts other people's links. How about you attack the
source instead of a link reposting service? |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34212 Activity:high |
10/19 re: party affiliation by socioeconomic indicators:
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...
unless they have too much education and vote Democratic,
which proves there can be too much of a good thing." -Karl Rove
\_ 'Cos there's only enough room at the top of the pyramid for seekrit
advisers and Texans!
\_ "When people think, Democrats win." -Bill Clinton
\_ But only if you put forward a viable candidate. Kerry is not.
Gore was not. The most important part of Kerry losing is the
Dems may figure out they need to join the mainstream of this
country so people like me can consider voting for them again.
\_ Exactly half the country disagrees with you. What can
you possibly mean by "mainstream?"
\_ This reminds me of a Fark headline: "Latest poll has Bush,
Kerry both at 49%. In other news, 49% of people are morons"
\_ Only 2% are undecided? How likely is that?
\_ Over 50% of Americans rate themselves as being above
average:
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
\_ The problem here is that Bush is a VERY weak
incumbant. Even most Republicans don't really like
him. It should have been an easy Dem victory. But
they put up king douchebag as a canidate, and they may
lose.
\_ I doubt Dean could have done better. California itself
voted > 60% for the defense of marriage act.
\_ Exactly. Thank you. I believe if Dean was the guy,
Bush would be -10 right now. If Gephardt or some
other more normal Dem were the guy, same thing. But
they put up this Kerry nobody with the idea not that
they like him but he's more moderate than Dean and
thus can beat Bush by suckering in the middle. Close
but no cigar. Bush is weak weak weak and is still
ahead. Put up a real candidate next time and you
might win. I don't like Bush but I hate Kerry. Guess
who I'm voting for? Guess how millions of others will
vote who think the same? Stop stuffing these pompous
jerks who have been planning to be President for their
entire lives who feel it is owed them and you'll win.
Kerry is a weak version of Gore who at least stood for
something before Clinton corrupted him. No over riding
legal authority indeed. |
| 2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34205 Activity:high |
10/18 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/opinion/18safire.html Safire: Stupidest NY Times op-ed columnist ever. \_ "Until that moment, only political junkies knew that a member of the Cheney family serving on the campaign staff was homosexual." When did Safire get replaced with a pod person, and why didn't Herb Caen tell us about it? \_ calling someone a lesbian is a horrible incident, when they happen to be out, and they head their father's efforts to appear non evil to gay people? that rules - danh \_ Andrew Sullivan has the best take on all the Mary Cheney nonsense. \_ Well, I admit what Sullivan says in nonsense. I looked it up just to read "the best take" and all I got was, "A couple of Republican crackpots did some gay baiting too, why isn't anyone complaing about that?" Umm... because there's a bit of a difference between a presidential canidate and some RNC flyers in some crackpot backwater? \_ If that's all you got out of it, you didn't really read any of his entries. \_ That's the one at the top of the page, I assumed it was the one you meant. \_ I'm not the guy who suggested Sullivan, but he probably meant this: http://www.electablog.com/2004/10/on-couch-with-mary-cheney.html \_ Well, it's still retarded, but at least it makes a little more sense. \_ My theory is still that Lynne Cheney's evilness is being spun into fake righteous outrage. Lots of people disagree with me, but I'm right. \_ Surest sign of this was that it was no big deal when John Edwards mentioned it - in fact, Dick Cheney thanked him for mentioning it. It only became "righteous outrage" when it happened in the presidential debate where Bush forgot that he said he wasn't concerned about Osama. \_ The original article covers that pretty well. \_ What happened to csuamotd/csuamotd. Did they just delete this account or did someone just change the passwd? \_ Try http://BugMeNot.com \_ It's kinda silly, she hasn't come out supporting gay marriage. Just because she's gay doesn't mean she does. Therefore, Kerry using her to push gay marriage is silly. \_ The debate question was about whether one believes homosexuality is a choice or not. Kerry said Dick Cheney's daughter Mary, if asked, would say that it was not a choice. The question was not about gay marriage per se. Stupid conservative/independent/libertarian/liberal/peon! Pay attention! \_ Oops, sorry. Does any know if Mary Cheney has ever made such a statement, or was Kerry just making that up? \_ Do you realize Kerry said Mary Cheney "would" say that if asked? See http://csua.org/u/9jk search for "daughter". Kerry said that he believes that if you talk to a gay person, they will tell you it's not a choice. I urge you to find your nearest gay person and ask them what they think. \_ I know, but that's a sterotype. Maybe she thinks it is a choice. The Greeks sure did. \_ The Greeks had pretty different ideas about sexuality than we do. \_ kchang? psb? What do YOU think? \_ What do I think about the politics or lesbians? I think all political trolls should be offloaded to motd.troll so that /etc/motd.public could go back to what it used to be-- technical/social (foodP) forum. That is what I think. -kchang \_ motd was never used for foodPs... \_ Yeah, but who would want to archive a bunch of foodPs \_ One thing kchang and tom have in common is an uncanny ability to tell just what precisely IS a troll, and what is not. -- ilyas \_ one thing ilyas has is an uncanny ability to use sarcasm to make a point and then thinking that he's so smart. \_ Is this a troll? |
| 2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34193 Activity:nil |
10/18 So I registered to vote online two weeks ago, and just received my
form on Friday. It says I need to sign and return it. My question is
if I drop it off in the mail today, is it too late? Do I need to find
some place where they have voter registration and hand the form to
them? I am in foster city.
\_ No, it's not too late. You're registered in the system, but they
need your signature to activate it.
\_ I'm not so sure about that. The online fill-out-the-form, we
mail it to you system seems more like a service to me. Until
you sign it and mail it in, I don't think anything is done
with it. As to the time-line, iirc, voter registration just has
to be postmarked by the specified date, while absente-ballot
registration must be received by the specified date.
\_ Urk. Good call. According to the State, however, today is
the last day to register, so op will be in luck if he sends
in his card today. -pp
\_ Can't you cast a provisional ballot regardless of whether you
are registered?
\_ Yes. See the following URL and search for "Provisional":
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/hava_section_1.htm
\_ Called the Secretary of State's Office for you. They say your card
is good as long as it's post-marked by today (Monday, October 18).
\_ Thank you all! I've mailed it at the post office! |
| 2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34192 Activity:nil |
10/18 Vietnam Veteran sues anti-Kerry filmmaker for libel
http://csua.org/u/9j4 (yahoo! news)
Interesting. Aren't US libel cases almost impossible to win?
\_ Sheesh. Micheal Moore-like editing techniques make this guy
look bad.
\_ Yeah, I'm thinking he doesn't have much of a case. Unlike
UK law, libel in the US requires the accuser to prove deliberate
malicious intent. The "dog ate my homework" excuse is
essentially a valid defense.
\_ It has happened here and there but generally, yes. The 1st
amendment is generally interpreted as broadly as possible. |
| 2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34191 Activity:moderate |
10/18 Jesus this thing is gonna be close. Zogby has Bush and Kerry tied
at exactly 45%. Zogby tends to be far more accurate than Gallup.
Photo finish indeed.
http://csua.org/u/9j5
\_ They do? How'd Zogby do in the midterm elections? Zogby got
lucky in 2000. The others had stopped polling because it was
going to be a Bush blowout until the Dem's dropped their ancient
DUI garbage bomb a day before everyone voted. Zogby's
methodology is use blindly use the same percentages by party as
voted in 2000. This looks good on paper but is naive and ignores
all current events and worse ignores what people are actually
telling him about their own voting habits and intentions. He
trusts them to say who they'll vote for but not if they'll vote?
\_ I like that you defend Gallup's completely off-base result
by blaming it on the DUI issue. You really think that swung
the election over 8 points in one day? You're smoking crack.
By the way, Zogby got within one tenth of one percent in 1996
as well. As for Gallup, this is not a partisan thing, although
Moveon is trying to make it into one. There are serious problems
with Gallup's likely voter methodology - there are plenty of
statisticians concerned about it. Anyway, anyone who thinks this
race is anything other than tied is drinking serious Koolaid.
\_ BUSH LANDSLIDE IN CALIFORNIA!!!11!1 |
| 2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34189 Activity:nil |
10/18 Anti-Kerry spot for the "In the Face of Evil guys." I think it's
funny. http://vbuttons.com/ec/5629/index.php?em_id=1424386 |
| 2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34187 Activity:high |
10/18 According to http://taemag.com, Kerry is "supported by 10 Nobel prize winners, intellectuals, scientists, etc. These elitists live in ivory tower and are not your typical mainstream Americans. In another word, they are out of touch with reality." That is really cool! I've been elite all these years and didn't even know it. I feel good about myself thanks to the Republicans. \_ I think http://www.aei.org is a better site. But you are right, you, Carter and Arafat are kindred souls. \_ You've been a Nobel prize winner all these years? \_ What exactly do you have in common with any Nobel prize winners? \_ He's in Cal, like some Nobel prize winners. That's all. |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34186 Activity:very high |
10/17 A Bush debate bounce? WTF? http://www.pollingreport.com \_ I call it the Team America: World Police bounce. \_ so is it a pro-Bush movie? Trey Parker/Matt Stone pro-Bush? \_ I think I read that it's less anti-republican than anti-democrat. But niether Bush nor Kerry appear in the film. \_ I think both sides got bashed very fairly and accurately. The important difference is who can laugh at themselves or not. \_ Trey and Matt hate conservatives, but they REALLY hate liberals. The movie is pro-Bush. \_ Trey and Matt, like Vice magazine, are WAY past their sell-by date. Nihilism is so 2000. \_ Who do they like then? \_ Who cares? They don't. They just want to trivialize anyone who genuinely cares about anything (c.f. South Park episode about Mormons). They are aggressive nihilists. And yes, I guess I just don't "get it." \_ Trey and Matt are libertarian. \_ Trey and Matt are system-buckers. They like to get a rise, and modern liberals are easy to get a rise out of with a minimum of effort. It's easy to lampoon the Right, but it's hard to tell if the Right gets it sometimes. \_ All your election are belong to Rove. \_ All your electronic ballot are delivered to Rove by Diebold. |
| 2004/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34180 Activity:nil |
10/17 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6268250 Mainstream metropolitan newspapers endorse Kerry, back-country redneck middle American newspapers endorse Bush. \_ *LAUGH* Bait harder! |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34178 Activity:very high |
10/14 So I watched Outfoxed and thought it was really cool, until
the last bit of the film when it creditted http://moveon.org. Now
I know it's just another damned left wingnut propaganda film.
\_ I heard O'Reilly likes phone sex is this true?
\_ you are teh gay:w
\_ So, truth is entirely dependent on where it comes from?
\_ truth is closer when you have a non-biased party observing
and reporting. While Foxed is not Fair and Balanced, neither
is Outfoxed, which is supported by a biased party
\_ You are an idiot.
\_ well? are you going to explain why he's an idiot?
\_ he disagrees with the correct political thought. he
is an idiot.
\_ oh, come on. anyone who can actually watch
that entire documentary, and then just think
it's partisan because of something they saw
in the credits is living in a fucking cave.
the whole thread is probably just a troll
by someone who's bored and doesn't care
one way or the other, but you are still a moron.
\_ excellent documentary. It got me thinking about the shows
they broadcast and how they fit into the executives' agenda.
Take the show Cops for example. It repeatedly shows you that
blacks and hispanics are bad drug dealers. Look at their
kids show. Buffy. The OC. Whitie good. Minorities bad.
If you have more examples please respond to this thread. ok thx.
\_ Um. There is a reason there are a lot of blacks and hispanics
on Cops. Media bias, however, ain't it. -- ilyas
\_ There are more total numbers of white criminals than black
and hispanic criminals.
\_ In major urban areas - no.
\_ Yes and if you want to do the same analysis of other stations
you'll find similar results in regards to both racial profiling
in TV shows going back decades before Fox existed to today and
news reporting that fits into the executives agenda.
\_ Not that I'm defending Fox, but Buffy was on the WB. And what
about shows like Friends and Will and Grace? Those are supposed
to take place in NYC, yet there were no non-white major
characters. As a person-of-color, I find that far more offensive
than the OC (which is supposed to take place in the white part
of Orange County) or even Cops.
\_ there are no unbaised and neutral sources. all sources,
all reporting, all documentaries are biased. the
intelligent person understands this.
\_ You are correct insofar as no human being can be completely
without bias or opinion. However, it is the purpose of
journalism to report facts (also known as news). When all of
the relevant facts are provided, the general public can make
informed opinions about the matter. Calm and objective editing
is the key. Fox completely lacks this. Other news orgs simply
slip every once in a while. Cf. the documentary "Control Room,"
a rather objective look at Al Jazeera's coverage of the sack
of Baghdad.
\_ big evil corporation from Rupert Murdock and Sinclair support
Bush and broadcast anti-Kerry materials. Don't the Democrats
have friends in mass media?
\_ Sinclair owns roughly 1/4 of the stations. The other 3/4 are
anti-Bush & pro-Kerry. Watch the nightly news to see.
\_ You're full of shit. Give some examples of this bias. |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34175 Activity:very high |
10/14 http://electoral-vote.com shows that there are only a few Strong Kerry states while there are many many Strong Bush states. Kerry is doomed! 4 more years of Bush, 4 more years of doom! Wrong. 4 more years of freedom! _/ \_ 4 more years of freedom fries! -John \_ Uhm, yeah. If Kerry takes florida (which is a tie), he wins the election. You're either an idiot, a troll, or a right wingnut. \_ Uhm, yeah. If you've been watching the polls you would know that Florida has been polling more to the Bush side than the Kerry side as a rule. If Kerry takes Texas he wins the election! Don't bet your money on a single poll from an oddball source. Desire does not create reality. \_ You should do your homework, bub. It doesn't sound like you have. Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is going to win, but I doubt any prediction can reasonably be made at this point with any assurity. \_ I've been reading several poll sites on a daily basis for months, not just the hand chosen stuff at electoral-vote. If you'd like to educate me and demonstrate where I'm wrong and inaccurate, go right ahead. Until then your reply isn't useful. \_ Almost all of the polls have Ohio tied, for the last four weeks. If Kerry wins Ohio, he probably wins. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/oh_polls.html \_ Four more hurricanes! |
| 2004/10/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34165 Activity:nil |
10/15 Michael Moore made tons of money from his anti-Bush documentaries.
How much did he donate to the Kerry campaign? |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34154 Activity:nil |
10/15 Nader's former running-mate endorses Kerry:
http://csua.org/u/9hz [Indiancountry.com] |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34152 Activity:very high |
10/15 Most interesting "Doonesbury discovers URLs" yet:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
(Source URL for Dubya's hometown paper endorsing Kerry)
\_ Seriously, stop posting this crap. If you continue to
do this I'll change your links to porn sites.
\_ I find it kind of interesting. It's not blatantly offensive and
could lead to a nice little flamewar so why should you censor it?
-!op
\_ Fascinating piece on the responses the paper has received on this:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial40.htm
\_ We are on the road to civil war. If Bush wins this election,
I am buying an AK-47 and training in its use, and moving to
a low population-density state in anticipation of the coming
apocalypse.
\_ If you actually read all the letters they got, they ran at
least 4:1 in support.
\_ That's not fair! People who support Bush are much, much
less likely to possess the ability to write a letter. |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34150 Activity:nil |
10/15 http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/index.htm Strong support for Dubya and dislike of Kerry on this survey of servicemen and women and their families. Note the strength of support when the breakdown is given for the soldiers only (not including family members). \_ I applaud the strenght and resolve our armed forces have in implementing free market reforms in Iraq. Do they realize Paul Bremer thinks implementing a flat tax and reduction of tariffs are his main accomplishments in Iraq? - danh \_ Military personnel in a non-draft military tend to be Republican. They also tend to favor strong military action over diplomatic solutions and sanctions. Cf. military personnel support for Reagan over Carter. On the other hand, would someone please explain to me how a survey of 655 service personnel accurately reflects trends in a military that now has over 200 times that number on duty in Iraq? \_ If your complaint is that they also need a survey for boots on the ground folks in Iraq, then it's warranted. ... but, I don't see military higher-ups authorizing pansy election surveys while they're trying to fix Iraq. \_ I'm sorry, I just don't get the methodology that says that the opinions of 655 people translates into an accurate picture of all military personnel. How does this work? \_ Like any other poll, it's basic statistics. You may wish to consult the concepts of "sampling" and "margin of error." This is how any poll works. That said, selecting a representative sample is very difficult, and lots of polling organizations get it wrong - even good ones. c.f. Gallup's accuracy issues of late. \_ Right, so I read up on Annenberg's methodology and the basic stats page below. My question then is how accurately this reflects the views of the boots on the ground, whether the same results hold true for reservists currently on duty, and what questions were asked, since the specific wording of the questions could influence the results. Kudos to the motd for helping me to get a grip on this. \_ Note your points were already brought up ... three replies before your post. \_ How do polls of non-military citizens of 600-1200 meaningfully represent *millions* of people in a state if you're unwilling to allow the same 600+ to represent ~130k? \_ Sorry, not trying to be a troll, but genuinely curious. How does this actually work? \_ You may find this link helpful. And oh yeah, obGoogle. http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040607a.asp \_ thank you! \_ Is this the part where we're supposed to call them stupid and uneducated and braindwashed? \_ This is the part where we talk about yermom. |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics] UID:34126 Activity:nil |
10/14 I see lots of post-debate links below. Rather than respond to
each one since they all say pretty much the same thing and the
posters following add nothing new, here's my take: whoever you
were already voting for is who won for you. Nothing significant
happened. Fox is still slanted right. The other news channels
are still slanted left. Life goes on.
\_ Watch CNN or MSNBC lately? They're all Fox-lite now.
\_ Mr. Obvious but questionably accurate statement man, you also have
added nothing new. |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34118 Activity:high |
10/13 CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.html "Early poll: Kerry clear winner in debate" CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/13/opinion/polls/main649227.shtml "Uncommitted voters pick Kerry" Fox: "Three's a Charm, Bush campaign suggests the president put in his best debate performance yet" ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=163784 "Last Presidential Debate Is a Draw" Summary: CNN/CBS say that Kerry won. Fox and ABC say it's a tie. We expected Fox to deny any Bush defeat, but what about ABC? Is it yet another subsidiary of Sinclair? Or is it yet another Fox alike, co-owned and run by Bush friend/family? \_ eh, I watched it, IMO, Kerry won. \_ eh, I watched it, IMO, Bush won. \_ Fox is aligned with the Bush Corporation. ABC is owned by Disney. Traditional family value, conservative. We all know Kerry won, but these news broadcast corporations can say whatever they want and change how voters vote. \_ Traditional family values like homosexuality? \_ We all know Kerry won? Kerry looked stiff as a board and did not pass the living-room test. \_ ABC's poll had 38% Republicans, 30% Democrats. Democrats said Kerry won, 81% to 5%, Republicans said Bush won, 72% to 12%, independents said Kerry won. So really, ABC's poll says Kerry won, it just was skewed by their sample population. -tom \_ CNN said this was the first debate where they had as many Democrats watching as Republicans. Previously the people they talked to broke down as the ABC poll. I do agree with the suggestion that independents gave it to Kerry in all three debates. \_ I got calls from two Kerry-supporting friends within minutes of the end of the debate, and they both said Kerry won and Bush acted the fool. A blog post by another friend, a Bush-supporter called it a big victory for Bush. Another blogger friend, an Anyone-But-Bush fanatic, wrote that it was a slamdunk for Kerry. It sounds to me like no one's convincing the faithful one way or the other. |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34115 Activity:nil |
10/13 Why Kerry likes to talk about his double-barreled shotgun and doesn't
criticize non-passage of the assault weapons ban that much:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31118-2004Oct13.html
\- gee, if that is the most liberal member of the senate, i suppose
it means ted kennedy is a bow hunter. --psb |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:34114 Activity:very high |
10/13 http://cbsnews.com - "But on one point, Kerry was disgraceful, and that is too weak a word. His mention of Cheney's daughter was gratuitous and heinous. I agree completely with Mrs. Cheney, who said tonight, 'This is not a good man. This is coming from a mom. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.'" Momma is wrong. Kerry told it like it was. The vast majority of gay men and women are born that way. It is not a matter of choice. Sorry. This needs to be said more often by a leading American presidential candidate. I also happen to remember now that I had lost all respect for Mrs. Cheney in her comments about the "sensitive war on terror". It's not Kerry who is evil - it's Mrs. Cheney. \_ You're missing the point. There was no need to bring up the VP's daughter's sexuality to say what he believed about sexuality. It was a weak attempt to split the conservative vote by reminding them Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Everyone groaned because they say it for what it was and it wasn't good no matter how you want to spin it. But Kerry did something far worse which will hurt him with women everywhere. I knew his last answer was bad but the women in the room dropped their jaws. Kitty Dukakis anyone? \_ No, YOU'RE missing the point. You and Mrs. Cheney see something where there isn't. The truth is that being gay or lesbian in the vast majority of cases is not a choice. If this splits the conservative vote because their brains are so small that they'll not turn out to vote because Cheney's daughter is lesbian, then that's their problem. They'd already know this fact if they watched the VP debate, anyway. \_ Being gay or lesbian IS a choice, dumbass. What are you going to claim next, that abstinence isn't a choice, that being a liberal or conservative isn't a choice, that committing suicide isn't a choice? There isn't anything physical that makes you gay or straight. Some people are gay and end up being bi, some are straight and end up being gay. Just because you have a sexual preference doesn't mean somehow you're branded with it. Certainly some of us have a strong reaction towards something, but making sexual orientation sound like it's a physical attribute is just plain wrong. Unless you want to get into a big debate about the concept of free will, then you cannot simply posit that sexual preference is not a choice. \_ (a) There are genetic gays. Some animals are born gay. Did they choose it? (b) I don't think my heterosexuality is a choice in a sense that I don't think I can wake up one day and decide to be gay, and have it be anything more than massive self-delusion. -- ilyas \_ Come on ilyas. You know those big gay pandas are just lying to themselves. We need to bring them in with the LORD! \_ You're simply wrong on this, and it's unlikely that your mind will be changed until you talk about it with someone close to you who is gay. I hope you will be willing to listen. \_ The emerging scientific (and public) concensus is that homosexuality is largely genetic. Obviously choosing to engage in gay sex is a choice, but since most people's attraction to the opposite sex seems ingrained, how can you say attraction to the same sex is not also ingrained? \_ Wow. You *really* need to get out and meet some new kinds of people. \_ Out of curiosity, do you belong to a church that teaches that gays are going to hell? \- the "armies of compassion" have been dispatched to come get you. \_ I don't think that this statement of yours is a proven fact. \_ a big part of the Gay Agenda is to convince heterosexuals that \_ a big part of the Big Gay Agenda is to convince heterosexuals that they are gay so they can have sex with them. \_ Proven schientifically! \_ at least my gay friends tell "warn" me about it \_ Hope your gay friends are more comprehensible than you. \_ grammar are teh gay! |
| 2004/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34113 Activity:high |
10/13 Guess the Kerry strategy of giving Dubya everything just to get
three (not two) debates was the correct one. The hilarious part was
that Dubya was playing hard to get on the town hall debate, when
that was the one that he was clearly going to do best in - especially
with the rule about no back-and-forth with audience members.
Even when Dubya was complimenting his wife on speaking much more
understandably than he could, I got the feeling he was acknowledging
not meeting the high expectations of his supporters on the debates
more than showing humility.
\_ Right... Kerry, the candidate who "married up", can instantly
spot those who make "200,000 or more", wants to effectively
turn health care into the DMV, views terrorists as a
"nuisance", wants to give nukes to Iran, and subjects his
foreign policy to a "global test". It would be a funny
joke if this guy wasn't actually a presidential candidate.
\_ No, no partisan distortion field here. Nopenopenope.
\_ do you get all of your talking points straight from Rove
or something? even the hacks at NBC news called Bush out
for misrepresenting the Kerry "nuisance" quote, but at
least Bush wasn't just plain lying like he did when he
claimed he has never said he wasn't particularly concerned
about Bin Laden post-9/11 |
| 2004/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34111 Activity:very high |
10/13 As of 10/13, 8:45PM, Kerry seems to be leading the polls
with the exception of http://freerepublic.com, a republican dominant
troll site with a lot of Bush fanatics (Kerry, Bush):
http://cbsnews.com 84.79%
http://cnn.com (no longer available for some reason)
http://foxnews.com 63%, 36%
http://latimes.com 96.7%
http://msnbc.com 74%, 26%
http://freerepublic.com 2%, 72% (republican site)
\_ You need to be registered to vote on http://freerepublic.com.
Frankly, I'm too scared to register.
\_ As I repeat for the third time, "thanks" goes to the DNC e-mail
spam. If you're on the e-mail list, it tells you go go vote online
among other things.
spam. If you're on the e-mail list, it tells you to go vote online
among other things. After the embarrassment that was the first
debate, Democrats got really enthusiastic about online voting.
\_ Same thing happens on the RNC email list.
\_ Calling freerepublic a "republican site" is a little misleading.
It's a site for wingnuts like the guy who in an earlier motd post
referred to the republicans as being too socialist.
\_ Only in Bay Area does espousing the political beliefs of the
Founders earn classification as a "wingnut".
\_ Only in your diseased mind does freeper frothing reflect
the political beliefs of the Founders.
\_ You know, I find it amazing how frequently freerepublic
shows up as a dead horse to be kicked on the motd. Truly,
have you no better things to do than kick them over and
over again to make yourself feel better? I don't kick
Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh I just ignore them.
On an unrelated note, I love how when meyers et al bitch and
moan about how the republican congress is protectionist,
and spendy, and passing pork bills, that's considered
legidimate criticism. While at the same time
if some freeper calls them socialist (they are probably
complaining about the same things) he is a wingnut.
You people are amazing. -- ilyas
\- does anybody remember who used to keep saying
"the pentagon (procurement) is the last bastion of
stalinism?" --psb |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34109 Activity:nil |
10/13 Kerry loves saying "the president didn't answer the question",
which pisses Bush off every time. Great country! |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34108 Activity:nil |
10/13 KERRY AND BUSH BOTH ARE TWO SIDES OF THAE FACE OF SATAN TO DESTROY
WORLD ECONOMY!
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=67&contentid=1285 |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34102 Activity:nil 52%like:34080 |
10/13 Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
http://csua.org/u/9gq
Will the media investigate? Form 180?
\_ let's think about this. kerry was in the service until
1972 i believe? the link you post, from our friends
at the NY Sun, says the board of officers met in 1978.
what the hell were they doing for 6 years? - danh
\_ Carter's first executive order in office was to pardon
all questionable discharges (deserter, etc.). As you
might imagine this created quite a political uproar.
The other possibility is he transitioned through the
Inactive Reserves.
\_ Horse. Dead. Please spare the horses! |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34100 Activity:very high |
10.13 Why doesn't Kerry listen to scientists?
368 Economists Including Nobel laureates against Kerry
economic plan
http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp
\_ please point out one goddamn economist who is in favor
of proposed bush economic policies, and for bonus points
name one that didn't appear in a matthew broderick movie - danh
\_ I don't watch many movies, most of them are worthless,
so your reference is lost on me.
\_ What do these laureates propose as an alternative? If they
think what Bush is doing is good (bankrupting the government)
then we don't need to pay attention to them. This article sounds
like a Bush stump speech. Do these laureates know that Bush has
proposed $3 trillion worth of new spending (even more than Kerry)?
\_ that's not $3 trillion of "new spending", it's a $3 million
bottom-line figure, most of it from tax cuts -> reduced govt
income from taxes, and the $3 million is "as much as", I wouldn't
say "over" as Krugman does.
\_ "Bush-Cheney '04 today announced...."
What, PRNewsWire was busy?
The actual letter:
http://csua.org/u/9gs (NRO)
\_ Why should anyone listen to scientists unless they are
discussing their field of expertise? Scientists are usually out
of touch with reality. I work with a lot of scientists and they
are just one class of smart people. Why not listen to doctors,
generals, businessmen, or anyone else? A Nobel prize does not
mean they know crap about anything outside of their field.
\_ wow, looks like Dubya really needed the help today!
where were these guys several months ago?
\_ 70% of academic economists rate Bush as bad or very bad.
http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3262965
\_ This is much stronger than the "368 Economists" piece, especially
if you consider the methodology used by http://economist.com.
I hope if Dubya attacks with "368 Economists", Kerry rebuts with
http://economist.com.
\_ The sample from NRO is 365, the economist 56. Interesting
conclusions you draw from a sample 7 times smaller, and
no Nobel Laureates.
\_ omg, please re-read what you wrote, and if you still
believe everything you wrote, say you're serious.
\_ You present 56, NRO presents 365. You would
have preferred the authors submitted it as a
'survey'?
\_ So, you're serious about your original statement?
Yes/No, please.
\_ completely, yes. Samples are highly skewed
in both cases. I, as the op, posted
the article as a joke, to illustrate the
stupidity of these types of posts. This
nuance seemed to escape you.
\_ - NRO presents 368 signatures of which 100%
agree with the statement. There was no
alternate petition circulated, nor was there
a recording of the number of economists
who disagreed with the statement.
- http://economist.com took a RANDOM SAMPLE from among
the journal referees of the American Economic
Review. Of this random sample, 70% of
respondents rated Dubya's 1st-term economic
policies as bad or very bad. Of this random
sample, 27% rated Kerry's economic plan as
bad or very bad.
- This major error in interpreting statistics
seems to have been lost on you, or, you didn't
read the http://economist.com methodology, which
I mentioned several replies up. |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34099 Activity:high |
10/12 Given that Bush is so inarticulate and stupid, how in the
world did Al Gore lose 4 years ago?
\_ the media decided to leave the "GORE SIGH" on endless
repeat. - danh
\_ because he's very "likeable" and "personable" in person. or
so they say.
\_ Gore isn't as uber as Kerry. People thought you could have a dumb
leader at the top and talented lieutenants running the show.
With small government, people thought this was possible.
How much brains does it take to cut taxes and ignore the deficit?
By the way, Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes.
\_ My midwestern aunt and uncle had this exact view. They told me
a story about Gore making a speech to a local union in which
he mentioned his mother singing him a particular union song to
him in his cradle, and the song wasn't actually penned until the
70s (or thereabouts). They thought Gore was untrustworthy, and
Bush was stupid but "the president can't make any bad decisions,
he just has to be a good man".
\_ all right did your midwestern relatives actually
SEE AND HEAR gore saying this? or are they repeating
what they heard from the media? gore used to joke
that the lady who was a DNC delegate 13 times (she's 88)
used to sing him to sleep with the union label as
a lullaby. it's obviously a JOKE, who would seriously
sing that song as a lullaby to a baby? i don't know
why the media never got it. i think gore never
adequately explained his joke because it seems too
retarded to have to explain humor to living breathing
human beings. that's why i really doubt your relatives
heard gore say those exact words, you can dig up tapes
of Gore speaking to teamsters, he tells the joke,
they all laugh, because he is just joking about his
deep democractic union roots, he's not being serious.
oreilly joked about being totally high on the jon
stewart show last night, when are you going to report
him to the ATF? - danh
\_ I believe they told me it the info came from a friend.
I should also note that I was a Dean guy before
supporting Kerry, and that this aunt and uncle are
perhaps the nicest, smartest, and wittiest relatives
I have. I'm 25 and they're still sending me bday cards,
and I'm going to thank them for it in a letter that
probably includes the post above about the last 4 years
of Bush.
\_ I hope voters find a solid, noble core in Kerry, like
what's described in the Washington Post article on him
today. Gore had all the best intentions, but you can't
help but wonder if there was something to the latent Big
Mac attack he developed after he lost the election.
\_ God, this is such rotten revisionism. Gore had a solid,
noble core, and the GOP repetition campaign ("He said
he invented the Internet!" "He says they based Love
Story on him and Tipper!" "He's not honest!") and his
own advisers ("Press the attack!" "Beat up on Bush!")
killed the campaign. So the man ate a few burgers and
grew a beard after being outplayed by loudmouths and
anti-intellectuals. What's more human than that?
You want a candidate who was brilliant but an awful
people person, look no further than Bill Bradley.
\_ By the measure of 9/11, IMO Gore would have done an
excellent job had Osama struck on his watch. I'm just
trying to describe some intangible that led Dubya
voters to vote for Dubya instead of Gore.
\_ Because Gore didn't just beat Bush in the debate, he beat him up.
Americans hate bullies. That's why it looks so bad when Bush cuts
off the moderators.
\_ Gore was stiff and boring and unlikeable. Kerry, while a bit of
a blue blood, is much more personable. -Nader voter in 2000 |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34085 Activity:high |
10/13 Bush killed Superman! shouldn't he be our leader?
\_ Only if he's willing to take on all challengers to the throne
in the Thunderdome.
\_ If Bush loses the election, I would give my left nut to have
Kerry stop during his acceptance speech and say, "BUST A DEAL,
SPIN THE WHEEL!"
\_ Let's see: Kerry rides a bike and skis, and has the reach;
Bush plays golf and what? Mind you, Clinton jogs and has weight
on both of them, so he might stage an upset.
\_ kerry is also an accomplished aircraft pilot
\_ Kerry is also accomplished ... No need for anything
after that really.
\_ Dubya rides mountain bike.
\_ falls off
\_ Hillary murders them all with large spiked ball on chain,
takes home Jenna Bush for perverted sex acts |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34081 Activity:insanely high |
10/12 I was watching O'Reilly just now and they had cut to Dubya making a
speech and talking about going to Arizona for the last debate. I
noticed that he spoke five words, then looked down at his notes,
spoke five words, then looked down at his notes again. He waved his
eyebrows like "Yeah, I'm bad-ass and the other guy's a wuss", and
squinted his eyes with his head cocked like "I'm one tough
motherfucker". I realize now why dumb people like him so much. He
is as dumb as they are, but, like them, ignore reality and think of
themselves as pretty hot shit and "smarter" than the A-students.
His short thoughts, punctuated by silence while he reads his next
prepared line, are very easy to understand, and backed by a
cockiness that dumb people only wish they could maintain without
getting smacked down by their own Kerry counter-part. It's too bad
dumb people don't have speechwriters either.
BTW, O'Reilly has taken to saying "President Kerry" a lot. I think
we know who he would like to win.
For Kerry lovers, a Post article today on his cerebralness and
its effects on his management style:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28106-2004Oct12.html
\_ Republican: evil/stupid, Democrat: good/smart. That's all you have
to say so why waste all those bits with the rest of your fluff?
\_ do i have to keep telling you, Republicans are definitely
not stupid - danh
\_ I'm not Dubya. If I said just what you wrote, nothing new would
have been added. Instead here is a cohesive, accurate story
motd readers can take with them.
\_ No, it's the standard "Bush is a poor speaker" mixed with
R:e/s,D:g/s. There is no "there" there.
\_ Is this perl code?
\_ Depends on what your definition of "is" is.
\_ Yes, the conclusion is well known and stereotyped, but I
provide some "how" and "why" to the "what" on a subject
many of Dubya's supporters would dismiss as partisan
rhetoric. I offer this story as an accurate reflection of
the the bottom-line truth about Dubya's popularity among
the dumb, and I leave it to readers to assess that.
This difference should have been very obvious to you.
\_ Making short points and using notes frequently while speaking in
and of itself is not a bad thing to do. -John
\_ Who iss the best CSUA debater/public speaker?
\_ Making short points and....using notes frequently...(give
cocky look) while speaking(smirk)...in and of itself...is
not a bad thing...(silence)...to do. -GWB
\_ ...while using a few good points among many bad ones
in an argument and presenting them as negative points
worthy of ridicule, is. GWB is a crappy speaker, op has
enough material to work with as it stands. -John
\_ One might expect the author of such a polemic to write in
grammatically correct, concise sentences. Maybe this irony
escapes you. Or, perhaps the benighted masses lack the
sophistication to understand CS elite and John Kerry. I bet
the French could appreciate your statement.
\_ You really need some new material. Comparing people to the
French is even more tired than WDYHA?
\_ For the last time, Bush is not dumbb, just very ignorant (on
\_ For the last time, Bush is not dumb, just very ignorant (on
purpose). Let's not forget he is as blue-blooded as Kerry, the
whole "country bumbkin" is just an act -- an act that got him
whole "country bumpkin" is just an act -- an act that got him
all the way to the White House, why should he change a winning
strategy -- even now the polls are close, no matter how much
he fumbles and stumbles during debates and speeches.
\_ I swung back and forth on this a number of times, hearing him
answer reporters' questions and making my own judgment, reading
Woodward's Plan of Attack and Paul O'Neill's The Price of
Loyalty, then having doubts when I read newspaper articles "the
President is NOT dumb", but my final conclusion is as posted in
the thread.
\_ But Bush did graduate Yale ... He can't be that stupid.
\_ lol. C at Yale = F at Cal, and Bush had a C average.
I've been at Yale now for four years and you
would not believe some of the stupid shit i've
seen here. I used to live next to GW's old frat house,
and I saw one of them pissing on their own porch.
*on* the porch, not off the side of the porch.
-Yale TA, Cal alum
\_ He also got an MBA at Harvard. |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34078 Activity:nil |
10/12 If you guys get PBS, Frontline has a nice dual bio of Kerry and Bush.
\_ PBS is very very conservative. In case you don't know Bush
spent a lot of $ on the History Channel, the Golf Channel, and
other educational channels while Kerry spent a lot of money
on channels that tailor to young kids.
\_ PBS did not interview Bud Day for his advice, so their opinion
is worthless. |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34076 Activity:nil |
10/12 Bud Day and Senator Edwards both like lawsuits:
http://www.classact-lawsuit.com/index.htm |
| 2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34072 Activity:very high |
10/12 Why doesn't John Kerry just tell the bitter Viet vets that
when he becomes the president, he'll help them get medals
and recognition and put up a national memorial site? Wouldn't
that just shup these bitter vets up?
\_ Obviously you never served. BTW, there already is Vietnam
Memorial.
\_ obviously, 99.9% of the motd posters/readers have never served.
\_ what, and risk getting maimed or killed? of course not.
\_ Bud Day fought in Vietnam.
Bud Day! Bud Day is the Standard!
\_ Let's look at what you say. They're bitter. Why is that? Are
they angry at the US government? No. They're angry at Kerry for
his actions and statements. Why would building a monument and
handing out some more ribbons make them hate him any less? Why
do you have so little respect for the men and women in our armed
forces? |
| 2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34068 Activity:high |
10/12 Pulled from the trolling/countertrolling below:
\_ The man's a hero and former POW. Many heroes and POWs thought
the antiwar movement was a betrayal of the troops. Many heroes
and former POWs also joined the antiwar movement. The real
villains in all of this were the ones who stood silent.
\_ Yeah many heroes threw their medals back and testified
before Congress about fake atrocities, and met with the enemy
while under service. Yeah, many former heroes also have their
picture of the meeting with the enemy hanging in the enemy's
museum dedicated to the defeat of America.
\_ See, now you're just lying. He was testifying about the
problems in Vietnam, of which war crimes were certainly a
a part. Do you feel that any enemy contact-- say, to
end the war diplomatically-- is also treason? The Vietnam
war was a disaster, and while the treatment of vets was
atrocious, it doesn't make Kerry's contribution to its halt
any less honorable.
\_ I guess you never served. I guess you are not clear about
the military obeys orders and does NOT dictate policy.
Esp. diplomacy.
\_ Kerry wasn't "the military" in that context, and wasn't
"dictating" policy. I guess you're stupid.
\_ He was in the military and talking to the enemy
that in itself is a violation of the UCMJ.
\_ What, and you did? Look, if you're a soldier who
feels betrayed by what Kerry did after he got back
from the war, say so. Stop all this proxy baiting.
\_ Yay! A Partisan tool!
\_ No, a son of a Vietnam Vet.
\_ Yay! Also a partisan tool! |
| 2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34067 Activity:high |
10/12 Bud Day's biography. http://csua.org/u/9fv \_ GW Bush's biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush \_ I don't think anyone can argue that W was a war hero of any stripe. I also don't think anyone can argue that Bud Day was anything but heroic. I hope that we will think on Day's service to his country before we choose to deride him. \_ He's a great soldier. That doesn't make him any more more qualified to talk politics though. \_ Argue against his position, then, but respect the man. It's uncalled for and childish to play silly games like changing his name to "Bad Day". He had a bad day when he was captured by the Vietcons. He had a bad 6 years when he was a POW. I wonder what was the worst day ever suffered by Mr. "Bad Day". \_ It's uncalled for and childish to keep deleting other people's posts and keeping yours. If you can't learn to respect other people's posts, stop whining when other people mess with yours. \_ Being a hero is not something to be mocked for, but it doesn't grant you immunity from being mocked for other reasons. \_ I guess we disagree then. I don't mock those whom I respect, no matter how vehemently we may disagree. I would think that Bud Day is worthy of great respect. He has earned that privilege. \_ Just going out on a limb here, but I don't think that Mr. "Bad Day" is making fun of Bud Day. I think he's making fun of the op. \_ Who knows what the intentions of Mr. "Bad Day" were? Only the man himself. However, there are ways to make fun of the op without at the same time belittling Bud Day. Deriding Bud Day and letting that pass unchallenged diminishes all of us. \_ did you go to boarding school in Connecticut? \_ Yeesh, what a pompous windbag. \_ And you wonder why veterans tend to vote Republican? \_ No, I don't -- it has nothing to do with this discussion. \_ No, you wouldn't think so. That's why veterans vote Republican. \_ No, actually, it's probably not. No cookie for you! \_ Bud Day isn't a pompous windbag. pp is. Your inability to distinguish between the two is part of what makes you a pompous windbag. \_ The man's a hero and former POW. Many heroes and POWs thought the antiwar movement was a betrayal of the troops. Many heroes and former POWs also joined the antiwar movement. The real villains in all of this were the ones who stood silent. \_ So which of his actions were worthy of the MOH? He survived a bunch of torture and wounds. I've read stories on some site about WWII citations that sounded far more incredible than this. Other than undertaking an escape from certain torture/possible death, the dangers are not of his own choice. It's like the difference between a guy escaping a burning building versus a guy running inside to rescue somebody. In any case his arguments seem one- sided and unconvincing. \_ Don't go there. Questioning how much someone suffered/risked to earn their medals is unseemly. How much have you bled for your country? \_ Oh, I see. So its okay to question Kerry's medals, but not this guy's medals. Seems logical. \_ I'm a Kerry contributer. -pp \- I think it is reasonable to trade off between "character issues" and policy preference when it comes to a political candidate. e.g. it seems reasonable to hold Clinton's infidelity against him, but not fair to pin Vince Foster's suicide on him. I can reasonably see a veteran not being able to forgive Kerry for his "betrayal" after he returned from Vietnam. I personally think this is more than offset by Bush's avoiding service, his avoiding responsibility for stuff like Abu Graib, his disregard for frankness and the truth, but then again I am not a verteran who may feel the betrayal far more viscerally than I would. However, while his post-service conduct may be a fair issue, the swiftboat stuff is just a sleazy smear. --psb |
| 2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34062 Activity:insanely high |
10/12 http://www.democrats.org/action/200410120001.html Sinclair is going to broadcast anti-Kerry stuff that looks like a documentary. Sign the petition now!!! \_ You know it would be a real test if we drop both Bush and Kerry in the middle of a war in Iraq. What do you think will happen? I think one of them is going to shit his pants! \_ Kerry can patrol the Tigris and Euphrates, and Dubya can help with the Iraqi National Guard. Yee-haw!! \_ Kerry will be only slightly heroic and Bush will be grounded for failing to take his physical when he goes off to help Alawi's election campaign. \_ What about the "Long War of John Kerry"? Leftist films are ok but conservative are not? Oh that's right, this is Berkeley. Sinclair offered the Kerry campaign equal time. \_ No they didn't. They offered a rebuttal, not the same thing. Who is playing the Long War? \_ Movie theatres. How the hell should I know. So the testimony of Vietnam POWs, some there 6+ years, is not news? \_ What testimony? That they felt betrayed by the anti-war movement? No, this is not news; this is a trope from the the whole Vietnam-era milieu. \_ Sundance and others run anti-Bush springsteen shows... where's the outrage? \_ People can choose to go to those shows or not. It has been a long-standing tradition in this country that broadcast stations (radio and television through the air) are a public resource. Hence, for example, indecency restrictions on broadcast TV. You can't see the difference? \_ Especially since the networks get their licenses for almost nothing. |
| 2004/10/12 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34061 Activity:moderate |
10/12 http://tinyurl.com/5tt2y Bush/Kerry car with illustrations (humor link) |
| 2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34053 Activity:insanely high |
10/12 Heh, Teresa Heintz pays 15% in taxes. Hehehe. Where's the outrage?
\_ Heinz
\_ Outrage at the Republican-written tax system? There's plenty.
\_ Our tax system favors the uber-rich. She's uber-rich. So is
John Kerry. So are Bush and Cheney, although not quite to the
same degree. They're all rich fucking bastards and getting more
rich by the minute. This election is all about "pick your favorite
rich bastard." I'll take the one that seems like he can actually
think coherently, thanks.
\_ also, Teresa Heintz is the *recipient* of the outrageous Bush
tax cuts. Bush is the source. He'd be a bastard even if he
paid his fair share.
\_ Heinz and Kerry put their money into tax shelters. So raising
their marginal rate won't help anything. Kerry's whining is
nothing more than class warfare.
\_ Whining is not equal to warfare. Except to an idiot
libertarian serial overexaggerator.
\_ Bush has ~$10M. Kerry/Heinz have ~$1000M. Two orders of
magnitude make quite a difference.
\_ So the rich are EVIIIIIIILLLL if you disagree with them?
\_ I don't see any problem with people being rich. Just
pointing out that Heinz/Kerry are two orders of magnitude
more rich than Bush. Saying they're all the same is
ridiculous.
\_ You have no idea how rich bush actually is..
\_ You don't *have* to vote for either of them. Vote for psb!
\_ That's why there's a need to remove the tax break for rich!
\_ No. We should all be paying no more than Mrs. Heinz.
\_ Her 17% is more than you make in your lifetime!
\_ Haven't you noticed? The Dem motto is "High taxes for everyone!
(but me!)" Also See "Kennedy"
\_ Nader in 2004! The only candidate with an established history of
being *for* the common man and working hard *against* large
corporations! -Nader'04
\_ To quote James Carville, I wouldn't piss down Nader's neck if his
\_ AKA Gollum.
\_ Huh?
\_ Carville looks like he was beaten with
the ugly stick.
\_ That's rich coming from a FAT SYSADMIN!
\_ You have no idea who posted this.
\_ Doesn't matter. FAT SYSADMINS
are the STANDARD!
chest was on fire.
\_ Not to meantion against the common mans' jobs at said large
corporations!
\_ 8 out of 10 richest Congressmen are democrats. What a surprise.
The party of the little people indeed.
\_ Your wealth does not make you for or against a particular class,
your positions do. Remind me again which party is in favor of
taxing dividend income, the Head Start program, socialized
medicine, and raising the minimum wage.
\_ However, it is easier to generous with your wealth when you
already have so much of it. Given great wealth, I would
hope that most of us would be decent enough to want to give
back to society, through either private donation or greater
taxation. The problem is that most of us aren't blessed
with great wealth, and those incremental dollars that may
not mean much to a Kennedy or a Pelosi might be more
meaningful to us.
\_ sourceP
\_ #t
\_ Not the previous poster, and from a highly unreliable
source, but http://vikingphoenix.com/public/docs/50rich.txt .
7 of top 10 richest member of congress are Democrats, and
I am too lazy to filter for just house members.
\_ And Kerry's money is actually his wife's as per their
prenup. So, it's actually 6-4.
\_ I think it's silly to argue over which party have more
wealthy members in the Congress. However, I am a fan
of fairness and honesty. If you use the above-posted
list, and you drop Kerry from the number 1 spot, then
you end up with 3 tied for the 10th spot, 1 R and 2 D's.
So the tally would be 8D-4R. I suppose that's still
better than 7D-3R. |
| 2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34052 Activity:very high |
10/12 http://electoral-vote.com is now fucked. What else is anyone using? Thanks. \_ Uh yeah... all the stuff below is nice and all but I just wanted to know what other sites people are using that do a similar thing. Please post URLs you're using. Thanks. --op \_ "Given that all the hate mail and threats I get come entirely from Republicans, I can make an educated guess which side is trying to silence me, but I won't say. And I won't surrender to cyberterrorists." I dunno, it works for me. \_ Fallacious conclusion. Pubs might be all huff while Dems are DOS attack. \_ Ever heard of Occam's razor? The most likely explanation is \_ Ever heard of Occam's razor? The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. \_ [motd fact checker wuz here!] \_ Apparently motd fact checker is an idiot. He removed my statment: "Apparently you haven't heard of it either. That's not what it says." \_ Tempest, meet Teacup. \_ This is precious. Why would a Republican be against a site that's currently showing that Bush would win? This is classic liberal "I'm being supressed by the Evil Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!" \_ who knows, maybe the dems are taking a hint from karl rove. there is at least one well documented case of Rove printing up nasty unmarked fliers about his OWN candidate and then dumping them in the middle of the night on voters porchs. the opposition couldn't really deny it since it would make them look like scum if they drew attention to it. brilliant. - danh \_ Because up until today, it was showing that Kerry would win for several months at least. \_ Are you nuts? It was showing that Bush would win for pretty much the entire month of September and much of AUgust. \_ Okay, you got me: Showing a Kerry win for the last month or so, and also pre-GOP-Convention bounce. \_ You're still an idiot. In this month only 8-11 show Kerry with a lead. \_ You are both mistaken: http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/graph.html \_ Yes, I should talk out of my ass less. But yeah, what I meant was that long two- month period before the GOP Convention, I guess \_ Still works fine. \_ Try http://www.slate.com/id/2107683 |
| 2004/10/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34037 Activity:insanely high |
10/11 http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040912/sticker.shtml wrong Bush/Kerry bumper sticker can cost you your job. \_ WTF? Isn't that more than just blatantly illegal? Shouldn't that dumbfuck attorney know that? I hope he receives hells for this. Too bad that poor lady isn't going to sue him. \_ This is exactly why we need tort reform, to prevent frivilous lawsuits like what you're describing! \_ Lordy lordy. The motd really is a parody of itself. \_ How is that at all frivolous? \_ Because the same topics come up again and again and again. The entire motd could be summarized as a read only file that simply said "et cetera ad nauseum." At some point, you start giggling at certain things, like the obligatory tort reform reference above. \_ The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone \- i dont think this is "pretty clear". you have a cite? based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment. Evil ... but legal! \- i dont think this is "pretty clear". you have a cite? \_ http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067578 The sentence I wrote is even taken verbatim from an ACLU rep. \- that is interesting. thanks for the ptr. some comments: it looks like in this case, doing some govt work doesnt turn you into a "public employer" [in constrast to say other "reaches" when it comes to what constitutes "state action"]. the other interesting matter is it says "can fire based on political speech" which is a different matter than beliefs. in other words, if i believe what that italie fellow believed but i only revealed it in a 1:1 conversation started by HR, could i be fired? \_ yes -dbushong i know organizaation such as churches have some increased latitude [ostentsibly a hindu temple could require the janitor to not eat bigmac at work], but this lack of requirement to show it affects the work is sort of surprising. one may have to ask if there were to italies at the job would they have to fire both of them or does that allow for a suit on other grounds. i am surprised the "right to engage in political discourse" isnt better protected ... it seems to merit at least a gay if he believes in gay rights? I guess we are still haunted by the "spectre of Lochner". --psb \_ Well he gave her a chance and she basically put him on the spot. I don't like the guy's action personally but I don't have a problem with it from a legal point of view. She doesn't have an inherent right to be employed by this guy. \_ This is a particularly cold way of putting it, IMO. \_ Well it's private property. By parking her car there she's putting political ads on his property, which he doesn't have to allow if he doesn't feel like it. Capitalism is inherently cold and greed-inducing. \_ I'm not disagreeing with the fact it is completely legal for a private employer to fire an employee for political speech, I'm just saying you put it rather coldly. \_ Could this be an easy way around discrimination lawsuits in racially/politically divided areas? "I didn't hire him, him, and him because they were Democrat. New policy. What? Sure I'll stick to it" \_ Why do leftists always think free speech applies to private property? Maybe because they don't understand the concept of private property? \- we're not talking about an "inherent right to be employed" ... yes, she cant walk in off the street and demand to be hired. i think a much more accurate phrasing is apparently an employer can interfere with your inherent right to participate in the political process, without proving it affects him in any material way. practically anything can be considered a political belief. on the matter of "private property" see e.g. the pruneyard v robins. it's not that absolute. --psb \_ No, if you read the 1st Amendment you would see it really is that simple. Her employer is not Congress. \- No it isnt that simple. Look up the "absorption doctrine". --psb \- It is simple and you are simply wrong. You may wish to google for "slaughterhouse incorporation". Perhaps you have 100+ yrs of constitutional jurisprudence to catch up on? --psb \_ The amendment is pretty clear to me. I'm not interested in polemic redirection. \- it is pretty clear to me your brain is small. --psb \_ Who is the one who can't read the Amendment? Please, what is the psb exegesis of the 1st Amend. \- the 1st amd [and most of the other 1st 10] are now considered "piped" through the 14th amendment. See e.g. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html or anything about the the "incorpriation doctrine". This is settled law. Arguing about this is like arguing the income tax is illegal ... it sets the FRUITCAKE bit. --psb \_ That's a fancy way of saying its obvious. Invoking the 14th Amend. is not, and should not be, necessary. \_ Ok I went and read about the pruneyard case. It was stressed in that case that: "It bears repeated emphasis that we do not have under consideration the property or privacy rights of an individual homeowner or the proprietor of a modest retail establishment." I find this decision to be problematic. But it was also found to be specific to California's constitution and I think it would be impossible to extend the logic of the case to cover a private factory. I'm not sure what other laws might pertain to this situation. The employer didn't interfere with her right to vote, only her "right" to display a political sign on her car in his parking lot. car in his parking lot. However there are a lot of federal and state laws regulating employment and discrimination beyond any constitutional basis, and I don't have a good understanding of the legal justification for some of those things. \- it is astute of you to observe the narrowing of pruneyard and the state const issue. my point in raising it goes to the non-absoluteness of private property ... and it is sort of fun that it is a local case [for those of you from the south bay]. it is admittedly not a case with an am employee-employer relationship at the heart. also key to pruneyard is the quasi-public space doctrine ... we dont live in a world with public squares and public markets but a world of santana row and stanfraud shoppinng center. back to the case above, it seems odd to me to allow the employer such an incredibly low standard that there is *no standard* [he doenst have to show it does any harm to the business, let alone signficant harm or even possible harm] he has to meet ... but on the other hand he is prevented from terminating on various discrimination grounds. it seems better to to protect fewer specific classification but force the employer to meet some reasonable criteria. otherwise you get weird things like ... i believe in drug legalization so i can be fired. but i believe in it because i am a peyote using indian so i am protected under some kind of religion freedom rather than political freedom. ok tnx --psb \_ PSB, why do you know this stuff? Do you read Supreme Court Opionions in your spare time? \_ I suppose there is a distinction between one's choices and one's characteristics, although \- you may wish to read about the legal concept of (im)mutability which is of interest to the homosexual legal empire. that is an interesting interesection of science and the law. at core it concerns an empirical question. a tougher, philosophiscal problem is how to draw a line between stuff essential to identity and fundamentally tied to a class and "lifestyle choices" ... is peyote a lifestyle choice or fundamental to living as an american indian of some appropriate tribe? what about sodomy, having children, animal sacrifices etc. --psb religion kind of blurs that boundary. Wearing a hijab is protected but not a Kerry sticker. I \- if somebody lived in a socialist commune it seems to me they are at least as ` committed to their "non theistic religion" as a catholic who wears a cross around her neck. it seems odd not to allow you to can somebody for wearing a cross but can can them if they wear an "emma rules" tshirt [ok maybe somebody less nuts than EG]. --psb wonder if Christian car fish things are covered (they're not any religious requirement). Height and weight discrimination can sometimes fall under the disability laws, but something like "fired for just being really ugly" doesn't seem to be protected. |
| 2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34030 Activity:low |
10/11 http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657 John Eisenhower (Ike's son) writes about why after 50 years as a Republican, he's voting for John Kerry. \_ and here's the non-broken version of the link: http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=44657&archive=1 [yes, very nice, censor the current topic and instead repost some old tom/ilyas flame fest. way to show tom isn't a censor and is a nice guy] |
| 2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34029 Activity:very high |
10/11 More on the Sinclair hit-piece, and how it's connected to Bush.
You gotta hand it to Karl Rove, he's got the market cornered on
balls.
http://csua.org/u/9eu (blog entry with links to LA Times and
Disinfopedia)
\_ Sinclair is without question pro-Bush, but they would argue that
the material they wish to air is news/documentary, not a campaign
ad.
I think all that's going to happen with F9/11 is it will stay
on Pay-per-view for $9.95 - and no one's going to watch.
\_ I disagree with you that this is a documentary or a news
report. What do you base this assertion on? It just sounds
like a two hour Swift Boat ad. As for F9/11, it just makes
me go "meh." Why not show "Going Upriver" instead? Moore
is overexposed at this point.
\_ You mean, what do they base "their" assertion on.
In their view, this documentary presents the truth:
Kerry's anti-war behavior weakened the morale of soldiers
on the ground, POWs, and it was also illegal to negotiate
with the enemy without official permission.
\_ That does not mean that it is not a campaign ad. By the
way, the DNC is filing an FEC complaint about this.
I think they're essentially going to file an argument
that this represents a multi-million dollar campaign
contribution.
\_ I agree the Sinclair move is free pro-Bush advertising.
This won't even put a scratch into the amount of free
pro-Kerry/anti-Bush advertising the media gives the
left every single day. --conservative
\_ How 'bout that big "policy speech" Bush announced
after the VP debate which was actually a stump
speech? Lap it up, liberal media!
\_ Don't forget the free pro-Bush/anti-Kerry advertising
the media gives the right every single day.
\_ That damn partisan reality! No WMDs, etc. If
only they could invent a station that would spin
the bad facts and make Bush look good. We could
call it "Fox News". Worth investigating!
\_ Saying "No WMD" is liberal bias. After all,
he wanted WMD, so it's entirely irrelevant
whether he had them or not!
\_ ... you are making my head explode.
\_ Even assuming it does qualify as campaign advertising,
Sinclair has offered the DNC equal time. The DNC has said
that it will not offer anything for broadcast.
\_ What is your source for this? I heard that Sinclair
invited Kerry to offer a "rebuttal," not equal time.
If they offer equal time, just let them run 9/11.
That would be fair and I am sure Michael Moore
would go for it.
\_ I believe the people who own DVD rights to F9/11 would
not let it run on TV, because, you know, they believe
they might run the risk of not selling as many DVDs.
this might run the risk of not selling as many DVDs.
-- You're right about "equal time", though. Reading
again, Sinclair offered Kerry the "opportunity" to
sit on a panel after the show to dispute the claims.
This doesn't seem like equal time to me, even though
Sinclair says it is.
\_ It is not too late to stop this blatantly illegal move by
Sinclair. Write the FCC and your Senators and demand that
they take action. |
| 2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34025 Activity:moderate |
10/11 Injured, angry, determined, Swiftees unite to fight Kerry
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041011-123955-3725r.htm
\_ Awww. Reality's a bitch, huh? My heart bleeds for them. Good
thing the Moonie Times and Sinclair broadcasting are still around
to promote their agenda... because everyone else has stopped
listening.
\_ Your media tried for a long time to ignore them and is doing
it again. Nothing new about that. Your media never listened
in the first place. I'll take the word of 250 soldiers over
one politician anyday.
\_ 250 soldiers who say what? That they resented the anti-war
movement? No credible source has come forth saying that
Kerry did anything dishonorable during his service. Get over
it already.
\_ "Your media?" Do you mean the American media? They spent
far too much time on it in the first place. You will not
be able to ressurect that 30 year old zombie, everyone
has already had their say. Why don't you want to talk about
issues that matter to America today: Iraq, the economy,
health care, the war on terror? Is it perhaps because
with the possible exception of the latter, they are all
losers for Bush? What are you going to do on Nov 3 after
your hero loses? |
| 2004/10/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34007 Activity:high |
10/9 http://csua.org/u/9ea (latimes) So basically Sinclair broadcasting is going to preempt one quarter of the nation's television programming days before the election to run an anti-Kerry film. Can you imagine the shitstorm if a "liberal" broadcaster tried to do this with, say, "F9/11" or "Going Upriver?" Also, note that the film itself was made by Carlton Sherwood, a Vietname veteran and former reporter for the Washington Times who is also the author of a very positive book about the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. \_ This will make up for about 1/10th of 1% of the free media that Kerry gets every day. I'm shedding a bitter tear. \_ Yeah, like http://factcheck.org \_ Uh, what? Please explain how this is not a no-sequiter. \_ For you, anything: pp is saying that the only media out there really supporting Kerry is the website that checks all of its facts and speaks the truth. In other words, the first responder was full of it when he suggested that Kerry was getting tons more free "media" than the President. (You know, the guy who can call a press conference any time he feels like it. The incumbent.) \_ Bush cannot call a press conference at any time. It takes a lot of time and effort for Bush's handlers to program chimpy. |
| 2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34005 Activity:moderate |
10/9 Here's a cool Photoshop project. Kerry speaks while a monkey gets
mad in the debate setting. Someone please make it so that I can
distribute it. -distributor
\_ The major networks all beat you to the punch. See it here:
http://www.cspan.org |
| 2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34004 Activity:high |
10/9 Kerry Vs Bush. Round 2. The NYT reports Kerry destroys Bush again.
Bush is incoherent, ducks important questions and clueless.
Kerry nails him on the hard questions and demonstrates stature.
http://tinyurl.com/4lfus (nytimes.com)
And here's the new map from another independent source. Kerry wins!
http://www.electoral-vote.com
\_ the NYT opines, not reports in this case. this is an opinion
piece.
And here's the new map from another independent source. Kerry wins!
http://www.electoral-vote.com
\_ It's the NYT times. The whole paper is a giant opinion piece.
Putting a report in the opinion section is arbitrary but
often reserved for more well known people with an axe to grind.
\_ Right. Anyone who reports anything negative about the Pres.
must be part of the liberal press konspiracy. |
| 2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34001 Activity:moderate |
10/8 Poor Kerry, he didn't use my speech text on Iran, and his sucked nuts.
\_ Kerry's Iran answer was great! 4 more weeks! |
| 2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34000 Activity:very high |
10/8 Bush was asked to name three mistakes he's made. He can't
name one. He's had the hardest job in the world for almost
four years and he cannot name a single mistake. Is he
the Second Coming of the Messiah?
\_ Actually, as much as I loathe bush, I thought his answer was
pretty clever. He claimed his biggest mistakes were various
appointments who he didn't want to embarass on TV. Of course
I'm positive that
1) he didn't think of that himself and
2) it's Rove's message to anyone who might consider showing
disloyalty to the chimp in chief that they are about to
become Bush's biggest mistake.
What would any of you have said (assuming you had actally drunk
the neocon kool-aid and wouldn't way the war)?
\_ There aren't any "neocons" on the motd. It's a made-up phrase
to sound like "neo nazi".
\_ you are Bush's adviser. What would you advise him?
\_ Republicans just don't apologize. This makes them dumb AND evil.
\_ Haha, this is one of those classic annoying interview questions.
Bush spent most of his answer defending the Iraq war so I guess
that was one of his mistakes.
\_ Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time!
\_ Other than Ashcroft, I can't think of a single mistake.
\_ Again with O'Reilley on the Daily Show: Bill pointed out that
these people (Bush, et. al.) are highly insulated and get a lot
of sycophantry; couple that with an almost maniacal belief in
everything they say and do, and what you have is a President who
very literally cannot see the mistakes he's made.
\_ All Republicans are stupid/evil drones straight to the top.
All Democrats are enlightened and good people who sensitive to
the needs of terrorists and others around the world. Seriously,
the question was an obvious setup straight from the DNC fax
machine. It would have been blitheringly stupid of any
candidate to name 3 mistakes. It would be front page news the
next day and he'd get beat over the head forever. What about
John Kerry? Was voting for unilateral disarmament in the 80s
a mistake? Was voting against the first Gulf War *after* the
UN had passed a war resolution a mistake? Was making shit up
about Vietnam war crimes a mistake? Has John Kerry ever made
a mistake? Please name 3.
\_ _Bush_ hasn't made any mistakes because he doesn't make any
real decisions (except in what to say when the reception dies to
his remote control during a debate). And he's not qualified to
comment on Cheney's mistakes... so what's he gonna say? |
| 2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:33998 Activity:very high |
10/8 Here is a cool idea. What if some guy, say, Soros' assistant
opens up a new company that asks for GOP campaign donations.
He outsources that to Indians, and when the Indians ask
for money, their accents and their where-abouts (India) will
either disgust Republicans so much that they'll switch party,
or, they'll donate money which could be used by the Democrats.
\_ The Republicans beat them to it.
\_ It's called fraud.
\_ Why would I switch to democrat b/c an Indian answered
the phone?
\_ Because all Republicans are racists. |
| 2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33995 Activity:insanely high |
10/8 As of 10/8, 8:39PM, polls ask who you think won the
second debate (Bush, Kerry, [undecided]):
http://cbsnews.com (11.51%, 88.10%)
http://cnn.com (16%, 82%, 2%)
http://foxnews.com (30%, 70%)
http://msnbc.com (27%, 73%)
http://freerepublic.com (95%, 1%)
\_ "Poll: Bush, Kerry tie in 2nd debate", an article from CNN.
So what's up. CNN becoming conservative and trying to save face?
\_ Thanks to the DNC e-mail spam, I guess.
\_ Check http://freerepublic.com for all the "FREEP THE MSNBC POLL"
posts. The difference is that the freepers (and Chris
Matthews, apparently) actually think an online poll
means something. The lefty swampers are trying to show
just how FUCKING POINTLESS these online polls are. --scotsman
\_ There's about 150 freepers vs. the tens of thousands of Dems
on the DNC mailing list. This has been said many times before
on the motd: freepers are not conservatives or Republicans and
all clear thinking people disavow them in the same way you
should disavow nuts like Michael Moore and the democratic
http://underground.com
\_ You've been trolled scotsman! HAHA -!person who posted it
\_ Actually, no. I know who posted it, and I'm just
explaining how I see the poll slamming, not flaming
them. And unless there's a freeper manifesto you
can point me to that says that they're trying to
make a mockery of the polls (I can point you to
plenty on the left), then I stand by my point. --scotsman
\_ Thank god we have geniuses like yourself to
point out the absurdity. Please, let me
express my unwavering gratitude. Thank
you! P.S., don't you find it slightly unusual
that you have worked yourself up into a frenzy
about this.
\_ No more so than any other criticism of journalism
in this country.. Are you happy with the state
of affairs? Do you like bankrupted localities?
Do you like soldiers being killed and wounded
in a preemptive war against a non-threat? Do you
like all of this wrapped up in a pretty media
package? You mock my anger? I mock your complacency
and cowardice (sign your damn name, mr. black).
--scotsman
\_ RACIST!!!
\_ RAPIST!!!
\_ PAPIST!!!
\_ TRAPPIST!!!
\_ PRIAPIST!!! |
| 2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33993 Activity:insanely high |
10/8 Holy SHIT Bush is actually doing pretty well, did he rehearse or
something? In addition, he's taking notes!!! He didn't do that
last time. SHIT.
\_ They gave him back his cocaine.
\_ Uh, well? Maybe on the "internets." Did you see his Dean Scream
moment?
\_ *SCOWL*
\_ Kerry mistakes so far, add if you wish:
1) "I'm a lawyer too" (most ppl hate lawyers)
\_ I don't think this was a mistake
\_ First thing we do is kill all the lawyers.
2) "Join me to defeat ppl who make over $200,000"
(bad bad bad, they control YOUR life)
\_ my combined income is, in fact, over $200,000. I don't
like Bush, but I like my nice house and I enjoy co-owning
my Piper Arrow. That is why I'm voting for Bush.
\_ hmm, so you are really dying for that $2000 taxcut you get
with bush huh with your $200k income?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters
discover that they can vote themselves money from the
public treasure. From that moment on the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most
money from the public treasury, with the result that a
democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy
followed by a dictatorship."
\_ I'm glad you believe that! Now take a history lesson
\_ My wallet isn't your public treasure, thanks. I'm not
the piper guy.
\_ Some money has to come out of someone's wallet for
the "public treasure". You just don't want it to be
you, because it's not *fair* to tax people more just
because they can afford more. So horribly unfair.
\_ Ever hear of equality? I know its a new and
radical concept, but perhaps you might want
to consider it. If all citizens are equal
then they should all pay an equal percentage
of their income as taxes. Why should I have
have to pay a higher tax rate just b/c my
income is higher, when all I did was study
hard, work late nights to get to a better
job, and mr. pot smoking slacker english
major drank his way through school and
now can't get a job and expects me to pay
more so that he can live off of my hard
work. That is BS.
\_ What if that English major wins the lottery,
inherits money, or happens to get a good job
through nepotism? What if I worked hard like
you did and yet make less money through
choice or bad luck? I am all for a flat tax,
but your argument is stupid. Some rich
people work hard. Some don't. Same as the poor.
\_ In general, barring lottery winners etc.
people getting paid more are doing more
economically valuable work. If you make
less money through choice then why do you
want others to make up the difference?
And let's say in theory we do the same type
of work, but you work half as hard and get
half the income. Why should your tax rate
be different for the year?
\_ Easily answered: "gimme! gimme! gimme!"
\_ simple numbers game, piss off 2% of the populus and curry the
favor of 98%, that doesn't make sense to you?
\_ no but under Kerry I'll have to pay a LOT more tax. No thx.
\_ Someone has to pay for all of this invading, you're
just going back to the Clinton levels
\_ Which were too high.
3) "Bush's [nonexisting] lumber company"
\_ Bush DOES have timber company...
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265
\_ good find.
******************* Partisan Tools Below This Line *********************
\_ Is it partisan to say Bush sounded even stupider in the
second debate?
\- it's not partisan, it is foolish. --psb
\_ Are you saying it is foolish because Bush did not
sound even stupider; or because the statement
invites scorn; or both?
\_ Did you even watch the debate last night?
\_ Bush started strong but he is fading fast
\_ Did you watch the same debate? Wishful thinking? Faint hope?
\_ That was the way it went in the first debate, too.
\_ And you didn't notice any difference between his first and
last night's efforts? Ok.... whatever.....
\_ Bush creamed Kerry this time.
\_ Dubya was even more stupid this time. You don't become less
wrong by yelling it louder.
\_ Would you like the pink or the blue kool aid?
\_ apparently that's not how people outside of California
think. My officemate from Indiana (very pro Bush) shouts
loudly when 1) he feels that he has a strong point
2) when he doesn't want to hear from you again.
People outside of California seem to have different
social protocols, and shouting works for them.
\_ your co-worker from Indiana is pretty stupid
\_ that may be so, but people like him are
all over the United States, voting for Bush.
\_ True. And liberals all across the U.S. are asking
"Why isn't Kerry whooping this chimp?"
\_ I know why, and you should too, if you have been
paying attention. -- ilyas
\-My opinion on the two people at the top of
the ticket is well known but i have to say that
Melman fellow from BUSHCO is 100x better than
mary beth cahill. it was sort of sad that charlie
rose basically gave the bush campiagn a lot more
free airtime to "clarify" [and it was well done]
than kerry's spokespeson. it was lame of kerry
co to let bushco go last and get a lot more time.
they need to be more ruthless on "details" like
this. --psb
\_ Charlie Rose? Who watched *that*?
\_ Yes, I know why. People are dumb. Dubya and his
handlers know how to talk to dumb people, as he is
himself: dumb. Granted there are smart
Republicans out there, but they don't form the
majority of those voting for Dubya.
Clinton: "When people think, Democrats win."
\_ I'm voting for Dubya and I'm dumb! Woot! We
is all jus' whitey craker red neck hiks on thiz
side uh da ile! You just keep telling yourself
that if it makes you feel better about last
night. I prefer to always assume my opposition
is not moronic and not take things for granted
like you do with your weak labelling.
\_ when people start thinking, we'll democratize
both parties so that party bosses don't control
every political position where one party
controls a safe majority.
\_ When people who profess to care actually
bother to vote then Democrats would win,
too.
\_ Isn't the DNC asking for volunteers to
take an hour or two to make get-out-the-vote
phone calls on election day? I think if
you do have spare time, this could make
a big difference.
\_ The election is done. Everyone already
know who they'll vote for. Everyone who
is going to show is already going to show.
The only thing we don't yet know is which
polls are more accurate than others.
Anyway, when I see "political call" show
on my caller ID, I don't pick up. I
doubt any apathetic person would either. |
| 2004/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33982 Activity:high |
10/8 Bush was secretly wired during the debate
http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html
\_ It was a personal Holtzmann shield.
\_ too much risk of nukular explosion in case of lasgun usage.
\_ I believe he was wearing something, but I'm curious-- why didn't
they position the bulge lower, in the small of his back? I can fit
an ipod or even a thin novel just above my belt with very little
visibility, and that's not even wearing a jacket.
\_ Transmission distance. This proves liberals are smarter: Kerry's
magic cheat pen with wireless receiver and handwriting-
recognizing transmitter had a wider operating range.
\_ so...let's suppose that Bush *was* secretly connected to some
wireless device during the debate. Do you really think that
they couldn't use something more compact? It just doesn't add up.
And where is the wire going to his ear? most cameras were pointed
at his head, and that wire would surely be visible.
\_ It could be a receiver/transmitter with a tiny earpiece you can't
see. Look at websites for spy stuff, we can assume that Bush
has access to the best.
\_ Right. Let's assume he has access to the best. Does that
really include a bulky rectangular thing worn on the back
under one's shirt?
\_ Well, if you wanted to be super-cool you'd use encryption,
spread-spectrum, and transmit constantly so it just looks
like background noise. That all requires more electronics
and battery power. To top it off, they might not have
wanted to bother with some custom design, and chose to go
with something 'off the shelf' that may not have been
optimized for size.
\_ here's something off-the-shelf:
http://www.thespystore.com/covertcommunicationequipment.htm
I don't see any reason why spread spectrum or encryption
would take more space or batteries. this is just
what 10 seconds with google turned up. I'm positive
that if Karl Rove really wanted to beam spread spectrum,
encrypted signals into W's ear, no giant battery
pack would be needed. One wonders how many kids are
cheating their way through school with these things,
though.
\_ Both encryption and spread-spectrum require extra
chips, and cen be fairly demanding (several watts)
depending on what encryption or DSS you use.
Continuous transmission (to look like background)
would up the power requirements a lot. Thing of a
cell phone operating continuously, with more
complicated signal processing and you get a sense of
the power requirements. CDMA uses DSS but it's only
spread over (I think) 1.5MHz. You'd want a much
wider spread for being sneaky.
\_ Alcoa is up today.
\_ Heh. -- ulysses
\_ Let's assume GWB had access to Star Trek Tech(c). There was
obviously no one feeding him lines through it.
\_ 'Obviously'? How do you figure that?
\_ Did you *see* the debate?
\_ Read the article. Their expert seems to be saying that this is
both plausible and technically possible to do wirelessly. Given
how poorly Bush did in the debate, however, I'd almost believe
that someone hacked the feed.
\_ Yes, I go to Salon for all my non-partisan information. Could
you use something less biased like the http://democraticrepublic.com
or http://www.johnkerry.com next time? Thanks!
\_ Not everything http://salon.com or http://drudgereport.com reports is
a lie.
\_ Salon: Abu Ghraib scandal, Drudge: Monica Lewinsky
\_ Liberals, trying to outstupid stupid. They might win.
\_ Couldn't somebody just start blasting the debate with broad-spectrum
whitenoise (or move up and down through the frequencies until Bush
looks pained)? Or what about a cell-phone killing EMP?
\_ Broad-spectrum white noise would work, but it would disable every
wireless device in the room. (Did the moderator have an
earpiece? Did somme backstage techs?) Shifting frequency would
not jam it if it uses spread-spectrum. An EMP would fry the
cameras.
\_ So no one has mentioned the fact that Bush wears body armor when
he's in public (at the insistence of the Secret Service)? It
appears that Salon is doing spin in a response to the video showing
Kerry violating the rules of the 1st debate. See
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc57.htm for a link to the video.
\_ Don't delete my mocking or I'll delete your post.
\_ KERRY BROUGHT A MAGIC DEBATE-WINNING PEN! HE CHEATED!!!
\_ i thought it was a magic penis
\_ "I'll take 'The Penis Mightier', Alex."
\_ Personally, I think he was packing heat. Probably that pearl
handled revolver that they took off Saddam Hussein when he
was captured.
\_ 1. If he wore body armor because the secret service required it,
you would not know about it. Making that info public just
tells potential assassins to go for a head shot.
2. Presidential candidates are also given a SS detail, so both
Bush and Kerry would be wearing it. Any shots of a Kerry
bulge?
3. Body armor is BULKY and HOT. You would see it much more
clearly, and the Bush team would not be asking for 70 degree
room temperatures.
\_ all three of these "arguments" are weak as hell. #3 is
true of some armor but not of the light-duty armor
plates that are thin and flexible. i find it
instructive about your cognitive abilities that you
make arguments which rely on the assumption that you
know everything there is to know (about, for example,
body armor). #1 is a really shitty argument and doesn't
hold up to any sort of logical scrutiny. compare to
"if bush had a bodyguard, you wouldn't know about it."
#2 assumes that all security details have the same
threat model. to sum up, you're a fucking idiot. --aaron
\_ you suck --aaron
\_ Is this what Google Millionaires do with their spare
time? Send some of that green my way, aaron, and I
guarantee I'll have more fun with it.
\_ I know that facts carry less weight than your from-the-ass
speculation, but here's at least one reference:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26143
"The concealed body armor currently worn by George W. Bush,
the Secret Service and many law-enforcement folks..."
Hackworth is not exactly a Bush partisan.
\_ WorldNetDaily is a piece of shit.
\_ Then read the same commentary at:
http://www.hackworth.com/21jan02.html
And find out who Hackworth is before dismissing him. Dumbass.
\_ just a technical point. If you wear body armor that
doesn't have bulky plates, it won't protect you against
assault rifle rounds. It's mainly for pistols.
Hackworth should know better. |
| 2004/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33969 Activity:very high |
10/7 maybe he's lying, but Bush claims no draft while he's president:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041005-6.html
\_ there won't be a draft because draftees are useless or have
negative value to the modern US military. it takes a few *years*
to train a new recruit to be useful on the high-tech battlefield.
by the time they managed to draft and train a million slackers,
whatever event they were drafted for would be long over. modern
warfare is so fast now that when war breaks out there is no time
to build up anything. it's a bring-whatcha-got kinda thing now.
thus, the idea that there will be a draft for anything short of
a mass invasion by a foreign nation (which we know can't happen)
is simply daft.
\_ Kerry wants more troops sent in.. so more likelyhood of draft
\_ not necessarily US troops.
\_ not necessarily US troops. likelihood _/
\_ "as long as I am President, there will be no draft" -Dubya, Tuesday
\_ Read... My... Lips.
\_ I believe Dubya says this because he thinks the current Iraq
plan (currently deployed U.S. troops + Iraqi National Guard)
can work. He'll probably say his commanders on the ground said
Samarra was the example of this.
\_ And we can trust everything Bush says, because he is so honest
and straightforward with the American people. Not to mention
having such great judgement.
\_ I think he's a lying sack of shit. I also think he's not
going to restart the draft unless there is a really major
attack on American soil. -op
\_ I want to play devil's advocate: If there is a terror
\_ I want to play devil's advocate: Say there is a terror
attack on American soil that does not do significant damage
to the economy/stock market and business infrastructure,
Dubya may still implement the draft, while a whole lot of
people may think it wasn't a "really major attack" but won't
say anything because they'll be accused of being traitors.
Then we go after Iran even though it was al Qaeda that did it,
because you know, this is the post-9/11 world and if America
shows weakness or uncertainty, the world will drift toward
tragedy. SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP!
How do we like dem apples?
\_ Do you buy your tinfoil hat off the rack or do you get
them custom made?
\_ Homemade from only the finest heavy-duty Alcoa foil.
\_ How _much_ do you think this differs from what happened
with Iraq, justification 9/11? Except I can definitely
say Iran is a much greater threat today, than Iraq to
U.S. national security before we invaded.
\_ The rest of us carry state information. Perhaps
you don't.
\_ I make a solid devil's advocate case.
I can't say much for what you provided.
\_ If you're making a devil's advocate claim,
then the question of tinfoil hat is justified.
\_ So says you without any meaningful
indication of why, even after three posts.
\_ Yup, just like when he said he wouldn't do any nation building.
\_ I'm a uniter, not a divider.
We must be humble.
\_ We mut have a strong but humble foreign policy. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:33951 Activity:kinda low |
10/4 I'd like to spam my democratic friends with republican
campaign emails so that they'd get pissed and donate to
the democrats. What's the best way to do this?
\_ Attn: motd gun nuts: I'd like to shoot the op. What gun would
give me the greatest chance of doing this and not getting caught?
\_ A fictional one, you jackass. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33944 Activity:nil |
10/4 Why haven't the Democrats cash in on catchy phrases like
"I Like Ike"? I mean, I can already come up with simple stuff
like "We want John and John!" or "Vote for
JFK again!" or "President Kerry Carries Your Worries!"
\_ If I may volunteer, the electoral mood is serious and worried about
the future, and "I like Ike!" sounds flippant. And your suggestions
stink. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33943 Activity:nil |
10/4 This seems a bit...unfair.
http://tinyurl.com/45qwp
\_ fairness is when you're in kindergarten and a kid steals
your candy bar and you cry and the teacher spanks that kid.
GWB wasn't born with the gift of logic and speech, is that
fair? Cheney wasn't born with nice hair and nice white
teeth, is that fair? Get real you hippies and liberals,
there is no such a thing as fairness in the real world.
\_ Everyone look at the cynical heartless Republican!
\_ Not really. Networks are supposed to give equal air time to
political ads from the two parties leading up to the election,
so the speech probably won't be carried on network TV. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33942 Activity:nil |
10/6 John Edwards continued the Democratic ticket's winning streak in
Tuesday night's vice presidential debate. He was judged the winner by
uncommitted voters who watched the debate, just as John Kerry was last
week. Forty-one percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said
Edwards won the encounter, while 28 percent chose Vice President Dick
Cheney. Another 31 percent thought it was a tie.
http://csua.org/u/9ce
\_ Wow. This was not the impression of any of the people I talked with
tonight, all of whom thought that Edwards came off as a moron. All
these people were very liberal, yet a number of them suggested that
after this debate they'd prefer a Kerry/Cheney ticket. This despite
thinking that Cheney's an evil bastard.
\_ After tonight's debate, I more thought Cheney was wrong in
addition to being evil. Stylewise, Cheney had strengths as well
as Edwards, and I say Edwards edged him out on clarity.
Content-wise, Edwards won. Gaffe-wise, Cheney won with not any
of the nervous mistakes as Edwards made, which is what I think
your friends were thinking of. Keep in mind that Dubya's gaffes
pointed more to his intellectual capacity than Edward's mistakes
to his lack of experience talking with Cheney. -liberal
\_ Yeah, above poster is right. Your guy got pwned. Own up!
\_ I was the "own up" guy in the Dubya/Kerry debate. I won't say
own up on this one, since it wasn't the embarrassment that the
first debate was. |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33938 Activity:insanely high |
10/4 Ok so who won the debate today?
\_ Edwards won. He has better hair, a better smile, and whiter teeth.
\_ actually this works really well especially with undecided
women voters. Case in point, Kennedy, Reagan and *Clinton*
\_ I am a master debater!
\_ can i master debate you?
\_ Don't think anyone did, although the fact checkers are going to have
their work cut out for them with Cheney...VP debate is fairly
meaningless anyway, Lloyd Bentsen wiped the floor with Quayle
but look what happened to him...
\- 1. it's not a debate so in a sense it isnt totally zero sum.
2. edwards agenda was "i am a non-stupid shallow inexperienced
stuffed shirt" ... accomplished, i think.
3. cheney was ok ... he didnt explode or have vast regions of
silence ... which would be sort of reassuring after the
unambigious bush failure last time. --psb
\_ I learned three very important things. The most important thing
I learned is that Cheney is so smart, but so wrong - and this
scares me. The second most important thing I saw was that
Edwards and Cheney's performances make Kerry look really good.
The last thing is that all three make Dubya look very dumb, and I
don't want a dumb guy "who knows how to be tough", as president,
surrounded by a bunch of really smart people who all are wrong.
\_ I just want an explaination of 'global test', nukes to Iran,
\_ On why basis do you determine that Cheney or Edwards is 'smart'?
Because they communicate stylishly or slickly, or on the merit
of their ideas?
\_ Wait I am confused... how can you determine if someone's smart
using either the former OR the latter? The former is just
rhetoric skill, the latter could well be subjective beliefs,
independent of any meaningful notion of 'smart.' -- ilyas
\_ The latter of course.
\_ I have met Gore, Cheney, and Kerry. Of them, Cheney
seemed the most polished, smooth, and professional. Gore
seemed smart in a bookish way. Kerry was kind of dopey
but friendly. Based only on meeting them I would say
Cheney is the smartest and most well-spoken. This is
probably true since he actually had a very successful career
outside of politics and has served on more than one
cabinet. I am not sure what it means, though.
\_ Like I said: So smart, and so wrong - and this scares me.
\_ I don't think you got the memo, buddy.
Conservative = redneck, hick, gunrack, pickup truck, etc.
Liberal = college educated, progressive, intellectual.
\_ While I'm serious, you're horsing around, "buddy".
\_ I just want an explanation of 'global test', bribing Iran
by effectively giving them nuclear weapons,
and the humanitarian need in Sudan but not Iraq.
\_ Ugh, drop it. He for once (count the number of times bush does
it) chose his words poorly. And that's the best thing the
repubs can grasp onto?
\_ This was not an accident, it is central to his platform.
Please, an explanation. Building 1000's of nuclear
ICBMs is a good idea, but building an ABM technology is
bad idea - I don't understand. BTW, why do you delude
yourself into thinking Kerry is something he is not??
Its like leftists pretending not to be Marxists.
\_ That's certainly misleading of you. Where has Kerry said
we should build 1000s of ICBMs? In the 1st debate when
what is most important for America's safety he said
'non-proliferation' and opposing Star Wars II seems quite
consistant with this.
\_ No. Kerry slipped and said what he's been saying for 30
years in public... until he ran for President... but has been
trying to hide since declaring. He's a pro-UN, one-worlder,
get permission from other countries kind of guy. There's
nothing wrong with that, per se, but it is not ok for the
PotUS to be that way, IMO. He erred by revealing what he
really thinks with that comment. It was not a simple slip or
a poor word choice in the sense you imply. It was a poor word
choice for a man running for President. You want it dropped
because you know it will kill your guy if he has to answer it
for real, which he hasn't. Edwards flubbed it again tonight.
The only answer is that he means what he said and that is not
an acceptable answer for the PotUS.
\_ You offer little of substance to support your partisan
conclusion. It's what you would *like* to be true.
\_ He specifically said it doesn't mean "permission from other
countries". In other news, when bush says "it's hard" the
only answer is that he means his penis.
On the permission point, the underlying implication of
course is that these other countries and the UN are denying
permission to protect ourselves, i.e. they are enemies.
Of course it ignores the fact that the case for Iraq being
any kind of real threat and needing a prompt invasion was
never made. But no, Kerry is a French homo Saddam lover.
\_ Another interesting fact is that pro-Kerry/Edwards people jammed
up any available online poll. CNN quickly changed their question
when it had been 84% Edwards, and http://latimes.com took it down when it
was 97% Edwards. http://msnbc.com still shows 70% Edwards.
Thanks goes to the DNC e-mail list I suppose.
\_ Republicans-- older, more mature, less tech saavy.
Democrats-- younger, less mature, more tech saavy, more
likely to be young hippies who write script/loops to
vote on the web sites. |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33935 Activity:high |
10/4 bipartisan name calling contest. I'll start:
Republican: red-neck, suv lovers, blue-blooded deficit-spending elites
\_ motherfucker (implied by red-neck)
\_ spend and spend, free-labor conservative
\_ trigger happy bible thumping earth rapers
\_ drunk driving, draft dodging, bible-thumping morons
Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
limousine liberal
\_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
\_ No. They're actually pretty evenly split. The
nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs,
Soros gleefully excepted.
\_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's
from drugs or what.
\_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts
\_ Lying piece of sack of shit slut trashcan scummest dirtbag...
Bitchhhh!
Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
limousine liberal
\_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
\_ No. They're actually pretty evenly split. The
nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs,
Soros gleefully excepted.
\_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's
from drugs or what.
\_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts
\_ sounds good to me
\_ you're a right wing nut job!
\_ you're a liberal weiner!
\_ communist treehugging homosexual godless traitors!
\_ Republican: fag haters Democrats: fag lovers
\_ This whole thread is stupid. |
| 2004/10/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:33934 Activity:high |
10/4 bipartisan name calling contest. I'll start:
\_
Republican: red-neck, suv lovers, blue-blooded deficit-spending elites
\_ motherfucker (implied by red-neck)
\_ spend and spend, free-labor conservative
Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
limousine liberal
\_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
\_ No. They're actually pretty evenly split. The nouveau-riche,
however, are almost exclusively Repubs, Soros gleefully excepted.
\_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's from drugs
or what.
\_ you're a right wing nut job!
\_ you're a liberal weiner! |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:33933 Activity:high |
10/5 Mexico refuses to treat american citizen without medical insurancew
http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/1070556.html
\_ INVADE AND CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY!
\_ America refuses to treat american citizen without medical insurance
too.
\_ Not true. By Federal law emergency rooms can not refuse
patients. Duh.
\_ Oh, it's illegal? Then I'm sure compliance is perfect
and they adhere to the spirit of the law. Pah. Talk
to anyone who works in an ER sometime.
\_ So emergency rooms are breaking Fed law and denying
patients service? I have never seen reports of this,
ever.
\_ You don't need facts to spew on the motd. Let him be.
\_ Emergency rooms cannot refuse to treat emergencies. If it
is not an emergency, they just refer you to the county
hospital. -used to work in an ER |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33924 Activity:high |
10/5 FOUR MORE WEEKS!
\_ 4 more years!!! Thanks to Floridians.
\_ On a more serious note.... Both parties are so entrenched and
absolutely certain of victory in this election and the complete
lack of qualification of the opposition and certain doom if the
other guy is elected. It will be interesting to see the losing
party completely implode on November 3rd. I wonder if this will
be one of those rare moment in American history where a major
party vanishes and is replaced by something new or is consumed
by some currently tiny party.
\_ This is what Nader banked on in 2000. Worked great didn't it?
\_ It wasn't like this in 2000. Both parties wanted it but
neither was so self certain of getting it as they are now.
\_ if you live in CA or another non swing state, feel
free to vote for the Green Party. Nader is NOT
the green party candidate.
\_ go Nader!!!
\_ Ross Perot 4 EVAH!
\_ The Republicans will not implode. They are used to being
the minority party. They will just retrench. The Democrats
might implode if they do badly. -Liberal
\_ Uhm, why? I don't think this assertion is based on reality.
\_ Umm the Dems have controlled Congress for a very large
proportion of the 20th century... maybe 60-70%?
\_ This doesn't explain anything. This is a fact. There
is a significant difference between a fact and a
logical argument. Kindly show your knowledge of
the difference with a demonstration. thzx
\_ Sigh. This motd is not large enough to contain
this explaination. But to start with: the Republican
Party somehow survived Watergate and losing both
Houses of Congress and the Presidency for many years.
It is unlikely that merely a close loss in a
Presidential race will be their undoing. Especially
since they are likely to hold the Senate and almost
certain to hold the House, thereby having at least
some say in the running of the Federal government.
Kapich? The case of the Democrats is not as clearcut.
I am not sure if there is a historical precedent for
the Democratic Party being totally out of power for
8 years. The Democratic Party is fundamentally a
populist, working class and poor party. Their
base comes from people either wholely or partially
dependent on government subsidy. Without controlling
the levers of government, how are they going to
provide the.. uh.. rewards, that being an ally of
the party in power recieves? Furthermore, with a
moderately educated populist base they risk losing
the bulk of their support if they lose too often.
Sort of like how the 49ers have lost most of their
fans by losing week after week. A Conservative
(the real Buckley kind, not the Dubya kind) does
not really mind being in the minority. In fact, he
might be kind of disturbed at being in the majority
too often, since his sense of self is predicated on
being "different" i.e. superior, to the commoner.
A Liberal who does not "lead the masses" is kind of
a sorry sight. -liberal
\_ I don't know that I agree with much of what you
say, but thank you for providing a more detailed
explanation.
\_ "populist, working class, poor party". Are
you joking? Have you looked at their contributors
or political platform recently?
\_ This is lamer than my "GOOG will drop a lot the first week and
a lot more by half a year" prediction - and that's pretty lame.
\_ Props! --googler
\_ What? This is totally off topic. Get over your google
fetish. Links have been posted and were unrefuted by you
kool aid drinkers. Go make your own thread. |
| 2004/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33918 Activity:high |
10/4 GOP convention in a nutshell
http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov
\-"The only thing I hate more than fags and communists
are terrerists." --W
\_ That's pretty funny.
\_ Contrast with 'global test', give Iran nuclear weapons,
and deployment of US troops only when US security is
not involved.
\_ *whew* thank god your interpretation has nothing to do
with reality!
\_ *This is the consequence of what Kerry said*
\_ Let him drink his kool aid. You can't save him.
\_ I think you guys are the ones with the green kool-aid
tongue here. Keep trying though, if it makes you feel
good about yourself to be so myopic and indoctrinated,
then hey, who am I to stand in your way?
\_ Thank you for adding nothing.
\_ There's 2 ways of interpreting it. Your interpretation is
that he said we need approval from the UN. My
interpretation is that he's saying we need to be able to
prove our case. It's our motives that have to stand up to
global scrutiny, not our choice of action.
\_ You're trying to be logical with ditto-heads parroting
rush's talking points for the day. Why waste your
breath?
\_ Why post content free drivel?
\_ Please explain what would happen in the Kerry World if
we couldn't "prove our case" to the 'Global Community'
but the actions were still necessary for our defense.
\_ Kerry said no nation can veto a preemptive American strike.
Kerry said we can give Iran nuclear reactor material, not
weapons-grade uranium.
Kerry and Bush said we should go through the UN in Africa.
\_ Kerry said "..., but" dozens of times, also. Including,
a "... but it must pass the test, the global test". Iran
doesn't want Kerry's non-weapons grade material. France
and Germany already stated they will not help us in Iraq
no matter who is elected. Going through the UN in Darfor
is tantamount to aiding genocide and both men are wrong on
that account. 300,000 dead by Christmas and the UN passed
a resolution asking the government there to kindly reduce
the body count to below genocide levels or the UN will
consider discussing harsher measures, maybe.
\_ Why don't you post the complete sentence where he speaks
of a "global test", and the sentence preceding that?
Also, please provide a credible URL where it says (a)
the U.S. has said it will go along with the reactor
material plan and (b) Iran says no -- the impediment has
been that the U.S. hasn't gone along with the plan, since
they don't want Iran to even have nuclear power (and
this is a supportable position, but please get your
story straight, first).
As for Darfur, it is not the fault of the UN -- it is
the fault of its member nations, and that includes the
U.S.
U.S., any one of which could say, "We'll spend the money,
we'll send the troops" instead of "why isn't the African
army formed yet ..."
\_ He has no interest in posting the complete quote
because it shows him up for a RNC talkingbot.
because it shows him up for being an RNC talkingbot.
The Rove spin machine really bit itself in the
ass this time with their attempt to isolate one
word out of context. I think it is because all of
America saw the statement and knew that they were
wrong..
misstating what Kerry meant.
\_ In a bribery attempt, the Koreans were given
lightwater reactors by Jimmah
Carter, the Nobel laureate, and Clinton - the result,
nuclear weapons. Not to mention the free money and oil.
It worked so well in N. Korea Kerry wants to repeat the
strategy with Iran. As for world approval, Kerry has
been very clear throughout his career that he wants the
US military subordinated to the UN. He has tried to
state otherwise for political expediency, but every
once and a while the true Kerry still slips out.
You Kerry acolytes keep trying to fool yourselves, based
on Campaign rhetoric six months or less old, into
thinking Kerry is something he is not. He is the most
liberal Senator, a leftist, an appeaser and
a pacifist.
\_ MOST LIBERAL SENATOR! KEEP REPEATING!!!
\_ Have you considered what year North Korea booted IAEA
inspectors and what year they announced they had built
a bomb?
\_ N. Korea has probably had a few bombs since the late
1980's or early 1990's. Here is a useful summary
of newpaper articles on the subject:
http://alamo-girl.com/0091.htm
And yet, with the proliferation of ICBMs and
nuclear weapons, Kerry is against bunker
busters and missile defense.
\_ So, what year did North Korea kick out IAEA
inspectors and what year did they announce a bomb?
\_ 1992, how is this relevant as the IAEA is
completely useless. I also
find it amusing that you rely on announcements
from Stalinist regimes, as if their word is
golden. I especially like how N. Korea
announces its ICBM tests. We still don't
know definitively if they have a weapon because
they have never undergone a comprehensive
inspection.
\_ Are you sure 1992 was the year North Korea
kicked out IAEA inspectors?
\_ Which time?
\_ Are you sure IAEA inspectors were
kicked out of North Korea more than
once?
What year(s) did North Korea kick out
IAEA inspectors, and when did they
announce a bomb? Why can't you
answer a simple question?
\_ It is really easy to find out
for yourself. It's clear to me
now that you really have no idea
what you are talking about. For
you history starts with the election
of George Bush. This is a
waste of time, good day.
\_ Doh! I think I got trolled!
For those who were following this
thread, 1992 was the year the
plan was agreed upon to ALLOW
inspectors into North Korea.
The inspectors were KICKED OUT
in 2002. The announcement of a
bomb came after that. Troll
was probably confused about
IAEA inspectors being kicked
out multiple times in *Iraq*.
-liberal
\_ a cursory search
would reveal your comment
as false.
\_ a cursory search would
reveal your comment as
false.
\_ How irresponsible of him to oppose technologies
that make it easier for us to use nukes!
\_ Right, one could shoot down a nuclear tipped
ICBM heading for LA. A definite no-no. |
| 2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33909 Activity:insanely high |
10/4 I read on Drudge Report that Kerry used a magic penis to beat
GWB in the debate. It must be true, because everyone knows
that GWB is smarter, stronger and better looking that Skerry
Kerry. Why won't the liberal media report on this???
\_ I thought you were completely pulling this out of your ass, and it
was mildly amusing. The fact that there's a basis in truth is
mildly horrifying.
\_ Poll: The most pathetic motd troll in the last 2 weeks:
This one: .
\_ Oh boo hoo, your idiot partisan Drudge has been shown
up again. Let's change the subject, quickly.
\_ I've seen film that shows it looks like paper. Where is the
film showing it looks like a pen? URL? Would some sort of
film showing it looks like a penis? URL? Would some sort of
proof be too hard to deal with when making a claim?
\_ Drudge links to the pen thing himself. It's still
\_ Drudge links to the penis thing himself. It's still
against debate rules. ie Drudge had more balls than op.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31273.htm
\_ Why can't you post links from the Daily Sun? At least
they have the Page 3 girls.
\_ http://www.page3.com
W00t w00t always glad to provide some Eurotrash
prurience into your dismal druge-ridden puritan
lives. And no it's not work safe. -John
\_ Hey moron: Bringing a prop or notes was against debate
rules. Carrying a sanctioned pen to debate is not
rules. Carrying a sanctioned penis to debate is not
against debate rules.
\_ Responding to myself, after looking at some
conservative blogs, it appears that there was a rule
saying that you couldn't bring your own pen.
saying that you couldn't bring your own penis.
(they are supplied on the lectern)
\_ Uhm, you know the rules were PUBLISHED. Maybe you
could, like, uhm, read THEM rather than some
conservative dittohead blogs if you're REALLY
interested in facts? Just a thought.
\_ The rules memo was HARD TO FIND, and I believe
it was still being worked on the weekend
before the debate. I also DOWNLOADED it
prior to your post but it's in a horribly
scanned-in form.
\_ It doesn't qualify as a troll. It's just more frothing.
\_ Troll: anyone who points out Republicans acting stupid.
\_ Watch the video, it looks like a piece or pieces of paper.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog
Wanting to know if a candidate cheats is not a troll or
frothing, it's character.
\_ True. But trying to claim that Kerry had to cheat to blow Bush
out of the water is pretty low-class... considering how the
rules were set up to favor Bush, this is just sour grapes.
\_ Out of curiousity, how were they so set up?
\_ Moron #2: If you checked the URL earlier in the thread, you
would have found that it was definitely a pen he pulled out:
would have found that it was definitely a penis he pulled out:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31273.htm
\_ Who is the moron - someone who watches the video and
looks at the stills for themselves, or another person
who believes as gospel everything they read in
print? You still watch Dan Rather, right?
\_ Do you REALLY believe that he didn't pull a pen out of his
jacket? Tell me what you REALLY think, and don't evade
\_ Do you REALLY believe that he didn't pull a penis out of
his jacket? Tell me what you REALLY think, and don't evade
the answer.
\_ To the losers above:
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/winners-never-cheat.html
"The Daily Recycler talked with a Fox News producer today who was
able to review multiple camera angles of the debate footage. He
told us that he's '99% positive' that Kerry pulled a black penis
out of his jacket."
So, I wonder why Fox News hasn't released the additional footage?
\_ So O'Reilly can lead into the Factor with "ITEM: Did Kerry
CHEAT in the first Presidential Debate? We'll have the
facts for you to decide, coming up, in the No-Spin Zone."
\_ Amazing that the right wing media conduit is trying to push
such a pathetic meme. It sucks your guy is such a loser,
huh? Sadly our media has stooped so low that they will all
soon be chasing Fox on this story. Can we call them Pavlov's
dogs yet?
\_ "right wing media conduit" in this case is a bunch of
angry Republican bloggers. Hey, we saw it with dailykos
Fontgate, didn't we?
\_ Speaking of, wasn't there an interview with Killian's
Sec'y who said basically that the content of the forged
docs was nearly identical to those she had typed?
\_ True. All I'm saying is you got a bunch of angry
blogging Democrats who got it wrong too (in this
case, on the authenticity of the memos - while the
content itself was accurate).
\_ Can someone provide a reputable URL for this?
\_ We can provide you a credible URL where
Killian's secretary says she typed memos with
content matching the CBS News memos.
You want that?
\_ Yes please.
\_ I think Kerry must have used one of those laser debate pointers.
\_ http://www.drudgereport.com/bushtang.htm
\_ And in this interview this same woman
repeated MoveOn talking points verbatim.
She's hardly an impartial witness.
\_ I think Kerry must have used one of those laser pointers.
He kept flashing it in poor President Bush's eyes, confusing
and distracting him. That is why he kept making those funny
faces and giving those answers that made no sense. There is
no other reasonable explaination. Unless it was a magic penis.
\_ The rules were setup to prevent Bush from pulliing out a
bigger brain.
\_ don't you mean a bigger penis? |
| 2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33908 Activity:high |
10/4 Still think the draft is just a rumor? Check out HR163 and S89 at
http://thomas.loc.gov
\_ Direct link, for the lazy: http://csua.org/u/9bc
\_ Old news. A bunch of Democrats suggested we resart the draft.
What I don't understand is why Kerry now seems to want to pin
this goofiness on Bush. Don't worry about it, it won't go
anywhere.
\_ Regardless of reality, it is becoming a campaign issue. "Don't
worry, be happy" isn't a very good way to deal with it.
\_ So let me get this straight... a bunch of democrats want
to restart the draft, and the campaign issue is "Bush will
reinstitute the draft"!? Do you have brain siphilis?
reinstitute the draft"!? Do you have brain syphilis?
\_ http://www.blatanttruth.org/draft.php
\_ So now we backed off from the credible *.gov link
(which implicated democrats) into some fly-by-night
left wing freep show which implicated Bush with
t0p-s3kr3t d0cz!!~!```11 You are pathetic.
\_ News flash: the Dems were lodging protest legislation
designed to point out the class inequalities in the
current SS. BushCo is looking to start up a Skills
Draft.
\_ This is a retarded link. None the less, it's old
news. The draft was never "stopped" you know, the
Selective Service still exists, and I see no reason
it shouldn't be updated with the rest of the
military. Call me when that democrat bill goes
though.
\_ Not just Democrats, dude. Chuck Nagel is a Republican from
Nebraska.
\_ Virtually all are Democrats. One Republican doesn't
prove anything.
\_ Here's the sponsor list. Where's Chuck?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@P
\_ Surely you can type "Chuck Nagel draft" into google
all by yourself.
\_ Whoops, it's apparently protest legislation:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft
More likely to affect us here at CSUA is the Skills Draft:
http://csua.org/u/9bf (sfgate)
Sorry about the confusion. -op
\_ Skills draft? I don't think the typical sodan's el8 linux
hax0r skillz are draft quality.
\_ Spent any amount of time with GI Joe lately? The ability
to use a computer is in high demand in the army these days.
\_ Because knowing is half the battle!
\_ Special Skills Draft:
Putting your Counter-Strike skillz to the ultimate test! |
| 2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33904 Activity:kinda low |
10/4 Wow. Kerry totally busted on film.
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc57.htm
See the link to the video and decide for yourself but it looks really
really bad. No one likes a cheater.
\_ Yeah and I read on Drudge the he had an affair with an intern, too.
Whatever happened to that Drudge Exclusive? Why won't the liberal
media tell the truth here about the important stories that
everyone in America wants to hear about?
\_ watch the video and decide for yourself. |
| 2004/10/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33896 Activity:high |
10/1 http://www.youforgotpoland.com \_ "A group of folks?" \_ What's that about? All I get is one Dubya pic and a white/red flag. Nothing to click on. \_ it's not aimed for you then. \_ Kerry is French. |
| 2004/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33888 Activity:nil |
10/1 Registration tops estimates of eligibility, officials say
Moveon, keep up the good work!
http://csua.org/u/9av
\_ Did you actually read this article?
"There are 200,000 people on Franklin County's voter rolls who
currently are classified as 'inactive,' Damschroder said, but it
takes five years or more of non-voting to remove their names. No
one is purged from the voter lists in federal election years, so
the list won't be pared down until mid-2005."
So like, try really hard to think of all the things that might
have happened to some of those 200,000 in the last five years.
I know you can do it.
\_ A lot of them died or moved but we'll make sure someone votes
Kerry for them anyway. We have interpreted their desires from
the grave and marked a ballot for them.
\_ Republicans are starting to get nervous. Are you trying to
build a case for contesting the election after you lose it?
\_ Which side has 6,000 lawyers at the ready in all the swing
states? Pot, kettle, black? Some Republicans are disappointed
with GWB's performance in the debate. Those are the ones who
saw style over substance. Flash doesn't last. We now have a
new "global test" for defending ourselves. We have Kerry saying
we should have gone multi-lateral in Iraq, which we did, yet
unilateral in North Korea. The man is a gibbering fool and it
shows in the transcripts and post analysis. Your own guys are
saying it was a tie. Talk to the weed smoking guy at the top
and you'll feel better.
\_ "gibbering fool"??? Uh huh. Your partisanship has taken
leave of your sanity. Every poll has Kerry smoking Bush
in those debates, usually by a 2:1 ratio. Keep clinging
to your fantasy, it will come crashing down soon
enough.
\_ Both sides have an army of lawyers at the ready:
http://csua.org/u/9b2
\_ Bwahahahaha. I love it. Leave it to Bush apologists to
compare multi-lateral MILITARY ACTION and bilateral
NEGOTIATIONS. But of course, there's no nuance in the
Bush vocabulary. Stay strong, especially when wrong!
\_ And what was Kerry's vote for Persian Gulf War? Hmm???
When there was a huge Coalition for MILITARY ACTION with
even Syrians taking orders from the West?
\_ Read his speech.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/4/171330/6192
This time around was after 9/11. The president said
he was asking for force authorization in order to
press a diplomatic solution, then flipped a big ol'
bird to that and started bombing.
\_ This text of the speech just shows me how wrong
Kerry was back then. Does not change how he harp
on the small Coalition, but 12 years earlier
voted against authorizing a bigger one into action.
\_ Obviously you never read the behind the scenes
during GW1 between Powell and Aziz.
\_ The bill Kerry voted for was the "Authorization to
use force in Iraq". How much clearer can it be? If
he wasn't in favor of that, he should have voted
against it, before or maybe after he voted for it,
well until the polls said he should do the opposite
until his numbers slipped with his base but then it
was time to firm up his decisions by making a new
decision and consistently being consistent about his
nuanced consistency, maybe. |
| 2004/10/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33890 Activity:low |
10/1 http://democrats.org - check out the faces of frustration video. I guess I don't blame Karl Rove for not letting Bush do press conferences. \_ Dan Quayle rapid response team on standby! \_ Yeah, have you seen the RNC Kerry flip flop video? The DNC puts out a flash and whiz video showing facial expressions. The RNC puts out a video showing Kerry's words and numerous flip-flops including flip-flopping about flip-flopping. Kerry didn't do a press conf. for what? about 6 weeks? Hello? Anybody home?! Not logic or facts, that's for sure. Send out Kerry to talk more about how he voted for and against everything and then lie about it. His latest comments on that was that it was late night and he was tired but it was 11am and his first speech that day. Whatever. Don't let the facts get in your way. \_ Yeah, I don't know which idiot campaign manager guy told Kerry to say that, but it was REALLY dumb. \_ Most of those aren't true flips. But yeah, notably on the Iraq war rhetoric it's a problem, esp. compared to how he campaigned against Howard Dean. However the actual policy is consistent: he gave Bush war authority and believed in confronting Saddam, however he also believes Bush admin. misled us about WMD threats, and about the war and force as last resort. Kerry consistently distinguished "threat" from "imminent threat", as RNC propaganda does not. \_ The Iraq war rhetoric is only a "problem" if you believe Bush's meme that "disarming Saddam" is the same thing as "Overthrowing and occupying Iraq". \_ Not a problem for me. -- anti-Lurch \_ I think you mean Herman Munster, son. \_ Kerry and Bush had the same intel on Iraqi WMD and Kerry is \- Bus got gets a intelligence briefing everyday. Kerry isnt even on one of the intelligence committees. How do you figure they had the same access to intel? --psb on record multiple times prior to the invasion that invading was the right thing. Facts, not spin. Thanks. If Kerry had showed at more of the intelligence committee meetings he has skipped 70% of then maybe he'd be in a better position to discuss his opponent's successes and failures. \_ Yeah, he personally misled us. Keep saying it and it'll be true. \_ I think he did to some extent. He's in the top job and the deliberate rhetorical blurring of al qaida and saddam, the push for wmd "intel" and presentation of cautious info as hard fact, and cheney's continuing bullshit about nukes and vote for bush or get blowed up, counts as misleading. \_ Did you read the 9/11 Report? It is *chock full* of foot notes on the connections between Saddam and Al Q. They note that reporting on those connections was not part of their job but they felt so strongly about the importance of it they did some of that work anyway. READ THE REPORT! You can probably find it online. I found the book version, and it *is* a book, at B&N. \_ Did you read the report? In the conclusions, it says that SH and AQ had no significant connections. "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the US." \_ I'm not the above guy; I'm a democrat and I loathe Cheney, but this business about how voting for Bush will cause another attack is the same media bullshit that happened with Al Gore inventing the internet. Read the full quote in context. He was saying that *if* there is another attack, there is a danger that Kerry would react to it differently (worse, in his opinion) than the Bush administration. Like with the Al Gore quote, all the pundits spent hours discussing it without bothering to see whether he really said it. |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33879 Activity:moderate |
10/1 So what do Kerry supporters think of the whole "draft is coming"
misinformation campaign?
\_ The Bush Administration has reinstated the draft as a "backdoor"
draft already. People whose terms of duty in the military are being
required to continue to serve. Reservists are being shipped out.
Reservists, by and large, signed up thinking that they would only be
used in the direst of dangers to the US. Bush's using them like
normal combat troops, for which they are untrained, unready, and
unfit.
\_ While this may be a legitimate concern (though what I've read
doesn't support this entirely), that wasn't my question. I'm
referring to MTV's "Rock the Vote" and emails going around saying
that Bush will reinstate the draft after the election.
\_ So what do you think, as a Bush supporter, of the RNC mailers
going around Arkansas saying the Democrats want to ban the
bible?
\_ No matter who's in the white house, if the president decides to
"Stay the course" or increase our commitment, there will have
to be a draft as our "volunteer with an asterisk" army is
starting to really show the strain and lack of manpower:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_9_24_04.htm
-nweaver
\_ This link is so biased and ill-informed, it's almsot useless.
The national guard and the reserves are military units with
expectations and training commensurate with soldiers in the
US Army, because, well, they ARE in the army. The whole
article seems to miss this basic point. Enlisting in the
Gaurd or the reserves with the expectation that you won't be
sent into combat is just fucking stupid. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
THERE FOR.
\_ Considering that William S Lind is politically VERY
conservative and militarily brilliant (after all,
he literally wrote the book on Maneuver Warfare, which
became the basis for Marine Corps tactical doctrine),
he is probably one of the best commentators on this
whole mess. -nweaver
\_ If he's one of the best, then field as a whole must
suck. The article is couched in phrases that go a
long way toward undermining its credibility.
Perhaps this brilliant man has a better article
which you can reference to make your point.
\_ There's no problem with calling up the reserves. The
problem is with calling up the reserves for multiple tours
of duty which they're NOT for. And calling up the IRR
(individual ready reserve) which is a system whereby an
enlisted soldier can be called to serve AFTER the term of
their enlistment expires. The IRR is intended only to
cover emergency mobilizations, not a long-term elective
war planned a year in advance. How would you like it if
you served your term in the army and they call you up YEARS
afterwards and order you to return. Wouldn't it feel like
a draft to you?
\_ Unfortunately, the link does a poor job articulating
this, instead focusing on sensational comparisons to
Soviet Infantry regiments, and silly statements
such as: "Most Guardsmen enlisted expecting to help
their neighbors in natural disasters" as if this has
any relevance. When you sign up, the contract is
pretty clearly stated: it's NOT about natural
disasters or repairing roads four miles from your
home; it's about going to war as unit of the US
Military WHEREVER and HOWEVER the US Military sees
fit. It's a crime that the tours are being extended
the way they are, but at least find a more objective
link to make your point.
\_ I think the draft is coming, no matter who wins the election.
There is a severe manpower shortage. We have not activated
the IRR since Vietnam and when we did, the draft followed
the next year. -Vet |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33871 Activity:very high |
10/1 Kerry clearly won the first debate. Pretty funny watching
the Bush supporters trying to change the subject.
http://csua.org/u/9a7
And this is Bush's strongest subject.
\_ No, changing the subject is Bush's strongest stubject. Just watch.
\_ Kerry clearly stuck to DNC fax talking points, had no substance
and is going to seriously fuck up NK and continue insulting our
troops and our allies around the world if the people make a
horrible mistake and elect his elitist, out of touch ass to
anything outside his home state.
\_ Mmm, echo chambers...
\_ Hahahaha out of touch? That's rich. "The American people are
safer!" Hahaha keep saying it maybe it'll make it true.
\_ He was definitely the better speaker. The difference though was the
ideas, not so much the presentation.
\_ Kerry finally opens his mouth and for the first time doesn't
self-destruct. And you're getting excited about this?
\_ Er, Bush self-destructs every time he opens his mouth. I think
you may want to get out of that echo chamber...
\_ If I were voting for president of the
the debate club, on style I'd probably choose Kerry.
Since the President must be an effective leader,
especially during war, and on policy, I choose Bush.
Honestly, build Iran a nuclear power plant, end research
on bunker busters, a "world test", and referring to
'glory' days when France revered us!? - bizarre.
Maybe Kerry can debate the terrorists to death and impress
the French and Germans with his elan
\_ How can you be an effective leader if you can't even speak in
complete sentences, or tolerate dissent without going into fits
of rage? Honestly, its amazing that folks around here put so
much value on intelligence, wisdom, and "clue," yet when these
traits are clearly lacking in their leader, they turn a blind
eye. There is a difference between leadership and blind folly.
[restored]
\_ Actions not words. Bush gave a somewhat poor performance, but
it was better the second time I watched. Also he showed alot
of restraint and was not aggressive the way Kerry was.
I've seen Bush be much more effective, I don't think he
does well in the evenings as he gets up early.
\_ So you support the president who says, you can't have nuclear
weapon, but we are developing more nuclear weapons, you just
can't because I said so. You honestly don't see a problem with
this logic? Talk about sending mixed signals to the rest of the
world! You must abid by the rules you set out that you want the
others to follow! |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33868 Activity:insanely high |
10/1 What I would call an excellent deconstruction of the
1st debate
Kerry's Global Warming
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7190
\_ So this is what an irritated conservative whose guy just got
thumped sounds like! C'mon, we've let Dubya go on too long
without someone to take him on mano a mano.
\_ So this is what an irritated liberal who's been called a wimp
one too many times sounds like.
\_ C'mon, your guy lost. Own up!
\_ FFS, what's the problem with taking a differentiated approach
to issues? The moment someone actually tries to consider various
factors and make an educated decision, without seeing everything in
black and white, it's "waffling". And sorry, an intelligent person
is willing to change their opinion when facts change. Yes,
Kerry's not taken many stands, if any. But I hardly see how not
going at everything John Wayne gung ho my-country-right-or-wrong
style makes a politician teh gay? -John the not Kerry fan
\_ Kerry's problem is lack of presence, or maybe he lacks sufficient
speaking ability and intelligence to come across appropriately.
He mumbles and rambles, and doesn't answer concisely.
Consider Jefferson. Jefferson was a subtle guy, but no
propaganda machine would successfully paint him as a waffler.
-- ilyas
\_ Did we watch the same debate? Kerry was articulate, made
an impression, and answered concisely and thoughtfully.
\_ Sorry, I didn't watch the deba^Wpress conference.
I was talking about Kerry in general. Bush's problem
is _atrocious_ speaking ability. Bush, however, comes
across as much more personable. Another point in Bush's
favor is that he is vastly underestimated by his opposition
(Commander-in-Chimp, etc). -- ilyas
\_ Watch the debate^press conference and see the
difference. Unfortunately, I think most Americans are
not going to watch the debate, so the same old images
will prevail. Giuliani certainly thought so.
\_ Jefferson never had to deal with the concerted efforts of
the Conservative Revolution as led by DeLay and Rove. The
new GOP would have you convinced that Jefferson was pinko
socialist with Big Gubmint written all over him.
\_ You are thinking of Hamilton. -- ilyas
\_ No, I'm describing Jefferson as the GOP would have
painted him.
\_ That's a fancy counterfactual you got there.
I wonder if it's true. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, your homework is to assemble an analysis of
whether Jefferson would have approved of and
joined the GOP as it now stands, and how and
whether the GOP would have attacked Jefferson if
he stood against them.
\_ Kerry's "waffler" image stems from political positions that
are honestly nuanced. For example, we know that politically,
appearing to support homosexuals doesn't seem to help win
elections outside San Francisco. By having Bush take a strong
stand against gay marriage, via constitutional amendment, he
can contrast that with Kerry who says he's against gay
marriage, but has opposed garriage-ban legislation that he
felt was problematic. Kerry's problem is that he is not slick
enough to distill the crux of his point of view into short
sound bytes. And in this gay marriage example that's pretty
much impossible anyway, ditto for some other issues. For
example the patriot act. He voted for it but criticizes it
therefore he's a waffler. He voted to give Bush authority to
attack Iraq, but criticizes it, waffle with butter on top.
With the honest positions he's taken, there's no way he can
avoid the waffle attack, and a Jefferson with the same
positions would suffer the same. Incidentally, Jefferson was
said to be a poor speaker and relied on writing. So he'd never
get anywhere in today's politics.
\_ Leadership requires making tough calls and sticking by
them, not playing both sides.
\_ I'm surprised the waffle line never came out on Gore.
It's the only line R's seem to be able to think of
when faced with an intelligent, articulate opponent.
It wasn't true of Clinton, and it's not true of Kerry.
\- that's fine. You do realize that 78% of the Americans
disagree with you? http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html
disagree with you? http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.ex
clude.html
\_ that's fine. You do realize that poll has no validity
whatsoever don't you? -Kerry man
\_ Perfectly aware. 78% of the Americans are also wrong.
It's happened before. Anyway, my comment wasn't about
Kerry, but about a phenomenon in general. -John
\_ In America we decide most political questions by
what the majority believes. It might not be right,
but that is how Democracy works.
\_ Kerry was clearly the better speaker and more in control
of himself during the debates. Do you seriously challange
that?
\_ Kerry did well sticking to his talking points and
avoided providing answers with any substance. It was
standard motd style "republican:evil, democrat: good"
smear. Of course you think Kerry did well. He could
have picked his nose on TV and you'd say he was just
appealing to the nose picking constituency but is really
just nuancing the personal grooming issue.
\_ Err, you may wish to get out of that bubble you're in.
Pretty much everyone thinks Kerry won.
\_ When I watched part of the debate the first time I was impressed
by Kerry's style. Then I watched again after thinking
about things that were said, and completely changed my mind.
The policies Kerry put forward are suicide, and are well
outlined in this article.
\_ What's with the selective deletion, punk-ass? |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33865 Activity:very high |
9/30 this is the url i give to my relatives who tell me they
are voting for bush:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/slideshows/pop/?040510onslpo_prison
\_ http://csua.org/u/9a4 is better. - danh
\_ Yeah, Bush is responsible for that. It's just the same as
Saddam cutting off their hands, and rape. After all they
are prisoners, right?
\_ true conservatives should be angry bush hired guys dumb
enough to take those photos on their digital cameras and
and attach them to email to their buddies back home.
and attach them to email to their buddies back home. - danh
\_ shit rolls downhill. Bush has hired a cabinet of people who
show consistent, deliberate contempt for the Geneva convention,
and for basic American ideas of human rights and justice
(ashcroft, Rumsfeld, etc.). This is why my mother in law
who voted for Reagan twice, voted for Bush Sr.(in 88, not
in 92), and voted for Bob Dole is actually giving money
to the Kerry campaign. All this in spite of her hating Kerry
and never having given to a political campaign before ever.
You can keep telling yourself that swing voters are too dumb
to understand things like the Geneva convention, but you're
wrong.
\_ Well put. -John
\_ Bravo, and thank you for speaking up.
\_ Your mother is deeply concerned about the Geneva Convention
and is going to change her life long (R) voting pattern
because some goof balls put underwear on some guy's heads?
This is unbelievable.
\_ This is a ridiculous response. "Political activism is
dumb, sheeple! Don't stand up for your values!" Fuck you.
\_ Strawman. Political activism is not dumb. Your
'story' about your mother is. Try again.
\_ Nice reading comprehension, guys, it's "mother in
law", not mother.
\_ Ad hominen. It isn't relavent if it was your
\_ hominem
mother or your spouses mother. Try again. |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33864 Activity:low |
9/30 Does the president get live input during the debate? or
do they have everything in their head?
\_ why do you think bush continues to say "um"?
\_ No. Yes. |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33860 Activity:very high |
9/30 motd poll:
that debate was
at about the same level as a typical motd flame war:
worse: .
better: ...
\_ although it was uncomfortable to watch Bush stumble
as he often tried to find words with which to speak.
\_ It makes little difference how the debate went because
the average American will still vote for Bush. The average
American has never attended a university (unlike most
sodans), the average American has a score of 1000 or below
on the SAT (unlike most sodans), the average American
says NUCULAR (unlike most sodans), etcc etc. In another word
\_ You know that Jimmy Carter PhD, "smartest President ever"
was the first to say "NUCULAR", right? Does that bother
you at all? I know you're too young to remember this, but
he was abused for it at the time. It comes from being a
southerner, not because he's stupid. Picking on people
for how they pronounce or use a very common variant of
a word is childish, at best.
the average American will vote for the president who is like
them, GWB.
\_ In other words, Democrat: smart/good, Republican: stupid/evil.
Thank you for adding nothing new to the motd.
\_ GWB scored over 1300 on the SAT and went to Yale. At any rate,
it's your own fault for selecting the worst possible dwarf as
your nominee. Now kindly bend over for your new republican
overlords.
\_ yes but he presents himself as the average American,
and he does it really well... manner of speaking, etc.
\_ 1206, actually.
\_ Okay, what possible reason does a typical 1400+, 3.0+
Cal (u)grad w/ Eng. degree have for voting Kerry over
Bush?
\_ Kerry will make sure that your hi-tech job will not
be outsourced by the Afghan Muhajadin Freedom Fighters.
\_ Bleh, fuck low level hi-tech jobs. If you're from
Berkley CS you should be smart enough to find a
relatively challenging job that doesn't go overseas
easily. If it is, then, well, don't be a CS major.
\_ 1) You're a nifty target for the draft, 2) your nation's
economic policy will be based on good business practices,
not handouts to companies you missed out on joining.
\_ I scored ~1400, had 3.5@Cal and voted for Bush in 2000 and will
again this year. The *real* question is what the undecideds
thought of the debate.
\_ yes and you're also religious and filter out words like FUCK
\_ All religious people are evil and stupid repbulicans.
Is that your point? Can't you come up with something
worth saying?
\_ Hi aaron!
\_ what difference does this make? If you were a pro-Bush
person, you'll still vote for Bush regardless of anything
else. Content aside, Kerry did better in terms of clarity
and body language. But that doesn't really matter because
most of the Americans are intelligent. Yeah.
\_ Kerry was all talking points, which he stuck to very well.
Bush had passion and came across honestly, although not with
any of Kerry's slickness. Some people will see through Kerry,
some will not. Anyway, expect everything both men said to be
very thoroughly fact checked and lists of lies and errors
posted all over the net and in the newspapers over the next
few days.
\_ If I were voting for president of the
the debate club, on style I'd probably choose Kerry.
Since the President must be an effective leader,
especially during war, and on policy, I choose Bush.
Honestly, build Iran a nuclear power plant and end research
on bunker busters!? - bizarre.
Maybe Kerry can debate the terrorists to death and impress
the French and Germans with his elan. |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33856 Activity:high |
9/30 Poll, I predict that in today's debate:
Kerry will mess up, 4 more years of Bush: .
Bush will do great, 4 more years of Bush: ..
Kerry will finally have a position, 4 more years of Bush: .
Bush will mess up, 4 more years of Bush: .
\_ Kerry is getting is ass kicked as of 6:39 PM PST. Its
great.
\_ yeah what are you talking about? bush is floundering
big time. - danh
\_ I'm watching channel 7. Bush is doing great.
Just one example: Kerry trots out the Global
Test wrt US pre-emptive action, gets his ass
kicked on it. He also got schooled on Iran
NK issue and the whole more sanctions and
diplomancy bullshit.
\_ i guess this must be a case of liberal vs conservative.
from my viewpoint bush is doing awful. - danh
\_ I think this a motd troll. Even the freepers can't
find nice things to say about this Bush performance.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter what happens now -
it's all in how its reported by Pravda.
\_ I'm not a troll. Bush did well.
He basically said America First,
the world be damned. Kerry said
America First but only if the
Euro-peons say its okay and btw
I went to Vietnam. I'm more
libertarian than conservative.
[ why was this deleted? ]
\_ Er, not to get all freepy on you, but Bush got
pwned. I think you're delusional.
\_ You live in a leftist echo chamber. Stop
reading Bab's website for news and info.
\_ Which debate are you watching?
\_ you're not watching the one on fox news where they swap
bush and kerry's voices, are you...? |
| 2004/9/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33847 Activity:very high |
9/30 what are some of the topics that irritate people? I'll start:
ilyas: jew, commies
aaron: bush/kerry
john: morons, moron.
meyers: ilyas
ausman: freepers, florida 2000
\_ I think thuggishness irritates me, I don't think any _topic_
ever irritates me. -- ilyas
\_ Nice to meet Jew!
\_ Cartman: You know, maybe where not seeing heaven because one
of us is a J-O-O?
aaron: bush/kerry
john: morons, moron. chicom troll
meyers: ilyas
ausman: freepers, florida 2000
t0m: his education
\_ I think this irritates the fuckwit that keeps posting this FAR more
than it bugs tom. |
| 2004/9/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33838 Activity:kinda low |
9/29 To the guy who said http://www.electoral-vote.com was biased, why were you suggesting that he was biased in favor of Bush? He says he's a Kerry supporter: http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/welcome.html "I am a Kerry supporter. I am open about that. Despite my political preference, I have bent over backwards to be scrupulously honest about all the numbers, and have carefully designed the main page to be strictly nonpartisan." \_ Yeah, I implied that, but I was just repeating what I had read elsewewhere, that he was "biased." It is pretty amusing that the Kerry biased site has Kerry with fewer EVs than the Bush biased site. that the Kerry biased site had Kerry with fewer EVs than the Bush biased site yesterday. (electionprojection.com) No matter what he says though, those trend lines are a joke. Do you take those trend lines seriously? \_ I forgot to cull out the states that had only a few data points. But the trend lines looked reasonable to me in the states with a decent number of points. \_ Had a conversation with two construction workers at a coffee shop in Oakland today. Gist: both candidates are scumbags; Kerry's a tax-and-spend Dem; Bush is a deficit spender; Ted Nugent would make a fine president. \_ Arnold! I used to scoff at Arnie's chances but I'm coming to see that if legally enabled he might actually do it. \_ You do realize that the barriers to Constitutional Amendments are so high that this has almost no chance of happening, right? |
| 2004/9/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33816 Activity:kinda low |
9/28 This is great. Crawford, Texas newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2000
endorses Kerry.
http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
And of course, the inevitable "Why does Crawford, Texas hate America?"
\_ cuz they like shooting illegals in the back as they run? |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33809 Activity:high |
9/28 To all the "beat a chimp" people: It's been frequently quoted that
Dubya has never lost a debate.
\_ It's not like he's had dozens of debates under his belt ... I think
it's hard for his opponents to perform in Bush's reality distortion
field.
\_ good point. I think I'm listening to the liberals too much.
\- I am pretty sure Kerry never has either, right? That is how
they both got this far. It is the battle of the two middle aged
heavyweights, for the boxing crown!
\_ Putin could kick both their asses in a fight.
\_ He could probably kick their asses in a debate, too. |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33803 Activity:nil |
9/28 Has there been any election year in the US where no voting was
conducted because there was only one presidential candidate?
\_ Yes, Bush/Ashcroft 2008 -- They got 99% of the vote after
suspending the constitution. |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33797 Activity:very high |
9/28 I can not believe it: All Kerry needs to do is beat a fucking
chimp and he is not even going to be able to do that. What
a fucking tool. Who the hell are these people who voted Gore
and are now going to vote for Bush!?
\_ That's my argument. If Kerry can't even beat a fucking chimp,
how is he able to run a country effectively? I was for Gore, but
Kerry just isn't cutting it for me.
\_ Kerry appears to be losing because fucking stupid sheep-like
voters such as yourself are herding along with what they're
told is the flow.
\_ "Think about how dumb the average American is. Now realize
that half of all Americans are dumber than that."
-- Jeff Foxworthy
\_ that's the median. the median and the average
are only the same for a symetrical distribution,
which seems unlikely.
\_ I do not understand the concept of this
thing you call a "joke." It does not
compute. *bzzzt*
\_ That would be right if he said "median American"
\_ Kerry is winning. The polls are cooked (see Gallup)
\_ Yeah, all of them. Just look at http://www.electoral-vote.com to see
how all the polls that show Bush trending up in nearly every
battleground state are cooked.
\_ So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph
because good is dumb.
\_ If everyone who voted for Gore voted for Kerry, then Kerry
would also lose. In fact, the margin of victory would be even
wider for Bush this time because of population shifts adding
electoral votes in Bush's favor. The real questions are:
1. Who would vote for Kerry that voted for Bush last time?
2. Why don't Democrats vote?
\_ I'm starting to think America really deserves four more years
of this stupid crap. Fucked economy, spiralling foriegn
commitments, maybe a few more countries with the bomb, investment
fleeing to other countries, outsourcing, the complete
disappearance of the middle class...Maybe then we'll finally
get a decent sweep up in '08 and we can start to fix things.
Unfortunately the judicial branch is going to be fucked for
a whole generation.
\_ This was Nader's argument in favor of running in '00.
\_ Seriously, we need more dems in office so we can have a
booming economy like Germany and France have.
\_ False analogy, sorry, you lose.
\_ Outsorcing is simply a free market at work. What do you
all anti-outsorcing whinners are expecting the government to
do? Take money out of someone's pocket and put it into yours,
or perhaps make everyone pay artificially high prices for your
skills and the products you make? (which is how protectionsm
works more or less).
\_ Well... yeah. |
| 2004/9/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33780 Activity:high |
9/27 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/debates.tm Debate negotiations conclude for first debate Kerry got: - Three debates not two debates. Dubya got: - Short lecterns separated by 10 feet, can't walk to the other side (Dubya won't look shorter than Kerry; Kerry will look awkwardly tall) \_ Doesn't the taller candidate win like 90% of the time? \_ 100% of the time since TV was created http://csua.org/u/988 (Gore won the popular vote in 2000) - Warning light displayed on TV when speaker goes over time (Dubya won't have problems with short answers; Kerry, problems) - Can't ask direct questions to other candidate (Kerry can't query Dubya on specific points on Iraq) \_ This provision is the stupidest crap ever. It becomes a press conference instead of a debate. Fuck our managed democracy. \_ Hey, Bush can't even manage to get through a Press Conference without a few amazing gaffes that the US domestic press rarely if ever reports. The debates are essentially over before they begin - short of some sort of freak incident (i.e. Bush the Elder puking on the PM of Japan), it will be declared a Bush victory no matter what. This would happen regardless of format. \_ The candidates have pulled this in the last couple of election cycles as well. It's anti-democratic and stupid regardless of who it might help. \_ Yep. This alone should be reason enough to vote against Bush. - Foreign policy in first debate, not domestic policy (this one makes sense) - Room temperature above 70 degrees (Kerry sweats; Kerry wanted below 70) \_ Uh, really? Wow. \_ Temperature in a performance is a funny thing. A warmer room makes for a drowsier audience. Letterman keeps his studio cool (~50) for a reason. \_ Audience? For a televised presidential debate? The TV viewers are the audience. \_ 50F? I have a hard time believing they'd keep it *that* cold. Anyone without a sweater would be shivvering. \_ There was one episode when he raised it from 53 to 57 which was met by cheers from the audience \_ Maybe Kerry will bring his own Air Conditioned suit! "I am no longer John Kerry, I am now 'Mr. Freeze' and the new president of the United States. And you, Mr. Bush, are now officially... On Ice." \_ This won't be funny when Arnold runs for President. \_ Yes it will! |
| 2004/9/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33777 Activity:very high |
9/27 John Kerry quotes. He takes every position.
http://www.cox-internet.com/tomguy/BB4/KerrysPositions(Semone).mp3
\_ Mmm... Out of context quotes. Fuck off.
\_ Fuck you. Have you seen what an incompetent the chimp in office
is? Do you realize our 'president' doesn't read news, doesn't
pay attention? Are you fucking kidding me that you think Kerry
will do a worse job than this international fucking JOKE Bush?
\_ The university has free mental health services...
\_ Oh sure, anyone who dislikes Bush is psycho. Not to
mention unpatriotic, unamerican and down right unchristian.
\_ No, by the tone of your language and your paranoid,
undue indignance. It's appropriate you whine, casting
yourself as a persecuted victim, since afterall, the
Democrats have become the party of institutionalized
victimhood. Does Kerry's free health care encompass
mental disorders? Would explain alot.
\_ Undue indignance? Go peddle your BushCo propaganda
elsewhere, freeper boi.
\_ Oh, your dick is huge and tax free!
\_ No, that's only for Coulter-bots.
\_ After 8 years of wathcing Rush Limbaugh playing poor
\_ After 8 years of watching Rush Limbaugh playing poor
persecuted me during the Clinton administration,
this statement of yours is hilarious. Thanks for
the laugh.
\_ I'm reporting you to the FBI. Print this out
and send it to Democracy Now and the Kerry
campaign.
\_ Stop it! You're killing me!!!
\_ Flip-flops explained: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
\_ http://media.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress.mov |
| 5/16 |