| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2008/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49290 Activity:nil |
2/28 Obama must reject endorsement of Farrakhan, but McCain happily
accepts endorsement of loony preacher John Hagee
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/mega-church-pastor-in-texas-backs-mccain/#more-4374 |
| 2008/2/26-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49264 Activity:nil |
2/26 Pakistan rules! Go Musharraf!
\_ Nawaz Sharif is a corrupt pimp, and he should have been dragged
out back of the airport when he first arrived back and shot.
\- if they give him and "mr. bhutto" and ounce of responsibility,
they will get what they derserve.
\_ Goddamn it, why do we get the leaders we deserve?
\- you did in 2004. i thought the "mass desire for change"
that apparently exists in 2008 would have happened in
2004 ... becase i wanted to ask people still supporting
W then "what more could he have screwed up such that
he'd have lost your vote?" [invading a country on false
pretenses and botching it, not caputing OBL, loss of
america credibility for a generation, probably damaging
american military recruiting proscpects for a long
time by signaling the civilian leadership holds them
in low regard, constrasted with a highly successful
recruiting and franchising drive for al queda thanks to
the "hooded man" recruiting poster provided by the
AbuG and Guantanamo Bay, pluticratization of society,
corporate welfare, etc]
\_ Thanks. Now I don't have to visit Kos this month. W
got elected in 04 because the other guy was a big
lamer idiot. Better the idiot you know for 4 more years
than the idiot you don't for 8.
\_ Turns out, not so much. Ask NOLA.
\_ How was Kerry a lamer idiot and why is it better to
stick with a known bad over an unknown?
\_ Both were bad. One was 4 years max. Kerry was
not an unknown. He was and still is an idiot. |
| 2008/2/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49227 Activity:low |
2/24 Nader signs on to ruin America once again
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608
\_ OH fuck!!! Not Nader again. Why the fuck is he doing this?
\_ Nader got 0.38% of the vote in 2004.
\_ And 2% in 2000.
\_ Which do you think is more likely this time, starting
a campaign in March without a party? -tom
\_ The point to remember is that had he not run in 2000
Al Gore would have won and stopped GLOBAL WARMING
already. Damn Nader for indirectly destroying Iraq
and mother nature!
\_ Anonymous message to Ralph Nader that we can all get behind:
http://csua.org/u/kvm (YouTube-ish vid)
\_ bahahahaha this is pretty funny
\_ How is he ruining anything? If people prefer him that's their
choice. Oh, I know, let's do the kind of democracy where only
your guy is allowed to run.
\_ I said it before, and I'll say it again: if he wants to run
and actually make an impact, he should have started more than
a year before the election. Right now, he's just a distraction.
\_ Clearly you weren't around for the 2000 election. |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49219 Activity:nil |
2/22 In 2000 and 2004 there were web sites that pointed out a graph
that showed that States with higher average IQ voted D ("smart
people voted for Gore and Kerry"), then there were a lot of
other sites that debunked those charts as urban legend. Where can
I find a definitive/authoritative source that shows how right/wrong
those charts were?
\_ There is no such source. Causality is hard, and these sorts of
claims are basically political bullshit. -- ilyas
\_ http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
\_ "States" don't have an IQ. People do. Very few people have ever
had an IQ test. IQ tests were originally designed to test children.
Their application to adults is sketchy at best. Need to know any
more? |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49217 Activity:nil |
2/22 So when will we know who'll be on the ballot for sure?
\_ After both conventions are over.
\_ Where the front runners don't have enough delegates in either
party and they appoint Reagan vs. Gore.
\_ Stocked up on crack again I see?
\_ Just because both men are dead is no reason they can't be
their party's candidate. Dead people vote. Why can't
they run for office? |
| 2008/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:49216 Activity:nil |
2/22 GOP lobbyist Charlie Black now conducting most of his business from
on board the Straight Talk Express
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html |
| 2008/2/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49203 Activity:nil |
2/20 McCain - I was against torture until I was in favor of it:
http://www.csua.org/u/ku2 |
| 2008/2/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49201 Activity:kinda low |
2/20 McCain bimbo eruption:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3792gm (nytimes.com)
\_ Yes, this is just as effective of a charge against being Prez
as it was for Bubba, JFK, Lincoln, and etc.
\_ Gary Hart?
\_ The issue is not that he may or may not have had an affair, but
that he had a close relationship with a lobbiest for Bud Paxon,
from whom he accepted gifts, and then later used his
position to enact legislation favorable to Paxson.
\_ There's nothing new about this. McCain's pattern is to do
unethical stuff and then act like he's a crusader against
those things. "I steal stuff all the time. I'm here to
put a stop to that, it's too easy to steal things in America."
\_ McCain eruption inside bimbo.
\_ 1) Not news at all, this is all old, 2) We've known since the
Keating5 days that McCain is corrupt, 3) Clinton taught us that
politicians' private lives are private and we should respect that
privacy. This is just the NYT doing their standard hit piece on
whoever the (R) candidate is. Business as usual. |
| 2008/2/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:49193 Activity:low |
2/20 Is Obama anti-Asian-American?
\_ link:tinyurl.com/26zx2v
\_ Are you an idiot?
\_ No, but I sure met a lot of Asian-Americans while canvassing that
seemed to be vehemently anti-Obama. Funny, they would never explain
*why* though.
\_ Maybe it has something to do with this S.B. Woo spam I keep
getting.
\_ I googled that and man, to quote Clay Davis on The Wire,
"that is some shameful shit."
\_ Between this and the spurious accusations linking Obama with
Farrakhan, I can already see what tact the GOP plans to take
against him in the general election. As pp said, "shameful
shit."
\_ This sounds more like Billary than the GOP, but it is
hard to tell... maybe they are working togethere?
\_ I highly doubt it; I just mean that it's liklely that
the GOP will target Obama by exploiting ethnic/racial
tensions.
\_ The Farrakhan thing is coming from the Israel
lobby. Pretty sure that they're bipartisan.
\_ What are you talking about? URL please.
\_ It's because Obama had refused to respond to 80-20 Initiative's
questionnaire on Asian American issues until after they gave up
and endorsed Hillary.
\_ That questionnaire was some dumb shit. Somehow I doubt
this is really the reason.
\_ No, he did not refuse, he asked for the questions to be
clarified, which every other campaign asked for and got.
Once the questions were clear, he answered them just like
everyone else.
\_ Hmm. Hillary responsed on 12/10/07, while Obama responded
a whole 7.5 weeks later on 1/31/08.
http://www.80-20initiative.net/news/preselect2008.asp
\_ When did they clarify his questions? |
| 2008/2/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49176 Activity:nil |
2/16 Poverty is Poison:
http://www.csua.org/u/ksu
\_ You know, this article started off good until it got to "But
progress stalled thereafter: American politics shifted to
the right..." which has the effect of turning off 1/2 of the
readers in the U.S. On the other hand, I don't know any
conservative reading NY times so maybe it's well fitted.
\- if you are interested in this topic, read WHY ZEBRAS DONT GET
ULCERS. very, very good book. [the book is primarily about
something else, but coverns this in some depth as well]. --psb |
| 2008/2/17-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49172 Activity:nil |
2/16 NY Times review of "The Age of American Unreason":
http://preview.tinyurl.com/292uxg (nytimes.com) |
| 2008/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49163 Activity:nil |
2/15 Obama vs. Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8 |
| 2008/2/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49160 Activity:nil |
2/15 I want Obama to win because I think it would be funny.
\_ That's pretty much why I voted for him. Watching Hillary give
a concession speech will be the TV of the decade.
\_ She could probably top Nixon
\_ That seems unlikely.
\_ as bad as hillary is/was/will be, she can't top Nixon!
\_ She has that whole crying thing down, now all she needs
is a dog.
\_ Checkers for the win! or lose.
\_ I want obama to win the primaries votes, but lose the actual primary
(due to superdelegates), just to reinforce my cynical view of the
machinery of the Democratic party machine. Bonus points if Hillary
then manages to go on and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and
lose the actual election to McCain.
\_ I want you to move out of your parents garage. |
| 2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49147 Activity:low |
2/14 Worst thing about Obama winning the nomination: 6 months of
racist (often veiled as concerns as to what the "mainstream" thinks)
pandering on the motd.
\_ McCain winning would be the worst thing, if it happened
\_ You keep saying that but I haven't seen anything racist on the
motd re: Obama yet. Are you trying to create that atmosphere?
You seem to be the only one posting that stuff like your post
below. Everyone else here is talking issues and candidate
qualities and policies.
\_ I can't keep saying something I only said once.
\_ So you and your friend keep saying it. Saying something a
lot doesn't make it true.
\_ I didn't say there was going to be racist trolls.
I was wondering why the "OH NOES HE'S A MUSLIM
IN DISGUISE HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN OH NOOOOES"
meme popular with freepers hadn't shown up the motd.
Most of the other poisonous shit like that (e.g. Swift
Boat) was a big topic here.
The motd really is letting us down for entertainment
value. !op
\_ Clue time: this isn't the freepers. There are people
here who not on the left but aren't frothing mindless
freepers. Why must anyone who disagrees with you
automatically be a mindless frothing freeper idiot?
\_ Honestly, hasn't most of that been thrown around by
the Clinton team? |
| 12/24 |
| 2008/2/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49129 Activity:nil |
2/12 Obama wins the primary! |
| 2008/2/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49113 Activity:nil |
2/11 Obama is kicking Hillary's ars.
\_ Ars Democrata?
\_ Is Obama thrusting into Hillary's ars?
\_ Yup. link:www.csua.org/u/kqq |
| 2008/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49085 Activity:high |
2/7 Mitt-out Romney: Romney drops out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7233537.stm
\_ San Franciscan style left wing is not MAINSTREAM America
\_ You are like a child who comes in at the middle of a movie
and demands to know what has already transpired.
\_ Middle America style right wing is not MAINSTREAM America.
See how fun this game is? Exclude everyone that you
don't like!
\_ By definition, middle america *is* the middle and therefore
mainstream.
\_ Actually, it is more like "Southern style holy roller"
is not mainstream America. Which everyone else in America
knows, but for some strange reason these people do not. |
| 2008/2/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:49056 Activity:nil |
2/3 Maybe old news - McCain's racist remark from Seattle Post-Intelligencer
March 2, 2000: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml
\_ I've heard it before. I was always a little confused though.
Doesn't 'gook' refer to Koreans?
\_ Generally considered a reference to Vietnamese. Might have been
repurposed from Korean Conflict.
\_ I've heard the term referenced against both, but more often
referenced against Vietnamese.
\_ More to the point, it's a word the soldiers used to refer to the
NVA.
\- hanguk -> korea. Dae Han Min Gook!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCZ_mbHt30g
\_ If ever I would forgive anyone for racism, it's McCain for being
racist against Vietnamese. |
| 2008/2/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:49049 Activity:kinda low |
2/1 Who should McCain add as VP?
\_ Ann Coulter, for full comedic value
\_ The mummified corpse of Ronald Reagan.
\_ Dick Cheney
\_ Lieberman
\_ Joe "Can I suck your Republican dick" Lieberman
\_ This is actually a good idea.
\_ Obama |
| 2008/1/25-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49014 Activity:nil |
1/25 Goodnight, Kucinich:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/us/politics/25kucinich.html |
| 2008/1/22-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48985 Activity:nil |
1/22 Fred Thompson drops out
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UB49H00&show_article=1
\_ Damn. Can't see his busty wife's pics anymore.
\_ Damn. Can't see his busty wife anymore.
\_ Mrs. Jeri "Minnesota Tits" Thompson, the Future First Lady and
The First Twins, "Stacey" and "Becca."
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/228508.php
\_ Do the First Twins "drop out" also? |
| 2008/1/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48893 Activity:kinda low |
1/4 Has anyone seen reporting on Obama being the first black candidate to
win the Iowa Caucus?
\_ Racist! He's actually only half black.
\_ He thinks he's black, so who gives a crap?
\_ Please don't feed the trolls.
\_ Bad Troll. Haven't you read the census guidelines on beingi
black? Granted, those guidelines are based off of racist laws
that date to the antebellum and Jim Crow south. -dans
\_ So is Tiger Woods.
\_ And Halle Berry.
\_ genetic vigor!!!
\_ har har har this is why Republicans are going to win again.
How pathetic.
\_ Uh, *what* is why? |
| 2008/1/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48884 Activity:low |
1/3 Bye bye Biden and Dodd, the two most palatable Dems
http://csua.org/u/kdm
\_ Palatable to whom? Dead white males?
\_ I think he meant palatable in a Dahmer sense. |
| 2007/12/29-2008/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48864 Activity:high |
12/29 Is Kristol a hypocrite or the NYT selling out? Or both? Or visa versa?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30kristol.html?hp
\_ Or maybe they both recognize the value of including opposition
voices. -dans
\_ I find it amusing that you would call the NYT a sellout for
printing a conservative in the oped pages. What next? Having the
regular article writers doing well researched and unbiased articles?
And then pigs flying? When do the flaming frogs fall from the sky?
\_ I wouldn't call Kristol a conservative. I would call him
a delusional fuckhead. Keep him in the Weekly Standard
where he belongs, he should quit polluting other places with
his crap.
\_ Wow you sure made your point. Well spoken!
\_ The NYT already has regular columists that are conservatives,
but none that have been so consistently wrong about everthing
as Kristol has been. And I didn't say that the NYT was a
sellout, I asked what other people thought. I think it is
mighty strange that they are publishing someone who has been
such a vocal and adamant critic. Even stranger that he would
want to run a column in a paper that he claims to despise.
\_ What's so strange about publishing a vocal and adamant critic?
This is precsely who intelligent and informed debate is
supposed to work. Even a brutal critic may make valid and
relevant points, and that's worth considering. -dans
\_ Bill Kristol does not make "valid and relevant points".
He's a wildly dishonest pundit who cofounded and ran a
Murdoch mouthpiece, and cofounded and ran PNAC. He lies
in his arguments, in his premises, and in his journalism.
He has abdicated his place in what can be considered
intelligent and informed debate. As have you.
\_ You're off topic. That has nothing to do with flaming
frogs falling from the sky.
\_ E_ROBERT_BORK? Cool! -dans
\_ No. Flaming frogs from the sky.
\_ Yes, E_ROBERT_BORK. -dans
\_ Sigh... no. You're not getting it. Go ahead
and post another bork and let's just be done
with it.
\_ Do you even know who Robert Bork is? -dans
\_ Yes. Do you? Do you know anything about
flaming frogs from the sky?
\_ We are talking about Bill Kristol here. He does not
contribute to intelligent and informed debate about
anything.
\_ Again, you have helped educate us all with facts,
details, and hard core specifics. Appreciated.
\_ I kind of liked him in "When Harry Met Sally". I
never realized he was so into politics.
\_ Sure a brutal critic can make valid points. From the
pages of another publication. |
| 2007/12/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:48781 Activity:nil |
12/11 Russia expanding again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071210/wl_csm/omerger |
| 2007/12/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Recreation/Food] UID:48770 Activity:nil |
12/10 This is pretty funny. --psb
http://tinyurl.com/35ddk3
\_ Wow, this is really quite funny. Thanks. |
| 2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48737 Activity:nil |
12/3 Ron Paul's 2007 speeches to Congress
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xzf6b |
| 2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48735 Activity:high |
12/3 Media Matter's displays CNN rules for submitting debate questions:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711270007
---
Anyone who wants to submit a question may do so by uploading a video
clip through YouTube. All the videos that are submitted will be posted
on the site. CNN will then choose as many as 50 videos to use during
the debate.
Asked for guidelines on what kind of questions were most likely to make
it on the air, Bohrman said they should be concise -- no more than
30 seconds -- provocative, and creative.
"We're not going to have anything obscene or inappropriate, but I think
we'll get some very inventive questions," he said.
---
Note the conspicuous abscence of a requirement that one be undecided
or a member of one party or the other.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/k57 (LA Times)
A review by the Los Angeles Times of the debate sponsored by CNN
and YouTube four months ago found that the Democratic presidential
candidates also faced queries that seemed to come from the
conservative perspective. At least two of the citizen-interrogators
had clear GOP leanings.
CNN officials said that in the Democratic debate, as in Wednesday's
Republican encounter, they had not attempted to determine the party
or ideology of the questioners.
\_ How did the discussion go when the Dems refused to debate on Fox
News?
\_ Totally different story. Fox news has made its reputation
(and fortune) by being very anti-Democratic Party. That's not
the same thing at all.
\_ No, they made their rep/money on providing the other side
of the news to the people who felt the rest of the news was
biased to the left. These days FN is pushing the same
agenda as CNN and the rest, but it was fun while it lasted.
\_ "The other side of the news"? Like, "War is Peace,"
"Slavery is Freedom, "Ignorance is Strength," that kind
of thing? What planet do you live on, and what's the
weather like there?
\_ When is MM going to run her correction?
\_ What correction?
\_ For her claim that the GOP did not insert any of their
supporters into the Democratic debate. For her claim that
these people all represented themselves as undecided.
\_ I can't find the claim that GOP supporters didn't insert
themselves into the Dem debate. As far whether they were
"undecided", while that's not a formal requirement, it's
reasonable to assume that someone asking a question at a
debate actually cares about hearing the answer. So if
someone has already decided to openly support a
candidate *not on the stage* what are they doing asking
them questions (and ridiculous ones at that)?
\_ "But the persistent media double standard is obvious
to everyone but the manure spreaders at CNN: Had
GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their
operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate,
and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners
and presented them as average citizens, both Fox
and the GOP would be treated as the century's worst
media sinners." -MM
So by your standards, the numerous GOP supporters
who asked questions during the Democratic debate
should not have done that? When are you going to
condemn them for it? Why is your outrage so
selective?
\_ Well, I didn't care about the Dem debate and so
didn't watch it because I know enough about the
candidates' positions that there's no way I'd
vote for any of them. And yes, had any GOP
activists been outed in that debate, I would have
been just as annoyed. There's a difference
between "conservative questions" and GOP
activists. In *both* cases CNN should have
screened for questions that actually matter to
the actual primary voters. -pp
\_ get a clue.
\_ GOP activists did ask questions at the
Democratic debate, you are just too blind
to see that.
\_ Name em.
\_ John McAlpin, for one. |
| 2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48734 Activity:high |
12/3 The primaries finally get interesting
http://csua.org/u/k58
Any predictions on who will take the R nomination? I have no idea,
Except that I think Giuliani is done.
\_ I think that if Giuliani falls down it will be Romney and
he will get even less of the vote than Dukakis did.
\_ Heard on the radio this morning that Romney's counting on a win
in Iowa or going home. Is Huckabee really the choice candidate?
\_ Well, he's a socialist. He belives that compassion means
taking *someone else's* money to give to the needy.
\_ Romney would win Utah.
\_ Pretty much any R would win Utah.
\_ Well, I actually meant he would win Utah and no other state.
\_ Well, I actually meant he would win Utah and no other
state.
\_ Why do you think that?
\_ I think Huckabee is looking more and more like the best the R's
can do this year. It would make for an interesting race, to say
the least.
\_ Huckabee is the current darling of the religious right who are
obsessed with the bogus concept of stacking the supreme court
so they can over turn RvW. If they actually knew anything about
him (or you either for that matter), it would be obvious that
Huckabee offers the worst of both left and right wing while
offering none of the positives of either. If the RR stayed
home we'd all be better off. Huckabee isn't going anywhere.
--conservative
\_ Huckabee is an ass and would fall apart once the non faithful
took ANY look at him.
\_ Huckabee called for a national smoking ban in public places.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4958.html
\_ Did it occur to him that it's unconstitutional for the Fed
to legistlate something like that?
\_ Why do you think it would be unconstitutional?
\_ 10th amendment?
\_ The Constitution is just a piece of paper.
\_ Hi troll.
\_ "The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people."
Since pharmaceuticals are not mentioned in the
constitution, do you really think the Gov. has no
right/obligation to regulate them?
\_ What do you think that says?
\_ On that logic just about any regulatory body
is unconstitutional, but guess what, the
FCC, the FDA, etc etc, are all pretty well
entrenched.
\_ I agree, but I'm wondering why the person
who thinks it's unconstitutional thinks
it's so in the face of the etc etc you
mentioned.
\_ Hello, you may wish to see Art. 1, Sec. 8
Cl. 18 (the "necessary and proper clause")
and McCulloch, 17 US 316 (1819) re the
constitutionality of the FCC, FDA, &c.
and McCulloch, 17 US 316 (1819).
\_ Income tax is unconstitutional, too. |
| 2007/11/29-12/6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48712 Activity:high |
11/29 Michelle Malkin has collected youtube profiles/images of questioners
from last night's debate. Several of the questioners are openly
supporting Democrat candidates. Don't bother telling me how much you
hate Malkin. Look at the evidence presented about how CNN is
incompetent.
http://csua.org/u/k44 (michellemalkin.com)
\_ I'm confused by the outrage. Same thing happened with the July
debate with the Democrats.
\_ And yet the questions still managed to address significant GOP
issues. How'd that happen?!? Oh, wait, it's because when you're
not MM or AC, thinking outside your talking points isn't that
hard.
\_ Not issues for people voting in the R primary.
\_ I'm voting in the R primary, and they were issues I was
interested in.
\_ Oh really? Which issues?
The Confederate Flag?
Whether they believe in every word in the Bible?
What would Jesus do about the death penalty?
\_ Gun control, abortion, and taxes. Way to cherrypick.
\_ I frankly don't believe you. When you say you're
voting in the R primary, is that because you're a
registered R? Or because you're a D in an open
primary state?
\_ I'm registered R, and I frankly don't care if
you believe me. Also, are gun control, abortion,
and taxes not important to people voting in the
R primary? They were covered in the questions.
\_ Gun control and taxes matter, but abortion
doesn't because a president can't affect it.
\_ Errr.. sort of. The Religious Right is
very interested in what the president thinks
of abortion because the prez appoints
to the Supreme Court. And the SC could
overturn Roe vs Wade.
\_ The RR is a minority part of the R party.
So sure it concerns that segment, but it
does not concern most R at all.
\_ Sure, I'm R and I don't care. But the
RR exterts disproportinal control over
the primary system.
Addendum: For example, Huckabee is
doing so well in Iowa because RRs
don't trust Romney. He who wins
Iowa...
\_ You and MM are right, Democrats should not be allowed to participate
in the political process anymore. No Free Speech For Democrats!
\_ Excellent straw man sir!
\_ Isn't that what you are complaining about? I don't get it,
do you really think that Democrats should not be allowed
to ask Republicans questions during debates?
\_ The people in question aren't simply Dems, they're openly
supporting different candidates. They're not interested in
the answer, they're just bomb-throwing.
\_ I am pretty sure you don't lose your free speech rights
simply because you declare allegiance to a particular
candidate. Did these people lie and claim they were
undecided, so that they could get permission to ask
questions by CNN? Otherwise, I can't imagine what your
beef would be. Can I go to a Romney rally and ask him
a question, even though I am an Edwards supporter? Why
the heck not? I might even change my mind!
\_ Wow, are you really this clueless? I didn't say you
lose any "free speech rights". However, there is a
difference between honest questions and
bomb-throwing.
\_ Yes, only questions pre-screened and OK'd by the
candidates should be allowed near any Republican.
\_ Or Hillary
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
\_ I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
What you call "bomb-throwing" I call healthy
debate and integral to the democratic process.
It is pretty funny for a MM reader to complain
about bomb-throwing.
\_ And it's pretty funny when someone uses "free
speech rights" in this context. Wow.
\_ How do you even register to post in that blog?
\_ The problem was that CNN was deceitful. If they had put "General
Bob Smith, (D) Activist" next to the name of the guy they flew in
and put in the front row, then it would be lame but not piss anyone
off. These were supposed to be "undecided (R) voters" which
several clearly were not. And this is the same motd crowd that was
so concerned that Foxnews was going to abuse their position if they
ran a debate, yet you find this a-ok. Sheesh.
\_ Again, same thing happened in the Dem debate. No one cared
until CNN released a statement saying there would be no "gotcha
questions" in the R debate. The other MM (media matters) noted
this and pointed out the multiple gotchas they let into the D
debate. Now, if Malkin had been complaining about gotchas after
they said they wouldn't have them, she might have a point. With
this post she's just a crybaby.
\_ I don't read/watch Malkin so I have no idea what she said
and don't really care. In the Dem debate we had Hillary
plants there for her. In the Rep debate we had Hillary,
Edards, Obama, and CNN plants. Neither situation is
acceptable to me. This just further enforces my belief
that the US 'main stream media' is biased to such a degree
that they should be dismissed entirely as the yellow rag
'journalists' they are. I would like to note that we didn't
see Rep plants in either debate but that's another matter.
\_ In the Dem CNN/YT debate, there were questions that were
most likely from R supporters. But no one went and tried
to pin them down as R supporters, because attacking the
questioner rather than answer a valid question is in the
R playbook. Not so much with the D's. You're showing
your bias in trying to determine cnn's.
R playbook. Not so much with the Ds. Being of the other
party does not negate one's right to ask a question in an
open debate. Instead of running from them, or whining
about them, why not try and give cogent answers and, y'know
try and persuade people...
\_ Which questions? And who do you think did the tracking?
Random people on the net who post on (R) blogs. Nothing
is stopping you from tracking down the qusetioners to
see if your allegations are even true. If they are,
then let us know, until then you're blowing smoke and
tossing out red herrings. No one said you don't have a
right to ask a question. That's a strawman. It has
been stated quite clearly the issue is they were
falsely presented as "undecided (R) voters" or in the
case of Hillary plants at the D debate, as "undecided
(D) voters" when in fact they were political operatives.
And in the case of the (R), they did answer, even though
several of the questions were stupid. That was a good
effort at distracting from the real point about dirty
politics on the part of CNN and Hillary but no dice.
\_ When/where did CNN say the questions came from
"undecided (R) voters"? This is important. If they
did say this, then you have a point. I don't think
they did, though. And as you've based your entire
argument and outrage on this point, I suggest you
look carefully.
\_ Both debates were choosing people in that context.
This is how questioners have been chosen in
debates in recent years. This is nothing new.
So, if I'm right and they said these were supposed
to be undecided voters in each debate, then what?
Do you finally agree the debates were fucked?
And frankly, even if that weren't flat out stated,
they should still have properly identified the
people, but that's a hypothetical. I don't want
to go off on some tangent about that at this
point.
\_ You repeat your assertion with no supporting
evidence. Show me where CNN said "This is how
we're choosing the questioners". IMO, these
questions were decidedly less offensive than
those of Russert or Blitzer (raise your hand?
seriously?). I would love to go back to LWV
moderation with decent questions and actual
discussion, but these complaints are overblown
and really crybabyish.
\_ No, this is not generally how questioners are
chosen in debates, not in the ones I have
watched over the years. You are just blowing
smoke at this point and I think you know it.
\_ Wow, way to make shit up to cover for lame
debate moderators and slimey tactics from
the (D). Even the LATimes published a
piece on how shitty CNN did. When the LAT
not only doesn't support your left wing
agenda but out right bashes you, you have
a problem. You=CNN in this case. I notice
you completed ignored my question and just
magically decided with no knowledge that I
and everyone else who has been saying these
were supposed to be normal citizens and not
activists is wrong. I think I've been
trolled. You have yet to answer a single
question I've posed in this thread and
instead just keep throwing bombs.
\_ You are talking to more than one person,
btw. Yes, if a questioner signed some
waiver or made a verbal agreement with CNN
that they were an undecided (R) voter,
then it would be immoral to violate that
agreement. Happy? Now, show me your
evidence that this was the case, or
just admit that this is you and MM's
made up rule, not something that
other people agree to, or even would
agree to, unless they were partisan
loons.
\_ From your source: "Beside considerations\
like these, CNN's incompetent failure
to weed out Democratically connected
\_ From your source: "Beside considerations
like these, CNN's incompetent failure to
weed out Democratically connected
questioners pales." Even the LA Times
agrees that it is no big deal.
\_ "We were looking for people who were
interested enough in the process to ask\
a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political\
director, said Thursday. "We didn't
inquire about people's ideological\
beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .\
We were looking for questions that
would make for an interesting debate."
interested enough in the process to ask
a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political
director, said Thursday. "We didn't
inquire about people's ideological
beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .
We were looking for questions that would
make for an interesting debate."
\_ I'm now trying to imagine Fox News running the Dem debate:
"First question: When did you first start hating America?"
\_ You'll have to keep imagining since Fox was never given a
chance. Do you think CNN should be allowed to hold further
debates after this last performance? How about the previous
one where more Clinton activists were planted in the audience
and there was zero followup to her answers from Blitzer? Was
that a well run debate? |
| 2007/11/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Finance/Investment] UID:48695 Activity:very high |
11/26 Media lavishes attention on bogus Zogby poll showing Hillary trailing
while ignoring reputable Gallup poll
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/media_lavishes.php
\_ More proof of liberal media bias.
\_ I think you're being sarcastic, but one could make that argument
since Hillary is probably the farthest right of the Dem
canidates. However, what the media really hates is a sure bet.
A sure-win canidate reduces the drama and reportability.
\_ Both polls are meaningless since we don't elect the POTUS in a
general election, otherwise Gore would have won in 2000. Only
State by State polls matter, assuming any poll does. Frankly, most
of the polls survey such a tiny number of people they're all highly
questionable. Show me a poll of 2000+ LV's and I'll pay attention.
\_ There is one meaningful point--much of Hillary's support is
because of "electability". If she's not as electable as
previously believed, that may erode her support.
\_ I understand that "electability" is what got Kerry nominated
too.
\_ I don't actually think that is true, since Edwards is clearly
more "electable." While it is true that Hillary supporters
often tout her electability, I think it is because they know
it is her weakest point and they are trying to pre-empt
Obama and Edwards' attacks on the point. FWIW, Obama is
probably no more electable than she is. -Edwards supporter
\_ Why do you support Edwards?
\_ I agree with him on the big issues: the Iraq War, which
he thinks was a mistake and wants to wind down as quickly
as possible; healthcare, which he wants to reform and
ensure complete covereage, with the most comprehensive
plan of anyone; and campaign finance reform, where he
has consistenly taken a stance against the open buying
and selling of political favors which is what K Street
has become these days. He also would use the bully
pulpit to bring attention to the issue of widening
income imbalance, which no one else seems to even notice
or care about. I disagree with him on a few things, like
free trade, but those are not large enough issues for me
and he is not enough of a protectionist for me to be too
worried. I also think he has a wider appeal than any of
the other candidates from either party and because of this
might be able to correct our drift away from a dangerous
and unhealthy extreme partisanship that has become
the other candidates from either party and because of
this might be able to correct our drift toward a danger-
ous and unhealthy extreme partisanship that has become
endemic lately. I know I partly say this just because
I grew up poor and white too, and so his story resonants
with me, but polls bear out that he has the most support
from independent voters of any candidate. He also doesn't
poll that badly amongst Republicans, probably because of
his southern accent and his open declarations of faith.
\_ Why don't people understand that universal healthcare
will bankrupt this country in a way that Bush's
stupid war could only dream of? Any candidate
that advocates such a plan should be voted down
just as if he was advocating invading Iran.
\_ Why aren't all the Western Democracies bankrupt
then? Why don't people understand that nationalized
healthcare has worked and saved the overall economy
vastly in every place that it has been tried?
\_ 1. The US pays their (expensive) defense
bills for them.
2. They will be bankrupt soon enough.
\_ Point 1 really means the American tax payer
pays for their defense. We also pay for
their health care to a large degree because
their governments hold down the price of
drugs artificially.
\_ Don't kid yourself. What percentage of
health care is drug costs?
\_ A lot. You tell me otherwise. How
much was the drug bill they passed
a year or two ago? How much will it
balloon up in 10-20 years?
\_ Spending on perscription drugs is
less than 10% of the overall
national cost of health care.
This is not a large proportion.
http://www.csua.org/u/k3z (IHT)
It will grow unless we do something
drastic, like nationalize health
care spending though, you are right
there.
\_ Sure they will. Conservatives have been
saying that about Sweden for at least 60
years now and in that time, they have
actually been closing the gap with America
economically. This is an interesting time
to claim that anyone else is going "bankrupt"
\_ People always point to Sweden. How
about Germany, Japan, and France?
Here's a good article about France:
http://tinyurl.com/22bc73
\_ Sweden has the highest tax rate.
Similar arguments can be made for
Germany and France, though. Japan
actually has a lower tax rate than
the US.
\_ Sweden has the highest oveall tax
burden. You can make the same general
arguement for most of Europe: the
argument for most of Europe: the
economy is doing just fine, in spite of
decades of Conservative insistence that
the mixed model cannot possibly work.
Their per capita income has actually
closed with the US over any period
in the past you care to measure it for.
France is kind of a basket case, but it
has been for a long time. Japan
actually has a relatively low overall
tax burden, slightly lower than the US.
\_ You should ask the Swedes what they think
about the way Sweden runs things.
\_ It's a Democracy, right?
\_ It's a democracy, isn't it?
\_ If you think democratic government
implies satisfaction with the
government, politicians, policy, or
the way the country is going you are
breathtakingly retarded.
\_ argumentum ad hominem
\_ What do you think should be done about income
imbalance?
\_ Tax the rich til they aint rich no more!
\_ Have any actual constructive suggestions?
\_ That was it.
\_ Spend more on education and job retraining,
especially for people displace by globalization.
Repair our badly neglected infrastructure, which
should employ lots of people and fix some of
our transportation issues at the same time.
What ideas do you have?
\_ The domestic income gap is related to global
income gaps and thus ties in to trade issues
and currency issues.
When you have "jobs Americans won't do" the
system is broken. To reduce the income gap you
have to either raise the floor or lower the
ceiling. Lowering the ceiling seems backwards
to me. To raise the floor you have to protect
"lower level" jobs to some extent, protect the
value of human labor vs. global competition.
\_ See, you are a protectionist, too! I am not
fundamentally disagreeing with you, but I
don't think it is very easy, or perhaps not
even really possible to "protect" these
lower skill jobs without screwing up your
economy in the long run. How would you propose
doing it? Tariffs? Closing the border? Trying
to impose labor or environmental standards on
our trading partners? All of these are
problamatic, for different reasons.
\_ Well I'm not really advocating
protectionism, but that is what I see it
amounting to if you see imbalance as a big
problem. It's not something I've ever really
been concerned about.
I think we should end guest worker programs.
It does not help Americans. It's a form of
subsidy and protectionism for inefficient
uses of resources. I'm not a fan of H1B
either. We need to invest in our own people,
not bring in foreign workers, unless those
workers are truly unique. H1Bs to do
low-level interchangeable tech work is bad.
letting skilled workers move here
permanently is ok by me but only at a
controlled rate.
We need to let market forces work to find
the proper use of our own workers in our
own land.
For trade though, labor and environmental
standards have to be part of the equation.
Ethical standards can't be allowed to affect
competitive advantage. I think China has a
natural competitive advantage in mfg'ing
in its labor supply, but tax and currency
issues can still hurt us.
issues can still hurt us. I think our
national monetary policy and debt and
inflation issues hurt low-income workers
around the world and contributes to
global income disparity.
\_ I would like you to explain your last
sentence, because I don't see it. How
does our monetary, debt and inflation
policy hurt low-income workers around
the world?
Inflation causes rise in asset prices without corresponding wage _/
increases. Since the world economy is historically dollar-driven,
as dollar-denominated assets such as oil rise in value, poor
workers lose. They have the least assets. US policy of massive
deficit spending and monetary supply increases has broad effects
on the world economy. Dollar inflation cancels out real wage
value increases for economies dependent on the dollar.
Here are some articles:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HC22Ad02.html
The author of the second article has tons of other articles,
all very long and rambling. Have fun.
all very long and rambling. In that one he eventually talks about
Hitler. Have fun.
Honestly though I'm in way over my head with this economics stuff.
(Unfortunately I get the feeling that most of our politicians are
even more so.)
\_ That Asia Times article is really long and mostly disjointed.
It reminds me a lot of some of Lyndon LaRouche's stuff.
Have you actually read it? The Ron Paul thing was amusing, but
mostly wrong or irrelevant. I don't think inflation has the
effect that you seem to think that it has. The big losers in
an inflationary environment are people who depend on fixed
income investments, like retirees. The working poor don't feel
too much effect, since their paychecks are going up with prices
in a truly inflationary environment. What we are seeing now is
not really inflation, but a redistribution of purchasing power.
This is painful to the US, but probably feels pretty good to
China.
\_ I at least skimmed most of it. What exactly is wrong
in the Ron Paul speech?
China has its own income imbalance problem. I don't know if
average Chinese feels that great earning a couple bucks a day,
producing crap for Americans, with inflation in prices to
offset their wage gains. But I don't know, if overall they
are gaining real purchasing power then that's good...
Real inflation is higher than the official inflation figures.
Look at the costs of: education, medical care, drugs, energy
over the last couple decades. Wages for the lowest level jobs
have not grown much if at all. Food prices are on the rise
here and in China.
Inflation hits the poor and middle class much more than the
wealthy. Their savings are depreciated and the low wages
don't keep pace, and they don't have valuable assets.
\_ We are not in any kind of inflationary environment. If
we were, wages would be going up as well as prices, that
is what I keep telling you. Some things have gone up in
price, but many things are going down, like just about
anything that can be built in China. Real purchasing power
for urban Chinese has been going up very fast, but the
rural farmers are being left behind. A discussion of what
is wrong with the Gold Standard would require a new
topic, I am not going to go into it here. Inflation
has winners and losers, to be sure, but you can't just
make the blanket statement that it hurts the poor more
than the rich. Economically, it is actually the opposite
of that, because the poor have no assets to lose, while
many rich become poor (okay, usually middle class) in an
inflationary environment. Things like bonds get killed in
inflation. Stocks do poorly as well. Some kinds of hard
assets (like land) hold up well, but that is not how most
rich people hold their wealth anymore.
\_ Do you really think there is no inflation? I think we're
done here as you're just making contrary assertions and
this thread is gigantic.
\_ Do you want me to point you to any of the official
or unofficial statistics from the experts who measure
inflation? Inflation is low by any reasonable standard,
certainly lower than 5%/yr and probably about what
the BLS states as official inflation at ~2.5%/yr. I
don't think there is *no* inflation, but I think it
is very low and you haven't presented any evidence
otherwise, other than some anecdotal evidence. You are
the one making the unusual claim, you need to provide
proof of it. Wages have been going up less than prices,
but that is not the definition of "inflation."
I think you are just confused about what the term
means.
\_ I'm kinda too busy today to look up stuff for you
or talk about this more. Try googling for inflation
articles. Official government inflation figures are
not necessary reflective of real world inflation.
Inflation also doesn't act equally on all prices
and wages due to the nature of how the money supply
works. You also haven't pointed out any specific
error in the Ron Paul thing which I'd be interested
in. Also, look up inflation in China for example.
\_ Dude, I read The Economist every week. You are
simply speculating. Real inflation might be a
small amount more than reported inflation, but
not by much, at least not over the whole
economy. Ron Paul's desire to go back to the
Gold Standard marks him as a total fruitcake:
you lose control over your monetary policy in
such a monetary regime and would kill economic
growth to boot. No serious economist advocates
such a regime and would kill economic growth
to boot. No serious economist advocates
it, only a bunch of loons. I told you that
discussion is waaay to long and involved to go
into as an aside, but since you asked...
\_ Our monetary policy was primarily used to
allow massive government debt and price
bubbles. I fail to see how the current
situation is good in the long run.
Consumer debt is also the highest ever.
The US economy grew just fine before the
current system.
I also don't accept the "no serious expert"
line of reasoning.
The modern system is to conduct monetary
policy as if no recession can ever be allowed
to occur. But the reality is that this policy
is financed by endless expansion of debt and
inflation. Instead of natural corrective
recessions we are building up to some kind
of major crisis. It's like over-aggressive
fire prevention policy that ends up creating
a giant inferno when the forest gets too dry.
\_ Gloom and doomers are always with us.
We used to have much worse downturns, like
the Great Depression, the Panic of 1983 and
the Panic of 1837, before we went off the
Gold Standard. Only people with a serious
misunderstanding of history and economics
like Ron Paul want to bring back the
"good ole days" of 20%+ unemployment.
\_ The gold standard didn't cause the great
depression. It was irresponsible fiscal
policy. The central bank still has a lot
of power to affect money supply with a
gold standard. Prior to the Great
Depression in the 20's the Fed allowed
credit to grow beyond what could be
supported by reserves, much like the
mortgage crisis today. Result was the
the stock price bubble. When that crashed,
stock price bubble. When that crashed,
it also failed to act. The UK left the
gold standard in 1931, but it had already
been abandoned in WWI. The conditions
leading to the great depression and how
it was dealt with can't be chalked up
to the use of the gold standard.
Has any candidate taken a stance for the open buying
and selling of political favors?
\_ Open? Sure. Behind closed doors in smokey
rooms? Not a chance.
\_ I'm not sure you parsed my question properly.
\_ Uhm, maybe not.
\_ Clinton takes a lot of lobbyist money. Edwards
does not.
\_ I don't particularly like Clinton so I'm focusing
on Obama vs. Edwards. I'm personally a
conservative-leaning independent. Obama seems to
be in a better position to beat Hillary in the
primary. Have you considered that in your
electability calculations?
\_ I don't have any particular reason to
dislike Obama and I actually think he is
a pretty swell guy. I think he is less likely
to win in Nov, but I would certainly vote
for him against any GOP candidate I can
imagine. -Edwards' supporter
\_ I think that Edwards has a better chance in
the general election, but I would gladly
vote for either Edwards or Obama. -ES
It seems to me that Obama has done more in this area
than Edwards.
Obama had the wisdom not to authorize the Iraq war in
the first place.
Free trade is a mostly meaningless term to me. I
support it on textbook principle but the real world
isn't so simple.
\_ Obama didn't vote on the Iraq War as he was in
the Illinois State Senate at the time, I believe.
\_ Yeah. He spoke out against it in 2002 though:
http://tinyurl.com/3djwm5 (barackobama.com)
\_ "By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or
commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the
Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI." Wait, I
thought UPI was the untrustworthy one with no original reporting?
\_ The Zogby poll was an internet poll? Was the number 1 canidate
Ron Paul? |
| 2007/11/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48624 Activity:nil |
11/12 the repub nominee candidates are all terrible. romney
seems the least batshit right now to me, even with his double
gitmo comment. what am i going to do?
\_ Come over to the Dark Side, Luke.
\_ Romney? He's an idiot. He would be another GW Bush. If you like
GW Bush then there you go. For a "status quo" candidate, what
is batshit about Giuliani or Thompson? -Ron Paul voter
\_ I vote for Ron Paul too. I am a Democrat.
\_ Why? Actually how are you voting in the Rep. primary when
you are a Democrat? Anyway... i bet it's fun to be able to
take very principled stands when you have no chance of
winning. Ron Paul's other positions are pretty way over
there on the other end of the scale, extreme right wing.
I guess he gets points for being completely honest about it.
I still can't vote for him.
\_ What are the "extreme right wing" positions? He's more of
a libertarian, I'm pretty comfortable with him, knowing
he won't push crazy religious agendas for example. He's
not going to cut old people off social security.
I kinda doubt many of his ideas would get through Congress
anyway.
At this point I'm apathetic about everyone else so I
have no reason to vote for anyone else.
\_ Romney is an 'idiot'? Proof?
\_ Not a literal, dictionary one of course. I hate the guy
but I don't feel like digging up links for you, sorry.
Ok I don't even actually personally hate him to be honest.
But what's a motd post without exaggerated bombast?
\_ So 'idiot' means, "doesn't agree" with you? Okay, thought
so.
\_ There's nothing to agree/disagree with. He's one of those
"smiling faces in a suit" type of politicians, with a
generic status quo platform. "I love America!" whee
\_ What you (left wing liberal nut) want: an intellect,
sympathetic to LGBT, yada yada yada.
What America wants: good looking, confident,
and loves America. That's Romney.
\_ In another word he's like Ronald Reagan and
HE IS GONNA KICK YOUR SORRY D ASS!!!
\_ ^^^ you guys are idiots, I'm not a D. I said
I was a Ron Paul guy.
\_ Which of course makes *you* an idiot. Paul is
nuttier than a fruitcake.
\_ Bush talks to an invisible entity every day.
Various kinds of nuttiness of the president are
beside the point, the important thing is what
direction will a given president push the
current status quo, given his beliefs, and the
inherent limitations of the office of the
president. -- ilyas
\_ At least he's not fruitier than a nutcake?
Also: "Proof"?
How is Romney different from GWB? Other than
being better looking and more articulate.
Romney's web site is virtually content free.
The only clear message is about fighting
Jihadists. I think Romney is ignorant of
economics based on his speeches and writings.
I'd rather have Duncan Hunter, for a "non nutty"
candidate.
\_ Paul has said he will dissolve the FBI.
Yes, Duncan Hunter is the real conservative
candidate.
\_ Link? Dissolving the FBI doesn't sound
inherently nutty. Why do we need FBI,
CIA, Homeland Security, DEA, BATF, etc.?
It's ridiculous. I don't know anything
about Ron Paul's plans in this arena
and a quick google doesn't find it.
But I'm not someone who thinks status quo
must be the best because it's the status
quo.
\_ Romney is not an idiot, he is a Moron(i).
\_ I've decided being a Mormon isn't so bad. They believe
in the Moroni Golden Plate theory, Catholics believe
the living flesh of Christ appears when you take
communion. This is amazing on so many levels! eat
that fake dead living flesh of your lord!
\_ Any R >>> D. Say no to socialism!!! -fake conservative |
| 2007/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:48584 Activity:kinda low |
11/8 Character counts. Kerry has no character. Neither do any of the Ds.
\_ Ah, astoundingly useless statement. Hey, how bout "All R's are
corrupt!" You sound like the twat you are.
\_ again this is why liberals don't win. they think intelligence
and reasoning win votes. Nooooooo. It's all in the CHARACTER.
Case in point, Ronald Reagan. It didn't matter what policy
he had. The smile, the tone, the confidence... CHARACTER COUNTS.
\_ Seesh, you fell for that lame-o strawman troll? Idiot. -!op
\_ It's a slow night. |
| 2007/11/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48564 Activity:low |
11/7 What can i do? The top 3 repub candidates are in an insaneD
alternative universe proclaiming to the people how they are
more pro torture than the other guy. It's really odd.
I can't vote for any of these guys. They're almost as bad
as the fascist president in the movie 'The Dead Zone'
\_ What's the problem then?
\_ Don't vote. R is doomed this election anyways. Thanks Georgy!
\_ It's not Georgy's fault he was elected.
\_ Fucking Al Gore and Kerry's fault. Speaking of Kerry,
what is he doing these days, sulking like Al Gore?
\_ Gore is hardly sulking. He is jet setting and giving
speeches, basking in the glow of his Nobel Prize.
\_ Gore is apparently promoting Peace.
\_ And poking fun at himself on shows like 30 Rock.
Go, Al. |
| 2007/11/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48551 Activity:nil |
11/5 The Ron Paul spam
http://www.metafilter.com/66234/Ron-Paul-Spam
I dunno about you, but any candidate that's got the endorsement of
Stormfront AND the John Birch Society has got my vote! |
| 2007/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48546 Activity:high |
11/5 I'm no bleeding liberal, but I look at the Republican pres candidates,
and they're all terrible. I hate having to rate them as "ok this
guy isnt COMPLETELY insane" or "well this one has said anything lately
that if i think about it too hard blood will shoot out of my nose."
In this category are McCain, Romney, Guiliani, Thompson. Do I have
to become one of those GO RON PAUL freaks?
\_ Yes. GO RON PAUL!!
\_ To rip off another thread, why does every Republican candidate seem
to try to out do each other in how PRO waterboarding they are
(with the always dependable exception of McCain) ?
\_ Here's a good one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03torture.html
"As Mr. Romney was preparing for his presidential bid, he
visited Guantánamo Bay in the spring of 2006 and said he
came away with no concerns with regards to the fair and appropriate
treating of these individuals.. In the May debate, Mr. Romney said
he would .double Guantánamo..
Mr. Romney has also said that in the event of an extreme terrorist
threat, he would not rule out even the harshest interrogation
techniques, echoing comments made by his national security adviser,
Maj. Gen. James Marks, who is retired.
When the general was asked, in a 2005 interview on CNN, how far
he would go if he thought he could elicit information that would
save the lives of either American soldiers or civilians,
he replied, .I.d stick a knife in somebody.s thigh in a heartbeat..
Mr. Thompson has argued that there are circumstances where
.you have to do what is necessary to get the information that you need.."
Why'd the obsessed with secrecy gov. even let him go to GITMO? I
want to go (AS AN OBSERVER). Why are morally bankrupt shitheads
runnings for president?
\_ The Daily Show will survive the TV writer's guild strike just
fine, the jokes write themselves!
\_ I don't know. Do you trust polls? Why does Romney poll high?
I would guess it's because of his looks and charisma. The
average person probably doesn't know shit except what he looks
like and what they might see on the news which does not tell
them to think he is a morally bankrupt shithead, and which
treats Ron Paul as comedic relief.
\_ I accept that all candidates for pres must say and do silly
things to be elected, but this whole chest beating crap about
who will do the most to cornhole suspected terrorists the
most brutally turns me off of the whole process. I bet
Ron Paul doesn't say stupid shit like this. Ron Paul is too
conservative for me though. Ugh maybe I should just donate to
him.
\_ I did. I want my federal government to be as conservative
as possible... in the Constitutional sense, not religious
fundamentalist sense.
\_ I'm still mad Bush spoke at Bob Jones University! - motd mixed race guy |
| 2007/10/30-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48484 Activity:low |
10/29 I'm watching an interview with Denis Kucinich's wife. RISE UP
NERDS. GET THIS GUY ELECTED. jesus christ.
\_ She's hot. He's smart. Together, they're unelectable, but they
fight crine! Also, his appearance on COLBERT was superb.
\_ Kucinich is an opportunistic douche bag, and dirty to the core.
Read up on his record when he was in Ohio state politics. -dans
\_ I'm curious why you think he was "dirty". I am not from Ohio
like you. I have read about how he was unpopular as mayor
because he supported a city owned electric company, but years
later, after he has been out of office for a long time, it seems
like the city is pretty fucking happy they own the electic
company. Find me some dirt!
\_ dans, are you a Hillary supporter?
\_ I'm not entirely decided but I lean more toward Obama than
Clinton. -dans
\_ I'm not from Ohio, but I have friends who are. ObGoogle to
find your dirt. It's not that well hidden. -dans
\_ Name the (D) front runner who isn't dirty.
\_ s/(D)/(D) or (R)/
\_ Only Democrats are dirty. Republicans all believe in
God, Country and The Boy Scouts.
\_ And foot-tapping in public restrooms.
\_ The topic was Dems, so I said Dems. Name any front
runner who isn't dirty. I don't care which party.
Still waiting....
\_ Ok, what's dirty about Obama and Romney? Obama is a
racist, but he's pretty upfront about it.
\_ Oh please.
\_ Oh please what? Buy me an ice cream cone?
\_ Oh please stop spouting some of the most
pathetic smears about Obama without at least
giving some "proof" we can laugh at.
\_ Basically I read his book. I'm busy this
week, I'll start a new topic sometime
soon. Have you read his book?
\_ So I guess you never stopped diddling
little boys.
\_ IMO, all national level politicians have some dirt, it's just
that some are dirtier than other. Don't be disingenuous, you
could have just as easily said, Name a presidential front
runner who isn't dirty. Dirt is a range, not a binary switch.
-dans
\_ GO RON PAUL - principled computer programmer who thinks they are
wise
\_ Hillary Rodham Clinton
\_ You and the Romney guy are both hilarious.
I'm voting for Ron Paul, because you gotta
love an OB/GYN in the White House (Clinton
doesn't count).
\_ Me too. What do you think of Duncan Hunter?
\_ I asked you what's dirty about them, apparently
you have no response.
\_ CliTton ain't no OB/GYN. He's an
otolaryngologist.
\_ link? |
| 2007/10/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48338 Activity:moderate |
10/16 The Religious Right has boatloads of cash on hand.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13257.html
\_ Interesting. I wonder if there's a sense among the RR that 2008
is pretty much a wash and that it would make more sense to save
money for 2012.
\_ The RR is a single minded entity with a single bank account?
Sort of a giant Jesus Multi-Body Entity(tm) with a single
group mind?
\_ You have a question/answer/real point to make? Or you just
like using question marks?
\_ It's there. Try again. |
| 2007/10/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48337 Activity:moderate |
10/16 Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/pl_nm/usa_politics_cheney_obama_dc
\_ Eighth cousins means absolutly nothing.
\_ I'm both of their 8th cousins, too. So are you.
\_ I am not even sure which of the current presidential candidates
has the smallest 'ancestral join' with me. -- ilyas
\_ He also has a Bacon number of 3. -tom
\_ I recall John Kelly was a cousin of some degree to Bush.
\_ John KELLY? Bahahaha. Are you Chinese?
\_ Sorry, John "Flip-Flopper" Kerry. Ninth cousin twice removed
of Dubya. And yes I'm Chinese. |
| 2007/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48331 Activity:moderate |
10/15 "Obama is a Muslim" smear campaign still around
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9137C354-3048-5C12-000A32656C8CAEA4
\_ Let's assume he is a Muslim. So what? Romney is a Mormon. So
what? The person least likely to get elected in this country is
an atheist.
\_ And still they feel the need to attack him as a Muslim, mostly
on guilt by association. "You know, that Obama Hussien guy,
he looks awful swarthy to me." It's racist pandering pure
he looks awful dark to me." It's racist pandering pure
and simple. Racist pandering bugs me.
\_ And Romney gets attacked for being a Mormon. So? Does that
bug you, too?
\_ But isn't Romney really a Mormon? Isn't Obama actually
an Episcapalian or something?
\_ Frankly, Romney getting attacked for actually being a
Mormon is less disturbing to me than Obama getting attacked
for being a Muslim when he is not. The issue here is not
Obama's religion (a dumb reason to attack anyone, even
Romney), but scandalous lies spread to harm a candidate.
Cf. John McCain's black babies. |
| 2007/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48319 Activity:low |
10/15 Things you may not have read about Sanchez's comments:
1) "The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ...
America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq,"
2) "What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive
partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our
service members who are at war. My assessment is that your profession,
to some, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external
agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, reads in
newspapers and what they see on the Web," Sanchez said.
http://www.fairandbalanced.com/story/0,2933,301676,00.html
\_ Did he say this to a Fox News reporter?
\_ In his speech to the Military Reporters and Editors Association
in Washington, D.C., on Friday....
\_ I love the lefties who censor the URL. Shows their hypocrisy so
\_ Yes, I know, I was making a joke. Even funnier that he said
it to a bunch of Stars and Stripe's reporters.
\_ Full transcript
http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html
\_ I love the commies who censor the URL. Shows their hypocrisy so
well.
\_ Sup jblack, long time no motd!
\_ I'm not jblack. -pp |
| 2007/10/12-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48302 Activity:high |
10/12 Awesome. http://csua.org/u/jq0 (ebay auction of... oh, who cares, it's partisan crap disguised as a short url. Op, did you happen to see your dignity on auction while you were there?) \_ Actually it's about accuracy, and Reid's inability to find it with both hands. \_ Actually, it is about Rush Limbaugh's attempt to rewrite history, something he does all the time. Where are his transcripts of him calling Chelsea Clinton the "White House Dog?" http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010 See where he calls them "phony soldiers." \_ Yeah, http://mm.org has been arguing against the truth for quite a while. Limbaugh clearly was talking about actual phony soldiers. See "Operation Stolen Valor". Limbaugh went on to talk about McBride and others like him. talk about Macbeth and others like him. \_ I heard it live, in context. He was clearly not turning his back on 20+ years of pro-military rhetoric. Reid and http://mm.org got it wrong. The only way they could get it so wrong was by intentionally ignoring the facts. Rush is an amusing entertainer and not worthy of this sort of waste of time on the Senate floor nor a ridiculous witch hunt. Especially since he's said plenty of other things worth attacking that he's actually said. \_ Another "phony soldier" no doubt: http://www.csua.org/u/jq2 Rush only calls you a phony if you don't support Bush's war. \_ If you ever actually listened to Rush you'd know he's said many times that he has no problem with real soldiers being critical of the war. Just the fakes and frauds like the guy he was talking about that day who flunked out of basic but falsely claimed to be a US Army ranger who committed and witnessed numerous atrocities. You're tossing a red herring. Reid is a liar. Media Matters (a Hillary created front org) are liars. The other 40 Senators who signed his stupid letter are liars. If you want to bash Bush or the war, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with Reid, Hillary, and the rest flat out lying about what Rush said and wasting Senate time attacking a US citizen's first amendment rights. Have a nice day. \_ First off, what proof do you have that the first caller was a phony soldier, which is what Rush clearly called him? Secondly, Media Matters is hardly a Hillary created front org, it was founded by David Brock, someone I personally know from my time at Wired Magazine and it is funded by Soros. As usual, you are either confused or spreading misinformation. Soros. As usual, you are spreading misinformation. \_ The first caller was a phony soldier? What are you talking about? I don't think you know. Secondly, Brock is a Hillary minion. Your knowing him personally has nothing to do with anything. Of coruse Hillary didn't fund it herself. No one said she did. Sheesh. Either way, Reid and MM are still liars. All this other stuff is nonsense. \_ Brock is hardly a Hillary minion, unless you really believe that everyone to the left of Mitt Romney is part of a vast Hillary conspiracy. If anything, he is a Soros minion, since Soros writes his paycheck. And Soros is quite a long way from Hillary, believe me. \_ You failed to answer about the first part about "first caller was a phony soldier". You don't know anything about this story. You're just a troll. The rest of your post is nonsense. \_ In a simple reading of what Rush said, it is quite clear that he referred to the first caller as a phony soldier, yes. Your English language skills are deficient. You also don't know what the word "troll" means. Hint, it does not mean "anyone who disagrees with me." \_ sorry, I was listening to the show, not a cut up transcript. He was clearly not referring to the caller. The rest of your ad hominem is not worth replying to since it is based on your complete lack of knowledge of the situation. \_ Calling someone a troll is fine, but saying "you don't know what a troll is" is ad hominem? You don't know what ad hominem means either. \_ To both of you: Please show evidence that Soros or Hillary in any way financially supports MM. "Drudge says so" is not evidence. \_ Sorry, I mistakenly thought this was common knowledge. It is pretty funny to watch the Right foam at the mouth over MM. They have been doing the same stuff for years, but they get seriously paranoid and nutty when anyone gives them a dose of their own medicine. Where does MM get its funding? \_ "common knowledge" to who? Ditto- heads? Answer your own question then come back and show us your results. \_ I've donated to them. \_ I've wasted money on stuff before, too. \_ Well, they seem to get you all hot and bothered, so it wasn't a total waste, now was it? \_ *laugh* the first troll who is paying others to do it for them. You've taken the Art Of Troll to a whole new level. Keep sending money. Wow, you're dumb. \_ Do you really think that this is the *first* troll to ever do that? What do you think of Horowitz and FrontPage Mag? \_ I don't donate to Horowitz or FPM or MM or any other troll orgs. Why would you? \_ You are begging the question. Is MM the *first*? \_ Of course it isn't but that is a side show. Who cares which was first? I don't and have never donated to any of them. Why would anyone donate to orgs who by their very nature are designed to lie and created with that purpose in mind? Maybe that's your thing but I'll send my charity to places that try to do good in the world. \_ Surprisingly enough, not everyone agrees with what your definition of "do good in the world" means. \_ I'm sad anyone takes Rush seriously, ever, or pays any attention to him. \_ Talk to Reid about that, wasting time in the Senate on an entertainer. \_ ugh debating anything Rush spews is stupid. http://MM.org is a Soros creation, not hillary. \_ From Rush to Drudge... Can't you people factcheck anything? The zombie lies will never die... \_ Hillary herself said she helped create http://MM.org. Here is the article, with a download of the audio of her saying it. http://csua.org/u/jqa \_ First off, this is not really what she said there, if you pay attention carefully to the wording. She said she supports it, which can mean practically anything. Secondly, do you honesly believe every lie that a politician tells you? Did you believe Dubya when he told you that Saddam had WMD and a Nuclear program? Did you believe Gore when he told you that he invented the Internet? The actual founder of MM is famous for having written various anti-Clinton pieces, including the Troopergate story (which was later exposed as a lie, which was part of what led to Brock's "conversion"). \_ So we have to carefully parse her words to figure out wtf she's talking about? Does she know what the meaning of "is" is or was the previously resolved in court? Sheesh. \_ Politicians say bland, impenetrable things all the time, deliberately using the ambiguity inherent in language to tell the greatest number of listeners what they think they want to hear, without actually saying anything. Hillary is just better at it than most. \_ I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "it" is. I prefer leaders, of which we have a few, over your politicians. Saying she is a politician and there- fore it is ok for her to dissemble is not ok. You might as well vote for Bush. \_ I think it is obvious that I am no big fan of Hillary either, but I don't see any of these "leaders" running for President, from either party. You might be able to convince me otherwise with regards to McCain. Anyone else even remotely close? \_ Among the 'top candidates' as chosen by the media, no, not really. There are others running we barely hear from. Maybe there. \_ Who? \_ Ron Paul, Huckabee, Dodd, and Gravel come to mind. Hillary is an evil clown, Obama is a clown, Rudy is evil, Edwards is a fraudster, Romney will say anything. I miss anyone at the top? \_ Huckabee talks out both sides of his mouth with regards to taxes, Dodd is bought at paid for by Wall Street, but bought and paid for by Wall Street, but perhaps the other two are all right. I don't know much about them except what I saw on the debate. They are both obviously willing to take upopular stances openly, so you have to respect that. \_ ObBitchSlap: Gore never said he invented the Internet. \_ Created vs invented \_ "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator." -Vincent Cerf \_ Because it behooves him to embarass the VP by saying anything else? \_ Because it's true. \_ So you say. What exactly did Gore do without which we wouldn't have google today? \_ High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 which led to the National Information Infrastructure. Learn the history of your field, young Computer Scientist. \_ 'If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn't have happened,' Andreessen says of Gore's bill, 'at least, not until years later.'. So, without Gore, we would be just like now but circa 2002? With google, yahoo, web mail, browsers, etc, but no web 2.0 ajax outside of MS web outlook? How is that different? You know the net existed then right? So he did something that eventually funded the browser a year later? It sounds like the browser was already on it's way. I'm not buying it, sorry. \_ this is one of the dumbest trolls I've ever seen. -tom \_ why do you still post here? \_ Heh, w/o CCA and NII, we'd be just like ten years ago, but with BBSs. OTOH, we'd probably have kickass analog modems. \_ Hint: there was an internet before 1991. \_ Yes, and Usenet, and other such, and you had to have access through a school or large company to get to it. W/o public investment in expanding access, you'd still have to have an OCF account to read your email. \_ And as Andreesen said, we'd be a few years behind. Call it five. That puts us at 2002 which isn't a whole lot different than today. Or maybe you're smarter than he is. We all know that without government nothing ever gets invented. Government is the source of all creativity and invention. *boggle!* \_ you're an idiot. \_ Andreesen said "years later": that could mean decades. Also, if not for gov. invest. there'd've been no .com bubble and no commesurate boost in private spending in infrastructure. Prog. w/o profit is slooow. \_ the dotcom bubble was a good thing? ok whatever. \_ It led to near- ubiquity of the Internet. I'd say that's more good than bad. \_ I'd say it didn't. I'd say more computers in more homes did that. \_ The proto-Internet was ARPAnet, run by the DOD, and the DOD decided it was no longer going to provide support for civilian applications. If the Internet did not receive funding at that point in time, maybe telecoms would have done something, but it would have been done based on the telecom model; fee for service, screw net neutrality. The government is the *only* entity which could have created the Internet as the public resource we know today. -tom \_ fee for service got you... here it comes.... SERVICE! What a shocker! imagine having a business model where you have to pay to get stuff! Dreadful! \_ What are you, a Free Market troll, a ditto- head troll, or a bridge-troll? \_ Anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll. You are the source of all truth. \_ Man, took you long enough. \_ Do you think the Internet would be better if it worked more like cell phone networks? -tom \_ For some definitions of 'better', yes. If I could pay $5/m to not get spam I would save money, for ex. The telcos would sell you "spam _/ blocking service" and then sell the spammers "spam delivery guarantee service" to get around the spam blocking. You'd have to buy a specific computer to connect to AT+T's network and it wouldn't work if you wanted to switch to Sprint, and you'd have a two year contract with a penalty clause. You'd also have a surcharge to send mail to an off-network customer, or it just wouldn't work at all. The "cheap" connectivity plan would involve huge fees for any time you actually used the service, and then they'd advertise "Tired of high fees? Buy our unlimited plan for twice as much money!" Net neutrality and ubiquitous deployment is a huge public benefit, and it could only have happend through government action, and Gore deserves a lot of credit for initiating that action. -tom \_ You mean like how I can use my cell phone right now to call anyone and it doesn't cost me anything during nights and weekends and during the day the rate is dirt cheap, I don't get spam calls, I have a choice of hundreds of phones, and all this was brought to me by pure raw capitalist competition for my hard earned dollar. Yeah, the phone system sure sucks. If it was run by the government I wouldn't have a cell phone, unless I was a Senator or someone else 'important' who gets a special health plan much different than what the proles get. No thanks. I'll pass on the socialist utopia phone system monopoly. I'm old enough to remember Ma Bell being the only game in town. A government monopoly on the phones would be no better. Competition rules. \_ Uhh, you do realize that without the government heavily regulating large chunks of the phone industry your wonderful cell phone network would be a disaster, don't you? \_ The actual quote was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." which Declan (another Wired Alum) twisted into invented. \_ Hence "Created vs invented" as I said above. \_ Brock is hardly a Hillary minion, unless |
| 2007/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:48298 Activity:high 52%like:48303 |
10/11 Clearly, the Nobel Peace Prize has a well known liberal bias.
\_ Truth has a well known liberal bias as well.
\_ Despite all the evidence!
\_ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
\_ Arafat won a peace prize too.
\_ Arafat was a liberal?
\_ No, Arafat was the kind of brutal killer a certain brand
of liberals love to fawn over for some weird reason.
\_ You know that Arafat did not actually win the peace
prize himself, right? You do understand that it was
shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Why, do
you imagine, the Nobel Comittee would award a peace
prize to a group of three people like that?
\_ Oh of course. I have to wonder what Gore has actually done for
peace. He made a movie with significant factual errors? Wow.
\- i'm not a big fan of ALGOR but he's a better choice than that
dumb tree planting woman or rigoberta menchu, massive liar.
the should have co-awarded it to BLOMBORG for "spearheading
a debate on environmental change".
\_ What does GW have to do with peace?
\_ Let's time travel back to 1973 and have this discussion about
Kissinger's award, mmmmmkay?
\_ Name one war Gore stopped.
\_ It is your opinion that the movie contains significant
factual errors. A majority of climate scientists would
disagree with you. It is pretty much impossible to make
a documentary without any piddling errors. Do you believe
in Creation Science, too?
\_ Or in Al's case very serious errors.
\_ I notice you are avoiding the question.
\_ If you look at the list of NPP winners over the last 30-40 years
you'll find so many idiotic decisions that it is difficult for a
rational person to take them seriously anymore. It just doesn't
matter.
\_ Many rational people take them seriously. Perhaps you think
that the Nobel Prizes don't matter, but if you do, you
would be wrong.
\_ Uhm yeah. Well said. Next up: I know you are but what am I?
\_ 'Regular' Nobel prizes are very prestigious. The Nobel Peace
Prize became a joke when Arafat won. -- ilyas
\_ The conventional Nobel prizes are very prestigious. The
Nobel Peace prize was a joke ever since Arafat won. -- ilyas
\_ In your opinion, which of course everyone in the whole
wide world shares. Do you honestly believe that your
opinions are mainstream, ilyas? -ausman
\_ "That's like, your opinion, man." Why did you even
write that post? -- ilyas
write that post? No content. -- ilyas
\_ There is a very small group of pro-war people,
mostly people who despise any non-violent effort
at conflict resolution and whose livelihood depends
on warfare, who think that the Nobel Peace Prize
is "a joke." To the overwhelming majority of
humanity, it is a very presitigious award, perhaps
humanity, it is a very prestigious award, perhaps
the most prestigious award a human being can win.
There, is that better? -ausman
\_ Surprisingly, it is actually possible to
not take the Nobel Peace prize seriously, and
also NOT hate kittens. The Nobel committee gave
the award in question to a known butcher, without
bothering to check if the 'agreement' would hold,
in the face of decades of similar agreements
failing to work. Naturally, the 'peace' didn't
take, but you know. Who cares about peace.
Would you support giving Kim Jong Il the Peace
prize? The fellow runs a nightmare gulag state,
but I am sure he can sit down for a peace accord
too. Especially if there is no requirement that
he keep his word. Incidentally, did you know
that at least one Nobel committee member resigned
over Arafat?
P.S. Are you familiar with Larry Ellison's phrase
'Bozo explosion?' It's a way in which startups
\_ Yes case in point Google. Start shorting
man, you'll thank me for it.
eventually succumb to inertia as they grow and
mature. 'Bozo explosion' is a general phenomenon,
it affects not just corporations but traditions
(consider the Olympic games corruption scandals),
non-profit orgs (consider what happened to LA's
Griffith Observatory), and apparently even
prestigious prizes. -- ilyas
\_ You know, I am a pretty careful student of
Middle Eastern history and I have never before
heard of a Palestinian-Isreali peace treaty
heard of a Palestinian-Israeli peace treaty
that was signed by leaders from both sides
before. Can you give me some more information
about this treaty? As for your confused notion
about constitutes a prestigious or important
prize, I will say that historical figures almost
always seem more important after they are dead.
I am sure the award to MLK was pretty
about what constitutes a prestigious or
significant prize, I will say that historical
figures always seem more important after they
are dead. I am sure the award to MLK was pretty
controversial in 1964, as well. -ausman
\_ Are you comparing Arafat to MLK now? Wow.
Prizes are a social signal, nothing more.
The process by which prizes are awarded is
a noisy one. If this process gets so noisy
that 'obviously bad people' get the prize,
the prize is no longer a meaningful signal,
e.g., "This prize recipient is a good
person/productive contributor, etc. ...
unless we happened to fuck up and the person
is actually a murderer/thug/moocher/
political stooge." Bad award decisions
reflect on the award, I am afraid. -- ilyas
\_ I notice you are unable to provide me with
any similar peace treaty, in spite of your
earlier claims to the contrary. You are
aware that the Nobel Peace Prize is an
international prize, right? And you are
aware that Arafat is one of the most
highly regarded people ever in the Arab
world, right? I personally do not regard
Arafat as on the level of MLK, but would
not be surprised if he is by most people
in twenty or thirty years: it all depends
on how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
works itself out. I think that Rabin and
Arafat took great personal and political
risks to come to an agreement, which they
should be commended for. Rabin was
assassinated for it, as was Sadat a decade
earlier, for daring to come to a similar
accord. Remember, there are still a bunch
of fanatical peace hating extremists on
both (many?) sides in the ME, who are
willing to kill leaders on their own
side who try to come to a peaceful accord.
Did you approve of the assassination of
Rabin and Sadat? Want Arafat and Peres
assassinated?
\_ Let's see: Linus Pauling, Martin Luther King, UNICEF,
Andrei Sakharov, Amnesty International, Anwar Sadat &
Menachim Begin, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, The UN
Peacekeepers, Nelson Mandela & Fredrik De Klerk,
Medecins Sans Frontieres. What a worthless bunch!
\_ Yeah, we need a Nobel War Prize, so some Republicans can win some.
\_ What I find sad about this is that there *had* to be someone out
there who has actually done something about making the world a
more peaceful place instead of turning the prize into a political
award for correct behavior. How many truly worthy people were
passed over to give Al a hat tip?
\_ Name one.
\- BTW, it's not only the Peace prizes with a mixed record.
The Lit prize is criticized for poor choices too. |
| 2007/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48253 Activity:nil 66%like:48241 |
10/4 Richardson says "Pull Out Now"
http://www.csua.org/u/jnf \_ Sorry baby, I just couldn't stop.
\_ Why? It feels better to stay inside.
\_ Cuz I need to take a dump. |
| 2007/10/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:48243, category id '18005#13.5625' has no name! , ] UID:48243 Activity:moderate |
10/5 Republicans trying to stack the deck in the Federal Elections
Commission by either nominating a known voter suppression
specialist or by allowing Bush to make recess appointments.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004396.php \_ Uhm, the FEC
is always 3 D and 3 R. What deck are you talking
about? \_ Read the article. Just because it is 3d and 3r
doesn't mean
it should be a body staffed by people who make partisan
choices the number one priority. Just like the Justice
department should strive for being non partisan. \_
I read the article before posting and a pile of the blog
responses as well. Everything in DC is staffed by
partisan hacks with the _possible_ exception of the GAO.
Maybe. I'm not impressed with the need to screw up the
FEC just so this one guy doesn't join them for a term.
What was in the article that explains exactly what is
so horrible about him anyway? Unless he's out raping
nuns and sheep and sheep nuns it isn't important and no
I don't care which party he's a member of. There are
partisan hacks and plenty of em from both sides all over
the place. And frankly, what is so wrong with being a
partisan in a 2 party confrontational system? Lack of
partisanship just reduces us to one party like so many
petty totalitarian regimes. Bring on the partisans of
all parties, I say.
\_ Uhm, the FEC is always 3 D and 3 R. What deck are you talking
about?
\_ Read the article. Just because it is 3d and 3r doesn't mean
\_ Read the article. Just because it is 3d and 3r
doesn't mean
it should be a body staffed by people who make partisan
choices the number one priority. Just like the Justice
department should strive for being non partisan.
\_ I read the article before posting and a pile of the blog
responses as well. Everything in DC is staffed by partisan
hacks with the _possible_ exception of the GAO. Maybe.
I'm not impressed with the need to screw up the FEC just so
this one guy doesn't join them for a term. What was in the
article that explains exactly what is so horrible about him
anyway? Unless he's out raping nuns and sheep and sheep nuns
it isn't important and no I don't care which party he's a
member of. There are partisan hacks and plenty of em from
both sides all over the place. And frankly, what is so wrong
with being a partisan in a 2 party confrontational system?
Lack of partisanship just reduces us to one party like so
many petty totalitarian regimes. Bring on the partisans of
responses as well. Everything in DC is staffed by
partisan hacks with the _possible_ exception of the GAO.
Maybe. I'm not impressed with the need to screw up the
FEC just so this one guy doesn't join them for a term.
What was in the article that explains exactly what is
so horrible about him anyway? Unless he's out raping
nuns and sheep and sheep nuns it isn't important and no
I don't care which party he's a member of. There are
partisan hacks and plenty of em from both sides all over
the place. And frankly, what is so wrong with being a
partisan in a 2 party confrontational system? Lack of
partisanship just reduces us to one party like so many
petty totalitarian regimes. Bring on the partisans of
all parties, I say.
\_ You know, it is hard to believe after Clinton and Bush,
but there used to be a time when it wasn't like this.
Presidents actually used to put members of the other
party on their cabinet and the qualifications of your
staff mattered at least as much as your loyalty.
\_ Ronald Reagan hired people who were highly
qualified and loyal. Ronald Reagan was GOD. -GOP
\_ One word: Bork.
\_ You know after Bork got 'Borked' he has spent the
last 20 years writing opinions and articles and
papers proving he is the extreme far right
nutcase everyone suspected he would be.
\_ Futher proof that smoking dope does not give
you some kind of liberal disease. Suck it,
Rush.
\_ But you're ok with extreme left wingers on the
court, yes? Someone asked how we got this way.
The answer is the left viciously attacked Bork
on his beliefs not his legal skills as a judge.
The rest was history.
\_ My memory is not so hot. Who was the last
extreme left winger on the court? Also, Bork
\_ Still there now.
is a bad example for all of us on the motd.
He is/was/will continue to be totally
completely out in space. I am 100 percent
glad he did not get confirmed. I dont think
you'd want to live in a world either that has
him as a Justice. Hey can we argue about
Clarence Thomas now?
\_ Whoop-dee-damn-doo.
\_ I didn't say you would like him. I said
where that sort of thing started in the
modern era.
\_ Your history needs lots and lots of work.
Trying looking up "FDR, Supreme Court packing
of," "Johnson, Abe Fortas nomination," etc.
\_ Please join us when you can get on topic.
Thanks. You topic is interesting but
unrelated.
\_ I think clinton had a few republicans in his cabinet?
Lincoln's cabinet was kind of split, half always agreed
with him, the other half thought he sucked, but he insisted
they all stfu and press on with his agenda when he made
a decision (I'm talking about the emancipation). I think
everyone thought Roosevelt was god. I haven't read much
about Nixon's cabinet. Isn't it funny how the Nixon
era seems like a delightful spring breeze now? |
| 2007/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48241 Activity:nil 66%like:48253 |
10/4 Richardson says "Pull Out Now"
http://www.csua.org/u/jnf
\_ Sorry baby, I just couldn't stop.
\_ Why? It feels better to stay inside.
\_ Cuz I need to take a dump. |
| 2007/9/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48147 Activity:nil |
9/20 John Kerry in Doonesbury 30 years ago:
http://www.prismnet.com/~ix/ljpix/1970s/db711021.gif
\_ Didn't he serve in Vietnam? |
| 2007/9/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48136 Activity:moderate |
9/20 why does Bush always say 'Democrat party'. weirdo.
\_ to denigrate his opponents, of course. -tom
\_ It is a code word to the wing-nut Right to let them know he is
\_ It is a code work to the wing-nut Right to let them know he is
one of them.
\_ He's not the first to do it. I think Dem critics have gotten tired
of "Democratic" party sounds like they're democratic.
\_ Parse error at 'party'.
\_ No, it's cause Democrat Party sounds harsh and curse like.
Lucky for me it's a great litmus test. If someone says
"Democrat Party" you know they are a partisan hack and it's not
worth reading/listening any further.
\_ I find it easy to simply use anyone who claims such a "litmus
test" as a litmus test and ignore them.
\_ This is why we can't have nice things.
\_ It sounds like "bureaucrat", "autocrat", and "rat".
\_ http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005
The Republicans have used it as an insult since McCarthy.
\_ I've only seen this come up on the motd and some very far left
web sites. It never even occured to me there was a difference or
it mattered. I certainly don't see the dramatic insult. Can
someone please explain?
\_ I don't think it 'matters' in any sense that anyone can
possibly demonstrate. What I find interesting is how much
time people waste on shit like this in political discussions,
rather than things actually relevant to our lives. -- ilyas
\_ You think that The New Yorker is very far left?
\_ Where did I say I read The New Yorker? Anyway, I still
don't see the dramatic insult. Or any insult. I wouldn't
blink if someone said "Republic Party". What's the BFD? |
| 2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48077 Activity:nil |
9/14 Paging AGONZALES :
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucilaw13sep13,0,5893599.story
[considering what LSUMMERS was booted for, as BDELONG says "Why does
MDRAKE still have a job?"
\_ Right Wing Political Correctness run amok.
\_ Political Correctness run amok.
\- speaking of LSUMMERS:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/09/unclear-on-the-.html
\- speaking of LSUMMERS and UC:
http://tinyurl.com/2kvadz |
| 2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48073 Activity:moderate |
9/14 So, exactly what did the surge accomplish again?
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9804115
My feeling is that Republican just want to drag this until
2009 and blame Democrats for "loosing the war."
\_ It accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish:
it lined the pockets of the defence contractors, all who
donate to the GOP.
\_ Are you kidding? Most large companies donate to both
parties. It only makes sense to do so.
\_ Do you really think that defense contractos donate the
same amount to both parties? How about oil companies?
\_ Dunno if they donate the same amount or not, but I'm
quite sure they donate to both parties.
\_ Easy enough to look up:
http://www.csua.org/u/jk9
Big Oil: 3:1 Republican, 4:1 recently
http://www.csua.org/u/jka
Defence: 60:40 GOP, 2:1 lately
The latter actually surprised me a bit, I thought that
it would be more one sided.
\_ It used to be that the timeline for ending a war was "when we've
won". Now it seems like the timeline is "we haven't won and this
is really frustrating so let's just call it a day and go home and
pretend it never happened". The tactics, strategies, equipment,
man power levels, focus, and diplomatic efforts may all be wrong
and require a complete change of plan but retreating because we're
and re
Elsewhere in the programme, we meet glamour model Lucy Pinder, whose breasts hav\
e made her famous. With contracts to the Daily Star and Nuts magazine, Lucy has\
made a name for herself using her body quire a complete change of plan s got a b\
rain as well as a pair of The programme follows Lucy on a shoot for Nuts and he\
ars what life is like when you have some of the most famous breasts in the nation.
Also on Wednesday, model Jo talks about how her attitude towards her breasts cha\
nged dramatically after she had her baby, and Gemma explains what life is like w\
hen you have to spend up 800 a year on hiding an embarrassing nipple problem.
to boobs!Shebut retreating because we're
and but retreating because we're
"bored of this war and it's no fun!" is detrimental to our long
term standing in the world and our ability in the future for
generations to apply non-military pressure to accomplish our
national goals. No one follows a loser or a quitter. The war has
become so political that no one in DC seems to care about the
consequences anymore. It has become a faxed memo talking points
political item. How sad for all of us.
\_ The war was a mistake. If you make a mistake, the thing to do
is stop making it, not stubbornly keep doing it because you
are worried about pride and saving face. This whole thing has
already damaged our standing in the world. Talk about
consequences? What is your definition of "winning"?
\_ "The thing to do is stop making it": far too trivial an
answer. The answer is to finish what you started, not get
bored and go because it is annoying. We'll never win by
my definition. Our leaders (in both parties) are too gutless
to do what needs to be done. I read an interview with Powell
a few days ago where he said we should have shot a bunch of
looters on day one as a lesson to the rest. I'm with Powell.
\_ You still haven't answered the question as to what it
would mean for us to win.
\_ Win = defeat your enemies. In this case that would
mean closing the borders with Syria and Iraq to cut
off support and crushing groups such as the 'mahdi
army'. Once your enemies are defeated you can talk
about diplomatic solutions among the rational people
who remain. While these groups exist and still think
they can get more from fighting instead of talking
there can be no diplomatic solution to anything. War
is about breaking the will of your enemy to continue
fighting, which we haven't even *tried* to do yet.
That might get a bunch of folks into a tizzy and we
can't have folks in a tizzy, can we?
\_ Fighting it the way you want to fight it would require
many more men that the military has. I don't think
there is any way you are going to sell a draft,
especially at this point. And even if you could, I
don't think it would work, since it basically requires
breaking the Iraqi will to have an indepedent
government. It didn't work in Vietnam, why would it
work here? Iraq has a long history of defeating
colonial powers, you know.
\_ We're not colonizing, we're SETTING IT FREE!!!
Give me freedom or give me death! -Neocon
\_ How about choking to death on some Freedom
Fries?
\_ You CAN'T finish it. That's the fucking point.
\_ In your opinion. Fighting it like we have, you are
correct since we haven't been fighting, which includes
the surge in recent months.
\_ Whether Iraq should have been invaded or not is
neither here nor there. What people need to focus on
is the fact that we *are* there. Now what? Packing up
and going home is not a good solution, so what are the
other options?
\_ The only other option I can think of is to arm some
Saddam Hussein like strong man and let him kill as
many Kurds and Shi'ites as he needs to keep the
country together. Too bad we killed SH, eh?
\_ Then it is a good thing you're not making any
decisions.
\_ Yes, far better to listen to you and blow $1T,\
3k lost lives, 30k maimed and our credibility
\_ Yes, far better to listen to you and blow $1T,
3k lost lives, 30k maimed and our credibility
on a pointless invasion. I notice you haven't
been able to come up with any withdrawal strategy.
It is either the one I came up with or an out
and out civil war, which will be worse, and
just end up with the same kind of strongman
in the end anyway. Oh, and I warned that the
invasion of Iraq would most likely result in
a civil war there *before* the invasion. So yes,
it is a "good thing" that I am not making any
decisions.
\_ Stop focusing on the past. What's done is
done. Who cares about what you warned
against? So your withdrawal options are
what again? And what options are there
other than withdrawal, if any? Dems like
to say "I told you so". Fair enough. Now
they want to lead the country, so what's
the plan? Most of what I hear is BS that
panders to the "I told you so"'s in hopes
of getting elected. I'd like to hear some
real plans. So far my favorite is the
Biden-Gelb plan, which basically calls for
splitting Iraq up and guaranteeing the
Sunnis a share of oil profits. I think the
people who want our troops out of Iraq now
are thinking with their hearts and not
their minds.
\_ Actually, I think we should do the same
thing I suggested two years ago and it
starts with impeaching Bush and handing
him over to an International War Crimes
Tribunal. But I am sure you are not
interested in hearing it again, so I
won't bother. Any "solution" that doesn't
start out with hat in hand to the Iranians,
Turks, Syrians and Saudis is just a big
waste of time. You stilll are dreaming of
waste of time. You still are dreaming of
victory, when what you should be doing is
trying to cut your losses. Okay, I just
looked up the Biden-Gelb plan and it at
least recognizes the idea that the US needs
to engage Iraqi neighbors to have a hope
of a chance of success. But that chance that
Bush is going to effectively engage Iran is
nill. Maybe the next President will, though.
read the Biden-Gelb plan and I think it
focuses on the important points, which
are recognizing the inevitable need to
draw in and get the support from Iraq's
neighbors. I still think you are stuck
in fantasyland though.
nil. Maybe the next President will, though.
\_ Vote for Biden. People should stop
wasting their time with Hillary and
Obama. They are probably the 3rd and
4th best candidates the Dems have
but they have NAME RECOGNITION. The Dems
suck and I have low expectations for
the next President.
\_ Joe "never met a credit card company
I wouldn't fellate" Biden? Seriously,
Biden can't get the base. Without
primary voters, you can't get the
nom.
\_ I understand that, but I still
think he is the best man for
the job.
\_ I like Biden quite a bit, mostly just
from watching him at the debates, but
I don't think he has a chance. But
my candidate (Edwards) doesn't have
much of a chance either.
\_ Edwards leads the pack in Iowa.
Or, had for a while... It's neck
and neck, apparently.
\_ I don't think he has a chance
either and that's too bad. Why
is everyone all over Hillary? |
| 2007/9/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:48067 Activity:low |
9/14 Argentina museum displays Incan mummy - Yahoo! News:
http://www.csua.org/u/jiw
This mummy is creepy.
\_ All mummies are creepy.
\_ This one is more creepy than the Egyptian ones. She looks alive.
\_ I find the dried husk look more creepy. |
| 2007/9/14 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48065 Activity:nil |
9/14 Motd nuked, for great justice.
It was the only way to be sure.
But by the time they reached the door, they had blown up too much and were
too wide to fit through the door frame. Dean tried pressing themtogether,
his fingers almost disappearing into the inflating flesh, but all this did
was make Liz cum in her shorts. She gasped as the sensation passed
momentarily, but she weakened enough to beg Dean to do it again.Dean, more
centered on his task, stepped back and tried to come up with asolution, and
couldn't. He ushered her back to the middle of the small room and shut the
door before anyone noticed. Every step Liz took made her breasts sway and
the movement of the air on her enormous nipples started her up
again. Giving in to the intense waves of passion that were raping her
system, she grabbed her incredible tits and began massaging them all over,
sending waves of electricity through them and making her privates literally
oozefrom her hot juices. Dean grabbed the phone and told the woman that she
was stuck in her room and that they couldn't get out. The woman thought for
a second, then told Dean that for the pill to wear off, the person had to
experience the sheer joy, joy that only came from a cataclysmic orgasm. She
then thought that maybe if he tried to make her have one, her breasts would
revert back to
normal. She told him that the growth was happening underneath only one
layer of her skin and that they would pop painlessly once it happen,
letting her be normal again. |
| 2007/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48064 Activity:nil |
9/14 Argentina museum displays Incan mummy - Yahoo! News:
http://www.csua.org/u/jiw
This mummy is creepy.
When Dean started to explain that he needed to make sure that his
friend understood everything that he needed, Liz gave up and
whispered, "I'm having a little trouble". Dean looked at her
quizzically, and then thought that she needed to go to the bathroom
and told her to hold it. She then gave up on trying to hide her
problem and stood up a bit straighter and gave Dean a quick look at
her "growing concerns." Instantly Dean told his friend good-bye and
started walking swiftly with Liz under his arm, she walking a
little hunched over to try and conceal her chest. Dean whispered,
"What are you doing? You trying to get me all excited with those
fake.. "They're not fake, Dean...something is happening to me...my
breasts are growing..I can actually feel them inflating. What's
going on? Wait.. What was in those pills I took?" Dean explained
the whole story to her as they tried to make it quickly across the
quad. Liz punched him in the arm when he told her about the pills,
telling him he should have warned her. Dean tried to plead his
case, but it didn't matter now. Liz's chest was near a D-cup now,
and she noticed that they seemed to be expanding faster as time
passed. She was almost walking with her back hunched at a 45 degree
angle now so that she didn't show any curves, looking rather
silly. Dean dove his hand into his pocket and retrieved the vial
again. He studied it, trying to find anything on it that might
help, and noticed some writing on the bottom of the cork. It read:
Ego Builders: Take one each night and triple your doubt. Find
happiness and all will be as it should. Dean thought carefully and
then realized what was happening: Liz must have doubted that her
chest attracted men and they were now tripling in size, but she had
taken 30 pills, so that meant... "Oh my god!" both Dean and Liz
said as they figured out the meaning. Liz started breathing heavy,
which wasn't helping conceal her chest. Dean could do nothing but
continue walking faster towards Liz's place. |
| 2007/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48062 Activity:high 66%like:48063 |
9/14 How does she do this? (NSFW)
Yoga?
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6497/screenshotpm1.png
\_ She reminds me of the Fat Man bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.
Incidentally, see the ASCII art below.
"Dean, I'm getting too big," sobbed Liz, "My breasts are gonna
pop out of my shirt soon." "I know I know...we are almost there."
reassured Dean. The elevator stopped and the pair got out, Liz
continuing to hold onto Dean's back like a little babe. They walked
down to her room and Liz handed her key to Dean. He quickly opened
the door and they both dove into the room. Slamming and locking it
behind them, Dean turned to look at Liz. Her breasts were
stretching the shirt to it's utmost limits now, the fabric
noticeably becoming more and more thin. Liz stood there watching
her chest inflate, not knowing what to do about it. She grabbed
herself again and tried to push in, but her tits were too sensitive
to the touch now. Every time she touched herself, she nearly came
in her shorts. Liz's shirt was so tight that Dean could she the
imprint around her front of the too small bra all around the
circumference of her bust. Liz just stood there with her hands near
her chest, wanting to hold them in, but knowing if she did it would
drive her crazy. "Dean...call the store!" Liz gasped. Dean stood
motionless as he noticed the second button beginning toquiver a
bit. Liz looked down just in time to see it pop off too,careening
around the room. Her breasts spilled out of her shirt a bit more
now, and modesty took over. She reached around and tried to block
Dean's view, but too much flesh was there, and it was still
growing. "Dean!" shouted Liz and Dean snapped out of his mammary
trance and grabbed the phone book. Liz took in short breaths now,
trying to expand her chest anymore then it already was. Soon, Dean
found the number and dialed the place up. "I feel it....I'm gonna
pop another one." gasped Liz and she shot her hand to her front to
try and hold her shirt together, but she was too late.
__,-~~/~~~~~~`---.
_/_,---( , )
/ < / ) \
| ( / :: \ / : \ |
\/ ::::::: :: \ :::) :: /
(_(::::\::( ::::>::::::\)
\\_(:_:<:::>_>'::::/ //
~~`-i########|--~~
:/OVIVBV|v\:
,Z/V7V|HIH\\..
/V|ViI:i\
I;|.|.|
<|i::|i|`.
- ------===;;;'====------------------===;;;===----- - -
` ^'"`-' "
/V|ViI:i\
:/OVIVBV|v\:
__ __ ,Z/V7V|HIH\\.. _ _
__/~\___/ \_/ \XX/~~\##/~~\\\_/ \/ \__/~~\_/\_
__,,,----(::/::\:/:\:==@@@@@############@@@@@===/;;\;;);;);;)-----..____
9/14
Motd nuked, for great justice.
It was the only way to be sure. |
| 2007/9/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48004 Activity:low |
9/11 new CSUA logo
http://blog.wfmu.org/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/09/254b.jpg
\_ Nice partisan shot at a non-partisan post. I salute you troll!
\_ how about:
http://members.fortunecity.com/sfcspacedock/eelrglogo.jpg
\_ It wasn't partisan. It was social and political commentary.
If you think it was partisan, who exactly was it partisan
in favor of? -!op |
| 2007/9/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47996 Activity:high |
9/10 A reminder of 6 years ago
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001195.html
\_ Lucky bastard.
\_ Yes, I remember how the Commander-In-Chief finished reading
_My_Pet_Goat_ and then ran away and hid, while America was under
attack.
\_ Nice partisan shot at a non-partisan post. I salute you troll!
\_ Cox and Forkum is non-partisan? In what Universe?
\_ The post itself was non-partisan, irrespective of the rest
of the site.
\_ You are so 9/12. With everything that has happened since then
if wasting 7 minutes for the cameras and then going to airforce
one like he's supposed is still on your mind as being important
at all then vote republican next time. They can use your help.
\_ Who decides what the President is supposed to do in this case?
Most past Presidents had enough personal bravery to fulfill
their responsibility to the nation first.
\_ Yeah yeah nice, join us here with our problems in 2007.
As far as your whining about being on AF1 6 years ago,
maybe standing in front of the whitehouse trying to catch
an incoming 747 would have been a nice gesture but they
still evacuate buildings for anthrax and bomb scares, too.
Next time congress has a scare should they stay there
anyway to show their bravery? You're too stupid to
continue breathing. Please fix that, trollboy. Back here
in 2007 no one gives a crap about pet goats.
\_ That's right, join us in 2007 where we STILL need to
impeach the treasonous SOB.
\_ Treasonous and cowardly.
\_ At least the topic of impeachment is 2007 and is
about things more important than pet goats.
\_ I get what you're saying, but I get a serious
twitch thinking that we're somehow better off now
that we have something more than silly behavior
on which to base a call for impeachment.
\_ No we're not better off, of course but it is
a total head-shaker for me that anyone would
even bother to troll on pet goats at this
point. It's just a stupid waste of bits. As
far as impeachment is concerned, that is and
always has been a political issue, not a legal
one. The *only* requirement is having enough
votes for it. If you got the votes and the
balls, then go for it. If you don't, then
there's no point in mentioning it. I think an
impeachment could be exciting in a spectator
sport sort of way but it isn't going to happen
so what's the point of talking about it? By
"you" I mean "whoever is in power at the time
and doesn't like the current administration
now or at any other time", not "you
personally". I don't expect a random csuaer
to single handedly impeach the US President. :)
\_ You asked for "recollections of 9/11." I
posted mine. Too bad that anything other
than your rose colored vision of the
past is "Trolling" to you.
\_ Yes, Congress should stay to show their bravery. It is
the overreaction to 9/11 that caused more damage than
the event iteslf. If our leaders had shown some courage
and self-sacrifice, the population at large would have
done so as well and we wouldn't be in the mess we are
in now.
\_ Hence the call for impeachment.
\_ You didn't peg the Troll Meter. You just broke it.
You think Congress should stay in a bomb/anthrax
scare building to show their bravery? Complete
waste of precious bits. Get off the net. Find a
bridge to hide under.
\_ There was a time when bravery was considered
a virtue by most and it still is by some of us.
Obviously, you are not one of them. Who are you
to decide who is deserving of having on opinion
or not? Grow up.
or not? Grow up. How many bomb threats a day do
you think Congress gets? Why did they evacuate
Capital Hill because a single-engined Cesssna
flew off course? It was all part of an attempt
to terrorize the sheeple, which apparently took
quite well in your case. Land of the Free,
Home of the Brave, indeed. |
| 2007/9/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Industry/Jobs] UID:47988 Activity:low |
9/10 cop gone bad (or always bad)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2715792117793977759&
\_ yes, all cops are always bad automatically. any bad thing one
cop does, they all do. sheesh.
\_ My anecdotal experience of LA cops: (a) fat, (b) wouldn't lift a
finger to help you, (c) love to hit people without reason. -- ilyas
\_ my personal experience with ~ six LAPD and UCPD cops over the
years: professional, polite, helpful. CHP cops on the other
hand ...
\_ What's the loud annoying clicking noise? Also, what is the law
here; are you allowed to refuse to answer questions? I guess this
kid isn't too smart trying to debate stuff with a cop. Just shut
up, kiss the cop's ass, and he'd probably not have to go through
that.
Also, what is the law
here; are you allowed to refuse to answer questions? I guess this
kid isn't too smart trying to debate stuff with a cop. Just shut
up, kiss the cop's ass, and he'd probably not have to go through
that. |
| 2007/9/10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47976 Activity:moderate |
9/10 emarkp are you aware that your presidential candidate's
campaign finance manager is heavily involved with a global
network of teenager torturers?
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/09/mitt-romney-robert-lichfield.php
I know someone who got shipped off to that, he said it was
like the Stanford Prison Experiment.
\_ same thing, a few months ago:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121088.html
\_ A movie about WWASP was released in theaters recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhUuz6LAJL8
http://www.self-medicated.com
\_ Hi anonymous troll! Why are you calling him "my" candidate?
-emarkp
\_ Doesn't the High Apostle decree you have to vote for the
in the race?
\_ You troll foo is weak. You do know that both Harry Reid and
Orrin Hatch are LDS as well, right? -emarkp
\_ Non sequitur: neither of them are running for Pres.
\_ My point is that they're politically opposite. So much
for obeying some sort of church order. -emarkp
\_ Failed Mormons like Reid will never enter the
inner sanctum Holy Of Holies.
\_ Failed trolls like you will never be allowed back
under the bridge. |
| 2007/9/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:47956 Activity:nil |
9/8 John Edwards calls upon world to join us in fight against terrorism
saying you're either with us or against us:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070907/D8RGM0R00.html
\_ Can't wait to vote for Obama in the Primaries.
\_ Imagine the gall of the guy, actually trying to engage our allies.
Wouldn't we have better luck if we called them Cheese Eating
Surrender Monkeys and renamed fried potatoes Freedom Fries?
\_ You didn't RTA. He is doing no such thing. Read his quotes,
not the "journalist's" description of it. You join us and
follow our rules or you're with the terrorists. Your second
sentence is just noise. Not even Bush has called anyone that.
\_ Once again, your reading skills are subpar:
"Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before
the world."
Explain to me how you get "you're with the terrorists" from
this. At worst, I see a vagueness in what will happen to
nations that refuse to join. -!pp
\_ On 11 March 2003, Representatives Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and
Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-North Carolina) declared that all
references to French fries and French toast on the menus of
the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of
Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias were
ordered to rename French fries as "freedom fries". |
| 2007/8/31-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47869 Activity:high |
8/31 This is why Edwards can't get elected:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_m
In a recent speech, John Edwards told Americans to sacrifice their
inefficient cars, and specifically, to give up their SUVs. But the
presidential hopeful is driven around in a Cadillac SRX Crossover,
which guzzles gas at 15 miles per gallon. His spokesman says that
he drives a hybrid SUV in North Carolina, but reports say the
Edwards family has a regular SUV and a small truck as well.
\_ He can't get traction because he's so obviously a fake and he's
also pushing his 'rich vs. poor' thing during the best economic
times the country has ever seen. Class warfare is dead.
\_ Yes, if you're rich the economic times are great. It's the
third gilded age.
\_ Yawn. The poor have never been better off. The middle
class has never been better off. The rich are always
better off so their status has nothing to do with
anything. I'm not even close to rich and everything
is peachy. What's *your* problem?
\_ The middle class income has been going down for about
six years now. You probably didn't notice. And an
overwhelming majority think we are in a recession
right now.
\_ And if the media told them they were doing great
they'd think it was a boom time. That same
majority can't even define recession unless they
think it means lowest unemployment rate in the
western world.
\_ Ah, "the media" controls what everyone thinks.
I understand where you are coming from now.
\_ Paul Graham once noted that while income disparity
increases, 'lifestyle disparity' decreases.
The poorest citizens of the world have access to
things people even 50 years ago would consider
unattainable luxuries (cell phones for instance).
Bank account differences are somewhat of a red
herring -- they are important but they aren't a
good measure of 'inequality' because of the
diminishing marginal utility of money. -- ilyas
\_ The poorest citizens of the world are still
starving to death. Don't get too full of
yourself there.
\_ There are the poor wretches who had the
misfortune to be born in NK, or some parts
of SE Asia or Africa. I don't think the
root cause there is economic per se, or
rather the economy is fucked because the
places are run by thugs. I was talking
about places like India or China. But,
discounting the 'ultra rich', consider how
similar people's lifestyles are in the
States. Compared to, say, one hundred
years ago. Upper middle class increasingly
distinguishes itself by brands rather than
'novel things' unavailable to lower stratas
of society. The same engine which increases
income disparity also provides the Honda
civics, ultra-cheap computers, cell phones,
televisions, etc. Actually the issue
isn't just that money has diminishing
marginal utility, it's that progress
continues to raise how much 'lifestyle' you
can buy on a limited budget. One way
the current trends can end is income
disparity continues to increase, but it
stops being relevant because goods become so
well-made, cheap, and plentiful, that
material scarcity gets essentially
eliminated. Sure, some people will still be
significantly 'richer' than others, but
what practical effect will that extra money
have? Perhaps there will be a market for
'brands' or 'original works of art' or
doing very expensive things 'for the soul'
like funding wacky grand research projects
or going into space. People are too hung
up on money. I have a number of friends
who are significantly more wealthy than
me, and our lives are scarcely different.
The difference will only get smaller.
-- ilyas
\_ The televisions and clothes may be
similar but the important differences are
in things like working hours, vacations,
health and health care, and real estate
related issues (ghetto vs. nice place for
children). In general I agree the poor
are still mostly better off than before.
\_ In my experience, the 'well off' that
work tend to work harder and longer
than minimum wagers.
\_ In my experience, the "well off"
retire much, much earlier, like
in their 50s. The middle class
retires in their early to mid 60s
and the poor never retire. That is
probably the biggest difference.
\_ Yes of course, the question being
what happens to the these
differences as time passes. Do
the rich retire earlier today
than 50 years ago?
\_ If hypocrisy kept politicians from getting elected, there would be
no Republican elected officials at all.
\_ *laugh* Or Democrats either. The blindness to the flaws of the
party you don't dislike is just amazing. I really do laugh
every time I see one of these "my guys are all angels and your
guys are all stupid and satanic" posts here or on various blogs.
\_ Nice to see you are so easily amused. You obviously have not
thought very hard about the word hypocrisy and what it
means. There are plenty of things to dislike about Democrats
but not living up to their ideals is a Republican speciality.
\_ Nice to see you are so easily amused.
\_ So bribery, theft, lying, hypocrisy and abuse of power are
a part of the Democratic party platform? Thanks for
clarifying. I understand now.
\_ I guess it depends on how you define "bribery and
theft." Do you mean taking tax dollars from one person
and giving it to another? Then yes, it is part of the
party platform. If you mean something else, please
provide evidence that Democrats are more likely to
engage in it than Republicans. And you keep throwing
out that word "hypocrisy" without any notion of what
it means. Go look it up in a dictionary and get back
to us, m'kay? How many Republicans vs Democrats in
Congress have been indicted in the last 10 years?
\_ If you can't see the hypocrisy of some very high
profile Democrat politicians, then you're just being
a politics homer/fanboi. Politicians are a bunch of
bums no matter what party. -not pp
\_ No one said the Democrats were angels. That was
a straw man you are responding to. They have just
not been as bad as the Republicans, at least
recently.
\_ We have to vote for our lizards so the other
lizards don't get elected. -- ilyas
\_ motd bleeding heart liberal here. multimillionaire 25k
square foot house trial lawyer owning Edwards talking about
class war (I have some NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR shirts I can send to
him) is pretty funny. Homosexual law oppressing passing Senator
Craig getting caught passing homosexual code is funny too.
Idaho state policeman dedicating himself to undercover luring
of old men into sex acts at the airport bathroom is the funniest
thing all day though. seriously, aren't there real crimes out
there anymore?
\- Minneapolis is not in Idaho. |
| 2007/8/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47805 Activity:kinda low |
8/29 Didnt McCain take part in a giant S&L scandal back in the 80s?
\_ yes.
\_ Did he do anything wrong?
\- note that south bay resident and stanfraud alumni and
\- note that south bay resident and stanfraud alumnus and
otherwise nutjob alan cranston's culpability in the
keating five was much worse. i think maybe some people
keating five was worse. i think maybe some people
now have gotten more sophisticated about influence peddiling.
i can imagine the hillary-hsu connection is comparable,
let alone the marc rich cash for pardon case.
let alone the marc rich cash-for-pardon case.
also mccain made some acknowledgements about doing the
wrong thing. unlike say that human cockroach tom delay.
btw, i think charles keating should have been put to death.
\_ Delenda est Keating.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five |
| 2007/8/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:47770 Activity:high |
8/27 Surprising facts: ppl with children are no happier than those who
don't, retirees no happier than workers, pet owners no happier than
those without pets, etc etc. Also, R happier than D, the young are
less happy than the middle-aged and old, suburbanites are happier
than city folks.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet
\_ Why is any of this surprising? Every choice has plusses and
minuses.
\_ You do end up happier if you're married, though, on average.
How about that, BDG? |
| 2007/8/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47632 Activity:high |
8/17 Why is McCain so bad again? He seems to be the least
pro-torture Republican candidate.
\_ His immigration stance killed his candidacy. McCain-Feingold didn't
help.
\_ Talk about damning with faint praise.
\_ If you're a (D) then it doesn't matter. If you're a (R) then you'd
know why. |
| 2007/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:47597 Activity:high |
8/13 ANDREW SULLIVAN: The man's legacy is a conservative movement
largely discredited and disunited, a president with lower consistent
approval ratings than any in modern history, a generational shift
to the Democrats, a resurgent al Qaeda, an endless catastrophe in
Iraq, a long hard struggle in Afghanistan, a fiscal legacy that means
bankrupting America within a decade, and the poisoning of American
religion with politics and vice-versa. For this, he got two terms
of power - which the GOP used mainly to enrich themselves, their
clients and to expand government's reach and and drain on the
productive sector. In the re-election, the president with a
relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to
eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the
country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60.
\_ "My guys: Good. Your guys: Evil".
\_ Who was the one who claimed to have a "Permanent Republican
Majority"? Remove the plank from your own eye.
\_ 1) You "missed the point".
2) You also seem blind to the fact that a post like yours
is exactly the point you missed.
3) I'll try again for you, more slowly this time:
"My guys: Gooooood. Your guys: Eeeeeeevil".
\_ I think even people who like Karl Rove will
admit he's pretty evil.
\_ I don't particularly like or dislike Rove. I think
he's pretty much like all DC political 'advisor'
types, he's just better at it than most we've seen
in recent years. Maybe that makes him more evil
than the others?
\_ Did you know that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative?
Knowing that, what exactly is the point that you claim
that you are trying to make?
\_ AS hasn't written a conservative piece in many years.
Find me one and we'll discuss.
\_ gotta agree with you there. being gay and
conservative is like waking up in the morning
and shoving a scissors in your eye every day.
\_ Uh, his book?
\_ I see. I didn't realize that I was talking to the
guy who gets to decide who wears the label of
"Real" Conservtive and who doesn't. My apologies.
Real Conservative and who doesn't. My apologies.
\_ I think your entire "my guy" concept needs to go.
\_ It is much easier to just divide the world into two teams than
to bother to think. Especially for this guy, though we are
still working on him.
\_ Still missing the point. Maybe you'll get it one day.
\_ Still waiting for you to make one...
\_ I assume it was something to the effect that any
negative judgment of Rove is actually, despite any
pretenses to the contrary, mere partisan zeal.
All politicians are equal and they all do the
exact same stuff, or wish they had thought of it
first. In short, "nyah nyah i'm not listening!"
\_ In other words, complaints about partisanship
are in fact partisan themselves. Complaints about
complaints about partisanship, on the other hand
are really cool. And complaints about complaints
about complaints about partisanship are further
proof of partisanship. Do I have that about
right there?
\_ Will take under advisement for the next edition. Thanks.
\_ http://bbwchan.org/inflation/src/1186529046760.jpg |
| 2007/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47559 Activity:moderate |
8/7 Am I the only one who thinks Biden makes a lot more sense than
either Hilary or Obama?
\_ I don't know much about Biden, but I'm not much for either Hillary
or Obama, so, sell him to me.
\_ Have you checked out Edwards? He has by far the most comprehensive
ideas so far. But yeah, if I was not backing Edwards, I would
be checking out Biden. He has impressed me at the debates, too.
\_ Maybe I should get over my gut-level aversion to Edwards. He
reminds me of Dan Quayle for some reason.
\_
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/04/debate.analysis/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/questionnaires_joebiden.cfm#15
\_ Have you checked out Edwards? He has by far the most
comprehensive ideas so far. But yeah, if I was not
backing Edwards, I would be checking out Biden. He
has impressed me at the debates, too.
\_ Maybe I should get over my gut-level aversion to Edwards.
He reminds me of Dan Quayle for some reason.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/2zgnqh (cnn.com)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yw935k (aflcio.com)
\_ Joe "the plagiarist" Biden?
\_ I'd rather have a plagarist president who takes the best
ideas and implements them, though fails to cite properly,
than some idiot who sticks to his own ideas no matter how
stupid.
\_ Biden's a shill. Anyone who voted for the bankruptcy
changes should be made to explain, in depth, why.
\_ Why can't we have someone who is actually quality? Why is
"He's better than BUSH!!!" a reason to like someone?
\_ I actually like Romney, I think he's really solid on the
things I care about. He has a solid track record on
balancing budgets, technology issues, and health care.
\_ Oh and we think similarly because we have similar
backgrounds (e.g. core Mormon values) -pp
\_ We will have a gay president before we have a
Mormon president.
\_ You forgot Abe.
\_ So you think more voters are religious bigots than
sexual preference bigots? Or is this just your
personal expression of greater dislike of mormons
than gays?
\_ The former.
\_ Which is he is now disavowing in a rapid rush to the
right in order to get the nomination... You don't
find his blatant pandering in the least disgusting? |
| 2007/7/31-8/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47487 Activity:nil |
7/31 What's the deal with chicks and flipflops? It is barely okay to
wear flipflops to the mall. Flipflops to work is lame and
flipflops paired with an otherwise nice outfit is even more lame.
Can women not afford shoes or sandals anymore? Plus, they are
so bad for your feet! I have been watching out for flipflops
lately (no I do not have a foot fetish) and the problem is
reaching epic proportions!
\_ Sir! We have a flipflop gap!
\_ Just move to The City. It is too cold for flipflops here.
\_ "Future President John Kerry!" |
| 2007/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47438 Activity:kinda low |
7/26 Regarding the contradiction between Mueller and Gonzales. The Bush
admin's story is that there were two surveillance programs: the
#1 Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and #2 an unnamed one. Comey
was going to resign over #2. Mueller said Gonzales came to see
Ashcroft for #2. Gonzo said it was #2. Dems think Gonzo said #1
and Mueller said #2. No one could talk about #2 clearly because
of national security. See?! Perjury trap!!!11
\_ Someone should get Gonzalez a lawyer, and maybe someone who
can tell him to stop sounding like a fucking idiot. What
do they call those people?
\_ The Bush admin's story is he's only being obtuse to avoid
disseminating classified information that revealing could only
INCREASE the potential of mushroom clouds over major U.S. cities.
disseminating classified information that revealing could
only INCREASE the potential of mushroom clouds over major
U.S. cities. |
| 2007/7/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47406 Activity:nil |
7/24 So why did the "liberal" media obsess over Edward's $400 haircut
and never mention Romney's $300 visit to the salon?
http://johnedwards.com/watch/hair
\_ Because Edwards has way more fru fru hair and ultimately the news
is about selling ads, the political agenda is second.
\_ Because no one in their right mind could believe that Romney's
dumb enough to pay good money to look like that.
\_ You can't see how Edwards is being called out for being a hypocrite
since his entire campaign is the "Two Americas" theme while Romney
has never made that sort of statement? No one likes a hypocrite.
The people in the "poor half" of Edwards America sure as hell can't
afford his $400 haircut. |
| 2007/7/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:47401 Activity:low |
7/24 The polls are in. Edwards tried his best and did ok, but in the
end he has no chance. It's either a woman or a black man. Which
one would you choose and why? (YouNeedToVoteToSeeResults)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/youtube.debate
\_ His being a slimeball personal injury lawyer may have something to
do with that.
\_ I think he did some good work. Do you really want all
of your children's intestines sucked out by a pool?
\_ Do /you/ want him channeling children to get a sympathetic
jury to trump good science in CP cases?
\_ And this is better or worse than Frist channeling a
brain dead woman for political grandstanding?
\_ False dichotomy. They could be equally bad. I don't
recall him channelling her though.
\_ Hmmm, the criminal or the racist, what a choice!
\_ Just like a cracker to think that all black men are criminals.
\_ I think you're joking, but just to clarify, Hillary is the
criminal.
\_ Yawn. Baseless accusations are so boring. Perhaps you can
organize a website to collect both your tinfoil hat and
your "proof"?
\_ Funny, I considered the "Obama is racist" claim to be
more controversial...
\_ Didn't Hillary kill Vince Foster?
\_ Just to watch him die.
\_ With her bare hands. In front of a busload of nuns.
\_ Bro's before ho's
\_ Thank you Butler.
\_ It's a poll about a 'debate' on youtube. There is no 'there' there. |
| 2007/7/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47374 Activity:nil |
7/21 Meet Mitt Romney, our candidate for junior high class president:
http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/21/mitt-catches-s-t-over-hillary-bashing-sign |
| 2007/6/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47006 Activity:kinda low |
6/19 Hillary Clinton's campaign theme song is a Celine Dion tune.
Now I can't vote for her.
\_ Obama's is "Think" by Aretha Franklin. which is about a man
cheating on a woman. Do you think Obama is trying to enrage
the Hillary?
http://www.lyrics007.com/Aretha%20Franklin%20Lyrics/Think%20Lyrics.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yogl75 (lyrics007.com)
\_ "You And I"
\_ Blame Canada
\_ Why not?
\_ Lieberman's is LETS HAVE A WAR
\_ The first candidate that chooses "TV Party" as their theme
song gets my vote.
\_ This is like Michael Moore saying he'd support the first
candidate to dance in a moshpit: you're going to end up
endorsing Alan Keyes. http://csua.org/u/iz7 (Michael Moore)
\_ Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran -- McCain |
| 2007/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47000 Activity:nil |
6/17 Email records missing for 51 of 88 White House Officials with RNC
accounts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_e_mails
\_ Whooops!! |
| 2007/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46978 Activity:nil 76%like:46895 |
6/16 Romney is not a flip-flopper, he was just "won over"
http://www.csua.org/u/ixt |
| 2007/6/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:46911, category id '18005#3.32125' has no name! , ] UID:46911 Activity:nil |
6/11 The Politics of Personality Destruction, why we elect phonys for POTUS
http://nymag.com/news/politics/32864 |
| 2007/6/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46895 Activity:nil 76%like:46978 |
6/9 Romney: flip-flopper
http://www.csua.org/u/ivk
\_ Maybe you can explain to me how that's a flip-flop?
\_ maybe it's the same way that voting for an amendment that
failed, then voting against the bill without the amendment is
flip-flopping.
\_ Let's see. When it actually happened he said it was a good
thing, but now that he's running for president on the
"I'm oh so religious and 'moral'" ticket he says he thought
otherwise. Hmm.
\_ Huh? He said "It is the policy in the military -- what, 10,
15 years -- and working..." Sounds to me like he's just
surprised how well it's worked out. The closest thing to a
flip-flop here is how he characterized his original feelings
about it. Which could actually both be true as well.
\_ Huh? You realize these two statements are not mutually
exclusive? He also never says he thought gays servering in
the military is bad. It's a strech to call that a flip-flop.
\_ Oh no! He flip-flopped on his feeling 15 year's ago! It's
Retcon!
\_ Yeah! It's only a flip flop if you change your mind after
20 years or more... or is that under 10 years or less?
Or, if you're not a republican? Yeah, that's it...
\_ Only 5 years in the case of abortion rights. He is a
serial flip-flopper. |
| 2007/6/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46884 Activity:nil |
6/7 What do you guys think of Edward's chances? He won this caucus
that I was a part of, does he have any real chance?
http://www.csua.org/u/ivc -anonymous coward
\_ Maybe. A low maybe but a maybe.
\_ I think he has no chance. I think in the public's eye he's old
news. It's either HRC or Browser Helper Object.
\_ I don't think Edwards has any chance. He should spend
time with his terminally ill wife rather than fail at
running for pres. |
| 2007/6/1-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46830 Activity:moderate |
6/1 Why does Peggy Noonan hate America?
http://urltea.com/oiv (opinionjournal.com)
\_ BECAUSE CONSERVATISM IS ALWAYS GOOD AND IF PEOPLE WHO CALL
THEMSELVES CONSERVATIVES FAIL THEN THATS BECAUSE THEY WERE
NEVER REALLY CONSERVATIVES IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!11!
\_ Nothing more than an attempt by a GOP leader to distance
herself from what has become a very unpopular presidency.
themselves from what has become a very unpopular presidency.
She loved Bush for 6 years, but now his usefulness is over.
The GOP is worried that they are going to lose in 2008, so they
are going to throw Bush under the bus, hoping that this will
improve their chances. They are desperate.
http://www.csua.org/u/itp
\_ Or maybe this whole amnesty thing really does grate on
conservatives?
\_ Here's your real answer: We all knew in 2000 that Bush was
Conservative Light but given the choices (Death before Gore) we
pulled the lever and hoped for the best. Our gut instinct was
correct but overall it was still better than Gore would have been
so we went with it. In 2004 we had even worse choices: more of
the same or Kerry, a man who made Gore look like a great option.
Sitting here in 2007, after everything, he's still a better call
than Gore or Kerry but that doesn't mean we have to be happy about
it. The amnesty bill is of course the final straw but is no
different than we would've had from Gore/Kerry. That leaves all
those people who supported Bush thinking, "Why'd I bother?" which
is why you're heading rumors about the grass roots fund raising
is why you're hearing rumors about the grass roots fund raising
taking a dive on the (R) side. Next time they run a Light(c)
candidate I'll be staying home because, "Why bother?". Sorry to
interupt. Everyone please continue with mindless all-caps posts
and baseless speculation. |
| 2007/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46682 Activity:moderate |
5/17 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html 7 out of 18 Presidential candidate are millionaires. "All of the candidates are seeking to lead a country where the median net worth is about $93,000, and the median yearly income is about $46,000." Hold on. How the hell do you make $46K but save only $93K net worth? Don't most of us own homes that are at least 3-4X our income? \_ Two words: CREDIT CARD. More words: HOME EQUITY LOAN \_ 1) because the saving's rate hovers around zero, 2) no. \_ "most of us" don't own homes. \_ 68% is "most". \_ 68% is "most". (Correction, 2000 census, 66.2%) \_ You mean there are 200M homes in the USA? \_ There sure is a big helping of the stupid piled on motd today. \_ here in America, we like big helpings. |
| 2007/5/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46674 Activity:nil |
5/17 Welcome to the new congress, as partisan as the old congress.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4046.html
\_ Until we have true political reform, what do you expect? |
| 2007/5/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46649 Activity:nil |
5/15 White House attempted to get Gonzalez to authorize illegal
spying program from his hospital bed:
http://www.csua.org/u/ipb
\_ You mean Ashcroft. |
| 2007/5/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:46643 Activity:nil |
5/15 Pros and cons of various Republican presidential candidates
http://mcsweeneys.net/2007/5/2moe.html |
| 2007/5/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46634 Activity:nil |
5/15 Matt Drudge treats Romney well. The mainstream media follows Drudge
like lemmings. Therefore, Romney will win.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/14/drudge/index1.html
\_ That's quite a leap. Drudge is a head line guy. He gets almost all
of his 'news' from other mainstream sites. How does a guy who
aggregates other people's news links have any control over anything?
He's got a good deal going for himself but he's not a news maker or
power broker.
\_ False. Drudge maintains relationships with oppo research
teams in the various campaigns. He is a primary conduit for
leaks from those oppo groups. |
| 2007/5/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46603 Activity:kinda low |
5/11 Wow, this guy Romney has more money than Jesus. Was he born rich?
http://www.csua.org/u/ios
\- he's involved in a "psothumous conversion kit" pyramid scheme.
\- he's involved in a "posthumous conversion kit" pyramid scheme.
\_ let's swift boat him!
\_ I don't think Romney served in Vietnam, but John "I served in
Vietnam" Kerry did his country proud. 3 band aids and then run
home to make shit up on his way to office.
\_ Yay! Three years later, and the false accusations still run
strong. Why don't you tell us about McCain's black baby while
you're at it?
\_ Did Kerry get a real wound? No. Those medical records are
still top secret. Did he run home and make shit up in a
Congressional hearing? Yes. So what false accusations?
What does McCain have to do with anything? Red herring.
\- for the 100th time: "at least kerry was in shooting
range" which is more than you can say for bush, who
claims to have served, but clearly "limited" the terms
of his service. cheney doesnt claim to have "served"
but his flip "i had other plans" shows an amazing amount
of contempt. wolfowitz, pearle, the war-drum-beating-
jouranlists-of-acertain-age ... they also dont claim
journalists-of-acertain-age ... they also dont claim
to have "served" for the most part, but they also have
shown "contempt" for service in various ways, and it
is perfectly reasonable to ask them why they didnt
serve ... it's not a "private decision" for a public
figure, imho. that's just asking for a free pass.
everybody gives somebody like dole his due. the
attacks on mccain were from the lunatic right. it's
unfortuantely not everybody has given people like
unfortuante not everybody has given people like
mcgovern their due.
\_ No, Kerry actually signed his SF 180, something like
six months after he lost. When will Bush sign his? |
| 2007/5/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46601 Activity:nil |
5/11 Guiliani snubs a farm family in Iowa because they aren't
millionaires.
http://www.anamosaje.com/NewsArchive/2007/May/3/news.html#1 |
| 2007/5/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46600 Activity:nil |
5/11 '[A] Vote for Romney is [a] vote for Satan'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55642 |
| 2007/5/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:46597 Activity:nil |
5/11 Kiss free speech goodbye.
http://csua.org/u/ioe
\_ Random overly-sensational not particularly descriptive comment.
\_ A congressional caucus got together to threaten the advertisers
of a PBS documentary. How is that overly-sensational?
\_ It implies that there was some sort of official move on the
part of the government to end all free speech. It brings to
mind visions of Orwellian dystopias. Instead, what you have is
the market being brought to bear on the sponsors of a film,
and subsequent pressure from those sponsors on the maker of
the film. Burns is not obligated to listen to his sponsors,
and his sponsors are not obligated to pay attention to threats
from activist groups; that they did so bespeaks of nothing
more than a lack of conviction that the film in its original
form was worth fighting to the death for.
\_ Again, a CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS threatened the advertisers.
\_ You appear to have difficulty evaluating the actual
significance of events. |
| 2007/5/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:46537 Activity:nil |
5/6 The liberal case for the individual right to keep and bear arms:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2af36o (nytimes.com) |
| 2007/5/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46524 Activity:moderate |
5/3 Anyone watch the Republican debate? Only Ron Paul sounds like a real
conservative (besides the debatable abortion stuff). The rest just
toe the standard R line. I never heard of him before. He seems like
one of the few who actually stands by clear principles, even if I
don't agree with them all.
\_ It's interesting that he hasn't gotten anywhere near as much\
attention as Kucinich for being the only other guy running who
\_ It's interesting that he hasn't gotten anywhere near as much
attention as Kucinich for being the only other guy running who
voted against the Iraq war, against the Patriot Act, and against
suspension of habeus corpus. I'm actually planning to register
as a republican for the first and last time in my life to vote
for Paul in the primary, just to send a message to the fucks
who run both parties that it's time for both of them to start
running pro-freedom candidates.
\_ Not terribly interesting. Kucinich = far left. RP = Republican.
\_ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2072835,00.html
\_ Does not mention RP. I agree the others didn't look so hot,
especially McCain, although Giuliani was bland enough.
especially McCain. Brownback, Giuliani, and Huckabee were bland
enough. I thought it was funny when one of them stumbled all
over himself to pander to the Jews ("by the way a threat to
Israel's existence is a threat to the existence of the US!")
\_ Because we know "The Jews" are all evil clones who all have
the exact same beliefs. But I'm sure it's ok for you to say
that because you "have a Jewish friend".
\_ What? ok replace it with "Jews"
\_ That's not pandering to Jews, that's pandering to Christian
righties.
\_ I didn't watch it (is it on youtube or something?) but I thought
this littlegreenfootballs poll of who won was interesting.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-poll.php
(You may need to use the pull down menu to get the right poll.)
\_ I don't know about youtube but you can watch it at msnbc.
(Have to wade through the mess to find the links... I watched
it in three pieces.) Interestingly I saw a poll on I think
msnbc that had Ron Paul leading.
\_ "Gosh, I love America." --Mitt Reagan^H^H^H^H^H^HRomney
\_ yep this guy came off like a total douchebag
\_ Not as much as Chris Matthews. What a moron. |
| 2007/4/27-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46463 Activity:low |
4/27 "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars
just trying to catch one person." -Romney on Osama Bin Laden
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/26/politics/p131443D20.DTL&type=politics
Buried deep in AP story, media reaction nil. Wonder what would have
happened if a Democratic candidate had said this...
\_ Romney stands no chance anyways. Only WASP males get elected
Kennedy being the only exception, but he cheated to get that
\_ Kennedy cheated? Oh, spin us a tale, please. This has gotta be
good.
\_ This is part of the Neocon lexicon: it is okay that Bush
cheated because Kennedy did too. If you ask them to explain,
they always say that dead people voted in Illinois. If you
point out that Kennedy would have won without Illinois,
they are rendered mute.
\_ Hardly. Was watergate ok because Nixon would have won
without spying on the Dems? The claim that a gross
immoral act is unimportant if it does not affect the
outcome is so ridiculous, that I can not believe you
actually think that.
Also neocon does not mean "every person I disagree
with."
\_ Indeed. PP has his moral reasoning in a knot. The
proper point is "what was the evidence?" The Karl
Rove "There's voter fraud in them thar hills" line
that underlies the US Atty scandal is another of these
web-weavings. See also, Foster, Vince, Murder of. |
| 2007/4/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46453 Activity:nil |
4/26 McCain wants to talk to you on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/johnMcCaindotcom |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46314 Activity:nil |
4/16 emarkp, you said below that you could never vote for McCain because of
his assault on 1st amendment (campaign finance)." Which part of McCain-
Feingold did you consider an assault on 1st amendment rights? --erikred
\_ The part about what can be said X days before an election. -emarkp |
| 2007/4/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:46292 Activity:nil |
4/13 Republican debate will air on MSNBC. Dems are still pussies and won't
appear on Fox News.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3497.html
\_ Your premise in the comparison is the MSNBC is propagandistic for
the Ds as Fox is for the Rs. Your premise is wrong.
\_ What a moron. Having a D debate on Fox would be an open forum for
liberal thought. If you think FN is propaganda for the right,
why would they have a D debate? And wouldn't having the D debate
there fight the propaganda. No, the reality is the Ds are
pussies and if they win the presidency in 2008, they'll do
everything possible to make it illegal to be conservative.
\_ Okay, so, you're saying you think the Democrats are not
going to have any debates, and then calling them pussies
because they won't debate? Or are you calling them pussies
for not participating in a Fox News sponsored debate? If
they participated in an MSNBC sponsored debate, would they
no longer be pussies in your eyes?
Your "illegal to be conservative" crack makes it clear,
though, that you are utterly useless to converse with.
\_ Do Not Feed The Trolls |
| 2007/4/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46290 Activity:high |
4/13 Ha ha ha. Last year, an Obama event was started by a group called
"Nappy Roots"
http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/04/nappy_roots.html
\_ and of course, there's no difference between a black person
saying "nappy roots" and a white person saying "nappy-headed hos".
-tom
\_ You got that right. There isn't.
\_ Okay let's take the racial element out of it. Is there
a difference between you calling yourself an idiot and me
calling you an idiot? Idiot.
\_ Old Man Imus knew what he was doing, it's just this time
the media manipulators got pissed off and got smacked
down hard. I can't believe he got away with telling
60 Minutes he hired a guy just to make nigger jokes.
Anyway who cares, Imus will pop up somewhere else.
\_ Gotta agree with tom. Old white dude using
"nappy headed hos" is different than black people
calling each other nappy headed hos.
\_ I think the addition of the "hos" part is what makes
it derogatory. -ausman
\_ Which reminds me of Rush Hour where Jackie Chan saw Chris Rock
saying "Whatsup n*gger" and then mimic after him, and got very
\_ Are "nappy headed" and "hos" terms associated with
African-Americans, or is it the team's racial
composition versus the commentator's whiteness that
raises the racism question?
\_ "nappy headed" is a racially charged phrase.
When combined with "ho", it adds a racial
charge to an misogynistic epithet. Unrelatedly,
are you stupid?
\_ Which reminds me of Rush Hour where Jackie Chan saw Chris Tucker
saying "Whassup, my n*gga?" and then mimiced him, and got very
different reaction from people in the bar.
different reaction from the bartender.
\_ I am quite impressed with the quality of the discussion on this
blog. |
| 2007/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46282 Activity:nil 66%like:46265 |
4/11 BYU students protest...Cheney?
http://urltea.com/57v (nytimes.com)
\_ You know you may have gone too far when even the people you can
count on want nothing to do with you. |
| 2007/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46271 Activity:nil |
4/12 Do you want to play dirty politics? Do you want to waste McCain
and Romney's money? Go to the link below and click on their ads.
Forward this message to all of your friends now!
http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=mccain
\_ This post makes me remember how much adblocker r0x0rz
\_ So you're a Giuliani man?
\_ Gosh, how about we just let each candidate from whatever party do
their best to get their message out and let the voters decide who
should be President? Do you slice car tires of get out the vote
vans, too?
\_ That's the job for the Critical Mass folks.
\_ Yeah, but the people in the vans looked at them a little
funny, so they deserved it.
\_ No, they drove a VAN so they deserved it.
\_ They drove a van INTO a bicyclist, you keep forgetting
that part.
\_ Those five girls giggled and asked what those tiny
bulges in the front of those cyclists' tight pants
were, so they deserved it.
\_ No they didn't. |
| 2007/4/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46265 Activity:nil 66%like:46282 |
4/11 BYU students protest...Cheney?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/11byu.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
\_ You know you may have gone too far when even the people you can
count on want nothing to do with you. |
| 2007/3/29-4/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46143 Activity:nil |
3/29 John Dean on executive privilege and the "unitary executive" theory:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070323.html |
| 2007/3/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46129 Activity:nil |
3/28 "Nonpartisan" General Services Administration briefed by Rove aide
on "GOP house targets"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePqzIrR-ao
\_ Grilled by "partisan" house member.
\_ Yes, young grasshopper. The "partisan" legislature has oversight
responsibilities over the executive branch and its agencies,
whether partisan or not.
Though with what this WH has done with its agencies from the EPA
to NASA to SSA to GSA to the fucking DoJ, it's hard to say if
there are ANY non-partisan agencies left in the Executive.
\_ You may wish to review the Hatch Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
\_ Poor Ms. Doan, she had no idea she wasn't supposed to use GSA to
help the GOP win specific congressional seats. She founded the
company providing 80% of the technology that protects the U.S. /
Mexico border from illegal immigrants, so that's a pass by my book! |
| 2007/3/21-26 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46039 Activity:nil |
3/21 One of the fired US Attorney's tells his side of the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html |
| 2007/3/15-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45989 Activity:nil |
3/15 Biden sounds unhappy. He should go smoke some weed, chill, have a bbq,
it's nice weather now, plus he sounds unsupportive of the troops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ehzEgU-oVI
\_ Good ole's xerox.. keepin it real. |
| 2007/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:45980 Activity:high 88%like:45986 |
3/15 I repeat, Dems are pussies
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/emanuel-tells-freshmen-to-avoid-stephen-colbert-2007-03-14.html
\_ You are right, they should start a war to prove how manly they are.
\_ No, I think debating would be fine. |
| 2007/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45907 Activity:nil |
3/8 Sorry to burst the bubble but the Christian belt and undecided
voters of 2008 will easily and happily ignore your favorite Dem
candidate. In the view of 53% of the Americans, H Clinton is a
very unChristian woman who should have been a housewife,
Edwards looks too young and inexperienced and more importantly
Edwards is a FAGGOT, and Obama has a very unChristian skin tone.
Romney may be a Mormon but at least he is white, religious, and
righteous. Romney wins 2008. |
| 2007/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45873 Activity:high |
3/4 Dem polls: Rep polls:
H Clinton: 20% Romney: 20%
Edwards: 15% Guiliani: 14%
Obama: 11%
Gore (not runnig): 10%
My prediction for 2008: Romney will win because he's not a woman
and not black. In addition he's pro-life. -Southern Voter
\_ My prediction: Edwards will beat Guiliani after wining most of
The South. -SF Voter
\_ Mr.Let's_Make_C-sections_Common? Have you even seen his
video of him applying make-up on himself?
\_ Yes, most Americans are pro-choice. Do you honestly think
that a Yankee is going to sweep the South, especially vs.
a genuine Good Ole' Boy? If the Dumbocrats nominate Hillary,
Romney could win, granted.
\_ "Yeeehup, thair aint no wayz no howz weze gunna votes fer
enywun butt ar owns!" So what you're saying is you think
a majority of voting Southerners are stupid hicks who won't
vote for anyone who isn't also a "Good Ole' Boy". Why do
you think that?
\_ Are you "Southern Voter"? Have you actually lived in
The South? I have. I certainly do not believe that
a majority of Southerners are hicks. I think that
enough swing voters (about 5% in most states) are
strongly enough biased against Yankees that this
will change a close race. Why do you believe otherwise,
other than your wish that your candidate would be
elected?
\_ See? Doesn't that feel better providing some
substance to back your statements? And none of these
people are "my candidate". It is ridiculous that
we're even talking about the elections this early.
\_ What happened to your troll? Delete it?
\_ No, not rediculous at all. The CA primaries are
\_ No, not ridiculous at all. The CA primaries are
in Feb, so the parties will have already made
their choices in less than a year.
\_ A year? Ridiculous. It shouldn't take a year
of endless Obama vs. Hillary vs. Rudy vs.
McCain vs. Whoever to pick primary candidates.
Especially this sort of high intensity daily
campaign noise we're getting today. I'm tuning
out until something more interesting happens
than "Hillary Adopts Southern Accent! Obama
Counters With Own Accent! Rudy Sticks To NY
Accent! McCain Finds New Accent Coach!" This
is all bullshit and has nothing to do with
anything important. Or shouldn't, anyway.
\_ Whether it "should" or not, I don't really
have a strong opinion one way or another.
The fact is, if you want to have some kind
of influence over the nomination process,
you need to get started on it now. If you
don't care who the next President of the
United States is, why bother even talking
about in the motd?
\_ So because I think it's too early and
the current "campaigns" are all bullshit
you think I don't care about who the
next President is? I care a lot. That
is why I think the current reporting and
noise is just that, noise. There is no
substance to anything currently going on.
\_ You are wrong about that. Last week
I was in a smallish room full of
Bay Area Democratic fund raisers and
we listened to Senator Edwards present
his case as to why we should support
him. Next week we listen to Senator
Obama and the week after that Senator
Clinton. In early April we will
caucus and give an endorsement and
at that point probably most or all
of us will give the legal maximum
donation to their chosen candidate.
Multiply this by 50 times and you
have a big chunk of the party
fundraising already completed by
mid-April. Anyone that hasn't been
able to raise $10M by May will be
finished and will have to drop out.
That is just how the system works.
I imagine something similar is
going on in the Republican Party.
If you are just talking about how
your personal vote is going to go,
fine, but all the campaigns are trying
to grab money, organizational skills
and experienced campaigners to their
side right now and the ones that
are the most successful will have
the inside track when the "real"
campaign starts.
\- just to add on: a lot of pols
emphasize the role of early money
e.g. EMILY's list stands for:
Early Money Is Like Yeast etc.
\_ Romney will not win. He's Mormon. Except for Kennedy, no
non-WASP has ever won.
\_ That's what they said about Kennedy. Until he won. "No Catholic
has ever been elected President. The voters just aren't ready
for a Catholic President." So other than being Mormon, which is
not important, why couldn't Romney win?
\_ Because he's on record up until a couple of years ago as being
pro-gay, pro-choice, etc. "The base" won't go for it.
\_ "The base" would eat rusty nails before they watched
Hillary get elected and stayed home on voting day.
\_ I'm saying Romney will implode in the primaries.
\_ You think he'll "AAARRRR!!!" on camera or rape a goat
during a taped interview or what?
\_ My prediction: the primaries and then the election are so insanely
far away that none of this means anything. Any of these people
could easily implode in an "AAAAARRRRRR!!!!" moment or just have a
series of bad days they never recover from or do a really horrible
interview or just the world around us will change in such a way
that their current speechifying will be ridiculously wrong for the
future when we are voting but will be rubbed in their face.
Anything can happen and often does.
\_ We are BUSHCO. Cancel your election and surrender your votes.
Resistence is Futile. -dcheney |
| 2007/3/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45869 Activity:moderate |
3/4 60 Minutes: PSB > TOM (Medicare > Defense)
http://tinyurl.com/yrtors
\_ Synopsis: Clinton=surplus, Bush=deficit, Republican=bad.
We're fucked thanks to fiscal irresponsibility.
\_ A surplus co-oping Republican bills. Who started
the first surplus? Are you one of those "Politics
began with Clinton newbies who's been around
only the last 14 years" to answer that?
\_ Too bad Bush didn't come up with the same brilliant
strategy of co-opting Republican bills! -tom
Political slant: CBS, anti-Republican
Fact check: this is a political smear.
\- The earlier motd discussion was not very partisan or
ideological. It was about 3 things:
\- The earlier motd discussion was about 3 things:
(0. distinguish between liabilities and payments)
1. medicare liability >> SS liability
2. non-discretionary entitlements >> defense liability
3. holub ought not be dismissing other people's writings
when unaware of either the details of the accounting
used or the $numbers involved. While this backs up
my numbers, there was plenty of evidence provided
used or the $numbers involved. While this backs up some
of my numbers, there was plenty of evidence provided
earlier [particlarly the KC Fed study].
BTW, I thought the tuition analogy was pretty good.
The Comptroller General is a Clinton appointee, but is
hardly a communist or a partisan hack.
\- The earlier motd discussion was largely about
a single statistic, the NPV value of medicare
liability >> SS liability >> long range defense costs.
(we didnt discuss debt service ... that highly depends
on future fiscal policy rather than just actuarial
numbers)
It wasnt so much a partisan discussion or one very
involved with interpretation. The CBO fellow, as
well as the pointers I left present plenty of
evidence for this. Holub shouldnt be dissing other
people for being ignorant of facts when he's
wrong about them. BTW, the Comptroller General
is a Clinton appointee, but is hardly a
communist or a partisan hack. BTW, I thought
te tuition analogy was pretty good.
\_ I think there are a number of flawed assumptions here,
a major one being that our health care system could be
completely different even by 2011, let alone by 2040.
Another is to describe military spending as discretionary
and Medicare as long-term liability; military spending
has alwyas grown faster than federal health care spending,
and fundamentally represents a liability due to current
military posture. -tom
\_ Can you stop saying meaningless things like: "military
spending has alwyas grown faster than federal health
care spending".
\_ How is it meaningless? It's verifiably true. What is
meaningless is the distinction between Medicare as
a liability and the military as discretionary spending.
We can choose to change Medicare benefits at any time,
despite the prescription drug bill and other "promises."
And while we theoretically could decide to stop
spending gobs of money on the military, there's no
evidence that we will. -tom
\_ By 2011, no, but 2040 is very far away. Our current
system is very much not like it was 34 years ago. In fact,
I'd say it's completely different.
\- forget 34 yrs. do you know how much the BUSHCO
prescription medicine benefit is considered to have
have added to liabilities. all the reasonable people
doing projections consder maybe 4-5 optimistic to
pessimistic projections. but some of the basic facts
are not in dispute in any scenario short of "the big
asteroid vaporizes half the country". BTW, it is fairly
"standard" to use 75yrs as the "infinite horizon"
projection number. i dont know why, but it is.
it's probably a case of "you have to agree to something
for consistency". i assume somebody has done the
sensitivity analysis around that number. --psb
[By "SA" i mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_analysis] |
| 2007/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45798 Activity:nil |
2/22 Carville to Hollywood: Open your wallet and shut your mouth.
http://csua.org/u/i3i |
| 2007/2/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45732 Activity:nil |
2/13 Romney(R) has the charisma of Ronald Reagan. Romney is going to
kick everyone's ass, including the libural devisive woman candidate
and the negro who is one letter away from having Osama's name.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/romney.announce/index.html
\_ Barack Obama == Black Osama? Anyway, I want a black president but
I want Colen Powell. |
| 2007/2/5-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:45664 Activity:moderate |
2/5 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/edwards.2008.ap/index.html "Edwards: Raise taxes to provide universal health care" Edwards will lose. Most Americans hate immigrants and social programs and thus don't want universal anything. It's the era of corporations and privitazition baby! \_ 60-70% polled say universal helth care is the fed's responsibility: \_ Christ this discussion is fucking stupid. -dans \_ 60-70% polled say health coverage is the fed's responsibility: http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm 62% want universal health insurance: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html \_ Move to Canada. \_ No I intend to stay and fight. Where are you going to run to after you lose? \_ Sure, I want someone else to pay my bills, too, but I'm not willing to pay the taxes for it. I'll pay more to get less. Any cash that goes through government hands before turning into a service that you could otherwise buy yourself is always going to cost more and yield less. Government, by its very nature, is inefficient and has costs. No one really believes Edwards "tax the rich" thing. That sort of thing always turns into a universal tax. AMT is the perfect example of sticking it to the rich but nailing the middle class (as always). \_ And who has been in the position to "fix" the AMT for the past 12 years, and did nothing? You spew a lot of talking points, but you're not saying anything. \_ AMT was created decades ago. During the absolute iron fisted rule of both parties during that time and during the creation process itself, no one thought to consider that the numbers didn't scale with inflation. Or didn't care. The "GOP is evuuuul!" meme is tired. Let it rest. If you had something to say on the topic, please join in, but don't waste precious bits with partisan nonsense. Neither party will do jack shit for the middle classes that are already starting to get nailed by this, starting in more expensive states like CA. --gpp \_ This is funny. The pp criticized "government", not a party. "Government" has been in charge for the last 12 yrs. \_ This is a bullshit point. As is "Government == inefficient". And it's a point formed and fed by one party in particular. Ergo my reply. "Government is incompetent, and by God, we're going to prove it." \_ Yes, gov't == inefficient and incompetent is true in general, simply because there's no driving force to fix those problems. See, I can counter your assertion with mine! \_ Yes, Enron did a much better job of supplying California with power than the regulated utilities and the City of Los Angeles. \_ Ah, but it was because of the government's \_ But it was because of the government's handling of energy contracts that Enron was able to screw us. \_ On average, we pay 2x as much for poorer health care than in the socialized medicine countries. The elite can get very good care, but most of the rest of us are screwed. Further, efficiencies will accrue. Preventative care is a lot cheaper. Prescribing diet change, quitting smoking, and exercise costs less than triple bypass surgery. \_ You're insane. Efficiencies do not _ever_ accrue in government services. You can prescribe all you want, no one is going to do it and then you'll need triple by pass surgery. That surgery will be denied by some government flunky because you didn't excercise like the nice government doctor told you so you are not allowed the surgery and die horribly. Good call. \_ Look it's the "you are insane" guy! Welcome back to the guy who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is literally crazy! \_ Ad hominem. Try again if you like. \_ The "you are insane" guy is complaining about ad hominem attacks? Or is that intended to be a compliment??? \_ If you skip the first two words you're obsessing over and try to respond to the points made you'd be on firmer ground. \_ If you'd skip the ad hominem attacks, you'd have a better chance of convincing people that you had a reasonable point worth thinking about. \_ Are you saying that a road system built by corporations would be more efficient? How about a national defense? Those are two areas where Gov't is more efficient at serving the people. There's a lot of inequity and waste \_ Health care is not a public service and does not need to be. It worked just fine before HMO's were allowed to monopolise and destroy the system so the answer is to create an even bigger monopoly but at the federal government level. Oh great, yeah that will be wonderful. A service that requires skill and personal service being provided by government robots. That you can even consider compare the road system to personal health care says volumes. There are zero similiarities. The closest gov't provided personal service I can think of to health care is housing. Oh yeah, The Projects. Section 8 housing has been so uplifting for so many. in the current health system due to insurance overhead. Having Gov't as single-payer (with revenue taxed out of us) would eliminate the insurance nightmare. It would *also* allow for much more safely regulated hospitals. The NTSB \_ So you think your hospitals are unregulated? What? has made commercial aviation the safest mode of travel. You're quite likely to die in hospitals due to medical fuckups which are endemic to the healthcare system, and with gov't regulation could be fixed across the whole system, as the NTSB has done for commercial aviation. \_ Because healing a sick person\ is just like flying an airplane or running an airport. Uhm, yeah. \_ Because healing a sick person is just like flying an airplane or running an airport. Uhm, yeah. \_ Does no one here understand the distinction between "health care" and "paying for health care"? The answer becomes increasingly clear.. \_ Who ever has the bucks has the power. You are not going to get quality health care from Doctor A when Government or HMO Flunky B says you don't need that procedure. Once you figure that out you'll see why so many scream about government healthcare. Whoever has the bucks has the power and makes the decisions. In a government/hmo system that isn't you or your doctor. \_ Actually, you're right about the bucks. Nobody can pay their own medical bills, So we buy health insurance, and the insurance company pays the bills. So the insurance company has the power. Their interest is profit, so they make it hard for doctors to collect. This makes it expensive for doctors to collect. Which gets passed onto us--to the point where many of us can't afford health insurance anymore. However, hospitals cannot just refuse someone care because they're poor. (By law.) So doctors have to increase the prices on those of us who do have insurance. This situation is spiralling out of control, and is wasteful. We *could* simply not offer any medical care at all to the poor (poor meaning "not rich", so fuck the middle class as well as the true poor.) *Better* is for prices on those of us who do have insurance. This situation is spiralling out of control, and is wasteful. We *could* simply not offer any medical care at all to the poor (poor meaning "not rich", so fuck the middle class as well as the true poor.) *Better* is for the government to get involved, kick out the insurance companies, reduce the overall cost of health care, and make the poor pay for health care again via taxation. And health care *better* be a public service, because Joe Contageous with intractable TB who isn't being treated because he's poor is going to give it to *you*. Right now hospital A kills people with the same damn fuckups that hospitals C, D, E, F, G, H....-->Z have \_ Yes, the federal government is the driving force for innovation in this country. Not even God can save us if that ever becomes true. killed people with because they refuse (and can refuse) to learn best-practices learned elsewhere the hard way, by people dying. \_ I used to believe that about roads and military, but I don't any longer. Do you know how many private security contractors are in Iraq? Nearly 50,000. I'm fairly confident that if the government employed a few companies to perform military functions, it would be cheaper and more efficient. And the gov't might actually attempt to obey the constitution as well (since it wouldn't have the biggest guns). \_ This is, quite possibly, the most uninformed post evah. \_ If you have something to say, say it. All you've done is stick your tongue out and go, "NYAH! YOU ARE A DUM POOPYHEAD!" \_ Because that's all you deserve. Never argue with fools. They'll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience. \_ You still said nothing. Here's the best response you can get from what you've said, "NYAH! YOU ARE A DUM POOPYHED TOO!" Now we're at the same level of discourse at least. Or the adult version, "I'm soooo smart and you are soooo dumb I can't even begin to explain it!" which is known as, "I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm going to tell you you're an idiot for not thinking like me, anyway". \_ Iraq has been by far the most expensive war the US has ever fought (yes accounting for inflation). Those 50,000 private security contractors have a lot to do it costing so damn much. \_ Where's your data for this? How much are they costing compared to US uniformed troops in comparable positions? \_ I'm curious as to where your "Nearly 50k" number came from. As the pentagon has claimed they don't have any numbers on contractors in Iraq, they may be interested in your powers of divination. As for the cost overruns, Henry Waxman just started his hearings. After almost 4 years of R delay, he may just be able to get you an answer on that. \_ Well, you are wrong and he is wrong, but just read this and see: http://www.csua.org/u/i08 (Washington Post) \_ An external organization giving an estimate does not negate my claim that the pentagon has said they don't know how many contractors are in iraq. \_ The GAO giving an estimate does not negate my claim that the pentagon has said they don't know how many contractors are in iraq. \_ That wasn't the question. \_ The question was "Do you know how many private security contractors are in Iraq?" The answer is "By necessity, no." \_ What is wrong with the GAO estimate? Why does it matter if the Pentagon knows or not when we're discussing if random motd poster whos or not from another source? Ah, I see. P has blessed the results of the external survey. the external survey. So you're taking them as the Pentagon claim. So.. the auditiors have to tell the P just how many contracts they've given out... You don't see a problem here? \_ I see no problem with working with the best numbers available, instead of throwing up my hands and claiming that since I can't get perfect information, there is no point in even trying to understand the situation. \_ It doesn't concern you that the P is spending $Bs on contracts, and doesn't know where it's going? \_ You're comfortable with the idea of corporations having bigger guns than the government? Seriously? Our government may be incompetent and wasteful, but corporations are psychopaths. \_ Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Corporations are no more than aggregates of people, with a corporate aim. Sounds like the gov't to me. Since the gov't doesn't care what the voters think, how precisely is that different? \_ The main difference between corporations and the government is that corporations compete against each other. The government, through legislation, does not have to compete with industry and can control markets. The government is a form of dictatorship and monopoly rolled into one. Sometimes it's a benevolent dictatorship, but it's still a dictatorship. Smaller government is better. \_ Mega corps that have legal rights as people is just as bad as having an over bearing uncarin gigantic federal system. \_ Actually, technically, corporations are sociopaths, but otherwise I agree with you. What the person above me doesn't understand is that corps are different from government due to profit motive. If that can make a buck by killing you horribly, the corp won't hesitate a second. To get the government to kill someone means making a bunch of slack government employees fill out paperwork, attend meeting, record metrics, and general interfere with other things they'd rather be doing. \_ Ha ha! Talking with people who have lived in countries with socialized medicine has made it clear you're full of crap. Do you really want hospitals to turn into the DMV? \_ Actually this was from news stories in the US. \_ Which news stories? \_ Six years of living with socialized medicine in Japan made it clear to me that hospitals can be efficient, competent, and cheap. Where's your personal experience to the contrary? \_ Canada. \_ How long were you there, and what did they screw up? \_ A friend, and he needed an MRI and found out the waiting list was 18 months long--people dying before they could get an MRI, etc. \_ Anecdotal hearsay evidence isn't very strong. \_ http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba369 http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-23-96.html http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=855 etc. etc. etc. |
| 2007/2/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45663 Activity:nil |
2/5 Hillary: All your profits are belong to us!
http://csua.org/u/hzu |
| 2007/2/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45647 Activity:nil |
2/3 Omaba and Biden hate Osama Bin Laden.
\_ Who's Omaba? You mean Obama? |
| 2007/1/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45578 Activity:nil |
1/24 Good news: Kerry won't run: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16790110 |
| 2006/12/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45506 Activity:moderate |
12/28 John Edwards runs again for the presidency. Let's see, the Dems
could pick a liberal hippy that has 0% of getting any vote in
the south, an outspoken female bitch that has no chance of getting
elected, and a black man whos last name is one letter away from
being Osama. Dems in 2008... what a joke.
\_ "Dam negro's name is Obama. That ryhmes with Osama, and his middle
name is Hussein. Dam negro is a terrorist in disguise, let's
hang him boys!" -average white Southerner
\_ And, hey, his middle name is Hussein! Think about it, people..
Think about it.
\_ It is unclear to me that people who would not vote for Obama because
he is black/his name sounds muslim would vote for any other
Democractic candidate anyway.
\_ A lot of people are not ready for a black/female president
who might still vote Democrat. It doesn't mean they hate
blacks/women.
\_ Wait, aren't you the same guy that said Dems had no chance in 2006?
\_ I must've missed the 2006 Presidential election.
\_ Wow, aren't we shallow! "hippy" "bitch" and "black man almost
named 'Osama'". You might be right on all points, but let me
ask you this: would any of them be a better president than
Bush?
\_ whether or not they would be a better president is immaterial.
The quesion is which is more likely to get elected.
\_ I already conceded you might be right about their
inelectability, given this country's bigotry and sexism.
Now, setting aside the question of electability, which
would be the better president?
\_ I'm not the op but here is my answer which probably
resonates with many readers out there:
In theory, ANY three candidate will do better than
GWB. IMHO GWB is not *my* president, he is the president
of the blind masses who voted for him and who are still
supporting him. And stop calling him "The president"
as the fucktard deserves as much respect as Nixon.
In reality though none of the three other candidates
will win. America is made up blind mass who do not
understand or care about policies. To them, as long
as its leader is strong, unwaivering, and/or good looking
or simply with whom they can relate to personally, then
that is the leader they will elect. This is the exact
reason why Bush and Reagan won despite the fact that
they're both fucktards.
The blind mass does not want smart and nerdy Kerry
+ Al Bore. Instead the blind mass want fantasies
where the leader is as strong and as likeable as
Clint Eastwood, and want to be told that their world
has become better because of them. If you Dems do not
understand this, you Dems will never win the hearts
of the blind mass. -former Dem
\_ Bitter, much?
\_ Better for...? The American people? The world? The
western world? At what? Domestic policy? Foreign?
Least corrupt (they're all corrupt)? Strengthing freedoms
at home? Abroad? Better economic policy? Better?
\_ It doesn't matter if my dog would be a better president than
Bush. Bush isn't running in 08. They don't have to beat Bush
in an election.
\_ The spectre of Bush will haunt the Republican Party for a
while. Who will the GOP nominate? Rice? Tancredo? Gingrich?
Are any of these people electable?
\_ Guiliani has the charm of Reagan.
\_ That's a different issue and I disagree with your opinion.
Voters tend to fall into two categories: the party line
types who vote for the R/D who are unlikely to either stay
home or vote non-R/D no matter what, and the more moderate
center who vote for the candidate they like in a personal
way. Bush is nothing but history for the 08 ballot box.
Rice is no more electable than Hillary. Neither has
engaged in a real campaign or a real debate. Gingrich
would have the support of a huge number of people but has
been on the side lines (mostly) for a long time. His
'crimes' were that he left his wife and married another
woman to whom he is still married. Tancredo? No.
Rudy? Has more political experience than a Hillary but
like Obama, Hillary, and McCain is just a media hyped
creation with limited support. My total guess based on
absolutely nothing (motd style) is that we'll see some
currently unknown dark horse come from the R side to win
the R nomination while one of the D's media hyped creatures
emerges with the D nomination but is badly battered by the
nomination process. I think this will be a hard fought
election season the likes of which the country has never
seen.
\_ How many people do you think went into the "non-R" camp
over the last 2 years?
\_ From the core "always vote R"? None. That's the
point. From the center, at current, any number
you'd like to name. But "at current" is not
important for the 08 election. What people think
and feel about the names on the ballot after the
campaign and a few debates is what matters, not
right now. I make no prediction about who or even
which party will actually win the 08 election. It
is far far far far (I feel like I'm writing a Star
Wars opener) far far too early for that right now.
\_ Bush did horribly on the debate yet he won.
Maybe you care about debates. Most
Americans do not.
\_ I disagree. The hype at the time was what a
fantastic uber debater Gore was and how smart
he was and how he was going to mop the floor
with W. He didn't live up to the hype so he
(Gore) didn't get what he should have from it.
If debates were unimportant to most Americans
then it wouldn't have been watched by a zillion
people and talked about everywhere the next
day. |
| 2006/12/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign] UID:45493 Activity:high |
12/25 R.I.P. James Brown
\_ http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/bnames-nf/Brown+James
http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/021215godfather.htm
\_ He was already dead in 1991 (his music style, that is)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr_6q9DcSiM
\_ "Brown was one of the first artists inducted into the Rock and
Roll Hall of Fame, along with Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and
other founding fathers."
"Disco is James Brown, hip-hop is James Brown, rap is James
Brown;"
http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12176089 |
| 2006/12/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45464 Activity:nil |
11/16 Holy Crap!
http://www.fmft.net/archives/BBC_NEWS.htm
42 midgets ring fight a lion, and lose.
\_ http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/lionmidget.asp |
| 2006/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45328 Activity:kinda low |
11/11 FL voter mails in absentee ballot w/ the "inverted jenny" stamp
(worth about $3 million):
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1667782006&format=print
\_ No, a block of four such stamps is worth $3M. The person who
mailed the absentee ballot used only one, which according to
the article is worth $500K. It's still a buttload of money
to have missed out on, of course.
\_ This must have been intentional.
\_ Sorry I misread the article, corrected. |
| 2006/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45326 Activity:moderate |
11/11 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry-- 16 percent would
vote for him in 2008, 24 percent maybe, and 55 will not vote
for him, period. And therein lies some good news for President
Bush as he faces the final two years of his Presidency. At
least he's not John Kerry. Bahahahahahahahahaha
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15667442/site/newsweek/page/3
\_ ELECTION IS OVER. This thread will be deleted in an hour. Sorry.
\_ Loser says what?
\_ Hmm, yes, elevating political discourse. Once an election has
been ended no one is allowed to discuss it if 'their side' lost.
ended no one is allowed to discuss it if 'their side' lost.
Ok, whatever.
\_ Enjoy your 31% approval rating:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15667442/site/newsweek
\_ I don't have an approval rating and whatever either
party's approval rating is at has nothing to do with
the level of political discourse or having the right
to express political opinions.
\_ Loser says what?
\_ Exactly. Thanks for reinforceing my point.
\_ It's so enjoyable to have the shoe on the other foot. |
| 2006/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45318 Activity:moderate |
11/9 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15643639/site/newsweek/page/3 "Polls going into the election showed a dramatic shift to the Democrats, but the actual numbers were less dramatic... The national generic polls always exaggerate the Democratic advantage... You generally get an over representation of Democrats in the polls. If you averaged the pre-election polls, there was a 12-point Democratic advantage." Just as I said. Liberals are very vocal but they're too lazy to vote whereas Republicans don't express their views but tend to be loyal hardcore voters. \_ Loser say what? \_ No, I think it's a case of who is around to answer the phone at the times they call and who would actually bother to do so. I don't think either party's voters are "lazy" about voting. You might want to note that a number of conservative ballot measures around the country passed (or liberal ones failed) in a lot of the same places that voted out incumbent Republicans in favor of an unknown Democrat. Conservatives showed up, they just didn't vote for the faux-conservative Republican candidates. |
| 2006/11/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45309 Activity:high |
11/9 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/election.main/index.html Pelosi said she'll push for implementing all 9/11 Commission recommendations on national security, raising the minimum wage to $7.25, eliminating corporate subsidies for oil companies, allowing the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices, imposing new restrictions on lobbyists, cutting interest rates on college loans and supporting embryonic stem-cell research. EVIL LIBERAL AGENDAS! -Republican \_ I think she also said cutting budgets and not raising taxes, like she's a Republican. \_ Raising the minimum wage is not a tax increaese? \_ Its raising the cost of business... which is not a tax. \_ budget increase, you mean \_ Letting the current tax cut expire is a tax increase. \_ http://www.rightwasright.com \_ I'm down with 6 and 18. And before you think I'm joking about 6, think about how that would work out (note, I didn't say we'd _support_ Hussein, just _reinstate_ him) \_ You realize that would mean immediate full-scale civil war, right? \_ I doubt he cares. \_ Remember, no matter what the gov't says, the minimum wage is always zero. \_ Huh? \_ If you lay someone off, they're earning 0 -!pp \_ So raising minimum wage leads to layoffs... uh huh... do some research young grasshopper. \_ I didn't say i agreed with "Remember..." guy, I was just explaining what "zero" meant. \_ Uh, if you lay them off, they're not working for you, so you're not giving them a wage of zero. You either don't give them a wage, or give them wage > minimum. Unless it's one of those special cases or you're being illegal. \_ no, then we all give them a wage in state funds and services in exchange for nothing while they look for another job. \_ ok but then the wage ain't zero? \_ It's not zero. Wage is the amount of money they get in return when they work. In this case they are not working, so the wage quantity doesn't exist. \_ What about the abortion squads to gather new stem cells and control overpopulation? This is a golden opportunity. \_ Raising the minimum wage is a pretty blunt instrument, and I think it rarely has the result it's implementers intend. \_ Raising the minimum is inflationary. The real reason for doing so has nothing to do with working poor. It has to do with the fact that most union worker rates are based on a multiple of the minimum wage so by increasing the minimum by some percent she just gave an automatic wage increase to most union workers by that amount. It's just a pay off to the unions in exchange for supporting the party that the rest of us all pay for. <s> I'm glad to see we're still doing business as usual. I was somewhat concerned something might change. </sarcasm>. \_ what are other alternatives you are proposing? Here is something I don't understand. If people so dispise minimum wage, why there is no talk about "ABOLISHING* it? Why don't we at the same time abolish the minimum *AGE* too? Let the free market decide what is the minimum wage and minimum AGE. \- because "people" dont despise the minimum wage. in fact it's not even close. it's quite popular in nationalwide polling. google for the obvious like "poll, support minimum wage" etc. we can reasonably argue about various parts of the regulatory state but only nutjobs want to go back to laissez faire red in tooth and claw [disallow regulation of hours, health and safety etc, see lochner etc.]. |
| 2006/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45300 Activity:kinda low 80%like:45298 66%like:45296 |
11/9 Allen to concede this afternoon:
http://tinyurl.com/y25erv (washingtonpost.com)
\_ No recount?
\_ What for? 7k is too big a margin to bother. Although if it was
120k and in Ohio then a number of people would be screaming
fraud and recount and disenfranchisement. At least Kerry had
the balls to do the right thing and let it go. So does Allen.
\_ Allen let it go because previous recounts have in VA have not
yielded enough of a difference to allow for a conceivable
victory. Also, there's every indication that he'll run again,
and if he does, he won't want to be remembered as the loser of
a recount.
\_ If it was a smaller number I'm sure he would've fought it
but 7k is just silly in such a small state. Even in CA
that would be a tough number to overcome. |
| 2006/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45297 Activity:nil |
11/9 Burns concedes. I think that's it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_el_se/montana_senate
\_ No recount?
\_ Why would there be?
\_ Montana law says it has to be less that 0.25% for a free recount
and less than 0.5% for any recount (the loser has to pay, he
gets his money back if the recount shows he won.) Over 0.5%,
no recounts (I don't know what happens if fraud can be shown).
Burns lost by over half a percent.
\_ Interesting. So if X appears losing to Y by 0.3%, and X wants a
recount while Y doesn't, and then Y ends up losing, does Y have
to pay?
recount while Y doesn't, and then Y ends up losing, does that
mean Y is now responsible for the cost even though (s)he didn't
ask for a recount and (s)he didn't cheat? If so, does that
mean one shouldn't enter the election unless one can afford a
potential recount?
\_ No, if X wins the state pays. |
| 2006/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45296 Activity:nil 66%like:45300 |
11/9 Allen to concede this afternoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110900775.html |
| 2006/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:45265 Activity:nil |
11/8 As it turns out, despite more spending for Republican campaigns,
the Democrats won. Elections do not always follow money.
\_ err. they did kept the Senate. and only Senate can impeach
the president, no?
\_ Well, unless 'kept' means 'lost' in this context.....
\_ I guess kept is a way of saying "didn't keep"?
\_ No, the house can impeach the POTUS.
\_ More correctly, the house impeaches, the senate convicts.
While presidents have been impeached by the house, none has
been convicted by the senate.
\_ Simple majority in the House to impeach; 2/3 majority in
the Senate to convict.
\_ This is a new meaning of the word "kept" that I'm not familiar
with. Perhaps you could enlighten us? |
| 2006/11/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45253 Activity:nil |
11/8 Santorum announces will run for President in 2008.
\_ How better to bounce back from a large margin defeat?
\_ That should provide some nice comedy until the New Hampshire
primary and Iowa caucus.
\_ You have been trolled. |
| 2006/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45221 Activity:nil |
11/7 Has anybody heard the rumor about the college students who
are going to kill themselves publicly if the Dems lose?
\_ Just like the ones who were going to move to Canada?
\_ Sounds like a plan, go for it!
\_ McCain says he'll commit suicide if the Dems win [the Senate]...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/18/160016.shtml
\_ Some HIV+ gay activists in NYC said they were going to
do something earth shattering if the Dems lose.
See dailykos.
\_ Can't find it. (Never read DailyKos before, can't figure
it out.)
\_ They've been losing every year since 94. Why now?
\_ You have been trolled. |
| 2006/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45217 Activity:nil |
11/7 http://www.electoral-vote.com Review the 2006 polls, watch all Blue-leaners go Red just like '04! \_ After Al Gore and Kerry's uber-fuckups beyond comprehension I'm no longer voting for anyone. -disillusioned \_ Sorry Republicans have to work. \_ in the Gurus section, add Novak: Senate 47-53, House 222-213 -op \_ Where do you get specific state results? (Props, etc.) \_ there probably isn't a central repository for state ballot item pre-election polls \_ You can get the CA stuff from the CA Secretary of State site. \_ for completeness, here's the Washington Post "tournament of champions" (of previous election-prediction winners) http://csua.org/u/hed (washingtonpost.com) \_ So why is it only a third of the Senate? \_ So why is it so many motd'ers are idiots? \_ Because I flunked history? How about be helpful rather than a prick? \_ Have you flunked google as well? Or the great wikipedia search? Grow up. \_ No, his real problem is the schools stopped teaching any form of civics before he was born. It isn't his fault his government controlled education taught him nothing about government. \_ BACK IN MY DAY WE WALKED UP HILL BOTH WAYS IN THE SNOW AND WENT TO SCHOOL 10 HOURS A DAY STUDYING POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN LATIN. THESE DAMN KIDS TODAY ARE IGNORANT AND HAVE NO RESPECT UNLIKE WE DID IN THE OLD DAYS. \_ yer hawt 6th grade teacher who wants to have sex with you sez: "because Senators have 6-year terms, House reps have 2-yr terms" \_ Thanks! (Duh) \_ So why is it only half-ish of the Senate? |
| 2006/11/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45179 Activity:moderate |
11/5 wtf is this?
http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm
Can someone explain the rapid turn in polls? Don't tell me it's
GOP TV advertising; but it would be the only principal reason.
\_ In case you haven't noticed for many polls out there you need to
add +10-15 points in favor of the R. This is because conservatives
in general are very hushed about their intentions and they don't
like to take polls or talk to pollsters.
\_ The same reason why you never hear anyone claiming to be R
in SF even though 1/5 are registered R. They'd get beat up
or ridiculed if their friends find out. It's worse being R
in SF than being a gay man in Tennessee.
\_ The same reason why you never hear anyone claiming to be R
in SF even though 1/5 are registered R. They'd get beat up
or ridiculed if their friends find out.
\_ So you think the open minded liberal and friendly folks in
the SF area would physically assault someone for being R?
\_ Absolutely. SF is tolerant to anyone liberal. That's
why you never hear the other 1/5 of the voice. They're
scared of liberals.
\_ No just SF. Many parts of the south bay as well.
\_ That goes for exit polling too, apparently. In most countries
exit polls are used to see if the election was fair. For some
reason, in the United States conservatives don't like admitting
they voted for their candidates. Either that or the election
is not fair, which can't be possible, right?
\_ Elections have been rigged in this country before either
of the current parties existed. That goes without saying.
As far as exit polls go, yes, I believe there is a difference
between some small third world country doing exit polls and
the US spanning 3 time zones with exit poll reports coming
out from the east coast before the west coast polls have
closed. It isn't that hard to tweak the numbers and there
is a very partisan reason for doing so (to make late voters
not bother). As far as talking to exit poll people, no, I
absolutely don't have the time to waste talking to some exit
poll taker for whatever media outlet. There is no value or
requirement to do so in order to support my candidate so I
wouldn't do it. I don't 'admit' to having voted for my
candidate(s). I just 1) don't care to spend my time telling
you and 2) don't think it's any of your business anyway.
\_ Yes. Because polls are a measure of who is being polled. In
tight races with small samples it only takes a small change in
the pollees to shift the final numbers a significant amount.
The pollees to shift the final numbers a significant amount.
That's why I've said for years that polls are useless. In a wide
margin race you don't need one and in small margins everything
falls within the margin of error so there's no point to it. |
| 2006/11/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:45178 Activity:low |
11/6 On the timing of the Saddam verdict. Hmm ... what to think?
"The idea's preposterous. This is one of these tinfoil hat sort of
things." -WH press sec Snow
- http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1781719.htm
"Only the naive believe it's a coincidence."
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1940534,00.html
\_ What to think? Think for yourself.
\_ Its all part of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, you know the
one that is run by the Bush BrownShirts and is responsible
for the "hundreds" of warcrimes against dissidents across
the country. The Cabal will do anything to keep itself in
power. We are just cattle to them. They are preping us for
colonization. Trust No One. -fmulder
\- i really do think the Cockroach Republicans are only limited
by imagination and are not at all ethics. now if some "crypto-
anarchist" would get a job at diebold and put in a virus to
cause mass failure on election day, instead of cracking DMA
technology, that would be interesting. you have to wonder
what the aftermath would look like if there simply was no
result to a large fraction of the elections in the country.
[i think this is a really tricky area to come up with remedies.
it's one when when basically the election is solid with a few
one off problems, but mass problems would be unprecidented].
\_ yes all corruption is republican. democrats are all squeaky
clean and golden. you are brilliant. your solution to your
false sense of republican-only corruption is voter machine
anarchy. great. all that will happen is setting a new date
and doing them on paper followed by lawsuits about how the
ballot format disenfranchised stupid people.
\- i didnt say the democrats were clean. i did say the new
breed of cockroach republicans have charted new terrain
in corruption and sleaze. sure it's possible some Dems
have it in them, but until they do it, it's a thought
crime. here i include things like inter-census
\_ $90k in your fridge isn't a thought crime. and
he's still in office and has his committe position
too, btw.
gerrymandering, signing statements, something like the
\_ gerrymandering is a cooperative two party effort.
cheney energy tast force is vastly more secretive than
the hillary health care one. i thought Billhary had plenty
\_ secrets are not corruption nor a sign of it in and
of themselves.
of sleazy with filegate and travelgate and such or
rostenkowsky stealing postage stamps but delay, brownie,
are all taking it to a new level. this is a far cry from
\_ not really. same old, same old. i see no real
difference. they just have different sub-
specialties of corruption and an equal share of
the generic stuff.
the part of people like warren rudman, for example ... or
even alan simpson or o hatch. at least mccain is
apologetic over the keating five episode.
\_ mccain is a scum bag. i dont want his apology.
i want his head on a pike with all the rest of
the corrupt scum bags in DC. his apology has
no value. apologise for a joke gone bad? sure.
apologise for criminal activity? sorry, pal, try
prison instead.
\_ So McCain gets the death sentence for bribery
but Cheney gets a pass for colluding to offer
no-competition contracts to Halliburton? If it's
death for the goose, it's at least prison for the
gander.
\_ Pike em all but I'd settle for prison. And
I do mean *all* regardless of party. The
Congress would be mighty close to empty if
we really took corruption seriously.
\_ Agreed. --erikred
\- if you think mccain and cheney are
comparable, i dont think we can
really have a conversation [speaking
personally]. mccain has done some
fucked up things [agan keating 5],
but he's also done some thing waaaaay
beyond almost all others and they are
things you cant make up or posture.
i mean not only was he tortured but
was super connected and could have
gotten himself out of it. he adopted
child from bangladesh ... that probably
wasnt motived by it being good press,
his son is in the marines etc.
\_ So do you guys believe that the
politicians presently in power are
somehow born bad, and we just need
to replace them with Good(TM) people?
This makes no sense to me. The problem
is not that we happen to have bad
people in Washington, but rather
that we have a culture in Washington
that brings out the worst in people.
I have no idea how to fix this culture,
and I'm not convinced it will ever
be fixed, but I'm positive that just
changing the face of the corruption
won't do it.
\_ I can't speak for pp, but I don't
think they're all bad people. I think
we have a system in place now that
encourages corruption and moral
ambiguity (i.e., a disincentive to
avoid conflicts interest). There are
tools that could be used to fix this
(or at least make it unattractive),
but there's a culture of back-
scratching and mutual-benefit cover-
ups that makes real reform unlikely.
Campaing finance reform would be an
excellent step in the right direction
but a non-partisan, independent body
to investigate corruption might be a
better idea. The problem is that even
a "Grand Inquisitor" office is
vulnerable to corruption and
political stacking, and so the entire
cycle keeps rolling. --erikred
\_ I don't know. My current working
theory is that, for the most part,
only power-hungry megalomaniacs
are willing to go into politics.
Normal honest people would quit
before they ever got to even the
state level.
\_ I believe that line about power
corrupting and absolute power, etc.
Term limits and none of this merry-
go-round stuff to a different
district stuff. Serve your time as
a *public service* and get the hell
out. It sickens me everytime some
senator retires after 6+ terms in
office and they have him voting from
his death bed wheeled into the
chamber.
\_ Non-event. The media would bluster about it for a week or
so, until some juicy sex scandal popped up. Most people
would just say let's do it over w/ paper ballots and the
country would go about its business. I'm all for this plan
b/c it would surely return us to paper ballots and delayed
election results. Delayed results means the media would
have nearly nothing to pontificate about and we would have
to be subjected to endless drivel about red-blue state
"seismic" shifts on election day. |
| 2006/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45111 Activity:nil |
11/02 R's go apeshit on Kerry, Dem polling gets even better:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_11/009984.php
\_ it's probably the "i remember the last time i had a choice between
the student-body president (kerry) and the asshole-in-chief (dubya)"
effect, or maybe people realize now a 1-party govt fucking sucks
effect, or maybe people realize now a 1-party govt isn't working
\_ No one likes the snobby student body president types. And
no one likes Kerry. Not even the motd usuals bother trying to
defend him in any real way. W may be the aic, but Kerry is still
an elitist holier-than-thou prick. As far as 1-party governments
go, you could swap any number of R for any number of D in
Congress and you'd still have a 1-party government. It's all
just bread n circuses. They pork the budget, pork their pages,
pork their interns, and pork their wallets full of cash after
they finally leave office and become 'consultants' for the next
round of pigs.
\_ You got my point exactly: No one likes the asshole-in-chief
or the student-body president, but people are remembering
the last time they had a choice, which was my point.
What, did you think I dredged up "student-body president" as
a neutral or pro-kerry phrase? c'mon.
As for 1-part govt, I'd agree that an all-Dem govt may be
a suspect as an all-GOP govt, but I feel that having one
heading executive and one heading legislative is less worse
than one controlling both.
\_ Would it really be so crazy to have a no-party government?
I think parties have outlived their usefulness and do far
more harm than good. |
| 2006/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45094 Activity:very high |
11/02 http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football Allen regularly called Blacks the N word in college. \_ So just curious, does Swift Boating Allen make what Kerry has said ok? Is that the new standard in politics? You've got one or two guys who said he used the word decades ago and several more guys who said he didn't. Whatever. \_ lol \_ What Kerry said was accidental, and not "oops, I exposed my real feelings" accidental, but a literal accidental omission of one word that his notes made it clear he meant to say. Try again. \_ URL for either statement? Mind reading and wishing doesn't count. \_ Stay on target, little RNC talking pointer, stay on target! \_ I'll take your non-reply as a bullseye. Thanks. \_ Yes, please! More irrelevant issues! I don't want to know anything about the issues! \_ Well yesterday people were asking why Allen was a racist prick and why the whole "he just totally made up a racist slur and didn't realize it was racist" argument is bullshit. \_ It's a Swift Boat attack. It's all "he said it", "no he didn't". If you didn't accept the same kind of attack on Kerry, then you have no business accepting it on Allen. \_ The Swift Boaters were disputing documented historic facts. There's no correlation at all with this situation. If you want to make a comparison, it's something like Anita Hill accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. -tom \_ Documented historic facts? Kerry's record, such as it is, is chock full of irregularities. His own stories aren't even consistent about where he was, when, with who, and what happened. I do agree the Anita Hill accusations are similar. \_ Hey, lay off. He's been a little confused ever since Nixon ordered him into Cambodia in '68. \_ Hey, at least he is running. \_ But this has nothing to do with his politics. This entire election is going to be decided based on nothing to do with the issues. \_ Whether he is a lying, racist asshole has nothing to do with his politics? \_ Welcome to how the Kerry campaign felt in 2004. \_ Actually it does. When he tells someone born and raised Virgina "Welcome to Virginia, Macaca" (paraphrased) that says a lot about him and how he sees non whites as second class citizens. Do we really need more racist yahoos running our country? \_ Maybe they like wasicsts in VA. Who are we in CA to \_ Maybe they like rasicsts in VA. Who are we in CA to tell them who they should elect to represent tell Virginians who they should elect to represent themselves? This is a distinctly local issue, not a national one. \_ US Senators pass bills that directly affect every human being on the planet. Also John Kerry isn't running. \_ So what? We have never had national election of Senators. No matter what I think of Allen my opinion doesn't matter b/c I can't vote for him. Instead of wasting my time w/ news about his wacism, I'd prefer to hear about CA news. [ If you want to argue that we in CA ought to express our outrage so that VA voters are pressured to elect someone other than Allen, shouldn't VA citizens have the right to choose whoever they think is best for them, w/o outside interference? ] Re Kerry, see below. I think the whole Kerry thing has been blown way out of proprotion. \_ "But this has nothing to do with his politics." \_ I disagree. This does have something to do w/ politics, just not national politics. I think the Kerry comment is also being blown way out of proportion. So Kerry said something dumb, let Bostonians deal w/ him. way out of proportion. I would be willing to entertain the argument that the Kerry comment is noteworthy on the national state b/c Kerry was a national figure by virtue of his Pres. bid. Even so, the press needs some sense of proprotion. \_ Actually, this race will probably determine which party controls the Senate, so it is of huge national importance. \_ Then we should all get to vote on it. \_ We can all campaign and contribute money. \_ By your logic, ever Senate race is crucial and we should get to vote on each one b/c it might affect national policy. But that is not the way things work. We vote for our representatives only. And what gives me, a CA citizen, the right to dictate national (or local) policy to VA citizens? They are after all citizens of a co-equal sovereign state in our republic. How would you like it if the VA citizens came to your home and told you how to run things? \_ No, we just need one supreme leader. \_ I'll take the first term and let you know how it goes. \_ Listen to it yourself and decide, did he really mean to say "mohawk" or "macaca"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI \_ He didn't claim he said "mohawk". \_ "Wadhams said Allen campaign staffers had begun calling Sidarth "mohawk" because of a haircut Wadhams said the Webb staffer has. "Macaca was just a variation of that," Wadhams said." \_ Yes? and? Macaca != Mohawk. Why would we expect to hear Mohawk when he said Macaca, he said he said Macaca, every other person there said he said Macaca and no one said he said Mohawk? I love the motd. It's full of such oddness. \_ Best excuse ever. Especially considering the haircut is about as unmokawky as well, a haircut could be. |
| 2006/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45086 Activity:high |
11/01 What's more stupid than Kerry's joke? Kerry's apology for the joke.
For crying out loud, why are liberals so apologetic? I'd respect
him more had he stood by his comments. Fucking flip-flopper.
\_ You're too stupid to recognize when someone's calling you stupid.
\_ KERRY MUST APOLOGIZE! <Kerry apologizes> DAMN FLIP FLOPPERS!
\_ Karl Rove is a genius, and the Republic is doomed.
\_ You forgot, Kerry says: "I'll never apologize!"
\_ Hi troll. No one here has actually said that. He also has yet to
give a real apology that I've seen. "I'm sorry my comments were
misinterpreted by [insert daily DNC fax talking points about Bush,
Iraq, etc here]" is not an apology. BTW, did he ever apologise
for calling our troops baby killers and rapists?
\_ Do you also believe Mark Foley was punked by 15 year old twinks?
\_ Of course not. He's a sicko and should have been booted out
years ago. I don't have double standard politics. Two things
mainly bug me about Foley (beyond his actual behavior):
1) apparently everyone in DC knew about it and ignored it,
2) while one side was trying to bury/ignore it forever, the
opposition party appears to have sat on the information
for *years* waiting for the right moment politically to
release the info instead of outing him when they first
found out. I do not appreciate children/young people
being pawns in some silly Congressional election head-count
power game. By either party. There *are* things that are
more important that politics, many things, and this was
one of them.
\_ While I'm willing to agree that the timing of the Foley
revelation is suspicious, remember that it's not the
children/young people being manipulated; it's the
culpability of the wrongdoers that's being manipulated.
Foley (and the GOP leadership) are the ones guilty of
manipulating the children/young people. The Dems are guilty
of revealing that at a politically senstive moment. Yes,
that's not good, but it doesn't excuse or make better the
behavior of the GOP leadership in covering this up. -!pp
\_ Both sides covered it up. One side covered it up to
retain power, hide it, etc, all the standard reasons.
The other side covered it up *until* it was politically
advantageous *not* to. Had they determined it was not
yet time to reveal he'd still be trying to bugger the
under-age pages while sponsoring bills to nail net
pedophiles.
\_ You say the Dems covered it up as well. Do you have
evidence they even knew? The report will come out
of the ethics committee next month. You better hurry
and get it to them if you have it.
\_ It was reported at the time. It wasn't a secret.
We'll see what comes from the report but I expect
that to be a white wash for both parties. You
don't seriously expect the foxes to properly
investigate who killed the hens, do you?
\_ Show me how the Dems covered it up.
\_ By remaining quiet while they knew about it?
What do you mean by "how"?
\_ Isn't the blonde girl still missing in Aruba? Why don't you
go vent some of your fake fury on that other obvious
attempt to distract America from your miserable failure in
Iraq?
\_ Who cares about her? Why are you trying to distract from
the issue? Because you don't have a real response. Thanks
for playing.
\_ Wow, you missesd the obvious point, even when hit in the
head by a 2X4. You are even dumber than I imagined. Are
you really a Cal student or grad or even dropout?
\_ _n_ ______
_/o \/ \@ _________
O_ )=( ____I_ \______
\___/\______/ \ \ \_____ I
II II II II
Go stick your head in a pig.
\_ You didn't have a point. No, I'm not a Cal student or
dropout. I'm here to learn from you how to fail to
communicate. You understood what I was saying but I
still don't see why you bothered posting so I have
failed to communicate at your level. Next time I'll
simply rant about some totally random event which had
nothing to do with anything anyone besides the girl's
family cares about.
\_ Just like your silly random rant about Kerry.
Thanks for making my point for me.
\_ Still no point to be seen and no response to
what I said. If that makes you feel smart, then
feel smart. I'm not here to injure your sense
of self esteem. |
| 2006/11/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45079 Activity:high |
11/01 Good lord, the flubbed Kerry joke is the front page story on every
single news site. You'd think he was running for something.
\_ I think this video puts the whole matter in perspective:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CD-SC-KerryJoke.mov
\_ October Surprise!!!
\_ well, except nytimes, cbsnews, and latimes
\_ obLIBERALMEDIA
\_ Did you actually check nytimes,latimes and cbsnews or do you just
\_ Did you actually check nytimes, latimes and cbsnews or do you just
like spreading lies?
\_ when it's "the" front page story, I interpreted this to
mean the lead story. washingtonpost, abcnews, msnbc all
had this as the lead. ok, I should have made this clear.
\_ Here is something I don't understand. What is so offensive about
this joke? It is a bit edgy because it has a lot of truth in it.
Further, you would think combat veteran like Kerry is immued from
this attack. Instead, those draft dogers are the one who is
launching the attack
\_ Some political pundit pointed out before the 2004 elections:
"By the time Karl Rove gets done with John Kerry, people won't
even know which side he fought on".
\_ What is the truth you think is in it?
\_ For one thing, no matter how patriotic or idealistic you
are, joining a military stuck in a murderous quagmire with
no clear mission, mounting casualties and farm-league
leadership verges on the suicidally insane. For another,
recruiters tend to focus on lower-income and less educated
individuals and frequently extol the military as a way to get
ahead--something that would appeal more to someone with less
chance of academic/professional success. Or to put it this
way, I don't think the army's attracting the intelligentsia
right now. And what below poster says. It's a non-issue,
albeit a poorly considered statement, and one that the
attack dogs can get their filthy teeth around to distract
from the real topics up for discussion. -John
\_ The military doesn't target lower intelligence morons.
They target smart people from lower income brackets who
can use the military to get ahead. Dumb people are not
going to get anything but 3 squares and a cot from a few
years of military service.
\_ link:tinyurl.com/ym5awa - danh
\_ what are you smoking? do you know almost 1/3 of
Army personnel didn't graduate from high school.
\_ duh. what are *you* smoking? _READ_ what I said.
Less educated != dumb! And from reading the motd it
is clear that educated != smart, too.
\_ The military actually won't take you if you score
too low on the IQ tests. They tend to target third
and fourth quartile (by IQ) individuals, but they
don't want actually stupid people, just average
ones that will follow orders. -a Vet
\_ That was then, this is now. With recruiting
efforts failing the army has drastically reduced
the testing requirements.
\_ Is this still the case in the face of more
agressive recruiting efforts ?
\_ Not really that much:
http://www.csua.org/u/hct
Even the Army will not take you if you
below the 26th percentile and they try
really hard to only take those above the
31st. They are taking more high school
droupout, but those actually have to
dropouts, but those actually have to
score above 50%.
\_ So despite the statistics that prove you wrong, you believe
the idea that you have to be a dumb-ass to be in the
military? I'm starting to think it wasn't a botched joke,
but what Kerry really believes.
\_ You're starting to believe this because of some motd
ramblings? You're a pretty easily led person.
\_ The conservative media can finally rally around something that takes
the heat off of the Republicans.
\_ Who is the conservative media? Would that be CD? DVD? 78s? |
| 2006/11/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45073 Activity:very high |
11/01 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/kerry.remarks/index.html John Kerry: "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended" \_ Too little, too late, damage done. Even the original joke was stupid. Resorting to personal attack for political gain shows the weakness in one's own ideas. Leno should be making jokes like that. Kerry is no Leno. \_ Ahh, so he should have apologized, unless he apologized, in which case apologies don't matter. \_ Try again. "Too little, too late". It's right there only a few lines up. At least *try* to respond to what was actually said instead of making something up to reply to. \_ this was a type of macaca or RAAAWWWRRR mistake - an inadequate level of appreciation of a flub getting amplified by your enemies even though you made the flub in a friendly environment or that it was innocently dumb. \_ Had he said this right away, this would be over now. \_ No it wouldn't. \_ yes it would. no it wouldn't. yes it would. whatever. \_ Had the clip been played in context, it never would have started. \_ It's politics. boo hoo. Don't make jokes if you're not funny. \_ It's attitudes like this that are why this country is fucked. \_ Yes the country was great and lollipops fell from trees prior to 1994. Kerry was stupid. He got caught being stupid no different than Allen's 'macaca' idiocy and he's paying the price. Were you around defending poor Allen on the false charges of racism a few weeks ago? No. Thanks for playing. \_ Allen's comment was given full context. And his meaning was very clear. He _is_ a racist fuck. Kerry's comment in context shows his meaning clearly as well. You think he was calling the troops "stupid". You're wrong. \_ I read Allen's full comment. There is no context beyond the one line and noting the guy has been following his campaign around. And? What is the context that makes it clear he is racist? \_ He's Republican. QED. -liberal \_ Sorry, I forgot that anyone who disagrees with your agenda is racist. \_ You are replying to a sarcastic troll. \_ It's the motd. There's no one else here. \_ Context or no, Allen's comment was racist. It's basically the French-african way of caling the opposition staffer 'nigger'. \_ That's basically the same as saying "Context or no, Kerry statement was insulting to the troops." \_ OK, you got me, I phrased that poorly. Read: The context of Allen's statement has no mitigating effect on the content of his statement. Using the word 'macaca' in a duscussion about racism is a mitigating context, using it to describe an Indian person is not. \_ I think the mitigating factor is that prior to this little incident many Indians didn't even know about this wacist even know about this racist slur. And after finding out, it is still a big whatever. -Indian \_ Racist! \_ Mitigating in what way? In that many Indians didn't realize he was using a racist slur? How does that mitigate the racist slur? I mean, I'd understand if that didn't rile anyone up in a bar, but at a political rally? \_ You are a flubarax!!!!!! Oh wait, flubarax doesn't mean a damned thing. Or maybe it is the most offensive racist slur possible in the Belgian Congo during the 1750s? Are you offended? \_ Of course not. Your made-up word has no cultural context as a racial slur, or, more to the point, no such context that you are aware of. "Macaca," however, is a racial slur in a cultural context that Allen was aware of. \_ Macaca meant nothing to anyone until someone found some obscure slang from the colonial era. You have absolutely no evidence Allen was aware of that meaning. I have yet to see a link showing what it meant and why he might have known that. The link from yesterday was about the Belgian Congo which Allen has absolutely no relation to. Flubarax! \_ Belgium, man, Belgium! \_ You didn't look very hard, if at all: http://www.csua.org/u/hcv \_ If a tree falls in the woods and no one cares I guess the tree huggers feelings still get hurt. Like I said this is a big Whatever. -Indian \_ Don't you think there are better things we could be spending time on? \_ Absolutely not. Start your own thread if you want. I'm entertained, sorry if you're not. \_ How are they false? I think Allen is guilty of thinking everyone is stupid. He happens to use the French Tunisian word for "nigger", his mother is from French Tunisia, and then he tells everyone he made the word up on the spot? - danh \_ The 'macaca' guy wasn't black. Oops. \_ Don't you think there are better things we could be spending time on? \_ The term refers to those with dark skin. \_ URL, please. I don't have my French Tunisian slang dictionary handy. \_ You don't need a dictionary to equate a French Tunisian word for "darkie" to anyone with dark skin. But hey, because _you_ probably do, here's a Wikipedia article on "macaca." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaca_%28slur%29 \_ See, I don't know if I buy this. I don't really care about Allen, maybe he is a racist, I don't know. But the argument that "X's mother probably knew Y, so X must know Y" is pretty weak. \_ Considering Allen's history I don't think it's a weak at all. The man is a racist prick. Not because he's a republican, but because he's a racist prick. \_ So, what's his history that suggests he's racist? -clueless \_ angry motd liberal said so. \_ He used to routinely called Blacks "n*ggers" in college, amongst other things. \_ Bzzzt. Sorry, Swift Boat style attacks aren't going to cut it. \_ I heard this first on John Ziegler's show out of KFI. He had \_ Actually, 2004 showed us that GOP style campaigning works. I am glad to see the Democrats embrace the Karl Rove style of smear politics. Have a little fire, scarecrow! http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football \_ I heard this first on John Ziegler's show of of KFI. He had heard only that soundbite on a local news station. It was in the context he heard. Given the number of groans from the audience, I don't think it was clarified by context. -emarkp \_ If Kerry was really insulting the intelligence of people in the military then he was insulting himself. \_ Kerry is in the military? Which branch and what unit? \_ hi idiot \_ hi humorless clown. \_ Kerry's Non-Apology Not Accepted (by Freepers) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1730262/posts \_ That's because they're neanderthal cretins. \_ duh, they only quoted the first half of the compound sentence. It's two parts: (a) regret for being misinterpreted, and (b) apology to people who were offended \_ Jesus fucking christ, is there nothing more important on the electoral agenda than a non-candidate making a badly timed and ill-considered joke? That's like a shitbag like Mark Foley getting nailed over harassing pages rather than anything of substance, or starting a national crisis over a cigar dildo. Have American politics come to this? I think I'm leaving for Chile again. -John \_ This is important because only ~2 years ago this was the guy his party put up to represent them as their best candidate to run the entire country for the next 4-8 years. His 'flubbed joke' shows a lack of basic brain power and wisdom that reflects on his supporters and those like him. If it was a nobody like Murtha, who gets some press time but is otherwise nobody, then it would've had about 4 hours of news cycle time, if that. \_ I am pissed at John Kerry. He need to learn how to shut the fuck up. I will let Bill Clinton have another BJ over this guy anyday. |
| 2006/10/31-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45061 Activity:kinda low |
10/31 Looks like the October Surprise was Kerry being an incredible
dumbass.
\_ Heh. link:csua.org/u/hcc
\_ He certainly didn't sound good, did he.
\_ I wish he had STFU until Nov 8th.
\_ Uh, for botching a joke about the president, and then having
it taken out of context?
\_ Excuse me but "bullshit!". He meant it exactly the way it was
said. He's an idiot.
\_ Have you read the transcript? It followed another Bush joke.
The audience got the joke, even as mangled. You're either
lying or stupid.
\_ I read it. The motd is the only place on the planet that
agrees with you. Maybe you're right and the entire world
is wrong. He certainly needs to STFU and stop trying to
play tough guy in some lame attempt to make up for the
way he allowed himself to be run over in 2004. "Oh, I'm
a tough guy now, vote for me in 2008, no apologies for
being a moron, rah rah rah!"
\_ The whitehouse, rushlimbaugh, and freerepublic are the
only others who believe as you do. And the whitehouse
is already backing off their stridency on this, likely
because of Kerry's press conference. I now must put you
in the "stupid" column.
\_ Which is why officials and elected leaders in his
own party have asked him to *not* show at Dem
rallies this week and said he should apologise.
If being aware of current events is your stupid
column then please put me firmly on that side.
\_ Tester, Casey and Ford do indeed have a bit
of the stupid in them.
\_ Yes, he meant that you can either work hard and study or you
can end up getting your country's military stuck in a bloody
quagmire.
\_ I think that Kerry is just as good at flubbing public speeches
as Bush is, and this is a typical example. I think Kerry was
making a jab at Bush just as he said, but he should have done
what a normal person would with an apology, rather than
preemtively attacking Rush Limbaugh. /That/ showed his lack
of character more than the original comment. -emarkp
\_ I vote based on a person's character. -Average American
\_ From http://RushLimbaugh.com, from yesterday's show:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_103106/content/and_along_comes_lurch_2.guest.html
With the cute little comment "Watch the video, and see if
Kerry or anyone else laughs as if it's a joke at Bush's
expense." along with a video clip with the laughter (that
is indeed there on the live feed) is cut. Preemptive, my
foot. Fuck you, and fuck Rush.
\_ I don't give a rip about Rush Limbaugh. Kerry slammed
him before his show even aired. -emarkp
\_ And to think this arrogant moron was almost elected....
\_ Yeah, good thing the other arrogant moron was elected.
\_ Actually, yes, it is. There are worse things than GWB. Such
as John Kerry. He flubbed the joke before he made the joke.
Or did he make the joke before he flubbed the joke. Or maybe
the joke was just nuanced and he's the only one smart enough
to understand it. Or he flubbed the nuancing of the apology
before making the joke about the soldier's apology to him.
Or something like that.
\_ Or maybe he was making a joke about the President partying
too much in college instead of learning that you don't get
to invade countries just because you're the President. I
know, it's not really funny because the results of Bush's
Folly have been so painful, but do try to see the irony.
Frankly, I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine
anyone doing worse than Bush. [Edit: Of course that's
immediately not true. Lyndon Larouche, Ross Perot, Dan
Quayle, Dick Cheney, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes... hell, the
list is long and varied. It's also populated by the lower
5% of the pool.]
\_ How weird that you only mention right wingers as people
who could be worse. I'm sure you're not allowing your
personal bias to color your thinking. Carry on,
Comrade! The fact is both parties are corrupt and this
whole "your party is teh suxx0r but my party is teh
r0xx0rz!@1" thing is truly moronic. If you can't see
the flaws in one party while being able to see the same
flaws in the other, you are truly hopeless. Vote third
party.
\_ Oh, sorry: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Joe
Lieberman, James McGreevey. Find me corrupt Dem
chickenhawks, and I'll add them to the list.
\_ So you think Dan Quayle belongs on the same list
as Stalin? Whatever. Vote third party.
\_ No, I think DQ would have made a worse Pres.
than Bush. I think Stalin would make a worse
Pres. than Bush. I think 95% of the pool would
make a better Pres. than Bush. Did you flunk
reading comprehension?
\_ What third party? Libertarian? Green?
Communist? A more reasonable response is that
people need to get away from parties, and we
need to find ways to get higher quality
individuals into politics. The solution of
the problem of political parties is not
more political parties.
\_ HALP US JON CARRY!
http://www.620wtmj.com/images/uploaded/Help%20Photo20061101105508.JPG
\_ So I am really trying to figure this one out: why does a toungue
tied has-been washed up second rate politician rate so much
attention? Is this just an effort by the GOP to change the subject
off of Iraq? Do they think this is going to work for them, or is
\_ Not to state the obvious, BUT YES, OF COURSE.
this one of those "Hail Mary" situations, like in the WSU vs. Cal
game last week? |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44933 Activity:nil |
10/23 Daschle predicts Dems will take Senate with seven seats
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724541/posts
\_ He couldn't predict his own loss. |
| 2006/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44931 Activity:nil |
10/23 Rahm, DNC pitbull, stacks the deck in favor of conservative (D)
candidates:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102101049_pf.html |
| 2006/10/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44906 Activity:nil |
10/21 From the the Fall 2006 Forefront:
"In response to Dean Newton's message [spring 2006], the world is
indeed 'flat.' But Friedman is wrong about our technological and
economic preeminence being in jeorpardy because more degrees are coming
out of Asia. Every engineer with a degree tries to develop a product
that makes life better or makes millions of dollars. I was able to do
this even without a degree, so we shouldn't feel threatened."
--Trevor J. Buckingham, Senior Software Engineer and Owner, QL2
Software Company, Chicago (EECS 1998-200)
\_ Looks like his brother (father?) is CEO. Guess that's the real route
to success.
\_ Looks like his brother (father?) is CEO. Guess that's the real
route to success.
\_ It always has been. Nothing new there. |
| 2006/10/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:44791 Activity:nil |
10/12 US Election Assistance Commission finds little evidence of fraud
at voting polls. Most voting fraud apparently occurs through
absentee ballots:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061011/1a_lede11.art.htm
\_ So they didn't find stuffed ballot boxes... who said they would?
Now, where does it say they didn't find evidence of or the potential
for manipulation of Diebold voting machines?
\_ Just in time for a story about recently found fraudulent voting
registration applications by a Democrat group:
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/10/11/ap3084684.html |
| 2006/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:44641 Activity:nil |
10/3 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.htm In The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths, you will learn how: heterosexual militants have embarked on a systematic assault on American values; heterosexual activists plan on recruiting your children into their lifestyle; heterosexuals are undermining traditional marriage; heterosexuals are undermining the health and safety of society; violence has become a hallmark of the heterosexual lifestyle; heterosexuals are intent on eventually recriminalizing all freedoms of expression for gay men and women. |
| 2006/9/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44522 Activity:nil |
9/25 Huntington Beach trademarks "Surf City USA" and sues Santa Cruz
merchants:
http://tinyurl.com/jamv5 (mercurynews.com)
\_ just FYI, the Huntington Beach pier which most surfers surf is
also the location of the desposing pipe for treated waste water.
Granted that those treated waste sewage is colorless and oderless,
it's makes me laugh everytime I think about it.
\_ You are breathing my fart gas right now.
\_ Why can't Santa Cruz just accept that "Surf City USA" does not
refer to them? Dean (of Jan & Dean, who wrote the song "Surf
City" along with Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys) lives in HB and
said he was thinking of HB when he wrote the song years ago. Santa
Cruz has fine surf. It's just not "Surf City USA".
\_ Interesting, there are two cities named "Surf City," one in
NC and one in NJ.
\_ And...? |
| 2006/9/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44495 Activity:nil |
9/22 "The national Democratic Party is no longer worth the cement needed to
sink it to the bottom of the sea."
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/09/post_1477.html#010031
\_ The guy is right that Dems have not said a thing while
McCain/Graham/Warner and Cheney "compromised". However, the
criticism is premature. I believe this bill is dead for this
Congressional session; there are too many controversial elements
with too little time to bring GOP senators on board. There is
insufficient time for GOPers to gain sufficient confidence in the
talking points to force the Dems to filibuster, which they will
but they won't need to. -- Also note that the "compromise" stories
that headlined last night have failed to get front-page on the
web sites of major newspapers, which indicates the incompleteness
of the deal.
\_ The Democratic Party is now the Jew Party, has been for some time.
\_ Where's ilya when we need him? |
| 2006/9/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44434 Activity:nil |
9/18 http://csua.org/u/gx8 (latimes.com, Niall Ferguson op-ed) "For the Republican candidate in '08, it might actually be better if the Democrats did well in the midterms, because a brief return to power on the Hill would expose their chronic incoherence, making the case for a Republican comeback two years down the line. That scenario, however, is not on the cards. ... Republicans look like they're hanging on." Dems -- fucked no matter what happens. \_ I was glad the R won the 04 election because I doubt Ds would do a better job in Iraq. Imagine Kerry and his D affiliates getting blamed for all the shit that's happening in Iraq now. Thank God for W's victory in 04. \_ You gotta love pompous prognostication... \_ can someone summarize the "Chronic incoherence"? last I checked the Republican party was still claiming they believed in "fiscal responsibility" and "security" \_ All this tells me is that Mr. Ferguson got an early look at today's Gallup poll results -op |
| 2006/9/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44381 Activity:nil |
9/14 Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Warner, and
Susan Collins tell Dubya to go get stuffed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aothcPLzAytM&refer=us
\_ "I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go
forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House after his
meeting with lawmakers.
That's such an elegant way of saying "I will veto anything that
confirms that what I already did was, in fact, illegal"
\_ They aren't trying to gut Geneva, honest! They're just
clarifying legal language! All a big misunderstanding.
\_ He is just trying to keep himself out of jail. All criminals
do the same thing. |
| 2006/9/7-12 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44311 Activity:nil 66%like:44291 |
9/6 Purge, Iranian style!
http://tinyurl.com/j2kzx (iht.com - Int'l Herald Tribune)
\_ Sounds like he's been taking notes from David Horowitz.
\_ Persian girls are hot. Just check http://persiankitty.com. |
| 2006/9/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44302 Activity:kinda low |
9/7 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html Clinton is Dem's favorite with virtually no chance of winning, and Gore is Dem's second favorite with Gore virtually no desire of running. This is the story of how Dems fuck it up for the third time. This is the story of '08. \_ As with Bill Clinton and Dubya, it is quite likely that the actual Democratic nominee in 2008 will be someone who is not on the radar screen in 2006. -tom \_ Who is the GOP going to run against her? Rice? Clinton would win. John McCain is not nutty enough for the Religious Right, so he won't get the GOP nomination. Guliani is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, so he is too *gasp* "liberal." Who else does the GOP have? \_ George "Macaca" Allen. Rick "Don't get it on the sheets" Santorum \_ This isn't much, but my picks are: Hillary > Mark Warner, Edwards >> Feingold, in that order. (fyi, it turns out that the first three are tops on tradesports other than Gore, but I came to this independently) I would say Hillary in front with VP Warner; alternatively, Warner with VP Obama. Barbara Boxer is my secret "average American" Democratic candidate \_ If Barbara Boxer wins the Democratic nomination, the Dems should just pack up and disband. Nominating her with her out-of-touch views and shrill personality would be the stupidest thing the Dems have ever done. Boxer is so polarizing that she makes Hilary seem like a quiet reasonable, helpful librarian type. \_ yeah, and the Republicans have succeeded with moderate, collaborative centrists like...uh...tom delay and dubya. -tom \_ Sorry, pops, but recent history has shown that the GOP can get away with ultra-conservatives and still appeal to the unwashed masses of the South, Midwest and Rocky Mountain states. The Dems, however, have to run a centrist candidate to have a shot. Bill Clinton is the only Dem to win the White House in the past 30 years, and he did so as a centrist. Real liberals like Mondale and Dukakis tried to succeed...and were completely humiliated. I foresee something even more drastic if a born loser like Barbara Boxer gets the nomination. \_ To suceed in the long run, the Democrats need to articulate and pursue their own agenda, not become Republicans. -tom \_ Of course, but if that agenda only appeals to 1% of the population, they will still lose, no matter how well the pursue it. lose, no matter how well they pursue it. I'm sorry, but comprimising and coming to the middle to form a consensus is what democracy is all about. If you represent many Dems in beliving that means "becoming Republicans", then the party is truly hopeless. \_ How many people do you think support raising the minimum wage? National Health care? Keeping Social Security as it is? Ending the war? Take your 1% and shove it. \_ Comprimising and coming to the middle is not how the Republicans got into power, and it won't be how the Democrats reclaim it. I do not think it should be difficult to come up with a platform which is both truly distinct from the current Republican platform, and attractive to a large number of Americans. -tom \_ That's exactly what they did, they didn't compromise with YOU, but they compromised with > 50% of the population. \_ No, that's not what they did at all. Republican policies do not serve the interests of most of the people who vote Republican. Republicans did a lot of work on getting people to identify with their agenda; that's not compromising. -tom \_ You're confusing what's going on now (when the Republicans are losing) with what was going on when they came to power. Remember the Contract with America? The Rs are failing now because they aren't finding the issues that the majority people care about. The Ds can't capitialize on it because they're even worse. \_ Voters *identified* with the rhetoric around the Contract With America--they didn't *care about* the Contract With America. It's an important distinction. -tom \_ I guess you're going to have to explain this more carefully, because I have no idea what you're talking about. \_ Most people don't vote on the issues; they vote for the person they identify with most closely. A typical red-state hick doesn't really *care* about flag burning, or gay marriage, or welfare moms. When you survey people and ask what their most important issues are, those are not the things that come up. But conservatives use those kinds of issues to project an *identity* for themselves which red-state hicks comprehend and identify with. The liberal challenge is to come up with an identity; right now there is no clear liberal identity which voters can align with. -tom \_ What I can't understand is how they did that with an Ivy league cheerleader rich boy from Connecticut who used his dad's infulence to avoid military service. who knows exactly what's going on and deserves a chance Definite no's: Biden, Clark, Daschle, Kerry, Richardson \_ These guys are each superior by 10 times over the opinionated, self-absorbed dunderdead that is Barbara Boxer. \_ I think the key word here is your opinion that she is a "dunderhead". All those guys you mentioned are opinionated and self-absorbed, except maybe not Daschle on the self-abosrbed part. Gore isn't going to run. \_ I disagree. Gore is starting at running back for the 49ers this season. That's why they traded away Kevin Barlow to the Jets. |
| 2006/9/6-7 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44291 Activity:nil 66%like:44311 |
9/6 Purge, Iranian style! http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/05/news/Iran_University_Purge.php \_ Sounds like he's been taking notes from David Horowitz. |
| 2006/8/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43886 Activity:nil |
8/3 so, a while back, this collage pic of ashcroft was posted to motd:
http://www.pmbrowser.info/hublog/images/gashcroft.jpg
There was a similar one of Bush, only done with pictures of the
faces of soldiers who had died fighting his wars. anyone remember
the URL for that one?
\_ http://photomatt.net/2004/04/07/mosaic
\_ NSFW
\_ He's cute. -proud American |
| 2006/7/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:43769 Activity:nil |
7/24 John Kerry, you are such a hoot! http://csua.org/u/gif \_ If he runs again in 2008, I hope he runs with Lieberman on an Independent ticket. I could use a laugh. |
| 2006/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:43589 Activity:nil |
7/7 FBI disrupts New York transportation plot:
http://www.csua.org/u/gcj (Yahoo! News)
"Lebanese authorities, working with U.S. law enforcement agencies,
arrested an al-Qaida operative who admitted to plotting a terror
attack in New York City ......"
\_ Thank goodness they're monitoring international and domestic calls.
Oh wait, what's that? They caught this one w/ publically available
resources and the Sears Tower one b/c their neighbors ratted them
out? No, no, that can't be right.
\_ Yes because sometimes other methods work in some cases no one
should use some other method you don't like. You got into Cal?
\_ Time to stock up on Freedom Fries, plastic sheeting and duct tape!
Time to raise the terror alert and scare the sheeple! Let me guess,
it must be campaign season...
\_ Why are liberals so wacky?! Don't forget the tin foil!
\_ Can one even still buy tin foil(as opposed to aluminum foil)?
That could be useful.
\_ Of course you can't. They made sure of it.
\_ Freedom Fries were a liberal invention? Telling America
to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting was a liberal
course of action? Stop trying to rewrite history Padawan.
to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting was done
by liberals? Stop trying to rewrite history Padawan.
\_ It was a liberal's attempt at satire. Liberals think
that everything is some sort of evil Republican plot.
That's giving too much credit to Republicans.
\_ Unlike the Florida jokers this one looks a bit more credible. |
| 2006/6/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:43416 Activity:nil |
6/15 Let's face it. Karl Rove is evil, but is also extremely brilliant.
What new tricks do you anticipate in the upcoming elections?
\_ Dubya simultaneously stays the course in Iraq and brings some
troops back to a heroic homecoming.
\_ Precisely. He announces that victory is complete and says he'll
bring home troops. He brings back a minimum number and says the
rest are merely support and on their way home Real Soon Now.
At the same time, he paints Dems as cowards. Fox publishes
retrospective on the war describing the entire venture in rosy
terms ("sacrifices were made for the greater good," etc.).
The best Dems can hope for after that is the assassination of
the Iraqi PM.
\_ Are you fucking nuts? Why would you *hope for* the Iraqi
PM to be assassinated? Why would anyone hope for that?
\_ Because it's ok if the middle east goes to hell and
millions die, as long as the Dems win the next
election!
\_ And yet, not surprisingly, it would be okay with
everyone involved if you were found drowned and
bloated, no matter who wins the next election.
\_ Oo, touched a nerve, huh? And, not surprisingly,
you cannot express yourself in an intelligent
manner. Ook! Trog kill!
\_ It's always disappointing to me when this is
the best a college educated person can do.
-someone else
\_ You DON'T. That's the point. The GOP is so good at the
PR game that they're going to paint the Dems into a
corner where the only way out is if something absolutely
terrible happens.
\_ Paint into a corner? What? So Iraq taking a turn for
the worse is good for the party? The logic behind that
is so painfully twisted I'm left speechless. Nevermind,
it's only the motd. I'm going to lunch.
\_ Here's my vain attempt to make this clear to you:
Bushco is going to announce victory and bring back
a minimum number of troops while promising to bring
the rest back at some vague date in the future.
He'll ridicule the Dems as cowards who would have
pulled out our troops before we were able to complete
the mission. Fox will kick into overdrive with
retrospectives of how the war _was_ terrible but
how it was utterly justified and how the troops
who died did so in the line of duty. The networks
will miss the point and will argue over the war,
but in the past tense, thereby solidifying the
idea that it's over. The public, faced with a
seemingly successful conclusion to the matter, will
go along with the GOP as the party of winners. The
Dems will then have no real means of regaining
Congress or the White House. The one thing that could
derail this plan is if something catastrophic
and sensationally public occurred in Iraq, such as
the assassination of the Iraqi PM; a public
reversal like that would be sufficient to prove
that the war is not won in Iraq, thereby short-
circuiting the PR war. Read carefully: I'm not saying
that anyone should be hoping for the assassination
of the Iraqi PM; I'm saying that the GOP is setting
up an airtight plan to continue their dominance.
\_ ok it does make me feel better that you're not
rooting for an assassination. However, I'm not
buying that if there's still say, 30,000 US troops
there and bombs are still going off in Baghdad
that anyone is going to buy that it's over. As
far as planning for political dominance, that is
a political parties reason for being. I expect
both major political groups to spend all their
time plotting and planning to achieve and retain
power. WTF else are they good for? Once you
accept that political parties exist you can't
fault them for doing what they were designed
to do.
\_ I would buy this if there were oversight
worth a damn keeping them from acting
illegally and unethically. The sad truth is
(as DeLay mostly worked out) that if you
control the means of oversight, you can then
overlook your own excesses.
\_ I'm a glass half-full kinda guy. I see
DeLay and Jefferson's fridge stuffing and
the many other times someone in either party
got busted and booted and often jailed as
the system working. I see the Keating Five
(sleaze bag McCain) getting off as a
failure but that's the exception. So, I'm
not going for this "the people are stupid"
line and I'm also not buying the "they
always get away with it" thing either. The
overall record stands against that line of
reasoning.
\_ airtight except for the fact that Iraq is still
a clusterfuck and it will get worse if we pull
our troops out. That government wouldn't last
a week. -tom
\_ And that's why they pull back a token number,
declare a public victory, and leave the rest
of the troops in place to be withdrawn at some
vague future date.
\_ People are stupid, but I don't think this
administration has enough credibility left
to turn things around with token gestures.
-tom
\_ I hope you're right.
\_ Don't confuse "conniving" with "billiant." -tom
\_ Brilliantly conniving. Not all connivers are on the same
plane as Rove.
\_ yosafbridge
\_ Two words: "special hell" :D --michener
\_ quiet, this is a movie. |
| 2006/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43406 Activity:nil |
6/15 Is Bernanke a Democrat or a Republican? How about his predecessors?
\- He used to drive a Sienna minivan. Maybe you can do some kind of
Bayes Rule thing based on the car->party statistics to come up
with a guess. [for the record, he is a Republican, but not a
party hack ... he was an academic most of his life. Considering his
portfolio, his views on more technical questions are probably more
meaningful than broad party affiliation. I am pretty sure the only
guy who voted against his confirmation was a Republican senator
who or why.]. GREENSPAN was a Randroid. Paul Volker [appointed
who or why.]. GREENSPAN was a Randroid. Paul VOLKER [appointed
by Carter, reconfirmed by Raygun] is an interesting question.
The Fed, unlike some other administrative agencies, does seem
to officially discourage its officers from partisan activities.
See e.g.
http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2000/c/pages/presidents-message.html
--psb |
| 2006/6/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43371 Activity:nil |
6/13 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/rove.cia Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/12/iraq.contractors Iraq contractors make billions on the front line Also on the news Bush visits Iraq and his approval rating rebounds. Rove is great and November is looking great! \_ approval rating rebounds? where? \_ Seconded. Read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060613/ts_usatoday/pollseesaboostforbushiraqwar Conservatives rule while Liburals drool! \_ and thus the deep dissatisfaction of the liberals/geeks with the rule of the neocons/jocks. \_ hey, way to go with the labels and stereotyping. \_ If 35 percent is a rebound you are hurting for good news \_ esp when other polls went down in the same period. |
| 12/24 |