Politics Domestic Election - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Election:
Results 451 - 600 of 1431   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2018/11/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34601 Activity:nil
11/3    AP reports that Kerry just called Bush to concede.
        % date
        Wed Nov  3 08:07:01 PST 2004
        \_ Must...not...gloat....
        \_ Quoth the aaron: ONE TERM FAILURE, JUST LIKE DADDY!
        \_ All hail big government conservatism!
                \_ Let's revise this:  AMERICAN FAILURE
        \_ Take that, queers!
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34598 Activity:nil
11/3    Why hasn't Kerry conceded?  He lost the popular vote already.
        \_ He talked a lot about how Gore "gave up too early."  I think
           he's still trying to figure out where to sue.
        \_ Does this mean I'm NOT going to have to hear Dems whining about
           Republicans stealing the election for the next 4 years?
           \_ Not from me.  OTOH, after a lot of research, I became convinced
              that they didn't really steal it in 2000.  2000 sucked in just
              about every other way, though.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34595 Activity:nil
11/2    Bush 57.4 mil, Kerry 53.7 mil popular vote. How is this
        even close? A difference of over 3 mil vote is, in my mind,
        winning in a landslide. This is just pathetic.
        \_ Well, it's 3%.  You know, like 51% to 48%.  They start thinking
           about "landslide" when it's 5% or more.  That's just how it is.
           Imagine the 3-4 million votes in the City of Los Angeles deciding
           the fate of the nation.  There you go.
           \- come on, this is a product of the "objective function"
              which was to win in the EC ... kerry didnt and shouldnt have
              been trawling for a couple of more percent of the CA or
              NY vote. note: i also thought the ALGOR people were foolishly
              whining about the popular vote in 2000 ... it is one thing to
              say "this is a good reason to get rid of the EC" but given what
              the rules were, this is like claming the wimbledon winner
              lost on games although he won on sets was robbed. --psb
              \_ Well, I think the Dems were more pissed that the Supreme
                 Court stopped the recount when there were good reasons
                 that it should have left it to the Florida Supreme Court.
                 Then again the Dems erred morally and legally by
                 asking only for recounts in Dem-heavy counties.
        \_ A landslide is what Reagan had.  This is still historically close.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:34593 Activity:nil
11/3    What an election: What I do know is that this has been
        one hell of a slam bang election season.
        Tony Blankley worked for Newt Gingrich and is editor
        of Wash. Times
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34583 Activity:nil
11/2    Kerry now only has one scenario in which he can win:
        (1) Kerry wins OH and WI
        Kerry's people are saying there could be as many as 250,000 provisional
        ballots in OH to review.  These ballots will not be reviewed until
        11 days have passed, for emotions to cool.
        IMO, Kerry should fight, and he should not feel bad about it.
        \_ Yeah, but Kerry is down by 125,000 votes on OH.
           \_ Yeah, currently, with 99% of precints reporting, the gap is
              144,000 votes.
        \_ If Kerry wins Ohio, he only needs WI, which he looks to have.
           \_ Yeah, I just came to this conclusion myself, too.  Corrected.
           \_ IA and NM are somewhat longshots, but not as bad as OH. It'll
              be hard for Kerry to win OH. I think it's over for Kerry, it
              seems very unlikely he will sweep. NM looks very much like a lock
              as is OH.
              \_ Well, you'll need to wait 12 days before OH declares a
                 winner.  I don't think this will change even if Kerry
                 concedes OH.
              \_ This is ridiculous. BC's margin's in PA is smaller
                 than OH but they called PA for KE. And yet they
                 expect 90% of the provisional ballots to overcome 144K
                 and growing difference?!? Not to mention the popular vote
                 which for the first time since '92 there is a majority.
                 Please tell me how the popular vote is going to be out-of-
                 sync with the electoral vote with 4mil+ ?
                 \_ It's 250,000 provisional ballots.
                    But yeah, if that number were correct, you'd need
                    4 out of 5 of the provisional votes to go Kerry.
                    You might have called it ridiculous too when Gore beat
                    Dubya by 500,000 votes.
                    \_ 500K is not 4 mil
                       \_ Yeah, and 4 million ends up being a 3% difference.
                          So, where do you draw the line?
                          \_ Look, mr. "Where do you draw the line."  You got
                             pwned at the polls today.  Time to do some
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34582 Activity:high
11/2    Democratic soul-searching begins now:  NY Times op-ed piece
        "The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted
        Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to
        get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them
        economically." ... Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge,
        and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own
        working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.
        \_ I find the comment that comes up time and time again, about poor
           southern whites voting 'against their self-interest' revealing.
        \_ yeah, tax breaks for billionaires.. totally dead-on!
           \_ isn't this true?  You know, with the vast majority of the tax
              break going to the $200K+ bracket, the removal of the dividend
              tax, the removal of the inheritance tax?
              Well, to be accurate, it should say "millionaires and up".
              \_ It is true, but it misses the point.  Is it not possible to
                 vote against one's direct self-interest because, perhaps,
                 principles are involved?  A libertarian might accept a higher
                 tax rate because he believes a flat tax is fairer than
                 progressive tax.  Why is this so incomprehensible?  -- ilyas
                 \_ Um, someone moved my post.  My post was in response to
                    "tax breaks for billionaires".
                    Anyways, who says I didn't comprehend what you just wrote,
                    My post was meant to convey the FACT that most of the
                    tax breaks are going to the rich -- not the rightness
                    of it, which is different for every person, as you've
                    \_ Not you.  I was talking about the author of the article,
                       and his seeming incomprehesion of southern voting
                       patterns 'against their interest.'  This is a common
                       complaint from liberal circles, and I find it odd.
                       Those guys down south don't live in the same 'fight
                       for a piece of the public pie by any means necessary'
                       world as you do. (again I don't necessarily mean 'you').
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ the article is quite clear that it is talking
                          about poor, rural voters voting against their
                          "economic interest", which means the rich get more
                          money, the poor get comparatively less -- for the
                          short-term at least.  It's a point of debate whether
                          a less progressive tax system works long-term.
                          It is also quite clear that the author believes
                          these voters are voting for their "social self-
                          interest" (my quotes on that one), which is voting
                          their values -- such as no gay marriage for queers.
                          their values.
                 \_ Ok how is a flat tax "fairer"? no one is forcing you to
                    earn more. If you believe an income tax is fair in the
                    first place then what's the big deal with progressive?
                    If it's too high you just don't work, and have a lot more
                    free time. If it's too high you're probably screwing your
                    economy. But that's a separate issue than fairness.
                    For example, a high tax on income over $1m/y wouldn't
                    truly hamper anybody's "pursuit of happiness", and would
                    be fair: anyone earning that much gets that tax.
                    \_ Look we are not going to have a long ass ranty
                       discussion about a flat tax, ok.  For most people,
                       in most contexts, fairness = proportionality.  Fairness
                       != proportionality only if you are in magical liberal
                       taxland.  -- ilyas
                       \_ proportional? not proportional to services used,
                          not even a flat tax does that. so it's already
                          unfair in that sense. once you're there, i'm arguing
                          there's no "moral" difference going to progressive.
                          \_ *sigh*  If you want proportionality for services
                             used, charge for them directly.  This argument is
                             stupid.  You are not convincing me, and I am not
                             convincing you (nor am I particularly interested,
                             as far as I am concerned CA liberals can rot in a
                             hell of their own devising, I am getting out of
                             here first chance I get). -- ilyas
                             \_ Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
                                This argument is no more stupid than your usual
                                motd rantings. You just refuse to see outside
                                your chosen worldview. I suppose CA's liberal
                                hell is why so many people have been coming
                                here. Why are you here anyway? Using our
                                subsidized university system? Shouldn't you
                                already be out in Georgia Tech or something?
                                Oh wait that's public too... ok, Duke.
                                \_ I think your next line is to complain about
                                   me using the phone system and the freeways.
                                   This conversation is SO over. -- ilyas
                                   \_ Not quite.  While you might not be able
                                      to avoid using the freeways and phone
                                      system, there were plenty of private
                                      universities, including top tier ones,
                                      yet YOU CHOSE to attend the evil govt
                                      funded public school.  The free market
                                      provided you with alternatives, but
                                      YOU CHOSE to force all of us "at
                                      gunpoint" to pay for your education.
                                      Way to stand by your principles.
                                      \_ Sure, I can avoid using the phone and
                                         the freeway if I go become amish.
                                         Similarly, I go where I am accepted.
                                         Though a private school would probably
                                         be better, understand that all
                                         universities in the US, private or
                                         not, are heavily gvt subsidized, so
                                         the point is kind of moot.  Plus,
                                         I where they let me. -- ilyas
                                         I go where they let me. -- ilyas
                                         \_ Stay on topic: we're talking about
                                            your decision to attend a public
                                            university instead of a private
                                            one.  Are you saying that *no*
                                            private school would accept you?
                                            \_ No private school out of a
                                               reasonably large set to which
                                               I applied accepted me.  Again,
                                               because there is little moral
                                               difference of kind (only of
                                               degree) between a fully gvt
                                               funded school (UCLA), and a
                                               partially gvt funded school
                                               (Stanford) I don't really see
                                               your point.  It reduces to
                                               freeways.  -- ilyas
              \_ They only vote on abortion, anti-queer stuff, and whoever
                 thumps the most bible. They think this is their self interest.
                 They bang their cousins and mope around in their hick towns,
                 and send their kids to the army, why not vote Bush. Bush says
                 "y'all" and plays country music at the rallies.
                 \_ If you believe NPR; the Dems lost because the Reps
        were better able to motivative their base. This was especially
        true in Florida with the Christian Right ( Hah! What a &%*$
        oxymoron) who viewed this election as an actual war against
        their belief system; disturbingly similar to what all of those
        racist groups used to blather on about. Who would think that a
        country like ours could become more intolerant. The whole
        youth vote thing never materialized as expected; more due to
        apathy than anything else; according to at least some of the
        networks; something akin to only people who pay taxes are
        motivated to vote. Sad.. really really sad
2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34574 Activity:moderate 66%like:31021
11/2    I am depressed. Fuck!
        \_ move to Canada. It is a civilized country.
        \_ well you shouldn't have nominated a buttfuck like Kerry
           \_ Seriously, you only have yourselves to blame.  This should
              have been an EASY victory.  Few people really LIKE Bush.
              But you nominated El Douchebag.
              \_ Why is he a douchebag?  Do you even have an answer, or are you
                 just puking back your party's spin mindlessly?
              \_ a year ago everyone was talking about how Bush was
                 inevitable.  Just because Kerry got way slimed doesn't
                 mean he is a douchebag.
              \_ Why is he a douchebag?  Do you even have an answer, or are
                 you just puking back your party's spin mindlessly?
                 \_ You expect a serious answer while calling Bush Chimpy?
                    Douchebag for Kerry is a lot more believable.
                    \_ Uhm, huh?  I've never called Bush 'chimpy'.  I abhor
                       his politics, and can give a lengthy answer why (which
                       seems to be far better than you're able to do).
                    \_ Looks like the turd is going to win.
                 \_ I've never heard a Republican call Kerry a douchebag.
                    I formed that opinion by watching him.  I answered
                    this question once before in more detail, look it up.
                    \_ Yeahhh.  Seeing as you don't sign your posts, that's
                       a pretty useless and empty answer.
                 \_ Mainly because of his personality, and his career as a
                    relatively undistinguished and uninteresting politician.
                    Kerry just didn't bring much to the table, just the Vietnam
                    crap which in the end probably isn't important. It actually
                    shifted a lot of limelight away from relevant issues and
                    onto tired Vietnam angst, and the scrutiny put him on the
                    defense. Kerry's campaign was unable to stay on message, and
                    his Iraq war talk wasn't credible due to his voting record.
                    I don't have any reason to like him other than that he
                    generically represented the Bush opposition. --Dean guy
              \_ few people in California. But the Confederate states adore
                 Bush. And the US is 1/2 Confederate rednecks. What do you
                 \_ we were referring to the primaries
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34566 Activity:high
1/2     Oh fuck, Bush is ahead with 102, ^%@$#^%@#@Q!!
        \_ Rural places tend to vote Bush. Rural places also have less
           votes to count so they'll report early. Things might tip as
           the night progress.
        \_ get a clue.  did you really expect Kerry to win Alabama?
           \_ Makes you wish we had let the Confederates secede, huh?
              \_ Daily Bruin editorial today:
                 "If Kerry cannot succeed, CA must secede."  For once,
                 I agree. -- ilyas
        \_ If you have TX for Bush and CA for Kerry then it is almost even.
           \_ but Bush is ahead in FL with over 50% reporting, and may
              get OH.
              \_ Independents are breaking 3-2 for kerry in FL.  It's gonna
                 be tight.  In OH, kerry's leading in exits.
                 \_ Dubya is leading in Florida by 270,000 votes, with
                    67% of precincts reporting.  May not be that tight.
                    Democrats may have gotten margin-of-error'd in the exit
                    polls there.
                    \_ Populist precincts in FL report last though. -- ilyas
                       \_ It's now 76% of precincts reporting, and the
                          lead is now 264,000 votes, you know what I'm saying?
                          If I were Fox News, I'd call FL now.
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34565 Activity:nil
11/2    5pm, on the dot, re-posting what tom walled:
        CNN calls IL, MD, NJ, CT, Mass, ME for Kerry
        TN, AL, OK for Bush
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34561 Activity:nil
11/2    So it took Bush less than 5 minutes to vote? wtf? It took me
        over 10 minutes just to read through all the questions. What did
        he do? Just voted for himself as the president and skipped the
        rest of the question? Does that sounds like someone qualifying
        to lead a country? Yeah, I stand firmly behind my 5 minute
        \_ Most states don't have a bunch of propositions on the ballot like
           CA always does.
        \_ Maybe you're just slow. It took me about 3-5 minutes to vote. What's to
           read? Props are yes/no and the rest is just finding the name you want
           on the ballot.
        \_ He had a cheat sheet.
           \_ Don't a lot of people write down their choices on the sample
              ballot before they get to the polls?
        \_ And how long did it take Kerry to vote?
           \_ 20 minutes.  He kept flip-flopping between himself and Nader.
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34559 Activity:nil
11/2    4pm on the dot
        "CNN projects Bush wins in Indiana, Kentucky and Georgia, Kerry wins
        in Vermont."
        \_ "CNN predicts that 2+2=4!  Maybe!  More are 7."
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34554 Activity:nil
11/2    I need to drop off my absentee ballot for the Alameda County.  Is
        Fremont the closest Alameda city to Sunnyvale (where I work)?  If so,
        where (URL's?) can I find the closest voting area to drop off my
        ballot?  Thanks.
        \_ Fremont is closest. Give the Registrar a call (510) 663-VOTE (8683)
           for a close polling place.
2018/11/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34549 Activity:kinda low
11/1    Damn this is a close race. Bush and Kerry are completely tied
        right now!
        \_ d00d, at least get the date right
                \_ oops
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34546 Activity:nil
11/2    mypolling{place|site}.com don't actually have maps of nearby polling
        places for me to drop off my absentee ballot.  Help?  This is for
        Manhattan Beach, CA.
        \_ http://lavote.net/locator
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign] UID:34543 Activity:nil
11/2    I finally figured out how to find out the political
        slant of different news organizations. COLOR!!! Look at
        http://foxnews.com as the most obvious example.  It's very red...
        menus, icons, etc. It must be a RED neck right wing nut
        news corporation, something many people will agree to.  -troll
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34540 Activity:high
11/2    It's been fun.  Whatever happens tonight remember that we're all
        Americans.  We all have the country's best interest at heart.  We
        simply disagree on the path to follow.  No one is evil.  No one will
        bring down civilisation.  Someone will be elected and life will go on.
        Then we can do it all over again in 4 years.  You can thank the great
        wisdom of our nation's Founding Fathers for creating a system of checks
        and balances and short election cycles to minimise any damage from
        poor voter choices.  However it turns out we still have the best
        political system ever devised.  It isn't perfect but no one's ever
        done better.
        \_ Actually, the vast majority of the civilised world wants us to
           kick Dubya out.
           \_ Majority of uncivilized world too. -- ilyas
           \_ You forgot the fact that 1/2 of the US population is
              not civilized, that they are fanatics who
              believe that global warming is a myth, that gays and
              minorities are bad, that privatizing and trusting
              the corporation is much better than trusting the
              government, that if you are not with them then you are
              against them, that talks are for pussies (Reaganism--
              spend as much as necessary to defeat the evil), that if
              you don't make a vote that helps in their cause you will
              go to hell.
              \_ I would say a lot of Dubya-voters are afraid of what kind
                 of mess Kerry will get them into.  They are thinking:
                 At least with Dubya, there has not been a 9/11 repeat.
                 Kerry the liberal will just let in all the terrorists.
           \_ As China always say, we will not let foreign influence interfere
              with domestic politics.
              \_ You're joking right?  Go google for foreign lobbying groups
                 in the US, you'll find the Saudis, the English, etc all are
                 represented way more than you'll ever be in DC.
           \_ Heh, I always think it's funny when people site this as a
              point for Kerry.
              point for Kerry.                           \_ cite
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34538 Activity:high
11/2    Well in regret and sadness, I checked the latest polls and
        everything is looking towards a landslide to kerry,
          It looks like again a few states with just slim margin of
        victories are going to sinch the win for kerry.
          The silver lining is that the GOP does indeed look to finally
        gain a lead in the senate (I don't count that ass hole from
        arizona as a republican). Basically bush has been really hampered
        by the lack of a clear leading party in congress. So now with
        Kerry in the white house and a firmly republican congress, what
        is going to happen is that the congress is going to push through
        republican bills and Kerry will have no choice but to sign them
        exactly as Bush would do.
          Everyone will rejoice.... nothing will change. Bush will leave
        with a big FUCK YOU to the american demoncratic populace and will
        only hope that things continue down a road of increasing
        volatility. Now I didn't say increasing hostility, I mean
          There is a major change going on in the US. All those kids I grew
        up with, with attention spans of 3-5 second (the MTV generation),
        are gaining control. Ideals will change with the wind, and having
        someone like Kerry that supports that behavior is not what I like
        to see... but I don't care.
          Volatility brings opportunity. But my heart will indeed sink if
        bush doesn't pull this out. (btw I also think that the current
        increasing volatility in everything will continue under either
        regime and is brought on by 2 things - technology and the youth
        out there)
          hope all is well and hope everyone votes often, votes for as many
        of your friends who are not voting, votes in every state possible
        and most of all hope you all vote for Bush.  --kinney
        \_ Boy, you really bought into your own party's spin, didn't you?
           Honestly, I think it works best when senate and president don't
           align.  It means there has to be bi-partisan cooperation if they
           want anything to be signed by the pres.
           want anything to be signed by the pres.  I think you also SERIOUSLY
           underestimate the youth in our country -- a common maliase amongst
           old people that don't understand or can't accept change.
        \_ kinney, don't overwrite people!
         \_ where's the kinney police when you need him?
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34519 Activity:nil
11/1    What the media should have covered.  Instead they reverted to
        documents made at Kinkos.
        Ex-Navy sec to Kerry: Open up your records
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34514 Activity:nil
11/1    CBS: Kerry Wins Florida
        Dan Rather just broke in to normal programming to report
        Kerry has won Florida
        \_ please don't post freeper text that even freepers call lame
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34513 Activity:high
11/1    And you thought that Florida e-voting clip was a joke right?
        "Some people who selected Kerry are seeing BUSH in the summary of
        whom they voted for!  They had to get the poll workers involved, and
        the second time around when they re-selected Kerry he properly showed
        in the summary."
        \_ one of the other groups out canvassing with us talked to some people
           who had this happen. I'm posting some updates now... with video(!)
           of 2 hour lines at the poles.                - rory
           \_ I'm waiting for those updates still...
           \_ how about video showing the evoting machine actually broke in
              real time?  we can see lines on tv.
              \_ uh... if I'm successfully able to follow anyone into the
                 polling booth with my digital camera you will be the
                 first to know.
        \_ Also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/travis.asp
           \_ Eh.  Verified?  How do you verify that the woman really voted
              \_ Multiple reports?  Admission from the "elections division
                 manager" that certain selections caused the bug to surface?
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34510 Activity:nil
11/1    "A Failed Presidency", LA Times editorial (no endorsement for Kerry)
        "If elections were solely a job performance review, President George W.
        Bush would lose in a landslide. He has been a reckless steward of the
        nation's finances and its environment, a divisive figure at home and
        abroad. It's fair to say that Bush has devalued the American brand in
        the global marketplace. What keeps this a close race is voter
        discomfort with Sen. John F. Kerry and the success of Republicans in
        stoking concerns about Kerry's fitness for office. But the thrust of
        the Bush campaign message -- essentially, you are stuck with me in
        this frightful time because the other guy is too unreliable -- is a
        tacit acknowledgment that he can't allow the election to be a
        referendum on his record."
        \-i think framing this in personal terms, i.e. you are not just
          voting for bundle of policies A or B, is good. however evaluating
          BUSHCO with sort of a "wall street journal metric" i dont think
          is adequate ... i think he deserves moral condemnation as well.
          presiding over something like abu graib goes beyond he didnt deliver
          enough shareholder value. and delivering shareholder value doenst
          make up for allowing something like that to happen ... we hopefully
          have higher standards for heads of state than for pro-athletes.--psb
          \_ It'd be like if Michael Eisner let some low-level Disney animation
             department create a Mickey Mouse  hentai film.
             \-it would be like if michael eisner kept a japanese schoolgirl
               in his basement. us presidents:bush :: musicians:r_kelly --psb
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34509 Activity:low
11/1    I haven't received the big book about election, you know, the one
        that talks about all the measures and things that I am suppose to
        vote on. Do they have one at the voting place? Is the info online?
        Can I just vote Kerry and be done with it? (ie, skip the rest?)
        \_ For the state props, see http://www.ss.ca.gov
           For your local props/candidates google:
           <your county> registrar of voters  They may have candidate
           statements and info on the local propositions.
        \_ http://www.smartvoter.org
        \_ Are you sure you're registered?  They screwed me once.
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34508 Activity:nil
11/1    A Failed Presidency
        LA Times editorial criticizing Bush (no endorsement for Kerry)
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34506 Activity:very high
11/1    Party of the little people - 8 out of 9 top 527s donors are Dem
        Also, 8 of 10 top 527s total.  McCain - Feingold was a huge
        \_ wow, swift boat veterans for slime earned as much as http://moveon.org?
           I'm sure that was based on grassroots contributions from former
           swift boat veterans!  -tom
           \_ wow, what about the other 7?  what about Soros?  what about
              oh nevermind, your mind is closed.  anyway, the swift boats
              was mostly vets and small private contributors.  you'd know
              that if you were reading conservative blogs where they got
              most of the donations from.  but don't let facts get in your way.
              \_ Soros is one guy.  There are numerous sources which show that
                 Bush gets more of his money from big contributors, and has
                 more big contributors.  Speaking of facts getting in your
                 way.  I guess I should be getting my "facts" from
                 conservative blogs!  -tom
                 \_ Yeah he was one guy with billions to give to diff.
                    groups. Vs. a bunch of vets.
        \_ Yawn.  So Repubs contributed the obligatory $1,000 per member of
           household, including Manuel the pool-boy, Maria the maid, and a
           menagerie of pets.  Sure, it looks like less, but add it up: it's
           \_ Stop making shit up. If you have some sort of proof that someone
              is making illegal contributions, post it.
              \_ Oh, please.  Don't kill the messenger if you don't like the
        \_ It's all bad: http://csua.org/u/9r7
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34503 Activity:very high
11/1    Wow, one more day til Election. By Wed we'll know who's the next
        president, how exciting!
        \_ According to the highly-accurate slashdot poll, Kerry will win by
           about a 5:2 margin
           \_ I am going to be really pissed if Bush wins again.
              \_ Don't you mean...for the FIRST TIME?!?!?!? HA HA HA HA HA
                 *cough* *hack* *wheeze*
        \_ What is the CSUA motd opinion on some of the CA measures?
           \_ if a h07 42n ch1x supports it, so do I!
              \_ hot asian chicks don't vote. hence http://www.leastlikely.com
                 \_ Oh I want to have sex with a hot asian chick!!
        \- by Wed there will be riots. If Bush wins ppl will get mad and send
           out lawyers. If Kerry wins the Fox news network will distort more
           views and Bush will send out troops, impose martial order, and
           scare the minorities to not cheer for Kerry.
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:34501, category id '18005#13.2525' has no name! , ] UID:34501 Activity:moderate
11/1    I know this is old, but I just found it.  Pat Buchanan interviewing
        Ralph Nader on why conservatives should vote for him (Nader.) I
        don't support either Nader or Buchanan, but I thought this was
        a really interesting read.
        \_ Maybe you want to post the much more recent Pat Buchanan articles
           on him saying conservatives should vote Bush?
           \_ You didn't read the link, did you? Buchanan never endorses
              Nader, he just asks him some questions.  I think the answers are
              interesting, and I think that the fact that Nader is attempting
              to appeal to conservative voters is interesting.  If you post
              a link to the more recent Bush endoresement, I'll also read that.
              \_ It won't be a NYT URL.  Would you still read it?
                 \_  I'm the one who posted a link to American Conservative
                     Magazine, remember?  Damn, you're dumb.  Just post the
                     fucking link, and I and probably quite a few other people
                     will read it.
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34497 Activity:low
11/01   I can think of 2 reasons why a traditional Bush voter might want to
        vote for Kerry this time around:
        1) Bush might be able to push 4 rightwing justices into the Supreme
        Court and upset the balance, while Kerry can't push 4 leftwing
        justices into the Supreme Court because the Senate is run by
        2) Kerry will actually veto spending bills!
        \_ You have to think of reasons?  Why don't you just ask one of your
           traditional Bush voter friends over lunch or something like that?
        \_ I can think of X reasons why a traditional Republican might
           not vote for Kerry no matter the reason.
           1) religion
           2) abortion
           3) gay
           4) minorities, min wage
           5) they're Amish
           Come on. The election was never about anything but the above
           items that some people hold dearly as the one true core
           value in the world. People who value the above dearly, don't
           give a damn about Iraq or deficit or whatnot.
           \_ I was talking about the sector of Bush supporters who are
              more concerned about issues as opposed to "keeping the Queers
              in line"
              more concerned about issues as opposed to the "keeping the
              Queers in line" group, who will always be immune to reason.
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34474 Activity:high
10/31   You guys still remember the Rodney King case? When the verdict
        came, people were so pissed that they started a riot? Well
                          \_ No, the mayor gave them the OK to riot. B4
                             that news conference LAPD had no calls.
        me thinks the election will trigger 10X the resentment between
        people of very different beliefs, each side genuinely feeling
        that it is right and the other side is wrong, causing mayhem
        we have not seen since the Civil Rights riots. Your opinion on
        me opinion?
        \_ Not likely.  It's not a question of how mad people are, it's a
           question of *which* people are mad.  The people who rioted over
           the King verdict probably mostly don't vote, or see Kerry as
           just as much "the man" as Bush.  Conversely, the people who think
           the sky is falling are mostly professionals and intelectuals who
           have never even participated in a riot and wouldn't know how to
           start one.
        \_ I don't think Republicans will riot if they lose.
          \_ why not Democrats?
             \_ you live/school in berkeley and wonder about the left
                rioting?  "To the Gap!"
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34470 Activity:very high
10/31   According to cnn, Democrats waaay outspend the Republicans on
        campaign ads. How can that be? Aren't Republicans a lot
        \_ There has been a huge groundswell from the dems.  The huge
           majority of dem money this cycle has been from $100 or less
           contributions.  There are a LOT of people that want change.
           \_ not, considering the top 4 Dem donors have spent well in
              excess of 60+ million.  More self-delusion on the Dem's
              behalf, party of the little people indeed.
           \_ Kerry raised 32% of his money from donors of $200 or less
              (and 35% from $2000 or less). "Huge majority"? Riiiiiight.
           \_ 2002, percentage of donors giving following amts, dems/reps:
              $200-999: 39/61
              $1000+: 49/51
              $10k+: 55/45
              $100k+: 67/33
              $1M+: 92/8
              Billionaires for Kerry!
              \_ Um... What about contributions to the DNC/RNC?  I was under
                 the impression that the big donors give to the parties because
                 it hides from comparisons like yours.
                 \_ R gets 2X D.
                    But party money is more restricted than, say, 527 money,
                    and D leads in 527 money.
                    \_ No one should "lead" in 527 money.  The very concept is
                       the antithesis of the campaign finance reform laws that
                       created 527s.  Most of them are operating illegally.
              \_ I'm sure it's just an oversight, and not you trying to spin
                 the numbers, which caused you to leave out the fact that Bush
                 has twice the number of $2000+ donors as Kerry, and a
                 significantly greater portion of his overall contributions
                 from that group.  Kerry's not Dean, but his support is still
                 far more grassroots than Bush's.  -tom
                 \_ "Far more grassroots"? 32% of both candidates' support is
                    from donors of $200 or less. Kerry has 10% more supporters,
                    but I think it's hard to say "far more grassroots". Howard
                    Dean was "far more grassroots". John Kerry is not.
                 \_ whatever.  i don't care.  guess who i'm voting for? - danh
                    \_ so you're ok if your guy won with the help of
                       supporters who might have violated campaign finance
                       reform laws?  you want to win "by any means necessary"?
                       that sort of thinking opens up a long list of places
                       that no one in this country should want to go.  neither
                       side is so darkly evil or different from the other that
                       we need to destroy the country in order to save it.
                 \_ I'm sure it's just an oversight but these numbers don't
                    count the tremendous amount of raw cash pumped into leftist
                    527 groups created under the bogus "campaign finance
                    reform" laws.  How can you forget the money pumped in by
                    the likes of George Soros?
        \_ I believe soros donated 10 million, not the 80 million figure floating around
2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34460 Activity:nil
10/30   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137163,00.html
        Bush over Kerry by 2 points, Kerry is fucked despite help
        from Clinton and OBL.
        \_ A Fox poll of Fox viewers thinks Bush will win?  That's insane.
           \_ No you moron.  An Opinion Dynamics poll.  Similar to ABC polls,
              etc.  however 2 points in one poll (inside margin of error)
              doesn't matter.  Basically it's a tie in many states and we won't
              really know until Tuesday (or Tuesday + a few weeks) who the
              winner will be.
              \_ *shrug*  Zogby (who nailed 2000, and has a very good track
                 record) puts Kerry up by 1 in a 3 day tracking poll.  Polls are
                 a useful tool, but you have to remember 1) the pollster may
                 be biased,and 2) polls are very coarse tools.   -mice
                 \_ Polls are not useful in this election, given that we know
                    it will be very close. -- ilyas
                    \_ Well, yeah -- I thought that was rather obvious from
                       the context, but thanks for clarifying.   -mice
                       \_ sheesh, sorry. -- ilyas
                 \_ Um, no.  Zogby did not nail 2000, according to the records
                    I've seen (multiple places).  Are you going to back that
                    claim up?
                    \_ Okay, you got me: He predicted Gore would win.  I think
                       I was meaning the popular vote.  You can google that
                       and find scads of links.  My bad.   -mice
                       \_ Last I checked Zogby polling at this time (a few days
                          before the election 2000) had Bush ahead in the
                          popular vote.
                 \_ 1) Yes and you can't ever know in which direction, 2) yes.
                    As far as Zogby goes, he did well in 1996 and "ok" in
                    2000.  However, in 2000, the other pollsters stopped
                    polling before the weekend when the DUI claims were made
                    so of course their polls don't catch that.  Zogby
                    continued polling through that period.  His numbers were
                    similar to everyone else's pre-DUI Surprise.  In 2002, his
                    predictions simply sucked.  He may or may not know WTF
                    he's talking about this time.  The likely voter numbers
                    are the most random ones between pollsters because they're
                    all using very different models to determine who is likely
                    to vote or not.  You, me, Zogby, and everyone else can
                    make a guess, but no one really knows and *can't* know,
                    that's why we have an actual election and don't just ask
                    some pollsters to pick the President.
                    \_ Good point.  Of course, if I was willing to let a
                       (potentially biased and coarse) pollster decide my
                       vote for me, I'd deserve to be shot.     -mice
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34453 Activity:high
10/29   Given that the Dems likely aren't going to carry any of the
        Southern states (with a possible exception of Florida), do you
        think they would have fared better in some other traditionally
        republican states if John Kerry picked someone else to run for VP?
        \_ no.
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34452 Activity:kinda low
10/29   Bizarre.  The media is in spin-overdrive, declaring the OBL tape a
        "big win for Bush."
        I don't get it.  Please, someone explain this to me.
        \_ Is it TV you're watching?  Which stations?
        \_ "The airing of a tape of Osama bin Laden capped a week of
            bad news for President Bush that threatened to derail his
            candidacy in the final days of the presidential election" --CBS
            \_ CNN is saying pretty much exactly the opposite, that the tape
               "completely wipes away the events of the last week."
                \_ Perhaps meaning that it supercedes it... it's a statement
                   that says nothing about being good or bad for Bush.
                   \_ NBC Nightly News: ""The Bin Laden tape has erased any
                      momentum that John Kerry may have had during the past
                      week".  Go TV news!  How can he even pretend to know
                      \_ I think it's reasonable to expect that the release
                         of the tape will change the dialog over the next
                         couple of days; that's not the same as "erasing any
                         momentum," since it could wind up being positive for
                         Kerry.  -tom
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34448 Activity:nil
10/29   Bush and Kerry respond to Bin Laden.
        % cat bush_quotes_from_article | wc -w
        % cat kerry_quotes_from_article | wc -w
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34442 Activity:nil
10/29   Osama bin Laden:  "It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief
        of the country [Bush] would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to
        face those horrors alone ... because he thought listening to a child
        discussing her goats was more important. ... Your security is not in
        the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. ... To the U.S. people, my
        talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster. ... I
        tell you: security is an important element of human life and free
        people do not give up their security. ... If Bush says we hate
        freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It
        is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like
        those of the 19 blessed ones ... We fought you because we are free ...
        and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our
        security we undermine yours."
        \_ it would be funny if osama came out with a tape blaming
           the wtc crashes on jews pilotting the planes filled with
           defenseless arabs.
        \_ Kerry using bin Laden to gain votes?
           \_ You partisan spinning must be topping 10k rpms.  Take a step back
              and try to get some perspective here.
           \_ Uhhh....huh?
              \_ The very first sentence "It never occurred ...... was more
                 important" sounds like Kerry.
                 \_ This is a translation.  Comparing speaking style in
                    different languages is not easy.
           \_ Bush using fear to gain votes?
        \_ Is there a full or even partial transcript URL?  I'd like to read
           the whole thing or at least as much as is out there.  Or was this
           the whole thing?  Thanks.
        \_ Isn't it great that Osama Bin Laden is irrefutably accepting
           responsibility for the attacks now that Muslims don't have to
           cling to that Jews-did-it conspiracy story anymore, since the
           whole world hates our guts anyways?
           \_ It was a Jewish actor masquerading as Osama.  It's a devious
              plot to pin blame on Islam.
2004/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34423 Activity:high
10/28   Here is a stupid question of the day.  Since butterfly ballot doesn't
        work, and electronic voting machine sucks, why don't we just use
        *SCANTRONS* for ballot?  Anyone who attend a year or two of high
        school would be very familar with this system, and scantron is a
        relatively fast accurate means of casting a vote, no?
        \_ not sure why anyone uses the butterfly ballot, good question
        \_ This is how we do it in my county (Northern CA).  Each issue on the
           ballot has a rectangle next to it.  We use purple felt-tip pens to
           fill in the rectangles.  These systems are referred to "optical"
           systems among the voting machines.  They have the lowest rate of
           ballot spoilage of all methods IIRC.
        \_ We're using scantrons as of 2004 in L.A. County too, I believe.
        \_ San Francisco uses Optical scan as well.  It is by far and away
           considered to be the best overall method, but I believe the
           machines are very expensive compared to the Diebold type
           devices.  Counties don't want to pay for expensive things like
           \_ Well, you know there's a government subsidy on voting
              machines with easily fakable vote counts.
        \_ Hey, Oregon has mail-in balloting only.  They should do this
           nationally.  No more long line, wrong precinct problems.
           They just have to mail them by some postmark, let's say, or drop
           them off at specific locations by a certain day.
           \_ Absentee has the most possibilities for fraud.  I'm for outlawing
        \_ Sutter County uses scantrons as well.
        \_ How about if people are too stupid to write legible ballots /
           vote they have to live with their own actions?
           \_ A scantron card is easy to use if you can figure it out.  A
              butterfly ballot can get fucked up by quite a lot of reasonably
              intelligent people.  A Diebold machine can crash and lose all
              votes on its little Windows brain forever, or have its Microsoft
              Access "security" hacked and have votes changed, without any
        \_ As balloting methods go, scantrons are a lot better than many of
           the other methods out there, but still far from perfect.  If memory
           serves the most common problem with scantron style ballots are
           entry errors, e.g. partially filled in bubble/rectangle, filling in
           multiple rectangles for a single race, etc.  Though better than
           punchcards with their hanging, pregnant, dimpled, etc. chads there
           is still the possibility of inaccuracy when interpreting voter
           Scantrons are *WAY* cheaper than computerized touch-screen
           DRE voting systems, but most of the scantron voting systems are
           made by the same companies that make DRE voting systems.  Since
           there's more profit to be made on DRE systems than scantrons, the
           companies are much more aggressive about selling the DRE systems.
           It's a pretty easy sell since many election supervisors are fairly
           clueless when it comes to technology, and the DRE systems have a
           much higher ``gee-whiz, ain't computers cool'' factor than
           scantrons.  The money allocated by HAVA (Help America Vote Act) can
           only be spent on election equipment/maintenance, and if local
           officials don't spend it, it disappears so there's no incentive to
           buy scantrons for price reasons.
           One other thing to consider is that scantron ballot counting
           devices are potentially hackable, though, IMO, much less so than
           most DRE systems.  Of course, you have a paper trail for manual
           recounts which is definitely an improvement over DRE's.
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34418 Activity:very high
10/28   Jude Wanniski, father of supply-side theory, endorses Kerry:
        \_ Can someone please tell us why he's wrong?
           \_ HMX is only needed for implosion-type fusion nukes.
              Terrorists can still make gun-type fission nukes fairly easily
              as long as they have the highly-enriched uranium.
              Terrorists can still make gun-type fission nukes fairly
              easily as long as they have the highly-enriched uranium.
              \_ So, that's all you need to know to forget about what
                 the father of Reaganomics has to say?  Alrightie.
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34403 Activity:moderate
10/28   Here you go, Partha.  Actual Economist endorsement of Kerry:
        http://csua.org/u/9oz (economist.com)
        \_ The editor, Bill Emmott, put it this way: "It was a difficult
           call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the
           war in Iraq. But in the end we felt he has been too incompetent to
           deserve re-election."
        \_ Summary:  Guantanamo bad!!! Waaaaaa!!!  Nothing to recommend for
           Kerry.  And apperently they haven't actually read the Geneva
           Convention resolutions.
           \_ where does it say "parade people around naked and make
              them masturbate into the mouths of the prisoner over there
              and have some dumbass from virginia take photos of them"?
              \_ Um, that didn't happen in Guantanamo you idiot.  That was Abu
                 Ghraib in Iraq.
                \_ That's what you think! - seymour
           \_ Why do people keep forgetting that in a two-candidate system,
              any refutation of one candidate automatically recommends the
              other candidate?
              \_ "You're either with us or against us in the fight against
                 terror." -GW Bush
                 America, Fuck Yeah!!!!1!
              \_ Which is why you should always vote *for* someone instead of
                 *against* someone.
                 \_ If your choice is between handing a loaded gun to the guy
                    who just shot you in the foot and some guy who hasn't shot
                    you in the foot yet, go with the guy who hasn't shot you
                    yet.  He *might* shoot you, but the other guy *will* shoot
                    \_ I'm voting for the guy who isn't George W. Bush!
                 \_ Hint: it's not "instead of". You do both, unless you don't
                    vote at all, which would accomplish nothing.
           \_ Holding people indefinitely without trial or right to council
              or right to defend themselves or even know what the charges
              or right to defend themselves or even to know what the charges
              against them are seems fundamentally unamerican to me. -ausman
              \_ Yeah, at least Dubya could have done what the JAGs
                 argued very strenuously for:  some way to vet all the
                 detainees and some kind of a process.
              \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34395 Activity:high
10/27   Economist endorses Kerry.  Come on, someone be snarky!
        \_ GIRLY MAN ECONOMICS!!1!!1!!!
        \_ let's see the URL
           \_ It's in their subscriber only content for now.  But here's
              someone who was kind enough to transcribe the print for you:
              http://csua.org/u/9ou (foreigndispatches.typepad.com)
              If you do happen to have a subscription, the article is here:
              http://csua.org/u/9ov (economist.com)
              \-I think the E'ist will endorse Kerry if they do endorse
                somebody [and I'd be surprised if they didnt ... they
                live for this kind of thing]. The E'ist was really angry
                about AbuG and Guantanamo, they are not religious fanatics,
                the dont get nervous when the hear the "dont change horses
                midstream" rhetoric ... they know Kerry wont give Manhattan
                to the UN, the Louisiana Purchase back to France and TX back
                to Mexico. The may be slightly worried about some of Kerry's
                tax plans and protectionism and I think Kerry's recent semi-
                disingenuous claims may have slightly tainited his position
                in academic terms, but it's a nasty election and BUSHCO made
                it that way. We'll find out in the next 24 hrs. The trajectory
                of my thinking at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP  --psb
                of my wondering at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP  --psb
                \_ Wow. Check out the big brain on psb. After reading a
                   magazine for how many years? he finaly picks up on how
                   they think. Way to go,psb. And thanks for sharing. -saarp
                        \-you've been alive for how many yrs and have yet
                          to pick up how to think? [is this really you?] --psb
                          \_ I see. So by inference, since you supposedly
                             have picked up this skill, you have free license
                             brag about it? One thing I have picked up:
                             those who boast usually have little to boast
                             about. And for the record, it is I. -saarp
                                        \- i guess we'll have to recalibrate.
                                           this is like finding out absolute
                                           zero is lower than you thought it
                                           was. --psb
                \_ Bush made this election season nasty?  Bush was dead silent
                   through the entire Democratic primary season where they
                   spent their time trying to out-smear the man.  Sheesh, how
                   much more deluded or self blind can a guy get?  For a guy
                   who claims to know so much and be so informed, you come
                   across as very ignorant and biased.
             \_ Why is the free link dated in January?
                \_ Sorry, I linked to the wrong article.  Sully mentions the
                   new article here and quotes a paragraph of it:
                   http://csua.org/u/9oy (andrewsullivan.com)
                   I will try to find a link to the real article.
                   Here it is, for free from the Economist itself.
                   I'm going to delete the old links above:
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34388 Activity:moderate
10/27   Form 180.  Bush signed it.  Kerry did not.  Where is the media?
        \_ It was probably there when Bush announced that he signed it.
        \_ Bush did not sign it: 'At the White House, press secretary
           Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether
           Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did
           request and release his own military records in February.
           "I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize
           making his military records available publicly," Mr. McClellan
           said.' Why do you and Rush Limbaugh keep lying about this?
           \_ He ordered the release of his records as an Executive Order as
              some flashy PR stunt.  What has Kerry done?
              \_ So, has Dubya signed Form 180, as op has written?
                 \_ Nope.  Do you think an Executive Order is less than F180?
                    What has Kerry done?
                    \_ Do you think just repeating Executive Order actually
                       defines what the order actually specified?
                    \_ You tell me which of these EOs applies and I might
                       be able to answer your question:
               \_ So I am still waiting for the number of the executive
                  order that Bush supposedly signed to release his records.
                  I went through all of them and could not find one that
                  could possibly be it. I think the Bush campaign is lying.
                  \_ No, a random Bush supporter was wrong.  Some of us Bush
                     supporters are just as hacked-off at Bush for not signing
                     form 180 as we are at Kerry for the same thing.
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34383 Activity:moderate
10/27   The dead registers to vote.  http://csua.org/u/9oi
        \_ BBC scoops voter intimidation campaign underway:
           \_ Uh huh.  Imagine trying to keep people from voting who would
              be voting illegally.  So intimidating!
              \_ And those thousands of millions of hundreds of dead people
                 with their collusion and fake registration!  Such a clear
                 \_ Did you even read the URL?  You're not even on the same
                    vaguely general topic as the rest of us.
           \_ Nice fallacies in that story.  A bunch of names in a largely
              black region.  Did the author check to see if the names actually
              belonged to black people?  Did he check the felony rolls?
              \_ Wow.  It seems like you actually read the link.  Neat-o!
        \_ Weir and Lesh are both voting for Kerry.
        \_ You can read a transcript of the story at the RNC site.  Nothing
           in the story that points the finger at one party or another if
           you ignore the RNC supplied headline.
2004/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34380 Activity:very high
10/27   http://csua.org/u/9oh
        An 18-year-old Marine recruit remained in jail on Wednesday, charged
        with threatening to stab his girlfriend over her choice for
        president ... The enlistee, Steven Scott Soper, of Lake Worth,
        became enraged Tuesday night when his 18-year-old girlfriend said
        she was leaving him -- and voting for John Kerry for president.
        \_ Give him six months on IED sweeper duty, and see whom he votes for.
           \_ Obviously you never served.
              \_ Oh, this is so much better than that tired old WDYHA.
        \_ See how crazy Kerry can drive people?
2004/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34379 Activity:insanely high 71%like:34376
10/26   Woohoo! Kerry's got the mo!
        http://csua.org/u/9n5 (Post graphic)
        \_ Kerry's people have been telling us for a long time that the
           polls don't mean anything.  Now they do?
           \_ Gallup is the poll that is really fucked, at least with their
              LV model [restored]
           \_ The real poll will be on November 2.
        \_ Uh... Zogby's numbers going back:
                11 days to go: Bush +2
                10 days to go: Bush +2
                 9 days to go: Bush +3
                 8 days to go: Bush +3
                 7 days to go: Bush +1
           This is momentum?  Please, take Stat 2.  This is all well within
           the margin of error in each case.
           \_ Zogby is weak as you noticed.  That's why I helped the op with
              the Post URL. -!op
              \_ I wonder how much of the Kerry bounce in the last couple of
                 days is due to Al-Qaqaa.  Had NYT/CBS stuck to their original
                 plan to release the story immediately before the election,
                 that might have been a decisive blow for Kerry. Now Bush will
                 have a week to recover, and he has proven to be resilient and
                 slippery in the past.  So the outcome is less clear.
                 \_ Are people troubled by the CBS attempt to game the election
                    by timing the release of the missing munitions story?
                    \_ No! Any dirty lying trick is ok to beat Bush!
                       \_ If you could rig the election to get Kerry to win
                          even if you knew he hadn't really won, would you?
                    \_ I give this motive a 50/50 chance of being true (not
                       "It sure looks like it!" or "I doubt it!").  They were
                       taping interviews and fact checking -- they don't want
                       another Font-gate.  Of course the Republican spin is
                       that CBS was definitely trying to game the election
                       after what happened with Rather.
                    \_ No more troubled than I am by Fox News' obvious
                       attempt to swing the election for the last two years.
                       \_ Fox doesn't claim to be neutral.  They claim to be
                          balanced.  They put on people from both sides of
                          every issue.  Example: Bush did the O'Reilly show
                          but Kerry is ducking it.  O'R has been trying to get
                          Kerry for months but he won't go on the air.  Is it
                          somehow biased of Fox or O'R that they aired one and
                          not the other?
                          \_ Kerry wouldn't get even treatment. Besides, since
                             Fox bias is well established, it doesn't make
                             sense that Kerry would legitimize it and reward it
                             with his appearance. Your example here is a straw
                             man. Nobody ever claimed the O'Reilly Bush thing
                             itself was bias. But O'Reilly has clearly
                             demonstrated bias in other instances. It's
                             reasonable to assume Kerry wouldn't have as
                             respectful a treatment as Bush.
                 \_ I also think part of it is from the general atmosphere that
                    a lot of newspapers are endorsing Kerry, or not supporting
                    Dubya.  There is definitely an effect if newspapers which
                    had endorsed Dubya in the past start looking wavy on
                    supporting Dubya, and other newspapers remain rock-solid
                    in solidarity with Kerry.
                    \_ Newspapers?  Do you really truly seriously in your heart
                       of heart believe that anyone who votes makes their
                       decision on national well-known figures based on a
                       newspaper endorsement??
                       \_ "general atmosphere", "There is definitely an effect"
                          != "votes makes their decision ... based on a
                              newspaper endorsement"
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34372 Activity:very high
10/26   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html
        (username / pw = bobbob)
        Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22
        again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in
        about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer.
        Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to
        Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer
        Qualification Test.
        \_ The difference is that Kerry didn't spend his 20s and 30s doing
           \_ That explains a lot. :-P
        \_ Boy, it sure is a good thing that IQ tests and ratings are such a
           meaningful and credible measure of an individual's intelligence.
           I'm glad I can estimate either candidate's intellectual fiber
           based on this decisive piece of information.  -John
        \_ Whoops, there's a small problem here.  Gottfredson, the psych. prof.
           who made the correlation, took the candidates' rankings on their
           respective Officer Qualifying Tests and directly correlated those
           ranks to IQ tests.  Since Bush was in the 95th percentile of his
           class for the AFQT, Gottfredson extrapolated that he had an IQ
           of corresponding rank.  However, the 1960s AFQT, like the ASVAB,
           was an aptitude test, not an IQ test. Drawing correlations between
           the two is more like comparing Fujis to Grannies than apples to
           oranges, but it's still prone to significant errors.  What the AFQT
           does tell us, however, is that GWB is not a moron, but Bush-watchers
           already knew that; he's much too cunning to misunderestimate.
           \_ psb said Bush was a ChimpBrain.  Surely, the great psb was not
              wrong.  You have a fault in your reasoning somewhere.
                      \- When Bush first emerged on the scene, I thought he
                         looked like Alfred E. Newman. I have since decided
                         he looks more like a Chimp. I do not believe he is
                         an especially bright fellow, but I also dont believe
                         most people are especially bright. I agree that he is
                         smarter than a lot of the people who call him an
                         idiot ... same goes for Rush Limbaugh. Most of the
                         people calling them idiots could not give a 30min
                         talk and a fair number of them probably could not
                         tell you who Francois Mitterand was. Of the presidents
                         since 1980, Bill Clinton is the only one I would
                         call "really smart". BUSH's and RUSH have serious
                         character defects but they arent idiots [which doesnt
                         make them geniuses either]. It's actually fun to ask
                         people ranting about how dumb Bush is "do you think
                         he is dumber than <name some dull acquaintance>".
                         As I asked on wall previously, "who would you rather
                         have as president: bush or saarp?" --psb
                         \-BTW, I also think intellectual curiosity counts
                           for a lot. A friend of mine at Berkeley who used
                           to get A+ in upper div physics classes [including
                           from people like Steiner, if that means anything
                           to you] once said "I thought Cambodia was in
                           Africa ... because that is where all the starving
                           people are." This guy was a genius when it came
                           to physics problem sets but you dont want him
                           running the world. I am not sure I want somebody
                           who says "jesus is my favorite philosopher" or
                           "sovereignty is sovereignty" running much of the
                           planet. Yes, I know Bush understand legislative
                           nuance and is being disingenuous with comments
                           like "he voted for/against it". Yes I agree not
                           one person in 50 who laughed at the sovereignty
                           comment could have defined sovereignty. --psb
              \_ Wait, not being a moron somehow equates to not being a chimp-
                 brain?  Being smart is no defense against being wrong and
                 morally bankrupt (cf. Richard Cheney).
           \_ I'm confused.  I keep hearing Bush is stupid and incompetent.
              If so, how did he get the Whitehouse, is ahead in polls for a
              second term, foll John Kerry and others into voting for the war,
              fool millions of Americans and the media on a continuous basis
              and pack the supreme court with right wing partisans?
              \_ You *are* confused, but it has nothing to do with the
                 fallacious "points" you bring up.
                 \_ Could you please explain?  Thank you.
                    \_ Sure.  You believe that getting into the White House,
                       maintaining a good approval rating, and lying to a bunch
                       of Senators about how he's only going to use war as
                       a last resort somehow requires intelligence and the
                       ability to be a good President.  It doesn't.  You can
                       do much the same with a well-oiled political machine,
                       a popular tough-guy image, and a heaping serving of
                       arrogance and bravado.  That's where you're confused.
                       You're welcome.
              \_ Hey confused boy:  Dubya delivered his GOP convention speech
                 very well, spreading the gap as much as 51% Dubya, 39% Kerry.
                 Yet, he looked like a total d00f during the debates,
                 especially debate 1.  Therein will you find your answer.
                 \_ Who would win in a debate between W and PSB?
                    \_ That's easy, PSB would just get thrown in Gitmo.
                 As for "foll [sic] Kerry ... into voting for the war", Kerry
                 voted for war authority, not for war.  Purportedly only the
                 President has the best intelligence and perspective to make
                 the final call to take the country to war.  Let me remind
                 you that the Senate never saw conflicting reports on aluminum
                 tubes from the Energy department, unlike the President.
                 \_ Kerry wouldn't have seen any reports anyway since he
                    hardly ever showed at any Senate Intelligence meetings.
                 \_ Now I'm reaaaally confused.  Since the polls you're
                    implicitly citing changed their voter mix calculations
                    at the same time as the debates and I keep reading that
                    the polls don't mean anything anyway, at least when GWB
                    is up.  Please help!
                    \_ Where do you keep reading this? Certainly not on the
                       motd. Wherever you keep going to read misinformation,
                       stop it.
                       \_ It's standard (D) spin.  I watch the news shows, I
                          see the Kerry people saying the polls don't matter.
                          The Kerry campaign is my source of misinformation.
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34367 Activity:insanely high
10/26   Lawrence O'Donell exposes O'Neill of SVFT as a liar.  This
        must be what the media means when it says these guys have
        been discredited.
           \_ Well O'Donell is also the guy who has stated he doesn't
              care if troops in Iraq become demoralized, that they should
              shut up.
              \_ This sounds like either a quote taken out of context,
                 or a very liberal paraphrase.  Do you have a URL or decent
                 news source showing the quote and its surrounding context?
                 Honestly, both of those gentlemen strike me as partisan
                 mouthpieces furthering The Party's agenda with, at best,
                 coincidental regard for the truth.
                 \_ "MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about
                     war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what
                     they feel."
                    "MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized.
                     They have to go to war and be prepared ..."
                     \_ gee I wonder why you didn't provide the context.  -tom
                        \_ It's a McLauglin group transcript.. search for it,
                           I don't want to corrupt you with the link I'd give.
                           \_ what's so bad about
                              All he's saying is that you can't bury your head
                              in the sand and squash all debate about whether
                              the war is a good idea, just because you need to
                              "support the troops."  Lying about the war
                              doesn't support the troops. -tom
                              \_ True, lying about the war doesn't support
                                 the troops.  Write a letter.  Ask your media
                                 to tell us both the good and the bad, not just
                                 the bad.
        \_ This is yucky, and really proves nothing -- aside from the fact
           that both sides are pretty passionate.
           \_ Well O'Donell is also the guy who has stated he doesn't
              care if troops in Iraq become demoralized, that they should
              shut up.
              \_ This sounds like either a quote taken out of context,
                 or a very liberal paraphrase.  Do you have a URL or decent
                 news source showing the quote and its surrounding context?
                 Honestly, both of those gentlemen strike me as partisan
                 mouthpieces furthering The Party's agenda with, at best,
                 coincidental regard for the truth.
                 \_ "MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about
                     war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what
                     they feel."
                    "MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized.
                     They have to go to war and be prepared ..."
                     \_ gee I wonder why you didn't provide the context.  -tom
                        \_ It's a McLauglin group transcript.. search for it,
                           I don't want to corrupt you with the link I'd give.
                           \_ what's so bad about
                              All he's saying is that you can't bury your head
                              in the sand and squash all debate about whether
                              the war is a good idea, just because you need to
                              "support the troops."  Lying about the war
                              doesn't support the troops. -tom
        \_ Wow.  That O'Donnell is a fruitcake.  When someone talks over his
           opponent, it pretty much proves to me that he doesn't know what he's
           talking about.
           \_ Shrug.  It suggests to me that the guy is too emotional at the
              time to make a reasoned argument, unless he does it all the time.
              \-Hmmmmm ... ok, I sort of agree LO'D went a little nuts there,
                but your characterization of his comments on McL Groups is
                preposterous [I saw the show]. If anything I think Bush's
                comment during the 3rd debate:
                BUSH: The best way to take the pressure off
                      our troops is to succeed in Iraq.
                is more incoherent and insensitive. That comment is also
                in line with his view "it's not a draft if we dont call
                it a draft". The troops are not demoralized because of
                Kerry suggesting Iraq has bogged down, or has suggested
                our allies are few and far between, but because they are
                being kept there longer than promised and are being blown up.
                To be a little more charitable than LO'D: you are either a
                liar or stupid. --psb
                \_ The military vote is roughly 80% for Bush, that should
                       \- what %age of teachers vote for the "education
                          president" ?
                          \_ wrong question.  "what %age of parents vote for
                             the education president?" is what you're looking
                             \- the military is the group paid to deliver
                                "national security" ... everyone is a
                                comsumer of national security. similarly
                                parents are the consumers of ecucation,
                                not the agents to deliver it. anyway, my
                                point was that military number doesnt mean
                                much. --psb
                                \_ That's fine about the military number.  My
                                   point about parents still stands.  I don't
                                   care in particular if teachers like/dislike
                                   the president as a block.  They're a left
                                   wing union group.  I do care if parents are
                                   happy with the education system.  They are
                                   not an organised political block.  Parents
                                   are real people, not an axe grinding PAC.
                   tell you something.  The military is especially cognizant
                   that Kerry, in his antiwar antics and petitioning to
                   completey abandon Saigon, is a traitor.  You can not
                   sign on to war and then say, 'oh that's not what I really
                   intended' - its a complete disgrace and is not behavior
                   befitting a CIC.Exactly which allies are you pining about?
                   The French, who in GWI sent an aircraft carrier
                   with no planes?
                   \- i am not pining for any allies. i think the un and the
                      rest of the world fairly reasonably see this as america's
                      mess to clean up. if a serviceman feels he can never
                      forgive kerry for his antiwar activities after vietnam
                      i think that is reasonable enough, just like i think
                      people are entitled to have been anti-clinton on the
                      grounds he was a draft-dodger who also cheated on his
                      wife. i just think it is odd they are not equally
                      disgusted with a coke addled rich kid who used family
                      connections to not even set foot "in country". --psb
                      \_ You were ok until the last line.  At that point you
                         became "false, but accurate" as CBS would say.
                   \_ Could you post a URL for that 80%? All I found was this:
                      which gives 57% Rep among soldiers, in general (I think)
                      and 66% Rep among officers. Those show a stronger lean
                      than the country at large but far from 80%. The same
                      article also mentions that "Rep officers outnumber their
                      enlisted counterparts 9:1" according to "surveys" (no
                      source given) -- ulysses
                  \_ Why do Cons love to go over and over how they have "the
                     military vote"? Do soldiers count for more vote or
                     something? I think it is an implicit coup threat,
                     personally. If we have another Florida 2000 on our
                     hands, do you plan on calling out the troops to enforce
                     election results when half the country goes ballistic?
                     \_ Coup threat?  Damn, dude, stop eating tinfoil!  You're
                        supposed to wear it on your head.  It is not a food
                     \_ Why do Libs love to go over and over how they have the
                        "insert random small demographic here" vote?  Does
                        "random small demographic" count for more vote or
                        something?  The point is the military is just another
                        of those demographics.  There isn't a plot.  Stop
                        eating tinfoil.  Wear it on your head for safety.
        \_ You see, I remember a time when two people on a news show would not
           shout over each other, when a moderator would not put up with such
           behavior, when guests would not hog the mic, when longwinded
           discourse actually lost you credibility, and when the integrity and
           logic of your argument counted for more than the volume of your
           voice.  When did we agree to accept the opposite?
           \_ When ratings went up with all the yelling on certain shows.  I
              agree they've gone way too far and I see it swinging back the
              other way now.
              \_ God, I hope you're right.
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34365 Activity:very high
10/26   So now that almost every major newspaper has endorsed Kerry does
        this prove the notion of a liberal media? Why would newspapers
        controlled by mega-national corporations throw in with Kerry?
        \_ No, and because Bush is a radical.
           \_ Dude! I totally agree!  Bush is gnarly!
              \_ If you're not trolling, you may wish to look up the word
                 \_ Try googling "define:joke"
        \_ This will be only the 3rd time that the democrat presidential
           candidate has had more endorsements from newspapers than the
           republican, since Editor and Publisher magazine started tracking
           them in 1940 (the other two were Johnson in 1964 and Clinton in
           1992). At least 35 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 are endorsing
           Kerry this time, while only four who endorsed Gore are endorsing
           Bush. And this is despite a tendency of papers to endorse sticking
           with incumbents. So no, it doesn't "prove the notion of a liberal
           media," it helps demonstrate just how terrible Bush has been.
           \_ Nooo!  Do not you bring your facts here!  They are not
              compatible with my blind partisan indoctrination!!!     -op
           \_ Question:  if Bush wins, does that mean the print media is out of
              the mainstream?  Shouldn't the paper endorsements roughly follow
              the country's nearly-even split?
              \_ Yes. No, unless you want the papers to tell the people
                 what they already think.
                 \_ BZZZT! on point 2.  These are editorial opinions.  If the
                    newspaper people are "just like the rest of us" then they
                    should have roughly the same opinion split.  Unless of
                    course you feel newspaper people are somehow more
                    enlightened and posses superior intellect and moral
                    status.  If you believe that you haven't met enough
                    newspaper people.
                    \_ newspaper editors have significantly more education
                       than the general population, and also pay more
                       attention to the news; therefore they should, on
                       average, have "better" opinions than the median
                       American.  -tom
                       \_ Am I the only one who sees a certain circularity
                          to this argument?
                          \_ No, it's just a tom thing.  At least he's honest
                             about his mistaken belief that newspaper people
                             are better than the rest of us.
                             \_ What is mistaken about my belief? Specifically,
                                I think newspaper editors have more education
                                and pay more attention to the news than the
                                median American.  I think they are more likely
                                to know Kerry's and Bush's positions on the
                                issues, for example.  I don't think they are
                                "better"; they just have a more educated and
                                informed opinion than the general population.
                                The same is probably true of computer
                                programmers.  -tom
                                \_ Here tom, let me spell it out for you.
                                   Newspaper editors help create the news we
                                   see.  Therefore, when the editors 'pay
                                   attention to the news' as you say, they
                                   are paying attention to something
                                   that other newspaper editors helped create.
                                   There is a circularity in this system.
                                   \_ I gave a specific example; I think
                                      newspaper editors are more likely
                                      to know what Bush and Kerry's positions
                                      on the issues really are.  I don't have
                                      a poll of newspaper editors to show you,
                                      but there are a number which show that
                                      the American public has no fucking clue.
                                   \_ You guys should be arguing specifics,
                                      say, the Washington Post.
                                      I don't think you'll get anywhere talking
                                      about "newspaper editors" and "the
                                      median American", apart from irritating
                                      each other.
           \_ Link? Which papers? I don't care about the Podunk Review in
              Lincoln, Nebraska. I disagree with the definition of 'major'
              below but certainly it is not so wide as to have 35 papers
              flipflop. I am not sure the universe includes 35 papers.
              \_ You should care about the Podunk Review.  Millions of people
                 read the PR across America and take it seriously.
              \_ http://csua.org/u/9nv [editorandpublisher]
                 \_ Thanks. So what do you think a reasonable cut-off for
                    circulation is?
                    \_ Since the circulation numbers are being rigged (they're
                       outright fabrivations to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
                       outright fabrications to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
                       make sense to have a circulation based cut-off.
                       \_ The alternative? I imagine they are 'rigged'
                          equally. Only relative size matters, not
                          \_ Why do you imagine all newspapers are equally
                             criminal?  But let's follow your reasoning
                             anyway: a newspaper with a real 100,000 readers
                             inflates by 10%, another one with 1,000,000
                             readers inflates by 10%.  The first has created
                             10k non-existing people, the second has created
                             \_ Uh, so? The idea is to identify the
                                largest papers, not to guess at their
                                actual circulation.
              \_ Your "universe" is small and tiny, as yermom described among
                 other things.
                                      \_ Even if we grant that newspaper people
                                         may know better what each candidate's
                                         beliefs and policies are (which I
                                         still dispute but enough on that), to
                                         know more about a topic is not the
                                         same as being correct about ones
                                         conclusions on that topic.  Having
                                         knowledge does not make one's opinion
                                         more "right".  Don't confuse raw fact
                                         oriented knowledge with wisdom.
        \_ The major newspapers are:
           The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
           USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. (the latter three have not
           made an endorsement)
           \_ Don't forget The San Francisco Examiner and the Washington Times.
              \_ These are tier 2 or lower, along with:
                 the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, and all the other
                 \_ Tribune owns the LA Times.
              \_ These aren't even second tier. Neither one is in the top 100
                 papers in the country by circulation.
              \_ The Washington *Times* has endorsed Kerry?  Seriously?
                 \_ Follow the sub-thread, please!  The topic is:
                    Identifying the major newspapers.
           \_ funny, how most of these majors also called Kerry a crackpot
              for making a link between Iran/Contra and CIA cocaine trading,
              and after the CIA said it was true years later, put the news
              well behind the front page.  irony.
              \_ What are you talking about?  The CIA has never admitted
                 links to cocaine trafficking.
                 \_ CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz admitted that "there are
                    instances where the CIA did not, in an expeditious or
                    consistent fashion, cut off relations with individuals
                    supporting the contra program who were alleged to have
                    engaged in drug trafficking activity."
                    \_ Which is nothing like, "The CIA engaged in the cocaine
                       trade to fund secret off-book programs" which is what
                       the original accusation is about.  The Cold War was a
                       dirty fight for survival.  The CIA existed to do
                       exactly that sort of dirty work and deal with those
                       sorts of people.  Lesser of two evils and all that.
                       \_ Shrug.  The original thread was about how Kerry
                          was not off his rocker about there being a link.
                          It also directs evidence against the guy who wrote
                          "What are you talking about?  The CIA has never
                          admitted links to cocaine trafficking".
                          \_ A "link"?  Of course there was "a link".  That
                             is who the CIA was created to deal with, duh.
                             Did you really prefer the Carter version of
                             Cold War intel where the CIA wasn't supposed to
                             talk to "bad people"?  You're still mixing two
                             different issues: a "link" vs "selling" cocaine.
                             A "link" is meaningless FUD.
                             \_ You're off-topic, sodan.  The comment was
                                directed toward the "CIA never admitted" guy.
        \_ Isn't it obvious by now... based on Sandy Berger, Jayson Blair,
           ANG Memos, SVFT, Kerry's post war activities and now this
           'missing explosives' fraud??
           \_ I can't see all that through the bottom of my kool aid glass.
        \_ When the media pushes Kerry as hard to sign Form 180 as they
           beat up Bush over his military records, I'll believe they're
           something other than partisan left wing hacks.  When they tell us
           about Kerry meeting Madame Binh in Paris while still an active
           duty officer for the US military, I'll believe.  When they say
           they're sorry and they fucked up with the bogus Bush documents
           instead of spinning it into some bullshit "false but accurate"
           which only an extreme leftish partisan finds acceptable, I'll
           believe.  When they stop write large print headlines in response
           to positive Bush admin job news that say, "BONDS DROP ON JOBS
           REPORT!", I'll believe.  The list goes on, but my fingers are
           getting sore.  You get the idea.
           \_ It's hard work.  I know how hard it is.
              \_ Yes, being an honest and unbiased media person is hard
                 work.  Our mainstream media has failed miserably.  Mostly,
                 because they're not even trying.
           \_ Bush still has not signed his form 180 and Bush documents
              are still leaking out.
              \_ Thank you for making my point.  The media has bashed the shit
                 out of Bush on this issue but has completely ignored it in
                 Kerry's case.  In trying to attack Bush you have made my
                 point on this thread's topic which is about the biased Media.
              \- Does anybody know how many papers that endorsed BUSH2000 are
                 endorsing KERRY04. Are there any papers that endorsed ALGOR
                 who are now endorsing BUSH? Even 1? [chicago?] --psb
                 \_ There are about 37 switches for kerry.  i can't remember
                    how many for bush.  one of the links above has the totals.
                    http://csua.org/u/9nv --scotsman
                    Better: http://csua.org/u/9o7
                 \_ The Denver Post endorsed Gore and is endorsing Bush.
                    There are two others.
                 \_ Fortunately, the people decide, not newspaper editors in
                    this country.  Endorsements will carry little weight as
                    most papers have a bias which leads to readship which
                    shares that bias.  The SF Chron wouldn't survive in OC,
                    for example.  The OC Register wouldn't make it in SF.
                    \_ you don't think nazi sympathizing and union busting
                       would play in OC?  The SF Chron recently fired a
                       reporter for attending an anti-war rally; they are
                       not any kind of liberal bastion.   -tom
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34360 Activity:nil
10/26   Discovered papers: Hanoi directed Kerry
        \_ Yes, but what is Weekly World News' take on the story?
           \_ KERRY IS A SPACE ALIEN!
           \_ WWN >> WND
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34354 Activity:high
10/26   BoingBoing has a list of news organizations that typically stay away
        from political endorsements (or otherwise would predictably be in the
        Bush camp) that are currently endorsing Kerry:
        \_ My favorite are when they advertise articles from anti-Bush
           conservatives but when you read closely and look up the authors
           they're all card carrying libertarians.  I got a big kick out of
           the Cato Institutate article that Salon posted in full for free
           because they felt the message was "so important".
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34350 Activity:high
10/26   so i asked earlier what major media outlets have actually
        endorsed bush this time around, besides the washington times
        and ny post.  I was accidentally watching oreilly last night
        and he was touching on this topic too, and said that
        the LA Times and NY Times had shockingly endorsed kerry but
        that it really didn't matter since no one reads the
        NY Times.  Then I decided ilyas needs to rape oreilly with
        a falafel. - danh
        \_ Too squishy. -- ilyas
        \_ Out of curiosity, dan, any liberal figures you think need
           to be raped with a falafel?  -- ilyas
           \_ probably that coombs guy just for making everyone look
              bad - danh
              \_ Who?
              \_ I've been watching H&C since they started.  I've decided
                 Coombs is actually a really smart guy and is a real liberal
                 but he's also honest and has a good heart so he can't force
                 himself to spit out ridiculous DNC talking points like
                 Hannity does for the RNC.  I think he's a good, smart and
                 honest man.
                 \_ I would agree with you, but if he were so good and
                    smart he would quit or get someone combative enough
                    to counteract hannity, or quit in disgust.  - danh
                    \_ Most people have bills to pay.  It's just a job, not
                       a religion.  I think that's the difference between
                       him and, well, I won't slam anyone.  I like Coombs
                       even though I disagree with 99% of what he says.
           \_ Maybe Andrew Cockburn. Naomi Klein also comes to mind. That guy
              on crossfire, too, for being such a shill. !danh
              \_ I think the guy on crossfire just plays a liberal on TV.
                   -- ilyas
           \_ Ilya: Why do you hate liberals?
              \_ Why do you say 'Why do you hate liberals?'? -- ilyas
                 \_ My suspicion that ilyas is actually an eliza program
                    have been confirmed.
                    \_ Tell me about yermom. -- ilyas
           \_ Poor ilyas can never tell when he's being baited.
              \_ This is probably related to having no sense of humor.
        \_ The LA Times hasn't endorsed any candidate (yet).  They have not
           since 1972, but there is discussion about doing it this year.
           If he were an honest critic, he would mention the Post endorsement.
           Maybe he did.
           \_ Big shock, the LAT is going to endorse Bush!
              \_ Big shock, the Washington Post and the New Republic both
                 endorsed Kerry!
                 \_ Andrew Sullivan also endorsed Kerry.
                    \_ Big shock!
                       \_ Apparently you know nothing about Sully.
                          \_ That he puts his sex politics above all else?
                             Nothing new there.
2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34337 Activity:low
10/25   The New Yorker magazine endorses a presidential candidate for the
        first time in its 80-year history.  Who?  George W. Bush!  Not!
        "As a variety of memoirs and journalistic accounts have made plain,
        Bush seldom entertains contrary opinion. He boasts that he listens to
        no outside advisers, and inside advisers who dare to express unwelcome
        views are met with anger or disdain. He lives and works within a
        self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation. Nowhere has his
        solipsism been more damaging than in the case of Iraq. The arguments
        and warnings of analysts in the State Department, in the Central
        Intelligence Agency, in the uniformed military services, and in the
        chanceries of sympathetic foreign governments had no more effect than
        the chants of millions of marchers."
        \_ has any major media outlet endorsed bush except
           the new york post and the washington times?
        \_ I was stunned that The New Yorker would would endorse Kerry.
           Stunned, I tell you.  And I was so sure that they were pro-Bush too.
           \_ The American Conservative magazine endorses Kerry:
              "Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing
              president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office
              will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations."
              \_ which part of "major media outlet" did you not understand?
                 \_ you funny guy!  that comment posted OUTSIDE this thread,
                    and AFTERWARDS.  Americans so fucking illiterate!
              \_ Right.  This is a mucher stronger endorsement.  I would lead
                 with this and mention The New Yorker in an OBTW.
                 \_ The take-home message is that Dubya is perceived to be so
                    bad (IMO, he is that bad) that sources that have
                    traditionally sat it out or endorsed the Republican are
                    endorsing Kerry or not endorsing any candidate.
              \_ Now, if only we can get David Duke or some other Klan guy
                 to endorse Kerry because Bush has behaved like the caricature
                 of a racist...
2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34330 Activity:high
10/25   Can this be? Will Bush really win again? I hope that http://CNN.com
        poll is not accurate of the american public's true opinion..
        \_ The poll results are diverging; there's too much noise in the
           system.  -tom
           \_ What is your source for diverging polls?  Try this:
                \_ http://pollingreport.com but they have the same data.
                   Try plotting the polls against each other; they were
                   much closer to converged in August and September. -tom
        \_ http://pollingreport2.com/#bars
           http://csua.org/u/9n5 (Post graphic)
           CNN uses Gallup.  Zogby said Gallup sucks.
           \_ "My competitor sucks!  Buy my product instead!"
              \_ http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/050971.php
                 "While being diplomatic, Zogby basically said Gallup's numbers
                 are junk. They use different methodologies but Gallup's
                 variations from poll to poll are too big to be creditable.
                 In Zogby's polling Kerry and Bush both bounce between 44 an
                 48, and haven't deviated from that range."
                 blah, blah, you can read the rest.
                 \_ Translation, "Buy my election reports!  I can only make
                    real money every 4 years with a small bonus lump during
                    \_ You're supposed to also check both URLs to see how
                       Gallup compares to other polls.  The Post also has
                       Kerry over Dubya today by 1% (yes, statistical tie, but
                       the trend is up).
                       IMO, Zogby is trying to make an honest analysis of
                       why the other guy sucks - but the only vindication will
                       come the day after the election (and it would be really
                       funny if the numbers came out exactly half-way between
                       Zogby and Gallup).
           \_ So?  Zogby has Bush up 48%-45%.  The 3% spread is within the MOE,
              but it's still hardly cheery news.
           \_ Zogby's poll has 6% Unsure, and that number has consistently been
              in the 6% to 9% range since July.  That is very odd, since almost
              every other poll has the unsure number in the 1% to 3% range.
              \_ Traditionally you get the Not Sure number down by nagging the
                 respondent for an answer "which way do you lean" until they
                 break down.  This suggests that Zogby's people didn't nag
                 that hard.
        \_ It's a possibility/nightmare.  My big hope is that the huge turnout
           combined with cell phone only young crowd will prove the pollsters
           \_ Sheesh, you guys put up a hugh douchebag as your canidate,
              and then you're surprised when he has a hard time beating
              the opposing idiot?
              \_ Can you coherently explain why Kerry is a douchebag?  Or are
                 you just a right wing troll trying to assuage your unease by
                 tossing around ad hominem nonsense?  If you can explain
                 coherently, then please -- I'd welcome the post.
              \_ Dubya has never lost a debate! (until this year)
              \_ They are both douchebags. Don't kid yourself.
                 \_ That's my point.  When you're whole campaign is "Don't
                    vote for that douchebag, vote for THIS douchebag!"
                    Don't be surprised when it's hard to get a majority of
                    the vote.
              \_ obhttp://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com
                 \_ Don't let the wrong lizard get elected.
        \_ The poll numbers are way off.  They don't take into account a
           sizable number of people who vote for Democrats every election
           but don't have land lines: dead people.
           \_ Do you have any evidence at all for this endlessly repeated
              assertion, other than the Cook County, Illinois allegations
              from 1960?
              \_ What happened in Cook County, Illinois in 1960?
                 \_ There was some evidence that Richard Daley's machine was
                    using the names of dead people in Cook County to cast
                    votes for John F. Kennedy.  Nixon decided not to pursue it,
                    perhaps because he thought that even if a lot of votes
                    were invalidated, he still would have lost.
                    \_ JFK would have won even without Illinois.
                       \_ And the battleground states in this election don't
                          have dead people.  So even if the dead do determine
                          the winner in IL, it still won't matter.  Right.
                          \_ Wow.  You never responded to my question.
                             You have absolutely no evidence of any of this,
                             do you?  You need to stop blathering.
                             \_ I'm not the original Cook County poster.  I'm
                                merely questioning the logic of the poster that
                                implied that dead people voting in this
                                election is immaterial since the dead votes
                                didn't affect the outcome of the 1960
                                election.  -pp
                                \_ Of course you have no evidence of dead
                                   people voting in this election either.
                                   So you are either paranoid, or just
                                   making shit up. Or both.
                                   \_ You do realize that claiming that there
                                      is no evidence of a huge turn-out amongst
                                      the dead in this election (what you just
                                      claimed) is quite different than claiming
                                      that a turn-out by the dead would be
                                      irrelevant (which is what a poster tried
                                      to imply earlier).  I have no problem
                                      with the no evidence claim, especially
                                      since I'm not the dead-voter guy to start
                                      with.  I do have a problem with the
                                      irrelevant claim, since I am somewhat
                                      fond of logic.
                                      \_ You cannot make that claim until
                                         *after* the election is over. I
                                         think that one side or the other
                                         will win pretty handily.
2004/10/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34314 Activity:kinda low
10/24   Washington Post endorses John Kerry for President.
        \_ annnnnd... so?
           \_ Duh!
2004/10/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34303 Activity:moderate
10/22   Sinclair Bends Over For Kerry
        i.e. boycott threat worked:
        \_ Haha, how do you like it boys? c.f. "The Reagans."
           \_ The Reagans was full of made up crap chock full of scenes the
              writers couldn't possibly have witnesses to such as Ron and
              Nancy discussing AIDS in America tucked in at night.  Sinclair
              has video of people who were in Vietnam telling their own
              stories.  If you can't see the difference between the two there's
              no point in discussing it with you.  As far as how do I like it?
              I don't care either way.  I downloaded the video out of curiosity
              but haven't viewed it.
              \_ So... you didn't inhale?
            \_ Yea... real funny.  Depriving war heroes, who an average lost
               4 years of their lives as POWs defending you, from telling
               their story.  What a victory.
2004/10/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34295 Activity:high
10/22   Diversity, tolerance, and all that good liberal vibe in LA.
        \_ This pretty much matches my expectations.
        \_ Actually, this matches the soda experience pretty well also.
        \_ I thought the article was rather funny and well-written, but as
           far as the social phenomenon it's not really fair.  Ignoring the
           strong geography aspect (people in California are either democratic,
           apathetic, or too rich to care; things might be different in Texas)
           I think the scorn for Bush/Cheney is appropriate-- these men have
           proven themselves to be whatever people see them as, while Kerry
           remains a wildcard.  You can't hate a man for thinking he can do
           better, but you can hate a man for needlessly taking your country
           to war.  See the difference?
           \_ Right.  Thanks for the confirmation.
              \_ Right.  Thanks for the confirmation.
              \_ Presuming you're op: being angry with people for proven
                 reasons is not an indication that liberals are hypocrites,
                 or whatever it is you're trying to imply.
                 \_ Just a bit sensitive, aren't you?
                    \_ Only my nipples.  Or were you not being sarcastic?
           \_ So a guy wore a Bush/Cheney t-shirt in a liberal area, and
              the worst thing that happened was a couple of people muttered
              "asshole" under their breath? "Help Help I'm being oppressed!"
              \_ Compare that to people attacked and beaten for being
                 Kerry supporters in Texas.
                 \_ Link please?
                  \_ If this is true, fucking Nazi bastards.  They should
                     go live under Hitler, Hussein, or some such.
                     \_ And if it isn't?  And if there are Republicans
                        out there getting attacked and beaten is that ok?
                 \_ I've been looking, but I can't find anything from the
                    news on this.  All I found was a blog report where
                    some Bush supporters were assulted at a Kerry rally in
                    Milwaukee.  Which I take with a grain of salt...
                    \_ Kerry supporters are all peaceful victims.  Bush
                       supporters are all evil and we can't trust them not
                       to lie about this.  Not even that woman at the (R)
                       campaign office that got her wrist broken by some
                       piece of shit union thugs.
                       \_ Link?
                           What happened to that guy who was claiming a
                           month or so ago that only the American right
                           wing has a history of violence, and the left
                           wing is never violent?
                           \_ This always amuses me; the notion that because
                              people ascribe to one philosophy or another that
                              it somehow magically makes all its devotees
                              special and somehow superhuman.  They always
                              seem to ignore that these are aspects of basic
                              human nature, and in any large enough group,
                              there will ALWAYS be vile, violent and unethical
                              people...and that this doesn't necessarily
                              reflect anything on the philosophy or group
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34277 Activity:high
10/21   Kerry took the opportunity to attack Bush, making references to
        Bon Jovi songs. "John actually has two songs about the
        administration's policies. He didn't know it, but he wrote a song
        called Bad Medicine' that's about their health care plan. And he
        wrote a song about their economic plan  it's called Living on a
        \_ Kerry is funny, he should be a commedian!
        \_ Yea, Kerry's great idea - turn the medical industry into
           the DMV.
           \_ This is such ripe bullshit that farmers in Wisconsin would like
              to talk to you about buying up your stock to ferment their
           \_ Why is there such hatred about government sponsered medicare
              program? I live in Santa Clara and all the government provided
              service is miles ahead than what I can get if I hire private
              contractor and pay shit loads of money. This including sewage
              cleaning, tree trimming, etc, everything! What do I do now? I
              now checks to see if the city provides the kind of service I
              am looking for, if not, then I go out and get private contractors.
              Remember the key difference, private contractors are there to suck
              your money, governments are there to provide you a service. Don't
              believe all the shit that's coming out of Bush/Cheney's mouth.
              The current administration is what you get if you try to run
              the government like a money greedy blood sucking corporation.
           \_ So you'd rather want the medical industry be like Hilberton (or
              whatever the fuck Cheney's company is called)? Where the only
              answer is money? You want to live? Give me all your money?
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34272 Activity:very high
10/21   This is just sooooo wrong:
        Kerry hunting to get rednecks to vote for him is like GWB
        playing classical piano to get snobby liberals to vote for him.
        \_ He's been a hunter all his life.  Get off it.
           \_ Nonsense.  He only hunts in election years.  Stop drinking it.
              \_ Link for this?
           \_ He is anti-gun to the core.  Here's a Kerry quote on Deer
              "I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl
               around on my stomach I track and move and decoy and play
               games and try to outsmart them.  You know, you kind of
               play the wind. That's hunting!"  What a twit.
              \_ 12-gauge shotguns are legal.
              \_ Please.  Give me a quote from GWB that makes him sound like
                 a real hunter.  And stop shotgunning Bud.  It's not helping.
                 \_ I don't recall GWB ever claiming to be a hunter.
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34270 Activity:high
10/21   http://csua.org/u/9l8 (Yahoo!)
        Laura Bush proves herself not to be a cog in the Dubya machine:
        "She [Teresa Heinz-Kerry] apologized but she didn't even really need
        to apologize," Mrs. Bush told reporters at a coffee shop ... "I know
        how tough it is and actually I know those trick questions."
           SCREAMING IS THE STANDARD!!!1!!! MARY CHENEY!!!1!!! BUD DAY!!!!!!1
        \_ In other news, expect no apology from Karen Hughes.
        \_ A cog is the Dubya machine?  It was the most mild rebuke of the
           most clownishly stupid woman to ever set foot on a political stage.
           This must be a troll.  Please tell me you don't really believe what
           you're saying.
           \_ Who are you talking about?
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34261 Activity:high
10/21   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp
        Pretty interesting analysis of Kerry and Bush with regard
        to Iraq, and how it is the single most important issue.
        \_ NYT analysis?  Is this anything more than a "Vote Kerry!" piece?
              \_ NYT on a good jobs report, "BONDS DROP ON JOBS REPORT!"
                 \_ AP on a 3 point Kerry lead today: "Race tied."
                    Reuters on a 1 point Bush lead, different poll for
                    same time period: "Bush with narrow lead."
                    What liberal media?
                    \_ Reuters doesn't appreciate margins of error.
        \_ "The big question about Kerry is, 'Will he pull the trigger?'
           ... And the big question about Bush is, 'Can he aim?'"
2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34257 Activity:nil
10/20   Kerry, from 1994, clarifies what constitutes a "global test"
2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34253 Activity:very high
10/20   Just read that Theresa Heinz Kerry was born in Mozambique.
        Will this be the first time a first lady will have not have
        been born in the US?
        \_ Damn subversive Mozambicans trying to control the gubmint.
        \_ Louisa Adams was born in England.
           \_ Oh that's the same. Maybe it's not a "real" country
        \_ maybe Kerry will be the Mozambiquian Candidate.
        \_ I just read that John Kerry speaks fluent French.  Is this the
           first time we have a presidential candidate who can speak French?
           \_ Maybe in the last 50 years, but no.
           \_ Is it the first time we've had a candidate who "looks French"?
              \_ He's a Czech Jew, you moron.  Stop being a hater long enough
                 to get your slurs right.
                 \_ I think your sarcasm meter is broken.
           \_ Vote for me!  I'll be the first president to speak fluent
              Korean! I bet that'll bring NK to the table. -jrleek
              \_ Does sky speak Korean?
                 \_ Just certain words.
        \_ Kerry's not going to win, so your question is moot.
                \_ there had to be someone to say this.
                        \_ yes, motd, fair and balanced.
        \_ I know that the first three or four first ladies were not
           born in the United States.
2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34251 Activity:very high
10/20   The snobbery of the elite liberals continues:
        \_ I wonder what kind of ketchup they serve in the White House?
           \_ Maybe W ketchup. Supposedly bush supporters put out their
              own brand of ketchup because "You don't support Kerry, why
              should your ketchup". I mangled that, but it was something
        \_ *shrug*  It's not like the left side of the theater has a monopoly
           on elite snobbery.
        \_ It's sounds to me more like Mrs. Heinz-Kerry has never had what
           I would define as "a real job."
           \_ What are you talking about?
              \_ A woman worth $1 billion that she inherited should not
                 be talking about who has or has not had a "real job".
                 \_ Are you saying she does not have a real job?
                    \_ Yes, and never has.
                       \_ Have you done any research into her previous job
                          \_ I am sure she worked at Wendy's and did
                             tricks to come up with the last $100 of rent
                             money. She's basically a billionaire
                             philanthropist. She's never had to work.
                             \_ I take that as a no.  Please stop talking
                                out of your ass next time.
                                \_ I think this is particularly ironic,
                                   considering Teresa Heinz later apologized
                                   for not knowing Laura Bush worked as a
                                   librarian and a teacher.
                                   \_ There is no irony.  I'm the same person
                                      who posted that fact at the bottom
                                      of the thread, and the same person
                                      who's been responding to you.
                                      \_ Oddly enough, I'm not "you" nor any
                                         of the other posters on this sub-
                                         \_ Too bad it doesn't change my point.
                                            \_ I was merely pointing out an
                                               incorrect assumption on your
                                               \_ Like, duh!
                                   \_ Hey, even I knew that, and I don't
                                      pay attention to this kind of stuff
                                      and don't care. -- ilyas
           \_ Not sure what Teresa Heinz's job history may be, but she is
              snobbish and a bitch.  So says my brother, who know the Heinzes
              and roomed with Chris Heinz in college.  I think most people
              will say that the W's make better house guests and dinner
              companions, but I don't know what relevance that has to the
              \_ Instead of "snobbish and a bitch", how about:  knows what
                 she feels and will tell you honestly about it instead of
                 backstabbing with gossip?
                 \_ I don't imagine that my brother has been backstabbed
                    by her.  I do know that he has been snubbed by her for
                    not being worthy.  Perhaps you've had a different
                    experience with her.  Care to share?
                    \_ No, I do not have any second-hand experiences from
                       a brother to relate.  I do trust these interviews, where
                       her personality leaks out, more than what your brother
                       says, obviously.
                       \_ You'll understand that I trust my brother's personal
                          experiences more than what I can infer from some
                          staged and prepped interviews.
                          \_ Sure, you can believe your brother, since it's
                             your right to believe what you want to believe.
                             \_ I'm glad you approve.  And I'll be happy to
                                extend to you the same privilege of believing
                                whatever you want to believe.
                                \_ It's an inherent right.  No one is extending
                                   anyone anything.  Duh.
                                   \_ As you wish.  I'll go back to watching
                                      interviews to see if I can infer more
                                      about my politicians from them.
                                      \_ Note I did not posit any request to
                                         you for you to say "as you wish".
                                         I would urge you to evalute interviews
                                         on a case by case basis as well,
                                         instead of implying that they're
                                         all less useful than stories from
                                         your older brother.
                                         \_ Let me see...  On one hand, I have
                                            my brother, who roomed with Chris
                                            freshman year, still exchanges
                                            occasional emails with him, and
                                            has met Teresa several times over
                                            the course of a year of living
                                            with her son.  On the other hand,
                                            I can study Teresa under the
                                            artificial condition of a staged
                                            interview, where she was no doubt
                                            on guard to try to present a good
                                            image of herself, and where she
                                            was likely prepped by handlers
                                            on how to answer the interview
                                            questions and on how to conduct
                                            herself.  Tough choice.
                                            \_ I don't believe we are
                                               covering any new ground.
                                               I've said my piece, you've
                                               said yours.
                                               said yours.  If we were on
                                               O'Reilly, this is where he'd
                                               say, "Now we let the viewers
                                               \_ Tell you what... I'll ask
                                                  Chris if his mom is a snob
                                                  when I see him at my bro's
                                                  wedding next spring.  Would
                                                  that be a definitive enough
                                                  answer for you?  Or will
                                                  you still cling to your
                                                  interview inferences?
                                                  \_ Probably won't help, but
                                                     thanks.  I think what
                                                     could help more are highly
                                                     descriptive stories
                                                     (rather than just the
                                                     concluding label of "snob"
                                                     or "bitch") from which
                                                     people can make their own
                                                     \_ I'll just note that
                                                        it's interesting to
                                                        see how your position
                                                        has shifted over the
                                                        length of this thread.
                                                        \_ Please state in
                                                           one sentence what
                                                           has shifted.
                                                           Please think about
                                                           this sentence
                                                           carefully before
                                                           you post.  Thanks.
                                                           \_ Nope, I can't do
                                                              it in one
                                                              sentence.  Why
                                                              this silly
                    \_ instead of "snubbed by her for not being worthy", how
                       about:  she didn't want to hang out with your brother
                       but wanted to hang out with someone else instead?
                       \_ Oh you were there too!  That must have been a
                          crowded dorm room.
                          \_ Clearly I am suggesting a reasonable alternative
                             to your brother's interpretation of what
                             happened; and clearly everyone understands that
                             your brother was there and I was not; and clearly
                             everyone *should* understand there is weight in
                             both positions.
              \_ Alex Kerry (John's daughter) doesn't like her either.
                 \_ John Kerry married an ice-queen!  He's clearly unfit to be
                    commander in chief!
                    \_ I don't know that the nicest and most friendly people
                       also make the best presidents.  However, attempts to
                       buff up Teresa Heinz's character clearly implies that
                       some people do think so.
                    \_ She's a South African Republican bitch. The fact
                       that she and Kerry have a lot in common
                       (apparently) is scary and worth noting.
                       \_ I thought we had gotten beyond denigrating people for
                          where they came from.
        \_ The conservative spin machine goes into overdrive.  Determining
           there is an insult where there is not:  "Well, you know, I don't
           know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in
           her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real
           job -- I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her
           validation comes from important things, but different things. I'm
           older, and my validation of what I do is a little bit bigger --
           because I'm older, and I've had different experiences."
           \_ Actually it's just annoying because she's stupid.  I never
              thought it was an insult, but I usually figure that you
              should keep your yap shut if you don't know what you're
              talking about.
              \_ But apparently you think it's ok to be president of the
                 United States if you don't know what you're talking about.
                 \_ Did I say I was a Bush supporter?  You're an idiot.
              \_ "stupid"... from what do you gather this?  "snobbery"...
                 from what do you gather that?  I smell Limbaugher.
                 \_ To state that you don't know anything about someone
                    and then go on to postulate about what kind of jobs
                    they've held in the past is, well, stupid.  The
                    assumptions she makes about said jobs is snobbish.
                    \_ You are really reading into this too much.
                       You've just been spun by the conservative spin machine.
                       \_ Umm.. the quote is directly above this post.
                          Which part of is has been spun by the
                          "conservative spin machine?"
                          \_ *All* of the quote above.  Taken in context, it
                             is not an attack on Laura Bush.
                             If you don't know what the "conservative spin
                             machine" is, recall "sensitive war on terror"
                             and Dubya having said the same thing.
                             \_ Wow, you have some reading problems don't
                                you.  As I said above, I never thought it
                                was an insult, or an attack, on Laura
                                Bush.  It's just stupid.
                                \_ Nah, I just think THK got used by the
                                   Republican spin machine.  I don't think
                                   what she said was stupid.
                       \_ The AP is a conservative spin machine!  Call out
                          the tin-foil corps!
              \_ What she said makes sense to me.
                 She should realize that Republicans are evil when it comes
                 to taking quotes out of context.
                 It's not stupid not to realize this.
              \_ Some people just seem to have a real skill for pedial-oral
                 insertion. [ don't change this, make your own joke ]
        \_ And the Bush folks miss the point:
           'Karen Hughes, an adviser to President Bush, criticized Heinz
            Kerry's remarks as "indicative of an unfortunate mind-set that
            seeks to divide women based on who works at home and who works
            outside the home."'
           So even Karen Hughes seems to think that Laura Bush has always been
           a stay-at-home mom.
           \_ Republican - spin - machine.
              I doubt Karen Hughes really thinks that.
              On a note of fairness, Teresa Heinz-Kerry issued a press release
              apologizing for not having known that Laura Bush was a
              teacher and librarian.  I doubt Heinz-Kerry didn't know that.
              Democratic - unspin - machine.
              \_ Which sounds more likely?:
                 THK knew Laura Bush's history and decided to talk smack about
                 it in the face of logic.   -OR-
                 THK was uninformed but talked out her ass anyway
                 \_ I'm putting my money on the latter.  THK is very proud
                    of her record as "opinionated" and "outspoken."  In
                    other words, she proud of her ability to talk out her
2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34247 Activity:very high
10/20   "I thought I'd miss my boyfriend when he went to Iraq.
         How ironic that I got drafted and killed!"   -Missie in Miami
        \_ Boy, I'm glad I'm an ordained minister.  To be honest, currently
           you have a bunch of people who at least to some degree want to be
           there, there.  What happens when you get a bunch of angry fuckups
           who don't want to be in the military decked out with all kinds
           of nasty hardware, and royally pissed off about being sent to east
           palookistan to inculate the friendly natives with concepts of
           democracy?  Great prospects.  Add to that that every military guy
           I've spoken to about this (several friends are/were mid-grade
           officers) hates the idea of a bunch of untrained/untrainable losers
           hanging around, breaking the equipment and using up what few spare
           parts they have...  -John
        \_ Why are people worried about a fictional draft?  Only Democrats have
           tried to make it happen.  Kerry actually supports compulsory service
           if you want to go to college, etc.
           \_ Cuz it's getting worse over there and we're running out of
           \_ One of the best recent moments in the campaign was the Bush
              speech accusing Kerry of using "fear tactics," followed by a
              Cheney speech the next day implying that a vote for Kerry would
              result in terrorists nuking a city.
           \_ Dubya has promised not to implement the draft.
              Kerry, on the other hand, just might do it.
           \_ Dubya has promised not to implement the draft.  (The implication
              being he won't let the situation get to this point, and perhaps
              if we really did need people, he would appeal to his base's
              patriotism to enlist in a time of need.)
              Kerry, on the other hand, leaves it as an option.
              \_ "read my lips..."
              \_ Kerry has said explicitely that he wants to increase our
                 forces, especially special forces.  He has also said he wants
                 to increase pay and work on getting our traditional allies to
                 give troop support.  Bush has said he will not implement
                 a draft.  He also has said that we have a strong coalition,
                 that Iraq is getting better, and that the troops are well
                 supplied.  If we need a draft, we need a draft.  I hope we
                 don't.  But believing yet another lie is foolish. --scotsman
              \_ George will institute a skills draft, but rename it to
                 something else, so he can claim to have kept his promise.
                 You heard it here first. -ausman
                 \_ Nah, a draft is a draft is a draft.
                    I don't see you sysadmins getting drafted.
              \_ "We will not have an all volunteer army." -GWB
        \_ Lots of cutesy photoshopping.  Nothing but leftist partisanship here
           \_ Why is satire so hard to grasp?
              \_ Because people are tired of grasping the same thing over
                 and over and over and over and fucking over again.
           \_ If you want to see blatant partisanship, fear tactics, and hate
              mongering, check out the Issue 1 ballot measure race in Ohio.
              \_ Well, if the purpose is to get me to never spend a dime of
                 my money in ohio, and to attempt to boycott products from
                 ohio, i guess it could work.  we are on the road to civil
                 war.  the tinder is there, all that is needed is the match.
                 \_ Oh, BS.  You all act like the US has never seen
                    partisan politics before.  Get a grip.
                 \_ Hehe, if one listens to the stereotypes, liberals will
                    not do so well in a civil war.  They don't have guns,
                    for example. -- ilyas.
                    \_ I'm not particularly liberal (more apathetic) but I
                       think Bush & Co., not to put too fine a point on it,
                       are a pack of cocksmokers, and I have plenty of guns
                       (and ammo!  W00t!)  -John
                       \_ Hey John, can I buy those old sig assault rifles
                          in .ch still?  They are nice. -- ilyas
                       \_ Use motdedit.  Don't squish posts.
                          \_ Sorry--hard to check who's really editing motd
                             with so many goddamm motd archivers running.
                             Ilyas--yes, but only semi-auto.  I'd rather
                             recommend a Karabiner 31--way more fun.  And
                             I have no clue where you'll find GP11 ammo in
                             California.  -John
                    \_ If bush wins, I've already said I'm buying an AK-47
                       and a pistol and training in their use.  I've got
                       pretty good eye hand coordination, and I'm pretty
                       sure I can catch up with the fat ass republican
                       gun nuts in about a year.
                       \_ Not in CA you are not. -- ilyas
                    \_ Well, just keep listening to those stereotypes, ilyas.
           \_ Yes, JFK campaigned on that bogus belief against the Republicans
              back in 1960, when in reality the Soviets were far behind.
                \_ Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!
                  \_ MEIN FUEHRER, I CAN VALK!  -John
                   \_ My honorable shaft shall leave no gap in your mineshaft,
2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34246 Activity:high
10/20   Fuck.  Motd is boring.  I'll kick it off:  John Ashcroft = teh gay.
        \_ Actually, this the highest S/N ratio motd in quite some time.
           Are you saying a high S/N == boring?
           \_ yermom makes lots of noise
              \_ I'll take that as a yes.
                 \_ What else can it mean when yermom's noise is "Yes ... YES
                    ... YEEEEESSSSS"?
                    \_ She's faking.  Can't you tell?
                       \_ Really?  But she's very wet.
2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34245 Activity:high
10/19   John Zogby breaks down the electorate.  Very interesting regardless of
        what "side" you're on, especially the bits about the "missing center."
        \_ fantastic link! thanks.  this is the stuff zogby is always trying
           to get people to pay to read on his website.
        \_ Good stuff.  In the meantime, has stock in Pepcid and other
           heartburn medicine companies seen an appreciable jump yet?
        \_ Why do bloggers love the word "eponymous" so damn much? seriously
           \_ Bloggers get no respect.  They're using big words to try to sound
        \_ Interesting but to save others the trouble.  This guy went to a
           \_ Because so many blogs are named after their creators in some way?
           Zogby speech and took notes.  These are his notes about what Zogby
           said interspersed with his own opinion.  Here's his summary at the
           end, "My thoughts: Zogby has an obvious personal bias to Democrats
           but I take him at face value when he says his research is
           impartial. His speculation that the race is Kerry's to lose didn't
           convince me, but nor do I buy that it is Bush's to lose either. I
           think the struggle for both candidates now is to go and win the
           race. Otherwise his thoughts on the missing centre certainly make
           sense and gel with my impressions of American politics (admittedly
           from afar). The small amount of undecideds are the key
           battleground, but I'm not sure they will break for Kerry in the
           numbers Zogby expects, especially given the reluctance of many to
           change Presidents during times of war. What is clear is unless the
           margin is reasonable, which is unlikely, there's going to be one
           hell of a mess."
           \_ Thanks for overwriting my post, asshole.
        \_ The key point for me was Zogby saying Gallup was crap.  When
           election time comes, we will see if this is true.
2004/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34239 Activity:moderate
10/19   Nice tactics - were these guys Union thugs?
        Anti-Kerry Film Showing Canceled
        \_ Hey, I thought republicans were the violent ones, but no one
           showed up to fight at F9/11!
        \_ My grandparents used to live in Levittown.  Great place to grow
           your homophobic, mysogynist football jock kids, is all I'm
           \_ you sound like a sissy metrosexual
              \_ If you were from Levittown, you'd just call me a fag.
                 \_ You're John Kerry's butt boy --Tucker Carlson
                    \_ You're still a dick. --Jon Stewart
2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34236 Activity:kinda low
10/18   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135932,00.html
        Poll: Bush Lead Over Kerry Widens
        Kerry is fucked!!! You liberals can't godamn unite and defeat
        the evil one, and look what happens.    -moderate against bush
        \_ WSJ's poll has them dead even among likely voters, and they actually
           publish their internals, unlike fox. Gallup is the only other that
           has the poll that wide.
           \_ So did Fox put up a banner saying "Call in and tell us who you're
              going to vote for"?
              \_ It has to do with the definition of "likely voter".  Gallup
                 has caught a lot of flack lately for weighting their likely
                 voter sample much heavier to R's than the actual turnout
                 numbers from the last few election cycles.  Who knows how
                 valid this is, but it certainly doesn't take into account
                 the increases in D registration and massive D mobilization.
        \_ It's not the liberals, it's the American people who don't decide
           on political issues but on perceptions like gays, god, guns, and
           taxes. It is impossible to get past that among those people.
           \_ And abortion and stem cell research.
        \_ Don't get discouraged. This one is still tied going into the top
           of the 9th.
2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34234 Activity:nil
10/19   Fun quiz as of 5:45PM, match the following headlines with the
        stations. Don't cheat boys and girls!
        1 "Poll: Bush Lead Over Kerry Widens"
        2 "Poll: Bush Hits 50 Percent. Bush Passes Critical Number But
                First-Time voters Could Help Kerry"
        3 "Bush Kerry Deadlocked"
        4 "Bush Holds Narrow Lead In <station>Poll"
        A MSNBC    B Fox    C CBS     D ABC News
        \_ Educated guess: 1 B, 2 D, 3 A
        \_ NBC has em tied among likely voters.
        \_ NBC/WSJ has em tied among likely voters.
2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34233 Activity:nil
10/19   John Edwards - Breck Girl
        \_ I'll run my fingers through the Breck Girl's hair any day.
2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34219 Activity:moderate
10/19   Drudge pwns himself again.  Kerry excommunication story that he is
        pushing turns out to be a hoax.
        \_ Drudge reposts other people's links.  How about you attack the
           source instead of a link reposting service?
2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34212 Activity:high
10/19   re: party affiliation by socioeconomic indicators:
        "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...
        unless they have too much education and vote Democratic,
        which proves there can be too much of a good thing." -Karl Rove
        \_ 'Cos there's only enough room at the top of the pyramid for seekrit
           advisers and Texans!
        \_ "When people think, Democrats win." -Bill Clinton
           \_ But only if you put forward a viable candidate.  Kerry is not.
              Gore was not.  The most important part of Kerry losing is the
              Dems may figure out they need to join the mainstream of this
              country so people like me can consider voting for them again.
              \_ Exactly half the country disagrees with you.  What can
                 you possibly mean by "mainstream?"
                 \_ This reminds me of a Fark headline: "Latest poll has Bush,
                    Kerry both at 49%. In other news, 49% of people are morons"
                    \_ Only 2% are undecided?  How likely is that?
                    \_ Over 50% of Americans rate themselves as being above
                 \_ The problem here is that Bush is a VERY weak
                    incumbant.  Even most Republicans don't really like
                    him.  It should have been an easy Dem victory.  But
                    they put up king douchebag as a canidate, and they may
                    \_ I doubt Dean could have done better.  California itself
                       voted > 60% for the defense of marriage act.
                    \_ Exactly.  Thank you.  I believe if Dean was the guy,
                       Bush would be -10 right now.  If Gephardt or some
                       other more normal Dem were the guy, same thing.  But
                       they put up this Kerry nobody with the idea not that
                       they like him but he's more moderate than Dean and
                       thus can beat Bush by suckering in the middle.  Close
                       but no cigar.  Bush is weak weak weak and is still
                       ahead.  Put up a real candidate next time and you
                       might win.  I don't like Bush but I hate Kerry.  Guess
                       who I'm voting for?  Guess how millions of others will
                       vote who think the same?  Stop stuffing these pompous
                       jerks who have been planning to be President for their
                       entire lives who feel it is owed them and you'll win.
                       Kerry is a weak version of Gore who at least stood for
                       something before Clinton corrupted him.  No over riding
                       legal authority indeed.
2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34205 Activity:high
10/18   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/opinion/18safire.html
        Safire:  Stupidest NY Times op-ed columnist ever.
        \_ "Until that moment, only political junkies knew that a member of
            the Cheney family serving on the campaign staff was homosexual."
           When did Safire get replaced with a pod person, and why didn't
           Herb Caen tell us about it?
        \_ calling someone a lesbian is a horrible incident, when
           they happen to be out, and they head their father's efforts
           to appear non evil to gay people?  that rules - danh
           \_ Andrew Sullivan has the best take on all the Mary Cheney
              \_ Well, I admit what Sullivan says in nonsense.  I looked
                 it up just to read "the best take" and all I got was, "A
                 couple of Republican crackpots did some gay baiting too,
                 why isn't anyone complaing about that?"  Umm... because
                 there's a bit of a difference between a presidential
                 canidate and some RNC flyers in some crackpot backwater?
                 \_ If that's all you got out of it, you didn't really read
                    any of his entries.
                    \_ That's the one at the top of the page, I assumed it
                       was the one you meant.
                       \_ I'm not the guy who suggested Sullivan, but he
                          probably meant this:
                          \_ Well, it's still retarded, but at least it
                             makes a little more sense.
                             \_ My theory is still that Lynne Cheney's evilness
                                is being spun into fake righteous outrage.
                                Lots of people disagree with me, but I'm right.
                                \_ Surest sign of this was that it was no big
                                   deal when John Edwards mentioned it - in
                                   fact, Dick Cheney thanked him for mentioning
                                   it.  It only became "righteous outrage"
                                   when it happened in the presidential debate
                                   where Bush forgot that he said he wasn't
                                   concerned about Osama.
                                   \_ The original article covers that
                                      pretty well.
        \_ What happened to csuamotd/csuamotd. Did they just delete this
           account or did someone just change the passwd?
           \_ Try http://BugMeNot.com
        \_ It's kinda silly, she hasn't come out supporting gay marriage.
           Just because she's gay doesn't mean she does.  Therefore, Kerry
           using her to push gay marriage is silly.
           \_ The debate question was about whether one believes homosexuality
              is a choice or not.  Kerry said Dick Cheney's daughter Mary,
              if asked, would say that it was not a choice.
              The question was not about gay marriage per se.
              Stupid conservative/independent/libertarian/liberal/peon!
              Pay attention!
              \_ Oops, sorry.  Does any know if Mary Cheney has ever made
                 such a statement, or was Kerry just making that up?
                 \_ Do you realize Kerry said Mary Cheney "would" say that if
                    asked?  See http://csua.org/u/9jk search for "daughter".
                    Kerry said that he believes that if you talk to a gay
                    person, they will tell you it's not a choice.
                    I urge you to find your nearest gay person and ask them
                    what they think.
                    \_ I know, but that's a sterotype.  Maybe she thinks
                       it is a choice.  The Greeks sure did.
                       \_ The Greeks had pretty different ideas about
                          sexuality than we do.
                    \_ kchang?  psb?  What do YOU think?
                        \_ What do I think about the politics or lesbians?
                           I think all political trolls should be offloaded
                           to motd.troll so that /etc/motd.public could go
                           back to what it used to be-- technical/social
                           (foodP) forum. That is what I think.   -kchang
                           \_ motd was never used for foodPs...
                           \_ Yeah, but who would want to archive a bunch
                              of foodPs
                           \_ One thing kchang and tom have in common is
                              an uncanny ability to tell just what
                              precisely IS a troll, and what is not.
                                -- ilyas
                              \_ one thing ilyas has is an uncanny
                                 ability to use sarcasm to make a point
                                 and then thinking that he's so smart.
                              \_ Is this a troll?
2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34193 Activity:nil
10/18   So I registered to vote online two weeks ago, and just received my
        form on Friday. It says I need to sign and return it. My question is
        if I drop it off in the mail today, is it too late? Do I need to find
        some place where they have voter registration and hand the form to
        them? I am in foster city.
        \_ No, it's not too late.  You're registered in the system, but they
           need your signature to activate it.
           \_ I'm not so sure about that.  The online fill-out-the-form, we
              mail it to you system seems more like a service to me.  Until
              you sign it and mail it in, I don't think anything is done
              with it.  As to the time-line, iirc, voter registration just has
              to be postmarked by the specified date, while absente-ballot
              registration must be received by the specified date.
              \_ Urk.  Good call.  According to the State, however, today is
                 the last day to register, so op will be in luck if he sends
                 in his card today. -pp
              \_ Can't you cast a provisional ballot regardless of whether you
                 are registered?
                 \_ Yes.  See the following URL and search for "Provisional":
        \_ Called the Secretary of State's Office for you.  They say your card
           is good as long as it's post-marked by today (Monday, October 18).
           \_ Thank you all! I've mailed it at the post office!
2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34192 Activity:nil
10/18   Vietnam Veteran sues anti-Kerry filmmaker for libel
        http://csua.org/u/9j4 (yahoo! news)
        Interesting.  Aren't US libel cases almost impossible to win?
        \_ Sheesh.  Micheal Moore-like editing techniques make this guy
           look bad.
           \_ Yeah, I'm thinking he doesn't have much of a case.  Unlike
              UK law, libel in the US requires the accuser to prove deliberate
              malicious intent.  The "dog ate my homework" excuse is
              essentially a valid defense.
        \_ It has happened here and there but generally, yes.  The 1st
           amendment is generally interpreted as broadly as possible.
2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34191 Activity:moderate
10/18   Jesus this thing is gonna be close.  Zogby has Bush and Kerry tied
        at exactly 45%.  Zogby tends to be far more accurate than Gallup.
        Photo finish indeed.
        \_ They do?  How'd Zogby do in the midterm elections?  Zogby got
           lucky in 2000.  The others had stopped polling because it was
           going to be a Bush blowout until the Dem's dropped their ancient
           DUI garbage bomb a day before everyone voted.  Zogby's
           methodology is use blindly use the same percentages by party as
           voted in 2000.  This looks good on paper but is naive and ignores
           all current events and worse ignores what people are actually
           telling him about their own voting habits and intentions.  He
           trusts them to say who they'll vote for but not if they'll vote?
           \_ I like that you defend Gallup's completely off-base result
              by blaming it on the DUI issue.  You really think that swung
              the election over 8 points in one day?  You're smoking crack.
              By the way, Zogby got within one tenth of one percent in 1996
              as well.  As for Gallup, this is not a partisan thing, although
              Moveon is trying to make it into one.  There are serious problems
              with Gallup's likely voter methodology - there are plenty of
              statisticians concerned about it.  Anyway, anyone who thinks this
              race is anything other than tied is drinking serious Koolaid.
              \_ BUSH LANDSLIDE IN CALIFORNIA!!!11!1
2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34189 Activity:nil
10/18   Anti-Kerry spot for the "In the Face of Evil guys."  I think it's
        funny. http://vbuttons.com/ec/5629/index.php?em_id=1424386
2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34187 Activity:high
10/18   According to http://taemag.com, Kerry is "supported by 10 Nobel prize
        winners, intellectuals, scientists, etc. These elitists live in
        ivory tower and are not your typical mainstream Americans. In
        another word, they are out of touch with reality." That is
        really cool! I've been elite all these years and didn't
        even know it. I feel good about myself thanks to the Republicans.
        \_ I think http://www.aei.org is a better site.  But you
           are right, you, Carter and Arafat are kindred souls.
        \_ You've been a Nobel prize winner all these years?
        \_ What exactly do you have in common with any Nobel prize winners?
           \_ He's in Cal, like some Nobel prize winners.  That's all.
2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34186 Activity:very high
10/17   A Bush debate bounce?  WTF?  http://www.pollingreport.com
        \_ I call it the Team America: World Police bounce.
         \_ so is it a pro-Bush movie? Trey Parker/Matt Stone pro-Bush?
            \_ I think I read that it's less anti-republican than
               anti-democrat.  But niether Bush nor Kerry appear in the
            \_ I think both sides got bashed very fairly and accurately.
               The important difference is who can laugh at themselves or not.
            \_ Trey and Matt hate conservatives, but they REALLY hate liberals.
               The movie is pro-Bush.
               \_ Trey and Matt, like Vice magazine, are WAY past their sell-by
                  date.  Nihilism is so 2000.
               \_ Who do they like then?
                  \_ Who cares?  They don't.  They just want to trivialize
                     anyone who genuinely cares about anything (c.f. South Park
                     episode about Mormons).  They are aggressive nihilists.
                     And yes, I guess I just don't "get it."
                  \_ Trey and Matt are libertarian.
                     \_ Trey and Matt are system-buckers.  They like to get
                        a rise, and modern liberals are easy to get a rise
                        out of with a minimum of effort.  It's easy to lampoon
                        the Right, but it's hard to tell if the Right gets it
        \_ All your election are belong to Rove.
           \_ All your electronic ballot are delivered to Rove by Diebold.
2004/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34180 Activity:nil
10/17   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6268250
        Mainstream metropolitan newspapers endorse Kerry,
        back-country redneck middle American newspapers endorse Bush.
        \_ *LAUGH*  Bait harder!
2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34178 Activity:very high
10/14   So I watched Outfoxed and thought it was really cool, until
        the last bit of the film when it creditted http://moveon.org. Now
        I know it's just another damned left wingnut propaganda film.
        \_ I heard O'Reilly likes phone sex is this true?
        \_ you are teh gay:w
        \_ So, truth is entirely dependent on where it comes from?
          \_ truth is closer when you have a non-biased party observing
             and reporting. While Foxed is not Fair and Balanced, neither
             is Outfoxed, which is supported by a biased party
             \_ You are an idiot.
                \_ well? are you going to explain why he's an idiot?
                   \_ he disagrees with the correct political thought.  he
                      is an idiot.
                      \_ oh, come on.  anyone who can actually watch
                         that entire documentary, and then just think
                         it's partisan because of something they saw
                         in the credits is living in a fucking cave.
                         the whole thread is probably just a troll
                         by someone who's bored and doesn't care
                         one way or the other, but you are still a moron.
        \_ excellent documentary. It got me thinking about the shows
           they broadcast and how they fit into the executives' agenda.
           Take the show Cops for example. It repeatedly shows you that
           blacks and hispanics are bad drug dealers. Look at their
           kids show. Buffy. The OC. Whitie good. Minorities bad.
           If you have more examples please respond to this thread. ok thx.
           \_ Um.  There is a reason there are a lot of blacks and hispanics
              on Cops.  Media bias, however, ain't it. -- ilyas
              \_ There are more total numbers of white criminals than black
                 and hispanic criminals.
                 \_ In major urban areas - no.
           \_ Yes and if you want to do the same analysis of other stations
              you'll find similar results in regards to both racial profiling
              in TV shows going back decades before Fox existed to today and
              news reporting that fits into the executives agenda.
           \_ Not that I'm defending Fox, but Buffy was on the WB. And what
              about shows like Friends and Will and Grace? Those are supposed
              to take place in NYC, yet there were no non-white major
              characters. As a person-of-color, I find that far more offensive
              than the OC (which is supposed to take place in the white part
              of Orange County) or even Cops.
        \_ there are no unbaised and neutral sources.  all sources,
           all reporting, all documentaries are biased.  the
           intelligent person understands this.
           \_ You are correct insofar as no human being can be completely
              without bias or opinion.  However, it is the purpose of
              journalism to report facts (also known as news).  When all of
              the relevant facts are provided, the general public can make
              informed opinions about the matter.  Calm and objective editing
              is the key.  Fox completely lacks this.  Other news orgs simply
              slip every once in a while.  Cf. the documentary "Control Room,"
              a rather objective look at Al Jazeera's coverage of the sack
              of Baghdad.
        \_ big evil corporation from Rupert Murdock and Sinclair support
           Bush and broadcast anti-Kerry materials. Don't the Democrats
           have friends in mass media?
           \_ Sinclair owns roughly 1/4 of the stations.  The other 3/4 are
              anti-Bush & pro-Kerry.  Watch the nightly news to see.
              \_ You're full of shit. Give some examples of this bias.
2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34175 Activity:very high
10/14   http://electoral-vote.com shows that there are only a few Strong
        Kerry states while there are many many Strong Bush states.
        Kerry is doomed! 4 more years of Bush, 4 more years of doom!
                                 Wrong. 4 more years of freedom! _/
                                 \_ 4 more years of freedom fries!  -John
        \_ Uhm, yeah.  If Kerry takes florida (which is a tie), he wins
           the election.  You're either an idiot, a troll, or a right wingnut.
           \_ Uhm, yeah.  If you've been watching the polls you would know
              that Florida has been polling more to the Bush side than the
              Kerry side as a rule.  If Kerry takes Texas he wins the
              election!  Don't bet your money on a single poll from an
              oddball source.  Desire does not create reality.
              \_ You should do your homework, bub.  It doesn't sound like you
                 have.  Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is going to win,
                 but I doubt any prediction can reasonably be made at this
                 point with any assurity.
                 \_ I've been reading several poll sites on a daily basis for
                    months, not just the hand chosen stuff at electoral-vote.
                    If you'd like to educate me and demonstrate where I'm
                    wrong and inaccurate, go right ahead.  Until then your
                    reply isn't useful.
                    \_ Almost all of the polls have Ohio tied, for the last
                       four weeks. If Kerry wins Ohio, he probably wins.
              \_ Four more hurricanes!
2004/10/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34165 Activity:nil
10/15   Michael Moore made tons of money from his anti-Bush documentaries.
        How much did he donate to the Kerry campaign?
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34154 Activity:nil
10/15   Nader's former running-mate endorses Kerry:
        http://csua.org/u/9hz [Indiancountry.com]
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34152 Activity:very high
10/15   Most interesting "Doonesbury discovers URLs" yet:
        (Source URL for Dubya's hometown paper endorsing Kerry)
        \_ Seriously, stop posting this crap. If you continue to
           do this I'll change your links to porn sites.
           \_ I find it kind of interesting.  It's not blatantly offensive and
              could lead to a nice little flamewar so why should you censor it?
        \_ Fascinating piece on the responses the paper has received on this:
           \_ We are on the road to civil war.  If Bush wins this election,
              I am buying an AK-47 and training in its use, and moving to
              a  low population-density state in anticipation of the coming
           \_ If you actually read all the letters they got, they ran at
              least 4:1 in support.
                \_ That's not fair! People who support Bush are much, much
                   less likely to possess the ability to write a letter.
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34150 Activity:nil
10/15   http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/index.htm
        Strong support for Dubya and dislike of Kerry on this survey of
        servicemen and women and their families.  Note the strength of support
        when the breakdown is given for the soldiers only (not including
        family members).
        \_ I applaud the strenght and resolve our armed forces have in
           implementing free market reforms in Iraq.  Do they realize
           Paul Bremer thinks implementing a flat tax and reduction of
           tariffs are his main accomplishments in Iraq?  - danh
        \_ Military personnel in a non-draft military tend to be Republican.
           They also tend to favor strong military action over diplomatic
           solutions and sanctions.  Cf. military personnel support for
           Reagan over Carter.  On the other hand, would someone please explain
           to me how a survey of 655 service personnel accurately reflects
           trends in a military that now has over 200 times that number on
           duty in Iraq?
           \_ If your complaint is that they also need a survey for boots
              on the ground folks in Iraq, then it's warranted.  ... but, I
              don't see military higher-ups authorizing pansy election surveys
              while they're trying to fix Iraq.
              \_ I'm sorry, I just don't get the methodology that says that
                 the opinions of 655 people translates into an accurate picture
                 of all military personnel.  How does this work?
                 \_ Like any other poll, it's basic statistics.  You may wish
                    to consult the concepts of "sampling" and "margin of
                    error."  This is how any poll works.  That said, selecting
                    a representative sample is very difficult, and lots of
                    polling organizations get it wrong - even good ones.
                    c.f. Gallup's accuracy issues of late.
                    \_ Right, so I read up on Annenberg's methodology and the
                       basic stats page below.  My question then is how
                       accurately this reflects the views of the boots on the
                       ground, whether the same results hold true for
                       reservists currently on duty, and what questions were
                       asked, since the specific wording of the questions
                       could influence the results.  Kudos to the motd for
                       helping me to get a grip on this.
                       \_ Note your points were already brought up ...
                          three replies before your post.
           \_ How do polls of non-military citizens of 600-1200 meaningfully
              represent *millions* of people in a state if you're unwilling
              to allow the same 600+ to represent ~130k?
              \_ Sorry, not trying to be a troll, but genuinely curious. How
                 does this actually work?
                 \_ You may find this link helpful.  And oh yeah, obGoogle.
                    \_ thank you!
        \_ Is this the part where we're supposed to call them stupid and
           uneducated and braindwashed?
           \_ This is the part where we talk about yermom.
2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics] UID:34126 Activity:nil
10/14   I see lots of post-debate links below.  Rather than respond to
        each one since they all say pretty much the same thing and the
        posters following add nothing new, here's my take: whoever you
        were already voting for is who won for you.  Nothing significant
        happened.  Fox is still slanted right.  The other news channels
        are still slanted left.  Life goes on.
        \_ Watch CNN or MSNBC lately?  They're all Fox-lite now.
        \_ Mr. Obvious but questionably accurate statement man, you also have
           added nothing new.
2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34118 Activity:high
10/13    CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.html
         "Early poll: Kerry clear winner in debate"

         CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/13/opinion/polls/main649227.shtml
         "Uncommitted voters pick Kerry"

         Fox: "Three's a Charm, Bush campaign suggests the president
               put in his best debate performance yet"

         ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=163784
         "Last Presidential Debate Is a Draw"

         Summary: CNN/CBS say that Kerry won. Fox and ABC say it's
         a tie. We expected Fox to deny any Bush defeat, but what about
         ABC? Is it yet another subsidiary of Sinclair? Or is it yet
         another Fox alike, co-owned and run by Bush friend/family?
        \_ eh, I watched it, IMO, Kerry won.
        \_ eh, I watched it, IMO, Bush won.
        \_ Fox is aligned with the Bush Corporation.
           ABC is owned by Disney. Traditional family value, conservative.
           We all know Kerry won, but these news broadcast corporations
           can say whatever they want and change how voters vote.
           \_ Traditional family values like homosexuality?
           \_ We all know Kerry won?  Kerry looked stiff as a board and
              did not pass the living-room test.
        \_ ABC's poll had 38% Republicans, 30% Democrats.  Democrats said
           Kerry won, 81% to 5%, Republicans said Bush won, 72% to 12%,
           independents said Kerry won.  So really, ABC's poll says Kerry
           won, it just was skewed by their sample population.  -tom
           \_ CNN said this was the first debate where they had as many
              Democrats watching as Republicans.  Previously the people they
              talked to broke down as the ABC poll.
              I do agree with the suggestion that independents gave it to
              Kerry in all three debates.
        \_ I got calls from two Kerry-supporting friends within minutes of the
           end of the debate, and they both said Kerry won and Bush acted the
           fool.  A blog post by another friend, a Bush-supporter called it
           a big victory for Bush.  Another blogger friend, an Anyone-But-Bush
           fanatic, wrote that it was a slamdunk for Kerry.  It sounds to me
           like no one's convincing the faithful one way or the other.
2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34115 Activity:nil
10/13   Why Kerry likes to talk about his double-barreled shotgun and doesn't
        criticize non-passage of the assault weapons ban that much:
        \- gee, if that is the most liberal member of the senate, i suppose
           it means ted kennedy is a bow hunter. --psb
2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34114 Activity:very high
10/13   http://cbsnews.com - "But on one point, Kerry was disgraceful, and that is
        too weak a word. His mention of Cheney's daughter was gratuitous and
        heinous. I agree completely with Mrs. Cheney, who said tonight,
        'This is not a good man. This is coming from a mom. What a cheap and
        tawdry political trick.'"
        Momma is wrong.  Kerry told it like it was.  The vast majority of
        gay men and women are born that way.  It is not a matter of choice.
        Sorry.  This needs to be said more often by a leading American
        presidential candidate.
        I also happen to remember now that I had lost all respect for Mrs.
        Cheney in her comments about the "sensitive war on terror".
        It's not Kerry who is evil - it's Mrs. Cheney.
        \_ You're missing the point.  There was no need to bring up the
           VP's daughter's sexuality to say what he believed about sexuality.
           It was a weak attempt to split the conservative vote by reminding
           them Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.  Everyone groaned because
           they say it for what it was and it wasn't good no matter how you
           want to spin it.  But Kerry did something far worse which will
           hurt him with women everywhere.  I knew his last answer was bad
           but the women in the room dropped their jaws.  Kitty Dukakis
           \_ No, YOU'RE missing the point.  You and Mrs. Cheney see something
              where there isn't.  The truth is that being gay or lesbian in the
              vast majority of cases is not a choice.  If this splits the
              conservative vote because their brains are so small that they'll
              not turn out to vote because Cheney's daughter is lesbian, then
              that's their problem.  They'd already know this fact if they
              watched the VP debate, anyway.
              \_ Being gay or lesbian IS a choice, dumbass. What are you going
                 to claim next, that abstinence isn't a choice, that being
                 a liberal or conservative isn't a choice, that committing
                 suicide isn't a choice? There isn't anything physical
                 that makes you gay or straight. Some people are gay
                 and end up being bi, some are straight and end up being
                 gay. Just because you have a sexual preference doesn't
                 mean somehow you're branded with it. Certainly some of
                 us have a strong reaction towards something, but
                 making sexual orientation sound like it's a physical
                 attribute is just plain wrong. Unless you want to
                 get into a big debate about the concept of free will,
                 then you cannot simply posit that sexual preference
                 is not a choice.
                 \_ (a) There are genetic gays.  Some animals are born
                    gay.  Did they choose it?
                    (b) I don't think my heterosexuality is a choice in
                    a sense that I don't think I can wake up one day and
                    decide to be gay, and have it be anything more than
                    massive self-delusion. -- ilyas
                    \_ Come on ilyas.  You know those big gay pandas are just
                       lying  to themselves.  We need to bring them in with the
                 \_ You're simply wrong on this, and it's unlikely that
                    your mind will be changed until you talk about it
                    with someone close to you who is gay.  I hope you will
                    be willing to listen.
                 \_ The emerging scientific (and public) concensus is that
                    homosexuality is largely genetic.  Obviously choosing to
                    engage in gay sex is a choice, but since most people's
                    attraction to the opposite sex seems ingrained, how can
                    you say attraction to the same sex is not also ingrained?
                 \_ Wow.  You *really* need to get out and meet some new
                    kinds of people.
                 \_ Out of curiosity, do you belong to a church that teaches
                    that gays are going to hell?
        \- the "armies of compassion" have been dispatched to come get you.
        \_ I don't think that this statement of yours is a proven fact.
        \_ a big part of the Gay Agenda is to convince heterosexuals that
        \_ a big part of the Big Gay Agenda is to convince heterosexuals that
           they are gay so they can have sex with them.
           \_ Proven schientifically!
                \_ at least my gay friends tell "warn" me about it
                   \_ Hope your gay friends are more comprehensible than you.
                      \_ grammar are teh gay!
2004/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34113 Activity:high
10/13   Guess the Kerry strategy of giving Dubya everything just to get
        three (not two) debates was the correct one.  The hilarious part was
        that Dubya was playing hard to get on the town hall debate, when
        that was the one that he was clearly going to do best in - especially
        with the rule about no back-and-forth with audience members.
        Even when Dubya was complimenting his wife on speaking much more
        understandably than he could, I got the feeling he was acknowledging
        not meeting the high expectations of his supporters on the debates
        more than showing humility.
        \_ Right... Kerry, the candidate who "married up", can instantly
           spot those who make "200,000 or more", wants to effectively
           turn health care into the DMV, views terrorists as a
           "nuisance", wants to give nukes to Iran, and subjects his
           foreign policy to a "global test".  It would be a funny
           joke if this guy wasn't actually a presidential candidate.
           \_ No, no partisan distortion field here.  Nopenopenope.
           \_ do you get all of your talking points straight from Rove
              or something? even the hacks at NBC news called Bush out
              for misrepresenting the Kerry "nuisance" quote, but at
              least Bush wasn't just plain lying like he did when he
              claimed he has never said he wasn't particularly concerned
              about Bin Laden post-9/11
2004/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34111 Activity:very high
10/13   As of 10/13, 8:45PM, Kerry seems to be leading the polls
        with the exception of http://freerepublic.com, a republican dominant
        troll site with a lot of Bush fanatics (Kerry, Bush):
        http://cbsnews.com     84.79%
        http://cnn.com         (no longer available for some reason)
        http://foxnews.com     63%, 36%
        http://latimes.com     96.7%
        http://msnbc.com       74%, 26%
        http://freerepublic.com        2%, 72% (republican site)
        \_ You need to be registered to vote on http://freerepublic.com.
           Frankly, I'm too scared to register.
        \_ As I repeat for the third time, "thanks" goes to the DNC e-mail
           spam.  If you're on the e-mail list, it tells you go go vote online
           among other things.
           spam.  If you're on the e-mail list, it tells you to go vote online
           among other things.  After the embarrassment that was the first
           debate, Democrats got really enthusiastic about online voting.
           \_ Same thing happens on the RNC email list.
        \_ Calling freerepublic a "republican site" is a little misleading.
           It's a site for wingnuts like the guy who in an earlier motd post
           referred to the republicans as being too socialist.
           \_ Only in Bay Area does espousing the political beliefs of the
              Founders earn classification as a "wingnut".
              \_ Only in your diseased mind does freeper frothing reflect
                 the political beliefs of the Founders.
                 \_ You know, I find it amazing how frequently freerepublic
                    shows up as a dead horse to be kicked on the motd.  Truly,
                    have you no better things to do than kick them over and
                    over again to make yourself feel better?  I don't kick
                    Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh I just ignore them.
                    On an unrelated note, I love how when meyers et al bitch and
                    moan about how the republican congress is protectionist,
                    and spendy, and passing pork bills, that's considered
                    legidimate criticism.  While at the same time
                    if some freeper calls them socialist (they are probably
                    complaining about the same things) he is a wingnut.
                    You people are amazing. -- ilyas
                    \- does anybody remember who used to keep saying
                       "the pentagon (procurement) is the last bastion of
                       stalinism?" --psb
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34109 Activity:nil
10/13   Kerry loves saying "the president didn't answer the question",
        which pisses Bush off every time. Great country!
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34108 Activity:nil
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34102 Activity:nil 52%like:34080
10/13   Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
        Will the media investigate?  Form 180?
        \_ let's think about this.  kerry was in the service until
           1972 i believe?  the link you post, from our friends
           at the NY Sun, says the board of officers met in 1978.
           what the hell were they doing for 6 years? - danh
           \_ Carter's first executive order in office was to pardon
              all questionable discharges (deserter, etc.).  As you
              might imagine this created quite a political uproar.
              The other possibility is he transitioned through the
              Inactive Reserves.
        \_ Horse.  Dead.  Please spare the horses!
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34100 Activity:very high
10.13   Why doesn't Kerry listen to scientists?
        368 Economists Including Nobel laureates against Kerry
        economic plan
        \_ please point out one goddamn economist who is in favor
           of proposed bush economic policies, and for bonus points
           name one that didn't appear in a matthew broderick movie - danh
           \_ I don't watch many movies, most of them are worthless,
              so your reference is lost on me.
        \_ What do these laureates propose as an alternative? If they
           think what Bush is doing is good (bankrupting the government)
           then we don't need to pay attention to them.  This article sounds
           like a Bush stump speech.  Do these laureates know that Bush has
           proposed $3 trillion worth of new spending (even more than Kerry)?
           \_ that's not $3 trillion of "new spending", it's a $3 million
              bottom-line figure, most of it from tax cuts -> reduced govt
              income from taxes, and the $3 million is "as much as", I wouldn't
              say "over" as Krugman does.
        \_ "Bush-Cheney '04 today announced...."
           What, PRNewsWire was busy?
           The actual letter:
           http://csua.org/u/9gs (NRO)
        \_ Why should anyone listen to scientists unless they are
           discussing their field of expertise? Scientists are usually out
           of touch with reality. I work with a lot of scientists and they
           are just one class of smart people. Why not listen to doctors,
           generals, businessmen, or anyone else? A Nobel prize does not
           mean they know crap about anything outside of their field.
        \_ wow, looks like Dubya really needed the help today!
           where were these guys several months ago?
        \_ 70% of academic economists rate Bush as bad or very bad.
           \_ This is much stronger than the "368 Economists" piece, especially
              if you consider the methodology used by http://economist.com.
              I hope if Dubya attacks with "368 Economists", Kerry rebuts with
              \_ The sample from NRO is 365, the economist 56.  Interesting
                 conclusions you draw from a sample 7 times smaller, and
                 no Nobel Laureates.
                 \_ omg, please re-read what you wrote, and if you still
                    believe everything you wrote, say you're serious.
                    \_ You present 56, NRO presents 365.  You would
                       have preferred the authors submitted it as a
                       \_ So, you're serious about your original statement?
                          Yes/No, please.
                          \_ completely, yes.  Samples are highly skewed
                             in both cases.  I, as the op, posted
                             the article as a joke, to illustrate the
                             stupidity of these types of posts.  This
                             nuance seemed to escape you.
                             \_ - NRO presents 368 signatures of which 100%
                                agree with the statement.  There was no
                                alternate petition circulated, nor was there
                                a recording of the number of economists
                                who disagreed with the statement.
                                - http://economist.com took a RANDOM SAMPLE from among
                                the journal referees of the American Economic
                                Review.  Of this random sample, 70% of
                                respondents rated Dubya's 1st-term economic
                                policies as bad or very bad.  Of this random
                                sample, 27% rated Kerry's economic plan as
                                bad or very bad.
                                - This major error in interpreting statistics
                                seems to have been lost on you, or, you didn't
                                read the http://economist.com methodology, which
                                I mentioned several replies up.
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34099 Activity:high
10/12   Given that Bush is so inarticulate and stupid, how in the
        world did Al Gore lose 4 years ago?
        \_ the media decided to leave the "GORE SIGH" on endless
           repeat. - danh
        \_ because he's very "likeable" and "personable" in person. or
           so they say.
        \_ Gore isn't as uber as Kerry.  People thought you could have a dumb
           leader at the top and talented lieutenants running the show.
           With small government, people thought this was possible.
           How much brains does it take to cut taxes and ignore the deficit?
           By the way, Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes.
           \_ My midwestern aunt and uncle had this exact view.  They told me
              a story about Gore making a speech to a local union in which
              he mentioned his mother singing him a particular union song to
              him in his cradle, and the song wasn't actually penned until the
              70s (or thereabouts).  They thought Gore was untrustworthy, and
              Bush was stupid but "the president can't make any bad decisions,
              he just has to be a good man".
                \_ all right did your midwestern relatives actually
                   SEE AND HEAR gore saying this?  or are they repeating
                   what they heard from the media?  gore used to joke
                   that the lady who was a DNC delegate 13 times (she's 88)
                   used to sing him to sleep with the union label as
                   a lullaby.  it's obviously a JOKE, who would seriously
                   sing that song as a lullaby to a baby?  i don't know
                   why the media never got it.  i think gore never
                   adequately explained his joke because it seems too
                   retarded to have to explain humor to living breathing
                   human beings.  that's why i really doubt your relatives
                   heard gore say those exact words, you can dig up tapes
                   of Gore speaking to teamsters, he tells the joke,
                   they all laugh, because he is just joking about his
                   deep democractic union roots, he's not being serious.
                   oreilly joked about being totally high on the jon
                   stewart show last night, when are you going to report
                   him to the ATF? - danh
                   \_ I believe they told me it the info came from a friend.
                      I should also note that I was a Dean guy before
                      supporting Kerry, and that this aunt and uncle are
                      perhaps the nicest, smartest, and wittiest relatives
                      I have.  I'm 25 and they're still sending me bday cards,
                      and I'm going to thank them for it in a letter that
                      probably includes the post above about the last 4 years
                      of Bush.
              \_ I hope voters find a solid, noble core in Kerry, like
                 what's described in the Washington Post article on him
                 today.  Gore had all the best intentions, but you can't
                 help but wonder if there was something to the latent Big
                 Mac attack he developed after he lost the election.
                 \_ God, this is such rotten revisionism.  Gore had a solid,
                    noble core, and the GOP repetition campaign ("He said
                    he invented the Internet!" "He says they based Love
                    Story on him and Tipper!"  "He's not honest!") and his
                    own advisers ("Press the attack!"  "Beat up on Bush!")
                    killed the campaign.  So the man ate a few burgers and
                    grew a beard after being outplayed by loudmouths and
                    anti-intellectuals.  What's more human than that?
                    You want a candidate who was brilliant but an awful
                    people person, look no further than Bill Bradley.
                    \_ By the measure of 9/11, IMO Gore would have done an
                       excellent job had Osama struck on his watch.  I'm just
                       trying to describe some intangible that led Dubya
                       voters to vote for Dubya instead of Gore.
        \_ Because Gore didn't just beat Bush in the debate, he beat him up.
           Americans hate bullies.  That's why it looks so bad when Bush cuts
           off the moderators.
        \_ Gore was stiff and boring and unlikeable. Kerry, while a bit of
           a blue blood, is much more personable. -Nader voter in 2000
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34085 Activity:high
10/13   Bush killed Superman! shouldn't he be our leader?
        \_ Only if he's willing to take on all challengers to the throne
           in the Thunderdome.
           \_ If Bush loses the election, I would give my left nut to have
              Kerry stop during his acceptance speech and say, "BUST A DEAL,
              SPIN THE WHEEL!"
           \_ Let's see: Kerry rides a bike and skis, and has the reach;
              Bush plays golf and what?  Mind you, Clinton jogs and has weight
              on both of them, so he might stage an upset.
              \_ kerry is also an accomplished aircraft pilot
                        \_ Kerry is also accomplished ... No need for anything
                           after that really.
              \_ Dubya rides mountain bike.
                       \_ falls off
              \_ Hillary murders them all with large spiked ball on chain,
                 takes home Jenna Bush for perverted sex acts
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34081 Activity:insanely high
10/12   I was watching O'Reilly just now and they had cut to Dubya making a
        speech and talking about going to Arizona for the last debate.  I
        noticed that he spoke five words, then looked down at his notes,
        spoke five words, then looked down at his notes again.  He waved his
        eyebrows like "Yeah, I'm bad-ass and the other guy's a wuss", and
        squinted his eyes with his head cocked like "I'm one tough
        motherfucker".  I realize now why dumb people like him so much.  He
        is as dumb as they are, but, like them, ignore reality and think of
        themselves as pretty hot shit and "smarter" than the A-students.
        His short thoughts, punctuated by silence while he reads his next
        prepared line, are very easy to understand, and backed by a
        cockiness that dumb people only wish they could maintain without
        getting smacked down by their own Kerry counter-part.  It's too bad
        dumb people don't have speechwriters either.
        BTW, O'Reilly has taken to saying "President Kerry" a lot.  I think
        we know who he would like to win.
        For Kerry lovers, a Post article today on his cerebralness and
        its effects on his management style:
        \_ Republican: evil/stupid, Democrat: good/smart.  That's all you have
           to say so why waste all those bits with the rest of your fluff?
           \_ do i have to keep telling you, Republicans are definitely
              not stupid - danh
           \_ I'm not Dubya.  If I said just what you wrote, nothing new would
              have been added.  Instead here is a cohesive, accurate story
              motd readers can take with them.
              \_ No, it's the standard "Bush is a poor speaker" mixed with
                 R:e/s,D:g/s.  There is no "there" there.
                    \_ Is this perl code?
                        \_ Depends on what your definition of "is" is.
                 \_ Yes, the conclusion is well known and stereotyped, but I
                    provide some "how" and "why" to the "what" on a subject
                    many of Dubya's supporters would dismiss as partisan
                    rhetoric.  I offer this story as an accurate reflection of
                    the the bottom-line truth about Dubya's popularity among
                    the dumb, and I leave it to readers to assess that.
                    This difference should have been very obvious to you.
        \_ Making short points and using notes frequently while speaking in
           and of itself is not a bad thing to do.  -John
           \_ Who iss the best CSUA debater/public speaker?
              \_ Making short points and....using notes frequently...(give
                 cocky look) while speaking(smirk)...in and of itself...is
                 not a bad thing...(silence)...to do.  -GWB
                 \_ ...while using a few good points among many bad ones
                    in an argument and presenting them as negative points
                    worthy of ridicule, is.  GWB is a crappy speaker, op has
                    enough material to work with as it stands.  -John
        \_ One might expect the author of such a polemic to write in
           grammatically correct, concise sentences.  Maybe this irony
           escapes you.  Or, perhaps the benighted masses lack the
           sophistication to understand CS elite and John Kerry.  I bet
           the French could appreciate your statement.
           \_ You really need some new material.  Comparing people to the
              French is even more tired than WDYHA?
        \_ For the last time, Bush is not dumbb, just very ignorant (on
        \_ For the last time, Bush is not dumb, just very ignorant (on
           purpose).  Let's not forget he is as blue-blooded as Kerry, the
           whole "country bumbkin" is just an act -- an act that got him
           whole "country bumpkin" is just an act -- an act that got him
           all the way to the White House, why should he change a winning
           strategy -- even now the polls are close, no matter how much
           he fumbles and stumbles during debates and speeches.
           \_ I swung back and forth on this a number of times, hearing him
              answer reporters' questions and making my own judgment, reading
              Woodward's Plan of Attack and Paul O'Neill's The Price of
              Loyalty, then having doubts when I read newspaper articles "the
              President is NOT dumb", but my final conclusion is as posted in
              the thread.
                \_ But Bush did graduate Yale ... He can't be that stupid.
                   \_ lol.  C at Yale = F at Cal, and Bush had a C average.
                      I've been at Yale now for four years and you
                      would not believe some of the stupid shit i've
                      seen here.  I used to live next to GW's old frat house,
                      and I saw one of them pissing on their own porch.
                      *on* the porch, not off the side of the porch.
                      -Yale TA, Cal alum
                        \_ He also got an MBA at Harvard.
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34078 Activity:nil
10/12   If you guys get PBS, Frontline has a nice dual bio of Kerry and Bush.
        \_ PBS is very very conservative. In case you don't know Bush
           spent a lot of $ on the History Channel, the Golf Channel, and
           other educational channels while Kerry spent a lot of money
           on channels that tailor to young kids.
        \_ PBS did not interview Bud Day for his advice, so their opinion
           is worthless.
2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34076 Activity:nil
10/12   Bud Day and Senator Edwards both like lawsuits:
2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34072 Activity:very high
10/12   Why doesn't John Kerry just tell the bitter Viet vets that
        when he becomes the president, he'll help them get medals
        and recognition and put up a national memorial site? Wouldn't
        that just shup these bitter vets up?
        \_ Obviously you never served. BTW, there already is Vietnam
           \_ obviously, 99.9% of the motd posters/readers have never served.
              \_ what, and risk getting maimed or killed? of course not.
        \_ Bud Day fought in Vietnam.
                Bud Day!  Bud Day is the Standard!
        \_ Let's look at what you say.  They're bitter.  Why is that?  Are
           they angry at the US government?  No.  They're angry at Kerry for
           his actions and statements.  Why would building a monument and
           handing out some more ribbons make them hate him any less?  Why
           do you have so little respect for the men and women in our armed
2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34068 Activity:high
10/12   Pulled from the trolling/countertrolling below:
        \_ The man's a hero and former POW.  Many heroes and POWs thought
           the antiwar movement was a betrayal of the troops.  Many heroes
           and former POWs also joined the antiwar movement.  The real
           villains in all of this were the ones who stood silent.
           \_ Yeah many heroes threw their medals back and testified
              before Congress about fake atrocities, and met with the enemy
              while under service. Yeah, many former heroes also have their
              picture of the meeting with the enemy hanging in the enemy's
              museum dedicated to the defeat of America.
              \_ See, now you're just lying.  He was testifying about the
                 problems in Vietnam, of which war crimes were certainly a
                 a part.  Do you feel that any enemy contact-- say, to
                 end the war diplomatically-- is also treason?  The Vietnam
                 war was a disaster, and while the treatment of vets was
                 atrocious, it doesn't make Kerry's contribution to its halt
                 any less honorable.
                 \_ I guess you never served. I guess you are not clear about
                    the military obeys orders and does NOT dictate policy.
                    Esp. diplomacy.
                    \_ Kerry wasn't "the military" in that context, and wasn't
                       "dictating" policy. I guess you're stupid.
                       \_ He was in the military and talking to the enemy
                          that in itself is a violation of the UCMJ.
                    \_ What, and you did?  Look, if you're a soldier who
                       feels betrayed by what Kerry did after he got back
                       from the war, say so.  Stop all this proxy baiting.
              \_ Yay!  A Partisan tool!
                 \_ No, a son of a Vietnam Vet.
                    \_ Yay!  Also a partisan tool!
2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34067 Activity:high
10/12   Bud Day's biography.  http://csua.org/u/9fv
        \_ GW Bush's biography.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
           \_ I don't think anyone can argue that W was a war hero of any
              stripe.  I also don't think anyone can argue that Bud Day was
              anything but heroic.  I hope that we will think on Day's
              service to his country before we choose to deride him.
              \_ He's a great soldier.  That doesn't make him any more
                 more qualified to talk politics though.
                 \_ Argue against his position, then, but respect the man.
                    It's uncalled for and childish to play silly games like
                    changing his name to "Bad Day".  He had a bad day when
                    he was captured by the Vietcons.  He had a bad 6 years
                    when he was a POW.  I wonder what was the worst day ever
                    suffered by Mr. "Bad Day".
                    \_ It's uncalled for and childish to keep deleting
                       other people's posts and keeping yours.  If you
                       can't learn to respect other people's posts,
                       stop whining when other people mess with yours.
                    \_ Being a hero is not something to be mocked for, but it
                       doesn't grant you immunity from being mocked for other
                       \_ I guess we disagree then.  I don't mock those whom
                          I respect, no matter how vehemently we may disagree.
                          I would think that Bud Day is worthy of great
                          respect.  He has earned that privilege.
                    \_ Just going out on a limb here, but I don't think that
                       Mr. "Bad Day" is making fun of Bud Day.  I think he's
                       making fun of the op.
                       \_ Who knows what the intentions of Mr. "Bad Day" were?
                          Only the man himself.  However, there are ways to
                          make fun of the op without at the same time
                          belittling Bud Day.  Deriding Bud Day and letting
                          that pass unchallenged diminishes all of us.
                          \_ did you go to boarding school in Connecticut?
                          \_ Yeesh, what a pompous windbag.
                             \_ And you wonder why veterans tend to vote
                                \_ No, I don't -- it has nothing to do
                                   with this discussion.
                                   \_ No, you wouldn't think so.  That's why
                                      veterans vote Republican.
                                      \_ No, actually, it's probably not. No
                                         cookie for you!
                                \_ Bud Day isn't a pompous windbag.  pp is.
                                   Your inability to distinguish between the
                                   two is part of what makes you a pompous
        \_ The man's a hero and former POW.  Many heroes and POWs thought
           the antiwar movement was a betrayal of the troops.  Many heroes
           and former POWs also joined the antiwar movement.  The real
           villains in all of this were the ones who stood silent.
        \_ So which of his actions were worthy of the MOH? He survived a
           bunch of torture and wounds. I've read stories on some site about
           WWII citations that sounded far more incredible than this. Other
           than undertaking an escape from certain torture/possible death,
           the dangers are not of his own choice. It's like the difference
           between a guy escaping a burning building versus a guy running
           inside to rescue somebody. In any case his arguments seem one-
           sided and unconvincing.
           \_ Don't go there.  Questioning how much someone suffered/risked to
              earn their medals is unseemly.  How much have you bled for your
              \_ Oh, I see.  So its okay to question Kerry's medals, but not
                 this guy's medals.  Seems logical.
                 \_ I'm a Kerry contributer. -pp
                 \- I think it is reasonable to trade off between "character
                    issues" and policy preference when it comes to a political
                    candidate. e.g. it seems reasonable to hold Clinton's
                    infidelity against him, but not fair to pin Vince Foster's
                    suicide on him. I can reasonably see a veteran not being
                    able to forgive Kerry for his "betrayal" after he returned
                    from Vietnam. I personally think this is more than offset
                    by Bush's avoiding service, his avoiding responsibility
                    for stuff like Abu Graib, his disregard for frankness and
                    the truth, but then again I am not a verteran who may feel
                    the betrayal far more viscerally than I would. However,
                    while his post-service conduct may be a fair issue, the
                    swiftboat stuff is just a sleazy smear. --psb
2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34062 Activity:insanely high
10/12   http://www.democrats.org/action/200410120001.html
        Sinclair is going to broadcast anti-Kerry stuff that looks like
        a documentary. Sign the petition now!!!
        \_ You know it would be a real test if we drop both Bush and Kerry
           in the middle of a war in Iraq. What do you think will happen?
           I think one of them is going to shit his pants!
           \_ Kerry can patrol the Tigris and Euphrates, and Dubya can help
              with the Iraqi National Guard.  Yee-haw!!
              \_ Kerry will be only slightly heroic and Bush will be grounded
                 for failing to take his physical when he goes off to help
                 Alawi's election campaign.
        \_ What about the "Long War of John Kerry"?  Leftist films are ok
           but conservative are not?  Oh that's right, this is Berkeley.
           Sinclair offered the Kerry campaign equal time.
           \_ No they didn't. They offered a rebuttal, not the same thing.
              Who is playing the Long War?
              \_ Movie theatres.  How the hell should I know.  So the
                 testimony of Vietnam POWs, some there 6+ years, is not
                 \_ What testimony?  That they felt betrayed by the anti-war
                    movement?  No, this is not news; this is a trope from the
                    the whole Vietnam-era milieu.
                    \_ Sundance and others run anti-Bush springsteen shows...
                       where's the outrage?
                       \_ People can choose to go to those shows or not.
                          It has been a long-standing tradition in this country
                          that broadcast stations (radio and television
                          through the air) are a public resource.  Hence,
                          for example, indecency restrictions on broadcast TV.
                          You can't see the difference?
                          \_ Especially since the networks get their licenses
                             for almost nothing.
2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:34061 Activity:moderate
10/12   http://tinyurl.com/5tt2y
        Bush/Kerry car with illustrations (humor link)
2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34053 Activity:insanely high
10/12   Heh, Teresa Heintz pays 15% in taxes.  Hehehe.  Where's the outrage?
                       \_ Heinz
        \_ Outrage at the Republican-written tax system?  There's plenty.
        \_ Our tax system favors the uber-rich.  She's uber-rich.  So is
           John Kerry.  So are Bush and Cheney, although not quite to the
           same degree.  They're all rich fucking bastards and getting more
           rich by the minute.  This election is all about "pick your favorite
           rich bastard."  I'll take the one that seems like he can actually
           think coherently, thanks.
           \_ also, Teresa Heintz is the *recipient* of the outrageous Bush
              tax cuts.  Bush is the source.  He'd be a bastard even if he
              paid his fair share.
              \_ Heinz and Kerry put their money into tax shelters.  So raising
                 their marginal rate won't help anything.  Kerry's whining is
                 nothing more than class warfare.
                 \_ Whining is not equal to warfare. Except to an idiot
                    libertarian serial overexaggerator.
           \_ Bush has ~$10M.  Kerry/Heinz have ~$1000M.  Two orders of
              magnitude make quite a difference.
              \_ So the rich are EVIIIIIIILLLL if you disagree with them?
                 \_ I don't see any problem with people being rich.  Just
                    pointing out that Heinz/Kerry are two orders of magnitude
                    more rich than Bush.  Saying they're all the same is
                    \_ You have no idea how rich bush actually is..
           \_ You don't *have* to vote for either of them. Vote for psb!
        \_ That's why there's a need to remove the tax break for rich!
           \_ No.  We should all be paying no more than Mrs. Heinz.
                \_ Her 17% is more than you make in your lifetime!
        \_ Haven't you noticed?  The Dem motto is "High taxes for everyone!
           (but me!)"  Also See "Kennedy"
        \_ Nader in 2004!  The only candidate with an established history of
           being *for* the common man and working hard *against* large
           corporations!  -Nader'04
           \_ To quote James Carville, I wouldn't piss down Nader's neck if his
                             \_ AKA Gollum.
                                \_ Huh?
                                   \_ Carville looks like he was beaten with
                                      the ugly stick.
                                      \_ That's rich coming from a FAT SYSADMIN!
                                         \_ You have no idea who posted this.
                                            \_ Doesn't matter.  FAT SYSADMINS
                                               are the STANDARD!
              chest was on fire.
           \_ Not to meantion against the common mans' jobs at said large
        \_ 8 out of 10 richest Congressmen are democrats.  What a surprise.
           The party of the little people indeed.
           \_ Your wealth does not make you for or against a particular class,
              your positions do.  Remind me again which party is in favor of
              taxing dividend income, the Head Start program, socialized
              medicine, and raising the minimum wage.
              \_ However, it is easier to generous with your wealth when you
                 already have so much of it.  Given great wealth, I would
                 hope that most of us would be decent enough to want to give
                 back to society, through either private donation or greater
                 taxation.  The problem is that most of us aren't blessed
                 with great wealth, and those incremental dollars that may
                 not mean much to a Kennedy or a Pelosi might be more
                 meaningful to us.
           \_ sourceP
              \_ #t
              \_ Not the previous poster, and from a highly unreliable
                 source, but http://vikingphoenix.com/public/docs/50rich.txt .
                 7 of top 10 richest member of congress are Democrats, and
                 I am too lazy to filter for just house members.
                 \_ And Kerry's money is actually his wife's as per their
                    prenup. So, it's actually 6-4.
                    \_ I think it's silly to argue over which party have more
                       wealthy members in the Congress.  However, I am a fan
                       of fairness and honesty.  If you use the above-posted
                       list, and you drop Kerry from the number 1 spot, then
                       you end up with 3 tied for the 10th spot, 1 R and 2 D's.
                       So the tally would be 8D-4R.  I suppose that's still
                       better than 7D-3R.
2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34052 Activity:very high
10/12   http://electoral-vote.com is now fucked.  What else is anyone using?  Thanks.
        \_ Uh yeah... all the stuff below is nice and all but I just wanted to
           know what other sites people are using that do a similar thing.
           Please post URLs you're using.  Thanks.  --op
        \_ "Given that all the hate mail and threats I get come entirely
           from Republicans, I can make an educated guess which side is
           trying to silence me, but I won't say. And I won't surrender to
           I dunno, it works for me.
           \_ Fallacious conclusion.  Pubs might be all huff while Dems are DOS
              \_ Ever heard of Occam's razor?  The most likely explanation is
              \_ Ever heard of Occam's razor?  The simplest explanation is
                 usually the correct one.
                 \_ [motd fact checker wuz here!]
                    \_ Apparently motd fact checker is an idiot.  He removed my
                       statment: "Apparently you haven't heard of it either.
                       That's not what it says."
                       \_ Tempest, meet Teacup.
           \_ This is precious. Why would a Republican be against a site
              that's currently showing that Bush would win? This is classic
              liberal "I'm being supressed by the Evil Vast Right Wing
              \_ who knows, maybe the dems are taking a hint from karl rove.
                 there is at least one well documented case of Rove
                 printing up nasty unmarked fliers about his OWN candidate and
                 then dumping them in the middle of the night on
                 voters porchs.  the opposition couldn't really deny it
                 since it would make them look like scum if they drew
                 attention to it.  brilliant. - danh
              \_ Because up until today, it was showing that Kerry would win
                 for several months at least.
                 \_ Are you nuts?  It was showing that Bush would win for
                    pretty much the entire month of September and much of
                    \_ Okay, you got me:  Showing a Kerry win for the last
                       month or so, and also pre-GOP-Convention bounce.
                       \_ You're still an idiot.  In this month only 8-11 show
                          Kerry with a lead.
                          \_ You are both mistaken:
                             \_ Yes, I should talk out of my ass less.
                                But yeah, what I meant was that long two-
                                month period before the GOP Convention, I guess
        \_ Still works fine.
        \_ Try http://www.slate.com/id/2107683
2004/10/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34037 Activity:insanely high
10/11   http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040912/sticker.shtml
        wrong Bush/Kerry bumper sticker can cost you your job.
        \_ WTF? Isn't that more than just blatantly illegal? Shouldn't
           that dumbfuck attorney know that? I hope he receives hells
           for this. Too bad that poor lady isn't going to sue him.
           \_ This is exactly why we need tort reform, to prevent frivilous
              lawsuits like what you're describing!
              \_ Lordy lordy.  The motd really is a parody of itself.
                \_ How is that at all frivolous?
                   \_ Because the same topics come up again and again and
                      again.  The entire motd could be summarized as a
                      read only file that simply said "et cetera ad nauseum."
                      At some point, you start giggling at certain things,
                      like the obligatory tort reform reference above.
        \_ The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone
           \- i dont think this is "pretty clear". you have a cite?
           based on their political speech even when that political speech
           does not affect the terms and conditions of employment.
           Evil ... but legal!
           \- i dont think this is "pretty clear". you have a cite?
              \_ http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067578
                 The sentence I wrote is even taken verbatim from an ACLU rep.
                 \- that is interesting. thanks for the ptr. some comments:
                    it looks like in this case, doing some govt work doesnt
                    turn you into a "public employer" [in constrast to say
                    other "reaches" when it comes to what constitutes "state
                    action"]. the other interesting matter is it says "can
                    fire based on political speech" which is a different
                    matter than beliefs. in other words, if i believe what
                    that italie fellow believed but i only revealed it
                    in a 1:1 conversation started by HR, could i be fired?
                    \_ yes -dbushong
                    i know organizaation such as churches have some increased
                    latitude [ostentsibly a hindu temple could require the
                    janitor to not eat bigmac at work], but this lack of
                    requirement to show it affects the work is sort of
                    surprising. one may have to ask if there were to
                    italies at the job would they have to fire both of them
                    or does that allow for a suit on other grounds.
                    i am surprised the "right to engage in political discourse"
                    isnt better protected ... it seems to merit at least a
                    gay if he believes in gay rights? I guess we are still
                    haunted by the "spectre of Lochner". --psb
        \_ Well he gave her a chance and she basically put him on the spot.
           I don't like the guy's action personally but I don't have a problem
           with it from a legal point of view. She doesn't have an inherent
           right to be employed by this guy.
           \_ This is a particularly cold way of putting it, IMO.
              \_ Well it's private property. By parking her car there she's
                 putting political ads on his property, which he doesn't
                 have to allow if he doesn't feel like it. Capitalism is
                 inherently cold and greed-inducing.
                 \_ I'm not disagreeing with the fact it is completely legal
                    for a private employer to fire an employee for political
                    speech, I'm just saying you put it rather coldly.
                 \_ Could this be an easy way around discrimination lawsuits
                    in racially/politically divided areas?  "I didn't hire him,
                    him, and him because they were Democrat. New policy. What?
                    Sure I'll stick to it"
        \_ Why do leftists always think free speech applies to private
           property?  Maybe because they don't understand the concept
           of private property?
                   \- we're not talking about an "inherent right to be
                      employed" ... yes, she cant walk in off the street
                      and demand to be hired. i think a much more accurate
                      phrasing is apparently an employer can interfere
                      with your inherent right to participate in the political
                      process, without proving it affects him in any material
                      way. practically anything can be considered a political
                      belief. on the matter of "private property" see e.g.
                      the pruneyard v robins. it's not that absolute. --psb
                      \_ No, if you read the 1st Amendment you would see
                         it really is that simple.  Her employer is not
                         \- No it isnt that simple. Look up the "absorption
                            doctrine". --psb
                         \- It is simple and you are simply wrong. You may
                            wish to google for "slaughterhouse incorporation".
                            Perhaps you have 100+ yrs of constitutional
                            jurisprudence to catch up on? --psb
                            \_ The amendment is pretty clear to me.
                               I'm not interested in polemic redirection.
                               \- it is pretty clear to me your brain is
                                  small. --psb
                                  \_ Who is the one who can't read the
                                     Amendment?  Please, what is the
                                     psb exegesis of the 1st Amend.
                                     \- the 1st amd [and most of the other
                                      1st 10] are now considered "piped"
                                      through the 14th amendment. See e.g.
                                      or anything about the the "incorpriation
                                      doctrine". This is settled law. Arguing
                                      about this is like arguing the income
                                      tax is illegal ... it sets the FRUITCAKE
                                      bit. --psb
                                      \_ That's a fancy way of saying
                                         its obvious.  Invoking the 14th
                                         Amend. is not, and should not be,
                      \_ Ok I went and read about the pruneyard case. It was
                         stressed in that case that: "It bears repeated
                         emphasis that we do not have under consideration the
                         property or privacy rights of an individual homeowner
                         or the proprietor of a modest retail establishment."
                         I find this decision to be problematic. But it was
                         also found to be specific to California's constitution
                         and I think it would be impossible to extend the logic
                         of the case to cover a private factory. I'm not sure
                         what other laws might pertain to this situation.
                         The employer didn't interfere with her right to vote,
                         only her "right" to display a political sign on her
                         car in his parking lot.
                         car in his parking lot. However there are a lot of
                         federal and state laws regulating employment and
                         discrimination beyond any constitutional basis, and
                         I don't have a good understanding of the legal
                         justification for some of those things.
                         \- it is astute of you to observe the narrowing
                            of pruneyard and the state const issue. my point
                            in raising it goes to the non-absoluteness of
                            private property ... and it is sort of fun that
                            it is a local case [for those of you from the
                            south bay]. it is admittedly not a case with an
                            am employee-employer relationship at the heart.
                            also key to pruneyard is the quasi-public space
                            doctrine ... we dont live in a world with public
                            squares and public markets but a world of santana
                            row and stanfraud shoppinng center.
                            back to the case above, it seems odd to me to
                            allow the employer such an incredibly low standard
                            that there is *no standard* [he doenst have to
                            show it does any harm to the business, let alone
                            signficant harm or even possible harm] he has
                            to meet ... but on the other hand he is prevented
                            from terminating on various discrimination grounds.
                            it seems better to to protect fewer specific
                            classification but force the employer to meet
                            some reasonable criteria. otherwise you get weird
                            things like ... i believe in drug legalization
                            so i can be fired. but i believe in it because
                            i am a peyote using indian so i am protected
                            under some kind of religion freedom rather than
                            political freedom. ok tnx --psb
                            \_ PSB, why do you know this stuff?  Do you read
                               Supreme Court Opionions in your spare time?
                            \_ I suppose there is a distinction between one's
                               choices and one's characteristics, although
                               \- you may wish to read about the legal concept
                                  of (im)mutability which is of interest to
                                  the homosexual legal empire. that is an
                                  interesting interesection of science and
                                  the law. at core it concerns an empirical
                                  question. a tougher, philosophiscal problem
                                  is how to draw a line between stuff essential
                                  to identity and fundamentally tied to a class
                                  and "lifestyle choices" ... is peyote
                                  a lifestyle choice or fundamental to living
                                  as an american indian of some appropriate
                                  tribe? what about sodomy, having children,
                                  animal sacrifices etc. --psb
                               religion kind of blurs that boundary. Wearing a
                               hijab is protected but not a Kerry sticker. I
                                  \- if somebody lived in a socialist commune
                                     it seems to me they are at least as
`                                    committed to their "non theistic religion"
                                     as a catholic who wears a cross around
                                     her neck. it seems odd not to allow
                                     you to can somebody for wearing a cross
                                     but can can them if they wear an "emma
                                     rules" tshirt [ok maybe somebody less
                                     nuts than EG]. --psb
                               wonder if Christian car fish things are covered
                               (they're not any religious requirement). Height
                               and weight discrimination can sometimes fall
                               under the disability laws, but something like
                               "fired for just being really ugly" doesn't
                               seem to be protected.
2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34030 Activity:low
10/11   http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
        John Eisenhower (Ike's son) writes about why after 50 years as a
        Republican, he's voting for John Kerry.
        \_ and here's the non-broken version of the link:

[yes, very nice, censor the current topic and instead repost some old
 tom/ilyas flame fest.  way to show tom isn't a censor and is a nice guy]
2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34029 Activity:very high
10/11   More on the Sinclair hit-piece, and how it's connected to Bush.
        You gotta hand it to Karl Rove, he's got the market cornered on
        http://csua.org/u/9eu (blog entry with links to LA Times and
        \_ Sinclair is without question pro-Bush, but they would argue that
           the material they wish to air is news/documentary, not a campaign
           I think all that's going to happen with F9/11 is it will stay
           on Pay-per-view for $9.95 - and no one's going to watch.
           \_ I disagree with you that this is a documentary or a news
              report.  What do you base this assertion on?  It just sounds
              like a two hour Swift Boat ad.  As for F9/11, it just makes
              me go "meh."  Why not show "Going Upriver" instead?  Moore
              is overexposed at this point.
              \_ You mean, what do they base "their" assertion on.
                 In their view, this documentary presents the truth:
                 Kerry's anti-war behavior weakened the morale of soldiers
                 on the ground, POWs, and it was also illegal to negotiate
                 with the enemy without official permission.
                 \_ That does not mean that it is not a campaign ad.  By the
                    way, the DNC is filing an FEC complaint about this.
                    I think they're essentially going to file an argument
                    that this represents a multi-million dollar campaign
                    \_ I agree the Sinclair move is free pro-Bush advertising.
                       This won't even put a scratch into the amount of free
                       pro-Kerry/anti-Bush advertising the media gives the
                       left every single day.  --conservative
                       \_ How 'bout that big "policy speech" Bush announced
                          after the VP debate which was actually a stump
                          speech?  Lap it up, liberal media!
                       \_ Don't forget the free pro-Bush/anti-Kerry advertising
                          the media gives the right every single day.
                          \_ That damn partisan reality! No WMDs, etc.  If
                             only they could invent a station that would spin
                             the bad facts and make Bush look good.  We could
                             call it "Fox News".  Worth investigating!
                             \_ Saying "No WMD" is liberal bias. After all,
                                he wanted WMD, so it's entirely irrelevant
                                whether he had them or not!
                                \_ ... you are making my head explode.
               \_ Even assuming it does qualify as campaign advertising,
                  Sinclair has offered the DNC equal time.  The DNC has said
                  that it will not offer anything for broadcast.
                  \_ What is your source for this? I heard that Sinclair
                     invited Kerry to offer a "rebuttal," not equal time.
                     If they offer equal time, just let them run 9/11.
                     That would be fair and I am sure Michael Moore
                     would go for it.
                     \_ I believe the people who own DVD rights to F9/11 would
                        not let it run on TV, because, you know, they believe
                        they might run the risk of not selling as many DVDs.
                        this might run the risk of not selling as many DVDs.
                        -- You're right about "equal time", though.  Reading
                        again, Sinclair offered Kerry the "opportunity" to
                        sit on a panel after the show to dispute the claims.
                        This doesn't seem like equal time to me, even though
                        Sinclair says it is.
        \_ It is not too late to stop this blatantly illegal move by
           Sinclair. Write the FCC and your Senators and demand that
           they take action.
2004/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34025 Activity:moderate
10/11   Injured, angry, determined, Swiftees unite to fight Kerry
        \_ Awww.  Reality's a bitch, huh?  My heart bleeds for them.  Good
           thing the Moonie Times and Sinclair broadcasting are still around
           to promote their agenda... because everyone else has stopped
           \_ Your media tried for a long time to ignore them and is doing
              it again.  Nothing new about that.  Your media never listened
              in the first place.  I'll take the word of 250 soldiers over
              one politician anyday.
              \_ 250 soldiers who say what?  That they resented the anti-war
                 movement?  No credible source has come forth saying that
                 Kerry did anything dishonorable during his service.  Get over
                 it already.
              \_ "Your media?" Do you mean the American media? They spent
                 far too much time on it in the first place. You will not
                 be able to ressurect that 30 year old zombie, everyone
                 has already had their say. Why don't you want to talk about
                 issues that matter to America today: Iraq, the economy,
                 health care, the war on terror? Is it perhaps because
                 with the possible exception of the latter, they are all
                 losers for Bush? What are you going to do on Nov 3 after
                 your hero loses?
2004/10/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34007 Activity:high
10/9    http://csua.org/u/9ea (latimes)
        So basically Sinclair broadcasting is going to preempt one quarter
        of the nation's television programming days before the election to
        run an anti-Kerry film.  Can you imagine the shitstorm if a
        "liberal" broadcaster tried to do this with, say, "F9/11" or
        "Going Upriver?"
        Also, note that the film itself was made by Carlton Sherwood,
        a Vietname veteran and former reporter for the Washington Times who
        is also the author of a very positive book about the Reverend
        Sun Myung Moon.
        \_ This will make up for about 1/10th of 1% of the free media that
           Kerry gets every day.  I'm shedding a bitter tear.
           \_ Yeah, like http://factcheck.org
              \_ Uh, what?  Please explain how this is not a no-sequiter.
                 \_ For you, anything: pp is saying that the only media
                    out there really supporting Kerry is the website that
                    checks all of its facts and speaks the truth.  In other
                    words, the first responder was full of it when he suggested
                    that Kerry was getting tons more free "media" than the
                    President.  (You know, the guy who can call a press
                    conference any time he feels like it.  The incumbent.)
                    \_ Bush cannot call a press conference at any time.  It
                       takes a lot of time and effort for Bush's handlers to
                       program chimpy.
2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34005 Activity:moderate
10/9    Here's a cool Photoshop project. Kerry speaks while a monkey gets
        mad in the debate setting. Someone please make it so that I can
        distribute it.                                  -distributor
        \_  The major networks all beat you to the punch.  See it here:
2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34004 Activity:high
10/9    Kerry Vs Bush.  Round 2.  The NYT reports Kerry destroys Bush again.
        Bush is incoherent, ducks important questions and clueless.
        Kerry nails him on the hard questions and demonstrates stature.
        http://tinyurl.com/4lfus (nytimes.com)
        And here's the new map from another independent source.  Kerry wins!
        \_ the NYT opines, not reports in this case.  this is an opinion
        And here's the new map from another independent source.  Kerry wins!
           \_ It's the NYT times.  The whole paper is a giant opinion piece.
              Putting a report in the opinion section is arbitrary but
              often reserved for more well known people with an axe to grind.
              \_ Right. Anyone who reports anything negative about the Pres.
                 must be part of the liberal press konspiracy.
2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34001 Activity:moderate
10/8    Poor Kerry, he didn't use my speech text on Iran, and his sucked nuts.
        \_ Kerry's Iran answer was great!  4 more weeks!
2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34000 Activity:very high
10/8    Bush was asked to name three mistakes he's made. He can't
        name one. He's had the hardest job in the world for almost
        four years and he cannot name a single mistake. Is he
        the Second Coming of the Messiah?
        \_ Actually, as much as I loathe bush, I thought his answer was
           pretty clever.  He claimed his biggest mistakes were various
           appointments who he didn't want to embarass on TV.  Of course
           I'm positive that
           1) he didn't think of that himself and
           2) it's Rove's message to anyone who might consider showing
              disloyalty to the chimp in chief that they are about to
              become Bush's biggest mistake.
           What would any of you have said (assuming you had actally drunk
           the neocon kool-aid and wouldn't way the war)?
           \_ There aren't any "neocons" on the motd.  It's a made-up phrase
              to sound like "neo nazi".
        \_ you are Bush's adviser.  What would you advise him?
        \_ Republicans just don't apologize.  This makes them dumb AND evil.
        \_ Haha, this is one of those classic annoying interview questions.
           Bush spent most of his answer defending the Iraq war so I guess
           that was one of his mistakes.
           \_ Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time!
        \_ Other than Ashcroft, I can't think of a single mistake.
        \_ Again with O'Reilley on the Daily Show:  Bill pointed out that
           these people (Bush, et. al.) are highly insulated and get a lot
           of sycophantry; couple that with an almost maniacal belief in
           everything they say and do, and what you have is a President who
           very literally cannot see the mistakes he's made.
           \_ All Republicans are stupid/evil drones straight to the top.
              All Democrats are enlightened and good people who sensitive to
              the needs of terrorists and others around the world.  Seriously,
              the question was an obvious setup straight from the DNC fax
              machine.  It would have been blitheringly stupid of any
              candidate to name 3 mistakes.  It would be front page news the
              next day and he'd get beat over the head forever.  What about
              John Kerry?  Was voting for unilateral disarmament in the 80s
              a mistake?  Was voting against the first Gulf War *after* the
              UN had passed a war resolution a mistake?  Was making shit up
              about Vietnam war crimes a mistake?  Has John Kerry ever made
              a mistake?  Please name 3.
        \_ _Bush_ hasn't made any mistakes because he doesn't make any
           real decisions (except in what to say when the reception dies to
           his remote control during a debate).  And he's not qualified to
           comment on Cheney's mistakes... so what's he gonna say?
2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:33998 Activity:very high
10/8    Here is a cool idea. What if some guy, say, Soros' assistant
        opens up a new company that asks for GOP campaign donations.
        He outsources that to Indians, and when the Indians ask
        for money, their accents and their where-abouts (India) will
        either disgust Republicans so much that they'll switch party,
        or, they'll donate money which could be used by the Democrats.
        \_ The Republicans beat them to it.
        \_ It's called fraud.
        \_ Why would I switch to democrat b/c an Indian answered
           the phone?
           \_ Because all Republicans are racists.
2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33995 Activity:insanely high
10/8    As of 10/8, 8:39PM, polls ask who you think won the
        second debate (Bush, Kerry, [undecided]):
        http://cbsnews.com (11.51%, 88.10%)
        http://cnn.com (16%, 82%, 2%)
        http://foxnews.com (30%, 70%)
        http://msnbc.com (27%, 73%)
        http://freerepublic.com (95%, 1%)
        \_ "Poll: Bush, Kerry tie in 2nd debate", an article from CNN.
           So what's up. CNN becoming conservative and trying to save face?
        \_ Thanks to the DNC e-mail spam, I guess.
           \_ Check http://freerepublic.com for all the "FREEP THE MSNBC POLL"
              posts.  The difference is that the freepers (and Chris
              Matthews, apparently) actually think an online poll
              means something.  The lefty swampers are trying to show
              just how FUCKING POINTLESS these online polls are.  --scotsman
              \_ There's about 150 freepers vs. the tens of thousands of Dems
                 on the DNC mailing list.  This has been said many times before
                 on the motd: freepers are not conservatives or Republicans and
                 all clear thinking people disavow them in the same way you
                 should disavow nuts like Michael Moore and the democratic
              \_ You've been trolled scotsman! HAHA   -!person who posted it
                 \_ Actually, no.  I know who posted it, and I'm just
                    explaining how I see the poll slamming, not flaming
                    them.  And unless there's a freeper manifesto you
                    can point me to that says that they're trying to
                    make a mockery of the polls (I can point you to
                    plenty on the left), then I stand by my point. --scotsman
                    \_ Thank god we have geniuses like yourself to
                       point out the absurdity. Please, let me
                       express my unwavering gratitude. Thank
                       you!  P.S., don't you find it slightly unusual
                       that you have worked yourself up into a frenzy
                       about this.
                       \_ No more so than any other criticism of journalism
                          in this country..  Are you happy with the state
                          of affairs?  Do you like bankrupted localities?
                          Do you like soldiers being killed and wounded
                          in a preemptive war against a non-threat?  Do you
                          like all of this wrapped up in a pretty media
                          package?  You mock my anger?  I mock your complacency
                          and cowardice (sign your damn name, mr. black).
                           \_ RACIST!!!
                              \_ RAPIST!!!
                                 \_ PAPIST!!!
                                    \_ TRAPPIST!!!
                                       \_ PRIAPIST!!!
2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33993 Activity:insanely high
10/8    Holy SHIT Bush is actually doing pretty well, did he rehearse or
        something? In addition, he's taking notes!!! He didn't do that
        last time. SHIT.
        \_ They gave him back his cocaine.
        \_ Uh, well?  Maybe on the "internets."  Did you see his Dean Scream
           \_ *SCOWL*
        \_ Kerry mistakes so far, add if you wish:
           1) "I'm a lawyer too" (most ppl hate lawyers)
              \_ I don't think this was a mistake
                 \_ First thing we do is kill all the lawyers.
           2) "Join me to defeat ppl who make over $200,000"
              (bad bad bad, they control YOUR life)
          \_ my combined income is, in fact, over $200,000. I don't
             like Bush, but I like my nice house and I enjoy co-owning
             my Piper Arrow. That is why I'm voting for Bush.
             \_ hmm, so you are really dying for that $2000 taxcut you get
                with bush huh with your $200k income?
                "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
                 government. It can only exist until the voters
                 discover that they can vote themselves money from the
                 public treasure. From that moment on the majority
                 always votes for the candidates promising the most
                 money from the public treasury, with the result that a
                 democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy
                 followed by a dictatorship."
                 \_ I'm glad you believe that! Now take a history lesson
                 \_ My wallet isn't your public treasure, thanks.  I'm not
                    the piper guy.
                    \_ Some money has to come out of someone's wallet for
                       the "public treasure".  You just don't want it to be
                       you, because it's not *fair* to tax people more just
                       because they can afford more.  So horribly unfair.
                        \_ Ever hear of equality? I know its a new and
                           radical concept, but perhaps you might want
                           to consider it. If all citizens are equal
                           then they should all pay an equal percentage
                           of their income as taxes. Why should I have
                           have to pay a higher tax rate just b/c my
                           income is higher, when all I did was study
                           hard, work late nights to get to a better
                           job, and mr. pot smoking slacker english
                           major drank his way through school and
                           now can't get a job and expects me to pay
                           more so that he can live off of my hard
                           work. That is BS.
                           \_ What if that English major wins the lottery,
                              inherits money, or happens to get a good job
                              through nepotism? What if I worked hard like
                              you did and yet make less money through
                              choice or bad luck? I am all for a flat tax,
                              but your argument is stupid. Some rich
                              people work hard. Some don't. Same as the poor.
                              \_ In general, barring lottery winners etc.
                                 people getting paid more are doing more
                                 economically valuable work. If you make
                                 less money through choice then why do you
                                 want others to make up the difference?
                                 And let's say in theory we do the same type
                                 of work, but you work half as hard and get
                                 half the income. Why should your tax rate
                                 be different for the year?
                                 \_ Easily answered: "gimme! gimme! gimme!"
           \_ simple numbers game, piss off 2% of the populus and curry the
              favor of 98%, that doesn't make sense to you?
                \_ no but under Kerry I'll have to pay a LOT more tax. No thx.
                        \_ Someone has to pay for all of this invading, you're
                           just going back to the Clinton levels
                           \_ Which were too high.
           3) "Bush's [nonexisting] lumber company"
                \_ Bush DOES have timber company...
                   \_ good find.
******************* Partisan Tools Below This Line *********************
                    \_ Is it partisan to say Bush sounded even stupider in the
                       second debate?
                       \- it's not partisan, it is foolish. --psb
                          \_ Are you saying it is foolish because Bush did not
                             sound even stupider; or because the statement
                             invites scorn; or both?
                             \_ Did you even watch the debate last night?
        \_ Bush started strong but he is fading fast
           \_ Did you watch the same debate?  Wishful thinking?  Faint hope?
              \_ That was the way it went in the first debate, too.
                 \_ And you didn't notice any difference between his first and
                    last night's efforts?  Ok.... whatever.....
        \_ Bush creamed Kerry this time.
           \_ Dubya was even more stupid this time.  You don't become less
              wrong by yelling it louder.
              \_ Would you like the pink or the blue kool aid?
           \_ apparently that's not how people outside of California
              think. My officemate from Indiana (very pro Bush) shouts
              loudly when 1) he feels that he has a strong point
              2) when he doesn't want to hear from you again.
              People outside of California seem to have different
              social protocols, and shouting works for them.
              \_ your co-worker from Indiana is pretty stupid
                \_ that may be so, but people like him are
                   all over the United States, voting for Bush.
                   \_ True.  And liberals all across the U.S. are asking
                      "Why isn't Kerry whooping this chimp?"
                      \_ I know why, and you should too, if you have been
                         paying attention. -- ilyas
                         \-My opinion on the two people at the top of
                           the ticket is well known but i have to say that
                           Melman fellow from BUSHCO is 100x better than
                           mary beth cahill. it was sort of sad that charlie
                           rose basically gave the bush campiagn a lot more
                           free airtime to "clarify" [and it was well done]
                           than kerry's spokespeson. it was lame of kerry
                           co to let bushco go last and get a lot more time.
                           they need to be more ruthless on "details" like
                           this. --psb
                           \_ Charlie Rose?  Who watched *that*?
                         \_ Yes, I know why.  People are dumb.  Dubya and his
                            handlers know how to talk to dumb people, as he is
                            himself:  dumb.  Granted there are smart
                            Republicans out there, but they don't form the
                            majority of those voting for Dubya.
                            Clinton:  "When people think, Democrats win."
                            \_ I'm voting for Dubya and I'm dumb!  Woot!  We
                               is all jus' whitey craker red neck hiks on thiz
                               side uh da ile!  You just keep telling yourself
                               that if it makes you feel better about last
                               night.  I prefer to always assume my opposition
                               is not moronic and not take things for granted
                               like you do with your weak labelling.
                            \_ when people start thinking, we'll democratize
                               both parties so that party bosses don't control
                               every political position where one party
                               controls a safe majority.
                            \_ When people who profess to care actually
                               bother to vote then Democrats would win,
                               \_ Isn't the DNC asking for volunteers to
                                  take an hour or two to make get-out-the-vote
                                  phone calls on election day?  I think if
                                  you do have spare time, this could make
                                  a big difference.
                                  \_ The election is done.  Everyone already
                                     know who they'll vote for.  Everyone who
                                     is going to show is already going to show.
                                     The only thing we don't yet know is which
                                     polls are more accurate than others.
                                     Anyway, when I see "political call" show
                                     on my caller ID, I don't pick up.  I
                                     doubt any apathetic person would either.
2004/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33982 Activity:high
10/8    Bush was secretly wired during the debate
        \_ It was a personal Holtzmann shield.
           \_ too much risk of nukular explosion in case of lasgun usage.
        \_ I believe he was wearing something, but I'm curious-- why didn't
           they position the bulge lower, in the small of his back?  I can fit
           an ipod or even a thin novel just above my belt with very little
           visibility, and that's not even wearing a jacket.
           \_ Transmission distance. This proves liberals are smarter: Kerry's
              magic cheat pen with wireless receiver and handwriting-
              recognizing transmitter had a wider operating range.
        \_ so...let's suppose that Bush *was* secretly connected to some
           wireless device during the debate.  Do you really think that
           they couldn't use something more compact?  It just doesn't add up.
           And where is the wire going to his ear?  most cameras were pointed
           at his head, and that wire would surely be visible.
           \_ It could be a receiver/transmitter with a tiny earpiece you can't
              see.  Look at websites for spy stuff, we can assume that Bush
              has access to the best.
              \_ Right.  Let's assume he has access to the best.  Does that
                 really include a bulky rectangular thing worn on the back
                 under one's shirt?
                 \_ Well, if you wanted to be super-cool you'd use encryption,
                    spread-spectrum, and transmit constantly so it just looks
                    like background noise.  That all requires more electronics
                    and battery power.  To top it off, they might not have
                    wanted to bother with some custom design, and chose to go
                    with something 'off the shelf' that may not have been
                    optimized for size.
                    \_ here's something off-the-shelf:
                       I don't see any reason why spread spectrum or encryption
                       would take more space or batteries.  this is just
                       what 10 seconds with google turned up.  I'm positive
                       that if Karl Rove really wanted to beam spread spectrum,
                       encrypted signals into W's ear, no giant battery
                       pack would be needed. One wonders how many kids are
                       cheating their way through school with these things,
                       \_ Both encryption and spread-spectrum require extra
                          chips, and cen be fairly demanding (several watts)
                          depending on what encryption or DSS you use.
                          Continuous transmission (to look like background)
                          would up the power requirements a lot.  Thing of a
                          cell phone operating continuously, with more
                          complicated signal processing and you get a sense of
                          the power requirements.  CDMA uses DSS but it's only
                          spread over (I think) 1.5MHz.  You'd want a much
                          wider spread for being sneaky.
                    \_ Alcoa is up today.
                       \_ Heh. -- ulysses
              \_ Let's assume GWB had access to Star Trek Tech(c).  There was
                 obviously no one feeding him lines through it.
                 \_ 'Obviously'?  How do you figure that?
                    \_ Did you *see* the debate?
           \_ Read the article.  Their expert seems to be saying that this is
              both plausible and technically possible to do wirelessly. Given
              how poorly Bush did in the debate, however, I'd almost believe
              that someone hacked the feed.
        \_ Yes, I go to Salon for all my non-partisan information.  Could
           you use something less biased like the http://democraticrepublic.com
           or http://www.johnkerry.com next time?  Thanks!
                \_ Not everything http://salon.com or http://drudgereport.com reports is
                   a lie.
                   \_ Salon: Abu Ghraib scandal, Drudge: Monica Lewinsky
        \_ Liberals, trying to outstupid stupid.  They might win.
        \_ Couldn't somebody just start blasting the debate with broad-spectrum
           whitenoise (or move up and down through the frequencies until Bush
           looks pained)?  Or what about a cell-phone killing EMP?
           \_ Broad-spectrum white noise would work, but it would disable every
              wireless device in the room. (Did the moderator have an
              earpiece?  Did somme backstage techs?)  Shifting frequency would
              not jam it if it uses spread-spectrum.  An EMP would fry the
        \_ So no one has mentioned the fact that Bush wears body armor when
           he's in public (at the insistence of the Secret Service)?  It
           appears that Salon is doing spin in a response to the video showing
           Kerry violating the rules of the 1st debate.  See
           http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc57.htm for a link to the video.
           \_ Don't delete my mocking or I'll delete your post.
            \_ i thought it was a magic penis
                 \_ "I'll take 'The Penis Mightier', Alex."
           \_ Personally, I think he was packing heat. Probably that pearl
              handled revolver that they took off Saddam Hussein when he
              was captured.
           \_ 1. If he wore body armor because the secret service required it,
                 you would not know about it.  Making that info public just
                 tells potential assassins to go for a head shot.
              2. Presidential candidates are also given a SS detail, so both
                 Bush and Kerry would be wearing it.  Any shots of a Kerry
              3. Body armor is BULKY and HOT.  You would see it much more
                 clearly, and the Bush team would not be asking for 70 degree
                 room temperatures.
                 \_ all three of these "arguments" are weak as hell. #3 is
                    true of some armor but not of the light-duty armor
                    plates that are thin and flexible. i find it
                    instructive about your cognitive abilities that you
                    make arguments which rely on the assumption that you
                    know everything there is to know (about, for example,
                    body armor). #1 is a really shitty argument and doesn't
                    hold up to any sort of logical scrutiny. compare to
                    "if bush had a bodyguard, you wouldn't know about it."
                    #2 assumes that all security details have the same
                    threat model. to sum up, you're a fucking idiot. --aaron
                 \_ you suck --aaron
                    \_ Is this what Google Millionaires do with their spare
                       time?  Send some of that green my way, aaron, and I
                       guarantee I'll have more fun with it.
              \_ I know that facts carry less weight than your from-the-ass
                 speculation, but here's at least one reference:
                 "The concealed body armor currently worn by George W. Bush,
                 the Secret Service and many law-enforcement folks..."
                 Hackworth is not exactly a Bush partisan.
                 \_ WorldNetDaily is a piece of shit.
                    \_ Then read the same commentary at:
                       And find out who Hackworth is before dismissing him.  Dumbass.
                 \_ just a technical point.  If you wear body armor that
                    doesn't have bulky plates, it won't protect you against
                    assault rifle rounds.  It's mainly for pistols.
                    Hackworth should know better.
2004/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33969 Activity:very high
10/7    maybe he's lying, but Bush claims no draft while he's president:
        \_ there won't be a draft because draftees are useless or have
           negative value to the modern US military.  it takes a few *years*
           to train a new recruit to be useful on the high-tech battlefield.
           by the time they managed to draft and train a million slackers,
           whatever event they were drafted for would be long over.  modern
           warfare is so fast now that when war breaks out there is no time
           to build up anything.  it's a bring-whatcha-got kinda thing now.
           thus, the idea that there will be a draft for anything short of
           a mass invasion by a foreign nation (which we know can't happen)
           is simply daft.
        \_ Kerry wants more troops sent in.. so more likelyhood of draft
                \_ not necessarily US troops.
                \_ not necessarily US troops.   likelihood _/
        \_ "as long as I am President, there will be no draft" -Dubya, Tuesday
           \_ Read... My... Lips.
           \_ I believe Dubya says this because he thinks the current Iraq
              plan (currently deployed U.S. troops + Iraqi National Guard)
              can work.  He'll probably say his commanders on the ground said
              Samarra was the example of this.
        \_ And we can trust everything Bush says, because he is so honest
           and straightforward with the American people. Not to mention
           having such great judgement.
           \_ I think he's a lying sack of shit.  I also think he's not
              going to restart the draft unless there is a really major
              attack on American soil. -op
              \_ I want to play devil's advocate:  If there is a terror
              \_ I want to play devil's advocate:  Say there is a terror
                 attack on American soil that does not do significant damage
                 to the economy/stock market and business infrastructure,
                 Dubya may still implement the draft, while a whole lot of
                 people may think it wasn't a "really major attack" but won't
                 say anything because they'll be accused of being traitors.
                 Then we go after Iran even though it was al Qaeda that did it,
                 because you know, this is the post-9/11 world and if America
                 shows weakness or uncertainty, the world will drift toward
                 tragedy.  SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP!
                 How do we like dem apples?
                 \_ Do you buy your tinfoil hat off the rack or do you get
                    them custom made?
                    \_ Homemade from only the finest heavy-duty Alcoa foil.
                    \_ How _much_ do you think this differs from what happened
                       with Iraq, justification 9/11?  Except I can definitely
                       say Iran is a much greater threat today, than Iraq to
                       U.S. national security before we invaded.
                       \_ The rest of us carry state information.  Perhaps
                          you don't.
                          \_ I make a solid devil's advocate case.
                             I can't say much for what you provided.
                             \_ If you're making a devil's advocate claim,
                                then the question of tinfoil hat is justified.
                                \_ So says you without any meaningful
                                   indication of why, even after three posts.
           \_ Yup, just like when he said he wouldn't do any nation building.
              \_ I'm a uniter, not a divider.
                 We must be humble.
                 \_ We mut have a strong but humble foreign policy.
2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33951 Activity:kinda low
10/4    I'd like to spam my democratic friends with republican
        campaign emails so that they'd get pissed and donate to
        the democrats. What's the best way to do this?
        \_ Attn: motd gun nuts:  I'd like to shoot the op.  What gun would
           give me the greatest chance of doing this and not getting caught?
           \_ A fictional one, you jackass.
2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33944 Activity:nil
10/4    Why haven't the Democrats cash in on catchy phrases like
        "I Like Ike"? I mean, I can already come up with simple stuff
        like "We want John and John!" or "Vote for
        JFK again!" or "President Kerry Carries Your Worries!"
        \_ If I may volunteer, the electoral mood is serious and worried about
           the future, and "I like Ike!" sounds flippant.  And your suggestions
2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33943 Activity:nil
10/4    This seems a bit...unfair.
        \_ fairness is when you're in kindergarten and a kid steals
           your candy bar and you cry and the teacher spanks that kid.
           GWB wasn't born with the gift of logic and speech, is that
           fair? Cheney wasn't born with nice hair and nice white
           teeth, is that fair? Get real you hippies and liberals,
           there is no such a thing as fairness in the real world.
           \_ Everyone look at the cynical heartless Republican!
        \_ Not really.  Networks are supposed to give equal air time to
           political ads from the two parties leading up to the election,
           so the speech probably won't be carried on network TV.
2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33942 Activity:nil
10/6    John Edwards continued the Democratic ticket's winning streak in
        Tuesday night's vice presidential debate. He was judged the winner by
        uncommitted voters who watched the debate, just as John Kerry was last
        week. Forty-one percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said
        Edwards won the encounter, while 28 percent chose Vice President Dick
        Cheney. Another 31 percent thought it was a tie.
        \_ Wow.  This was not the impression of any of the people I talked with
           tonight, all of whom thought that Edwards came off as a moron.  All
           these people were very liberal, yet a number of them suggested that
           after this debate they'd prefer a Kerry/Cheney ticket.  This despite
           thinking that Cheney's an evil bastard.
           \_ After tonight's debate, I more thought Cheney was wrong in
              addition to being evil.  Stylewise, Cheney had strengths as well
              as Edwards, and I say Edwards edged him out on clarity.
              Content-wise, Edwards won.  Gaffe-wise, Cheney won with not any
              of the nervous mistakes as Edwards made, which is what I think
              your friends were thinking of.  Keep in mind that Dubya's gaffes
              pointed more to his intellectual capacity than Edward's mistakes
              to his lack of experience talking with Cheney. -liberal
        \_ Yeah, above poster is right.  Your guy got pwned.  Own up!
           \_ I was the "own up" guy in the Dubya/Kerry debate.  I won't say
              own up on this one, since it wasn't the embarrassment that the
              first debate was.
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33938 Activity:insanely high
10/4    Ok so who won the debate today?
        \_ Edwards won.  He has better hair, a better smile, and whiter teeth.
          \_ actually this works really well especially with undecided
             women voters. Case in point, Kennedy, Reagan and *Clinton*
        \_ I am a master debater!
           \_ can i master debate you?
        \_ Don't think anyone did, although the fact checkers are going to have
           their work cut out for them with Cheney...VP debate is fairly
           meaningless anyway, Lloyd Bentsen wiped the floor with Quayle
           but look what happened to him...
           \- 1. it's not a debate so in a sense it isnt totally zero sum.
              2. edwards agenda was "i am a non-stupid shallow inexperienced
                 stuffed shirt" ... accomplished, i think.
              3. cheney was ok ... he didnt explode or have vast regions of
                 silence ... which would be sort of reassuring after the
                 unambigious bush failure last time. --psb
        \_ I learned three very important things.  The most important thing
           I learned is that Cheney is so smart, but so wrong - and this
           scares me.  The second most important thing I saw was that
           Edwards and Cheney's performances make Kerry look really good.
           The last thing is that all three make Dubya look very dumb, and I
           don't want a dumb guy "who knows how to be tough", as president,
           surrounded by a bunch of really smart people who all are wrong.
        \_ I just want an explaination of 'global test', nukes to Iran,
           \_ On why basis do you determine that Cheney or Edwards is 'smart'?
              Because they communicate stylishly or slickly, or on the merit
              of their ideas?
              \_ Wait I am confused... how can you determine if someone's smart
                 using either the former OR the latter?  The former is just
                 rhetoric skill, the latter could well be subjective beliefs,
                 independent of any meaningful notion of 'smart.' -- ilyas
              \_ The latter of course.
              \_ I have met Gore, Cheney, and Kerry. Of them, Cheney
                 seemed the most polished, smooth, and professional. Gore
                 seemed smart in a bookish way. Kerry was kind of dopey
                 but friendly. Based only on meeting them I would say
                 Cheney is the smartest and most well-spoken. This is
                 probably true since he actually had a very successful career
                 outside of politics and has served on more than one
                 cabinet. I am not sure what it means, though.
                 \_ Like I said:  So smart, and so wrong - and this scares me.
                    \_ I don't think you got the memo, buddy.
                       Conservative = redneck, hick, gunrack, pickup truck, etc.
                       Liberal = college educated, progressive, intellectual.
                       \_ While I'm serious, you're horsing around, "buddy".
        \_ I just want an explanation of 'global test', bribing Iran
           by effectively giving them nuclear weapons,
           and the humanitarian need in Sudan but not Iraq.
           \_ Ugh, drop it.  He for once (count the number of times bush does
              it) chose his words poorly.  And that's the best thing the
              repubs can grasp onto?
              \_ This was not an accident, it is central to his platform.
                 Please, an explanation.  Building 1000's of nuclear
                 ICBMs is a good idea, but building an ABM technology is
                 bad idea - I don't understand.  BTW, why do you delude
                 yourself into thinking Kerry is something he is not??
                 Its like leftists pretending not to be Marxists.
                 \_ That's certainly misleading of you.  Where has Kerry said
                    we should build 1000s of ICBMs?  In the 1st debate when
                    what is most important for America's safety he said
                    'non-proliferation' and opposing Star Wars II seems quite
                    consistant with this.
              \_ No.  Kerry slipped and said what he's been saying for 30
                 years in public... until he ran for President... but has been
                 trying to hide since declaring.  He's a pro-UN, one-worlder,
                 get permission from other countries kind of guy.  There's
                 nothing wrong with that, per se, but it is not ok for the
                 PotUS to be that way, IMO.  He erred by revealing what he
                 really thinks with that comment.  It was not a simple slip or
                 a poor word choice in the sense you imply.  It was a poor word
                 choice for a man running for President.  You want it dropped
                 because you know it will kill your guy if he has to answer it
                 for real, which he hasn't.  Edwards flubbed it again tonight.
                 The only answer is that he means what he said and that is not
                 an acceptable answer for the PotUS.
                 \_ You offer little of substance to support your partisan
                    conclusion.  It's what you would *like* to be true.
                 \_ He specifically said it doesn't mean "permission from other
                    countries". In other news, when bush says "it's hard" the
                    only answer is that he means his penis.
                    On the permission point, the underlying implication of
                    course is that these other countries and the UN are denying
                    permission to protect ourselves, i.e. they are enemies.
                    Of course it ignores the fact that the case for Iraq being
                    any kind of real threat and needing a prompt invasion was
                    never made. But no, Kerry is a French homo Saddam lover.
        \_ Another interesting fact is that pro-Kerry/Edwards people jammed
           up any available online poll.  CNN quickly changed their question
           when it had been 84% Edwards, and http://latimes.com took it down when it
           was 97% Edwards.  http://msnbc.com still shows 70% Edwards.
           Thanks goes to the DNC e-mail list I suppose.
          \_ Republicans-- older, more mature, less tech saavy.
             Democrats-- younger, less mature, more tech saavy, more
                likely to be young hippies who write script/loops to
                vote on the web sites.
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33935 Activity:high
10/4    bipartisan name calling contest. I'll start:
        Republican: red-neck, suv lovers, blue-blooded deficit-spending elites
                \_ motherfucker (implied by red-neck)
                   \_ spend and spend, free-labor conservative
                \_ trigger happy bible thumping earth rapers
                \_ drunk driving, draft dodging, bible-thumping morons
        Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
                  limousine liberal
                \_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
                   \_ No.  They're actually pretty evenly split.  The
                      nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs,
                      Soros gleefully excepted.
                      \_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's
                         from drugs or what.
                \_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts
        \_ Lying piece of sack of shit slut trashcan scummest dirtbag...
        Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
                  limousine liberal
                \_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
                   \_ No.  They're actually pretty evenly split.  The
                      nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs,
                      Soros gleefully excepted.
                      \_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's
                         from drugs or what.
                \_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts
                   \_ sounds good to me
        \_ you're a right wing nut job!
           \_ you're a liberal weiner!
        \_ communist treehugging homosexual godless traitors!
        \_ Republican: fag haters   Democrats: fag lovers
        \_ This whole thread is stupid.
2004/10/5 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33934 Activity:high
10/4    bipartisan name calling contest. I'll start:
        Republican: red-neck, suv lovers, blue-blooded deficit-spending elites
        \_ motherfucker (implied by red-neck)
           \_ spend and spend, free-labor conservative
        Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer,
                  limousine liberal
        \_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days?
           \_ No.  They're actually pretty evenly split.  The nouveau-riche,
              however, are almost exclusively Repubs, Soros gleefully excepted.
              \_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's from drugs
                 or what.
        \_ you're a right wing nut job!
           \_ you're a liberal weiner!
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:33933 Activity:high
10/5    Mexico refuses to treat american citizen without medical insurancew
        \_ America refuses to treat american citizen without medical insurance
           \_ Not true.  By Federal law emergency rooms can not refuse
              patients.  Duh.
              \_ Oh, it's illegal? Then I'm sure compliance is perfect
                 and they adhere to the spirit of the law. Pah. Talk
                 to anyone who works in an ER sometime.
                 \_ So emergency rooms are breaking Fed law and denying
                    patients service?  I have never seen reports of this,
                    \_ You don't need facts to spew on the motd.  Let him be.
              \_ Emergency rooms cannot refuse to treat emergencies. If it
                 is not an emergency, they just refer you to the county
                 hospital. -used to work in an ER
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33924 Activity:high
        \_ 4 more years!!! Thanks to Floridians.
        \_ On a more serious note.... Both parties are so entrenched and
           absolutely certain of victory in this election and the complete
           lack of qualification of the opposition and certain doom if the
           other guy is elected.  It will be interesting to see the losing
           party completely implode on November 3rd.  I wonder if this will
           be one of those rare moment in American history where a major
           party vanishes and is replaced by something new or is consumed
           by some currently tiny party.
           \_ This is what Nader banked on in 2000. Worked great didn't it?
                \_ It wasn't like this in 2000.  Both parties wanted it but
                   neither was so self certain of getting it as they are now.
                \_ if you live in CA or another non swing state, feel
                   free to vote for the Green Party.  Nader is NOT
                   the green party candidate.
                \_ go Nader!!!
                   \_ Ross Perot 4 EVAH!
           \_ The Republicans will not implode. They are used to being
              the minority party. They will just retrench. The Democrats
              might implode if they do badly. -Liberal
              \_ Uhm, why?  I don't think this assertion is based on reality.
                 \_ Umm the Dems have controlled Congress for a very large
                    proportion of the 20th century... maybe 60-70%?
                    \_ This doesn't explain anything.  This is a fact.  There
                       is a significant difference between a fact and a
                       logical argument.  Kindly show your knowledge of
                       the difference with a demonstration.  thzx
                       \_ Sigh. This motd is not large enough to contain
                          this explaination. But to start with: the Republican
                          Party somehow survived Watergate and losing both
                          Houses of Congress and the Presidency for many years.
                          It is unlikely that merely a close loss in a
                          Presidential race will be their undoing. Especially
                          since they are likely to hold the Senate and almost
                          certain to hold the House, thereby having at least
                          some say in the running of the Federal government.
                          Kapich? The case of the Democrats is not as clearcut.
                          I am not sure if there is a historical precedent for
                          the Democratic Party being totally out of power for
                          8 years. The Democratic Party is fundamentally a
                          populist, working class and poor party. Their
                          base comes from people either wholely or partially
                          dependent on government subsidy. Without controlling
                          the levers of government, how are they going to
                          provide the.. uh.. rewards, that being an ally of
                          the party in power recieves? Furthermore, with a
                          moderately educated populist base they risk losing
                          the bulk of their support if they lose too often.
                          Sort of like how the 49ers have lost most of their
                          fans by losing week after week. A Conservative
                          (the real Buckley kind, not the Dubya kind) does
                          not really mind being in the minority. In fact, he
                          might be kind of disturbed at being in the majority
                          too often, since his sense of self is predicated on
                          being "different" i.e. superior, to the commoner.
                          A Liberal who does not "lead the masses" is kind of
                          a sorry sight. -liberal
                          \_ I don't know that I agree with much of what you
                             say, but thank you for providing a more detailed
                          \_ "populist, working class, poor party".  Are
                              you joking? Have you looked at their contributors
                              or political platform recently?
           \_ This is lamer than my "GOOG will drop a lot the first week and
              a lot more by half a year" prediction - and that's pretty lame.
              \_ Props! --googler
              \_ What?  This is totally off topic.  Get over your google
                 fetish.  Links have been posted and were unrefuted by you
                 kool aid drinkers.  Go make your own thread.
2004/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33918 Activity:high
10/4    GOP convention in a nutshell
                \-"The only thing I hate more than fags and communists
                   are terrerists." --W
        \_ That's pretty funny.
        \_ Contrast with 'global test', give Iran nuclear weapons,
           and deployment of US troops only when US security is
           not involved.
           \_ *whew*  thank god your interpretation has nothing to do
              with reality!
              \_ *This is the consequence of what Kerry said*
                 \_ Let him drink his kool aid.  You can't save him.
                    \_ I think you guys are the ones with the green kool-aid
                       tongue here.  Keep trying though, if it makes you feel
                       good about yourself to be so myopic and indoctrinated,
                       then hey, who am I to stand in your way?
                       \_ Thank you for adding nothing.
                 \_ There's 2 ways of interpreting it.  Your interpretation is
                    that he said we need approval from the UN.  My
                    interpretation is that he's saying we need to be able to
                    prove our case.  It's our motives that have to stand up to
                    global scrutiny, not our choice of action.
                    \_ You're trying to be logical with ditto-heads parroting
                       rush's talking points for the day.  Why waste your
                       \_ Why post content free drivel?
                    \_ Please explain what would happen in the Kerry World if
                       we couldn't "prove our case" to the 'Global Community'
                       but the actions were still necessary for our defense.
           \_ Kerry said no nation can veto a preemptive American strike.
              Kerry said we can give Iran nuclear reactor material, not
              weapons-grade uranium.
              Kerry and Bush said we should go through the UN in Africa.
              \_ Kerry said "..., but" dozens of times, also.  Including,
                 a "... but it must pass the test, the global test".  Iran
                 doesn't want Kerry's non-weapons grade material.  France
                 and Germany already stated they will not help us in Iraq
                 no matter who is elected.  Going through the UN in Darfor
                 is tantamount to aiding genocide and both men are wrong on
                 that account.  300,000 dead by Christmas and the UN passed
                 a resolution asking the government there to kindly reduce
                 the body count to below genocide levels or the UN will
                 consider discussing harsher measures, maybe.
                 \_ Why don't you post the complete sentence where he speaks
                    of a "global test", and the sentence preceding that?
                    Also, please provide a credible URL where it says (a)
                    the U.S. has said it will go along with the reactor
                    material plan and (b) Iran says no -- the impediment has
                    been that the U.S. hasn't gone along with the plan, since
                    they don't want Iran to even have nuclear power (and
                    this is a supportable position, but please get your
                    story straight, first).
                    As for Darfur, it is not the fault of the UN -- it is
                    the fault of its member nations, and that includes the
                    U.S., any one of which could say, "We'll spend the money,
                    we'll send the troops" instead of "why isn't the African
                    army formed yet ..."
                    \_ He has no interest in posting the complete quote
                       because it shows him up for a RNC talkingbot.
                       because it shows him up for being an RNC talkingbot.
                       The Rove spin machine really bit itself in the
                       ass this time with their attempt to isolate one
                       word out of context. I think it is because all of
                       America saw the statement and knew that they were
                       misstating what Kerry meant.
                \_ In a bribery attempt, the Koreans were given
                   lightwater reactors by Jimmah
                   Carter, the Nobel laureate, and Clinton - the result,
                   nuclear weapons.  Not to mention the free money and oil.
                   It worked so well in N. Korea Kerry wants to repeat the
                   strategy with Iran.  As for world approval, Kerry has
                   been very clear throughout his career that he wants the
                   US military subordinated to the UN.  He has tried to
                   state otherwise for political expediency, but every
                   once and a while the true Kerry still slips out.
                   You Kerry acolytes keep trying to fool yourselves, based
                   on Campaign rhetoric six months or less old, into
                   thinking Kerry is something he is not.  He is the most
                   liberal Senator, a leftist, an appeaser and
                   a pacifist.
                   \_ MOST LIBERAL SENATOR!  KEEP REPEATING!!!
                   \_ Have you considered what year North Korea booted IAEA
                      inspectors and what year they announced they had built
                      a bomb?
                      \_ N. Korea has probably had a few bombs since the late
                         1980's or early 1990's.  Here is a useful summary
                         of newpaper articles on the subject:
                         And yet, with the proliferation of ICBMs and
                         nuclear weapons, Kerry is against bunker
                         busters and missile defense.
                         \_ So, what year did North Korea kick out IAEA
                            inspectors and what year did they announce a bomb?
                            \_ 1992, how is this relevant as the IAEA is
                               completely useless. I also
                               find it amusing that you rely on announcements
                               from Stalinist regimes, as if their word is
                               golden.  I especially like how N. Korea
                               announces its ICBM tests.  We still don't
                               know definitively if they have a weapon because
                               they have never undergone a comprehensive
                               \_ Are you sure 1992 was the year North Korea
                                  kicked out IAEA inspectors?
                                  \_ Which time?
                                     \_ Are you sure IAEA inspectors were
                                        kicked out of North Korea more than
                                        What year(s) did North Korea kick out
                                        IAEA inspectors, and when did they
                                        announce a bomb?  Why can't you
                                        answer a simple question?
                                        \_ It is really easy to find out
                                           for yourself.  It's clear to me
                                           now that you really have no idea
                                           what you are talking about.  For
                                           you history starts with the election
                                           of George Bush.  This is a
                                           waste of time, good day.
                                           \_ Doh!  I think I got trolled!
                                              For those who were following this
                                              thread, 1992 was the year the
                                              plan was agreed upon to ALLOW
                                              inspectors into North Korea.
                                              The inspectors were KICKED OUT
                                              in 2002.  The announcement of a
                                              bomb came after that.  Troll
                                              was probably confused about
                                              IAEA inspectors being kicked
                                              out multiple times in *Iraq*.
                                              \_ a cursory search
                                                 would reveal your comment
                                                 as false.
                                                 \_ a cursory search would
                                                    reveal your comment as
                         \_ How irresponsible of him to oppose technologies
                            that make it easier for us to use nukes!
                            \_ Right, one could shoot down a nuclear tipped
                               ICBM heading for LA.  A definite no-no.
2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33909 Activity:insanely high
10/4    I read on Drudge Report that Kerry used a magic penis to beat
        GWB in the debate. It must be true, because everyone knows
        that GWB is smarter, stronger and better looking that Skerry
        Kerry. Why won't the liberal media report on this???
        \_ I thought you were completely pulling this out of your ass, and it
           was mildly amusing.  The fact that there's a basis in truth is
           mildly horrifying.
        \_ Poll: The most pathetic motd troll in the last 2 weeks:
           This one: .
           \_ Oh boo hoo, your idiot partisan Drudge has been shown
              up again. Let's change the subject, quickly.
              \_ I've seen film that shows it looks like paper.  Where is the
                 film showing it looks like a pen?  URL?  Would some sort of
                 film showing it looks like a penis?  URL?  Would some sort of
                 proof be too hard to deal with when making a claim?
                 \_ Drudge links to the pen thing himself.  It's still
                 \_ Drudge links to the penis thing himself.  It's still
                    against debate rules.  ie Drudge had more balls than op.
                    \_ Why can't you post links from the Daily Sun?  At least
                       they have the Page 3 girls.
                        \_ http://www.page3.com
                           W00t w00t always glad to provide some Eurotrash
                           prurience into your dismal druge-ridden puritan
                           lives.  And no it's not work safe.  -John
                    \_ Hey moron:  Bringing a prop or notes was against debate
                       rules.  Carrying a sanctioned pen to debate is not
                       rules.  Carrying a sanctioned penis to debate is not
                       against debate rules.
                       \_ Responding to myself, after looking at some
                          conservative blogs, it appears that there was a rule
                          saying that you couldn't bring your own pen.
                          saying that you couldn't bring your own penis.
                          (they are supplied on the lectern)
                          \_ Uhm, you know the rules were PUBLISHED.  Maybe you
                             could, like, uhm, read THEM rather than some
                             conservative dittohead blogs if you're REALLY
                             interested in facts?  Just a thought.
                             \_ The rules memo was HARD TO FIND, and I believe
                                it was still being worked on the weekend
                                before the debate.  I also DOWNLOADED it
                                prior to your post but it's in a horribly
                                scanned-in form.
           \_ It doesn't qualify as a troll.  It's just more frothing.
              \_ Troll: anyone who points out Republicans acting stupid.
        \_ Watch the video, it looks like a piece or pieces of paper.
           Wanting to know if a candidate cheats is not a troll or
           frothing, it's character.
           \_ True.  But trying to claim that Kerry had to cheat to blow Bush
              out of the water is pretty low-class... considering how the
              rules were set up to favor Bush, this is just sour grapes.
              \_ Out of curiousity, how were they so set up?
           \_ Moron #2:  If you checked the URL earlier in the thread, you
              would have found that it was definitely a pen he pulled out:
              would have found that it was definitely a penis he pulled out:
              \_ Who is the moron - someone who watches the video and
                 looks at the stills for themselves, or another person
                 who believes as gospel everything they read in
                 print?  You still watch Dan Rather, right?
                 \_ Do you REALLY believe that he didn't pull a pen out of his
                    jacket?  Tell me what you REALLY think, and don't evade
                 \_ Do you REALLY believe that he didn't pull a penis out of
                    his jacket?  Tell me what you REALLY think, and don't evade
                    the answer.
        \_ To the losers above:
           "The Daily Recycler talked with a Fox News producer today who was
           able to review multiple camera angles of the debate footage. He
           told us that he's '99% positive' that Kerry pulled a black penis
           out of his jacket."
           So, I wonder why Fox News hasn't released the additional footage?
           \_ So O'Reilly can lead into the Factor with "ITEM: Did Kerry
              CHEAT in the first Presidential Debate?  We'll have the
              facts for you to decide, coming up, in the No-Spin Zone."
              \_ Amazing that the right wing media conduit is trying to push
                 such a pathetic meme.  It sucks your guy is such a loser,
                 huh?  Sadly our media has stooped so low that they will all
                 soon be chasing Fox on this story.  Can we call them Pavlov's
                 dogs yet?
                 \_ "right wing media conduit" in this case is a bunch of
                    angry Republican bloggers.  Hey, we saw it with dailykos
                    Fontgate, didn't we?
                    \_ Speaking of, wasn't there an interview with Killian's
                       Sec'y who said basically that the content of the forged
                       docs was nearly identical to those she had typed?
                       \_ True.  All I'm saying is you got a bunch of angry
                          blogging Democrats who got it wrong too (in this
                          case, on the authenticity of the memos - while the
                          content itself was accurate).
                          \_ Can someone provide a reputable URL for this?
                             \_ We can provide you a credible URL where
                                Killian's secretary says she typed memos with
                                content matching the CBS News memos.
                                You want that?
                                \_ Yes please.
           \_ I think Kerry must have used one of those laser debate pointers.
                                   \_ http://www.drudgereport.com/bushtang.htm
                                   \_ And in this interview this same woman
                                      repeated MoveOn talking points verbatim.
                                      She's hardly an impartial witness.
           \_ I think Kerry must have used one of those laser pointers.
              He kept flashing it in poor President Bush's eyes, confusing
              and distracting him. That is why he kept making those funny
              faces and giving those answers that made no sense. There is
              no other reasonable explaination. Unless it was a magic penis.
                \_ The rules were setup to prevent Bush from pulliing out a
                   bigger brain.
                   \_ don't you mean a bigger penis?
2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33908 Activity:high
10/4    Still think the draft is just a rumor?  Check out HR163 and S89 at
        \_ Direct link, for the lazy: http://csua.org/u/9bc
        \_ Old news.  A bunch of Democrats suggested we resart the draft.
           What I don't understand is why Kerry now seems to want to pin
           this goofiness on Bush. Don't worry about it, it won't go
           \_ Regardless of reality, it is becoming a campaign issue.  "Don't
              worry, be happy" isn't a very good way to deal with it.
              \_ So let me get this straight... a bunch of democrats want
                 to restart the draft, and the campaign issue is "Bush will
                 reinstitute the draft"!?  Do you have brain siphilis?
                 reinstitute the draft"!?  Do you have brain syphilis?
                 \_ http://www.blatanttruth.org/draft.php
                    \_ So now we backed off from the credible *.gov link
                       (which implicated democrats) into some fly-by-night
                       left wing freep show which implicated Bush with
                       t0p-s3kr3t d0cz!!~!```11  You are pathetic.
                       \_ News flash: the Dems were lodging protest legislation
                          designed to point out the class inequalities in the
                          current SS.  BushCo is looking to start up a Skills
                    \_ This is a retarded link.  None the less, it's old
                       news.  The draft was never "stopped" you know, the
                       Selective Service still exists, and I see no reason
                       it shouldn't be updated with the rest of the
                       military.  Call me when that democrat bill goes
           \_ Not just Democrats, dude. Chuck Nagel is a Republican from
              \_ Virtually all are Democrats.  One Republican doesn't
                 prove anything.
              \_ Here's the sponsor list.  Where's Chuck?
                 \_ Surely you can type "Chuck Nagel draft" into google
                    all by yourself.
           \_ Whoops, it's apparently protest legislation:
              More likely to affect us here at CSUA is the Skills Draft:
              http://csua.org/u/9bf (sfgate)
              Sorry about the confusion. -op
              \_ Skills draft?  I don't think the typical sodan's el8 linux
                 hax0r skillz are draft quality.
                 \_ Spent any amount of time with GI Joe lately? The ability
                    to use a computer is in high demand in the army these days.
                    \_ Because knowing is half the battle!
        \_ Special Skills Draft:
           Putting your Counter-Strike skillz to the ultimate test!
2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33904 Activity:kinda low
10/4    Wow.  Kerry totally busted on film.
        See the link to the video and decide for yourself but it looks really
        really bad.  No one likes a cheater.
        \_ Yeah and I read on Drudge the he had an affair with an intern, too.
           Whatever happened to that Drudge Exclusive? Why won't the liberal
           media tell the truth here about the important stories that
           everyone in America wants to hear about?
           \_ watch the video and decide for yourself.
2004/10/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33896 Activity:high
10/1    http://www.youforgotpoland.com
        \_ "A group of folks?"
        \_ What's that about?  All I get is one Dubya pic and a white/red flag.
           Nothing to click on.
                \_ it's not aimed for you then.
        \_ Kerry is French.
2004/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33888 Activity:nil
10/1    Registration tops estimates of eligibility, officials say
        Moveon, keep up the good work!
        \_ Did you actually read this article?
           "There are 200,000 people on Franklin County's voter rolls who
           currently are classified as 'inactive,' Damschroder said, but it
           takes five years or more of non-voting to remove their names. No
           one is purged from the voter lists in federal election years, so
           the list won't be pared down until mid-2005."
           So like, try really hard to think of all the things that might
           have happened to some of those 200,000 in the last five years.
           I know you can do it.
           \_ A lot of them died or moved but we'll make sure someone votes
              Kerry for them anyway.  We have interpreted their desires from
              the grave and marked a ballot for them.
        \_ Republicans are starting to get nervous. Are you trying to
           build a case for contesting the election after you lose it?
           \_ Which side has 6,000 lawyers at the ready in all the swing
              states?  Pot, kettle, black?  Some Republicans are disappointed
              with GWB's performance in the debate.  Those are the ones who
              saw style over substance.  Flash doesn't last.  We now have a
              new "global test" for defending ourselves.  We have Kerry saying
              we should have gone multi-lateral in Iraq, which we did, yet
              unilateral in North Korea.  The man is a gibbering fool and it
              shows in the transcripts and post analysis.  Your own guys are
              saying it was a tie.  Talk to the weed smoking guy at the top
              and you'll feel better.
              \_ "gibbering fool"??? Uh huh. Your partisanship has taken
                 leave of your sanity. Every poll has Kerry smoking Bush
                 in those debates, usually by a 2:1 ratio. Keep clinging
                 to your fantasy, it will come crashing down soon
              \_ Both sides have an army of lawyers at the ready:
              \_ Bwahahahaha.  I love it. Leave it to Bush apologists to
                 compare multi-lateral MILITARY ACTION and bilateral
                 NEGOTIATIONS.  But of course, there's no nuance in the
                 Bush vocabulary.  Stay strong, especially when wrong!
                 \_ And what was Kerry's vote for Persian Gulf War? Hmm???
                    When there was a huge Coalition for MILITARY ACTION with
                    even Syrians taking orders from the West?
                    \_ Read his speech.
                       This time around was after 9/11.  The president said
                       he was asking for force authorization in order to
                       press a diplomatic solution, then flipped a big ol'
                       bird to that and started bombing.
                       \_ This text of the speech just shows me how wrong
                          Kerry was back then. Does not change how he harp
                          on the small Coalition, but 12 years earlier
                          voted against authorizing a bigger one into action.
                       \_ Obviously you never read the behind the scenes
                          during GW1 between Powell and Aziz.
                       \_ The bill Kerry voted for was the "Authorization to
                          use force in Iraq".  How much clearer can it be?  If
                          he wasn't in favor of that, he should have voted
                          against it, before or maybe after he voted for it,
                          well until the polls said he should do the opposite
                          until his numbers slipped with his base but then it
                          was time to firm up his decisions by making a new
                          decision and consistently being consistent about his
                          nuanced consistency, maybe.
2004/10/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33890 Activity:low
10/1    http://democrats.org - check out the faces of frustration video.
        I guess I don't blame Karl Rove for not letting Bush do press
        \_ Dan Quayle rapid response team on standby!
        \_ Yeah, have you seen the RNC Kerry flip flop video?  The DNC puts out
           a flash and whiz video showing facial expressions.  The RNC puts
           out a video showing Kerry's words and numerous flip-flops including
           flip-flopping about flip-flopping.  Kerry didn't do a press conf.
           for what? about 6 weeks?  Hello?  Anybody home?!  Not logic or
           facts, that's for sure.  Send out Kerry to talk more about how he
           voted for and against everything and then lie about it.  His latest
           comments on that was that it was late night and he was tired but it
           was 11am and his first speech that day.  Whatever.  Don't let the
           facts get in your way.
           \_ Yeah, I don't know which idiot campaign manager guy told Kerry
              to say that, but it was REALLY dumb.
           \_ Most of those aren't true flips. But yeah, notably on the Iraq
              war rhetoric it's a problem, esp. compared to how he campaigned
              against Howard Dean. However the actual policy is consistent: he
              gave Bush war authority and believed in confronting Saddam,
              however he also believes Bush admin. misled us about WMD threats,
              and about the war and force as last resort. Kerry consistently
              distinguished "threat" from "imminent threat", as RNC propaganda
              does not.
              \_ The Iraq war rhetoric is only a "problem" if you believe
                 Bush's meme that "disarming Saddam" is the same thing as
                 "Overthrowing and occupying Iraq".
              \_ Not a problem for me. -- anti-Lurch
                 \_ I think you mean Herman Munster, son.
              \_ Kerry and Bush had the same intel on Iraqi WMD and Kerry is
                 \- Bus got gets a intelligence briefing everyday. Kerry isnt
                    even on one of the intelligence committees. How do you
                    figure they had the same access to intel? --psb
                 on record multiple times prior to the invasion that invading
                 was the right thing.  Facts, not spin.  Thanks.  If Kerry had
                 showed at more of the intelligence committee meetings he has
                 skipped 70% of then maybe he'd be in a better position to
                 discuss his opponent's successes and failures.
              \_ Yeah, he personally misled us. Keep saying it and it'll be
                 \_ I think he did to some extent. He's in the top job and the
                    deliberate rhetorical blurring of al qaida and saddam, the
                    push for wmd "intel" and presentation of cautious info as
                    hard fact, and cheney's continuing bullshit about nukes
                    and vote for bush or get blowed up, counts as misleading.
                    \_ Did you read the 9/11 Report?  It is *chock full* of
                       foot notes on the connections between Saddam and Al Q.
                       They note that reporting on those connections was not
                       part of their job but they felt so strongly about the
                       importance of it they did some of that work anyway.
                       READ THE REPORT!  You can probably find it online.  I
                       found the book version, and it *is* a book, at B&N.
                       \_ Did you read the report? In the conclusions, it
                          says that SH and AQ had no significant connections.
                          "But to date we have seen no evidence that these
                           or the earlier contacts ever developed into a
                           collaborative operational relationship. Nor
                           have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq
                           cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
                           carrying out any attacks against the US."
                    \_ I'm not the above guy; I'm a democrat and I loathe
                       Cheney, but this business about how voting for Bush
                       will cause another attack is the same media bullshit
                       that happened with Al Gore inventing the internet.
                       Read the full quote in context.  He was saying that
                       *if* there is another attack, there is a danger that
                       Kerry would react to it differently (worse, in his
                       opinion) than the Bush administration.  Like with the
                       Al Gore quote, all the pundits spent hours discussing
                       it without bothering to see whether he really said it.
2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33879 Activity:moderate
10/1    So what do Kerry supporters think of the whole "draft is coming"
        misinformation campaign?
        \_ The Bush Administration has reinstated the draft as a "backdoor"
           draft already.  People whose terms of duty in the military are being
           required to continue to serve.  Reservists are being shipped out.
           Reservists, by and large, signed up thinking that they would only be
           used in the direst of dangers to the US.  Bush's using them like
           normal combat troops, for which they are untrained, unready, and
           \_ While this may be a legitimate concern (though what I've read
              doesn't support this entirely), that wasn't my question.  I'm
              referring to MTV's "Rock the Vote" and emails going around saying
              that Bush will reinstate the draft after the election.
              \_ So what do you think, as a Bush supporter, of the RNC mailers
                 going around Arkansas saying the Democrats want to ban the
           \_ No matter who's in the white house, if the president decides to
              "Stay the course" or increase our commitment, there will have
              to be a draft as our "volunteer with an asterisk" army is
              starting to really show the strain and lack of manpower:
              \_ This link is so biased and ill-informed, it's almsot useless.
                 The national guard and the reserves are military units with
                 expectations and training commensurate with soldiers in the
                 US Army, because, well, they ARE in the army.  The whole
                 article seems to miss this basic point.  Enlisting in the
                 Gaurd or the reserves with the expectation that you won't be
                 sent into combat is just fucking stupid.  THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
                 THERE FOR.
                    \_ Considering that William S Lind is politically VERY
                       conservative and militarily brilliant (after all,
                       he literally wrote the book on Maneuver Warfare, which
                       became the basis for Marine Corps tactical doctrine),
                       he is probably one of the best commentators on this
                       whole mess. -nweaver
                       \_ If he's one of the best, then field as a whole must
                          suck.  The article is couched in phrases that go a
                          long way toward undermining its credibility.
                          Perhaps this brilliant man has a better article
                          which you can reference to make your point.
                 \_ There's no problem with calling up the reserves.  The
                    problem is with calling up the reserves for multiple tours
                    of duty which they're NOT for.  And calling up the IRR
                    (individual ready reserve) which is a system whereby an
                    enlisted soldier can be called to serve AFTER the term of
                    their enlistment expires.  The IRR is intended only to
                    cover emergency mobilizations, not a long-term elective
                    war planned a year in advance.  How would you like it if
                    you served your term in the army and they call you up YEARS
                    afterwards and order you to return.  Wouldn't it feel like
                    a draft to you?
                    \_ Unfortunately, the link does a poor job articulating
                       this, instead focusing on sensational comparisons to
                       Soviet Infantry regiments, and silly statements
                       such as: "Most Guardsmen enlisted expecting to help
                       their neighbors in natural disasters" as if this has
                       any relevance.  When you sign up, the contract is
                       pretty clearly stated: it's NOT about natural
                       disasters or repairing roads four miles from your
                       home; it's about going to war as unit of the US
                       Military WHEREVER and HOWEVER the US Military sees
                       fit.  It's a crime that the tours are being extended
                       the way they are, but at least find a more objective
                       link to make your point.
        \_ I think the draft is coming, no matter who wins the election.
           There is a severe manpower shortage. We have not activated
           the IRR since Vietnam and when we did, the draft followed
           the next year. -Vet
2004/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33871 Activity:very high
10/1    Kerry clearly won the first debate. Pretty funny watching
        the Bush supporters trying to change the subject.
        And this is Bush's strongest subject.
        \_ No, changing the subject is Bush's strongest stubject.  Just watch.
        \_ Kerry clearly stuck to DNC fax talking points, had no substance
           and is going to seriously fuck up NK and continue insulting our
           troops and our allies around the world if the people make a
           horrible mistake and elect his elitist, out of touch ass to
           anything outside his home state.
           \_ Mmm, echo chambers...
           \_ Hahahaha out of touch? That's rich. "The American people are
              safer!" Hahaha keep saying it maybe it'll make it true.
        \_ He was definitely the better speaker.  The difference though was the
           ideas, not so much the presentation.
        \_ Kerry finally opens his mouth and for the first time doesn't
           self-destruct. And you're getting excited about this?
           \_ Er, Bush self-destructs every time he opens his mouth.  I think
              you may want to get out of that echo chamber...
        \_ If I were voting for president of the
           the debate club, on style I'd probably choose Kerry.
           Since the President must be an effective leader,
           especially during war, and on policy, I choose Bush.
           Honestly, build Iran a nuclear power plant, end research
           on bunker busters, a "world test", and referring to
           'glory' days when France revered us!? - bizarre.
           Maybe Kerry can debate the terrorists to death and impress
           the French and Germans with his elan
           \_ How can you be an effective leader if you can't even speak in
              complete sentences, or tolerate dissent without going into fits
              of rage?  Honestly, its amazing that folks around here put so
              much value on intelligence, wisdom, and "clue," yet when these
              traits are clearly lacking in their leader, they turn a blind
              eye.  There is a difference between leadership and blind folly.
              \_ Actions not words. Bush gave a somewhat poor performance, but
                 it was better the second time I watched.  Also he showed alot
                 of restraint and was not aggressive the way Kerry was.
                 I've seen Bush be much more effective, I don't think he
                 does well in the evenings as he gets up early.
           \_ So you support the president who says, you can't have nuclear
              weapon, but we are developing more nuclear weapons, you just
              can't because I said so. You honestly don't see a problem with
              this logic? Talk about sending mixed signals to the rest of the
              world! You must abid by the rules you set out that you want the
              others to follow!
2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33868 Activity:insanely high
10/1    What I would call an excellent deconstruction of the
        1st debate
        Kerry's Global Warming
        \_ So this is what an irritated conservative whose guy just got
           thumped sounds like!  C'mon, we've let Dubya go on too long
           without someone to take him on mano a mano.
           \_ So this is what an irritated liberal who's been called a wimp
              one too many times sounds like.
              \_ C'mon, your guy lost.  Own up!
        \_ FFS, what's the problem with taking a differentiated approach
           to issues?  The moment someone actually tries to consider various
           factors and make an educated decision, without seeing everything in
           black and white, it's "waffling".  And sorry, an intelligent person
           is willing to change their opinion when facts change.  Yes,
           Kerry's not taken many stands, if any.  But I hardly see how not
           going at everything John Wayne gung ho my-country-right-or-wrong
           style makes a politician teh gay?  -John the not Kerry fan
           \_ Kerry's problem is lack of presence, or maybe he lacks sufficient
              speaking ability and intelligence to come across appropriately.
              He mumbles and rambles, and doesn't answer concisely.
              Consider Jefferson.  Jefferson was a subtle guy, but no
              propaganda machine would successfully paint him as a waffler.
                -- ilyas
              \_ Did we watch the same debate? Kerry was articulate, made
                 an impression, and answered concisely and thoughtfully.
                 \_ Sorry, I didn't watch the deba^Wpress conference.
                    I was talking about Kerry in general.  Bush's problem
                    is _atrocious_ speaking ability.  Bush, however, comes
                    across as much more personable.  Another point in Bush's
                    favor is that he is vastly underestimated by his opposition
                    (Commander-in-Chimp, etc). -- ilyas
                    \_ Watch the debate^press conference and see the
                       difference.  Unfortunately, I think most Americans are
                       not going to watch the debate, so the same old images
                       will prevail.  Giuliani certainly thought so.
              \_ Jefferson never had to deal with the concerted efforts of
                 the Conservative Revolution as led by DeLay and Rove. The
                 new GOP would have you convinced that Jefferson was pinko
                 socialist with Big Gubmint written all over him.
                 \_ You are thinking of Hamilton.  -- ilyas
                    \_ No, I'm describing Jefferson as the GOP would have
                       painted him.
                       \_ That's a fancy counterfactual you got there.
                          I wonder if it's true.  -- ilyas
                          \_ Ilya, your homework is to assemble an analysis of
                             whether Jefferson would have approved of and
                             joined the GOP as it now stands, and how and
                             whether the GOP would have attacked Jefferson if
                             he stood against them.
              \_ Kerry's "waffler" image stems from political positions that
                 are honestly nuanced. For example, we know that politically,
                 appearing to support homosexuals doesn't seem to help win
                 elections outside San Francisco. By having Bush take a strong
                 stand against gay marriage, via constitutional amendment, he
                 can contrast that with Kerry who says he's against gay
                 marriage, but has opposed garriage-ban legislation that he
                 felt was problematic. Kerry's problem is that he is not slick
                 enough to distill the crux of his point of view into short
                 sound bytes. And in this gay marriage example that's pretty
                 much impossible anyway, ditto for some other issues. For
                 example the patriot act. He voted for it but criticizes it
                 therefore he's a waffler. He voted to give Bush authority to
                 attack Iraq, but criticizes it, waffle with butter on top.
                 With the honest positions he's taken, there's no way he can
                 avoid the waffle attack, and a Jefferson with the same
                 positions would suffer the same. Incidentally, Jefferson was
                 said to be a poor speaker and relied on writing. So he'd never
                 get anywhere in today's politics.
                 \_ Leadership requires making tough calls and sticking by
                    them, not playing both sides.
                    \_ I'm surprised the waffle line never came out on Gore.
                       It's the only line R's seem to be able to think of
                       when faced with an intelligent, articulate opponent.
                       It wasn't true of Clinton, and it's not true of Kerry.
            \- that's fine. You do realize that 78% of the Americans
               disagree with you? http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html
               disagree with you? http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.ex
                \_ that's fine.  You do realize that poll has no validity
                   whatsoever don't you?  -Kerry man
                \_ Perfectly aware.  78% of the Americans are also wrong.
                   It's happened before.  Anyway, my comment wasn't about
                   Kerry, but about a phenomenon in general. -John
                   \_ In America we decide most political questions by
                      what the majority believes. It might not be right,
                      but that is how Democracy works.
              \_ Kerry was clearly the better speaker and more in control
                 of himself during the debates. Do you seriously challange
                 \_ Kerry did well sticking to his talking points and
                    avoided providing answers with any substance.  It was
                    standard motd style "republican:evil, democrat: good"
                    smear.  Of course you think Kerry did well.  He could
                    have picked his nose on TV and you'd say he was just
                    appealing to the nose picking constituency but is really
                    just nuancing the personal grooming issue.
                    \_ Err, you may wish to get out of that bubble you're in.
                       Pretty much everyone thinks Kerry won.
        \_ When I watched part of the debate the first time I was impressed
           by Kerry's style.  Then I watched again after thinking
           about things that were said, and completely changed my mind.
           The policies Kerry put forward are suicide, and are well
           outlined in this article.
           \_ What's with the selective deletion, punk-ass?
2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33865 Activity:very high
9/30    this is the url i give to my relatives who tell me they
        are voting for bush:
        \_ http://csua.org/u/9a4 is better. - danh
        \_ Yeah, Bush is responsible for that. It's just the same as
           Saddam cutting off their hands, and rape. After all they
           are prisoners, right?
           \_ true conservatives should be angry bush hired guys dumb
              enough to take those photos on their digital cameras and
              and attach them to email to their buddies back home.
              and attach them to email to their buddies back home. - danh
           \_ shit rolls downhill.  Bush has hired a cabinet of people who
              show consistent, deliberate contempt for the Geneva convention,
              and for basic American ideas of human rights and justice
              (ashcroft, Rumsfeld, etc.).  This is why my mother in law
              who voted for Reagan twice, voted for Bush Sr.(in 88, not
              in 92), and voted for Bob Dole is actually giving money
              to the Kerry campaign.  All this in spite of her hating Kerry
              and never having given to a political campaign before ever.
              You can keep telling yourself that swing voters are too dumb
              to understand things like the Geneva convention, but you're
                \_ Well put.  -John
                \_ Bravo, and thank you for speaking up.
              \_ Your mother is deeply concerned about the Geneva Convention
                 and is going to change her life long (R) voting pattern
                 because some goof balls put underwear on some guy's heads?
                 This is unbelievable.
                 \_ This is a ridiculous response. "Political activism is
                    dumb, sheeple! Don't stand up for your values!" Fuck you.
                    \_ Strawman.  Political activism is not dumb.  Your
                       'story' about your mother is.  Try again.
                       \_ Nice reading comprehension, guys, it's "mother in
                          law", not mother.
                          \_ Ad hominen.  It isn't relavent if it was your
                                \_ hominem
                             mother or your spouses mother.  Try again.
2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33864 Activity:low
9/30    Does the president get live input during the debate? or
        do they have everything in their head?
        \_ why do you think bush continues to say "um"?
        \_ No.  Yes.
2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33860 Activity:very high
9/30    motd poll:
        that debate was
        at about the same level as a typical motd flame war:
        worse: .
        better: ...
        \_ although it was uncomfortable to watch Bush stumble
           as he often tried to find words with which to speak.
        \_ It makes little difference how the debate went because
           the average American will still vote for Bush. The average
           American has never attended a university (unlike most
           sodans), the average American has a score of 1000 or below
           on the SAT (unlike most sodans), the average American
           says NUCULAR (unlike most sodans), etcc etc. In another word
                \_ You know that Jimmy Carter PhD, "smartest President ever"
                   was the first to say "NUCULAR", right?  Does that bother
                   you at all?  I know you're too young to remember this, but
                   he was abused for it at the time.  It comes from being a
                   southerner, not because he's stupid.  Picking on people
                   for how they pronounce or use a very common variant of
                   a word is childish, at best.
           the average American will vote for the president who is like
           them, GWB.
           \_ In other words, Democrat: smart/good, Republican: stupid/evil.
              Thank you for adding nothing new to the motd.
           \_ GWB scored over 1300 on the SAT and went to Yale.  At any rate,
              it's your own fault for selecting the worst possible dwarf as
              your nominee.  Now kindly bend over for your new republican
              \_ yes but he presents himself as the average American,
                 and he does it really well... manner of speaking, etc.
              \_ 1206, actually.
           \_ Okay, what possible reason does a typical 1400+, 3.0+
              Cal (u)grad w/ Eng. degree have for voting Kerry over
                \_ Kerry will make sure that your hi-tech job will not
                   be outsourced by the Afghan Muhajadin Freedom Fighters.
                   \_ Bleh, fuck low level hi-tech jobs. If you're from
                      Berkley CS you should be smart enough to find a
                      relatively challenging job that doesn't go overseas
                      easily. If it is, then, well, don't be a CS major.
              \_ 1) You're a nifty target for the draft, 2) your nation's
                 economic policy will be based on good business practices,
                 not handouts to companies you missed out on joining.
           \_ I scored ~1400, had 3.5@Cal and voted for Bush in 2000 and will
              again this year.  The *real* question is what the undecideds
              thought of the debate.
                \_ yes and you're also religious and filter out words like FUCK
                   \_ All religious people are evil and stupid repbulicans.
                      Is that your point?  Can't you come up with something
                      worth saying?
                   \_ Hi aaron!
        \_ what difference does this make? If you were a pro-Bush
           person, you'll still vote for Bush regardless of anything
           else. Content aside, Kerry did better in terms of clarity
           and body language. But that doesn't really matter because
           most of the Americans are intelligent. Yeah.
           \_ Kerry was all talking points, which he stuck to very well.
              Bush had passion and came across honestly, although not with
              any of Kerry's slickness.  Some people will see through Kerry,
              some will not.  Anyway, expect everything both men said to be
              very thoroughly fact checked and lists of lies and errors
              posted all over the net and in the newspapers over the next
              few days.
        \_ If I were voting for president of the
           the debate club, on style I'd probably choose Kerry.
           Since the President must be an effective leader,
           especially during war, and on policy, I choose Bush.
           Honestly, build Iran a nuclear power plant and end research
           on bunker busters!? - bizarre.
           Maybe Kerry can debate the terrorists to death and impress
           the French and Germans with his elan.
2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33856 Activity:high
9/30    Poll, I predict that in today's debate:
        Kerry will mess up, 4 more years of Bush: .
        Bush will do great, 4 more years of Bush: ..
        Kerry will finally have a position, 4 more years of Bush: .
        Bush will mess up, 4 more years of Bush: .
        \_ Kerry is getting is ass kicked as of 6:39 PM PST. Its
           \_ yeah what are you talking about?  bush is floundering
              big time. - danh
              \_ I'm watching channel 7. Bush is doing great.
                 Just one example: Kerry trots out the Global
                 Test wrt US pre-emptive action, gets his ass
                 kicked on it. He also got schooled on Iran
                 NK issue and the whole more sanctions and
                 diplomancy bullshit.
                 \_ i guess this must be a case of liberal vs conservative.
                    from my viewpoint bush is doing awful. - danh
                    \_ I think this a motd troll.  Even the freepers can't
                       find nice things to say about this Bush performance.
                       Anyway, it doesn't really matter what happens now -
                       it's all in how its reported by Pravda.
                        \_ I'm not a troll. Bush did well.
                           He basically said America First,
                           the world be damned. Kerry said
                           America First but only if the
                           Euro-peons say its okay and btw
                           I went to Vietnam. I'm more
                           libertarian than conservative.
                           [ why was this deleted? ]
                           \_ Er, not to get all freepy on you, but Bush got
                              pwned.  I think you're delusional.
                              \_ You live in a leftist echo chamber.  Stop
                                 reading Bab's website for news and info.
           \_ Which debate are you watching?
           \_ you're not watching the one on fox news where they swap
              bush and kerry's voices, are you...?
2004/9/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33847 Activity:very high
9/30    what are some of the topics that irritate people? I'll start:
        ilyas: jew, commies
        aaron: bush/kerry
        john: morons, moron.
        meyers: ilyas
        ausman: freepers, florida 2000
        \_ I think thuggishness irritates me, I don't think any _topic_
           ever irritates me. -- ilyas
           \_ Nice to meet Jew!
           \_ Cartman: You know, maybe where not seeing heaven because one
              of us is a J-O-O?
        aaron: bush/kerry
        john: morons, moron. chicom troll
        meyers: ilyas
        ausman: freepers, florida 2000
        t0m: his education
        \_ I think this irritates the fuckwit that keeps posting this FAR more
           than it bugs tom.
2004/9/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33838 Activity:kinda low
9/29    To the guy who said http://www.electoral-vote.com was biased, why were you
        suggesting that he was biased in favor of Bush?  He says he's a Kerry
        "I am a Kerry supporter. I am open about that. Despite my political
        preference, I have bent over backwards to be scrupulously honest about
        all the numbers, and have carefully designed the main page to be
        strictly nonpartisan."
        \_ Yeah, I implied that, but I was just repeating what I had
           read elsewewhere, that he was "biased." It is pretty amusing
           that the Kerry biased site has Kerry with fewer EVs than the
           Bush biased site.
           that the Kerry biased site had Kerry with fewer EVs than the
           Bush biased site yesterday. (electionprojection.com)
           No matter what he says though, those trend lines are a joke.
           Do you take those trend lines seriously?
           \_ I forgot to cull out the states that had only a few data points.
              But the trend lines looked reasonable to me in the states with a
              decent number of points.
           \_ Had a conversation with two construction workers at a coffee shop
              in Oakland today.  Gist: both candidates are scumbags; Kerry's
              a tax-and-spend Dem; Bush is a deficit spender; Ted Nugent would
              make a fine president.
              \_ Arnold! I used to scoff at Arnie's chances but I'm coming to
                 see that if legally enabled he might actually do it.
                 \_ You do realize that the barriers to Constitutional
                    Amendments are so high that this has almost no
                    chance of happening, right?
2004/9/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33816 Activity:kinda low
9/28    This is great.  Crawford, Texas newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2000
        endorses Kerry.
        And of course, the inevitable "Why does Crawford, Texas hate America?"
        \_ cuz they like shooting illegals in the back as they run?
2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33809 Activity:high
9/28    To all the "beat a chimp" people:  It's been frequently quoted that
        Dubya has never lost a debate.
        \_ It's not like he's had dozens of debates under his belt ... I think
           it's hard for his opponents to perform in Bush's reality distortion
        \_ good point.  I think I'm listening to the liberals too much.
        \- I am pretty sure Kerry never has either, right? That is how
           they both got this far. It is the battle of the two middle aged
           heavyweights, for the boxing crown!
           \_  Putin could kick both their asses in a fight.
               \_ He could probably kick their asses in a debate, too.
2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33803 Activity:nil
9/28    Has there been any election year in the US where no voting was
        conducted because there was only one presidential candidate?
        \_ Yes, Bush/Ashcroft 2008 -- They got 99% of the vote after
           suspending the constitution.
2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33797 Activity:very high
9/28    I can not believe it: All Kerry needs to do is beat a fucking
        chimp and he is not even going to be able to do that. What
        a fucking tool. Who the hell are these people who voted Gore
        and are now going to vote for Bush!?
        \_ That's my argument.  If Kerry can't even beat a fucking chimp,
           how is he able to run a country effectively?  I was for Gore, but
           Kerry just isn't cutting it for me.
           \_ Kerry appears to be losing because fucking stupid sheep-like
                voters such as yourself are herding along with what they're
                told is the flow.
                \_ "Think about how dumb the average American is. Now realize
                    that half of all Americans are dumber than that."
                        -- Jeff Foxworthy
                        \_ that's the median.  the median and the average
                           are only the same for a symetrical distribution,
                           which seems unlikely.
                           \_ I do not understand the concept of this
                              thing you call a "joke."  It does not
                              compute. *bzzzt*
                    \_ That would be right if he said "median American"
        \_ Kerry is winning. The polls are cooked (see Gallup)
           \_ Yeah, all of them.  Just look at http://www.electoral-vote.com to see
              how all the polls that show Bush trending up in nearly every
              battleground state are cooked.
              \_ So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph
                 because good is dumb.
        \_ If everyone who voted for Gore voted for Kerry, then Kerry
           would also lose. In fact, the margin of victory would be even
           wider for Bush this time because of population shifts adding
           electoral votes in Bush's favor. The real questions are:
           1. Who would vote for Kerry that voted for Bush last time?
           2. Why don't Democrats vote?
           \_ I'm starting to think America really deserves four more years
              of this stupid crap.  Fucked economy, spiralling foriegn
              commitments, maybe a few more countries with the bomb, investment
              fleeing to other countries, outsourcing, the complete
              disappearance of the middle class...Maybe then we'll finally
              get a decent sweep up in '08 and we can start to fix things.
              Unfortunately the judicial branch is going to be fucked for
              a whole generation.
              \_ This was Nader's argument in favor of running in '00.
              \_ Seriously, we need more dems in office so we can have a
                 booming economy like Germany and France have.
                 \_ False analogy, sorry, you lose.
              \_ Outsorcing is simply a free market at work. What do you
                 all anti-outsorcing whinners are expecting the government to
                 do? Take money out of someone's pocket and put it into yours,
                 or perhaps make everyone pay artificially high prices for your
                 skills and the products you make? (which is how protectionsm
                 works more or less).
                 \_ Well... yeah.
2004/9/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33780 Activity:high
9/27    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/debates.tm
        Debate negotiations conclude for first debate
        Kerry got:
        - Three debates not two debates.
        Dubya got:
        - Short lecterns separated by 10 feet, can't walk to the other side
          (Dubya won't look shorter than Kerry; Kerry will look awkwardly tall)
          \_ Doesn't the taller candidate win like 90% of the time?
             \_ 100% of the time since TV was created   http://csua.org/u/988
                (Gore won the popular vote in 2000)
        - Warning light displayed on TV when speaker goes over time
          (Dubya won't have problems with short answers; Kerry, problems)
        - Can't ask direct questions to other candidate
          (Kerry can't query Dubya on specific points on Iraq)
          \_ This provision is the stupidest crap ever.  It becomes a
             press conference instead of a debate.  Fuck our managed
             \_ Hey, Bush can't even manage to get through a Press Conference
                without a few amazing gaffes that the US domestic press rarely
                if ever reports.  The debates are essentially over before
                they begin - short of some sort of freak incident (i.e.
                Bush the Elder puking on the PM of Japan), it will be
                declared a Bush victory no matter what.  This would happen
                regardless of format.
                \_ The candidates have pulled this in the last couple of
                   election cycles as well.  It's anti-democratic and stupid
                   regardless of who it might help.
             \_ Yep. This alone should be reason enough to vote against Bush.
        - Foreign policy in first debate, not domestic policy
          (this one makes sense)
        - Room temperature above 70 degrees
          (Kerry sweats; Kerry wanted below 70)
          \_ Uh, really?  Wow.
             \_ Temperature in a performance is a funny thing.  A warmer room
                makes for a drowsier audience.  Letterman keeps his studio
                cool (~50) for a reason.
                \_ Audience?  For a televised presidential debate?  The
                   TV viewers are the audience.
                \_ 50F?  I have a hard time believing they'd keep it *that*
                   cold.  Anyone without a sweater would be shivvering.
                   \_ There was one episode when he raised it from 53 to 57
                      which was met by cheers from the audience
          \_ Maybe Kerry will bring his own Air Conditioned suit!
             "I am no longer John Kerry, I am now 'Mr. Freeze' and the new
              president of the United States. And you, Mr. Bush, are now
              officially... On Ice."
              \_ This won't be funny when Arnold runs for President.
                 \_ Yes it will!
2004/9/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33777 Activity:very high
9/27    John Kerry quotes.  He takes every position.
        \_ Mmm... Out of context quotes.  Fuck off.
        \_ Fuck you. Have you seen what an incompetent the chimp in office
           is? Do you realize our 'president' doesn't read news, doesn't
           pay attention? Are you fucking kidding me that you think Kerry
           will do a worse job than this international fucking JOKE Bush?
           \_ The university has free mental health services...
              \_ Oh sure, anyone who dislikes Bush is psycho. Not to
                 mention unpatriotic, unamerican and down right unchristian.
                 \_ No, by the tone of your language and your paranoid,
                    undue indignance.  It's appropriate you whine, casting
                    yourself as a persecuted victim, since afterall, the
                    Democrats have become the party of institutionalized
                    victimhood.  Does Kerry's free health care encompass
                    mental disorders? Would explain alot.
                    \_ Undue indignance?  Go peddle your BushCo propaganda
                       elsewhere, freeper boi.
                    \_ Oh, your dick is huge and tax free!
                       \_ No, that's only for Coulter-bots.
                    \_ After 8 years of wathcing Rush Limbaugh playing poor
                    \_ After 8 years of watching Rush Limbaugh playing poor
                       persecuted me during the Clinton administration,
                       this statement of yours is hilarious. Thanks for
                       the laugh.
                       \_ I'm reporting you to the FBI.  Print this out
                          and send it to Democracy Now and the Kerry
                          \_ Stop it! You're killing me!!!
        \_ Flip-flops explained: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
        \_ http://media.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress.mov
2018/11/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 451 - 600 of 1431   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Election: