Politics Domestic Election - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Election:
Results 751 - 900 of 1431   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2008/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49290 Activity:nil
2/28    Obama must reject endorsement of Farrakhan, but McCain happily
        accepts endorsement of loony preacher John Hagee
2008/2/26-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49264 Activity:nil
2/26    Pakistan rules! Go Musharraf!
        \_ Nawaz Sharif is a corrupt pimp, and he should have been dragged
           out back of the airport when he first arrived back and shot.
           \- if they give him and "mr. bhutto" and ounce of responsibility,
              they will get what they derserve.
              \_ Goddamn it, why do we get the leaders we deserve?
                 \- you did in 2004. i thought the "mass desire for change"
                    that apparently exists in 2008 would have happened in
                    2004 ... becase i wanted to ask people still supporting
                    W then "what more could he have screwed up such that
                    he'd have lost your vote?" [invading a country on false
                    pretenses and botching it, not caputing OBL, loss of
                    america credibility for a generation, probably damaging
                    american military recruiting proscpects for a long
                    time by signaling the civilian leadership holds them
                    in low regard, constrasted with a highly successful
                    recruiting and franchising drive for al queda thanks to
                    the "hooded man" recruiting poster provided by the
                    AbuG and Guantanamo Bay, pluticratization of society,
                    corporate welfare, etc]
                    \_ Thanks.  Now I don't have to visit Kos this month.  W
                       got elected in 04 because the other guy was a big
                       lamer idiot.  Better the idiot you know for 4 more years
                       than the idiot you don't for 8.
                       \_ Turns out, not so much. Ask NOLA.
                       \_ How was Kerry a lamer idiot and why is it better to
                          stick with a known bad over an unknown?
                          \_ Both were bad.  One was 4 years max.  Kerry was
                             not an unknown.  He was and still is an idiot.
2008/2/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49227 Activity:low
2/24    Nader signs on to ruin America once again
        \_ OH fuck!!! Not Nader again. Why the fuck is he doing this?
           \_ Nader got 0.38% of the vote in 2004.
              \_ And 2% in 2000.
                 \_ Which do you think is more likely this time, starting
                    a campaign in March without a party?  -tom
                    \_ The point to remember is that had he not run in 2000
                       Al Gore would have won and stopped GLOBAL WARMING
                       already. Damn Nader for indirectly destroying Iraq
                       and mother nature!
        \_ Anonymous message to Ralph Nader that we can all get behind:
           http://csua.org/u/kvm (YouTube-ish vid)
        \_ bahahahaha this is pretty funny
        \_ How is he ruining anything?  If people prefer him that's their
           choice.  Oh, I know, let's do the kind of democracy where only
           your guy is allowed to run.
           \_ I said it before, and I'll say it again: if he wants to run
              and actually make an impact, he should have started more than
              a year before the election. Right now, he's just a distraction.
           \_ Clearly you weren't around for the 2000 election.
2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49219 Activity:nil
2/22    In 2000 and 2004 there were web sites that pointed out a graph
        that showed that States with higher average IQ voted D ("smart
        people voted for Gore and Kerry"), then there were a lot of
        other sites that debunked those charts as urban legend. Where can
        I find a definitive/authoritative source that shows how right/wrong
        those charts were?
        \_ There is no such source.  Causality is hard, and these sorts of
           claims are basically political bullshit. -- ilyas
        \_ http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
        \_ "States" don't have an IQ.  People do.  Very few people have ever
           had an IQ test.  IQ tests were originally designed to test children.
           Their application to adults is sketchy at best.  Need to know any
2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49217 Activity:nil
2/22    So when will we know who'll be on the ballot for sure?
        \_ After both conventions are over.
           \_ Where the front runners don't have enough delegates in either
              party and they appoint Reagan vs. Gore.
              \_ Stocked up on crack again I see?
                 \_ Just because both men are dead is no reason they can't be
                    their party's candidate.  Dead people vote.  Why can't
                    they run for office?
2008/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:49216 Activity:nil
2/22    GOP lobbyist Charlie Black now conducting most of his business from
        on board the Straight Talk Express
2008/2/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49203 Activity:nil
2/20    McCain - I was against torture until I was in favor of it:
2008/2/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49201 Activity:kinda low
2/20    McCain bimbo eruption:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/3792gm (nytimes.com)
        \_ Yes, this is just as effective of a charge against being Prez
           as it was for Bubba, JFK, Lincoln, and etc.
                                                  \_ Gary Hart?
           \_ The issue is not that he may or may not have had an affair, but
              that he had a close relationship with a lobbiest for Bud Paxon,
              from whom he accepted gifts, and then later used his
              position to enact legislation favorable to Paxson.
              \_ There's nothing new about this. McCain's pattern is to do
                 unethical stuff and then act like he's a crusader against
                 those things. "I steal stuff all the time. I'm here to
                 put a stop to that, it's too easy to steal things in America."
        \_ McCain eruption inside bimbo.
        \_ 1) Not news at all, this is all old, 2) We've known since the
           Keating5 days that McCain is corrupt, 3) Clinton taught us that
           politicians' private lives are private and we should respect that
           privacy.  This is just the NYT doing their standard hit piece on
           whoever the (R) candidate is.  Business as usual.
2008/2/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:49193 Activity:low
2/20    Is Obama anti-Asian-American?
        \_ link:tinyurl.com/26zx2v
        \_ Are you an idiot?
        \_ No, but I sure met a lot of Asian-Americans while canvassing that
           seemed to be vehemently anti-Obama. Funny, they would never explain
           *why* though.
           \_ Maybe it has something to do with this S.B. Woo spam I keep
              \_ I googled that and man, to quote Clay Davis on The Wire,
                 "that is some shameful shit."
              \_ Between this and the spurious accusations linking Obama with
                 Farrakhan, I can already see what tact the GOP plans to take
                 against him in the general election. As pp said, "shameful
                 \_ This sounds more like Billary than the GOP, but it is
                    hard to tell... maybe they are working togethere?
                    \_ I highly doubt it; I just mean that it's liklely that
                       the GOP will target Obama by exploiting ethnic/racial
                       \_ The Farrakhan thing is coming from the Israel
                          lobby.  Pretty sure that they're bipartisan.
                          \_ What are you talking about? URL please.
           \_ It's because Obama had refused to respond to 80-20 Initiative's
              questionnaire on Asian American issues until after they gave up
              and endorsed Hillary.
              \_ That questionnaire was some dumb shit.  Somehow I doubt
                 this is really the reason.
              \_ No, he did not refuse, he asked for the questions to be
                 clarified, which every other campaign asked for and got.
                 Once the questions were clear, he answered them just like
                 everyone else.
                 \_ Hmm.  Hillary responsed on 12/10/07, while Obama responded
                    a whole 7.5 weeks later on 1/31/08.
                    \_ When did they clarify his questions?
2008/2/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49176 Activity:nil
2/16    Poverty is Poison:
        \_ You know, this article started off good until it got to "But
           progress stalled thereafter: American politics shifted to
           the right..." which has the effect of turning off 1/2 of the
           readers in the U.S. On the other hand, I don't know any
           conservative reading NY times so maybe it's well fitted.
        \- if you are interested in this topic, read WHY ZEBRAS DONT GET
           ULCERS. very, very good book. [the book is primarily about
           something else, but coverns this in some depth as well]. --psb
2008/2/17-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49172 Activity:nil
2/16    NY Times review of "The Age of American Unreason":
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/292uxg (nytimes.com)
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2008/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49163 Activity:nil
2/15    Obama vs. Paul
2008/2/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49160 Activity:nil
2/15    I want Obama to win because I think it would be funny.
        \_ That's pretty much why I voted for him.  Watching Hillary give
           a concession speech will be the TV of the decade.
           \_ She could probably top Nixon
              \_ That seems unlikely.
              \_ as bad as hillary is/was/will be, she can't top Nixon!
                 \_ She has that whole crying thing down, now all she needs
                    is a dog.
                    \_ Checkers for the win!  or lose.
        \_ I want obama to win the primaries votes, but lose the actual primary
           (due to superdelegates), just to reinforce my cynical view of the
           machinery of the Democratic party machine.   Bonus points if Hillary
           then manages to go on and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and
           lose the actual election to McCain.
           \_ I want you to move out of your parents garage.
2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49147 Activity:low
2/14    Worst thing about Obama winning the nomination: 6 months of
        racist (often veiled as concerns as to what the "mainstream" thinks)
        pandering on the motd.
        \_ McCain winning would be the worst thing, if it happened
        \_ You keep saying that but I haven't seen anything racist on the
           motd re: Obama yet.  Are you trying to create that atmosphere?
           You seem to be the only one posting that stuff like your post
           below.  Everyone else here is talking issues and candidate
           qualities and policies.
           \_ I can't keep saying something I only said once.
              \_ So you and your friend keep saying it.  Saying something a
                 lot doesn't make it true.
                 \_ I didn't say there was going to be racist trolls.
                    I was wondering why the "OH NOES HE'S A MUSLIM
                    meme popular with freepers hadn't shown up the motd.
                    Most of the other poisonous shit like that (e.g. Swift
                    Boat) was a big topic here.
                    The motd really is letting us down for entertainment
                    value. !op
                    \_ Clue time: this isn't the freepers.  There are people
                       here who not on the left but aren't frothing mindless
                       freepers.  Why must anyone who disagrees with you
                       automatically be a mindless frothing freeper idiot?
                    \_ Honestly, hasn't most of that been thrown around by
                       the Clinton team?
2008/2/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49129 Activity:nil
2/12    Obama wins the primary!
2008/2/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49113 Activity:nil
2/11    Obama is kicking Hillary's ars.
        \_ Ars Democrata?
        \_ Is Obama thrusting into Hillary's ars?
           \_ Yup.  link:www.csua.org/u/kqq
2008/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49085 Activity:high
2/7     Mitt-out Romney: Romney drops out:
        \_ San Franciscan style left wing is not MAINSTREAM America
           \_ You are like a child who comes in at the middle of a movie
              and demands to know what has already transpired.
              \_ Middle America style right wing is not MAINSTREAM America.
                 See how fun this game is?  Exclude everyone that you
                 don't like!
                 \_ By definition, middle america *is* the middle and therefore
                 \_ Actually, it is more like "Southern style holy roller"
                    is not mainstream America. Which everyone else in America
                    knows, but for some strange reason these people do not.
2008/2/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:49056 Activity:nil
2/3     Maybe old news - McCain's racist remark from Seattle Post-Intelligencer
        March 2, 2000: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml
        \_ I've heard it before.  I was always a little confused though.
           Doesn't 'gook' refer to Koreans?
           \_ Generally considered a reference to Vietnamese. Might have been
              repurposed from Korean Conflict.
              \_ I've heard the term referenced against both, but more often
                 referenced against Vietnamese.
           \_ More to the point, it's a word the soldiers used to refer to the
        \- hanguk -> korea. Dae Han Min Gook!
        \_ If ever I would forgive anyone for racism, it's McCain for being
           racist against Vietnamese.
2008/2/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:49049 Activity:kinda low
2/1     Who should McCain add as VP?
        \_ Ann Coulter, for full comedic value
        \_ The mummified corpse of Ronald Reagan.
        \_ Dick Cheney
        \_ Lieberman
        \_ Joe "Can I suck your Republican dick" Lieberman
           \_ This is actually a good idea.
        \_ Obama
2008/1/25-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49014 Activity:nil
1/25    Goodnight, Kucinich:
2008/1/22-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48985 Activity:nil
1/22    Fred Thompson drops out
        \_ Damn.  Can't see his busty wife's pics anymore.
        \_ Damn.  Can't see his busty wife anymore.
           \_ Mrs. Jeri "Minnesota Tits" Thompson, the Future First Lady and
              The First Twins, "Stacey" and "Becca."
              \_ Do the First Twins "drop out" also?
2008/1/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48893 Activity:kinda low
1/4     Has anyone seen reporting on Obama being the first black candidate to
        win the Iowa Caucus?
        \_ Racist! He's actually only half black.
           \_ He thinks he's black, so who gives a crap?
              \_ Please don't feed the trolls.
           \_ Bad Troll.  Haven't you read the census guidelines on beingi
              black?  Granted, those guidelines are based off of racist laws
              that date to the antebellum and Jim Crow south. -dans
           \_ So is Tiger Woods.
              \_ And Halle Berry.
                 \_ genetic vigor!!!
        \_ har har har this is why Republicans are going to win again.
           How pathetic.
           \_ Uh, *what* is why?
2008/1/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48884 Activity:low
1/3     Bye bye Biden and Dodd, the two most palatable Dems
        \_ Palatable to whom? Dead white males?
           \_ I think he meant palatable in a Dahmer sense.
2007/12/29-2008/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48864 Activity:high
12/29   Is Kristol a hypocrite or the NYT selling out? Or both? Or visa versa?
        \_ Or maybe they both recognize the value of including opposition
           voices. -dans
        \_ I find it amusing that you would call the NYT a sellout for
           printing a conservative in the oped pages.  What next?  Having the
           regular article writers doing well researched and unbiased articles?
           And then pigs flying?  When do the flaming frogs fall from the sky?
           \_ I wouldn't call Kristol a conservative.  I would call him
              a delusional fuckhead.  Keep him in the Weekly Standard
              where he belongs, he should quit polluting other places with
              his crap.
              \_ Wow you sure made your point.  Well spoken!
           \_ The NYT already has regular columists that are conservatives,
              but none that have been so consistently wrong about everthing
              as Kristol has been. And I didn't say that the NYT was a
              sellout, I asked what other people thought. I think it is
              mighty strange that they are publishing someone who has been
              such a vocal and adamant critic. Even stranger that he would
              want to run a column in a paper that he claims to despise.
              \_ What's so strange about publishing a vocal and adamant critic?
                 This is precsely who intelligent and informed debate is
                 supposed to work.  Even a brutal critic may make valid and
                 relevant points, and that's worth considering. -dans
                 \_ Bill Kristol does not make "valid and relevant points".
                    He's a wildly dishonest pundit who cofounded and ran a
                    Murdoch mouthpiece, and cofounded and ran PNAC.  He lies
                    in his arguments, in his premises, and in his journalism.
                    He has abdicated his place in what can be considered
                    intelligent and informed debate.  As have you.
                 \_ You're off topic.  That has nothing to do with flaming
                    frogs falling from the sky.
                    \_ E_ROBERT_BORK?  Cool! -dans
                       \_ No.  Flaming frogs from the sky.
                          \_ Yes, E_ROBERT_BORK. -dans
                             \_ Sigh... no.  You're not getting it.  Go ahead
                                and post another bork and let's just be done
                                with it.
                                \_ Do you even know who Robert Bork is? -dans
                                   \_ Yes.  Do you?  Do you know anything about
                                      flaming frogs from the sky?
                 \_ We are talking about Bill Kristol here. He does not
                    contribute to intelligent and informed debate about
                    \_ Again, you have helped educate us all with facts,
                       details, and hard core specifics.  Appreciated.
                    \_ I kind of liked him in "When Harry Met Sally". I
                       never realized he was so into politics.
                 \_ Sure a brutal critic can make valid points. From the
                    pages of another publication.
2007/12/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:48781 Activity:nil
12/11   Russia expanding again.
2007/12/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Recreation/Food] UID:48770 Activity:nil
12/10   This is pretty funny. --psb
        \_ Wow, this is really quite funny. Thanks.
2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48737 Activity:nil
12/3    Ron Paul's 2007 speeches to Congress
2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48735 Activity:high
12/3    Media Matter's displays CNN rules for submitting debate questions:
        Anyone who wants to submit a question may do so by uploading a video
        clip through YouTube. All the videos that are submitted will be posted
        on the site. CNN will then choose as many as 50 videos to use during
        the debate.
        Asked for guidelines on what kind of questions were most likely to make
        it on the air, Bohrman said they should be concise -- no more than
        30 seconds -- provocative, and creative.
        "We're not going to have anything obscene or inappropriate, but I think
        we'll get some very inventive questions," he said.
        Note the conspicuous abscence of a requirement that one be undecided
        or a member of one party or the other.
        \_ http://www.csua.org/u/k57 (LA Times)
           A review by the Los Angeles Times of the debate sponsored by CNN
           and YouTube four months ago found that the Democratic presidential
           candidates also faced queries that seemed to come from the
           conservative perspective. At least two of the citizen-interrogators
           had clear GOP leanings.
           CNN officials said that in the Democratic debate, as in Wednesday's
           Republican encounter, they had not attempted to determine the party
           or ideology of the questioners.
        \_ How did the discussion go when the Dems refused to debate on Fox
           \_ Totally different story.  Fox news has made its reputation
              (and fortune) by being very anti-Democratic Party.  That's not
              the same thing at all.
              \_ No, they made their rep/money on providing the other side
                 of the news to the people who felt the rest of the news was
                 biased to the left.  These days FN is pushing the same
                 agenda as CNN and the rest, but it was fun while it lasted.
                 \_ "The other side of the news"? Like, "War is Peace,"
                    "Slavery is Freedom, "Ignorance is Strength," that kind
                    of thing? What planet do you live on, and what's the
                    weather like there?
           \_ When is MM going to run her correction?
              \_ What correction?
                 \_ For her claim that the GOP did not insert any of their
                    supporters into the Democratic debate. For her claim that
                    these people all represented themselves as undecided.
                    \_ I can't find the claim that GOP supporters didn't insert
                       themselves into the Dem debate. As far whether they were
                       "undecided", while that's not a formal requirement, it's
                       reasonable to assume that someone asking a question at a
                       debate actually cares about hearing the answer.  So if
                       someone has already decided to openly support a
                       candidate *not on the stage* what are they doing asking
                       them questions (and ridiculous ones at that)?
                       \_ "But the persistent media double standard is obvious
                           to everyone but the manure spreaders at CNN: Had
                           GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their
                           operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate,
                           and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners
                           and presented them as average citizens, both Fox
                           and the GOP would be treated as the century's worst
                           media sinners." -MM
                           So by your standards, the numerous GOP supporters
                           who asked questions during the Democratic debate
                           should not have done that? When are you going to
                           condemn them for it? Why is your outrage so
                           \_ Well, I didn't care about the Dem debate and so
                              didn't watch it because I know enough about the
                              candidates' positions that there's no way I'd
                              vote for any of them.  And yes, had any GOP
                              activists been outed in that debate, I would have
                              been just as annoyed.  There's a difference
                              between "conservative questions" and GOP
                              activists.  In *both* cases CNN should have
                              screened for questions that actually matter to
                              the actual primary voters. -pp
                              \_ get a clue.
                              \_ GOP activists did ask questions at the
                                 Democratic debate, you are just too blind
                                 to see that.
                                 \_ Name em.
                                    \_ John McAlpin, for one.
2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48734 Activity:high
12/3    The primaries finally get interesting
        Any predictions on who will take the R nomination? I have no idea,
        Except that I think Giuliani is done.
        \_ I think that if Giuliani falls down it will be Romney and
           he will get even less of the vote than Dukakis did.
           \_ Heard on the radio this morning that Romney's counting on a win
              in Iowa or going home. Is Huckabee really the choice candidate?
              \_ Well, he's a socialist.  He belives that compassion means
                 taking *someone else's* money to give to the needy.
           \_ Romney would win Utah.
              \_ Pretty much any R would win Utah.
                 \_ Well, I actually meant he would win Utah and no other state.
                 \_ Well, I actually meant he would win Utah and no other
                    \_ Why do you think that?
        \_ I think Huckabee is looking more and more like the best the R's
           can do this year. It would make for an interesting race, to say
           the least.
           \_ Huckabee is the current darling of the religious right who are
              obsessed with the bogus concept of stacking the supreme court
              so they can over turn RvW.  If they actually knew anything about
              him (or you either for that matter), it would be obvious that
              Huckabee offers the worst of both left and right wing while
              offering none of the positives of either.  If the RR stayed
              home we'd all be better off.  Huckabee isn't going anywhere.
           \_ Huckabee is an ass and would fall apart once the non faithful
              took ANY look at him.
              \_ Huckabee called for a national smoking ban in public places.
                 \_ Did it occur to him that it's unconstitutional for the Fed
                    to legistlate something like that?
                    \_ Why do you think it would be unconstitutional?
                       \_ 10th amendment?
                          \_ The Constitution is just a piece of paper.
                             \_ Hi troll.
                          \_ "The powers not delegated to the United States by
                              the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
                              states, are reserved to the states respectively,
                              or to the people."
                             Since pharmaceuticals are not mentioned in the
                             constitution, do you really think the Gov. has no
                             right/obligation to regulate them?
                             \_ What do you think that says?
                             \_ On that logic just about any regulatory body
                                is unconstitutional, but guess what, the
                                FCC, the FDA, etc etc, are all pretty well
                                \_ I agree, but I'm wondering why the person
                                   who thinks it's unconstitutional thinks
                                   it's so in the face of the etc etc you
                                \_ Hello, you may wish to see Art. 1, Sec. 8
                                   Cl. 18 (the "necessary and proper clause")
                                   and McCulloch, 17 US 316 (1819) re the
                                   constitutionality of the FCC, FDA, &c.
                                   and McCulloch, 17 US 316 (1819).
                                   \_ Income tax is unconstitutional, too.
2007/11/29-12/6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48712 Activity:high
11/29   Michelle Malkin has collected youtube profiles/images of questioners
        from last night's debate.  Several of the questioners are openly
        supporting Democrat candidates.  Don't bother telling me how much you
        hate Malkin.  Look at the evidence presented about how CNN is
        http://csua.org/u/k44 (michellemalkin.com)
        \_ I'm confused by the outrage.  Same thing happened with the July
           debate with the Democrats.
        \_ And yet the questions still managed to address significant GOP
           issues. How'd that happen?!? Oh, wait, it's because when you're
           not MM or AC, thinking outside your talking points isn't that
           \_ Not issues for people voting in the R primary.
              \_ I'm voting in the R primary, and they were issues I was
                 interested in.
                 \_ Oh really?  Which issues?
                    The Confederate Flag?
                    Whether they believe in every word in the Bible?
                    What would Jesus do about the death penalty?
                    \_ Gun control, abortion, and taxes. Way to cherrypick.
                       \_ I frankly don't believe you.  When you say you're
                          voting in the R primary, is that because you're a
                          registered R?  Or because you're a D in an open
                          primary state?
                          \_ I'm registered R, and I frankly don't care if
                             you believe me. Also, are gun control, abortion,
                             and taxes not important to people voting in the
                             R primary? They were covered in the questions.
                             \_ Gun control and taxes matter, but abortion
                                doesn't because a president can't affect it.
                                \_ Errr..  sort of.  The Religious Right is
                                   very interested in what the president thinks
                                   of abortion because the prez appoints
                                   to the Supreme Court.  And the SC could
                                   overturn Roe vs Wade.
                                   \_ The RR is a minority part of the R party.
                                      So sure it concerns that segment, but it
                                      does not concern most R at all.
                                      \_ Sure, I'm R and I don't care.  But the
                                         RR exterts disproportinal control over
                                         the primary system.
                                         Addendum: For example, Huckabee is
                                         doing so well in Iowa because RRs
                                         don't trust Romney.  He who wins
        \_ You and MM are right, Democrats should not be allowed to participate
           in the political process anymore. No Free Speech For Democrats!
           \_ Excellent straw man sir!
              \_ Isn't that what you are complaining about? I don't get it,
                 do you really think that Democrats should not be allowed
                 to ask Republicans questions during debates?
                 \_ The people in question aren't simply Dems, they're openly
                    supporting different candidates.  They're not interested in
                    the answer, they're just bomb-throwing.
                    \_ I am pretty sure you don't lose your free speech rights
                       simply because you declare allegiance to a particular
                       candidate. Did these people lie and claim they were
                       undecided, so that they could get permission to ask
                       questions by CNN? Otherwise, I can't imagine what your
                       beef would be. Can I go to a Romney rally and ask him
                       a question, even though I am an Edwards supporter? Why
                       the heck not? I might even change my mind!
                       \_ Wow, are you really this clueless?  I didn't say you
                          lose any "free speech rights".  However, there is a
                          difference between honest questions and
                          \_ Yes, only questions pre-screened and OK'd by the
                             candidates should be allowed near any Republican.
                             \_ Or Hillary
                           \_ I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
                              What you call "bomb-throwing" I call healthy
                              debate and integral to the democratic process.
                              It is pretty funny for a MM reader to complain
                              about bomb-throwing.
                              \_ And it's pretty funny when someone uses "free
                                 speech rights" in this context.  Wow.
        \_ How do you even register to post in that blog?
        \_ The problem was that CNN was deceitful.  If they had put "General
           Bob Smith, (D) Activist" next to the name of the guy they flew in
           and put in the front row, then it would be lame but not piss anyone
           off.  These were supposed to be "undecided (R) voters" which
           several clearly were not.  And this is the same motd crowd that was
           so concerned that Foxnews was going to abuse their position if they
           ran a debate, yet you find this a-ok.  Sheesh.
           \_ Again, same thing happened in the Dem debate.  No one cared
              until CNN released a statement saying there would be no "gotcha
              questions" in the R debate.  The other MM (media matters) noted
              this and pointed out the multiple gotchas they let into the D
              debate.  Now, if Malkin had been complaining about gotchas after
              they said they wouldn't have them, she might have a point.  With
              this post she's just a crybaby.
              \_ I don't read/watch Malkin so I have no idea what she said
                 and don't really care.  In the Dem debate we had Hillary
                 plants there for her.  In the Rep debate we had Hillary,
                 Edards, Obama, and CNN plants.  Neither situation is
                 acceptable to me.  This just further enforces my belief
                 that the US 'main stream media' is biased to such a degree
                 that they should be dismissed entirely as the yellow rag
                 'journalists' they are.  I would like to note that we didn't
                 see Rep plants in either debate but that's another matter.
                 \_ In the Dem CNN/YT debate, there were questions that were
                    most likely from R supporters.  But no one went and tried
                    to pin them down as R supporters, because attacking the
                    questioner rather than answer a valid question is in the
                    R playbook.  Not so much with the D's.  You're showing
                    your bias in trying to determine cnn's.
                    R playbook.  Not so much with the Ds.  Being of the other
                    party does not negate one's right to ask a question in an
                    open debate.  Instead of running from them, or whining
                    about them, why not try and give cogent answers and, y'know
                    try and persuade people...
                    \_ Which questions?  And who do you think did the tracking?
                       Random people on the net who post on (R) blogs.  Nothing
                       is stopping you from tracking down the qusetioners to
                       see if your allegations are even true.  If they are,
                       then let us know, until then you're blowing smoke and
                       tossing out red herrings.  No one said you don't have a
                       right to ask a question.  That's a strawman.  It has
                       been stated quite clearly the issue is they were
                       falsely presented as "undecided (R) voters" or in the
                       case of Hillary plants at the D debate, as "undecided
                       (D) voters" when in fact they were political operatives.
                       And in the case of the (R), they did answer, even though
                       several of the questions were stupid.  That was a good
                       effort at distracting from the real point about dirty
                       politics on the part of CNN and Hillary but no dice.
                       \_ When/where did CNN say the questions came from
                          "undecided (R) voters"?  This is important.  If they
                          did say this, then you have a point.  I don't think
                          they did, though.  And as you've based your entire
                          argument and outrage on this point, I suggest you
                          look carefully.
                          \_ Both debates were choosing people in that context.
                             This is how questioners have been chosen in
                             debates in recent years.  This is nothing new.
                             So, if I'm right and they said these were supposed
                             to be undecided voters in each debate, then what?
                             Do you finally agree the debates were fucked?
                             And frankly, even if that weren't flat out stated,
                             they should still have properly identified the
                             people, but that's a hypothetical.  I don't want
                             to go off on some tangent about that at this
                             \_ You repeat your assertion with no supporting
                                evidence.  Show me where CNN said "This is how
                                we're choosing the questioners".  IMO, these
                                questions were decidedly less offensive than
                                those of Russert or Blitzer (raise your hand?
                                seriously?).  I would love to go back to LWV
                                moderation with decent questions and actual
                                discussion, but these complaints are overblown
                                and really crybabyish.
                             \_ No, this is not generally how questioners are
                                chosen in debates, not in the ones I have
                                watched over the years. You are just blowing
                                smoke at this point and I think you know it.
                                \_ Wow, way to make shit up to cover for lame
                                   debate moderators and slimey tactics from
                                   the (D).  Even the LATimes published a
                                   piece on how shitty CNN did.  When the LAT
                                   not only doesn't support your left wing
                                   agenda but out right bashes you, you have
                                   a problem.  You=CNN in this case.  I notice
                                   you completed ignored my question and just
                                   magically decided with no knowledge that I
                                   and everyone else who has been saying these
                                   were supposed to be normal citizens and not
                                   activists is wrong.  I think I've been
                                   trolled.  You have yet to answer a single
                                   question I've posed in this thread and
                                   instead just keep throwing bombs.
                                   \_ You are talking to more than one person,
                                      btw. Yes, if a questioner signed some
                                      waiver or made a verbal agreement with CNN
                                      that they were an undecided (R) voter,
                                      then it would be immoral to violate that
                                      agreement. Happy? Now, show me your
                                      evidence that this was the case, or
                                      just admit that this is you and MM's
                                      made up rule, not something that
                                      other people agree to, or even would
                                      agree to, unless they were partisan
                                    \_ From your source: "Beside considerations\
                                       like these, CNN's incompetent failure
                                       to weed out Democratically connected
                                    \_ From your source: "Beside considerations
                                       like these, CNN's incompetent failure to
                                       weed out Democratically connected
                                       questioners pales." Even the LA Times
                                       agrees that it is no big deal.
                                   \_  "We were looking for people who were
                                        interested enough in the process to ask\
                                        a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political\
                                        director, said Thursday. "We didn't
                                        inquire about people's ideological\
                                        beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .\
                                        We were looking for questions that
                                        would make for an interesting debate."
                                       interested enough in the process to ask
                                       a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political
                                       director, said Thursday. "We didn't
                                       inquire about people's ideological
                                       beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .
                                       We were looking for questions that would
                                       make for an interesting debate."
           \_ I'm now trying to imagine Fox News running the Dem debate:
              "First question: When did you first start hating America?"
              \_ You'll have to keep imagining since Fox was never given a
                 chance.  Do you think CNN should be allowed to hold further
                 debates after this last performance?  How about the previous
                 one where more Clinton activists were planted in the audience
                 and there was zero followup to her answers from Blitzer?  Was
                 that a well run debate?
2007/11/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Finance/Investment] UID:48695 Activity:very high
11/26   Media lavishes attention on bogus Zogby poll showing Hillary trailing
        while ignoring reputable Gallup poll
        \_ More proof of liberal media bias.
           \_ I think you're being sarcastic, but one could make that argument
              since Hillary is probably the farthest right of the Dem
              canidates.  However, what the media really hates is a sure bet.
              A sure-win canidate reduces the drama and reportability.
        \_ Both polls are meaningless since we don't elect the POTUS in a
           general election, otherwise Gore would have won in 2000.  Only
           State by State polls matter, assuming any poll does.  Frankly, most
           of the polls survey such a tiny number of people they're all highly
           questionable.  Show me a poll of 2000+ LV's and I'll pay attention.
           \_ There is one meaningful point--much of Hillary's support is
              because of "electability".  If she's not as electable as
              previously believed, that may erode her support.
              \_ I understand that "electability" is what got Kerry nominated
              \_ I don't actually think that is true, since Edwards is clearly
                 more "electable." While it is true that Hillary supporters
                 often tout her electability, I think it is because they know
                 it is her weakest point and they are trying to pre-empt
                 Obama and Edwards' attacks on the point. FWIW, Obama is
                 probably no more electable than she is. -Edwards supporter
                \_ Why do you support Edwards?
                   \_ I agree with him on the big issues: the Iraq War, which
                      he thinks was a mistake and wants to wind down as quickly
                      as possible; healthcare, which he wants to reform and
                      ensure complete covereage, with the most comprehensive
                      plan of anyone; and campaign finance reform, where he
                      has consistenly taken a stance against the open buying
                      and selling of political favors which is what K Street
                      has become these days. He also would use the bully
                      pulpit to bring attention to the issue of widening
                      income imbalance, which no one else seems to even notice
                      or care about. I disagree with him on a few things, like
                      free trade, but those are not large enough issues for me
                      and he is not enough of a protectionist for me to be too
                      worried. I also think he has a wider appeal than any of
                      the other candidates from either party and because of this
                      might be able to correct our drift away from a dangerous
                      and unhealthy extreme partisanship that has become
                      the other candidates from either party and because of
                      this might be able to correct our drift toward a danger-
                      ous and unhealthy extreme partisanship that has become
                      endemic lately. I know I partly say this just because
                      I grew up poor and white too, and so his story resonants
                      with me, but polls bear out that he has the most support
                      from independent voters of any candidate. He also doesn't
                      poll that badly amongst Republicans, probably because of
                      his southern accent and his open declarations of faith.
                      \_ Why don't people understand that universal healthcare
                         will bankrupt this country in a way that Bush's
                         stupid war could only dream of? Any candidate
                         that advocates such a plan should be voted down
                         just as if he was advocating invading Iran.
                         \_ Why aren't all the Western Democracies bankrupt
                            then? Why don't people understand that nationalized
                            healthcare has worked and saved the overall economy
                            vastly in every place that it has been tried?
                            \_ 1. The US pays their (expensive) defense
                                  bills for them.
                               2. They will be bankrupt soon enough.
                               \_ Point 1 really means the American tax payer
                                  pays for their defense.  We also pay for
                                  their health care to a large degree because
                                  their governments hold down the price of
                                  drugs artificially.
                                  \_ Don't kid yourself. What percentage of
                                     health care is drug costs?
                                     \_ A lot.  You tell me otherwise.  How
                                        much was the drug bill they passed
                                        a year or two ago?  How much will it
                                        balloon up in 10-20 years?
                                        \_ Spending on perscription drugs is
                                           less than 10% of the overall
                                           national cost of health care.
                                           This is not a large proportion.
                                           http://www.csua.org/u/k3z (IHT)
                                           It will grow unless we do something
                                           drastic, like nationalize health
                                           care spending though, you are right
                               \_ Sure they will. Conservatives have been
                                  saying that about Sweden for at least 60
                                  years now and in that time, they have
                                  actually been closing the gap with America
                                  economically. This is an interesting time
                                  to claim that anyone else is going "bankrupt"
                                  \_ People always point to Sweden. How
                                     about Germany, Japan, and France?
                                     Here's a good article about France:
                                     \_ Sweden has the highest tax rate.
                                        Similar arguments can be made for
                                        Germany and France, though. Japan
                                        actually has a lower tax rate than
                                        the US.
                                     \_ Sweden has the highest oveall tax
                                        burden. You can make the same general
                                        arguement for most of Europe: the
                                        argument for most of Europe: the
                                        economy is doing just fine, in spite of
                                        decades of Conservative insistence that
                                        the mixed model cannot possibly work.
                                        Their per capita income has actually
                                        closed with the US over any period
                                        in the past you care to measure it for.
                                        France is kind of a basket case, but it
                                        has been for a long time. Japan
                                        actually has a relatively low overall
                                        tax burden, slightly lower than the US.
                                  \_ You should ask the Swedes what they think
                                     about the way Sweden runs things.
                                     \_ It's a Democracy, right?
                                     \_ It's a democracy, isn't it?
                                        \_ If you think democratic government
                                           implies satisfaction with the
                                           government, politicians, policy, or
                                           the way the country is going you are
                                           breathtakingly retarded.
                                           \_ argumentum ad hominem
                     \_ What do you think should be done about income
                        \_ Tax the rich til they aint rich no more!
                           \_ Have any actual constructive suggestions?
                              \_ That was it.
                        \_ Spend more on education and job retraining,
                           especially for people displace by globalization.
                           Repair our badly neglected infrastructure, which
                           should employ lots of people and fix some of
                           our transportation issues at the same time.
                           What ideas do you have?
                           \_ The domestic income gap is related to global
                              income gaps and thus ties in to trade issues
                              and currency issues.
                              When you have "jobs Americans won't do" the
                              system is broken. To reduce the income gap you
                              have to either raise the floor or lower the
                              ceiling. Lowering the ceiling seems backwards
                              to me. To raise the floor you have to protect
                              "lower level" jobs to some extent, protect the
                              value of human labor vs. global competition.
                              \_ See, you are a protectionist, too! I am not
                                 fundamentally disagreeing with you, but I
                                 don't think it is very easy, or perhaps not
                                 even really possible to "protect" these
                                 lower skill jobs without screwing up your
                                 economy in the long run. How would you propose
                                 doing it? Tariffs? Closing the border? Trying
                                 to impose labor or environmental standards on
                                 our trading partners? All of these are
                                 problamatic, for different reasons.
                                \_ Well I'm not really advocating
                                   protectionism, but that is what I see it
                                   amounting to if you see imbalance as a big
                                   problem. It's not something I've ever really
                                   been concerned about.
                                   I think we should end guest worker programs.
                                   It does not help Americans. It's a form of
                                   subsidy and protectionism for inefficient
                                   uses of resources. I'm not a fan of H1B
                                   either. We need to invest in our own people,
                                   not bring in foreign workers, unless those
                                   workers are truly unique. H1Bs to do
                                   low-level interchangeable tech work is bad.
                                   letting skilled workers move here
                                   permanently is ok by me but only at a
                                   controlled rate.
                                   We need to let market forces work to find
                                   the proper use of our own workers in our
                                   own land.
                                   For trade though, labor and environmental
                                   standards have to be part of the equation.
                                   Ethical standards can't be allowed to affect
                                   competitive advantage. I think China has a
                                   natural competitive advantage in mfg'ing
                                   in its labor supply, but tax and currency
                                   issues can still hurt us.
                                   issues can still hurt us. I think our
                                   national monetary policy and debt and
                                   inflation issues hurt low-income workers
                                   around the world and contributes to
                                   global income disparity.
                                   \_ I would like you to explain your last
                                      sentence, because I don't see it. How
                                      does our monetary, debt and inflation
                                      policy hurt low-income workers around
                                      the world?
           Inflation causes rise in asset prices without corresponding wage _/
           increases. Since the world economy is historically dollar-driven,
           as dollar-denominated assets such as oil rise in value, poor
           workers lose. They have the least assets. US policy of massive
           deficit spending and monetary supply increases has broad effects
           on the world economy. Dollar inflation cancels out real wage
           value increases for economies dependent on the dollar.
           Here are some articles:
           The author of the second article has tons of other articles,
           all very long and rambling. Have fun.
           all very long and rambling. In that one he eventually talks about
           Hitler. Have fun.
           Honestly though I'm in way over my head with this economics stuff.
           (Unfortunately I get the feeling that most of our politicians are
           even more so.)
           \_ That Asia Times article is really long and mostly disjointed.
              It reminds me a lot of some of Lyndon LaRouche's stuff.
              Have you actually read it? The Ron Paul thing was amusing, but
              mostly wrong or irrelevant. I don't think inflation has the
              effect that you seem to think that it has. The big losers in
              an inflationary environment are people who depend on fixed
              income investments, like retirees. The working poor don't feel
              too much effect, since their paychecks are going up with prices
              in a truly inflationary environment. What we are seeing now is
              not really inflation, but a redistribution of purchasing power.
              This is painful to the US, but probably feels pretty good to
              \_ I at least skimmed most of it. What exactly is wrong
                 in the Ron Paul speech?
                 China has its own income imbalance problem. I don't know if
                 average Chinese feels that great earning a couple bucks a day,
                 producing crap for Americans, with inflation in prices to
                 offset their wage gains. But I don't know, if overall they
                 are gaining real purchasing power then that's good...
                 Real inflation is higher than the official inflation figures.
                 Look at the costs of: education, medical care, drugs, energy
                 over the last couple decades. Wages for the lowest level jobs
                 have not grown much if at all. Food prices are on the rise
                 here and in China.
                 Inflation hits the poor and middle class much more than the
                 wealthy. Their savings are depreciated and the low wages
                 don't keep pace, and they don't have valuable assets.
                 \_ We are not in any kind of inflationary environment. If
                    we were, wages would be going up as well as prices, that
                    is what I keep telling you. Some things have gone up in
                    price, but many things are going down, like just about
                    anything that can be built in China. Real purchasing power
                    for urban Chinese has been going up very fast, but the
                    rural farmers are being left behind. A discussion of what
                    is wrong with the Gold Standard would require a new
                    topic, I am not going to go into it here. Inflation
                    has winners and losers, to be sure, but you can't just
                    make the blanket statement that it hurts the poor more
                    than the rich. Economically, it is actually the opposite
                    of that, because the poor have no assets to lose, while
                    many rich become poor (okay, usually middle class) in an
                    inflationary environment. Things like bonds get killed in
                    inflation. Stocks do poorly as well. Some kinds of hard
                    assets (like land) hold up well, but that is not how most
                    rich people hold their wealth anymore.
                   \_ Do you really think there is no inflation? I think we're
                      done here as you're just making contrary assertions and
                      this thread is gigantic.
                      \_ Do you want me to point you to any of the official
                         or unofficial statistics from the experts who measure
                         inflation? Inflation is low by any reasonable standard,
                         certainly lower than 5%/yr and probably about what
                         the BLS states as official inflation at ~2.5%/yr. I
                         don't think there is *no* inflation, but I think it
                         is very low and you haven't presented any evidence
                         otherwise, other than some anecdotal evidence. You are
                         the one making the unusual claim, you need to provide
                         proof of it. Wages have been going up less than prices,
                         but that is not the definition of "inflation."
                         I think you are just confused about what the term
                         \_ I'm kinda too busy today to look up stuff for you
                            or talk about this more. Try googling for inflation
                            articles. Official government inflation figures are
                            not necessary reflective of real world inflation.
                            Inflation also doesn't act equally on all prices
                            and wages due to the nature of how the money supply
                            works. You also haven't pointed out any specific
                            error in the Ron Paul thing which I'd be interested
                            in. Also, look up inflation in China for example.
                            \_ Dude, I read The Economist every week. You are
                               simply speculating. Real inflation might be a
                               small amount more than reported inflation, but
                               not by much, at least not over the whole
                               economy. Ron Paul's desire to go back to the
                               Gold Standard marks him as a total fruitcake:
                               you lose control over your monetary policy in
                               such a monetary regime and would kill economic
                               growth to boot. No serious economist advocates
                               such a regime and would kill economic growth
                               to boot. No serious economist advocates
                               it, only a bunch of loons. I told you that
                               discussion is waaay to long and involved to go
                               into as an aside, but since you asked...
                              \_ Our monetary policy was primarily used to
                                 allow massive government debt and price
                                 bubbles. I fail to see how the current
                                 situation is good in the long run.
                                 Consumer debt is also the highest ever.
                                 The US economy grew just fine before the
                                 current system.
                                 I also don't accept the "no serious expert"
                                 line of reasoning.
                                 The modern system is to conduct monetary
                                 policy as if no recession can ever be allowed
                                 to occur. But the reality is that this policy
                                 is financed by endless expansion of debt and
                                 inflation. Instead of natural corrective
                                 recessions we are building up to some kind
                                 of major crisis. It's like over-aggressive
                                 fire prevention policy that ends up creating
                                 a giant inferno when the forest gets too dry.
                                 \_ Gloom and doomers are always with us.
                                    We used to have much worse downturns, like
                                    the Great Depression, the Panic of 1983 and
                                    the Panic of 1837, before we went off the
                                    Gold Standard. Only people with a serious
                                    misunderstanding of history and economics
                                    like Ron Paul want to bring back the
                                    "good ole days" of 20%+ unemployment.
                                  \_ The gold standard didn't cause the great
                                     depression. It was irresponsible fiscal
                                     policy. The central bank still has a lot
                                     of power to affect money supply with a
                                     gold standard. Prior to the Great
                                     Depression in the 20's the Fed allowed
                                     credit to grow beyond what could be
                                     supported by reserves, much like the
                                     mortgage crisis today. Result was the
                                     the stock price bubble. When that crashed,
                                     stock price bubble. When that crashed,
                                     it also failed to act. The UK left the
                                     gold standard in 1931, but it had already
                                     been abandoned in WWI. The conditions
                                     leading to the great depression and how
                                     it was dealt with can't be chalked up
                                     to the use of the gold standard.
                        Has any candidate taken a stance for the open buying
                        and selling of political favors?
                        \_ Open?  Sure.  Behind closed doors in smokey
                           rooms?  Not a chance.
                           \_ I'm not sure you parsed my question properly.
                              \_ Uhm, maybe not.
                        \_ Clinton takes a lot of lobbyist money. Edwards
                           does not.
                           \_ I don't particularly like Clinton so I'm focusing
                              on Obama vs. Edwards. I'm personally a
                              conservative-leaning independent. Obama seems to
                              be in a better position to beat Hillary in the
                              primary. Have you considered that in your
                              electability calculations?
                              \_ I don't have any particular reason to
                                 dislike Obama and I actually think he is
                                 a pretty swell guy. I think he is less likely
                                 to win in Nov, but I would certainly vote
                                 for him against any GOP candidate I can
                                 imagine. -Edwards' supporter
                              \_ I think that Edwards has a better chance in
                                 the general election, but I would gladly
                                 vote for either Edwards or Obama. -ES
                        It seems to me that Obama has done more in this area
                        than Edwards.
                        Obama had the wisdom not to authorize the Iraq war in
                        the first place.
                        Free trade is a mostly meaningless term to me. I
                        support it on textbook principle but the real world
                        isn't so simple.
                        \_ Obama didn't vote on the Iraq War as he was in
                           the Illinois State Senate at the time, I believe.
                           \_ Yeah. He spoke out against it in 2002 though:
                              http://tinyurl.com/3djwm5 (barackobama.com)
        \_ "By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or
            commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the
            Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI." Wait, I
            thought UPI was the untrustworthy one with no original reporting?
        \_ The Zogby poll was an internet poll?  Was the number 1 canidate
           Ron Paul?
2007/11/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48624 Activity:nil
11/12   the repub nominee candidates are all terrible.  romney
        seems the least batshit right now to me, even with his double
        gitmo comment.  what am i going to do?
        \_ Come over to the Dark Side, Luke.
        \_ Romney? He's an idiot. He would be another GW Bush. If you like
           GW Bush then there you go. For a "status quo" candidate, what
           is batshit about Giuliani or Thompson?  -Ron Paul voter
           \_ I vote for Ron Paul too.  I am a Democrat.
              \_ Why?  Actually how are you voting in the Rep. primary when
                 you are a Democrat?  Anyway... i bet it's fun to be able to
                 take very principled stands when you have no chance of
                 winning.  Ron Paul's other positions are pretty way over
                 there on the other end of the scale, extreme right wing.
                 I guess he gets points for being completely honest about it.
                 I still can't vote for him.
                 \_ What are the "extreme right wing" positions? He's more of
                    a libertarian, I'm pretty comfortable with him, knowing
                    he won't push crazy religious agendas for example. He's
                    not going to cut old people off social security.
                    I kinda doubt many of his ideas would get through Congress
                    At this point I'm apathetic about everyone else so I
                    have no reason to vote for anyone else.
           \_ Romney is an 'idiot'?  Proof?
              \_ Not a literal, dictionary one of course. I hate the guy
                 but I don't feel like digging up links for you, sorry.
                 Ok I don't even actually personally hate him to be honest.
                 But what's a motd post without exaggerated bombast?
                 \_ So 'idiot' means, "doesn't agree" with you?  Okay, thought
                   \_ There's nothing to agree/disagree with. He's one of those
                      "smiling faces in a suit" type of politicians, with a
                      generic status quo platform. "I love America!" whee
                      \_ What you (left wing liberal nut) want: an intellect,
                                sympathetic to LGBT, yada yada yada.
                         What America wants: good looking, confident,
                                and loves America. That's Romney.
                      \_ In another word he's like Ronald Reagan and
                         HE IS GONNA KICK YOUR SORRY D ASS!!!
                      \_ ^^^ you guys are idiots, I'm not a D. I said
                         I was a Ron Paul guy.
                         \_ Which of course makes *you* an idiot.  Paul is
                            nuttier than a fruitcake.
                            \_ Bush talks to an invisible entity every day.
                               Various kinds of nuttiness of the president are
                               beside the point, the important thing is what
                               direction will a given president push the
                               current status quo, given his beliefs, and the
                               inherent limitations of the office of the
                               president. -- ilyas
                           \_ At least he's not fruitier than a nutcake?
                              Also:  "Proof"?
                              How is Romney different from GWB? Other than
                              being better looking and more articulate.
                              Romney's web site is virtually content free.
                              The only clear message is about fighting
                              Jihadists. I think Romney is ignorant of
                              economics based on his speeches and writings.
                              I'd rather have Duncan Hunter, for a "non nutty"
                              \_ Paul has said he will dissolve the FBI.
                                 Yes, Duncan Hunter is the real conservative
                                \_ Link? Dissolving the FBI doesn't sound
                                   inherently nutty. Why do we need FBI,
                                   CIA, Homeland Security, DEA, BATF, etc.?
                                   It's ridiculous. I don't know anything
                                   about Ron Paul's plans in this arena
                                   and a quick google doesn't find it.
                                   But I'm not someone who thinks status quo
                                   must be the best because it's the status
                \_ Romney is not an idiot, he is a Moron(i).
                   \_ I've decided being a Mormon isn't so bad.  They believe
                      in the Moroni Golden Plate theory, Catholics believe
                      the living flesh of Christ appears when you take
                      communion.  This is amazing on so many levels!  eat
                      that fake dead living flesh of your lord!
        \_ Any R >>> D. Say no to socialism!!!          -fake conservative
2007/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:48584 Activity:kinda low
11/8    Character counts. Kerry has no character. Neither do any of the Ds.
        \_ Ah, astoundingly useless statement.  Hey, how bout "All R's are
           corrupt!"  You sound like the twat you are.
           \_ again this is why liberals don't win. they think intelligence
              and reasoning win votes. Nooooooo. It's all in the CHARACTER.
              Case in point, Ronald Reagan. It didn't matter what policy
              he had. The smile, the tone, the confidence... CHARACTER COUNTS.
           \_ Seesh, you fell for that lame-o strawman troll?  Idiot. -!op
              \_ It's a slow night.
2007/11/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48564 Activity:low
11/7    What can i do?  The top 3 repub candidates are in an insaneD
        alternative universe proclaiming to the people how they are
        more pro torture than the other guy.  It's really odd.
        I can't vote for any of these guys.  They're almost as bad
        as the fascist president in the movie 'The Dead Zone'
        \_ What's the problem then?
        \_ Don't vote. R is doomed this election anyways. Thanks Georgy!
           \_ It's not Georgy's fault he was elected.
              \_ Fucking Al Gore and Kerry's fault. Speaking of Kerry,
                 what is he doing these days, sulking like Al Gore?
                 \_ Gore is hardly sulking. He is jet setting and giving
                    speeches, basking in the glow of his Nobel Prize.
                    \_ Gore is apparently promoting Peace.
                       \_ And poking fun at himself on shows like 30 Rock.
                          Go, Al.
2007/11/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48551 Activity:nil
11/5    The Ron Paul spam
        I dunno about you, but any candidate that's got the endorsement of
        Stormfront AND the John Birch Society has got my vote!
2007/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48546 Activity:high
11/5    I'm no bleeding liberal, but I look at the Republican pres candidates,
        and they're all terrible.  I hate having to rate them as "ok this
        guy isnt COMPLETELY insane" or "well this one has said anything lately
        that if i think about it too hard blood will shoot out of my nose."
        In this category are McCain, Romney, Guiliani, Thompson.  Do I have
        to become one of those GO RON PAUL freaks?
        \_ Yes.   GO RON PAUL!!
        \_ To rip off another thread, why does every Republican candidate seem
           to try to out do each other in how PRO waterboarding they are
           (with the always dependable exception of McCain) ?
           \_ Here's a good one:
              "As Mr. Romney was preparing for his presidential bid, he
              visited Guantánamo Bay in the spring of 2006 and said he
              came away with no concerns with regards to the fair and appropriate
              treating of these individuals.. In the May debate, Mr. Romney said
              he would .double Guantánamo..
              Mr. Romney has also said that in the event of an extreme terrorist
              threat, he would not rule out even the harshest interrogation
              techniques, echoing comments made by his national security adviser,
              Maj. Gen. James Marks, who is retired.
              When the general was asked, in a 2005 interview on CNN, how far
              he would go if he thought he could elicit information that would
              save the lives of either American soldiers or civilians,
              he replied, .I.d stick a knife in somebody.s thigh in a heartbeat..
              Mr. Thompson has argued that there are circumstances where
              .you have to do what is necessary to get the information that you need.."
              Why'd the obsessed with secrecy gov. even let him go to GITMO?  I
              want to go (AS AN OBSERVER).  Why are morally bankrupt shitheads
              runnings for president?
              \_ The Daily Show will survive the TV writer's guild strike just
                 fine, the jokes write themselves!
              \_ I don't know. Do you trust polls? Why does Romney poll high?
                 I would guess it's because of his looks and charisma. The
                 average person probably doesn't know shit except what he looks
                 like and what they might see on the news which does not tell
                 them to think he is a morally bankrupt shithead, and which
                 treats Ron Paul as comedic relief.
                 \_ I accept that all candidates for pres must say and do silly
                    things to be elected, but this whole chest beating crap about
                    who will do the most to cornhole suspected terrorists the
                    most brutally turns me off of the whole process.  I bet
                    Ron Paul doesn't say stupid shit like this.  Ron Paul is too
                    conservative for me though.  Ugh maybe I should just donate to
                    \_ I did. I want my federal government to be as conservative
                       as possible... in the Constitutional sense, not religious
                       fundamentalist sense.
        \_ I'm still mad Bush spoke at Bob Jones University! - motd mixed race guy
2007/10/30-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48484 Activity:low
10/29   I'm watching an interview with Denis Kucinich's wife.  RISE UP
        NERDS.  GET THIS GUY ELECTED.  jesus christ.
        \_ She's hot. He's smart. Together, they're unelectable, but they
           fight crine! Also, his appearance on COLBERT was superb.
        \_ Kucinich is an opportunistic douche bag, and dirty to the core.
           Read up on his record when he was in Ohio state politics. -dans
           \_ I'm curious why you think he was "dirty".  I am not from Ohio
              like you.  I have read about how he was unpopular as mayor
              because he supported a city owned electric company, but years
              later, after he has been out of office for a long time, it seems
              like the city is pretty fucking happy they own the electic
              company.  Find me some dirt!
              \_ dans, are you a Hillary supporter?
                 \_ I'm not entirely decided but I lean more toward Obama than
                    Clinton. -dans
              \_ I'm not from Ohio, but I have friends who are.  ObGoogle to
                 find your dirt.  It's not that well hidden. -dans
           \_ Name the (D) front runner who isn't dirty.
              \_ s/(D)/(D) or (R)/
                 \_ Only Democrats are dirty. Republicans all believe in
                    God, Country and The Boy Scouts.
                    \_ And foot-tapping in public restrooms.
                    \_ The topic was Dems, so I said Dems.  Name any front
                       runner who isn't dirty.  I don't care which party.
                       Still waiting....
                       \_ Ok, what's dirty about Obama and Romney?  Obama is a
                          racist, but he's pretty upfront about it.
                          \_ Oh please.
                             \_ Oh please what?  Buy me an ice cream cone?
                               \_ Oh please stop spouting some of the most
                                  pathetic smears about Obama without at least
                                  giving some "proof" we can laugh at.
                                  \_ Basically I read his book.  I'm busy this
                                     week, I'll start a new topic sometime
                                     soon.  Have you read his book?
                                     \_ So I guess you never stopped diddling
                                        little boys.
             \_ IMO, all national level politicians have some dirt, it's just
                that some are dirtier than other.  Don't be disingenuous, you
                could have just as easily said, Name a presidential front
                runner who isn't dirty.  Dirt is a range, not a binary switch.
        \_ GO RON PAUL - principled computer programmer who thinks they are
                       \_ Hillary Rodham Clinton
                          \_ You and the Romney guy are both hilarious.
                             I'm voting for Ron Paul, because you gotta
                             love an OB/GYN in the White House (Clinton
                             doesn't count).
                             \_ Me too. What do you think of Duncan Hunter?
                             \_ I asked you what's dirty about them, apparently
                                you have no response.
                             \_ CliTton ain't no OB/GYN.  He's an
        \_ link?
2007/10/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48338 Activity:moderate
10/16   The Religious Right has boatloads of cash on hand.
        \_ Interesting. I wonder if there's a sense among the RR that 2008
           is pretty much a wash and that it would make more sense to save
           money for 2012.
           \_ The RR is a single minded entity with a single bank account?
              Sort of a giant Jesus Multi-Body Entity(tm) with a single
              group mind?
              \_ You have a question/answer/real point to make? Or you just
                 like using question marks?
                 \_ It's there.  Try again.
2007/10/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48337 Activity:moderate
10/16   Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins
        \_ Eighth cousins means absolutly nothing.
        \_ I'm both of their 8th cousins, too.  So are you.
           \_ I am not even sure which of the current presidential candidates
              has the smallest 'ancestral join' with me.  -- ilyas
        \_ He also has a Bacon number of 3.  -tom
        \_ I recall John Kelly was a cousin of some degree to Bush.
           \_ John KELLY? Bahahaha. Are you Chinese?
              \_ Sorry, John "Flip-Flopper" Kerry.  Ninth cousin twice removed
                 of Dubya.  And yes I'm Chinese.
2007/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48331 Activity:moderate
10/15   "Obama is a Muslim" smear campaign still around
        \_ Let's assume he is a Muslim.  So what?  Romney is a Mormon.  So
           what?  The person least likely to get elected in this country is
           an atheist.
           \_ And still they feel the need to attack him as a Muslim, mostly
              on guilt by association.  "You know, that Obama Hussien guy,
              he looks awful swarthy to me."  It's racist pandering pure
              he looks awful dark to me."  It's racist pandering pure
              and simple.  Racist pandering bugs me.
              \_ And Romney gets attacked for being a Mormon.  So?  Does that
                 bug you, too?
                 \_ But isn't Romney really a Mormon? Isn't Obama actually
                    an Episcapalian or something?
                 \_ Frankly, Romney getting attacked for actually being a
                    Mormon is less disturbing to me than Obama getting attacked
                    for being a Muslim when he is not. The issue here is not
                    Obama's religion (a dumb reason to attack anyone, even
                    Romney), but scandalous lies spread to harm a candidate.
                    Cf. John McCain's black babies.
2007/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48319 Activity:low
10/15   Things you may not have read about Sanchez's comments:
        1) "The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ...
        America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq,"
        2) "What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive
        partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our
        service members who are at war. My assessment is that your profession,
        to some, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external
        agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, reads in
        newspapers and what they see on the Web," Sanchez said.
        \_ Did he say this to a Fox News reporter?
           \_ In his speech to the Military Reporters and Editors Association
              in Washington, D.C., on Friday....
        \_ I love the lefties who censor the URL.  Shows their hypocrisy so
              \_ Yes, I know, I was making a joke. Even funnier that he said
                 it to a bunch of Stars and Stripe's reporters.
           \_ Full transcript
        \_ I love the commies who censor the URL.  Shows their hypocrisy so
           \_ Sup jblack, long time no motd!
              \_ I'm not jblack. -pp
2007/10/12-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48302 Activity:high
10/12   Awesome.   http://csua.org/u/jq0
        (ebay auction of... oh, who cares, it's partisan crap disguised as a
        short url.  Op, did you happen to see your dignity on auction while you
        were there?)
        \_ Actually it's about accuracy, and Reid's inability to find it with
           both hands.
           \_ Actually, it is about Rush Limbaugh's attempt to rewrite history,
              something he does all the time. Where are his transcripts of him
              calling Chelsea Clinton the "White House Dog?"
              See where he calls them "phony soldiers."
              \_ Yeah, http://mm.org has been arguing against the truth for quite a
                 while.  Limbaugh clearly was talking about actual phony
                 soldiers.  See "Operation Stolen Valor".  Limbaugh went on to
                 talk about McBride and others like him.
                 talk about Macbeth and others like him.
              \_ I heard it live, in context.  He was clearly not turning
                 his back on 20+ years of pro-military rhetoric.  Reid and
                 http://mm.org got it wrong.  The only way they could get it so
                 wrong was by intentionally ignoring the facts.  Rush is
                 an amusing entertainer and not worthy of this sort of
                 waste of time on the Senate floor nor a ridiculous witch
                 hunt.  Especially since he's said plenty of other things
                 worth attacking that he's actually said.
                 \_ Another "phony soldier" no doubt:
                    Rush only calls you a phony if you don't support
                    Bush's war.
                    \_ If you ever actually listened to Rush you'd know he's
                       said many times that he has no problem with real
                       soldiers being critical of the war.  Just the fakes
                       and frauds like the guy he was talking about that day
                       who flunked out of basic but falsely claimed to be a
                       US Army ranger who committed and witnessed numerous
                       atrocities.  You're tossing a red herring.  Reid is
                       a liar.  Media Matters (a Hillary created front org)
                       are liars.  The other 40 Senators who signed his
                       stupid letter are liars.  If you want to bash Bush or
                       the war, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with
                       Reid, Hillary, and the rest flat out lying about what
                       Rush said and wasting Senate time attacking a US
                       citizen's first amendment rights.  Have a nice day.
                       \_ First off, what proof do you have that the first
                          caller was a phony soldier, which is what Rush
                          clearly called him? Secondly, Media Matters is
                          hardly a Hillary created front org, it was founded
                          by David Brock, someone I personally know from
                          my time at Wired Magazine and it is funded by
                          Soros. As usual, you are either confused or
                          spreading misinformation.
                          Soros. As usual, you are spreading misinformation.
                          \_ The first caller was a phony soldier?  What are
                             you talking about?  I don't think you know.
                             Secondly, Brock is a Hillary minion.  Your knowing
                             him personally has nothing to do with anything.
                             Of coruse Hillary didn't fund it herself.  No one
                             said she did.  Sheesh.  Either way, Reid and MM
                             are still liars.  All this other stuff is
                             \_ Brock is hardly a Hillary minion, unless you
                                really believe that everyone to the left of
                                Mitt Romney is part of a vast Hillary
                                conspiracy. If anything, he is a Soros minion,
                                since Soros writes his paycheck. And Soros
                                is quite a long way from Hillary, believe me.
                                \_ You failed to answer about the first part
                                   about "first caller was a phony soldier".
                                   You don't know anything about this story.
                                   You're just a troll.  The rest of your
                                   post is nonsense.
                                   \_ In a simple reading of what Rush said,
                                      it is quite clear that he referred to
                                      the first caller as a phony soldier, yes.
                                      Your English language skills are
                                      deficient. You also don't know what the
                                      word "troll" means. Hint, it does not
                                      mean "anyone who disagrees with me."
                                      \_ sorry, I was listening to the show,
                                         not a cut up transcript.  He was
                                         clearly not referring to the caller.
                                         The rest of your ad hominem is not
                                         worth replying to since it is based
                                         on your complete lack of knowledge
                                         of the situation.
                                         \_ Calling someone a troll is fine,
                                            but saying "you don't know what
                                            a troll is" is ad hominem? You
                                            don't know what ad hominem means
                                \_ To both of you: Please show evidence that
                                   Soros or Hillary in any way financially
                                   supports MM.  "Drudge says so" is not
                                   \_ Sorry, I mistakenly thought this was
                                      common knowledge. It is pretty funny
                                      to watch the Right foam at the mouth
                                      over MM. They have been doing the
                                      same stuff for years, but they get
                                      seriously paranoid and nutty when
                                      anyone gives them a dose of their
                                      own medicine. Where does MM get its
                                      \_ "common knowledge" to who? Ditto-
                                         heads? Answer your own question then
                                         come back and show us your results.
                                      \_ I've donated to them.
                                         \_ I've wasted money on stuff before,
                                            \_ Well, they seem to get you all
                                               hot and bothered, so it wasn't
                                               a total waste, now was it?
                                               \_ *laugh* the first troll who
                                                  is paying others to do it
                                                  for them.  You've taken the
                                                  Art Of Troll to a whole new
                                                  level.  Keep sending money.
                                                  Wow, you're dumb.
                                                  \_ Do you really think that
                                                     this is the *first* troll
                                                     to ever do that? What do
                                                     you think of Horowitz
                                                     and FrontPage Mag?
                                                     \_ I don't donate to
                                                        Horowitz or FPM or
                                                        MM or any other troll
                                                        orgs.  Why would you?
                                                        \_ You are begging
                                                           the question. Is
                                                           MM the *first*?
                                                           \_ Of course it
                        isn't but that is a side show.  Who cares which was
                        first?  I don't and have never donated to any of them.
                        Why would anyone donate to orgs who by their very
                        nature are designed to lie and created with that
                        purpose in mind?   Maybe that's your thing but I'll
                        send my charity to places that try to do good in the
                        \_ Surprisingly enough, not everyone agrees with what
                           your definition of "do good in the world" means.
        \_ I'm sad anyone takes Rush seriously, ever, or pays any attention
           to him.
           \_ Talk to Reid about that, wasting time in the Senate on an
        \_ ugh debating anything Rush spews is stupid.  http://MM.org is a Soros
           creation, not hillary.
           \_ From Rush to Drudge...  Can't you people factcheck anything?
              The zombie lies will never die...
           \_ Hillary herself said she helped create http://MM.org.  Here is the
              article, with a download of the audio of her saying it.
              \_ First off, this is not really what she said there, if you
                 pay attention carefully to the wording. She said she supports
                 it, which can mean practically anything. Secondly, do you
                 honesly believe every lie that a politician tells you?
                 Did you believe Dubya when he told you that Saddam had
                 WMD and a Nuclear program? Did you believe Gore when he
                 told you that he invented the Internet? The actual founder
                 of MM is famous for having written various anti-Clinton
                 pieces, including the Troopergate story (which was later
                 exposed as a lie, which was part of what led to Brock's
                 \_ So we have to carefully parse her words to figure out wtf
                    she's talking about?  Does she know what the meaning of
                    "is" is or was the previously resolved in court?  Sheesh.
                    \_ Politicians say bland, impenetrable things all the time,
                       deliberately using the ambiguity inherent in language
                       to tell the greatest number of listeners what they
                       think they want to hear, without actually saying
                       anything. Hillary is just better at it than most.
                       \_ I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "it" is.
                          I prefer leaders, of which we have a few, over your
                          politicians.  Saying she is a politician and there-
                          fore it is ok for her to dissemble is not ok.  You
                          might as well vote for Bush.
                          \_ I think it is obvious that I am no big fan of
                             Hillary either, but I don't see any of these
                             "leaders" running for President, from either
                             party. You might be able to convince me otherwise
                             with regards to McCain. Anyone else even
                             remotely close?
                             \_ Among the 'top candidates' as chosen by the
                                media, no, not really.  There are others
                                running we barely hear from.  Maybe there.
                                \_ Who?
                                   \_ Ron Paul, Huckabee, Dodd, and Gravel
                                      come to mind.  Hillary is an evil clown,
                                      Obama is a clown,  Rudy is evil, Edwards
                                      is a fraudster, Romney will say anything.
                                      I miss anyone at the top?
                                      \_ Huckabee talks out both sides of his
                                         mouth with regards to taxes, Dodd is
                                         bought at paid for by Wall Street, but
                                         bought and paid for by Wall Street, but
                                         perhaps the other two are all right.
                                         I don't know much about them except
                                         what I saw on the debate. They are
                                         both obviously willing to take
                                         upopular stances openly, so you have
                                         to respect that.
                 \_ ObBitchSlap: Gore never said he invented the Internet.
                    \_ Created vs invented
                       \_ "The Internet would not be where it is in the United
                           States without the strong support given to it and
                           related research areas by the Vice President in his
                           current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
                          -Vincent Cerf
                          \_ Because it behooves him to embarass the VP by
                             saying anything else?
                             \_ Because it's true.
                                \_ So you say.  What exactly did Gore do
                                   without which we wouldn't have google
                                   \_ High Performance Computing and
                                      Communication Act of 1991 which led to
                                      the National Information Infrastructure.
                                      Learn the history of your field, young
                                      Computer Scientist.
                                      \_ 'If it had been left to private
                                         industry, it wouldn't have happened,'
                                         Andreessen says of Gore's bill, 'at
                                         least, not until years later.'.  So,
                                         without Gore, we would be just like
                                         now but circa 2002?  With google,
                                         yahoo, web mail, browsers, etc, but
                                         no web 2.0 ajax outside of MS web
                                         outlook?  How is that different?
                                         You know the net existed then right?
                                         So he did something that eventually
                                         funded the browser a year later?  It
                                         sounds like the browser was already
                                         on it's way.  I'm not buying it,
                                         \_ this is one of the dumbest trolls
                                            I've ever seen.  -tom
                                            \_ why do you still post here?
                                         \_ Heh, w/o CCA and NII, we'd be
                                            just like ten years ago, but with
                                            BBSs. OTOH, we'd probably have
                                            kickass analog modems.
                                            \_ Hint: there was an internet
                                               before 1991.
                                               \_ Yes, and Usenet, and other
                                                  such, and you had to have
                                                  access through a school or
                                                  large company to get to it.
                                                  W/o public investment in
                                                  expanding access, you'd still
                                                  have to have an OCF account
                                                  to read your email.
                                                  \_ And as Andreesen said,
                                                     we'd be a few years
                                                     behind.  Call it five.
                                                     That puts us at 2002
                                                     which isn't a whole lot
                                                     different than today.  Or
                                                     maybe you're smarter than
                                                     he is.  We all know that
                                                     without government
                                                     nothing ever gets
                                                     invented.  Government is
                                                     the source of all
                                                     creativity and invention.
                                                     \_ you're an idiot.
                                                     \_ Andreesen said "years
                                                        later": that could
                                                        mean decades. Also,
                                                        if not for gov. invest.
                                                        there'd've been no
                                                        .com bubble and no
                                                        commesurate boost in
                                                        private spending in
                                                        infrastructure. Prog.
                                                        w/o profit is slooow.
                                                        \_ the dotcom bubble
                                                           was a good thing?
                                                           ok whatever.
                                                           \_ It led to near-
                                                              ubiquity of the
                                                              Internet. I'd
                                                              say that's more
                                                              good than bad.
                                                              \_ I'd say it
                                                              didn't.  I'd say
                                                              more computers in
                                                              more homes did
                                                     \_ The proto-Internet was
                                                        ARPAnet, run by the
                                                        DOD, and the DOD
                                                        decided it was no
                                                        longer going to
                                                        provide support for
                                                        civilian applications.
                                                        If the Internet
                                                        did not receive
                                                        funding at that point
                                                        in time, maybe
                                                        telecoms would have
                                                        done something, but
                                                        it would have been
                                                        done based on
                                                        the telecom model;
                                                        fee for service,
                                                        screw net neutrality.
                                                        The government is the
                                                        *only* entity which
                                                        could have created
                                                        the Internet as the
                                                        public resource we
                                                        know today.  -tom
                                                        \_ fee for service got
                                                           you... here it
                                                           SERVICE!  What a
                                                           shocker!  imagine
                                                           having a business
                                                           model where you
                                                           have to pay to get
                                                           stuff!  Dreadful!
                                                           \_ What are you, a
                                                              Free Market
                                                              troll, a ditto-
                                                              head troll, or
                                                              a bridge-troll?
                                                              \_ Anyone who
                                                              disagrees with
                                                              you must be a
                                                              troll.  You are
                                                              the source of all
                                                              \_ Man, took you
                                                                 long enough.
                                                           \_ Do you think the
                                                              Internet would
                                                              be better if it
                                                              worked more like
                                                              cell phone
                                                              networks?  -tom
                                                              \_ For some
                                                              definitions of
                                                              'better', yes. If
                                                              I could pay $5/m
                                                              to not get spam
                                                              I would save
                                                              money, for ex.
                                The telcos would sell you "spam  _/
                                blocking service" and then sell the
                                spammers "spam delivery guarantee
                                service" to get around the spam
                                blocking.  You'd have to buy a
                                specific computer to connect to AT+T's
                                network and it wouldn't work if you
                                wanted to switch to Sprint, and you'd
                                have a two year contract with a
                                penalty clause.  You'd also have a surcharge
                                to send mail to an off-network customer, or
                                it just wouldn't work at all.  The "cheap"
                                connectivity plan would involve huge fees for
                                any time you actually used the service, and
                                then they'd advertise "Tired of high fees?
                                Buy our unlimited plan for twice as much
                                Net neutrality and ubiquitous deployment is
                                a huge public benefit, and it could only
                                have happend through government action, and
                                Gore deserves a lot of credit for initiating
                                that action.  -tom
                                \_ You mean like how I can use my cell phone
                                   right now to call anyone and it doesn't
                                   cost me anything during nights and weekends
                                   and during the day the rate is dirt cheap,
                                   I don't get spam calls, I have a choice of
                                   hundreds of phones, and all this was brought
                                   to me by pure raw capitalist competition for
                                   my hard earned dollar.  Yeah, the phone
                                   system sure sucks.  If it was run by the
                                   government I wouldn't have a cell phone,
                                   unless I was a Senator or someone else
                                   'important' who gets a special health
                                   plan much different than what the proles
                                   get.  No thanks.  I'll pass on the socialist
                                   utopia phone system monopoly.  I'm old
                                   enough to remember Ma Bell being the only
                                   game in town.  A government monopoly on the
                                   phones would be no better.  Competition
                                   \_ Uhh, you do realize that without the
                                      government heavily regulating large
                                      chunks of the phone industry your
                                      wonderful cell phone network would
                                      be a disaster, don't you?
                    \_ The actual quote was "During my service in the United
                       States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the
                       Internet."  which Declan (another Wired Alum) twisted
                       into invented.
                       \_ Hence "Created vs invented" as I said above.
                             \_ Brock is hardly a Hillary minion, unless
2007/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:48298 Activity:high 52%like:48303
10/11   Clearly, the Nobel Peace Prize has a well known liberal bias.
        \_ Truth has a well known liberal bias as well.
           \_ Despite all the evidence!
              \_ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
           \_ Arafat won a peace prize too.
              \_ Arafat was a liberal?
                 \_ No, Arafat was the kind of brutal killer a certain brand
                    of liberals love to fawn over for some weird reason.
                    \_ You know that Arafat did not actually win the peace
                       prize himself, right? You do understand that it was
                       shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Why, do
                       you imagine, the Nobel Comittee would award a peace
                       prize to a group of three people like that?
        \_ Oh of course.  I have to wonder what Gore has actually done for
           peace.  He made a movie with significant factual errors?  Wow.
           \- i'm not a big fan of ALGOR but he's a better choice than that
              dumb tree planting woman or rigoberta menchu, massive liar.
              the should have co-awarded it to BLOMBORG for "spearheading
              a debate on environmental change".
              \_ What does GW have to do with peace?
           \_ Let's time travel back to 1973 and have this discussion about
              Kissinger's award, mmmmmkay?
              \_ Name one war Gore stopped.
           \_ It is your opinion that the movie contains significant
              factual errors. A majority of climate scientists would
              disagree with you. It is pretty much impossible to make
              a documentary without any piddling errors. Do you believe
              in Creation Science, too?
              \_ Or in Al's case very serious errors.
                 \_ I notice you are avoiding the question.
        \_ If you look at the list of NPP winners over the last 30-40 years
           you'll find so many idiotic decisions that it is difficult for a
           rational person to take them seriously anymore.  It just doesn't
           \_ Many rational people take them seriously. Perhaps you think
              that the Nobel Prizes don't matter, but if you do, you
              would be wrong.
              \_ Uhm yeah.  Well said.  Next up: I know you are but what am I?
              \_ 'Regular' Nobel prizes are very prestigious.  The Nobel Peace
                 Prize became a joke when Arafat won. -- ilyas
              \_ The conventional Nobel prizes are very prestigious.  The
                 Nobel Peace prize was a joke ever since Arafat won. -- ilyas
                 \_ In your opinion, which of course everyone in the whole
                    wide world shares. Do you honestly believe that your
                    opinions are mainstream, ilyas? -ausman
                    \_ "That's like, your opinion, man."  Why did you even
                       write that post?  -- ilyas
                       write that post?  No content. -- ilyas
                       \_ There is a very small group of pro-war people,
                          mostly people who despise any non-violent effort
                          at conflict resolution and whose livelihood depends
                          on warfare, who think that the Nobel Peace Prize
                          is "a joke." To the overwhelming majority of
                          humanity, it is a very presitigious award, perhaps
                          humanity, it is a very prestigious award, perhaps
                          the most prestigious award a human being can win.
                          There, is that better? -ausman
                          \_ Surprisingly, it is actually possible to
                             not take the Nobel Peace prize seriously, and
                             also NOT hate kittens.  The Nobel committee gave
                             the award in question to a known butcher, without
                             bothering to check if the 'agreement' would hold,
                             in the face of decades of similar agreements
                             failing to work.  Naturally, the 'peace' didn't
                             take, but you know.  Who cares about peace.
                             Would you support giving Kim Jong Il the Peace
                             prize?  The fellow runs a nightmare gulag state,
                             but I am sure he can sit down for a peace accord
                             too.  Especially if there is no requirement that
                             he keep his word.  Incidentally, did you know
                             that at least one Nobel committee member resigned
                             over Arafat?
                             P.S. Are you familiar with Larry Ellison's phrase
                             'Bozo explosion?'  It's a way in which startups
                             \_ Yes case in point Google. Start shorting
                                man, you'll thank me for it.
                             eventually succumb to inertia as they grow and
                             mature.  'Bozo explosion' is a general phenomenon,
                             it affects not just corporations but traditions
                             (consider the Olympic games corruption scandals),
                             non-profit orgs (consider what happened to LA's
                             Griffith Observatory), and apparently even
                             prestigious prizes.  -- ilyas
                             \_ You know, I am a pretty careful student of
                                Middle Eastern history and I have never before
                                heard of a Palestinian-Isreali peace treaty
                                heard of a Palestinian-Israeli peace treaty
                                that was signed by leaders from both sides
                                before. Can you give me some more information
                                about this treaty? As for your confused notion
                                about constitutes a prestigious or important
                                prize, I will say that historical figures almost
                                always seem more important after they are dead.
                                I am sure the award to MLK was pretty
                                about what constitutes a prestigious or
                                significant prize, I will say that historical
                                figures always seem more important after they
                                are dead. I am sure the award to MLK was pretty
                                controversial in 1964, as well. -ausman
                                \_ Are you comparing Arafat to MLK now?  Wow.
                                   Prizes are a social signal, nothing more.
                                   The process by which prizes are awarded is
                                   a noisy one.  If this process gets so noisy
                                   that 'obviously bad people' get the prize,
                                   the prize is no longer a meaningful signal,
                                   e.g., "This prize recipient is a good
                                   person/productive contributor, etc. ...
                                   unless we happened to fuck up and the person
                                   is actually a murderer/thug/moocher/
                                   political stooge."  Bad award decisions
                                   reflect on the award, I am afraid. -- ilyas
                                   \_ I notice you are unable to provide me with
                                      any similar peace treaty, in spite of your
                                      earlier claims to the contrary. You are
                                      aware that the Nobel Peace Prize is an
                                      international prize, right? And you are
                                      aware that Arafat is one of the most
                                      highly regarded people ever in the Arab
                                      world, right? I personally do not regard
                                      Arafat as on the level of MLK, but would
                                      not be surprised if he is by most people
                                      in twenty or thirty years: it all depends
                                      on how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
                                      works itself out. I think that Rabin and
                                      Arafat took great personal and political
                                      risks to come to an agreement, which they
                                      should be commended for. Rabin was
                                      assassinated for it, as was Sadat a decade
                                      earlier, for daring to come to a similar
                                      accord. Remember, there are still a bunch
                                      of fanatical peace hating extremists on
                                      both (many?) sides in the ME, who are
                                      willing to kill leaders on their own
                                      side who try to come to a peaceful accord.
                                      Did you approve of the assassination of
                                      Rabin and Sadat? Want Arafat and Peres
               \_ Let's see: Linus Pauling, Martin Luther King, UNICEF,
                  Andrei Sakharov, Amnesty International, Anwar Sadat &
                  Menachim Begin, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, The UN
                  Peacekeepers, Nelson Mandela & Fredrik De Klerk,
                  Medecins Sans Frontieres. What a worthless bunch!
        \_ Yeah, we need a Nobel War Prize, so some Republicans can win some.
        \_ What I find sad about this is that there *had* to be someone out
           there who has actually done something about making the world a
           more peaceful place instead of turning the prize into a political
           award for correct behavior.  How many truly worthy people were
           passed over to give Al a hat tip?
           \_ Name one.
           \- BTW, it's not only the Peace prizes with a mixed record.
              The Lit prize is criticized for poor choices too.
2007/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48253 Activity:nil 66%like:48241
10/4    Richardson says "Pull Out Now"
        http://www.csua.org/u/jnf \_ Sorry baby, I just couldn't stop.
        \_ Why? It feels better to stay inside.
           \_ Cuz I need to take a dump.
2007/10/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:48243, category id '18005#13.5625' has no name! , ] UID:48243 Activity:moderate
10/5    Republicans trying to stack the deck in the Federal Elections
        Commission by either nominating a known voter suppression
        specialist or by allowing Bush to make recess appointments.
        http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004396.php \_ Uhm, the FEC
        is always 3 D and 3 R.  What deck are you talking
           about?  \_ Read the article.  Just because it is 3d and 3r
           doesn't mean
              it should be a body staffed by people who make partisan
              choices the number one priority.  Just like the Justice
              department should strive for being non partisan.  \_
              I read the article before posting and a pile of the blog
                 responses as well.  Everything in DC is staffed by
                 partisan hacks with the _possible_ exception of the GAO.
                 Maybe.  I'm not impressed with the need to screw up the
                 FEC just so this one guy doesn't join them for a term.
                 What was in the article that explains exactly what is
                 so horrible about him anyway?  Unless he's out raping
                 nuns and sheep and sheep nuns it isn't important and no
                 I don't care which party he's a member of.  There are
                 partisan hacks and plenty of em from both sides all over
                 the place.  And frankly, what is so wrong with being a
                 partisan in a 2 party confrontational system?  Lack of
                 partisanship just reduces us to one party like so many
                 petty totalitarian regimes.  Bring on the partisans of
                 all parties, I say.
        \_ Uhm, the FEC is always 3 D and 3 R.  What deck are you talking
           \_ Read the article.  Just because it is 3d and 3r doesn't mean
           \_ Read the article.  Just because it is 3d and 3r
              doesn't mean
              it should be a body staffed by people who make partisan
              choices the number one priority.  Just like the Justice
              department should strive for being non partisan.
              \_ I read the article before posting and a pile of the blog
                 responses as well.  Everything in DC is staffed by partisan
                 hacks with the _possible_ exception of the GAO.  Maybe.
                 I'm not impressed with the need to screw up the FEC just so
                 this one guy doesn't join them for a term.  What was in the
                 article that explains exactly what is so horrible about him
                 anyway?  Unless he's out raping nuns and sheep and sheep nuns
                 it isn't important and no I don't care which party he's a
                 member of.  There are partisan hacks and plenty of em from
                 both sides all over the place.  And frankly, what is so wrong
                 with being a partisan in a 2 party confrontational system?
                 Lack of partisanship just reduces us to one party like so
                 many petty totalitarian regimes.  Bring on the partisans of
                 responses as well.  Everything in DC is staffed by
                 partisan hacks with the _possible_ exception of the GAO.
                 Maybe.  I'm not impressed with the need to screw up the
                 FEC just so this one guy doesn't join them for a term.
                 What was in the article that explains exactly what is
                 so horrible about him anyway?  Unless he's out raping
                 nuns and sheep and sheep nuns it isn't important and no
                 I don't care which party he's a member of.  There are
                 partisan hacks and plenty of em from both sides all over
                 the place.  And frankly, what is so wrong with being a
                 partisan in a 2 party confrontational system?  Lack of
                 partisanship just reduces us to one party like so many
                 petty totalitarian regimes.  Bring on the partisans of
                 all parties, I say.
                 \_ You know, it is hard to believe after Clinton and Bush,
                    but there used to be a time when it wasn't like this.
                    Presidents actually used to put members of the other
                    party on their cabinet and the qualifications of your
                    staff mattered at least as much as your loyalty.
                    \_ Ronald Reagan hired people who were highly
                       qualified and loyal. Ronald Reagan was GOD.  -GOP
                    \_ One word:  Bork.
                       \_ You know after Bork got 'Borked' he has spent the
                          last 20 years writing opinions and articles and
                          papers proving he is the extreme far right
                          nutcase everyone suspected he would be.
                          \_ Futher proof that smoking dope does not give
                             you some kind of liberal disease. Suck it,
                          \_ But you're ok with extreme left wingers on the
                             court, yes?  Someone asked how we got this way.
                             The answer is the left viciously attacked Bork
                             on his beliefs not his legal skills as a judge.
                             The rest was history.
                             \_ My memory is not so hot.  Who was the last
                                extreme left winger on the court?  Also, Bork
                                \_ Still there now.
                                is a bad example for all of us on the motd.
                                He is/was/will continue to be totally
                                completely out in space.  I am 100 percent
                                glad he did not get confirmed.  I dont think
                                you'd want to live in a world either that has
                                him as a Justice.  Hey can we argue about
                                Clarence Thomas now?
                                \_ Whoop-dee-damn-doo.
                                \_ I didn't say you would like him.  I said
                                   where that sort of thing started in the
                                   modern era.
                             \_ Your history needs lots and lots of work.
                                Trying looking up "FDR, Supreme Court packing
                                of," "Johnson, Abe Fortas nomination," etc.
                                \_ Please join us when you can get on topic.
                                   Thanks.  You topic is interesting but
                \_ I think clinton had a few republicans in his cabinet?
                   Lincoln's cabinet was kind of split, half always agreed
                   with him, the other half thought he sucked, but he insisted
                   they all stfu and press on with his agenda when he made
                   a decision (I'm talking about the emancipation).  I think
                   everyone thought Roosevelt was god.  I haven't read much
                   about Nixon's cabinet.  Isn't it funny how the Nixon
                   era seems like a delightful spring breeze now?
2007/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48241 Activity:nil 66%like:48253
10/4    Richardson says "Pull Out Now"
        \_ Sorry baby, I just couldn't stop.
        \_ Why? It feels better to stay inside.
           \_ Cuz I need to take a dump.
2007/9/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48147 Activity:nil
9/20    John Kerry in Doonesbury 30 years ago:
        \_ Didn't he serve in Vietnam?
2007/9/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48136 Activity:moderate
9/20    why does Bush always say 'Democrat party'.  weirdo.
        \_ to denigrate his opponents, of course.  -tom
        \_ It is a code word to the wing-nut Right to let them know he is
        \_ It is a code work to the wing-nut Right to let them know he is
           one of them.
        \_ He's not the first to do it. I think Dem critics have gotten tired
           of "Democratic" party sounds like they're democratic.
           \_ Parse error at 'party'.
           \_ No, it's cause Democrat Party sounds harsh and curse like.
              Lucky for me it's a great litmus test.  If someone says
              "Democrat Party" you know they are a partisan hack and it's not
              worth reading/listening any further.
              \_ I find it easy to simply use anyone who claims such a "litmus
                 test" as a litmus test and ignore them.
                 \_ This is why we can't have nice things.
              \_ It sounds like "bureaucrat", "autocrat", and "rat".
        \_ http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005
           The Republicans have used it as an insult since McCarthy.
        \_ I've only seen this come up on the motd and some very far left
           web sites.  It never even occured to me there was a difference or
           it mattered.  I certainly don't see the dramatic insult.  Can
           someone please explain?
           \_ I don't think it 'matters' in any sense that anyone can
              possibly demonstrate.  What I find interesting is how much
              time people waste on shit like this in political discussions,
              rather than things actually relevant to our lives. -- ilyas
           \_ You think that The New Yorker is very far left?
              \_ Where did I say I read The New Yorker?  Anyway, I still
                 don't see the dramatic insult.  Or any insult.  I wouldn't
                 blink if someone said "Republic Party".  What's the BFD?
2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48077 Activity:nil
9/14    Paging AGONZALES :
        [considering what LSUMMERS was booted for, as BDELONG says "Why does
        MDRAKE still have a job?"
        \_ Right Wing Political Correctness run amok.
        \_ Political Correctness run amok.
           \- speaking of LSUMMERS:
           \- speaking of LSUMMERS and UC:
2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48073 Activity:moderate
9/14    So, exactly what did the surge accomplish again?
        My feeling is that Republican just want to drag this until
        2009 and blame Democrats for "loosing the war."
        \_ It accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish:
           it lined the pockets of the defence contractors, all who
           donate to the GOP.
           \_ Are you kidding? Most large companies donate to both
              parties. It only makes sense to do so.
              \_ Do you really think that defense contractos donate the
                 same amount to both parties? How about oil companies?
                 \_ Dunno if they donate the same amount or not, but I'm
                    quite sure they donate to both parties.
                    \_ Easy enough to look up:
                       Big Oil: 3:1 Republican, 4:1 recently
                       Defence: 60:40 GOP, 2:1 lately
                       The latter actually surprised me a bit, I thought that
                       it would be more one sided.
        \_ It used to be that the timeline for ending a war was "when we've
           won".  Now it seems like the timeline is "we haven't won and this
           is really frustrating so let's just call it a day and go home and
           pretend it never happened".  The tactics, strategies, equipment,
           man power levels, focus, and diplomatic efforts may all be wrong
           and require a complete change of plan but retreating because we're
           and re
Elsewhere in the programme, we meet glamour model Lucy Pinder, whose breasts hav\
e made her famous. With contracts to the Daily Star and Nuts magazine, Lucy has\
made a name for herself using her body quire a complete change of plan s got a b\
rain as well as a pair of  The programme follows Lucy on a shoot for Nuts and he\
ars what life is like when you have some of the most famous breasts in the nation.

Also on Wednesday, model Jo talks about how her attitude towards her breasts cha\
nged dramatically after she had her baby, and Gemma explains what life is like w\
hen you have to spend up 800 a year on hiding an embarrassing nipple problem.

to boobs!Shebut retreating because we're
           and but retreating because we're
           "bored of this war and it's no fun!" is detrimental to our long
           term standing in the world and our ability in the future for
           generations to apply non-military pressure to accomplish our
           national goals.  No one follows a loser or a quitter.  The war has
           become so political that no one in DC seems to care about the
           consequences anymore.  It has become a faxed memo talking points
           political item.  How sad for all of us.
           \_ The war was a mistake. If you make a mistake, the thing to do
              is stop making it, not stubbornly keep doing it because you
              are worried about pride and saving face. This whole thing has
              already damaged our standing in the world. Talk about
              consequences? What is your definition of "winning"?
              \_ "The thing to do is stop making it": far too trivial an
                 answer.  The answer is to finish what you started, not get
                 bored and go because it is annoying.  We'll never win by
                 my definition.  Our leaders (in both parties) are too gutless
                 to do what needs to be done.  I read an interview with Powell
                 a few days ago where he said we should have shot a bunch of
                 looters on day one as a lesson to the rest.  I'm with Powell.
                 \_ You still haven't answered the question as to what it
                    would mean for us to win.
                    \_ Win = defeat your enemies.  In this case that would
                       mean closing the borders with Syria and Iraq to cut
                       off support and crushing groups such as the 'mahdi
                       army'.  Once your enemies are defeated you can talk
                       about diplomatic solutions among the rational people
                       who remain.  While these groups exist and still think
                       they can get more from fighting instead of talking
                       there can be no diplomatic solution to anything.  War
                       is about breaking the will of your enemy to continue
                       fighting, which we haven't even *tried* to do yet.
                       That might get a bunch of folks into a tizzy and we
                       can't have folks in a tizzy, can we?
                       \_ Fighting it the way you want to fight it would require
                          many more men that the military has. I don't think
                          there is any way you are going to sell a draft,
                          especially at this point. And even if you could, I
                          don't think it would work, since it basically requires
                          breaking the Iraqi will to have an indepedent
                          government. It didn't work in Vietnam, why would it
                          work here? Iraq has a long history of defeating
                          colonial powers, you know.
                          \_ We're not colonizing, we're SETTING IT FREE!!!
                             Give me freedom or give me death!     -Neocon
                             \_ How about choking to death on some Freedom
                 \_ You CAN'T finish it. That's the fucking point.
                    \_ In your opinion.  Fighting it like we have, you are
                       correct since we haven't been fighting, which includes
                       the surge in recent months.
                 \_ Whether Iraq should have been invaded or not is
                    neither here nor there. What people need to focus on
                    is the fact that we *are* there. Now what? Packing up
                    and going home is not a good solution, so what are the
                    other options?
                    \_ The only other option I can think of is to arm some
                       Saddam Hussein like strong man and let him kill as
                       many Kurds and Shi'ites as he needs to keep the
                       country together. Too bad we killed SH, eh?
                       \_ Then it is a good thing you're not making any
                          \_ Yes, far better to listen to you and blow $1T,\
                             3k lost lives, 30k maimed and our credibility
                          \_ Yes, far better to listen to you and blow $1T,
                             3k lost lives, 30k maimed and our credibility
                             on a pointless invasion. I notice you haven't
                             been able to come up with any withdrawal strategy.
                             It is either the one I came up with or an out
                             and out civil war, which will be worse, and
                             just end up with the same kind of strongman
                             in the end anyway. Oh, and I warned that the
                             invasion of Iraq would most likely result in
                             a civil war there *before* the invasion. So yes,
                             it is a "good thing" that I am not making any
                             \_ Stop focusing on the past. What's done is
                                done. Who cares about what you warned
                                against? So your withdrawal options are
                                what again? And what options are there
                                other than withdrawal, if any? Dems like
                                to say "I told you so". Fair enough. Now
                                they want to lead the country, so what's
                                the plan? Most of what I hear is BS that
                                panders to the "I told you so"'s in hopes
                                of getting elected. I'd like to hear some
                                real plans. So far my favorite is the
                                Biden-Gelb plan, which basically calls for
                                splitting Iraq up and guaranteeing the
                                Sunnis a share of oil profits. I think the
                                people who want our troops out of Iraq now
                                are thinking with their hearts and not
                                their minds.
                                \_ Actually, I think we should do the same
                                   thing I suggested two years ago and it
                                   starts with impeaching Bush and handing
                                   him over to an International War Crimes
                                   Tribunal. But I am sure you are not
                                   interested in hearing it again, so I
                                   won't bother. Any "solution" that doesn't
                                   start out with hat in hand to the Iranians,
                                   Turks, Syrians and Saudis is just a big
                                   waste of time. You stilll are dreaming of
                                   waste of time. You still are dreaming of
                                   victory, when what you should be doing is
                                   trying to cut your losses. Okay, I just
                                   looked up the Biden-Gelb plan and it at
                                   least recognizes the idea that the US needs
                                   to engage Iraqi neighbors to have a hope
                                   of a chance of success. But that chance that
                                   Bush is going to effectively engage Iran is
                                   nill. Maybe the next President will, though.
                                   read the Biden-Gelb plan and I think it
                                   focuses on the important points, which
                                   are recognizing the inevitable need to
                                   draw in and get the support from Iraq's
                                   neighbors. I still think you are stuck
                                   in fantasyland though.
                                   nil. Maybe the next President will, though.
                                   \_ Vote for Biden. People should stop
                                      wasting their time with Hillary and
                                      Obama. They are probably the 3rd and
                                      4th best candidates the Dems have
                                      but they have NAME RECOGNITION. The Dems
                                      suck and I have low expectations for
                                      the next President.
                                      \_ Joe "never met a credit card company
                                         I wouldn't fellate" Biden?  Seriously,
                                         Biden can't get the base.  Without
                                         primary voters, you can't get the
                                         \_ I understand that, but I still
                                            think he is the best man for
                                            the job.
                                      \_ I like Biden quite a bit, mostly just
                                         from watching him at the debates, but
                                         I don't think he has a chance. But
                                         my candidate (Edwards) doesn't have
                                         much of a chance either.
                                         \_ Edwards leads the pack in Iowa.
                                            Or, had for a while... It's neck
                                            and neck, apparently.
                                         \_ I don't think he has a chance
                                            either and that's too bad. Why
                                            is everyone all over Hillary?
2007/9/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:48067 Activity:low
9/14    Argentina museum displays Incan mummy - Yahoo! News:
        This mummy is creepy.
        \_ All mummies are creepy.
           \_ This one is more creepy than the Egyptian ones.  She looks alive.
              \_ I find the dried husk look more creepy.
2007/9/14 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48065 Activity:nil
9/14    Motd nuked, for great justice.
        It was the only way to be sure.

But by the time they reached the door, they had blown up too much and were
too wide to fit through the door frame. Dean tried pressing themtogether,
his fingers almost disappearing into the inflating flesh, but all this did
was make Liz cum in her shorts. She gasped as the sensation passed
momentarily, but she weakened enough to beg Dean to do it again.Dean, more
centered on his task, stepped back and tried to come up with asolution, and
couldn't. He ushered her back to the middle of the small room and shut the
door before anyone noticed. Every step Liz took made her breasts sway and
the movement of the air on her enormous nipples started her up
again. Giving in to the intense waves of passion that were raping her
system, she grabbed her incredible tits and began massaging them all over,
sending waves of electricity through them and making her privates literally
oozefrom her hot juices. Dean grabbed the phone and told the woman that she
was stuck in her room and that they couldn't get out. The woman thought for
a second, then told Dean that for the pill to wear off, the person had to
experience the sheer joy, joy that only came from a cataclysmic orgasm. She
then thought that maybe if he tried to make her have one, her breasts would
revert back to
normal. She told him that the growth was happening underneath only one
layer of her skin and that they would pop painlessly once it happen,
letting her be normal again.
2007/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48064 Activity:nil
9/14    Argentina museum displays Incan mummy - Yahoo! News:
        This mummy is creepy.
        When Dean started to explain that he needed to make sure that his
        friend understood everything that he needed, Liz gave up and
        whispered, "I'm having a little trouble". Dean looked at her
        quizzically, and then thought that she needed to go to the bathroom
        and told her to hold it. She then gave up on trying to hide her
        problem and stood up a bit straighter and gave Dean a quick look at
        her "growing concerns." Instantly Dean told his friend good-bye and
        started walking swiftly with Liz under his arm, she walking a
        little hunched over to try and conceal her chest. Dean whispered,
        "What are you doing? You trying to get me all excited with those
        fake.. "They're not fake, Dean...something is happening to me...my
        breasts are growing..I can actually feel them inflating. What's
        going on? Wait.. What was in those pills I took?" Dean explained
        the whole story to her as they tried to make it quickly across the
        quad. Liz punched him in the arm when he told her about the pills,
        telling him he should have warned her. Dean tried to plead his
        case, but it didn't matter now. Liz's chest was near a D-cup now,
        and she noticed that they seemed to be expanding faster as time
        passed. She was almost walking with her back hunched at a 45 degree
        angle now so that she didn't show any curves, looking rather
        silly. Dean dove his hand into his pocket and retrieved the vial
        again. He studied it, trying to find anything on it that might
        help, and noticed some writing on the bottom of the cork. It read:
        Ego Builders: Take one each night and triple your doubt. Find
        happiness and all will be as it should. Dean thought carefully and
        then realized what was happening: Liz must have doubted that her
        chest attracted men and they were now tripling in size, but she had
        taken 30 pills, so that meant... "Oh my god!" both Dean and Liz
        said as they figured out the meaning. Liz started breathing heavy,
        which wasn't helping conceal her chest. Dean could do nothing but
        continue walking faster towards Liz's place.
2007/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48062 Activity:high 66%like:48063
9/14    How does she do this? (NSFW)
        \_ She reminds me of the Fat Man bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.
           Incidentally, see the ASCII art below.
           "Dean, I'm getting too big," sobbed Liz, "My breasts are gonna
        pop out of my shirt soon." "I know I know...we are almost there."
        reassured Dean. The elevator stopped and the pair got out, Liz
        continuing to hold onto Dean's back like a little babe. They walked
        down to her room and Liz handed her key to Dean. He quickly opened
        the door and they both dove into the room. Slamming and locking it
        behind them, Dean turned to look at Liz. Her breasts were
        stretching the shirt to it's utmost limits now, the fabric
        noticeably becoming more and more thin. Liz stood there watching
        her chest inflate, not knowing what to do about it. She grabbed
        herself again and tried to push in, but her tits were too sensitive
        to the touch now. Every time she touched herself, she nearly came
        in her shorts. Liz's shirt was so tight that Dean could she the
        imprint around her front of the too small bra all around the
        circumference of her bust. Liz just stood there with her hands near
        her chest, wanting to hold them in, but knowing if she did it would
        drive her crazy. "Dean...call the store!" Liz gasped. Dean stood
        motionless as he noticed the second button beginning toquiver a
        bit. Liz looked down just in time to see it pop off too,careening
        around the room. Her breasts spilled out of her shirt a bit more
        now, and modesty took over. She reached around and tried to block
        Dean's view, but too much flesh was there, and it was still
        growing. "Dean!" shouted Liz and Dean snapped out of his mammary
        trance and grabbed the phone book. Liz took in short breaths now,
        trying to expand her chest anymore then it already was. Soon, Dean
        found the number and dialed the place up. "I feel it....I'm gonna
        pop another one." gasped Liz and she shot her hand to her front to
        try and hold her shirt together, but she was too late.

                           _/_,---(       ,    )
                          /        <      /   )  \
                         |  (   / :: \ / :  \     |
                          \/ ::::::: :: \ :::) :: /
                          (_(::::\::( ::::>::::::\)
                           \\_(:_:<:::>_>'::::/ //
          - ------===;;;'====------------------===;;;===----- -  -
                                   ` ^'"`-' "
                         __   __ ,Z/V7V|HIH\\..  _  _
                __/~\___/  \_/  \XX/~~\##/~~\\\_/ \/ \__/~~\_/\_
    Motd nuked, for great justice.
    It was the only way to be sure.
2007/9/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48004 Activity:low
9/11    new CSUA logo
        \_ Nice partisan shot at a non-partisan post.  I salute you troll!
        \_ how about:
           \_ It wasn't partisan.  It was social and political commentary.
              If you think it was partisan, who exactly was it partisan
              in favor of?  -!op
2007/9/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47996 Activity:high
9/10    A reminder of 6 years ago
        \_ Lucky bastard.
        \_ Yes, I remember how the Commander-In-Chief finished reading
           _My_Pet_Goat_ and then ran away and hid, while America was under
           \_ Nice partisan shot at a non-partisan post.  I salute you troll!
              \_ Cox and Forkum is non-partisan? In what Universe?
                 \_ The post itself was non-partisan, irrespective of the rest
                    of the site.
           \_ You are so 9/12.  With everything that has happened since then
              if wasting 7 minutes for the cameras and then going to airforce
              one like he's supposed is still on your mind as being important
              at all then vote republican next time.  They can use your help.
              \_ Who decides what the President is supposed to do in this case?
                 Most past Presidents had enough personal bravery to fulfill
                 their responsibility to the nation first.
                 \_ Yeah yeah nice, join us here with our problems in 2007.
                    As far as your whining about being on AF1 6 years ago,
                    maybe standing in front of the whitehouse trying to catch
                    an incoming 747 would have been a nice gesture but they
                    still evacuate buildings for anthrax and bomb scares, too.
                    Next time congress has a scare should they stay there
                    anyway to show their bravery?  You're too stupid to
                    continue breathing.  Please fix that, trollboy.  Back here
                    in 2007 no one gives a crap about pet goats.
                    \_ That's right, join us in 2007 where we STILL need to
                       impeach the treasonous SOB.
                       \_ Treasonous and cowardly.
                       \_ At least the topic of impeachment is 2007 and is
                          about things more important than pet goats.
                          \_ I get what you're saying, but I get a serious
                             twitch thinking that we're somehow better off now
                             that we have something more than silly behavior
                             on which to base a call for impeachment.
                             \_ No we're not better off, of course but it is
                                a total head-shaker for me that anyone would
                                even bother to troll on pet goats at this
                                point.  It's just a stupid waste of bits.  As
                                far as impeachment is concerned, that is and
                                always has been a political issue, not a legal
                                one.  The *only* requirement is having enough
                                votes for it.  If you got the votes and the
                                balls, then go for it.  If you don't, then
                                there's no point in mentioning it.  I think an
                                impeachment could be exciting in a spectator
                                sport sort of way but it isn't going to happen
                                so what's the point of talking about it?  By
                                "you" I mean "whoever is in power at the time
                                and doesn't like the current administration
                                now or at any other time", not "you
                                personally".  I don't expect a random csuaer
                                to single handedly impeach the US President. :)
                                \_ You asked for "recollections of 9/11." I
                                   posted mine. Too bad that anything other
                                   than your rose colored vision of the
                                   past is "Trolling" to you.
                    \_ Yes, Congress should stay to show their bravery. It is
                       the overreaction to 9/11 that caused more damage than
                       the event iteslf. If our leaders had shown some courage
                       and self-sacrifice, the population at large would have
                       done so as well and we wouldn't be in the mess we are
                       in now.
                       \_ Hence the call for impeachment.
                       \_ You didn't peg the Troll Meter.  You just broke it.
                          You think Congress should stay in a bomb/anthrax
                          scare building to show their bravery?  Complete
                          waste of precious bits.  Get off the net.  Find a
                          bridge to hide under.
                          \_ There was a time when bravery was considered
                             a virtue by most and it still is by some of us.
                             Obviously, you are not one of them. Who are you
                             to decide who is deserving of having on opinion
                             or not? Grow up.
                             or not? Grow up. How many bomb threats a day do
                             you think Congress gets? Why did they evacuate
                             Capital Hill because a single-engined Cesssna
                             flew off course? It was all part of an attempt
                             to terrorize the sheeple, which apparently took
                             quite well in your case. Land of the Free,
                             Home of the Brave, indeed.
2007/9/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Industry/Jobs] UID:47988 Activity:low
9/10    cop gone bad (or always bad)
        \_ yes, all cops are always bad automatically.  any bad thing one
           cop does, they all do.  sheesh.
        \_ My anecdotal experience of LA cops: (a) fat, (b) wouldn't lift a
           finger to help you, (c) love to hit people without reason. -- ilyas
           \_ my personal experience with ~ six LAPD and UCPD cops over the
              years:  professional, polite, helpful.  CHP cops on the other
              hand ...
        \_ What's the loud annoying clicking noise? Also, what is the law
           here; are you allowed to refuse to answer questions? I guess this
           kid isn't too smart trying to debate stuff with a cop. Just shut
           up, kiss the cop's ass, and he'd probably not have to go through
Also, what is the law
           here; are you allowed to refuse to answer questions? I guess this
           kid isn't too smart trying to debate stuff with a cop. Just shut
           up, kiss the cop's ass, and he'd probably not have to go through
2007/9/10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47976 Activity:moderate
9/10    emarkp are you aware that your presidential candidate's
        campaign finance manager is heavily involved with a global
        network of teenager torturers?
        I know someone who got shipped off to that, he said it was
        like the Stanford Prison Experiment.
        \_ same thing, a few months ago:
           \_ A movie about WWASP was released in theaters recently.
        \_ Hi anonymous troll!  Why are you calling him "my" candidate?
           \_ Doesn't the High Apostle decree you have to vote for the
              in the race?
              \_ You troll foo is weak.  You do know that both Harry Reid and
                 Orrin Hatch are LDS as well, right? -emarkp
                 \_ Non sequitur: neither of them are running for Pres.
                    \_ My point is that they're politically opposite.  So much
                       for obeying some sort of church order. -emarkp
                       \_ Failed Mormons like Reid will never enter the
                          inner sanctum Holy Of Holies.
                          \_ Failed trolls like you will never be allowed back
                             under the bridge.
2007/9/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:47956 Activity:nil
9/8     John Edwards calls upon world to join us in fight against terrorism
        saying you're either with us or against us:
        \_ Can't wait to vote for Obama in the Primaries.
        \_ Imagine the gall of the guy, actually trying to engage our allies.
           Wouldn't we have better luck if we called them Cheese Eating
           Surrender Monkeys and renamed fried potatoes Freedom Fries?
           \_ You didn't RTA.  He is doing no such thing.  Read his quotes,
              not the "journalist's" description of it.  You join us and
              follow our rules or you're with the terrorists.  Your second
              sentence is just noise.  Not even Bush has called anyone that.
              \_ Once again, your reading skills are subpar:
                 "Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before
                  the world."
                 Explain to me how you get "you're with the terrorists" from
                 this. At worst, I see a vagueness in what will happen to
                 nations that refuse to join. -!pp
              \_ On 11 March 2003, Representatives Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and
                 Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-North Carolina) declared that all
                 references to French fries and French toast on the menus of
                 the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of
                 Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias were
                 ordered to rename French fries as "freedom fries".
2007/8/31-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47869 Activity:high
8/31    This is why Edwards can't get elected:
        In a recent speech, John Edwards told Americans to sacrifice their
        inefficient cars, and specifically, to give up their SUVs. But the
        presidential hopeful is driven around in a Cadillac SRX Crossover,
        which guzzles gas at 15 miles per gallon. His spokesman says that
        he drives a  hybrid SUV in North Carolina, but reports say the
        Edwards family has a regular SUV and a small truck as well.
        \_ He can't get traction because he's so obviously a fake and he's
           also pushing his 'rich vs. poor' thing during the best economic
           times the country has ever seen.  Class warfare is dead.
                \_ Yes, if you're rich the economic times are great.  It's the
                   third gilded age.
                   \_ Yawn.  The poor have never been better off.  The middle
                      class has never been better off.  The rich are always
                      better off so their status has nothing to do with
                      anything.  I'm not even close to rich and everything
                      is peachy.  What's *your* problem?
                      \_ The middle class income has been going down for about
                         six years now. You probably didn't notice. And an
                         overwhelming majority think we are in a recession
                         right now.
                         \_ And if the media told them they were doing great
                            they'd think it was a boom time.  That same
                            majority can't even define recession unless they
                            think it means lowest unemployment rate in the
                            western world.
                            \_ Ah, "the media" controls what everyone thinks.
                               I understand where you are coming from now.
                         \_ Paul Graham once noted that while income disparity
                            increases, 'lifestyle disparity' decreases.
                            The poorest citizens of the world have access to
                            things people even 50 years ago would consider
                            unattainable luxuries (cell phones for instance).
                            Bank account differences are somewhat of a red
                            herring -- they are important but they aren't a
                            good measure of 'inequality' because of the
                            diminishing marginal utility of money. -- ilyas
                            \_ The poorest citizens of the world are still
                               starving to death. Don't get too full of
                               yourself there.
                               \_ There are the poor wretches who had the
                                  misfortune to be born in NK, or some parts
                                  of SE Asia or Africa.  I don't think the
                                  root cause there is economic per se, or
                                  rather the economy is fucked because the
                                  places are run by thugs.  I was talking
                                  about places like India or China.  But,
                                  discounting the 'ultra rich', consider how
                                  similar people's lifestyles are in the
                                  States.  Compared to, say, one hundred
                                  years ago.  Upper middle class increasingly
                                  distinguishes itself by brands rather than
                                  'novel things' unavailable to lower stratas
                                  of society.  The same engine which increases
                                  income disparity also provides the Honda
                                  civics, ultra-cheap computers, cell phones,
                                  televisions, etc.  Actually the issue
                                  isn't just that money has diminishing
                                  marginal utility, it's that progress
                                  continues to raise how much 'lifestyle' you
                                  can buy on a limited budget.  One way
                                  the current trends can end is income
                                  disparity continues to increase, but it
                                  stops being relevant because goods become so
                                  well-made, cheap, and plentiful, that
                                  material scarcity gets essentially
                                  eliminated.  Sure, some people will still be
                                  significantly 'richer' than others, but
                                  what practical effect will that extra money
                                  have?  Perhaps there will be a market for
                                  'brands' or 'original works of art' or
                                  doing very expensive things 'for the soul'
                                  like funding wacky grand research projects
                                  or going into space.  People are too hung
                                  up on money.  I have a number of friends
                                  who are significantly more wealthy than
                                  me, and our lives are scarcely different.
                                  The difference will only get smaller.
                                    -- ilyas
                                \_ The televisions and clothes may be
                                   similar but the important differences are
                                   in things like working hours, vacations,
                                   health and health care, and real estate
                                   related issues (ghetto vs. nice place for
                                   children). In general I agree the poor
                                   are still mostly better off than before.
                                   \_ In my experience, the 'well off' that
                                      work tend to work harder and longer
                                      than minimum wagers.
                                      \_ In my experience, the "well off"
                                         retire much, much earlier, like
                                         in their 50s. The middle class
                                         retires in their early to mid 60s
                                         and the poor never retire. That is
                                         probably the biggest difference.
                                         \_ Yes of course, the question being
                                            what happens to the these
                                            differences as time passes.  Do
                                            the rich retire earlier today
                                            than 50 years ago?
        \_ If hypocrisy kept politicians from getting elected, there would be
           no Republican elected officials at all.
           \_ *laugh* Or Democrats either.  The blindness to the flaws of the
              party you don't dislike is just amazing.  I really do laugh
              every time I see one of these "my guys are all angels and your
              guys are all stupid and satanic" posts here or on various blogs.
              \_ Nice to see you are so easily amused. You obviously have not
                 thought very hard about the word hypocrisy and what it
                 means. There are plenty of things to dislike about Democrats
                 but not living up to their ideals is a Republican speciality.
              \_ Nice to see you are so easily amused.
                 \_ So bribery, theft, lying, hypocrisy and abuse of power are
                    a part of the Democratic party platform?  Thanks for
                    clarifying.  I understand now.
                    \_ I guess it depends on how you define "bribery and
                       theft." Do you mean taking tax dollars from one person
                       and giving it to another? Then yes, it is part of the
                       party platform. If you mean something else, please
                       provide evidence that Democrats are more likely to
                       engage in it than Republicans. And you keep throwing
                       out that word "hypocrisy" without any notion of what
                       it means. Go look it up in a dictionary and get back
                       to us, m'kay? How many Republicans vs Democrats in
                       Congress have been indicted in the last 10 years?
                       \_ If you can't see the hypocrisy of some very high
                          profile Democrat politicians, then you're just being
                          a politics homer/fanboi. Politicians are a bunch of
                          bums no matter what party. -not pp
                          \_ No one said the Democrats were angels. That was
                             a straw man you are responding to. They have just
                             not been as bad as the Republicans, at least
                             \_ We have to vote for our lizards so the other
                                lizards don't get elected.  -- ilyas
        \_ motd bleeding heart liberal here.  multimillionaire 25k
           square foot house trial lawyer owning Edwards talking about
           class war (I have some NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR shirts I can send to
           him) is pretty funny.  Homosexual law oppressing passing Senator
           Craig getting caught passing homosexual code is funny too.
           Idaho state policeman dedicating himself to undercover luring
           of old men into sex acts at the airport bathroom is the funniest
           thing all day though.  seriously, aren't there real crimes out
           there anymore?
           \- Minneapolis is not in Idaho.
2007/8/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47805 Activity:kinda low
8/29    Didnt McCain take part in a giant S&L scandal back in the 80s?
        \_ yes.
           \_ Did he do anything wrong?
              \- note that south bay resident and stanfraud alumni and
              \- note that south bay resident and stanfraud alumnus and
                 otherwise nutjob alan cranston's culpability in the
                 keating five was much worse. i think maybe some people
                 keating five was worse. i think maybe some people
                 now have gotten more sophisticated about influence peddiling.
                 i can imagine the hillary-hsu connection is comparable,
                 let alone the marc rich cash for pardon case.
                 let alone the marc rich cash-for-pardon case.
                 also mccain made some acknowledgements about doing the
                 wrong thing. unlike say that human cockroach tom delay.
                 btw, i think charles keating should have been put to death.
                 \_ Delenda est Keating.
        \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
2007/8/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:47770 Activity:high
8/27    Surprising facts: ppl with children are no happier than those who
        don't, retirees no happier than workers, pet owners no happier than
        those without pets, etc etc. Also, R happier than D, the young are
        less happy than the middle-aged and old, suburbanites are happier
        than city folks.
        \_ Why is any of this surprising?  Every choice has plusses and
        \_ You do end up happier if you're married, though, on average.
           How about that, BDG?
2007/8/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47632 Activity:high
8/17    Why is McCain so bad again?  He seems to be the least
        pro-torture Republican candidate.
        \_ His immigration stance killed his candidacy.  McCain-Feingold didn't
        \_ Talk about damning with faint praise.
        \_ If you're a (D) then it doesn't matter.  If you're a (R) then you'd
           know why.
2007/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:47597 Activity:high
8/13    ANDREW SULLIVAN: The man's legacy is a conservative movement
        largely discredited and disunited, a president with lower consistent
        approval ratings than any in modern history, a generational shift
        to the Democrats, a resurgent al Qaeda, an endless catastrophe in
        Iraq, a long hard struggle in Afghanistan, a fiscal legacy that means
        bankrupting America within a decade, and the poisoning of American
        religion with politics and vice-versa. For this, he got two terms
        of power - which the GOP used mainly to enrich themselves, their
        clients and to expand government's reach and and drain on the
        productive sector. In the re-election, the president with a
        relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to
        eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the
        country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60.
        \_ "My guys: Good.  Your guys: Evil".
           \_ Who was the one who claimed to have a "Permanent Republican
              Majority"? Remove the plank from your own eye.
              \_ 1) You "missed the point".
                 2) You also seem blind to the fact that a post like yours
                    is exactly the point you missed.
                 3) I'll try again for you, more slowly this time:
                    "My guys: Gooooood.   Your guys: Eeeeeeevil".
                    \_ I think even people who like Karl Rove will
                       admit he's pretty evil.
                       \_ I don't particularly like or dislike Rove.  I think
                          he's pretty much like all DC political 'advisor'
                          types, he's just better at it than most we've seen
                          in recent years.  Maybe that makes him more evil
                          than the others?
                    \_ Did you know that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative?
                       Knowing that, what exactly is the point that you claim
                       that you are trying to make?
                       \_ AS hasn't written a conservative piece in many years.
                          Find me one and we'll discuss.
                          \_ gotta agree with you there.  being gay and
                             conservative is like waking up in the morning
                             and shoving a scissors in your eye every day.
                          \_ Uh, his book?
                          \_ I see. I didn't realize that I was talking to the
                             guy who gets to decide who wears the label of
                             "Real" Conservtive and who doesn't. My apologies.
                             Real Conservative and who doesn't. My apologies.
        \_ I think your entire "my guy" concept needs to go.
           \_ It is much easier to just divide the world into two teams than
              to bother to think. Especially for this guy, though we are
              still working on him.
              \_ Still missing the point.  Maybe you'll get it one day.
                 \_ Still waiting for you to make one...
                    \_ I assume it was something to the effect that any
                       negative judgment of Rove is actually, despite any
                       pretenses to the contrary, mere partisan zeal.
                       All politicians are equal and they all do the
                       exact same stuff, or wish they had thought of it
                       first. In short, "nyah nyah i'm not listening!"
                       \_ In other words, complaints about partisanship
                          are in fact partisan themselves. Complaints about
                          complaints about partisanship, on the other hand
                          are really cool. And complaints about complaints
                          about complaints about partisanship are further
                          proof of partisanship. Do I have that about
                          right there?
           \_ Will take under advisement for the next edition.  Thanks.
        \_ http://bbwchan.org/inflation/src/1186529046760.jpg
2007/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47559 Activity:moderate
8/7     Am I the only one who thinks Biden makes a lot more sense than
        either Hilary or Obama?
        \_ I don't know much about Biden, but I'm not much for either Hillary
           or Obama, so, sell him to me.
           \_ Have you checked out Edwards? He has by far the most comprehensive
              ideas so far. But yeah, if I was not backing Edwards, I would
              be checking out Biden. He has impressed me at the debates, too.
              \_ Maybe I should get over my gut-level aversion to Edwards. He
                 reminds me of Dan Quayle for some reason.
           \_ Have you checked out Edwards? He has by far the most
              comprehensive ideas so far. But yeah, if I was not
              backing Edwards, I would be checking out Biden. He
              has impressed me at the debates, too.
              \_ Maybe I should get over my gut-level aversion to Edwards.
                 He reminds me of Dan Quayle for some reason.
        \_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/2zgnqh (cnn.com)
           http://preview.tinyurl.com/yw935k (aflcio.com)
        \_ Joe "the plagiarist" Biden?
           \_ I'd rather have a plagarist president who takes the best
              ideas and implements them, though fails to cite properly,
              than some idiot who sticks to his own ideas no matter how
              \_ Biden's a shill.  Anyone who voted for the bankruptcy
                 changes should be made to explain, in depth, why.
              \_ Why can't we have someone who is actually quality?  Why is
                 "He's better than BUSH!!!" a reason to like someone?
                 \_ I actually like Romney, I think he's really solid on the
                    things I care about.  He has a solid track record on
                    balancing budgets, technology issues, and health care.
                    \_ Oh and we think similarly because we have similar
                       backgrounds (e.g. core Mormon values)    -pp
                       \_ We will have a gay president before we have a
                          Mormon president.
                          \_ You forgot Abe.
                          \_ So you think more voters are religious bigots than
                             sexual preference bigots?  Or is this just your
                             personal expression of greater dislike of mormons
                             than gays?
                             \_ The former.
                    \_ Which is he is now disavowing in a rapid rush to the
                       right in order to get the nomination... You don't
                       find his blatant pandering in the least disgusting?
2007/7/31-8/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47487 Activity:nil
7/31    What's the deal with chicks and flipflops? It is barely okay to
        wear flipflops to the mall. Flipflops to work is lame and
        flipflops paired with an otherwise nice outfit is even more lame.
        Can women not afford shoes or sandals anymore? Plus, they are
        so bad for your feet! I have been watching out for flipflops
        lately (no I do not have a foot fetish) and the problem is
        reaching epic proportions!
        \_ Sir!  We have a flipflop gap!
        \_ Just move to The City. It is too cold for flipflops here.
        \_ "Future President John Kerry!"
2007/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47438 Activity:kinda low
7/26    Regarding the contradiction between Mueller and Gonzales.  The Bush
        admin's story is that there were two surveillance programs:  the
        #1 Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and #2 an unnamed one.  Comey
        was going to resign over #2.  Mueller said Gonzales came to see
        Ashcroft for #2.  Gonzo said it was #2.  Dems think Gonzo said #1
        and Mueller said #2.  No one could talk about #2 clearly because
        of national security.  See?!  Perjury trap!!!11
        \_ Someone should get Gonzalez a lawyer, and maybe someone who
           can tell him to stop sounding like a fucking idiot.  What
           do they call those people?
           \_ The Bush admin's story is he's only being obtuse to avoid
              disseminating classified information that revealing could only
              INCREASE the potential of mushroom clouds over major U.S. cities.
              disseminating classified information that revealing could
              only INCREASE the potential of mushroom clouds over major
              U.S. cities.
2007/7/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47406 Activity:nil
7/24    So why did the "liberal" media obsess over Edward's $400 haircut
        and never mention Romney's $300 visit to the salon?
        \_ Because Edwards has way more fru fru hair and ultimately the news
           is about selling ads, the political agenda is second.
        \_ Because no one in their right mind could believe that Romney's
           dumb enough to pay good money to look like that.
        \_ You can't see how Edwards is being called out for being a hypocrite
           since his entire campaign is the "Two Americas" theme while Romney
           has never made that sort of statement?  No one likes a hypocrite.
           The people in the "poor half" of Edwards America sure as hell can't
           afford his $400 haircut.
2007/7/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:47401 Activity:low
7/24    The polls are in. Edwards tried his best and did ok, but in the
        end he has no chance. It's either a woman or a black man. Which
        one would you choose and why? (YouNeedToVoteToSeeResults)
        \_ His being a slimeball personal injury lawyer may have something to
           do with that.
           \_ I think he did some good work.  Do you really want all
              of your children's intestines sucked out by a pool?
              \_ Do /you/ want him channeling children to get a sympathetic
                 jury to trump good science in CP cases?
                 \_ And this is better or worse than Frist channeling a
                    brain dead woman for political grandstanding?
                    \_ False dichotomy.  They could be equally bad.  I don't
                       recall him channelling her though.
        \_ Hmmm, the criminal or the racist, what a choice!
           \_ Just like a cracker to think that all black men are criminals.
              \_ I think you're joking, but just to clarify, Hillary is the
                 \_ Yawn. Baseless accusations are so boring. Perhaps you can
                    organize a website to collect both your tinfoil hat and
                    your "proof"?
                    \_ Funny, I considered the "Obama is racist" claim to be
                       more controversial...
                    \_ Didn't Hillary kill Vince Foster?
                       \_ Just to watch him die.
                       \_ With her bare hands. In front of a busload of nuns.
        \_ Bro's before ho's
           \_ Thank you Butler.
        \_ It's a poll about a 'debate' on youtube.  There is no 'there' there.
2007/7/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47374 Activity:nil
7/21    Meet Mitt Romney, our candidate for junior high class president:
2007/6/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47006 Activity:kinda low
6/19    Hillary Clinton's campaign theme song is a Celine Dion tune.
        Now I can't vote for her.
        \_ Obama's is "Think" by Aretha Franklin.  which is about a man
           cheating on a woman.  Do you think Obama is trying to enrage
           the Hillary?
           http://preview.tinyurl.com/yogl75 (lyrics007.com)
        \_ "You And I"
        \_ Blame Canada
        \_ Why not?
        \_ Lieberman's is LETS HAVE A WAR
           \_ The first candidate that chooses "TV Party" as their theme
              song gets my vote.
              \_ This is like Michael Moore saying he'd support the first
                 candidate to dance in a moshpit: you're going to end up
                 endorsing Alan Keyes. http://csua.org/u/iz7 (Michael Moore)
        \_ Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran -- McCain
2007/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47000 Activity:nil
6/17    Email records missing for 51 of 88 White House Officials with RNC
        \_ Whooops!!
2007/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46978 Activity:nil 76%like:46895
6/16    Romney is not a flip-flopper, he was just "won over"
2007/6/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:46911, category id '18005#3.32125' has no name! , ] UID:46911 Activity:nil
6/11    The Politics of Personality Destruction, why we elect phonys for POTUS
2007/6/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46895 Activity:nil 76%like:46978
6/9     Romney: flip-flopper
        \_ Maybe you can explain to me how that's a flip-flop?
           \_ maybe it's the same way that voting for an amendment that
              failed, then voting against the bill without the amendment is
           \_ Let's see.  When it actually happened he said it was a good
              thing, but now that he's running for president on the
              "I'm oh so religious and 'moral'" ticket he says he thought
              otherwise.  Hmm.
              \_ Huh? He said "It is the policy in the military -- what, 10,
                 15 years -- and working..."  Sounds to me like he's just
                 surprised how well it's worked out.  The closest thing to a
                 flip-flop here is how he characterized his original feelings
                 about it.  Which could actually both be true as well.
              \_ Huh? You realize these two statements are not mutually
                 exclusive?  He also never says he thought gays servering in
                 the military is bad.  It's a strech to call that a flip-flop.
              \_ Oh no!  He flip-flopped on his feeling 15 year's ago! It's
                 \_ Yeah!  It's only a flip flop if you change your mind after
                    20 years or more... or is that under 10 years or less?
                    Or, if you're not a republican?  Yeah, that's it...
                 \_ Only 5 years in the case of abortion rights. He is a
                    serial flip-flopper.
2007/6/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46884 Activity:nil
6/7     What do you guys think of Edward's chances? He won this caucus
        that I was a part of, does he have any real chance?
        http://www.csua.org/u/ivc -anonymous coward
        \_ Maybe.  A low maybe but a maybe.
        \_ I think he has no chance. I think in the public's eye he's old
           news. It's either HRC or Browser Helper Object.
        \_ I don't think Edwards has any chance.  He should spend
           time with his terminally ill wife rather than fail at
           running for pres.
2007/6/1-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46830 Activity:moderate
6/1     Why does Peggy Noonan hate America?
        http://urltea.com/oiv (opinionjournal.com)
        \_ Nothing more than an attempt by a GOP leader to distance
           herself from what has become a very unpopular presidency.
           themselves from what has become a very unpopular presidency.
           She loved Bush for 6 years, but now his usefulness is over.
           The GOP is worried that they are going to lose in 2008, so they
           are going to throw Bush under the bus, hoping that this will
           improve their chances. They are desperate.
           \_ Or maybe this whole amnesty thing really does grate on
        \_ Here's your real answer: We all knew in 2000 that Bush was
           Conservative Light but given the choices (Death before Gore) we
           pulled the lever and hoped for the best.  Our gut instinct was
           correct but overall it was still better than Gore would have been
           so we went with it.  In 2004 we had even worse choices: more of
           the same or Kerry, a man who made Gore look like a great option.
           Sitting here in 2007, after everything, he's still a better call
           than Gore or Kerry but that doesn't mean we have to be happy about
           it.  The amnesty bill is of course the final straw but is no
           different than we would've had from Gore/Kerry.  That leaves all
           those people who supported Bush thinking, "Why'd I bother?" which
           is why you're heading rumors about the grass roots fund raising
           is why you're hearing rumors about the grass roots fund raising
           taking a dive on the (R) side.  Next time they run a Light(c)
           candidate I'll be staying home because, "Why bother?".  Sorry to
           interupt.  Everyone please continue with mindless all-caps posts
           and baseless speculation.
2007/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46682 Activity:moderate
5/17    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html
        7 out of 18 Presidential candidate are millionaires. "All of the
        candidates are seeking to lead a country where the median net worth
        is about $93,000, and the median yearly income is about $46,000."
        Hold on. How the hell do you make $46K but save only $93K net worth?
        Don't most of us own homes that are at least 3-4X our income?
        \_ Two words:  CREDIT CARD.  More words: HOME EQUITY LOAN
        \_ 1) because the saving's rate hovers around zero, 2) no.
        \_ "most of us" don't own homes.
           \_ 68% is "most".
           \_ 68% is "most". (Correction, 2000 census, 66.2%)
              \_ You mean there are 200M homes in the USA?
                 \_ There sure is a big helping of the stupid piled on motd
                    \_ here in America, we like big helpings.
2007/5/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46674 Activity:nil
5/17    Welcome to the new congress, as partisan as the old congress.
        \_ Until we have true political reform, what do you expect?
2007/5/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46649 Activity:nil
5/15    White House attempted to get Gonzalez to authorize illegal
        spying program from his hospital bed:
        \_ You mean Ashcroft.
2007/5/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:46643 Activity:nil
5/15    Pros and cons of various Republican presidential candidates
2007/5/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46634 Activity:nil
5/15    Matt Drudge treats Romney well.  The mainstream media follows Drudge
        like lemmings.  Therefore, Romney will win.
        \_ That's quite a leap.  Drudge is a head line guy.  He gets almost all
           of his 'news' from other mainstream sites.  How does a guy who
           aggregates other people's news links have any control over anything?
           He's got a good deal going for himself but he's not a news maker or
           power broker.
           \_ False.  Drudge maintains relationships with oppo research
              teams in the various campaigns.  He is a primary conduit for
              leaks from those oppo groups.
2007/5/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46603 Activity:kinda low
5/11    Wow, this guy Romney has more money than Jesus. Was he born rich?
        \- he's involved in a "psothumous conversion kit" pyramid scheme.
        \- he's involved in a "posthumous conversion kit" pyramid scheme.
        \_ let's swift boat him!
           \_ I don't think Romney served in Vietnam, but John "I served in
              Vietnam" Kerry did his country proud.  3 band aids and then run
              home to make shit up on his way to office.
              \_ Yay! Three years later, and the false accusations still run
                 strong. Why don't you tell us about McCain's black baby while
                 you're at it?
                 \_ Did Kerry get a real wound?  No.  Those medical records are
                    still top secret.  Did he run home and make shit up in a
                    Congressional hearing?  Yes.   So what false accusations?
                    What does McCain have to do with anything?  Red herring.
                    \- for the 100th time: "at least kerry was in shooting
                       range" which is more than you can say for bush, who
                       claims to have served, but clearly "limited" the terms
                       of his service. cheney doesnt claim to have "served"
                       but his flip "i had other plans" shows an amazing amount
                       of contempt. wolfowitz, pearle, the war-drum-beating-
                       jouranlists-of-acertain-age ... they also dont claim
                       journalists-of-acertain-age ... they also dont claim
                       to have "served" for the most part, but they also have
                       shown "contempt" for service in various ways, and it
                       is perfectly reasonable to ask them why they didnt
                       serve ... it's not a "private decision" for a public
                       figure, imho. that's just asking for a free pass.
                       everybody gives somebody like dole his due. the
                       attacks on mccain were from the lunatic right. it's
                       unfortuantely not everybody has given people like
                       unfortuante not everybody has given people like
                       mcgovern their due.
                    \_ No, Kerry actually signed his SF 180, something like
                       six months after he lost. When will Bush sign his?
2007/5/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46601 Activity:nil
5/11    Guiliani snubs a farm family in Iowa because they aren't
2007/5/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46600 Activity:nil
5/11    '[A] Vote for Romney is [a] vote for Satan'
2007/5/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:46597 Activity:nil
5/11    Kiss free speech goodbye.
        \_ Random overly-sensational not particularly descriptive comment.
           \_ A congressional caucus got together to threaten the advertisers
              of a PBS documentary.  How is that overly-sensational?
              \_ It implies that there was some sort of official move on the
                 part of the government to end all free speech. It brings to
                 mind visions of Orwellian dystopias. Instead, what you have is
                 the market being brought to bear on the sponsors of a film,
                 and subsequent pressure from those sponsors on the maker of
                 the film. Burns is not obligated to listen to his sponsors,
                 and his sponsors are not obligated to pay attention to threats
                 from activist groups; that they did so bespeaks of nothing
                 more than a lack of conviction that the film in its original
                 form was worth fighting to the death for.
                 \_ Again, a CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS threatened the advertisers.
                    \_ You appear to have difficulty evaluating the actual
                       significance of events.
2007/5/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:46537 Activity:nil
5/6     The liberal case for the individual right to keep and bear arms:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/2af36o (nytimes.com)
2007/5/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46524 Activity:moderate
5/3     Anyone watch the Republican debate? Only Ron Paul sounds like a real
        conservative (besides the debatable abortion stuff). The rest just
        toe the standard R line. I never heard of him before. He seems like
        one of the few who actually stands by clear principles, even if I
        don't agree with them all.
        \_ It's interesting that he hasn't gotten anywhere near as much\
           attention as Kucinich for being the only other guy running who
        \_ It's interesting that he hasn't gotten anywhere near as much
           attention as Kucinich for being the only other guy running who
           voted against the Iraq war, against the Patriot Act, and against
           suspension of habeus corpus.  I'm actually planning to register
           as a republican for the first and last time in my life to vote
           for Paul in the primary, just to send a message to the fucks
           who run both parties that it's time for both of them to start
           running pro-freedom candidates.
           \_ Not terribly interesting.  Kucinich = far left.  RP = Republican.
        \_ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2072835,00.html
           \_ Does not mention RP. I agree the others didn't look so hot,
              especially McCain, although Giuliani was bland enough.
              especially McCain. Brownback, Giuliani, and Huckabee were bland
              enough. I thought it was funny when one of them stumbled all
              over himself to pander to the Jews ("by the way a threat to
              Israel's existence is a threat to the existence of the US!")
              \_ Because we know "The Jews" are all evil clones who all have
                 the exact same beliefs.  But I'm sure it's ok for you to say
                 that because you "have a Jewish friend".
                 \_ What? ok replace it with "Jews"
              \_ That's not pandering to Jews, that's pandering to Christian
        \_ I didn't watch it (is it on youtube or something?) but I thought
           this littlegreenfootballs poll of who won was interesting.
           (You may need to use the pull down menu to get the right poll.)
           \_ I don't know about youtube but you can watch it at msnbc.
              (Have to wade through the mess to find the links... I watched
              it in three pieces.) Interestingly I saw a poll on I think
              msnbc that had Ron Paul leading.
        \_ "Gosh, I love America." --Mitt Reagan^H^H^H^H^H^HRomney
           \_ yep this guy came off like a total douchebag
              \_ Not as much as Chris Matthews.  What a moron.
2007/4/27-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46463 Activity:low
4/27    "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars
        just trying to catch one person." -Romney on Osama Bin Laden
        Buried deep in AP story, media reaction nil.  Wonder what would have
        happened if a Democratic candidate had said this...
        \_ Romney stands no chance anyways. Only WASP males get elected
           Kennedy being the only exception, but he cheated to get that
           \_ Kennedy cheated? Oh, spin us a tale, please. This has gotta be
              \_ This is part of the Neocon lexicon: it is okay that Bush
                 cheated because Kennedy did too. If you ask them to explain,
                 they always say that dead people voted in Illinois. If you
                 point out that Kennedy would have won without Illinois,
                 they are rendered mute.
                 \_ Hardly. Was watergate ok because Nixon would have won
                    without spying on the Dems?  The claim that a gross
                    immoral act is unimportant if it does not affect the
                    outcome is so ridiculous, that I can not believe you
                    actually think that.
                    Also neocon does not mean "every person I disagree
                    \_ Indeed.  PP has his moral reasoning in a knot.  The
                       proper point is "what was the evidence?"  The Karl
                       Rove "There's voter fraud in them thar hills" line
                       that underlies the US Atty scandal is another of these
                       web-weavings.  See also, Foster, Vince, Murder of.
2007/4/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46453 Activity:nil
4/26    McCain wants to talk to you on Youtube:
2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46314 Activity:nil
4/16    emarkp, you said below that you could never vote for McCain because of
        his assault on 1st amendment (campaign finance)." Which part of McCain-
        Feingold did you consider an assault on 1st amendment rights? --erikred
        \_ The part about what can be said X days before an election. -emarkp
2007/4/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:46292 Activity:nil
4/13    Republican debate will air on MSNBC.  Dems are still pussies and won't
        appear on Fox News.
        \_ Your premise in the comparison is the MSNBC is propagandistic for
           the Ds as Fox is for the Rs.  Your premise is wrong.
           \_ What a moron. Having a D debate on Fox would be an open forum for
              liberal thought. If you think FN is propaganda for the right,
              why would they have a D debate?  And wouldn't having the D debate
              there fight the propaganda.  No, the reality is the Ds are
              pussies and if they win the presidency in 2008, they'll do
              everything possible to make it illegal to be conservative.
              \_ Okay, so, you're saying you think the Democrats are not
                 going to have any debates, and then calling them pussies
                 because they won't debate?  Or are you calling them pussies
                 for not participating in a Fox News sponsored debate?  If
                 they participated in an MSNBC sponsored debate, would they
                 no longer be pussies in your eyes?
                 Your "illegal to be conservative" crack makes it clear,
                 though, that you are utterly useless to converse with.
                 \_ Do Not Feed The Trolls
2007/4/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46290 Activity:high
4/13    Ha ha ha.  Last year, an Obama event was started by a group called
        "Nappy Roots"
        \_ and of course, there's no difference between a black person
           saying "nappy roots" and a white person saying "nappy-headed hos".
           \_ You got that right. There isn't.
              \_ Okay let's take the racial element out of it.  Is there
                 a difference between you calling yourself an idiot and me
                 calling you an idiot?  Idiot.
                \_ Old Man Imus knew what he was doing, it's just this time
                   the media manipulators got pissed off and got smacked
                   down hard.  I can't believe he got away with telling
                   60 Minutes he hired a guy just to make nigger jokes.
                   Anyway who cares, Imus will pop up somewhere else.
                 \_ Gotta agree with tom.  Old white dude using
                    "nappy headed hos" is different than black people
                    calling each other nappy headed hos.
                    \_ I think the addition of the "hos" part is what makes
                       it derogatory. -ausman
           \_ Which reminds me of Rush Hour where Jackie Chan saw Chris Rock
              saying "Whatsup n*gger" and then mimic after him, and got very
                       \_ Are "nappy headed" and "hos" terms associated with
                          African-Americans, or is it the team's racial
                          composition versus the commentator's whiteness that
                          raises the racism question?
                          \_ "nappy headed" is a racially charged phrase.
                             When combined with "ho", it adds a racial
                             charge to an misogynistic epithet.  Unrelatedly,
                             are you stupid?
           \_ Which reminds me of Rush Hour where Jackie Chan saw Chris Tucker
              saying "Whassup, my n*gga?" and then mimiced him, and got very
              different reaction from people in the bar.
              different reaction from the bartender.
           \_ I am quite impressed with the quality of the discussion on this
2007/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46282 Activity:nil 66%like:46265
4/11    BYU students protest...Cheney?
        http://urltea.com/57v (nytimes.com)
        \_ You know you may have gone too far when even the people you can
           count on want nothing to do with you.
2007/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46271 Activity:nil
4/12    Do you want to play dirty politics? Do you want to waste McCain
        and Romney's money? Go to the link below and click on their ads.
        Forward this message to all of your friends now!
        \_ This post makes me remember how much adblocker r0x0rz
        \_ So you're a Giuliani man?
        \_ Gosh, how about we just let each candidate from whatever party do
           their best to get their message out and let the voters decide who
           should be President?  Do you slice car tires of get out the vote
           vans, too?
           \_ That's the job for the Critical Mass folks.
              \_ Yeah, but the people in the vans looked at them a little
                 funny, so they deserved it.
                 \_ No, they drove a VAN so they deserved it.
                    \_ They drove a van INTO a bicyclist, you keep forgetting
                       that part.
                       \_ Those five girls giggled and asked what those tiny
                          bulges in the front of those cyclists' tight pants
                          were, so they deserved it.
                       \_ No they didn't.
2007/4/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46265 Activity:nil 66%like:46282
4/11    BYU students protest...Cheney?
        \_ You know you may have gone too far when even the people you can
           count on want nothing to do with you.
2007/3/29-4/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46143 Activity:nil
3/29    John Dean on executive privilege and the "unitary executive" theory:
2007/3/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46129 Activity:nil
3/28    "Nonpartisan" General Services Administration briefed by Rove aide
        on "GOP house targets"
        \_ Grilled by "partisan" house member.
           \_ Yes, young grasshopper.  The "partisan" legislature has oversight
              responsibilities over the executive branch and its agencies,
              whether partisan or not.
              Though with what this WH has done with its agencies from the EPA
              to NASA to SSA to GSA to the fucking DoJ, it's hard to say if
              there are ANY non-partisan agencies left in the Executive.
           \_ You may wish to review the Hatch Act:
        \_ Poor Ms. Doan, she had no idea she wasn't supposed to use GSA to
           help the GOP win specific congressional seats.  She founded the
           company providing 80% of the technology that protects the U.S. /
           Mexico border from illegal immigrants, so that's a pass by my book!
2007/3/21-26 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46039 Activity:nil
3/21    One of the fired US Attorney's tells his side of the story:
2007/3/15-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45989 Activity:nil
3/15    Biden sounds unhappy. He should go smoke some weed, chill, have a bbq,
        it's nice weather now, plus he sounds unsupportive of the troops.
        \_ Good ole's xerox.. keepin it real.
2007/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:45980 Activity:high 88%like:45986
3/15    I repeat, Dems are pussies
        \_ You are right, they should start a war to prove how manly they are.
           \_ No, I think debating would be fine.
2007/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45907 Activity:nil
3/8     Sorry to burst the bubble but the Christian belt and undecided
        voters of 2008 will easily and happily ignore your favorite Dem
        candidate. In the view of 53% of the Americans, H Clinton is a
        very unChristian woman who should have been a housewife,
        Edwards looks too young and inexperienced and more importantly
        Edwards is a FAGGOT, and Obama has a very unChristian skin tone.
        Romney may be a Mormon but at least he is white, religious, and
        righteous. Romney wins 2008.
2007/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45873 Activity:high
3/4     Dem polls:                      Rep polls:
        H Clinton: 20%                  Romney: 20%
        Edwards: 15%                    Guiliani: 14%
        Obama: 11%
        Gore (not runnig): 10%
        My prediction for 2008: Romney will win because he's not a woman
        and not black. In addition he's pro-life.       -Southern Voter
        \_ My prediction: Edwards will beat Guiliani after wining most of
           The South. -SF Voter
           \_ Mr.Let's_Make_C-sections_Common? Have you even seen his
              video of him applying make-up on himself?
              \_ Yes, most Americans are pro-choice. Do you honestly think
                 that a Yankee is going to sweep the South, especially vs.
                 a genuine Good Ole' Boy? If the Dumbocrats nominate Hillary,
                 Romney could win, granted.
                 \_ "Yeeehup, thair aint no wayz no howz weze gunna votes fer
                    enywun butt ar owns!"   So what you're saying is you think
                    a majority of voting Southerners are stupid hicks who won't
                    vote for anyone who isn't also a "Good Ole' Boy".  Why do
                    you think that?
                    \_ Are you "Southern Voter"? Have you actually lived in
                       The South? I have. I certainly do not believe that
                       a majority of Southerners are hicks. I think that
                       enough swing voters (about 5% in most states) are
                       strongly enough biased against Yankees that this
                       will change a close race. Why do you believe otherwise,
                       other than your wish that your candidate would be
                       \_ See?  Doesn't that feel better providing some
                          substance to back your statements?  And none of these
                          people are "my candidate".  It is ridiculous that
                          we're even talking about the elections this early.
                          \_ What happened to your troll? Delete it?
                          \_ No, not rediculous at all. The CA primaries are
                          \_ No, not ridiculous at all. The CA primaries are
                             in Feb, so the parties will have already made
                             their choices in less than a year.
                             \_ A year?  Ridiculous.  It shouldn't take a year
                                of endless Obama vs. Hillary vs. Rudy vs.
                                McCain vs. Whoever to pick primary candidates.
                                Especially this sort of high intensity daily
                                campaign noise we're getting today.  I'm tuning
                                out until something more interesting happens
                                than "Hillary Adopts Southern Accent!  Obama
                                Counters With Own Accent!  Rudy Sticks To NY
                                Accent!  McCain Finds New Accent Coach!"  This
                                is all bullshit and has nothing to do with
                                anything important.  Or shouldn't, anyway.
                                \_ Whether it "should" or not, I don't really
                                   have a strong opinion one way or another.
                                   The fact is, if you want to have some kind
                                   of influence over the nomination process,
                                   you need to get started on it now. If you
                                   don't care who the next President of the
                                   United States is, why bother even talking
                                   about in the motd?
                                   \_ So because I think it's too early and
                                      the current "campaigns" are all bullshit
                                      you think I don't care about who the
                                      next President is?  I care a lot.  That
                                      is why I think the current reporting and
                                      noise is just that, noise.  There is no
                                      substance to anything currently going on.
                                      \_ You are wrong about that. Last week
                                         I was in a smallish room full of
                                         Bay Area Democratic fund raisers and
                                         we listened to Senator Edwards present
                                         his case as to why we should support
                                         him. Next week we listen to Senator
                                         Obama and the week after that Senator
                                         Clinton. In early April we will
                                         caucus and give an endorsement and
                                         at that point probably most or all
                                         of us will give the legal maximum
                                         donation to their chosen candidate.
                                         Multiply this by 50 times and you
                                         have a big chunk of the party
                                         fundraising already completed by
                                         mid-April. Anyone that hasn't been
                                         able to raise $10M by May will be
                                         finished and will have to drop out.
                                         That is just how the system works.
                                         I imagine something similar is
                                         going on in the Republican Party.
                                         If you are just talking about how
                                         your personal vote is going to go,
                                         fine, but all the campaigns are trying
                                         to grab money, organizational skills
                                         and experienced campaigners to their
                                         side right now and the ones that
                                         are the most successful will have
                                         the inside track when the "real"
                                         campaign starts.
                                         \- just to add on: a lot of pols
                                            emphasize the role of early money
                                            e.g. EMILY's list stands for:
                                            Early Money Is Like Yeast etc.
        \_ Romney will not win. He's Mormon. Except for Kennedy, no
           non-WASP has ever won.
           \_ That's what they said about Kennedy.  Until he won.  "No Catholic
              has ever been elected President.  The voters just aren't ready
              for a Catholic President."  So other than being Mormon, which is
              not important, why couldn't Romney win?
              \_ Because he's on record up until a couple of years ago as being
                 pro-gay, pro-choice, etc.  "The base" won't go for it.
                 \_ "The base" would eat rusty nails before they watched
                    Hillary get elected and stayed home on voting day.
                    \_ I'm saying Romney will implode in the primaries.
                       \_ You think he'll "AAARRRR!!!" on camera or rape a goat
                          during a taped interview or what?
        \_ My prediction: the primaries and then the election are so insanely
           far away that none of this means anything.  Any of these people
           could easily implode in an "AAAAARRRRRR!!!!" moment or just have a
           series of bad days they never recover from or do a really horrible
           interview or just the world around us will change in such a way
           that their current speechifying will be ridiculously wrong for the
           future when we are voting but will be rubbed in their face.
           Anything can happen and often does.
        \_ We are BUSHCO. Cancel your election and surrender your votes.
           Resistence is Futile. -dcheney
2007/3/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45869 Activity:moderate
3/4     60 Minutes: PSB > TOM (Medicare > Defense)
        \_ Synopsis: Clinton=surplus, Bush=deficit, Republican=bad.
                     We're fucked thanks to fiscal irresponsibility.
                     \_ A surplus co-oping Republican bills. Who started
                        the first surplus? Are you one of those "Politics
                        began with Clinton newbies who's been around
                        only the last 14 years" to answer that?
                        \_ Too bad Bush didn't come up with the same brilliant
                           strategy of co-opting Republican bills!  -tom
           Political slant: CBS, anti-Republican
           Fact check: this is a political smear.
           \- The earlier motd discussion was not very partisan or
              ideological. It was about 3 things:
           \- The earlier motd discussion was about 3 things:
              (0. distinguish between liabilities and payments)
              1. medicare liability >> SS liability
              2. non-discretionary entitlements >> defense liability
              3. holub ought not be dismissing other people's writings
                 when unaware of either the details of the accounting
                 used or the $numbers involved. While this backs up
                 my numbers, there was plenty of evidence provided
                 used or the $numbers involved. While this backs up some
                 of my numbers, there was plenty of evidence provided
                 earlier [particlarly the KC Fed study].
              BTW, I thought the tuition analogy was pretty good.
              The Comptroller General is a Clinton appointee, but is
              hardly a communist or a partisan hack.
           \- The earlier motd discussion was largely about
              a single statistic, the NPV value of medicare
              liability >> SS liability >> long range defense costs.
              (we didnt discuss debt service ... that highly depends
              on future fiscal policy rather than just actuarial
              It wasnt so much a partisan discussion or one very
              involved with interpretation. The CBO fellow, as
              well as the pointers I left present plenty of
              evidence for this. Holub shouldnt be dissing other
              people for being ignorant of facts when he's
              wrong about them. BTW, the Comptroller General
              is a Clinton appointee, but is hardly a
              communist or a partisan hack. BTW, I thought
              te tuition analogy was pretty good.
              \_ I think there are a number of flawed assumptions here,
                 a major one being that our health care system could be
                 completely different even by 2011, let alone by 2040.
                 Another is to describe military spending as discretionary
                 and Medicare as long-term liability; military spending
                 has alwyas grown faster than federal health care spending,
                 and fundamentally represents a liability due to current
                 military posture.   -tom
                 \_ Can you stop saying meaningless things like: "military
                    spending has alwyas grown faster than federal health
                    care spending".
                    \_ How is it meaningless?  It's verifiably true.  What is
                       meaningless is the distinction between Medicare as
                       a liability and the military as discretionary spending.
                       We can choose to change Medicare benefits at any time,
                       despite the prescription drug bill and other "promises."
                       And while we theoretically could decide to stop
                       spending gobs of money on the military, there's no
                       evidence that we will.   -tom
                 \_ By 2011, no, but 2040 is very far away.  Our current
                    system is very much not like it was 34 years ago.  In fact,
                    I'd say it's completely different.
                    \- forget 34 yrs. do you know how much the BUSHCO
                       prescription medicine benefit is considered to have
                       have added to liabilities. all the reasonable people
                       doing projections consder maybe 4-5 optimistic to
                       pessimistic projections. but some of the basic facts
                       are not in dispute in any scenario short of "the big
                       asteroid vaporizes half the country". BTW, it is fairly
                       "standard" to use 75yrs as the "infinite horizon"
                       projection number. i dont know why, but it is.
                       it's probably a case of "you have to agree to something
                       for consistency". i assume somebody has done the
                       sensitivity analysis around that number. --psb
                       [By "SA" i mean:
2007/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45798 Activity:nil
2/22    Carville to Hollywood:  Open your wallet and shut your mouth.
2007/2/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45732 Activity:nil
2/13    Romney(R) has the charisma of Ronald Reagan. Romney is going to
        kick everyone's ass, including the libural devisive woman candidate
        and the negro who is one letter away from having Osama's name.
        \_ Barack Obama == Black Osama?  Anyway, I want a black president but
           I want Colen Powell.
2007/2/5-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:45664 Activity:moderate
2/5     http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/edwards.2008.ap/index.html
        "Edwards: Raise taxes to provide universal health care"
        Edwards will lose. Most Americans hate immigrants and social
        programs and thus don't want universal anything. It's the
        era of corporations and privitazition baby!
        \_ 60-70% polled say universal helth care is the fed's responsibility:
        \_ Christ this discussion is fucking stupid. -dans
        \_ 60-70% polled say health coverage is the fed's responsibility:
           62% want universal health insurance:
           \_ Move to Canada.
              \_ No I intend to stay and fight. Where are you going to run
                 to after you lose?
           \_ Sure, I want someone else to pay my bills, too, but I'm not
              willing to pay the taxes for it.  I'll pay more to get less.
              Any cash that goes through government hands before turning into
              a service that you could otherwise buy yourself is always going
              to cost more and yield less.  Government, by its very nature,
              is inefficient and has costs.  No one really believes Edwards
              "tax the rich" thing.  That sort of thing always turns into a
              universal tax.  AMT is the perfect example of sticking it to the
              rich but nailing the middle class (as always).
              \_ And who has been in the position to "fix" the AMT for the
                 past 12 years, and did nothing?  You spew a lot of talking
                 points, but you're not saying anything.
                 \_ AMT was created decades ago.  During the absolute iron
                    fisted rule of both parties during that time and during
                    the creation process itself, no one thought to consider
                    that the numbers didn't scale with inflation.  Or didn't
                    care.  The "GOP is evuuuul!" meme is tired.  Let it rest.
                    If you had something to say on the topic, please join in,
                    but don't waste precious bits with partisan nonsense.
                    Neither party will do jack shit for the middle classes
                    that are already starting to get nailed by this, starting
                    in more expensive states like CA.  --gpp
                 \_ This is funny. The pp criticized "government", not a party.
                    "Government" has been in charge for the last 12 yrs.
                    \_ This is a bullshit point.  As is "Government ==
                       inefficient".  And it's a point formed and fed by
                       one party in particular.  Ergo my reply.
                       "Government is incompetent, and by God, we're going
                       to prove it."
                       \_ Yes, gov't == inefficient and incompetent is true in
                          general, simply because there's no driving force to
                          fix those problems.  See, I can counter your
                          assertion with mine!
                          \_ Yes, Enron did a much better job of supplying
                             California with power than the regulated utilities
                             and the City of Los Angeles.
                             \_ Ah, but it was because of the government's
                             \_ But it was because of the government's
                                handling of energy contracts that Enron was
                                able to screw us.
        \_ On average, we pay 2x as much for poorer health care than in the
           socialized medicine countries.  The elite can get very good care,
           but most of the rest of us are screwed.  Further, efficiencies will
           accrue.  Preventative care is a lot cheaper.  Prescribing diet
           change, quitting smoking, and exercise costs less than
           triple bypass surgery.
           \_ You're insane.  Efficiencies do not _ever_ accrue in government
              services.  You can prescribe all you want, no one is going to do
              it and then you'll need triple by pass surgery.  That surgery
              will be denied by some government flunky because you didn't
              excercise like the nice government doctor told you so you are
              not allowed the surgery and die horribly.  Good call.
              \_ Look it's the "you are insane" guy! Welcome back to the
                 guy who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is
                 literally crazy!
                 \_ Ad hominem.  Try again if you like.
                     \_ The "you are insane" guy is complaining about
                        ad hominem attacks? Or is that intended to be
                        a compliment???
                        \_ If you skip the first two words you're obsessing
                           over and try to respond to the points made you'd
                           be on firmer ground.
                           \_ If you'd skip the ad hominem attacks, you'd
                              have a better chance of convincing people
                              that you had a reasonable point worth
                              thinking about.
              \_ Are you saying that a road system built by corporations
                 would be more efficient?  How about a national defense?
                 Those are two areas where Gov't is more efficient at
                 serving the people.  There's a lot of inequity and waste
                        \_ Health care is not a public service and does not
                           need to be.  It worked just fine before HMO's were
                           allowed to monopolise and destroy the system so the
                           answer is to create an even bigger monopoly but at
                           the federal government level.  Oh great, yeah that
                           will be wonderful.  A service that requires skill
                           and personal service being provided by government
                           robots.  That you can even consider compare the
                           road system to personal health care says volumes.
                           There are zero similiarities.  The closest gov't
                           provided personal service I can think of to health
                           care is housing.  Oh yeah, The Projects.  Section
                           8 housing has been so uplifting for so many.
                 in the current health system due to insurance overhead.
                 Having Gov't as single-payer (with revenue taxed out of us)
                 would eliminate the insurance nightmare.  It would *also*
                 allow for much more safely regulated hospitals.  The NTSB
                        \_ So you think your hospitals are unregulated?  What?
                 has made commercial aviation the safest mode of travel.
                 You're quite likely to die in hospitals due to medical
                 fuckups which are endemic to the healthcare system, and
                 with gov't regulation could be fixed across the whole
                 system, as the NTSB has done for commercial aviation.

                                                \_ Because healing a sick person\
 is just like flying
                           an airplane or running an airport.  Uhm, yeah.
                          \_ Because healing a sick person is just like
                             flying an airplane or running an airport.
                             Uhm, yeah.
                             \_ Does no one here understand the distinction
                                between "health care" and "paying for health
                                care"?  The answer becomes increasingly clear..
                                \_ Who ever has the bucks has the power.  You
                                   are not going to get quality health care
                                   from Doctor A when Government or HMO Flunky
                                   B says you don't need that procedure.  Once
                                   you figure that out you'll see why so many
                                   scream about government healthcare.  Whoever
                                   has the bucks has the power and makes the
                                   decisions.  In a government/hmo system that
                                   isn't you or your doctor.
                                   \_ Actually, you're right about the bucks.
                                      Nobody can pay their own medical bills,
                                      So we buy health insurance, and the
                                      insurance company pays the bills.  So the
                                      insurance company has the power.  Their
                                      interest is profit, so they make it hard
                                      for doctors to collect.  This makes it
                                      expensive for doctors to collect.  Which
                                      gets passed onto us--to the point where
                                      many of us can't afford health insurance
                                      anymore.  However, hospitals cannot just
                                      refuse someone care because they're poor.
                                      (By law.)  So doctors have to increase the
                                      prices on those of us who do have insurance.
                                      This situation is spiralling out of control,
                                      and is wasteful.  We *could* simply not offer
                                      any medical care at all to the poor (poor
                                      meaning "not rich", so fuck the middle class
                                      as well as the true poor.)  *Better* is for
                                      prices on those of us who do have
                                      insurance. This situation is spiralling
                                      out of control, and is wasteful.  We
                                      *could* simply not offer any medical care
                                      at all to the poor (poor meaning "not
                                      rich", so fuck the middle class as well as
                                      the true poor.)  *Better* is for
                                      the government to get involved, kick out
                                      the insurance companies, reduce the overall
                                      cost of health care, and make the poor pay
                                      for health care again via taxation.  And
                                      health care *better* be a public service,
                                      because Joe Contageous with intractable
                                      TB who isn't being treated because he's
                                      poor is going to give it to *you*.
                 Right now hospital A kills people with the same damn
                 fuckups that hospitals C, D, E, F, G, H....-->Z have
                        \_ Yes, the federal government is the driving force
                           for innovation in this country.  Not even God can
                           save us if that ever becomes true.
                 killed people with because they refuse (and can refuse)
                 to learn best-practices learned elsewhere the hard way,
                 by people dying.
                 \_ I used to believe that about roads and military, but I
                    don't any longer. Do you know how many private security
                    contractors are in Iraq?  Nearly 50,000.  I'm fairly
                    confident that if the government employed a few companies
                    to perform military functions, it would be cheaper and more
                    efficient.  And the gov't might actually attempt to obey
                    the constitution as well (since it wouldn't have the
                    biggest guns).
                    \_ This is, quite possibly, the most uninformed post
                       \_ If you have something to say, say it.  All you've
                          done is stick your tongue out and go, "NYAH! YOU ARE
                          A DUM POOPYHEAD!"
                          \_ Because that's all you deserve.  Never argue with
                             fools.  They'll pull you down to their level and
                             beat you with experience.
                             \_ You still said nothing.  Here's the best
                                response you can get from what you've said,
                                "NYAH!  YOU ARE A DUM POOPYHED TOO!"  Now
                                we're at the same level of discourse at least.
                                Or the adult version, "I'm soooo smart and you
                                are soooo dumb I can't even begin to explain
                                it!" which is known as, "I have no clue what
                                I'm talking about but I'm going to tell you
                                you're an idiot for not thinking like me,
                    \_ Iraq has been by far the most expensive war the US
                       has ever fought (yes accounting for inflation).  Those
                       50,000 private security contractors have a lot to do
                       it costing so damn much.
                       \_ Where's your data for this?  How much are they
                          costing compared to US uniformed troops in comparable
                          \_ I'm curious as to where your "Nearly 50k" number
                             came from.  As the pentagon has claimed they
                             don't have any numbers on contractors in Iraq,
                             they may be interested in your powers of
                             As for the cost overruns, Henry Waxman just
                             started his hearings.  After almost 4 years of
                             R delay, he may just be able to get you an answer
                             on that.
                             \_ Well, you are wrong and he is wrong, but just
                                read this and see:
                                (Washington Post)
                                \_ An external organization giving an estimate
                                   does not negate my claim that the pentagon
                                   has said they don't know how many contractors
                                   are in iraq.
                                \_ The GAO giving an estimate does not negate
                                   my claim that the pentagon has said they
                                   don't know how many contractors are in iraq.
                                   \_ That wasn't the question.
                                      \_ The question was "Do you know
                                         how many private security
                                         contractors are in Iraq?"
                                         The answer is "By necessity, no."
                                         \_ What is wrong with the GAO
                                            estimate?  Why does it matter if
                                            the Pentagon knows or not when
                                            we're discussing if random motd
                                            poster whos or not from another
                                   Ah, I see.  P has blessed the results of
                                   the external survey.
                                   the external survey.  So you're taking them
                                   as the Pentagon claim.  So.. the auditiors
                                   have to tell the P just how many contracts
                                   they've given out... You don't see a problem
                                   \_ I see no problem with working with the
                                      best numbers available, instead of
                                      throwing up my hands and claiming
                                      that since I can't get perfect
                                      information, there is no point in
                                      even trying to understand the situation.
                                      \_ It doesn't concern you that the P
                                         is spending $Bs on contracts, and
                                         doesn't know where it's going?
                    \_ You're comfortable with the idea of corporations
                       having bigger guns than the government?  Seriously?
                       Our government may be incompetent and wasteful, but
                       corporations are psychopaths.
                       \_ Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Corporations are no
                          more than aggregates of people, with a corporate aim.
                          Sounds like the gov't to me.  Since the gov't doesn't
                          care what the voters think, how precisely is that
                          \_ The main difference between corporations and
                             the government is that corporations compete
                             against each other. The government, through
                             legislation, does not have to compete with
                             industry and can control markets. The
                             government is a form of dictatorship and
                             monopoly rolled into one. Sometimes it's
                             a benevolent dictatorship, but it's still a
                             dictatorship. Smaller government is better.
                             \_ Mega corps that have legal rights as people is
                                just as bad as having an over bearing uncarin
                                gigantic federal system.
                       \_ Actually, technically, corporations are sociopaths,
                          but otherwise I agree with you.  What the person
                          above me doesn't understand is that corps are
                          different from government due to profit motive.  If
                          that can make a buck by killing you horribly, the
                          corp won't hesitate a second.  To get the government
                          to kill someone means making a bunch of slack
                          government employees fill out paperwork, attend
                          meeting, record metrics, and general interfere with
                          other things they'd rather be doing.
           \_ Ha ha!  Talking with people who have lived in countries with
              socialized medicine has made it clear you're full of crap.  Do
              you really want hospitals to turn into the DMV?
              \_ Actually this was from news stories in the US.
                 \_ Which news stories?
              \_ Six years of living with socialized medicine in Japan made it
                 clear to me that hospitals can be efficient, competent, and
                 cheap. Where's your personal experience to the contrary?
                 \_ Canada.
                    \_ How long were you there, and what did they screw up?
                       \_ A friend, and he needed an MRI and found out the
                          waiting list was 18 months long--people dying before
                          they could get an MRI, etc.
                          \_ Anecdotal hearsay evidence isn't very strong.
                             \_ http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba369
                                etc. etc. etc.
2007/2/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45663 Activity:nil
2/5     Hillary: All your profits are belong to us!
2007/2/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45647 Activity:nil
2/3     Omaba and Biden hate Osama Bin Laden.
        \_ Who's Omaba?  You mean Obama?
2007/1/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45578 Activity:nil
1/24    Good news: Kerry won't run: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16790110
2006/12/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45506 Activity:moderate
12/28   John Edwards runs again for the presidency. Let's see, the Dems
        could pick a liberal hippy that has 0% of getting any vote in
        the south, an outspoken female bitch that has no chance of getting
        elected, and a black man whos last name is one letter away from
        being Osama. Dems in 2008... what a joke.
        \_ "Dam negro's name is Obama. That ryhmes with Osama, and his middle
            name is Hussein. Dam negro is a terrorist in disguise, let's
            hang him boys!"                     -average white Southerner
        \_ And, hey, his middle name is Hussein!  Think about it, people..
           Think about it.
        \_ It is unclear to me that people who would not vote for Obama because
           he is black/his name sounds muslim would vote for any other
           Democractic candidate anyway.
           \_ A lot of people are not ready for a black/female president
              who might still vote Democrat. It doesn't mean they hate
        \_ Wait, aren't you the same guy that said Dems had no chance in 2006?
           \_ I must've missed the 2006 Presidential election.
        \_ Wow, aren't we shallow!  "hippy" "bitch" and "black man almost
           named 'Osama'".  You might be right on all points, but let me
           ask you this:  would any of them be a better president than
           \_ whether or not they would be a better president is immaterial.
              The quesion is which is more likely to get elected.
              \_ I already conceded you might be right about their
                 inelectability, given this country's bigotry and sexism.
                 Now, setting aside the question of electability, which
                 would be the better president?
                 \_ I'm not the op but here is my answer which probably
                    resonates with many readers out there:
                      In theory, ANY three candidate will do better than
                    GWB. IMHO GWB is not *my* president, he is the president
                    of the blind masses who voted for him and who are still
                    supporting him. And stop calling him "The president"
                    as the fucktard deserves as much respect as Nixon.
                      In reality though none of the three other candidates
                    will win.  America is made up blind mass who do not
                    understand or care about policies. To them, as long
                    as its leader is strong, unwaivering, and/or good looking
                    or simply with whom they can relate to personally, then
                    that is the leader they will elect. This is the exact
                    reason why Bush and Reagan won despite the fact that
                    they're both fucktards.
                      The blind mass does not want smart and nerdy Kerry
                    + Al Bore. Instead the blind mass want fantasies
                    where the leader is as strong and as likeable as
                    Clint Eastwood, and want to be told that their world
                    has become better because of them. If you Dems do not
                    understand this, you Dems will never win the hearts
                    of the blind mass.                          -former Dem
                    \_ Bitter, much?
                 \_ Better for...?  The American people?  The world?  The
                    western world?  At what?  Domestic policy?  Foreign?
                    Least corrupt (they're all corrupt)?  Strengthing freedoms
                    at home?  Abroad?  Better economic policy?  Better?
           \_ It doesn't matter if my dog would be a better president than
              Bush.  Bush isn't running in 08.  They don't have to beat Bush
              in an election.
              \_ The spectre of Bush will haunt the Republican Party for a
                 while. Who will the GOP nominate? Rice? Tancredo? Gingrich?
                 Are any of these people electable?
                 \_ Guiliani has the charm of Reagan.
                 \_ That's a different issue and I disagree with your opinion.
                    Voters tend to fall into two categories: the party line
                    types who vote for the R/D who are unlikely to either stay
                    home or vote non-R/D no matter what, and the more moderate
                    center who vote for the candidate they like in a personal
                    way.  Bush is nothing but history for the 08 ballot box.
                    Rice is no more electable than Hillary.  Neither has
                    engaged in a real campaign or a real debate.  Gingrich
                    would have the support of a huge number of people but has
                    been on the side lines (mostly) for a long time.  His
                    'crimes' were that he left his wife and married another
                    woman to whom he is still married.  Tancredo?  No.
                    Rudy?  Has more political experience than a Hillary but
                    like Obama, Hillary, and McCain is just a media hyped
                    creation with limited support.  My total guess based on
                    absolutely nothing (motd style) is that we'll see some
                    currently unknown dark horse come from the R side to win
                    the R nomination while one of the D's media hyped creatures
                    emerges with the D nomination but is badly battered by the
                    nomination process.  I think this will be a hard fought
                    election season the likes of which the country has never
                    \_ How many people do you think went into the "non-R" camp
                       over the last 2 years?
                       \_ From the core "always vote R"?  None.  That's the
                          point.  From the center, at current, any number
                          you'd like to name.  But "at current" is not
                          important for the 08 election.  What people think
                          and feel about the names on the ballot after the
                          campaign and a few debates is what matters, not
                          right now.  I make no prediction about who or even
                          which party will actually win the 08 election.  It
                          is far far far far (I feel like I'm writing a Star
                          Wars opener) far far too early for that right now.
                          \_ Bush did horribly on the debate yet he won.
                             Maybe you care about debates. Most
                             Americans do not.
                             \_ I disagree.  The hype at the time was what a
                                fantastic uber debater Gore was and how smart
                                he was and how he was going to mop the floor
                                with W.  He didn't live up to the hype so he
                                (Gore) didn't get what he should have from it.
                                If debates were unimportant to most Americans
                                then it wouldn't have been watched by a zillion
                                people and talked about everywhere the next
2006/12/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign] UID:45493 Activity:high
12/25   R.I.P. James Brown
        \_ http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/bnames-nf/Brown+James
        \_ He was already dead in 1991 (his music style, that is)
           \_ "Brown was one of the first artists inducted into the Rock and
              Roll Hall of Fame, along with Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and
              other founding fathers."
              "Disco is James Brown, hip-hop is James Brown, rap is James
2006/12/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45464 Activity:nil
11/16   Holy Crap!
        42 midgets ring fight a lion, and lose.
        \_ http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/lionmidget.asp
2006/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45328 Activity:kinda low
11/11   FL voter mails in absentee ballot w/ the "inverted jenny" stamp
        (worth about $3 million):
        \_ No, a block of four such stamps is worth $3M.  The person who
           mailed the absentee ballot used only one, which according to
           the article is worth $500K.  It's still a buttload of money
           to have missed out on, of course.
           \_ This must have been intentional.
           \_ Sorry I misread the article, corrected.
2006/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45326 Activity:moderate
11/11   Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry-- 16 percent would
        vote for him in 2008, 24 percent maybe, and 55 will not vote
        for him, period. And therein lies some good news for President
        Bush as he faces the final two years of his Presidency. At
        least he's not John Kerry. Bahahahahahahahahaha
        \_ ELECTION IS OVER. This thread will be deleted in an hour. Sorry.
        \_ Loser says what?
           \_ Hmm, yes, elevating political discourse.  Once an election has
              been ended no one is allowed to discuss it if 'their side' lost.
              ended no one is allowed to discuss it if 'their side' lost.
              Ok, whatever.
              \_ Enjoy your 31% approval rating:
                 \_ I don't have an approval rating and whatever either
                    party's approval rating is at has nothing to do with
                    the level of political discourse or having the right
                    to express political opinions.
              \_ Loser says what?
                 \_ Exactly.  Thanks for reinforceing my point.
                    \_ It's so enjoyable to have the shoe on the other foot.
2006/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45318 Activity:moderate
11/9    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15643639/site/newsweek/page/3
        "Polls going into the election showed a dramatic shift to the
        Democrats, but the actual numbers were less dramatic... The national
        generic polls always exaggerate the Democratic advantage...
        You generally get an over representation of Democrats in the polls.
        If you averaged the pre-election polls, there was a 12-point
        Democratic advantage."
        Just as I said. Liberals are very vocal but they're too lazy
        to vote whereas Republicans don't express their views but tend
        to be loyal hardcore voters.
        \_ Loser say what?
        \_ No, I think it's a case of who is around to answer the phone at
           the times they call and who would actually bother to do so.  I
           don't think either party's voters are "lazy" about voting.  You
           might want to note that a number of conservative ballot measures
           around the country passed (or liberal ones failed) in a lot of
           the same places that voted out incumbent Republicans in favor of
           an unknown Democrat.  Conservatives showed up, they just didn't
           vote for the faux-conservative Republican candidates.
2006/11/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45309 Activity:high
11/9    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/election.main/index.html
        Pelosi said she'll push for implementing all 9/11 Commission
        recommendations on national security, raising the minimum wage to
        $7.25, eliminating corporate subsidies for oil companies, allowing
        the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices, imposing new
        restrictions on lobbyists, cutting interest rates on college loans
        and supporting embryonic stem-cell research. EVIL LIBERAL
        AGENDAS!                                                -Republican
        \_ I think she also said cutting budgets and not raising taxes, like
           she's a Republican.
           \_ Raising the minimum wage is not a tax increaese?
              \_ Its raising the cost of business... which is not a tax.
              \_ budget increase, you mean
           \_ Letting the current tax cut expire is a tax increase.
        \_ http://www.rightwasright.com
           \_ I'm down with 6 and 18.  And before you think I'm joking about
              6, think about how that would work out (note, I didn't say we'd
              _support_ Hussein, just _reinstate_ him)
              \_ You realize that would mean immediate full-scale civil war,
                 \_ I doubt he cares.
        \_ Remember, no matter what the gov't says, the minimum wage is always
           \_ Huh?
              \_ If you lay someone off, they're earning 0 -!pp
                 \_ So raising minimum wage leads to layoffs... uh huh...
                    do some research young grasshopper.
                    \_ I didn't say i agreed with "Remember..." guy, I was just
                       explaining what "zero" meant.
                 \_ Uh, if you lay them off, they're not working for you, so
                    you're not giving them a wage of zero. You either don't
                    give them a wage, or give them wage > minimum. Unless it's
                    one of those special cases or you're being illegal.
                    \_ no, then we all give them a wage in state funds and
                       services in exchange for nothing while they look for
                       another job.
                       \_ ok but then the wage ain't zero?
                          \_ It's not zero.  Wage is the amount of money they
                             get in return when they work.  In this case they
                             are not working, so the wage quantity doesn't
        \_ What about the abortion squads to gather new stem cells and control
           overpopulation? This is a golden opportunity.
        \_ Raising the minimum wage is a pretty blunt instrument, and I
           think it rarely has the result it's implementers intend.
           \_ Raising the minimum is inflationary.  The real reason for doing
              so has nothing to do with working poor.  It has to do with the
              fact that most union worker rates are based on a multiple of the
              minimum wage so by increasing the minimum by some percent she
              just gave an automatic wage increase to most union workers by
              that amount.  It's just a pay off to the unions in exchange for
              supporting the party that the rest of us all pay for.  <s> I'm
              glad to see we're still doing business as usual.  I was somewhat
              concerned something might change.  </sarcasm>.
           \_ what are other alternatives you are proposing?  Here is something
              I don't understand.  If people so dispise minimum wage, why
              there is no talk about "ABOLISHING* it?  Why don't we at the
              same time abolish the minimum *AGE* too?  Let the free market
              decide what is the minimum wage and minimum AGE.
              \- because "people" dont despise the minimum wage.
                 in fact it's not even close. it's quite popular in
                 nationalwide polling. google for the obvious like
                 "poll, support minimum wage" etc. we can reasonably
                 argue about various parts of the regulatory state but
                 only nutjobs want to go back to laissez faire red in
                 tooth and claw [disallow regulation of hours, health and
                 safety etc, see lochner etc.].
2006/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45300 Activity:kinda low 80%like:45298 66%like:45296
11/9    Allen to concede this afternoon:
        http://tinyurl.com/y25erv (washingtonpost.com)
        \_ No recount?
           \_ What for?  7k is too big a margin to bother.  Although if it was
              120k and in Ohio then a number of people would be screaming
              fraud and recount and disenfranchisement.  At least Kerry had
              the balls to do the right thing and let it go.  So does Allen.
              \_ Allen let it go because previous recounts have in VA have not
                 yielded enough of a difference to allow for a conceivable
                 victory. Also, there's every indication that he'll run again,
                 and if he does, he won't want to be remembered as the loser of
                 a recount.
                 \_ If it was a smaller number I'm sure he would've fought it
                    but 7k is just silly in such a small state.  Even in CA
                    that would be a tough number to overcome.
2006/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45297 Activity:nil
11/9    Burns concedes.  I think that's it.
        \_ No recount?
           \_ Why would there be?
         \_ Montana law says it has to be less that 0.25% for a free recount
            and less than 0.5% for any recount (the loser has to pay, he
            gets his money back if the recount shows he won.)  Over 0.5%,
            no recounts (I don't know what happens if fraud can be shown).
            Burns lost by over half a percent.
            \_ Interesting.  So if X appears losing to Y by 0.3%, and X wants a
               recount while Y doesn't, and then Y ends up losing, does Y have
               to pay?
               recount while Y doesn't, and then Y ends up losing, does that
               mean Y is now responsible for the cost even though (s)he didn't
               ask for a recount and (s)he didn't cheat?  If so, does that
               mean one shouldn't enter the election unless one can afford a
               potential recount?
               \_ No, if X wins the state pays.
2006/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45296 Activity:nil 66%like:45300
11/9    Allen to concede this afternoon:
2006/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:45265 Activity:nil
11/8    As it turns out, despite more spending for Republican campaigns,
        the Democrats won.  Elections do not always follow money.
        \_ err. they did kept the Senate.  and only Senate can impeach
           the president, no?
           \_ Well, unless 'kept' means 'lost' in this context.....
           \_ I guess kept is a way of saying "didn't keep"?
           \_ No, the house can impeach the POTUS.
              \_ More correctly, the house impeaches, the senate convicts.
                 While presidents have been impeached by the house, none has
                 been convicted by the senate.
                 \_ Simple majority in the House to impeach; 2/3 majority in
                    the Senate to convict.
           \_ This is a new meaning of the word "kept" that I'm not familiar
              with.  Perhaps you could enlighten us?
2006/11/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45253 Activity:nil
11/8    Santorum announces will run for President in 2008.
        \_ How better to bounce back from a large margin defeat?
        \_ That should provide some nice comedy until the New Hampshire
           primary and Iowa caucus.
        \_ You have been trolled.
2006/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45221 Activity:nil
11/7    Has anybody heard the rumor about the college students who
        are going to kill themselves publicly if the Dems lose?
        \_ Just like the ones who were going to move to Canada?
        \_ Sounds like a plan, go for it!
        \_ McCain says he'll commit suicide if the Dems win [the Senate]...
           \_ Some HIV+ gay activists in NYC said they were going to
              do something earth shattering if the Dems lose.
              See dailykos.
              \_ Can't find it.  (Never read DailyKos before, can't figure
                 it out.)
              \_ They've been losing every year since 94.  Why now?
                 \_ You have been trolled.
2006/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45217 Activity:nil
11/7    http://www.electoral-vote.com
        Review the 2006 polls, watch all Blue-leaners go Red just like '04!
        \_ After Al Gore and Kerry's uber-fuckups beyond comprehension
           I'm no longer voting for anyone.             -disillusioned
        \_ Sorry Republicans have to work.
        \_ in the Gurus section, add Novak:  Senate 47-53, House 222-213 -op
        \_ Where do you get specific state results? (Props, etc.)
           \_ there probably isn't a central repository for state ballot item
              pre-election polls
           \_ You can get the CA stuff from the CA Secretary of State site.
        \_ for completeness, here's the Washington Post "tournament of
           champions" (of previous election-prediction winners)
           http://csua.org/u/hed (washingtonpost.com)
        \_ So why is it only a third of the Senate?
           \_ So why is it so many motd'ers are idiots?
              \_ Because I flunked history?  How about be helpful rather than
                 a prick?
                 \_ Have you flunked google as well?  Or the great wikipedia
                    search?  Grow up.
                    \_ No, his real problem is the schools stopped teaching
                       any form of civics before he was born.  It isn't his
                       fault his government controlled education taught him
                       nothing about government.
                          SNOW AND WENT TO SCHOOL 10 HOURS A DAY STUDYING
                          UNLIKE WE DID IN THE OLD DAYS.
           \_ yer hawt 6th grade teacher who wants to have sex with you sez:
              "because Senators have 6-year terms, House reps have 2-yr terms"
              \_ Thanks!  (Duh)
        \_ So why is it only half-ish of the Senate?
2006/11/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45179 Activity:moderate
11/5    wtf is this?
        Can someone explain the rapid turn in polls?  Don't tell me it's
        GOP TV advertising; but it would be the only principal reason.
        \_ In case you haven't noticed for many polls out there you need to
           add +10-15 points in favor of the R. This is because conservatives
           in general are very hushed about their intentions and they don't
           like to take polls or talk to pollsters.
           \_ The same reason why you never hear anyone claiming to be R
              in SF even though 1/5 are registered R. They'd get beat up
              or ridiculed if their friends find out. It's worse being R
              in SF than being a gay man in Tennessee.
           \_ The same reason why you never hear anyone claiming to be R
              in SF even though 1/5 are registered R. They'd get beat up
              or ridiculed if their friends find out.
              \_ So you think the open minded liberal and friendly folks in
                 the SF area would physically assault someone for being R?
                 \_ Absolutely. SF is tolerant to anyone liberal. That's
                    why you never hear the other 1/5 of the voice. They're
                    scared of liberals.
                 \_ No just SF. Many parts of the south bay as well.
           \_ That goes for exit polling too, apparently.  In most countries
              exit polls are used to see if the election was fair.  For some
              reason, in the United States conservatives don't like admitting
              they voted for their candidates.  Either that or the election
              is not fair, which can't be possible, right?
              \_ Elections have been rigged in this country before either
                 of the current parties existed.  That goes without saying.
                 As far as exit polls go, yes, I believe there is a difference
                 between some small third world country doing exit polls and
                 the US spanning 3 time zones with exit poll reports coming
                 out from the east coast before the west coast polls have
                 closed.  It isn't that hard to tweak the numbers and there
                 is a very partisan reason for doing so (to make late voters
                 not bother).  As far as talking to exit poll people, no, I
                 absolutely don't have the time to waste talking to some exit
                 poll taker for whatever media outlet.  There is no value or
                 requirement to do so in order to support my candidate so I
                 wouldn't do it.  I don't 'admit' to having voted for my
                 candidate(s).  I just 1) don't care to spend my time telling
                 you and 2) don't think it's any of your business anyway.
        \_ Yes.  Because polls are a measure of who is being polled.  In
           tight races with small samples it only takes a small change in
           the pollees to shift the final numbers a significant amount.
           The pollees to shift the final numbers a significant  amount.
           That's why I've said for years that polls are useless. In a wide
           margin race you don't need one and in small margins everything
           falls within the margin of error so there's no point to it.
2006/11/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:45178 Activity:low
11/6    On the timing of the Saddam verdict.  Hmm ... what to think?
        "The idea's preposterous. This is one of these tinfoil hat sort of
        things." -WH press sec Snow
         - http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1781719.htm
        "Only the naive believe it's a coincidence."
         - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1940534,00.html
        \_ What to think?  Think for yourself.
        \_ Its all part of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, you know the
           one that is run by the Bush BrownShirts and is responsible
           for the "hundreds" of warcrimes against dissidents across
           the country. The Cabal will do anything to keep itself in
           power. We are just cattle to them. They are preping us for
           colonization. Trust No One. -fmulder
           \- i really do think the Cockroach Republicans are only limited
              by imagination and are not at all ethics. now if some "crypto-
              anarchist" would get a job at diebold and put in a virus to
              cause mass failure on election day, instead of cracking DMA
              technology, that would be interesting. you have to wonder
              what the aftermath would look like if there simply was no
              result to a large fraction of the elections in the country.
              [i think this is a really tricky area to come up with remedies.
              it's one when when basically the election is solid with a few
              one off problems, but mass problems would be unprecidented].
              \_ yes all corruption is republican.  democrats are all squeaky
                 clean and golden.  you are brilliant.  your solution to your
                 false sense of republican-only corruption is voter machine
                 anarchy.  great.  all that will happen is setting a new date
                 and doing them on paper followed by lawsuits about how the
                 ballot format disenfranchised stupid people.
                 \- i didnt say the democrats were clean. i did say the new
                    breed of cockroach republicans have charted new terrain
                    in corruption and sleaze. sure it's possible some Dems
                    have it in them, but until they do it, it's a thought
                    crime. here i include things like inter-census
                        \_ $90k in your fridge isn't a thought crime.  and
                           he's still in office and has his committe position
                           too, btw.
                    gerrymandering, signing statements, something like the
                        \_ gerrymandering is a cooperative two party effort.
                    cheney energy tast force is vastly more secretive than
                    the hillary health care one. i thought Billhary had plenty
                        \_ secrets are not corruption nor a sign of it in and
                           of themselves.
                    of sleazy with filegate and travelgate and such or
                    rostenkowsky stealing postage stamps but delay, brownie,
                    are all taking it to a new level. this is a far cry from
                        \_ not really. same old, same old.  i see no real
                           difference.  they just have different sub-
                           specialties of corruption and an equal share of
                           the generic stuff.
                    the part of people like warren rudman, for example ... or
                    even alan simpson or o hatch. at least mccain is
                    apologetic over the keating five episode.
                        \_ mccain is a scum bag.  i dont want his apology.
                           i want his head on a pike with all the rest of
                           the corrupt scum bags in DC.  his apology has
                           no value.  apologise for a joke gone bad? sure.
                           apologise for criminal activity?  sorry, pal, try
                           prison instead.
                           \_ So McCain gets the death sentence for bribery
                              but Cheney gets a pass for colluding to offer
                              no-competition contracts to Halliburton? If it's
                              death for the goose, it's at least prison for the
                              \_ Pike em all but I'd settle for prison.  And
                                 I do mean *all* regardless of party.  The
                                 Congress would be mighty close to empty if
                                 we really took corruption seriously.
                                 \_ Agreed. --erikred
                                    \- if you think mccain and cheney are
                                       comparable, i dont think we can
                                       really have a conversation [speaking
                                       personally]. mccain has done some
                                       fucked up things [agan keating 5],
                                       but he's also done some thing waaaaay
                                       beyond almost all others and they are
                                       things you cant make up or posture.
                                       i mean not only was he tortured but
                                       was super connected and could have
                                       gotten himself out of it. he adopted
                                       child from bangladesh ... that probably
                                       wasnt motived by it being good press,
                                       his son is in the marines etc.
                                    \_ So do you guys believe that the
                                       politicians presently in power are
                                       somehow born bad, and we just need
                                       to replace them with Good(TM) people?
                                       This makes no sense to me.  The problem
                                       is not that we happen to have bad
                                       people in Washington, but rather
                                       that we have a culture in Washington
                                       that brings out the worst in people.
                                       I have no idea how to fix this culture,
                                       and I'm not convinced it will ever
                                       be fixed, but I'm positive that just
                                       changing the face of the corruption
                                       won't do it.
                                       \_ I can't speak for pp, but I don't
                                          think they're all bad people. I think
                                          we have a system in place now that
                                          encourages corruption and moral
                                          ambiguity (i.e., a disincentive to
                                          avoid conflicts interest). There are
                                          tools that could be used to fix this
                                          (or at least make it unattractive),
                                          but there's a culture of back-
                                          scratching and mutual-benefit cover-
                                          ups that makes real reform unlikely.
                                          Campaing finance reform would be an
                                          excellent step in the right direction
                                          but a non-partisan, independent body
                                          to investigate corruption might be a
                                          better idea. The problem is that even
                                          a "Grand Inquisitor" office is
                                          vulnerable to corruption and
                                          political stacking, and so the entire
                                          cycle keeps rolling. --erikred
                                       \_ I don't know.  My current working
                                          theory is that, for the most part,
                                          only power-hungry megalomaniacs
                                          are willing to go into politics.
                                          Normal honest people would quit
                                          before they ever got to even the
                                          state level.
                                       \_ I believe that line about power
                                          corrupting and absolute power, etc.
                                          Term limits and none of this merry-
                                          go-round stuff to a different
                                          district stuff.  Serve your time as
                                          a *public service* and get the hell
                                          out.  It sickens me everytime some
                                          senator retires after 6+ terms in
                                          office and they have him voting from
                                          his death bed wheeled into the
              \_ Non-event. The media would bluster about it for a week or
                 so, until some juicy sex scandal popped up. Most people
                 would just say let's do it over w/ paper ballots and the
                 country would go about its business. I'm all for this plan
                 b/c it would surely return us to paper ballots and delayed
                 election results. Delayed results means the media would
                 have nearly nothing to pontificate about and we would have
                 to be subjected to endless drivel about red-blue state
                 "seismic" shifts on election day.
2006/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45111 Activity:nil
11/02   R's go apeshit on Kerry, Dem polling gets even better:
        \_ it's probably the "i remember the last time i had a choice between
           the student-body president (kerry) and the asshole-in-chief (dubya)"
           effect, or maybe people realize now a 1-party govt fucking sucks
           effect, or maybe people realize now a 1-party govt isn't working
           \_ No one likes the snobby student body president types.  And
              no one likes Kerry.  Not even the motd usuals bother trying to
              defend him in any real way.  W may be the aic, but Kerry is still
              an elitist holier-than-thou prick.  As far as 1-party governments
              go, you could swap any number of R for any number of D in
              Congress and you'd still have a 1-party government.  It's all
              just bread n circuses.  They pork the budget, pork their pages,
              pork their interns, and pork their wallets full of cash after
              they finally leave office and become 'consultants' for the next
              round of pigs.
              \_ You got my point exactly:  No one likes the asshole-in-chief
                 or the student-body president, but people are remembering
                 the last time they had a choice, which was my point.
                 What, did you think I dredged up "student-body president" as
                 a neutral or pro-kerry phrase?  c'mon.
                 As for 1-part govt, I'd agree that an all-Dem govt may be
                 a suspect as an all-GOP govt, but I feel that having one
                 heading executive and one heading legislative is less worse
                 than one controlling both.
                 \_ Would it really be so crazy to have a no-party government?
                    I think parties have outlived their usefulness and do far
                    more harm than good.
2006/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45094 Activity:very high
11/02   http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football
        Allen regularly called Blacks the N word in college.
        \_ So just curious, does Swift Boating Allen make what Kerry has said
           ok?  Is that the new standard in politics?  You've got one or two
           guys who said he used the word decades ago and several more guys
           who said he didn't.  Whatever.
           \_ lol
           \_ What Kerry said was accidental, and not "oops, I exposed my real
              feelings" accidental, but a literal accidental omission of one
              word that his notes made it clear he meant to say.  Try again.
              \_ URL for either statement?  Mind reading and wishing doesn't
           \_ Stay on target, little RNC talking pointer, stay on target!
              \_ I'll take your non-reply as a bullseye.  Thanks.
        \_ Yes, please!  More irrelevant issues!  I don't want to know anything
           about the issues!
           \_ Well yesterday people were asking why Allen was a racist prick
              and why the whole "he just totally made up a racist slur and
              didn't realize it was racist" argument is bullshit.
              \_ It's a Swift Boat attack.  It's all "he said it", "no he
                 didn't".  If you didn't accept the same kind of attack on
                 Kerry, then you have no business accepting it on Allen.
                 \_ The Swift Boaters were disputing documented historic
                    facts.  There's no correlation at all with this situation.
                    If you want to make a comparison, it's something like
                    Anita Hill accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment.
                    \_ Documented historic facts?  Kerry's record, such as it
                       is, is chock full of irregularities.  His own stories
                       aren't even consistent about where he was, when, with
                       who, and what happened.  I do agree the Anita Hill
                       accusations are similar.
                       \_ Hey, lay off.  He's been a little confused ever
                          since Nixon ordered him into Cambodia in '68.
           \_ Hey, at least he is running.
              \_ But this has nothing to do with his politics.  This entire
                 election is going to be decided based on nothing to do with
                 the issues.
                 \_ Whether he is a lying, racist asshole has nothing
                    to do with his politics?
                 \_ Welcome to how the Kerry campaign felt in 2004.
                 \_ Actually it does.  When he tells someone born and raised
                    Virgina "Welcome to Virginia, Macaca" (paraphrased) that
                    says a lot about him and how he sees non whites as second
                    class citizens.  Do we really need more racist yahoos
                    running our country?
                    \_ Maybe they like wasicsts in VA. Who are we in CA to
                    \_ Maybe they like rasicsts in VA. Who are we in CA to
                       tell them who they should elect to represent
                       tell Virginians who they should elect to represent
                       themselves? This is a distinctly local issue, not a
                       national one.
                       \_ US Senators pass bills that directly affect
                          every human being on the planet.  Also John
                          Kerry isn't running.
                          \_ So what? We have never had national election
                             of Senators. No matter what I think of Allen
                             my opinion doesn't matter b/c I can't vote
                             for him. Instead of wasting my time w/ news
                             about his wacism, I'd prefer to hear about
                             CA news. [ If you want to argue that we in
                             CA ought to express our outrage so that VA
                             voters are pressured to elect someone other
                             than Allen, shouldn't VA citizens have the
                             right to choose whoever they think is best
                             for them, w/o outside interference? ]
                             Re Kerry, see below. I think the whole Kerry
                             thing has been blown way out of proprotion.
                       \_ "But this has nothing to do with his politics."
                          \_ I disagree. This does have something to do
                             w/ politics, just not national politics. I
                             think the Kerry comment is also being blown
                             way out of proportion. So Kerry said something
                             dumb, let Bostonians deal w/ him.
                             way out of proportion. I would be willing to
                             entertain the argument that the Kerry comment
                             is noteworthy on the national state b/c Kerry
                             was a national figure by virtue of his Pres.
                             bid. Even so, the press needs some sense of
                             \_ Actually, this race will probably determine
                                which party controls the Senate, so it is
                                of huge national importance.
                                \_ Then we should all get to vote on it.
                                   \_ We can all campaign and contribute
                                \_ By your logic, ever Senate race is
                                   crucial and we should get to vote
                                   on each one b/c it might affect
                                   national policy. But that is not
                                   the way things work. We vote for
                                   our representatives only. And what
                                   gives me, a CA citizen, the right
                                   to dictate national (or local)
                                   policy to VA citizens? They are
                                   after all citizens of a co-equal
                                   sovereign state in our republic.
                                   How would you like it if the VA
                                   citizens came to your home and
                                   told you how to run things?
                    \_ No, we just need one supreme leader.
                       \_ I'll take the first term and let you know how it
        \_ Listen to it yourself and decide, did he really mean to
           say "mohawk" or "macaca"?
           \_ He didn't claim he said "mohawk".
              \_ "Wadhams said Allen campaign staffers had begun calling
                 Sidarth "mohawk" because of a haircut Wadhams said the Webb
                 staffer has. "Macaca was just a variation of that,"
                 Wadhams said."
                 \_ Yes?  and?  Macaca != Mohawk.  Why would we expect to hear
                    Mohawk when he said Macaca, he said he said Macaca, every
                    other person there said he said Macaca and no one said he
                    said Mohawk?  I love the motd.  It's full of such oddness.
                 \_ Best excuse ever.  Especially considering the haircut
                    is about as unmokawky as well, a haircut could be.
2006/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45086 Activity:high
11/01   What's more stupid than Kerry's joke? Kerry's apology for the joke.
        For crying out loud, why are liberals so apologetic? I'd respect
        him more had he stood by his comments. Fucking flip-flopper.
        \_ You're too stupid to recognize when someone's calling you stupid.
        \_ KERRY MUST APOLOGIZE! <Kerry apologizes> DAMN FLIP FLOPPERS!
           \_ Karl Rove is a genius, and the Republic is doomed.
           \_ You forgot, Kerry says: "I'll never apologize!"
        \_ Hi troll.  No one here has actually said that.  He also has yet to
           give a real apology that I've seen.  "I'm sorry my comments were
           misinterpreted by [insert daily DNC fax talking points about Bush,
           Iraq, etc here]" is not an apology.  BTW, did he ever apologise
           for calling our troops baby killers and rapists?
           \_ Do you also believe Mark Foley was punked by 15 year old twinks?
              \_ Of course not.  He's a sicko and should have been booted out
                 years ago.  I don't have double standard politics.  Two things
                 mainly bug me about Foley (beyond his actual behavior):
                 1) apparently everyone in DC knew about it and ignored it,
                 2) while one side was trying to bury/ignore it forever, the
                    opposition party appears to have sat on the information
                    for *years* waiting for the right moment politically to
                    release the info instead of outing him when they first
                    found out.  I do not appreciate children/young people
                    being pawns in some silly Congressional election head-count
                    power game.  By either party.  There *are* things that are
                    more important that politics, many things, and this was
                    one of them.
                 \_ While I'm willing to agree that the timing of the Foley
                    revelation is suspicious, remember that it's not the
                    children/young people being manipulated; it's the
                    culpability of the wrongdoers that's being manipulated.
                    Foley (and the GOP leadership) are the ones guilty of
                    manipulating the children/young people. The Dems are guilty
                    of revealing that at a politically senstive moment. Yes,
                    that's not good, but it doesn't excuse or make better the
                    behavior of the GOP leadership in covering this up. -!pp
                    \_ Both sides covered it up.  One side covered it up to
                       retain power, hide it, etc, all the standard reasons.
                       The other side covered it up *until* it was politically
                       advantageous *not* to.  Had they determined it was not
                       yet time to reveal he'd still be trying to bugger the
                       under-age pages while sponsoring bills to nail net
                       \_ You say the Dems covered it up as well.  Do you have
                          evidence they even knew?  The report will come out
                          of the ethics committee next month.  You better hurry
                          and get it to them if you have it.
                          \_ It was reported at the time.  It wasn't a secret.
                             We'll see what comes from the report but I expect
                             that to be a white wash for both parties.  You
                             don't seriously expect the foxes to properly
                             investigate who killed the hens, do you?
                       \_ Show me how the Dems covered it up.
                          \_ By remaining quiet while they knew about it?
                             What do you mean by "how"?
            \_ Isn't the blonde girl still missing in Aruba? Why don't you
               go vent some of your fake fury on that other obvious
               attempt to distract America from your miserable failure in
               \_ Who cares about her?  Why are you trying to distract from
                  the issue?  Because you don't have a real response.  Thanks
                  for playing.
                  \_ Wow, you missesd the obvious point, even when hit in the
                     head by a 2X4. You are even dumber than I imagined. Are
                     you really a Cal student or grad or even dropout?
                     \_    _n_  ______
                         _/o  \/      \@  _________
                        O_             )=(  ____I_ \______
                          \___/\______/   \ \     \_____ I
                                II  II     II           II
                        Go stick your head in a pig.
                     \_ You didn't have a point.  No, I'm not a Cal student or
                        dropout.  I'm here to learn from you how to fail to
                        communicate.  You understood what I was saying but I
                        still don't see why you bothered posting so I have
                        failed to communicate at your level.  Next time I'll
                        simply rant about some totally random event which had
                        nothing to do with anything anyone besides the girl's
                        family cares about.
                        \_ Just like your silly random rant about Kerry.
                           Thanks for making my point for me.
                           \_ Still no point to be seen and no response to
                              what I said.  If that makes you feel smart, then
                              feel smart.  I'm not here to injure your sense
                              of self esteem.
2006/11/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45079 Activity:high
11/01   Good lord, the flubbed Kerry joke is the front page story on every
        single news site.  You'd think he was running for something.
        \_ I think this video puts the whole matter in perspective:
        \_ October Surprise!!!
        \_ well, except nytimes, cbsnews, and latimes
           \_ obLIBERALMEDIA
           \_ Did you actually check nytimes,latimes and cbsnews or do you just
           \_ Did you actually check nytimes, latimes and cbsnews or do you just
              like spreading lies?
              \_ when it's "the" front page story, I interpreted this to
                 mean the lead story.  washingtonpost, abcnews, msnbc all
                 had this as the lead.  ok, I should have made this clear.
        \_ Here is something I don't understand.  What is so offensive about
           this joke?  It is a bit edgy because it has a lot of truth in it.
           Further, you would think combat veteran like Kerry is immued from
           this attack.  Instead, those draft dogers are the one who is
           launching the attack
           \_ Some political pundit pointed out before the 2004 elections:
              "By the time Karl Rove gets done with John Kerry, people won't
               even know which side he fought on".
           \_ What is the truth you think is in it?
              \_ For one thing, no matter how patriotic or idealistic you
                 are, joining a military stuck in a murderous quagmire with
                 no clear mission, mounting casualties and farm-league
                 leadership verges on the suicidally insane.  For another,
                 recruiters tend to focus on lower-income and less educated
                 individuals and frequently extol the military as a way to get
                 ahead--something that would appeal more to someone with less
                 chance of academic/professional success.  Or to put it this
                 way, I don't think the army's attracting the intelligentsia
                 right now.  And what below poster says.  It's a non-issue,
                 albeit a poorly considered statement, and one that the
                 attack dogs can get their filthy teeth around to distract
                 from the real topics up for discussion.  -John
                 \_ The military doesn't target lower intelligence morons.
                    They target smart people from lower income brackets who
                    can use the military to get ahead.  Dumb people are not
                    going to get anything but 3 squares and a cot from a few
                    years of military service.
                    \_ link:tinyurl.com/ym5awa - danh
                    \_ what are you smoking?  do you know almost 1/3 of
                       Army personnel didn't graduate from high school.
                       \_ duh. what are *you* smoking?  _READ_ what I said.
                          Less educated != dumb!  And from reading the motd it
                          is clear that educated != smart, too.
                       \_ The military actually won't take you if you score
                          too low on the IQ tests. They tend to target third
                          and fourth quartile (by IQ) individuals, but they
                          don't want actually stupid people, just average
                          ones that will follow orders. -a Vet
                          \_ That was then, this is now.  With recruiting
                             efforts failing the army has drastically reduced
                             the testing requirements.
                          \_ Is this still the case in the face of more
                             agressive recruiting efforts ?
                             \_ Not really that much:
                                Even the Army will not take you if you
                                below the 26th percentile and they try
                                really hard to only take those above the
                                31st. They are taking more high school
                                droupout, but those actually have to
                                dropouts, but those actually have to
                                score above 50%.
                 \_ So despite the statistics that prove you wrong, you believe
                    the idea that you have to be a dumb-ass to be in the
                    military?  I'm starting to think it wasn't a botched joke,
                    but what Kerry really believes.
                    \_ You're starting to believe this because of some motd
                       ramblings?  You're a pretty easily led person.
        \_ The conservative media can finally rally around something that takes
           the heat off of the Republicans.
           \_ Who is the conservative media?  Would that be CD?  DVD?  78s?
2006/11/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45073 Activity:very high
11/01   http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/kerry.remarks/index.html
        John Kerry:  "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to
        wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I
        personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American
        who was offended"
        \_ Too little, too late, damage done.  Even the original joke was
           stupid.  Resorting to personal attack for political gain shows
           the weakness in one's own ideas.  Leno should be making jokes like
           that.  Kerry is no Leno.
           \_ Ahh, so he should have apologized, unless he apologized, in
              which case apologies don't matter.
              \_ Try again.  "Too little, too late".  It's right there only
                 a few lines up.  At least *try* to respond to what was
                 actually said instead of making something up to reply to.
           \_ this was a type of macaca or RAAAWWWRRR mistake - an inadequate
              level of appreciation of a flub getting amplified by your enemies
              even though you made the flub in a friendly environment or that
              it was innocently dumb.
        \_ Had he said this right away, this would be over now.
           \_ No it wouldn't.
              \_ yes it would. no it wouldn't. yes it would.  whatever.
           \_ Had the clip been played in context, it never would have started.
              \_ It's politics.  boo hoo.  Don't make jokes if you're not
                  \_ It's attitudes like this that are why this country
                     is fucked.
                     \_ Yes the country was great and lollipops fell from
                        trees prior to 1994.  Kerry was stupid.  He got caught
                        being stupid no different than Allen's 'macaca' idiocy
                        and he's paying the price.  Were you around defending
                        poor Allen on the false charges of racism a few weeks
                        ago?  No.  Thanks for playing.
                        \_ Allen's comment was given full context.  And his
                           meaning was very clear.  He _is_ a racist fuck.
                           Kerry's comment in context shows his meaning clearly
                           as well.  You think he was calling the troops
                           "stupid".  You're wrong.
                           \_ I read Allen's full comment.  There is no
                              context beyond the one line and noting the guy
                              has been following his campaign around.  And?
                              What is the context that makes it clear he is
                              \_ He's Republican. QED. -liberal
                                 \_ Sorry, I forgot that anyone who disagrees
                                    with your agenda is racist.
                                    \_ You are replying to a sarcastic troll.
                                       \_ It's the motd.  There's no one else
                              \_ Context or no, Allen's comment was racist.
                                 It's basically the French-african way of
                                 caling the opposition staffer 'nigger'.
                                 \_ That's basically the same as saying
                                    "Context or no, Kerry statement was
                                    insulting to the troops."
                                    \_ OK, you got me, I phrased that poorly.
                                       Read: The context of Allen's statement
                                       has no mitigating effect on the content
                                       of his statement.  Using the word
                                       'macaca' in a duscussion about racism
                                       is a mitigating context, using it to
                                       describe an Indian person is not.
                                       \_ I think the mitigating factor
                                          is that prior to this little
                                          incident many Indians didn't
                                          even know about this wacist
                                          even know about this racist
                                          slur. And after finding out,
                                          it is still a big whatever.
                                          \_ Racist!
                                          \_ Mitigating in what way? In that
                                             many Indians didn't realize he
                                             was using a racist slur? How does
                                             that mitigate the racist slur? I
                                             mean, I'd understand if that
                                             didn't rile anyone up in a bar,
                                             but at a political rally?
                                             \_ You are a flubarax!!!!!!  Oh
                                                wait, flubarax doesn't mean
                                                a damned thing.  Or maybe it
                                                is the most offensive racist
                                                slur possible in the Belgian
                                                Congo during the 1750s?  Are
                                                you offended?
                                                \_ Of course not. Your made-up
                                                   word has no cultural context
                                                   as a racial slur, or, more
                                                   to the point, no such
                                                   context that you are aware
                                                   of. "Macaca," however, is
                                                   a racial slur in a cultural
                                                   context that Allen was
                                                   aware of.
                                                   \_ Macaca meant nothing to
                                                      anyone until someone
                                                      found some obscure slang
                                                      from the colonial era.
                                                      You have absolutely no
                                                      evidence Allen was aware
                                                      of that meaning.  I have
                                                      yet to see a link showing
                                                      what it meant and why he
                                                      might have known that.
                                                      The link from yesterday
                                                      was about the Belgian
                                                      Congo which Allen has
                                                      absolutely no relation
                                                      to.  Flubarax!
                                                      \_ Belgium, man, Belgium!
                                                      \_ You didn't look very
                                                         hard, if at all:
                                                         \_ If a tree falls
                                                            in the woods
                                                            and no one cares
                                                            I guess the tree
                                                            huggers feelings
                                                            still get hurt.
                                                            Like I said this
                                                            is a big Whatever.
                        \_ Don't you think there are better things we could
                           be spending time on?
                           \_ Absolutely not.  Start your own thread if you
                              want.  I'm entertained, sorry if you're not.
                        \_ How are they false?  I think Allen is guilty of
                           thinking everyone is stupid.  He happens to
                           use the French Tunisian word for "nigger",
                           his mother is from French Tunisia, and then
                           he tells everyone he made the word up on the
                           spot?  - danh
                           \_ The 'macaca' guy wasn't black.  Oops.
                        \_ Don't you think there are better things we could
                           be spending time on?
                              \_ The term refers to those with dark skin.
                                 \_ URL, please.  I don't have my French
                                    Tunisian slang dictionary handy.
                                    \_ You don't need a dictionary to equate
                                       a French Tunisian word for "darkie"
                                       to anyone with dark skin. But hey,
                                       because _you_ probably do, here's a
                                       Wikipedia article on "macaca."
                           \_ See, I don't know if I buy this.  I don't
                              really care about Allen, maybe he is a racist,
                              I don't know.  But the argument that "X's
                              mother probably knew Y, so X must know Y" is
                              pretty weak.
                              \_ Considering Allen's history I don't think it's
                                 a weak at all.  The man is a racist prick.
                                 Not because he's a republican, but because
                                 he's a racist prick.
                                 \_ So, what's his history that suggests
                                    he's racist? -clueless
                                    \_ angry motd liberal said so.
                                    \_ He used to routinely called Blacks
                                       "n*ggers" in college, amongst other
                                       \_ Bzzzt.  Sorry, Swift Boat style
                                          attacks aren't going to cut it.
              \_ I heard this first on John Ziegler's show out of KFI.  He had
                                          \_ Actually, 2004 showed us that
                                             GOP style campaigning works.
                                             I am glad to see the Democrats
                                             embrace the Karl Rove style
                                             of smear politics. Have a little
                                             fire, scarecrow!
              \_ I heard this first on John Ziegler's show of of KFI.  He had
                 heard only that soundbite on a local news station.  It was in
                 the context he heard.  Given the number of groans from the
                 audience, I don't think it was clarified by context. -emarkp
        \_ If Kerry was really insulting the intelligence of people in
           the military then he was insulting himself.
           \_ Kerry is in the military?  Which branch and what unit?
              \_ hi idiot
                 \_ hi humorless clown.
        \_ Kerry's Non-Apology Not Accepted (by Freepers)
           \_ That's because they're neanderthal cretins.
           \_ duh, they only quoted the first half of the compound sentence.
              It's two parts:  (a) regret for being misinterpreted, and (b)
              apology to people who were offended
        \_ Jesus fucking christ, is there nothing more important on the
           electoral agenda than a non-candidate making a badly timed and
           ill-considered joke?  That's like a shitbag like Mark Foley getting
           nailed over harassing pages rather than anything of substance, or
           starting a national crisis over a cigar dildo.  Have American
           politics come to this?  I think I'm leaving for Chile again.  -John
           \_ This is important because only ~2 years ago this was the guy
              his party put up to represent them as their best candidate to
              run the entire country for the next 4-8 years.  His 'flubbed
              joke' shows a lack of basic brain power and wisdom that reflects
              on his supporters and those like him.  If it was a nobody like
              Murtha, who gets some press time but is otherwise nobody, then
              it would've had about 4 hours of news cycle time, if that.
           \_ I am pissed at John Kerry.  He need to learn how to shut the
              fuck up.  I will let Bill Clinton have another BJ over this guy
2006/10/31-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45061 Activity:kinda low
10/31   Looks like the October Surprise was Kerry being an incredible
        \_ Heh.  link:csua.org/u/hcc
        \_ He certainly didn't sound good, did he.
        \_ I wish he had STFU until Nov 8th.
        \_ Uh, for botching a joke about the president, and then having
           it taken out of context?
           \_ Excuse me but "bullshit!".  He meant it exactly the way it was
              said.  He's an idiot.
              \_ Have you read the transcript?  It followed another Bush joke.
                 The audience got the joke, even as mangled. You're either
                 lying or stupid.
                 \_ I read it.  The motd is the only place on the planet that
                    agrees with you.  Maybe you're right and the entire world
                    is wrong.  He certainly needs to STFU and stop trying to
                    play tough guy in some lame attempt to make up for the
                    way he allowed himself to be run over in 2004.  "Oh, I'm
                    a tough guy now, vote for me in 2008, no apologies for
                    being a moron, rah rah rah!"
                    \_ The whitehouse, rushlimbaugh, and freerepublic are the
                       only others who believe as you do.  And the whitehouse
                       is already backing off their stridency on this, likely
                       because of Kerry's press conference. I now must put you
                       in the "stupid" column.
                       \_ Which is why officials and elected leaders in his
                          own party have asked him to *not* show at Dem
                          rallies this week and said he should apologise.
                          If being aware of current events is your stupid
                          column then please put me firmly on that side.
                          \_ Tester, Casey and Ford do indeed have a bit
                             of the stupid in them.
              \_ Yes, he meant that you can either work hard and study or you
                 can end up getting your country's military stuck in a bloody
              \_ I think that Kerry is just as good at flubbing public speeches
                 as Bush is, and this is a typical example.  I think Kerry was
                 making a jab at Bush just as he said, but he should have done
                 what a normal person would with an apology, rather than
                 preemtively attacking Rush Limbaugh.  /That/ showed his lack
                 of character more than the original comment. -emarkp
                 \_ I vote based on a person's character.  -Average American
                 \_ From http://RushLimbaugh.com, from yesterday's show:
                    With the cute little comment "Watch the video, and see if
                    Kerry or anyone else laughs as if it's a joke at Bush's
                    expense." along with a video clip with the laughter (that
                    is indeed there on the live feed) is cut.  Preemptive, my
                    foot.  Fuck you, and fuck Rush.
                    \_ I don't give a rip about Rush Limbaugh.  Kerry slammed
                       him before his show even aired. -emarkp
        \_ And to think this arrogant moron was almost elected....
           \_ Yeah, good thing the other arrogant moron was elected.
              \_ Actually, yes, it is.  There are worse things than GWB.  Such
                 as John Kerry.  He flubbed the joke before he made the joke.
                 Or did he make the joke before he flubbed the joke.  Or maybe
                 the joke was just nuanced and he's the only one smart enough
                 to understand it.  Or he flubbed the nuancing of the apology
                 before making the joke about the soldier's apology to him.
                 Or something like that.
                 \_ Or maybe he was making a joke about the President partying
                    too much in college instead of learning that you don't get
                    to invade countries just because you're the President. I
                    know, it's not really funny because the results of Bush's
                    Folly have been so painful, but do try to see the irony.
                    Frankly, I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine
                    anyone doing worse than Bush. [Edit: Of course that's
                    immediately not true. Lyndon Larouche, Ross Perot, Dan
                    Quayle, Dick Cheney, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes... hell, the
                    list is long and varied. It's also populated by the lower
                    5% of the pool.]
                    \_ How weird that you only mention right wingers as people
                       who could be worse.  I'm sure you're not allowing your
                       personal bias to color your thinking.  Carry on,
                       Comrade!  The fact is both parties are corrupt and this
                       whole "your party is teh suxx0r but my party is teh
                       r0xx0rz!@1" thing is truly moronic.  If you can't see
                       the flaws in one party while being able to see the same
                       flaws in the other, you are truly hopeless.  Vote third
                       \_ Oh, sorry: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Joe
                          Lieberman, James McGreevey. Find me corrupt Dem
                          chickenhawks, and I'll add them to the list.
                          \_ So you think Dan Quayle belongs on the same list
                             as Stalin?  Whatever.  Vote third party.
                             \_ No, I think DQ would have made a worse Pres.
                                than Bush. I think Stalin would make a worse
                                Pres. than Bush. I think 95% of the pool would
                                make a better Pres. than Bush. Did you flunk
                                reading comprehension?
                             \_ What third party?  Libertarian?  Green?
                                Communist?  A more reasonable response is that
                                people need to get away from parties, and we
                                need to find ways to get higher quality
                                individuals into politics.  The solution of
                                the problem of political parties is not
                                more political parties.
        \_ HALP US JON CARRY!
        \_ So I am really trying to figure this one out: why does a toungue
           tied has-been washed up second rate politician rate so much
           attention? Is this just an effort by the GOP to change the subject
           off of Iraq? Do they think this is going to work for them, or is
           \_ Not to state the obvious, BUT YES, OF COURSE.
           this one of those "Hail Mary" situations, like in the WSU vs. Cal
           game last week?
2006/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44933 Activity:nil
10/23   Daschle predicts Dems will take Senate with seven seats
        \_ He couldn't predict his own loss.
2006/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44931 Activity:nil
10/23   Rahm, DNC pitbull, stacks the deck in favor of conservative (D)
2006/10/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44906 Activity:nil
10/21   From the the Fall 2006 Forefront:
        "In response to Dean Newton's message [spring 2006], the world is
        indeed 'flat.'  But Friedman is wrong about our technological and
        economic preeminence being in jeorpardy because more degrees are coming
        out of Asia.  Every engineer with a degree tries to develop a product
        that makes life better or makes millions of dollars.  I was able to do
        this even without a degree, so we shouldn't feel threatened."
        --Trevor J. Buckingham, Senior Software Engineer and Owner, QL2
          Software Company, Chicago (EECS 1998-200)
        \_ Looks like his brother (father?) is CEO.  Guess that's the real route
           to success.
        \_ Looks like his brother (father?) is CEO.  Guess that's the real
           route to success.
           \_ It always has been.  Nothing new there.
2006/10/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:44791 Activity:nil
10/12   US Election Assistance Commission finds little evidence of fraud
        at voting polls.  Most voting fraud apparently occurs through
        absentee ballots:
        \_ So they didn't find stuffed ballot boxes... who said they would?
           Now, where does it say they didn't find evidence of or the potential
           for manipulation of Diebold voting machines?
        \_ Just in time for a story about recently found fraudulent voting
           registration applications by a Democrat group:
2006/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:44641 Activity:nil
10/3    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.htm
        In The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths, you will learn how:
            heterosexual militants have embarked on a systematic
               assault on American values;
            heterosexual activists plan on recruiting your children
               into their lifestyle;
            heterosexuals are undermining traditional marriage;
            heterosexuals are undermining the health and safety of society;
            violence has become a hallmark of the heterosexual lifestyle;
            heterosexuals are intent on eventually recriminalizing
               all freedoms of expression for gay men and women.
2006/9/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44522 Activity:nil
9/25    Huntington Beach trademarks "Surf City USA" and sues Santa Cruz
        http://tinyurl.com/jamv5 (mercurynews.com)
        \_ just FYI, the Huntington Beach pier which most surfers surf is
           also the location of the desposing pipe for treated waste water.
           Granted that those treated waste sewage is colorless and oderless,
           it's makes me laugh everytime I think about it.
           \_ You are breathing my fart gas right now.
        \_ Why can't Santa Cruz just accept that "Surf City USA" does not
           refer to them? Dean (of Jan & Dean, who wrote the song "Surf
           City" along with Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys) lives in HB and
           said he was thinking of HB when he wrote the song years ago. Santa
           Cruz has fine surf. It's just not "Surf City USA".
           \_ Interesting, there are two cities named "Surf City," one in
              NC and one in NJ.
              \_ And...?
2006/9/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44495 Activity:nil
9/22    "The national Democratic Party is no longer worth the cement needed to
        sink it to the bottom of the sea."
        \_ The guy is right that Dems have not said a thing while
           McCain/Graham/Warner and Cheney "compromised".  However, the
           criticism is premature.  I believe this bill is dead for this
           Congressional session; there are too many controversial elements
           with too little time to bring GOP senators on board.  There is
           insufficient time for GOPers to gain sufficient confidence in the
           talking points to force the Dems to filibuster, which they will
           but they won't need to. -- Also note that the "compromise" stories
           that headlined last night have failed to get front-page on the
           web sites of major newspapers, which indicates the incompleteness
           of the deal.
        \_ The Democratic Party is now the Jew Party, has been for some time.
           \_ Where's ilya when we need him?
2006/9/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44434 Activity:nil
9/18    http://csua.org/u/gx8 (latimes.com, Niall Ferguson op-ed)
        "For the Republican candidate in '08, it might actually be better if
        the Democrats did well in the midterms, because a brief return to power
        on the Hill would expose their chronic incoherence, making the case for
        a Republican comeback two years down the line. That scenario, however,
        is not on the cards. ... Republicans look like they're hanging on."
        Dems -- fucked no matter what happens.
        \_ I was glad the R won the 04 election because I doubt Ds would
           do a better job in Iraq. Imagine Kerry and his D affiliates
           getting blamed for all the shit that's happening in Iraq now.
           Thank God for W's victory in 04.
        \_ You gotta love pompous prognostication...
                \_ can someone summarize the "Chronic incoherence"?  last I
                   checked the Republican party was still claiming they
                   believed in "fiscal responsibility" and "security"
        \_ All this tells me is that Mr. Ferguson got an early look at
           today's Gallup poll results -op
2006/9/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44381 Activity:nil
9/14    Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Warner, and
        Susan Collins tell Dubya to go get stuffed.
        \_ "I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go
           forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House after his
           meeting with lawmakers.
           That's such an elegant way of saying "I will veto anything that
           confirms that what I already did was, in fact, illegal"
           \_ They aren't trying to gut Geneva, honest!  They're just
              clarifying legal language!  All a big misunderstanding.
           \_ He is just trying to keep himself out of jail. All criminals
              do the same thing.
2006/9/7-12 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44311 Activity:nil 66%like:44291
9/6     Purge, Iranian style!
        http://tinyurl.com/j2kzx (iht.com - Int'l Herald Tribune)
        \_ Sounds like he's been taking notes from David Horowitz.
        \_ Persian girls are hot.  Just check http://persiankitty.com.
2006/9/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44302 Activity:kinda low
9/7     http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html
        Clinton is Dem's favorite with virtually no chance of winning,
        and Gore is Dem's second favorite with Gore virtually no desire
        of running. This is the story of how Dems fuck it up for the
        third time. This is the story of '08.
        \_ As with Bill Clinton and Dubya, it is quite likely that the actual
           Democratic nominee in 2008 will be someone who is not on the radar
           screen in 2006.  -tom
        \_ Who is the GOP going to run against her? Rice? Clinton would win.
           John McCain is not nutty enough for the Religious Right, so he
           won't get the GOP nomination. Guliani is pro-choice and pro-gay
           rights, so he is too *gasp* "liberal." Who else does the GOP have?
           \_ George "Macaca" Allen. Rick "Don't get it on the sheets" Santorum
        \_ This isn't much, but my picks are:
           Hillary > Mark Warner, Edwards >> Feingold, in that order.
           (fyi, it turns out that the first three are tops on tradesports
           other than Gore, but I came to this independently)
           I would say Hillary in front with VP Warner; alternatively, Warner
           with VP Obama.
           Barbara Boxer is my secret "average American" Democratic candidate
                \_ If Barbara Boxer wins the Democratic nomination, the
                   Dems should just pack up and disband.  Nominating her
                   with her out-of-touch views and shrill personality would
                   be the stupidest thing the Dems have ever done.  Boxer
                   is so polarizing that she makes Hilary seem like a quiet
                   reasonable, helpful librarian type.
                   \_ yeah, and the Republicans have succeeded with
                      moderate, collaborative centrists like...uh...tom
                      delay and dubya.  -tom
                      \_ Sorry, pops, but recent history has shown that the
                         GOP can get away with ultra-conservatives and still
                         appeal to the unwashed masses of the South, Midwest
                         and Rocky Mountain states.  The Dems, however, have
                         to run a centrist candidate to have a shot.  Bill
                         Clinton is the only Dem to win the White House in
                         the past 30 years, and he did so as a centrist.
                         Real liberals like Mondale and Dukakis tried to
                         succeed...and were completely humiliated.  I foresee
                         something even more drastic if a born loser like
                         Barbara Boxer gets the nomination.
                         \_ To suceed in the long run, the Democrats need
                            to articulate and pursue their own agenda, not
                            become Republicans.  -tom
                            \_ Of course, but if that agenda only appeals
                               to 1% of the population, they will still
                               lose, no matter how well the pursue it.
                               lose, no matter how well they pursue it.
                               I'm sorry, but comprimising and coming to
                               the middle to form a consensus is what
                               democracy is all about.  If you
                               represent many Dems in beliving that
                               means "becoming Republicans", then the
                               party is truly hopeless.
                               \_ How many people do you think support raising
                                  the minimum wage?  National Health care?
                                  Keeping Social Security as it is?  Ending
                                  the war?  Take your 1% and shove it.
                               \_ Comprimising and coming to the middle is
                                  not how the Republicans got into power,
                                  and it won't be how the Democrats reclaim
                                  it.  I do not think it should be difficult
                                  to come up with a platform which is both
                                  truly distinct from the current Republican
                                  platform, and attractive to a large number
                                  of Americans.  -tom
                                  \_ That's exactly what they did, they
                                     didn't compromise with YOU, but they
                                     compromised with > 50% of the
                                     \_ No, that's not what they did at all.
                                        Republican policies do not serve the
                                        interests of most of the people who
                                        vote Republican.  Republicans did
                                        a lot of work on getting people
                                        to identify with their agenda; that's
                                        not compromising.  -tom
                                        \_ You're confusing what's going
                                           on now (when the Republicans
                                           are losing) with what was going
                                           on when they came to power.
                                           Remember the Contract with
                                           America?  The Rs are failing
                                           now because they aren't finding
                                           the issues that the majority
                                           people care about.  The Ds can't
                                           capitialize on it because
                                           they're even worse.
                                           \_ Voters *identified* with
                                              the rhetoric around the
                                              Contract With America--they
                                              didn't *care about* the
                                              Contract With America.  It's
                                              an important distinction.  -tom
                                              \_ I guess you're going to
        have to explain this more carefully, because I have no idea what
        you're talking about.
                \_ Most people don't vote on the issues; they vote for
                   the person they identify with most closely.  A
                   typical red-state hick doesn't really *care* about
                   flag burning, or gay marriage, or welfare moms.
                   When you survey people and ask what their most
                   important issues are, those are not the things that
                   come up.  But conservatives use those kinds of
                   issues to project an *identity* for themselves
                   which red-state hicks comprehend and identify with.
                   The liberal challenge is to come up with an identity;
                   right now there is no clear liberal identity which
                   voters can align with.  -tom
                   \_ What I can't understand is how they did that with
                      an Ivy league cheerleader rich boy from Connecticut
                      who used his dad's infulence to avoid military
           who knows exactly what's going on and deserves a chance
           Definite no's:  Biden, Clark, Daschle, Kerry, Richardson
                \_ These guys are each superior by 10 times over the
                   opinionated, self-absorbed dunderdead that is Barbara Boxer.
                   \_ I think the key word here is your opinion that she is
                      a "dunderhead".  All those guys you mentioned are
                      opinionated and self-absorbed, except maybe not
                      Daschle on the self-abosrbed part.
           Gore isn't going to run.
           \_ I disagree.  Gore is starting at running back for the 49ers
              this season.  That's why they traded away Kevin Barlow to the
2006/9/6-7 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44291 Activity:nil 66%like:44311
9/6     Purge, Iranian style!
        \_ Sounds like he's been taking notes from David Horowitz.
2006/8/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43886 Activity:nil
8/3     so, a while back, this collage pic of ashcroft was posted to motd:

        There was a similar one of Bush, only done with pictures of the
        faces of soldiers who had died fighting his wars.  anyone remember
        the URL for that one?
        \_ http://photomatt.net/2004/04/07/mosaic
        \_ NSFW
        \_ He's cute.  -proud American
2006/7/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:43769 Activity:nil
7/24    John Kerry, you are such a hoot!  http://csua.org/u/gif
        \_ If he runs again in 2008, I hope he runs with Lieberman on an
           Independent ticket. I could use a laugh.
2006/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:43589 Activity:nil
7/7     FBI disrupts New York transportation plot:
        http://www.csua.org/u/gcj (Yahoo! News)
        "Lebanese authorities, working with U.S. law enforcement agencies,
        arrested an al-Qaida operative who admitted to plotting a terror
        attack in New York City ......"
        \_ Thank goodness they're monitoring international and domestic calls.
           Oh wait, what's that?  They caught this one w/ publically available
           resources and the Sears Tower one b/c their neighbors ratted them
           out?  No, no, that can't be right.
           \_ Yes because sometimes other methods work in some cases no one
              should use some other method you don't like.  You got into Cal?
        \_ Time to stock up on Freedom Fries, plastic sheeting and duct tape!
           Time to raise the terror alert and scare the sheeple! Let me guess,
           it must be campaign season...
           \_ Why are liberals so wacky?! Don't forget the tin foil!
              \_ Can one even still buy tin foil(as opposed to aluminum foil)?
                 That could be useful.
                 \_ Of course you can't. They made sure of it.
              \_ Freedom Fries were a liberal invention? Telling America
                 to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting was a liberal
                 course of action? Stop trying to rewrite history Padawan.
                 to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting was done
                 by liberals? Stop trying to rewrite history Padawan.
                 \_ It was a liberal's attempt at satire. Liberals think
                    that everything is some sort of evil Republican plot.
                    That's giving too much credit to Republicans.
        \_ Unlike the Florida jokers this one looks a bit more credible.
2006/6/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:43416 Activity:nil
6/15    Let's face it. Karl Rove is evil, but is also extremely brilliant.
        What new tricks do you anticipate in the upcoming elections?
        \_ Dubya simultaneously stays the course in Iraq and brings some
           troops back to a heroic homecoming.
           \_ Precisely. He announces that victory is complete and says he'll
              bring home troops. He brings back a minimum number and says the
              rest are merely support and on their way home Real Soon Now.
              At the same time, he paints Dems as cowards. Fox publishes
              retrospective on the war describing the entire venture in rosy
              terms ("sacrifices were made for the greater good," etc.).
              The best Dems can hope for after that is the assassination of
              the Iraqi PM.
              \_ Are you fucking nuts?  Why would you *hope for* the Iraqi
                 PM to be assassinated?  Why would anyone hope for that?
                 \_ Because it's ok if the middle east goes to hell and
                    millions die, as long as the Dems win the next
                    \_ And yet, not surprisingly, it would be okay with
                       everyone involved if you were found drowned and
                       bloated, no matter who wins the next election.
                       \_ Oo, touched a nerve, huh? And, not surprisingly,
                          you cannot express yourself in an intelligent
                          manner.  Ook! Trog kill!
                          \_ It's always disappointing to me when this is
                             the best a college educated person can do.
                             -someone else
                 \_ You DON'T. That's the point. The GOP is so good at the
                    PR game that they're going to paint the Dems into a
                    corner where the only way out is if something absolutely
                    terrible happens.
                    \_ Paint into a corner?  What?  So Iraq taking a turn for
                       the worse is good for the party?  The logic behind that
                       is so painfully twisted I'm left speechless.  Nevermind,
                       it's only the motd.  I'm going to lunch.
                       \_ Here's my vain attempt to make this clear to you:
                          Bushco is going to announce victory and bring back
                          a minimum number of troops while promising to bring
                          the rest back at some vague date in the future.
                          He'll ridicule the Dems as cowards who would have
                          pulled out our troops before we were able to complete
                          the mission. Fox will kick into overdrive with
                          retrospectives of how the war _was_ terrible but
                          how it was utterly justified and how the troops
                          who died did so in the line of duty. The networks
                          will miss the point and will argue over the war,
                          but in the past tense, thereby solidifying the
                          idea that it's over. The public, faced with a
                          seemingly successful conclusion to the matter, will
                          go along with the GOP as the party of winners. The
                          Dems will then have no real means of regaining
                          Congress or the White House. The one thing that could
                          derail this plan is if something catastrophic
                          and sensationally public occurred in Iraq, such as
                          the assassination of the Iraqi PM; a public
                          reversal like that would be sufficient to prove
                          that the war is not won in Iraq, thereby short-
                          circuiting the PR war. Read carefully: I'm not saying
                          that anyone should be hoping for the assassination
                          of the Iraqi PM; I'm saying that the GOP is setting
                          up an airtight plan to continue their dominance.
                          \_ ok it does make me feel better that you're not
                             rooting for an assassination.  However, I'm not
                             buying that if there's still say, 30,000 US troops
                             there and bombs are still going off in Baghdad
                             that anyone is going to buy that it's over.  As
                             far as planning for political dominance, that is
                             a political parties reason for being.  I expect
                             both major political groups to spend all their
                             time plotting and planning to achieve and retain
                             power.  WTF else are they good for?  Once you
                             accept that political parties exist you can't
                             fault them for doing what they were designed
                             to do.
                             \_ I would buy this if there were oversight
                                worth a damn keeping them from acting
                                illegally and unethically. The sad truth is
                                (as DeLay mostly worked out) that if you
                                control the means of oversight, you can then
                                overlook your own excesses.
                                \_ I'm a glass half-full kinda guy.  I see
                                   DeLay and Jefferson's fridge stuffing and
                                   the many other times someone in either party
                                   got busted and booted and often jailed as
                                   the system working.  I see the Keating Five
                                   (sleaze bag McCain) getting off as a
                                   failure but that's the exception.  So, I'm
                                   not going for this "the people are stupid"
                                   line and I'm also not buying the "they
                                   always get away with it" thing either.  The
                                   overall record stands against that line of
                          \_ airtight except for the fact that Iraq is still
                             a clusterfuck and it will get worse if we pull
                             our troops out.  That government wouldn't last
                             a week.  -tom
                             \_ And that's why they pull back a token number,
                                declare a public victory, and leave the rest
                                of the troops in place to be withdrawn at some
                                vague future date.
                                \_ People are stupid, but I don't think this
                                   administration has enough credibility left
                                   to turn things around with token gestures.
                                   \_ I hope you're right.
        \_ Don't confuse "conniving" with "billiant."  -tom
           \_ Brilliantly conniving.  Not all connivers are on the same
              plane as Rove.
           \_ yosafbridge
              \_ Two words: "special hell" :D --michener
                 \_ quiet, this is a movie.
2006/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43406 Activity:nil
6/15    Is Bernanke a Democrat or a Republican? How about his predecessors?
        \- He used to drive a Sienna minivan. Maybe you can do some kind of
           Bayes Rule thing based on the car->party statistics to come up
           with a guess. [for the record, he is a Republican, but not a
           party hack ... he was an academic most of his life. Considering his
           portfolio, his views on more technical questions are probably more
           meaningful than broad party affiliation. I am pretty sure the only
           guy who voted against his confirmation was a Republican senator
           who or why.]. GREENSPAN was a Randroid. Paul Volker [appointed
           who or why.]. GREENSPAN was a Randroid. Paul VOLKER [appointed
           by Carter, reconfirmed by Raygun] is an interesting question.
           The Fed, unlike some other administrative agencies, does seem
           to officially discourage its officers from partisan activities.
           See e.g.
2006/6/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43371 Activity:nil
6/13    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/rove.cia
        Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case
        Iraq contractors make billions on the front line
        Also on the news Bush visits Iraq and his approval rating
        rebounds. Rove is great and November is looking great!
        \_ approval rating rebounds?  where?
        \_ Seconded. Read:
           Conservatives rule while Liburals drool!
           \_ and thus the deep dissatisfaction of the liberals/geeks with
              the rule of the neocons/jocks.
              \_ hey, way to go with the labels and stereotyping.
        \_ If 35 percent is a rebound you are hurting for good news
           \_ esp when other polls went down in the same period.
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 751 - 900 of 1431   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Election: