| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2004/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34255 Activity:insanely high |
10/20 Hey conservatives- take back your own party please. A bit of history:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm
\_ You must not be familiar with the extensive Christian origins
of this nation.
\_ They were mostly deists. The current regime are fundamentalists.
\_ Patently false. Stop reading these atheist internet sites, they
are bogus.
\_ Patently false. Stop reading these atheist internet sites,
they are bogus.
\_ Patently false. Stop reading these Christian internet
sites, they are bogus.
\_ I'm not going to bother to get into this. If one
reads their original writings and speeches their
Christianity is obvious, unless you are stupid.
\_ Most of them, but not all of them. Jefferson
was not.
\_ Indeed a great number of them, but the separation
of church and state was more than an offhand
comment to them. Remember what they were rebelling
against: King George and the COE. Royalty and
theocracy. Two things our current George seems
perfectly happy to bring back. I for one don't
want to see revolution in my lifetime. I'd much
rather see the fucker go peacefully in this
election. --scotsman
p.s. It's good to see you as blissfully ignorant
as ever mr. black.
\_ I am amused that professed lovers of
democracy start muttering about revolution
under their breath as soon as an election
or 3 doesn't go their way. Make up your mind
is the tyranny of {the majority|electoral
college|etc} good or bad? I don't know what
Bush truly wants to do in his heart of hearts
(probably party or something) but the office
of the POTUS is a moderating kind of chair
to sit in. The bigger the chair, the less
important are the psychological particulars of
the ass sitting on it. No one is
complaining about Nancy Pelosi and her brand
of Bay Area liberal insanity, although she is
very influential in the DNC right now. If you
think Bush wants to bring royalty back in the
US, you ve gone off the deep end, sorry.
I mean this makes LeRouchies sound reasonable.
-- ilyas
\_ Ilya, I'm talking about history and vague
worries when I talk about revolution. Our
democracy is far from healthy. The tyranny
of the majority is really the tyranny of
less than a plurality of, oh, 30%? And by
royalty, we've had this discussion before.
It's not direct governmental plutocracy.
It's handing over power, tax refunds, and
a blind eye to institutions and individuals
who could give a shit about the public. If
that's what the subplurality of 30% really
want, let alone a majority of the public,
then, yes, I worry. --scotsman
\_ (a) Saying "all Bush opponents are talking
about revolution" equates to "all
conservatives are right wing religious
nutcake loonies." (b) POTUS itself may
eclipse individual personalities, but it
_is_ a tremendously powerful office,
especially when combined with a disciplined
and determined crew, as now. (c) Who
says nobody's complaining about Pelosi?
She's part of the reason voters are being
forced to choose "less worse" instead of
"better" this year. -John
\_ re: (a) I was talking about Ben in
particular. re: (c) Maybe people are,
but I haven't heard anything, and
certainly nothing compared to the volume
of low grade bile directed at Bush.
-- ilyas
\_ (a) be more specific, (c) a lot of
SF residents have loads of low
grade bile for her from when she
was a supervisor. -John
\_ BushCo is interested in maintaining power,
moreso than any other Pres. since LBJ.
The more petty and ridiculous tricks are
pulled by both sides, the less moral high
ground there is to go around, and the
more both sides sound wholely corrupt and
powermongering. That BushCo has players
who excel at the game while the Dems seem
be playing the Washington Generals merely
stokes the flames against the Pres.
\_ That's because a whole lot of these
"professed lovers of democracy" are
actually thinking, "I'm smarter than
everyone else. I should be in charge."
They're fine as long as everyone else
agrees with them, but if some people
think differently, they must be stupid
and wrong and therefore should not
have a vote.
\_ I am, I should, they are. Well, most
of them, anyway. -John
\_ No, Mr. Leek. It's not some elitist
tendency. It's a compassionate, dare
I say Christian (raised Lutheran over
here), drive in me that actually cares
about the people and the country. Did
I claim anyone should "not vote"? I
would love to see election day made a
national holiday so no one would have an
excuse not to. I would love to have been
required to take civics in high school
or even jr. high. If our voter turnout
even began to approach that of some other
countries, I think you'd be greatly
dismayed at how out of touch you are.
In the meantime, I'd suggest that rather
than be insulting, you actually put your
arguments forward in good faith.
--scotsman
\_ I actually not sure how to
respond to this mix of oddness.
I agree that people should take
civics in school, along with
economics. I'm not sure where
you get the idea that I don't
care about the country or the
people. I'm not even sure what
\_ I didn't say you don't. Read what
you said. See how it's directly
insulting. Read what I said.
Realize I was talking about myself
in defence of charges of a super-
iority conflict. --scotsman
you're saying I'm out of touch
with. All I'm saying is that the
road to hell is paved with good
intentions. I think you're
making assumptions about my
political positions that you know
nothing about. (And what's with
telling me you were raised
Lutheran? Am I supposed to care?
Did you know Paolo was rasied
Catholic? So what? He's still
Paolo.)
\_ How delightfully low on signal. Drop trou and produce
debunk (and not from some fundie site) or eat crow. |
| 2004/10/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34251 Activity:very high |
10/20 The snobbery of the elite liberals continues:
http://csua.org/u/9km
\_ I wonder what kind of ketchup they serve in the White House?
\_ Maybe W ketchup. Supposedly bush supporters put out their
own brand of ketchup because "You don't support Kerry, why
should your ketchup". I mangled that, but it was something
similar.
\_ *shrug* It's not like the left side of the theater has a monopoly
on elite snobbery.
\_ It's sounds to me more like Mrs. Heinz-Kerry has never had what
I would define as "a real job."
\_ What are you talking about?
\_ A woman worth $1 billion that she inherited should not
be talking about who has or has not had a "real job".
\_ Are you saying she does not have a real job?
\_ Yes, and never has.
\_ Have you done any research into her previous job
history?
\_ I am sure she worked at Wendy's and did
tricks to come up with the last $100 of rent
money. She's basically a billionaire
philanthropist. She's never had to work.
\_ I take that as a no. Please stop talking
out of your ass next time.
\_ I think this is particularly ironic,
considering Teresa Heinz later apologized
for not knowing Laura Bush worked as a
librarian and a teacher.
\_ There is no irony. I'm the same person
who posted that fact at the bottom
of the thread, and the same person
who's been responding to you.
\_ Oddly enough, I'm not "you" nor any
of the other posters on this sub-
thread.
\_ Too bad it doesn't change my point.
\_ I was merely pointing out an
incorrect assumption on your
part.
\_ Like, duh!
\_ Hey, even I knew that, and I don't
pay attention to this kind of stuff
and don't care. -- ilyas
\_ Not sure what Teresa Heinz's job history may be, but she is
snobbish and a bitch. So says my brother, who know the Heinzes
and roomed with Chris Heinz in college. I think most people
will say that the W's make better house guests and dinner
companions, but I don't know what relevance that has to the
election.
\_ Instead of "snobbish and a bitch", how about: knows what
she feels and will tell you honestly about it instead of
backstabbing with gossip?
\_ I don't imagine that my brother has been backstabbed
by her. I do know that he has been snubbed by her for
not being worthy. Perhaps you've had a different
experience with her. Care to share?
\_ No, I do not have any second-hand experiences from
a brother to relate. I do trust these interviews, where
her personality leaks out, more than what your brother
says, obviously.
\_ You'll understand that I trust my brother's personal
experiences more than what I can infer from some
staged and prepped interviews.
\_ Sure, you can believe your brother, since it's
your right to believe what you want to believe.
\_ I'm glad you approve. And I'll be happy to
extend to you the same privilege of believing
whatever you want to believe.
\_ It's an inherent right. No one is extending
anyone anything. Duh.
\_ As you wish. I'll go back to watching
interviews to see if I can infer more
about my politicians from them.
\_ Note I did not posit any request to
you for you to say "as you wish".
I would urge you to evalute interviews
on a case by case basis as well,
instead of implying that they're
all less useful than stories from
your older brother.
\_ Let me see... On one hand, I have
my brother, who roomed with Chris
freshman year, still exchanges
occasional emails with him, and
has met Teresa several times over
the course of a year of living
with her son. On the other hand,
I can study Teresa under the
artificial condition of a staged
interview, where she was no doubt
on guard to try to present a good
image of herself, and where she
was likely prepped by handlers
on how to answer the interview
questions and on how to conduct
herself. Tough choice.
\_ I don't believe we are
covering any new ground.
I've said my piece, you've
said yours.
said yours. If we were on
O'Reilly, this is where he'd
say, "Now we let the viewers
decide".
\_ Tell you what... I'll ask
Chris if his mom is a snob
when I see him at my bro's
wedding next spring. Would
that be a definitive enough
answer for you? Or will
you still cling to your
interview inferences?
\_ Probably won't help, but
thanks. I think what
could help more are highly
descriptive stories
(rather than just the
concluding label of "snob"
or "bitch") from which
people can make their own
judgments.
\_ I'll just note that
it's interesting to
see how your position
has shifted over the
length of this thread.
\_ Please state in
one sentence what
has shifted.
Please think about
this sentence
carefully before
you post. Thanks.
\_ Nope, I can't do
it in one
sentence. Why
this silly
requirement?
\_ instead of "snubbed by her for not being worthy", how
about: she didn't want to hang out with your brother
but wanted to hang out with someone else instead?
\_ Oh you were there too! That must have been a
crowded dorm room.
\_ Clearly I am suggesting a reasonable alternative
to your brother's interpretation of what
happened; and clearly everyone understands that
your brother was there and I was not; and clearly
everyone *should* understand there is weight in
both positions.
\_ Alex Kerry (John's daughter) doesn't like her either.
\_ John Kerry married an ice-queen! He's clearly unfit to be
commander in chief!
\_ I don't know that the nicest and most friendly people
also make the best presidents. However, attempts to
buff up Teresa Heinz's character clearly implies that
some people do think so.
\_ She's a South African Republican bitch. The fact
that she and Kerry have a lot in common
(apparently) is scary and worth noting.
\_ I thought we had gotten beyond denigrating people for
where they came from.
\_ The conservative spin machine goes into overdrive. Determining
there is an insult where there is not: "Well, you know, I don't
know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in
her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real
job -- I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her
validation comes from important things, but different things. I'm
older, and my validation of what I do is a little bit bigger --
because I'm older, and I've had different experiences."
\_ Actually it's just annoying because she's stupid. I never
thought it was an insult, but I usually figure that you
should keep your yap shut if you don't know what you're
talking about.
\_ But apparently you think it's ok to be president of the
United States if you don't know what you're talking about.
amazing.
\_ Did I say I was a Bush supporter? You're an idiot.
\_ "stupid"... from what do you gather this? "snobbery"...
from what do you gather that? I smell Limbaugher.
\_ To state that you don't know anything about someone
and then go on to postulate about what kind of jobs
they've held in the past is, well, stupid. The
assumptions she makes about said jobs is snobbish.
\_ You are really reading into this too much.
Bang!
You've just been spun by the conservative spin machine.
\_ Umm.. the quote is directly above this post.
Which part of is has been spun by the
"conservative spin machine?"
\_ *All* of the quote above. Taken in context, it
is not an attack on Laura Bush.
If you don't know what the "conservative spin
machine" is, recall "sensitive war on terror"
and Dubya having said the same thing.
\_ Wow, you have some reading problems don't
you. As I said above, I never thought it
was an insult, or an attack, on Laura
Bush. It's just stupid.
\_ Nah, I just think THK got used by the
Republican spin machine. I don't think
what she said was stupid.
\_ The AP is a conservative spin machine! Call out
the tin-foil corps!
\_ What she said makes sense to me.
She should realize that Republicans are evil when it comes
to taking quotes out of context.
It's not stupid not to realize this.
\_ Some people just seem to have a real skill for pedial-oral
insertion.
insertion. [ don't change this, make your own joke ]
\_ And the Bush folks miss the point:
'Karen Hughes, an adviser to President Bush, criticized Heinz
Kerry's remarks as "indicative of an unfortunate mind-set that
seeks to divide women based on who works at home and who works
outside the home."'
So even Karen Hughes seems to think that Laura Bush has always been
a stay-at-home mom.
\_ Republican - spin - machine.
I doubt Karen Hughes really thinks that.
On a note of fairness, Teresa Heinz-Kerry issued a press release
apologizing for not having known that Laura Bush was a
teacher and librarian. I doubt Heinz-Kerry didn't know that.
Democratic - unspin - machine.
\_ Which sounds more likely?:
THK knew Laura Bush's history and decided to talk smack about
it in the face of logic. -OR-
THK was uninformed but talked out her ass anyway
\_ I'm putting my money on the latter. THK is very proud
of her record as "opinionated" and "outspoken." In
other words, she proud of her ability to talk out her
***. |
| 2004/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34241 Activity:high Edit_by:auto |
10/19 Sorry, I get confused. LATimes is liberal or conservative?
Anyway, according to them, the CIA is delaying a 9/11 report that
points fingers and names names until after the election:
http://csua.org/u/9k9
Text of article can be found at:
http://www.theregular.org/node/209
\_ LA Slimes is in the same vein as NYT.
\_ whoo how clever! yeah they're pretty liberal.
for your incredibly conservative dose of southern
california news go read the OC register - danh
\_ All of LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post offer good, mostly
objective reporting. ABC News and NBC News as well. CNN tilts
to whatever the current administration is to maintain "access".
CBS News screwed up on memo-gate, but they also offer good, mostly
objective reporting.
Fox News shows an American flag in the upper-left part of the screen
to show that they support America, implying that the other stations
do not, or have a "liberal agenda".
\_ Hi, I've created a toy web site that will hopefully be a bit of
insightful: <DEAD>slantcheck.org<DEAD>
I already bought the domain names, I'm looking for a place
to host it. If you would like to help please email me. -kchang
\- if you become the number one hit for
google(chang,slant) you may be able to make
money ... maybe as a p0rn tunneler or something --psb
\_ Wow, that's amazing. I didn't know the report was already done.
I heard the reason for the delay was that it was too big to finish
before the election.
Also, the article is an op-ed column; it is not a news piece.
And here's the news piece, one day later:
http://csua.org/u/9kr (Yahoo!)
In it it says the official reason for the delay is ... the report
is still a draft!
\_ "Congressional officials said they were told that the CIA
inspector general's office had completed the report in July"
Now who do you believe? I'm waiting for a CIA leak. |
| 2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34234 Activity:nil |
10/19 Fun quiz as of 5:45PM, match the following headlines with the
stations. Don't cheat boys and girls!
1 "Poll: Bush Lead Over Kerry Widens"
2 "Poll: Bush Hits 50 Percent. Bush Passes Critical Number But
First-Time voters Could Help Kerry"
3 "Bush Kerry Deadlocked"
4 "Bush Holds Narrow Lead In <station>Poll"
A MSNBC B Fox C CBS D ABC News
\_ Educated guess: 1 B, 2 D, 3 A
\_ NBC has em tied among likely voters.
\_ NBC/WSJ has em tied among likely voters. |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34223 Activity:very high |
10/19 http://csua.org/u/9jt - Text of Gore's speech last night. I dare anyone who plans to vote for Bush to read it from start to finish. \_ I saw a few minutes of it on the tube. It was painful. I felt bad for him. He needs help. Losing in 2000 broke him in some deeply fundamental way. \_ This thing is huge. I recommend reading it from the last page, and stopping when you're bored. \_ Reading is hard, let's go shopping! \_ Why, so I can remember why I didn't vote for Gore 4 years ago? \_ I dare anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 to read it from start to finish and not think, "We almost elected a tin-foil hat guy!" \_ I couldn't vote for Gore in 2000. If you don't think the current executive branch is run by a bunch of neocon loons I'd like some of what you are smoking. If you think Bush has a clearer view of reality than Gore, then you've been shooting up as well. Please provide examples from the speech of "tin-foil hat" thinking. \_ Example: The central elements of Bush's political - as opposed to religious - belief system are plain to see: The "public interest" is a dangerous myth according to Bush's ideology - a fiction created by the hated "liberals" who use the notion of "public interest" as an excuse to take away from the wealthy and powerful what they believe is their due. Therefore, government of by and for the people, is bad - except when government can help members of his coalition. \_ This would be tin-hat fodder if not for the Orwellian named Clear Air Act and the Healthy Forests Act. There is no need for conspiracy theories anymore; it's all out in the open, and the heads of state just don't care if you know it. Ask Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay. \_ Al Gore speaks, Alcoa goes up. Tin shortage on the rise! \_ Partisan Blinders, Activate! Form of: An ostritch! |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34217 Activity:high |
10/18 funny propaganda posters:
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html
\_ work-safe?
\_ Yes.
\_ Actually, the lame thing about this is that the NSA and DOE are
still producing lots of these sort of posters. There are a
couple in every building here at LLNL, and a lot of them are
WAY funnier. (Because they're real.) -jrleek
\_ where do i get a palm beach retired jewish democrats
for buchanan bumper sticker? - danh
\_ huh?
\_ obGoogle "butterfly ballot."
\_ jrleek, I DARE you to print these posters and put them
around your office/cube till the election is over.
\_ Why would I do that? Those posters are retarded. I dare
YOU to put up a big sign on your door that says, "I AM
STOOPID" -jrleek
\_ jrleek, wouldn't your above comment be considered questionable
and unpatriotic in your work environment?
\_ Only if you're a dumb liberal with an axe to grind. No
one else cares. -jrleek
\_ it would be funnier if one of those Up Yours Bush posters
were posted by a dissent while everyone else ignores it
because they're so used to seeing them. |
| 2004/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34195 Activity:kinda low |
10/18 For the guy who claimed that the majority of geeks lean left...
still waiting for the url backing that up. -- ilyas
\_ I don't think anyone has specifically surveyed "geeks," ilyas,
so you're probably not going to get an url from him. But I believe
there have been surveys showing that the more educated a person is,
the more likely they are to be center/left leaning. Geek doesn't
necessarily correlate with "more educated," I admit.
\_ Actually, I heard it's more of a bell shape -- the richest
and poorest tend to vote DNC, the middle tends to vote RNC.
Similarly, for education, high school dropouts and grad students
for DNC, the rest for RNC. -- ilyas
\_ I thought I said education, not income level, but whatever.
\_ Reading comprehension >>> you.a
\_ Reading comprehension >>> you
\_ I got what he said. I just don't know why he started
talking about income level, because that is not what
we were talking about.
\_ 2000 election
No HS degree: +20% Gore
HS degree: +1% Bush
Some college: +6% Bush
College grad: +6% Bush
Post-grad deg: +8% Gore
Just goes to show, a little education makes you smart enough
to watch O'Reilly and think you're smarter than those damn
tax-you-to-death, government-handout, eternal victim, take
no personal initiative / responsibility liberal elite.
\_ This left-right thing needs a lot more defining. There are
anti-abortionists who support gun control and pro-choicers who
oppose gay marriage. If you're talking pro-DNC or pro-RNC, I
think ilyas has answered well above.
\_ saved by the Jargon File
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/politics.html
I have found much evidence to support the JF's claim that many
geeks (hackers, whatever) tend to be libertarian leaning. I
think framing this discusion in terms of right/left is really a
bad way to look at it right now in our current politcal climate
where even the repub pres is not really a conservative by
most definitions. - rory
\_ I ll buy that geeks tend to lean libertarian, because that
actually matches my (anecdotal) experience fairly closely.
-- ilyas
\_ Hey, if someone told me:
Liberal Democrat = more freedom, more government
Conservative Republican = less freedom, less government
Libertarian = more freedom, less government
... I'd go libertarian every time. It's not that complicated:
"Duh, hey, I'm a libertarian, I'm fucking 1337! Go away tax-and-
spend liberals, go away nazi pro-lifers."
The key criticism with libertarianism is that the U.S. is still
a two-party country, and well, there are a lot of libertarian
geeks, and who wants to hang out with the nerds?
\_ If Bush is anything to go by, Conservative Republican =
less freedom, more government.
\_ exactly my point. Bush is not a conservative Republican
by the traditional def.
\_ It seems that once the Republicans became the dominant
party, after years of playing the underdog, they realized
that they didn't hate this government stuff all as much
as they thought they did. Spending is much easier to
support when it benefits you directly.
\_ its easy to say you want to shrink govt when you
disagree w/ the people running it.
\_ THAT is the "key criticism" of libertarianism?
\_ Okay, let's just say "An important criticism".
Then you can tell me what the key one is.
\_ libertarianism appeals to nerds (esp mathematically
minded ones) because it is based on a supposedly
objective series of rules and says that, if left to
their own, these rules will naturally and justly
govern people. The key criticism of it is that these
rules are not as natural as people think... they are
based on societies and social order, etc. ie, people
say, "hands off, let the market regulate"... but
the fact is you cant have good markets w/out good
gov'ts. - rory
\_ I wonder sometimes where 'good governments' come
from. Lately, I've been leaning towards 'good
culture' as the wellspring of 'good
government.' -- ilyas
\_ why is that any easier to define?
\_ It's not. But I am not sure good government
can spontaneously happen if the culture is
not ready for it. Introducing a representative
republic in Dark Ages Europe would have done
no good. To respond to rory, you are thinking
of anarcho-capitalism (which I admit I find
appealing, I just don't see how it would work).
Libertarianism has inherent tensions because
it generally dislikes government but
acknowledges its necessity (i.e. it's not a
'terse' belief system like A-C). -- ilyas
\_ gawd, if libertarianism is this complicated, I can
understand why it's not popular. I would much prefer
it if it were described just as "more freedom, less
government". Otherwise I'd just settle with
calling myself a small-government Democrat or
personal-freedom Republican. (Yeah, silly, but not
as bad as objectivist Libertarian.)
\_ Can I still have the FDA, fire departments,
health inspections of restaurants, product
safety commissions, etc., or will I just have
to gamble with my life and hope for the best
anytime I eat something, buy a new product,
buy prescription drugs, or need emergency
services?
\_ It will be just like ebay ratings! You go with
the ones with good feedback. Sure, sometimes
someone decides to screw over a few thousand
or million people and then move to Turkey, but
think of the freedom! |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34186 Activity:very high |
10/17 A Bush debate bounce? WTF? http://www.pollingreport.com \_ I call it the Team America: World Police bounce. \_ so is it a pro-Bush movie? Trey Parker/Matt Stone pro-Bush? \_ I think I read that it's less anti-republican than anti-democrat. But niether Bush nor Kerry appear in the film. \_ I think both sides got bashed very fairly and accurately. The important difference is who can laugh at themselves or not. \_ Trey and Matt hate conservatives, but they REALLY hate liberals. The movie is pro-Bush. \_ Trey and Matt, like Vice magazine, are WAY past their sell-by date. Nihilism is so 2000. \_ Who do they like then? \_ Who cares? They don't. They just want to trivialize anyone who genuinely cares about anything (c.f. South Park episode about Mormons). They are aggressive nihilists. And yes, I guess I just don't "get it." \_ Trey and Matt are libertarian. \_ Trey and Matt are system-buckers. They like to get a rise, and modern liberals are easy to get a rise out of with a minimum of effort. It's easy to lampoon the Right, but it's hard to tell if the Right gets it sometimes. \_ All your election are belong to Rove. \_ All your electronic ballot are delivered to Rove by Diebold. |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34178 Activity:very high |
10/14 So I watched Outfoxed and thought it was really cool, until
the last bit of the film when it creditted http://moveon.org. Now
I know it's just another damned left wingnut propaganda film.
\_ I heard O'Reilly likes phone sex is this true?
\_ you are teh gay:w
\_ So, truth is entirely dependent on where it comes from?
\_ truth is closer when you have a non-biased party observing
and reporting. While Foxed is not Fair and Balanced, neither
is Outfoxed, which is supported by a biased party
\_ You are an idiot.
\_ well? are you going to explain why he's an idiot?
\_ he disagrees with the correct political thought. he
is an idiot.
\_ oh, come on. anyone who can actually watch
that entire documentary, and then just think
it's partisan because of something they saw
in the credits is living in a fucking cave.
the whole thread is probably just a troll
by someone who's bored and doesn't care
one way or the other, but you are still a moron.
\_ excellent documentary. It got me thinking about the shows
they broadcast and how they fit into the executives' agenda.
Take the show Cops for example. It repeatedly shows you that
blacks and hispanics are bad drug dealers. Look at their
kids show. Buffy. The OC. Whitie good. Minorities bad.
If you have more examples please respond to this thread. ok thx.
\_ Um. There is a reason there are a lot of blacks and hispanics
on Cops. Media bias, however, ain't it. -- ilyas
\_ There are more total numbers of white criminals than black
and hispanic criminals.
\_ In major urban areas - no.
\_ Yes and if you want to do the same analysis of other stations
you'll find similar results in regards to both racial profiling
in TV shows going back decades before Fox existed to today and
news reporting that fits into the executives agenda.
\_ Not that I'm defending Fox, but Buffy was on the WB. And what
about shows like Friends and Will and Grace? Those are supposed
to take place in NYC, yet there were no non-white major
characters. As a person-of-color, I find that far more offensive
than the OC (which is supposed to take place in the white part
of Orange County) or even Cops.
\_ there are no unbaised and neutral sources. all sources,
all reporting, all documentaries are biased. the
intelligent person understands this.
\_ You are correct insofar as no human being can be completely
without bias or opinion. However, it is the purpose of
journalism to report facts (also known as news). When all of
the relevant facts are provided, the general public can make
informed opinions about the matter. Calm and objective editing
is the key. Fox completely lacks this. Other news orgs simply
slip every once in a while. Cf. the documentary "Control Room,"
a rather objective look at Al Jazeera's coverage of the sack
of Baghdad.
\_ big evil corporation from Rupert Murdock and Sinclair support
Bush and broadcast anti-Kerry materials. Don't the Democrats
have friends in mass media?
\_ Sinclair owns roughly 1/4 of the stations. The other 3/4 are
anti-Bush & pro-Kerry. Watch the nightly news to see.
\_ You're full of shit. Give some examples of this bias. |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34171 Activity:nil |
10/16 Super Rich Step Into Political Vacuum
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38722-2004Oct16.html |
| 2004/10/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34165 Activity:nil |
10/15 Michael Moore made tons of money from his anti-Bush documentaries.
How much did he donate to the Kerry campaign? |
| 2004/10/15-18 [ERROR, uid:34161, category id '18005#9.15375' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34161 Activity:very high |
10/14 Michael Dell and Jim Barksdale endorse Bush. I hope their
companies die die die. Buy a Dell computer, support the Bush Dynasty.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastforward/0,15704,724369,00.html
\_ What did you expect? Dell Computer is based in Texas.
\_ A big business endorsing a Republican? Shocking!! My last computer
was a new Dell, and my next one will be one too.
\_ Are you going to swear to kill them and their families now?
\_ no, I'm not a gun/NRA fanatical Republican, like the ones that
planned, masterminded, and proceeded w/ the assassination of JFK
\_ Cool, you not only have nothing to say, you proceed to tin
foil the whole place. I love it. Carry on, Comrade!
\_ nice threadjack, but maybe i should reserve this comment for
later
\_ jfk was killed in retaliation for bay of pigs. Besides,
jfk should never have been president anyway, his dad
cheated and had dead people vote which prevented the
rightfully elected man, Nixon, from taking office.
\_ How's that tin foil suit treating you?
\_ Its a joke. Kids these days.
\_ The bay of pigs part is tin foil. The latter part is
accepted by a great many as true and has a high
probability of being true. Careful where you spray
the tinfoil. Some things are actually true or are
at least a reasonably thing to think even if you
personally disagree or don't want them to be.
\_ Regardless of its truth (or whether Kennedy really
would not have won without Illinois), I find it
amusing that this is STANDARD freeper talking point
that is supposed nullify massive Republican vote
shenanigans.
\_ Dems do it every year where they control the
polls. Reps do it where they control the polls.
To say one side or the other is always angelic
and the other side is always satanic is simply
naive, childish and koolaid drinkerish.
\_ I don't give a shit which side is defrauding
voters. ANYONE caught doing this, REGARDLESS
of party affiliation should be spending time
in prison, with their patron organization
getting the living shit sued out of it. Making
this into a partisan issue EITHER WAY rather
misses the point. |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34152 Activity:very high |
10/15 Most interesting "Doonesbury discovers URLs" yet:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
(Source URL for Dubya's hometown paper endorsing Kerry)
\_ Seriously, stop posting this crap. If you continue to
do this I'll change your links to porn sites.
\_ I find it kind of interesting. It's not blatantly offensive and
could lead to a nice little flamewar so why should you censor it?
-!op
\_ Fascinating piece on the responses the paper has received on this:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial40.htm
\_ We are on the road to civil war. If Bush wins this election,
I am buying an AK-47 and training in its use, and moving to
a low population-density state in anticipation of the coming
apocalypse.
\_ If you actually read all the letters they got, they ran at
least 4:1 in support.
\_ That's not fair! People who support Bush are much, much
less likely to possess the ability to write a letter. |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34150 Activity:nil |
10/15 http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/index.htm Strong support for Dubya and dislike of Kerry on this survey of servicemen and women and their families. Note the strength of support when the breakdown is given for the soldiers only (not including family members). \_ I applaud the strenght and resolve our armed forces have in implementing free market reforms in Iraq. Do they realize Paul Bremer thinks implementing a flat tax and reduction of tariffs are his main accomplishments in Iraq? - danh \_ Military personnel in a non-draft military tend to be Republican. They also tend to favor strong military action over diplomatic solutions and sanctions. Cf. military personnel support for Reagan over Carter. On the other hand, would someone please explain to me how a survey of 655 service personnel accurately reflects trends in a military that now has over 200 times that number on duty in Iraq? \_ If your complaint is that they also need a survey for boots on the ground folks in Iraq, then it's warranted. ... but, I don't see military higher-ups authorizing pansy election surveys while they're trying to fix Iraq. \_ I'm sorry, I just don't get the methodology that says that the opinions of 655 people translates into an accurate picture of all military personnel. How does this work? \_ Like any other poll, it's basic statistics. You may wish to consult the concepts of "sampling" and "margin of error." This is how any poll works. That said, selecting a representative sample is very difficult, and lots of polling organizations get it wrong - even good ones. c.f. Gallup's accuracy issues of late. \_ Right, so I read up on Annenberg's methodology and the basic stats page below. My question then is how accurately this reflects the views of the boots on the ground, whether the same results hold true for reservists currently on duty, and what questions were asked, since the specific wording of the questions could influence the results. Kudos to the motd for helping me to get a grip on this. \_ Note your points were already brought up ... three replies before your post. \_ How do polls of non-military citizens of 600-1200 meaningfully represent *millions* of people in a state if you're unwilling to allow the same 600+ to represent ~130k? \_ Sorry, not trying to be a troll, but genuinely curious. How does this actually work? \_ You may find this link helpful. And oh yeah, obGoogle. http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040607a.asp \_ thank you! \_ Is this the part where we're supposed to call them stupid and uneducated and braindwashed? \_ This is the part where we talk about yermom. |
| 2004/10/15-16 [ERROR, uid:34149, category id '18005#6.81' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34149 Activity:nil 50%like:30258 |
10/15 Interesting poll analysis. Why the same poll can give you
different numbers, depending on how you choose to look at it:
http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=33 |
| 2004/10/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34144 Activity:nil |
10/15 Richard Cohen of Washington Post gives GW Bush up for dead in
campaign for President
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34164-2004Oct14.html
\_ Read section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
\_ Freeper boy! When'd they teach you about that constitution
thang? Wow! Clever clever. -John |
| 12/24 |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34136 Activity:nil |
10/14 Robert A. George, Real Conservative, on why he is not voting for Bush:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi%3D20041025%26s%3Dgeorge102504a
(registration required, try BugMeNot) |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34129 Activity:very high |
10/14 Did anyone catch Bush saying "You know, it's pointless/unreliable/
whatever to quote outside... oh, never mind. Let me quote blablabla".
That was so funny. His notes have to be prepared by someone else.
[contentless wind removed]
\_ BUSH: In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote
leading news organizations about -- oh, never mind. Anyway, let me
quote the Lewin report. [http://csua.org/u/9he]
\_ They repeated my claims that Saddam had WMD, so you can see how
unreliable the mainstream press is.
\_ i do find it amusing that bush keeps critisizing kerry
for believing his iraq lies
\_ He believed me, now he doesn't. He's a flip-flopper.
We need a president who has the courage to believe his
own lies in the face of overwhelming evidence.
\_ Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself!
\_ They were not lies. Every Senator, Congressman, President
Clinton, his staff, Dems, Reps, everyone, repeated the
exact accusations at one time or another. That you have
a selective memory on this issue indicates self-delusion.
\_ Wow, you know what everyone in the world said. You must
have a super big brain. Funny, I remember posting in
the motd that SH probably did not have any WMD. My
memory must be faulty. As for the self-delusional
charge, please look up the psychological term
"projection." Here is what Barbara Lee really had
to say about SH and WMD:
http://www.counterpunch.org/lee0930.html
I defy you to find one quote where she claimed that
he had them.
\_ Yes, I laughed out loud. "not so sure it's credible to quote
leading news organizations about -- oh, never mind".
[contentless wind removed]
\_ i'm sorry, but 'wc -l /etc/motd.public' still shows more than 0
\_ Yah, sorry -- it tends to grow and repopulate at a rate which is hard
to keep up with. |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34120 Activity:very high |
10/14 Summary: Private corporations + interest in outcome +
broadcast in public medium = conflict of interest.
My prediction for news coverage-- a total repeat of 2000,
Fox will again declare Bush as the winner many hours before
the election's officially over. "We report, you comply."
\_ Hopefully they'll do it early enough that more Repubs won't vote.
\_ I sent my professor the above and he said "In Europe we
learn this in primary school :-). [Granted, my two main
teachers were communists.]"
\_ Media here don't make any claims to being objective. It can
get irritating, but hey, there are plenty of reasonably
balanced sources of information to choose from. -John
\_ I don't mind the bias here but I wish the media would
stop pretending to be objective when they're not. I'm
ok with yellow rag journalism. They should just be honest
that they aren't objective and let the readers decide.
\_ Well, even when they are pretty direct about having a
political agenda/bias (or rather, not giving a rat's ass
about trying to appear objective) the ultra holier-than-
thou attitude of a lot of Euro papers and TV news can be
pretty abrasive after a while. -John
Earth to ilyas the communist born but turned to ultra left
wing nut, what do you have to say about the original
statement on conflict of interest, and what do you have to
say about my professor's comment? -op
\_ [ actually I changed my mind. I won't even dignify this
phrasing with a reply. -- ilyas ]
\_ so, you're as suprised as the rest of us to see yourself
called an "ultra-left wingnut?" who knew?
\_ Earth to poster: read the thread again from the beginning.
\_ Wow, you've figured out that all media outlets are biased in one
way or another. Congrats.
\_ you're right. the difference is i think MOST media
outlets try to be balanced and fair. foxnews and co.
don't give a fuck.
\_ A bias you share is invisible. Conservatives tend to
find a lot of liberal publications (time.com is a good
example) pretty grating, but I bet you don't notice,
since it all seems reasonable to you. -- ilyas
\_ I think the bias in several popular mainstream
media outlets, like drudge, fox, wsj opinion
page, those fucks at the media research center,
is pretty NON invisible and far greater than
any secret jewish conspiracy at the nytimes.
find a lot of liberal publications (time.com is a good
example) pretty grating, but I bet you don't notice,
since it all seems reasonable to you. -- ilyas
\_ Look, I don't want to argue this again.
I ll just paste something laughable from
Reuters next time it comes up. What's your
response to the LA times "we ll dig dirt on
Arnie but not Davis" thing? -- ilyas
\_ And liberals tend to find a lot of conservative
publications (time.com is a good example) pretty
grating.
\_ I think Time is pretty mainstream but is definitely
'small-c' conservative in that it doesn't like to
rock the boat very much.
\_ I also agree that Time is mainstream, siding
with the current administration a little,
Democrat or Republican.
Democrat or Republican. CNN is like this too,
but one increment more.
I also find Krauthammer's essays in Time pretty
damn stupid, but then again I think the same
thing about Safire.
\-if you are writing in the motd, i assume you
have an SAT above 1000. why are you reading
TIME? krauthammer is a human-cockroach cross
breed. |
| 2004/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34111 Activity:very high |
10/13 As of 10/13, 8:45PM, Kerry seems to be leading the polls
with the exception of http://freerepublic.com, a republican dominant
troll site with a lot of Bush fanatics (Kerry, Bush):
http://cbsnews.com 84.79%
http://cnn.com (no longer available for some reason)
http://foxnews.com 63%, 36%
http://latimes.com 96.7%
http://msnbc.com 74%, 26%
http://freerepublic.com 2%, 72% (republican site)
\_ You need to be registered to vote on http://freerepublic.com.
Frankly, I'm too scared to register.
\_ As I repeat for the third time, "thanks" goes to the DNC e-mail
spam. If you're on the e-mail list, it tells you go go vote online
among other things.
spam. If you're on the e-mail list, it tells you to go vote online
among other things. After the embarrassment that was the first
debate, Democrats got really enthusiastic about online voting.
\_ Same thing happens on the RNC email list.
\_ Calling freerepublic a "republican site" is a little misleading.
It's a site for wingnuts like the guy who in an earlier motd post
referred to the republicans as being too socialist.
\_ Only in Bay Area does espousing the political beliefs of the
Founders earn classification as a "wingnut".
\_ Only in your diseased mind does freeper frothing reflect
the political beliefs of the Founders.
\_ You know, I find it amazing how frequently freerepublic
shows up as a dead horse to be kicked on the motd. Truly,
have you no better things to do than kick them over and
over again to make yourself feel better? I don't kick
Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh I just ignore them.
On an unrelated note, I love how when meyers et al bitch and
moan about how the republican congress is protectionist,
and spendy, and passing pork bills, that's considered
legidimate criticism. While at the same time
if some freeper calls them socialist (they are probably
complaining about the same things) he is a wingnut.
You people are amazing. -- ilyas
\- does anybody remember who used to keep saying
"the pentagon (procurement) is the last bastion of
stalinism?" --psb |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34107 Activity:high |
10/13 When is the debate?
\_ NOW, MORON
\_ GWB is a lot more calm, composed, and articulate
than ever before. I'm very very impressed.
Kerry-- waaaay too much negativity. It's looking
ugly...
\_ How 'bout "waaay too much reality"..
\_ Freedom is on the march, assholes!!!!!!!!!!!
\_ MARS, BITCHES!!!
\_ a very well scripted debate, with a lot of cooperation between
Bob the moderator and GWB. I wonder what's in it for Bob.
\_ sorry but this debate is unfair. It's so obvious that the
moderator is on the Republican side. |
| 2004/10/13 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34103 Activity:nil |
10/13 Long post on What Bush Admin Has Done moved to
/csua/tmp/whatbushhasdone for the curious. I understand what you're
saying, and I think it's important. I don't think it needs to crowd
an already overflowing motd. |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34099 Activity:high |
10/12 Given that Bush is so inarticulate and stupid, how in the
world did Al Gore lose 4 years ago?
\_ the media decided to leave the "GORE SIGH" on endless
repeat. - danh
\_ because he's very "likeable" and "personable" in person. or
so they say.
\_ Gore isn't as uber as Kerry. People thought you could have a dumb
leader at the top and talented lieutenants running the show.
With small government, people thought this was possible.
How much brains does it take to cut taxes and ignore the deficit?
By the way, Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes.
\_ My midwestern aunt and uncle had this exact view. They told me
a story about Gore making a speech to a local union in which
he mentioned his mother singing him a particular union song to
him in his cradle, and the song wasn't actually penned until the
70s (or thereabouts). They thought Gore was untrustworthy, and
Bush was stupid but "the president can't make any bad decisions,
he just has to be a good man".
\_ all right did your midwestern relatives actually
SEE AND HEAR gore saying this? or are they repeating
what they heard from the media? gore used to joke
that the lady who was a DNC delegate 13 times (she's 88)
used to sing him to sleep with the union label as
a lullaby. it's obviously a JOKE, who would seriously
sing that song as a lullaby to a baby? i don't know
why the media never got it. i think gore never
adequately explained his joke because it seems too
retarded to have to explain humor to living breathing
human beings. that's why i really doubt your relatives
heard gore say those exact words, you can dig up tapes
of Gore speaking to teamsters, he tells the joke,
they all laugh, because he is just joking about his
deep democractic union roots, he's not being serious.
oreilly joked about being totally high on the jon
stewart show last night, when are you going to report
him to the ATF? - danh
\_ I believe they told me it the info came from a friend.
I should also note that I was a Dean guy before
supporting Kerry, and that this aunt and uncle are
perhaps the nicest, smartest, and wittiest relatives
I have. I'm 25 and they're still sending me bday cards,
and I'm going to thank them for it in a letter that
probably includes the post above about the last 4 years
of Bush.
\_ I hope voters find a solid, noble core in Kerry, like
what's described in the Washington Post article on him
today. Gore had all the best intentions, but you can't
help but wonder if there was something to the latent Big
Mac attack he developed after he lost the election.
\_ God, this is such rotten revisionism. Gore had a solid,
noble core, and the GOP repetition campaign ("He said
he invented the Internet!" "He says they based Love
Story on him and Tipper!" "He's not honest!") and his
own advisers ("Press the attack!" "Beat up on Bush!")
killed the campaign. So the man ate a few burgers and
grew a beard after being outplayed by loudmouths and
anti-intellectuals. What's more human than that?
You want a candidate who was brilliant but an awful
people person, look no further than Bill Bradley.
\_ By the measure of 9/11, IMO Gore would have done an
excellent job had Osama struck on his watch. I'm just
trying to describe some intangible that led Dubya
voters to vote for Dubya instead of Gore.
\_ Because Gore didn't just beat Bush in the debate, he beat him up.
Americans hate bullies. That's why it looks so bad when Bush cuts
off the moderators.
\_ Gore was stiff and boring and unlikeable. Kerry, while a bit of
a blue blood, is much more personable. -Nader voter in 2000 |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34094 Activity:very high |
10/13 Does the president get "patted down" or have to walk through a
metal detector anywhere he goes here in America?
\_ That's no sock in the President's flight suit!
\_ "What do you think?" because that's a really dumb question. What,
he's going to carry a bomb on an airplane and blow himself up? They
need to protect Dick Cheney from him? Can you think of a single
scenario in which he would need to be patted down?
\_ Actually, Bush needs to be protected from Cheney, as do we all:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4041
\_ This argument is just plain stupid. By this reasoning, then
we shouldn't pat anyone down at the airport.
\_ Are you really this fuck-stupid?
\_ He's not, but you are apparently.
\_ Please. He's extrapolating a conclusion based on the
absurdly false premise that the office of the president
is somehow logically equivalent to everyone else. This
is categorically untrue, and your inability to see this
only confirms my first opinion: that you're fuck-stupid.
\_ actually you are.
\_ no... YOU are
\_ wdyha?
\_ wdYha???
\_ ED!
\_ BUD DAY!
\_ You're dumb.
\_ Am I? OK, give me one good reason to pat down the president.
\_ If it's because you/others believe he's more moral than us
or because he more than anyone should know not to break a
law, that's nonsense because neither he (nor any other
person) is. if it's because he's constantly surrounded by
secret service officers, then fine, that makes more sense.
\_ Dude. Seriously. 1) he's a republican. 2) he's texan.
\_ He loses the election and wants to take congress with him,
are you really this stupid?
\_ Now _that's_ a Ludlum premise if I've ever heard one:
"Silence gripped the Senate as the ousted President
lifted the ticking device above his head. 'My God!'
someone suddenly cried, 'the President has a bomb!'"
\_ Why doesn't everyone stop name-calling and just attach explanations
with their responses. Are we in 3rd-grade still?
\_ dood UR teh gay
\_ Excellent question to ask. If he gets
special treatments, then maybe a terrorist could hire a Bush
double, have him board airforce one, then have him hijack
the plane to crash into the Bush mansion.
\_ How do we know he hasn't already been replaced by a double?
\_ Because a double would have a noticeable bulge on his
back where the battery pack goes. |
| 2004/10/13 [ERROR, uid:34089, category id '18005#5.98625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34089 Activity:nil |
10/13 Checking the Facts [for tonight's debate] in Advance:
Paul Krugman http://csua.org/u/9g5 |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34083 Activity:nil |
10/12 Garry Trudeau puts up another long, broken link. Someone needs to
introduce this guy to the concept of a URL shortener. Here's the link
from today:
http://csua.org/u/9g3
\_ seems he is struggling to realize he might rather have a blog
than a comic strip |
| 2004/10/13 [ERROR, uid:34077, category id '18005#7.78125' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34077 Activity:nil |
10/12 Democrats spending ~2X the money than Republicans on the
election. Something's wrong:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/12/news/economy/election_ads
\_ What happens to campaign funds that they don't spend?
\_ It goes to Bud Day.
\_ This theme is incredibly lame, but I can't stop laughing. |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34076 Activity:nil |
10/12 Bud Day and Senator Edwards both like lawsuits:
http://www.classact-lawsuit.com/index.htm |
| 2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34067 Activity:high |
10/12 Bud Day's biography. http://csua.org/u/9fv \_ GW Bush's biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush \_ I don't think anyone can argue that W was a war hero of any stripe. I also don't think anyone can argue that Bud Day was anything but heroic. I hope that we will think on Day's service to his country before we choose to deride him. \_ He's a great soldier. That doesn't make him any more more qualified to talk politics though. \_ Argue against his position, then, but respect the man. It's uncalled for and childish to play silly games like changing his name to "Bad Day". He had a bad day when he was captured by the Vietcons. He had a bad 6 years when he was a POW. I wonder what was the worst day ever suffered by Mr. "Bad Day". \_ It's uncalled for and childish to keep deleting other people's posts and keeping yours. If you can't learn to respect other people's posts, stop whining when other people mess with yours. \_ Being a hero is not something to be mocked for, but it doesn't grant you immunity from being mocked for other reasons. \_ I guess we disagree then. I don't mock those whom I respect, no matter how vehemently we may disagree. I would think that Bud Day is worthy of great respect. He has earned that privilege. \_ Just going out on a limb here, but I don't think that Mr. "Bad Day" is making fun of Bud Day. I think he's making fun of the op. \_ Who knows what the intentions of Mr. "Bad Day" were? Only the man himself. However, there are ways to make fun of the op without at the same time belittling Bud Day. Deriding Bud Day and letting that pass unchallenged diminishes all of us. \_ did you go to boarding school in Connecticut? \_ Yeesh, what a pompous windbag. \_ And you wonder why veterans tend to vote Republican? \_ No, I don't -- it has nothing to do with this discussion. \_ No, you wouldn't think so. That's why veterans vote Republican. \_ No, actually, it's probably not. No cookie for you! \_ Bud Day isn't a pompous windbag. pp is. Your inability to distinguish between the two is part of what makes you a pompous windbag. \_ The man's a hero and former POW. Many heroes and POWs thought the antiwar movement was a betrayal of the troops. Many heroes and former POWs also joined the antiwar movement. The real villains in all of this were the ones who stood silent. \_ So which of his actions were worthy of the MOH? He survived a bunch of torture and wounds. I've read stories on some site about WWII citations that sounded far more incredible than this. Other than undertaking an escape from certain torture/possible death, the dangers are not of his own choice. It's like the difference between a guy escaping a burning building versus a guy running inside to rescue somebody. In any case his arguments seem one- sided and unconvincing. \_ Don't go there. Questioning how much someone suffered/risked to earn their medals is unseemly. How much have you bled for your country? \_ Oh, I see. So its okay to question Kerry's medals, but not this guy's medals. Seems logical. \_ I'm a Kerry contributer. -pp \- I think it is reasonable to trade off between "character issues" and policy preference when it comes to a political candidate. e.g. it seems reasonable to hold Clinton's infidelity against him, but not fair to pin Vince Foster's suicide on him. I can reasonably see a veteran not being able to forgive Kerry for his "betrayal" after he returned from Vietnam. I personally think this is more than offset by Bush's avoiding service, his avoiding responsibility for stuff like Abu Graib, his disregard for frankness and the truth, but then again I am not a verteran who may feel the betrayal far more viscerally than I would. However, while his post-service conduct may be a fair issue, the swiftboat stuff is just a sleazy smear. --psb |
| 2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34057 Activity:nil |
10/12 How much do you want to bet that the CIA has one more bullet
left in its belt to go against Bush? Valerie Plame???
http://csua.org/u/9fi
\_ It's difficult for me to say whether there is a vendetta like the
article says, there is a genuine urge to publish accurate
intelligence briefs that can't be spun by Dubya, or some
combination of this |
| 2004/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34053 Activity:insanely high |
10/12 Heh, Teresa Heintz pays 15% in taxes. Hehehe. Where's the outrage?
\_ Heinz
\_ Outrage at the Republican-written tax system? There's plenty.
\_ Our tax system favors the uber-rich. She's uber-rich. So is
John Kerry. So are Bush and Cheney, although not quite to the
same degree. They're all rich fucking bastards and getting more
rich by the minute. This election is all about "pick your favorite
rich bastard." I'll take the one that seems like he can actually
think coherently, thanks.
\_ also, Teresa Heintz is the *recipient* of the outrageous Bush
tax cuts. Bush is the source. He'd be a bastard even if he
paid his fair share.
\_ Heinz and Kerry put their money into tax shelters. So raising
their marginal rate won't help anything. Kerry's whining is
nothing more than class warfare.
\_ Whining is not equal to warfare. Except to an idiot
libertarian serial overexaggerator.
\_ Bush has ~$10M. Kerry/Heinz have ~$1000M. Two orders of
magnitude make quite a difference.
\_ So the rich are EVIIIIIIILLLL if you disagree with them?
\_ I don't see any problem with people being rich. Just
pointing out that Heinz/Kerry are two orders of magnitude
more rich than Bush. Saying they're all the same is
ridiculous.
\_ You have no idea how rich bush actually is..
\_ You don't *have* to vote for either of them. Vote for psb!
\_ That's why there's a need to remove the tax break for rich!
\_ No. We should all be paying no more than Mrs. Heinz.
\_ Her 17% is more than you make in your lifetime!
\_ Haven't you noticed? The Dem motto is "High taxes for everyone!
(but me!)" Also See "Kennedy"
\_ Nader in 2004! The only candidate with an established history of
being *for* the common man and working hard *against* large
corporations! -Nader'04
\_ To quote James Carville, I wouldn't piss down Nader's neck if his
\_ AKA Gollum.
\_ Huh?
\_ Carville looks like he was beaten with
the ugly stick.
\_ That's rich coming from a FAT SYSADMIN!
\_ You have no idea who posted this.
\_ Doesn't matter. FAT SYSADMINS
are the STANDARD!
chest was on fire.
\_ Not to meantion against the common mans' jobs at said large
corporations!
\_ 8 out of 10 richest Congressmen are democrats. What a surprise.
The party of the little people indeed.
\_ Your wealth does not make you for or against a particular class,
your positions do. Remind me again which party is in favor of
taxing dividend income, the Head Start program, socialized
medicine, and raising the minimum wage.
\_ However, it is easier to generous with your wealth when you
already have so much of it. Given great wealth, I would
hope that most of us would be decent enough to want to give
back to society, through either private donation or greater
taxation. The problem is that most of us aren't blessed
with great wealth, and those incremental dollars that may
not mean much to a Kennedy or a Pelosi might be more
meaningful to us.
\_ sourceP
\_ #t
\_ Not the previous poster, and from a highly unreliable
source, but http://vikingphoenix.com/public/docs/50rich.txt .
7 of top 10 richest member of congress are Democrats, and
I am too lazy to filter for just house members.
\_ And Kerry's money is actually his wife's as per their
prenup. So, it's actually 6-4.
\_ I think it's silly to argue over which party have more
wealthy members in the Congress. However, I am a fan
of fairness and honesty. If you use the above-posted
list, and you drop Kerry from the number 1 spot, then
you end up with 3 tied for the 10th spot, 1 R and 2 D's.
So the tally would be 8D-4R. I suppose that's still
better than 7D-3R. |
| 2004/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34044 Activity:high |
10/12 Anyone have an opinion on Austin Texas? Preferably someone that
has actually been there, and not "Bush and Texas suck!".
\_ My older brother got his laptop stolen out of his rental car there
while he was eating lunch.
\_ He left his laptop sitting open on a seat with a sign that said
"Steal me, my owner is stupid". Austin sucks!
\_ Actually it was in his trunk.
\_ Shit happens everywhere. BTW, I think the other day you
have mentioned this happened in San Antonio.
\_ Just reporting a data point. Chill.
\_ It's not a bad city. I drove through it and spent 3 days there.
Austin would be the only city that I'd consider living in, in TX,
and the biggest reason I wouldn't want to live there is that
it's land-locked.
\_ seconded. it's the only livable place in texas for several
reasons. the weather is less hellish than typical texas weather,
and the culture is not so monolithically texan. The UT area
of austin looks amazingly like berkeley.
\_ I had a gf out there. The city has a lot of very nice lakes,
so if you just need water, its very nice. I would have
considered moving out there.
\_ I have many, many coworkers who went to UT Austin. They all
liked it a lot. Most did say it was the only place in Texas
they would live. The majority went there for grad school and
were not originally from Texas. Only one of them was from CA,
though. I feel Californians have higher standards. Still, the
guy from CA ended up settling there. Most of my coworkers have
since left Austin, but talk highly of it. Me, I've never been.
\_ Flew out of Austin yesterday (first visit since junior high).
I was pretty impressed. Like other posters noted, it's by far the
best place to live in Texas. Big tech industry, great university
as the core of the town, really educated population, big live music
scene. Probably as liberal as you'll get in Texas. It's probably
the closest you'll get to Silicon Valley culture outside of
Silicon Valley (although I don't think it's a whole lot like
Berkeley, maybe more like Rockridge).
\_ I once came up with the big 4 reasons to relocate to TX, when I
considered it several years ago. My 4 reasons were: 1. no state
income tax, 2. concealed carry, 3. open containers in cars, and
4. women with big hair. Texas might have sissified in recent
years, so I don't know how many of the reasons may still apply. |
| 2004/10/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34036 Activity:high |
10/11 Congress just passed a bill to hand out $14.5 billion to people
who *choose* to live in the path of hurricanes. ilyas, and other
motd libertarians or other social regressives, how do you feel
about being "forced at gunpoint" to pay for these handouts? -meyers
\_ What about the $120 billion for people who "choose" to live on
top of our oil? Where's the outrage?
\_ Consider it evening the scorecard for Kosovo. At least this
time we are fighting for the right side (against militant
Islam as opposed to for it).
\_ California has earthquakes, Washington state has volcano, other
states has tornados, etc. Heck, we should all move to a
state without any natural disasters.
\_ what, and create a state with 'man-made' disasters?
\_ NYC has terrorist attacks.
\_ That volcano ain't nothin'. We should create some more disasters
on the west coast to keep things fair with the fed relief funds.
\_ CA already tossed it out of office.
\_ You're all missing the point. We hear whining about giving
handouts to people who *choose* to be poor, but now we have
a republican congress just giving federal money away. Where's
the outrage about not letting the free market fix this problem??
There are numerous insurance companies which could be making
big money here (insuring against disasters, not in paying out
claims, of course) -meyers
\_ I disagree with giving fed disaster relief, and pretty much
all subsidies of any kind. Calling this a 'republican congress'
because RNC has a slim majority is more than a little misleading.
I am neither republican nor a conservative. I try my best to
game a system where the two major parties are basically centrist,
and I don't like either. I do tend to dislike the modern DNC
more than the modern RNC, but that's DNC's fault. On a
slightly unrelated note, I am glad you found something else
to talk about. Thoughtful liberals and thoughtful libertarians
tend to agree on social ills (it's 'bad' that people able and
willing to work don't get enough to eat, etc). However, liberals
are more impatient, they are willing to prod society in what they
feel is 'the right direction' with a bayonet, if necessary.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of bayonets (and certainties
of what 'the right direction' is), so much so that they are
willing to put up with a lot of social ills to avoid said
bayonets. -- ilyas
\_ unless said bayonets are used by the government to murder
innocent people who are wrongly conviced of a crime.
apparently that doesn't even count as a social ill
for libertarians.
\_ I don't see how the old legal dilemma about the proportion
of innocents hanging in the gallows vs the guilty prowling
the streets (and where I happen to think a reasonable
solution lies) have to do with libertarians. Everyone has
to solve this problem. Libertarian opinions on proper
solutions differ, just as liberal and conservative opinions.
You are a troll. Come back with an actual point. -- ilyas
\_ Which is.. exactly what they do in florida. insurance companies
and hurricanes have a long colorful history.
\_ Yes it's rediculous, there is plenty of discord on
conservative sites.
\_ You just overwrote someone. I know there are insurance
companies in Florida. Where's the outrage about govt
messing with their market?? -meyers
\_ The same place the rest of your black 'n' white red
herring strawman went. In the trash. Try again with
new bait.
\_ 14.5B for disaster recovery is nothing compared to the shameless
giveaways to the special interests, such as the $160B farm bill
signed in 2002. Even The Economist commented: "The real explanation
for America's farm idiocy is electoral". Divide that by the number
of tax payers. This is on average how much is being taken from you
for farm subsidies.
\_ As if I wouldn't pay for it at the super market or every time I
eat out. I prefer paying that way but since aggressive income
tax schedules are sucking my income in half I'm ok if some of
that money goes to making my life better in some other way.
\_ It is plain and simple vote buying by the Republican Party, no
more and no less. Perfectly legal and how pork barrel politics
works. |
| 2004/10/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34022 Activity:very high |
10/10 RIP Christopher Reeve. http://www.drudgereport.com \_ Does anyone else feel dirty getting this from http://drudgereport.com? It's like hearing about it from Joan Rivers. \_ Yeah, but it has quite literally just been released. I saw a ticker on ABC to this effect. Damn. \_ No. \_ You feel 'dirty' getting news from a link re-posting service? Whatever.... \_ Stem cell research might have saved his life. \_ Yeah. As it is, it's probably better this way for him and others in the same position. Admirable guy. -John \_ Thank you for politicizing a celebrity's death. Thanks a lot. \_ He was very outspoken and political on this subject. I doubt he would mind this. If it gets people atually talking about it.. \_ *LAUGH* Yes, if only we had spent a few billions on stem cell research in the last 3 years, Reeves might be alive today! Hahahahahhaa, what a crock. Yes, they were on the cutting edge of useful real world success when the evil Bush stopped the Federal funding of harvesting the unborn. Riiiiight. \_ So you're aware that the stem cell lines were coming from extra embryos left over from artificial insemination? That such embryos would be thrown out anyway? \_ So you're aware that private research is totally unimpeded, and that all Bush did was not spend federal funds on new lines, right? And why hadn't those embryos been thrown out? \_ Ending federal funding is as good as killing the research dead. \_ If there was something there then it would be very profitable for private companies to spend their own money on it. They spend billions on new drugs. \_ Corporations are risk averse and slow to change. Most really pioneering research remains solely funded by the gov't. Drug research is a rare exception. They spend billions on new drugs. They can spend billions on something with an even high profit margin *if* there was something to it. \_ Sure, just like they spent billions developing the ARPANET before it was profitable. And just like they developed the transistor as a spinoff from the Apollo program, leading to the modern computer. \_ Yes and there's still Federal money going into this. They simply can't butcher more unborn for the vague hope something will come of it. Not with Federal money. \_ SINCE YOU ARE NOT LISTENING, MAYBE YELLING WILL HELP. THE STEM CELL LINES COME FROM EMBRYOS OTHERWISE USED FOR ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. NOT FROM ABORTIONS. IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE, YOU ARE BLIND. \_ Here it is from Yahoo news: http://csua.org/u/9en \_ Rest in peace, Superman. *salute* -- ilyas \_ Aye, R.I.P.. Superman lives in us. -- alice \_ movies actually used to be good. what happened? |
| 2004/10/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34009 Activity:nil |
10/9 http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom ("Bush is stupid" comic) \_ Everyone who thinks Bush is stupid already reads this. This is like telling us to read http://johnkerry.com for honest candidate and policy evaluations. |
| 2004/10/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34008 Activity:high |
10/9 Conservatives control the House, the Senate, the President, and two
Supreme Court Justices. How do they still manage to come off as the
victims of some huge liberal media conspiracy?
\_ The control of the media by foreign liberal elements is well
documented.
http://csua.org/u/9eg
\_ In case you didn't notice, members of the House, Senate, Presidency,
and Supreme Court neither write newspaper articles, nor do they
read the network news on the air every night.
\_ OP knows. He's just a troll.
\_ A little piece of news for you - most Congressional Republicans
are not conservative. The conservatives embody a relatively
small minority of the Congressional Republicans.
\_ So true. Most Congressional Republicans are part of the New
World Order Illuminati/Masonic conspiracy to kill our unborn
children, take away our guns and sell us into bondage to the UN. |
| 2004/10/9 [Health, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34006 Activity:very high |
10/9 Does *anyone* believe Bush's lie about drugs from Canada? I'm sure
there are morons in St. Louis who believe that Bush is protecting
them from Evil Canadian drugs, but does anyone on the motd actually
not see this as a shameless giveaway to the drug companies?
\_ Bush told a bald faced lie: ..
Bush told the truth: .
\_ I laughed at loud when Dubya said he was against Canada-imported
drugs to protect us from dangerous drugs.
The true answer, obviously, is that cheaper Canadian drugs
would impact U.S. drug company profits significantly, and
Republicans are wont to take actions that reduce profits from
U.S. companies in any business, since they believe, supportably,
that this is un-American.
It's what my O'Reilly-loving younger brother says:
Of course the Republicans know the real reasons and they are plenty
good, but it's necessary to play the political game.
\_ Speaking of whom, I saw Bill on the Daily Show, and my respect
for him actually went from none to grudging. He's a smart guy,
and I really can't wait for him to quit Fox and write a book
about his experiences there; I think he knows he's being paid
to be an actor on (nearly) state-supported TV.
\_ No you moron. The real issue is that as soon as we start
importing drugs en masse from Canada, Canada will stop getting
drugs from pharmaceuticals companies for the current price, and
there will be a single worldwide price.
\_ Right, blame the evil drug companies when in fact the US taxpayer
subsizdizes the worlds (eg. Canada and Europe's) drug consumption.
\_ The world is better of without those Candians. -G.W.B.
\_ Yes, your HS brother represents all Republicans. Can I quote my
19 year old half sister for the Democrats? BTW, what is Kerry's
plan for Iran? |
| 2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34003 Activity:high |
10/9 All of Karzai's opponents boycott the election and cite fraud.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216608.htm
No wonder Bush is taking credit-- that's how democracy works in
Bush country.
\_ Republican-sponsored vote fraud: Good enough for America,
good enough for Afghanistan!
\_ I could tell you that an imperfect election process is better
than dictatorship but I suspect you'd disagree. I'm already
walking the IHBT line by even responding.
\_ It's that simple, isn't it? Either you're for an imperfect
election process or you're for the Taliban. What about
taking the time to hold a reasonable election?
\_ Is this from the same ABC that put their left wing bias on paper
and published it? Try a URL from a reliable source.
\_ Which, the Australian Broadcast Corporation (this) or the
American Broadcast Corporation? 'Cos I got both.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=151668 |
| 2004/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34000 Activity:very high |
10/8 Bush was asked to name three mistakes he's made. He can't
name one. He's had the hardest job in the world for almost
four years and he cannot name a single mistake. Is he
the Second Coming of the Messiah?
\_ Actually, as much as I loathe bush, I thought his answer was
pretty clever. He claimed his biggest mistakes were various
appointments who he didn't want to embarass on TV. Of course
I'm positive that
1) he didn't think of that himself and
2) it's Rove's message to anyone who might consider showing
disloyalty to the chimp in chief that they are about to
become Bush's biggest mistake.
What would any of you have said (assuming you had actally drunk
the neocon kool-aid and wouldn't way the war)?
\_ There aren't any "neocons" on the motd. It's a made-up phrase
to sound like "neo nazi".
\_ you are Bush's adviser. What would you advise him?
\_ Republicans just don't apologize. This makes them dumb AND evil.
\_ Haha, this is one of those classic annoying interview questions.
Bush spent most of his answer defending the Iraq war so I guess
that was one of his mistakes.
\_ Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time!
\_ Other than Ashcroft, I can't think of a single mistake.
\_ Again with O'Reilley on the Daily Show: Bill pointed out that
these people (Bush, et. al.) are highly insulated and get a lot
of sycophantry; couple that with an almost maniacal belief in
everything they say and do, and what you have is a President who
very literally cannot see the mistakes he's made.
\_ All Republicans are stupid/evil drones straight to the top.
All Democrats are enlightened and good people who sensitive to
the needs of terrorists and others around the world. Seriously,
the question was an obvious setup straight from the DNC fax
machine. It would have been blitheringly stupid of any
candidate to name 3 mistakes. It would be front page news the
next day and he'd get beat over the head forever. What about
John Kerry? Was voting for unilateral disarmament in the 80s
a mistake? Was voting against the first Gulf War *after* the
UN had passed a war resolution a mistake? Was making shit up
about Vietnam war crimes a mistake? Has John Kerry ever made
a mistake? Please name 3.
\_ _Bush_ hasn't made any mistakes because he doesn't make any
real decisions (except in what to say when the reception dies to
his remote control during a debate). And he's not qualified to
comment on Cheney's mistakes... so what's he gonna say? |
| 2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33995 Activity:insanely high |
10/8 As of 10/8, 8:39PM, polls ask who you think won the
second debate (Bush, Kerry, [undecided]):
http://cbsnews.com (11.51%, 88.10%)
http://cnn.com (16%, 82%, 2%)
http://foxnews.com (30%, 70%)
http://msnbc.com (27%, 73%)
http://freerepublic.com (95%, 1%)
\_ "Poll: Bush, Kerry tie in 2nd debate", an article from CNN.
So what's up. CNN becoming conservative and trying to save face?
\_ Thanks to the DNC e-mail spam, I guess.
\_ Check http://freerepublic.com for all the "FREEP THE MSNBC POLL"
posts. The difference is that the freepers (and Chris
Matthews, apparently) actually think an online poll
means something. The lefty swampers are trying to show
just how FUCKING POINTLESS these online polls are. --scotsman
\_ There's about 150 freepers vs. the tens of thousands of Dems
on the DNC mailing list. This has been said many times before
on the motd: freepers are not conservatives or Republicans and
all clear thinking people disavow them in the same way you
should disavow nuts like Michael Moore and the democratic
http://underground.com
\_ You've been trolled scotsman! HAHA -!person who posted it
\_ Actually, no. I know who posted it, and I'm just
explaining how I see the poll slamming, not flaming
them. And unless there's a freeper manifesto you
can point me to that says that they're trying to
make a mockery of the polls (I can point you to
plenty on the left), then I stand by my point. --scotsman
\_ Thank god we have geniuses like yourself to
point out the absurdity. Please, let me
express my unwavering gratitude. Thank
you! P.S., don't you find it slightly unusual
that you have worked yourself up into a frenzy
about this.
\_ No more so than any other criticism of journalism
in this country.. Are you happy with the state
of affairs? Do you like bankrupted localities?
Do you like soldiers being killed and wounded
in a preemptive war against a non-threat? Do you
like all of this wrapped up in a pretty media
package? You mock my anger? I mock your complacency
and cowardice (sign your damn name, mr. black).
--scotsman
\_ RACIST!!!
\_ RAPIST!!!
\_ PAPIST!!!
\_ TRAPPIST!!!
\_ PRIAPIST!!! |
| 2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33993 Activity:insanely high |
10/8 Holy SHIT Bush is actually doing pretty well, did he rehearse or
something? In addition, he's taking notes!!! He didn't do that
last time. SHIT.
\_ They gave him back his cocaine.
\_ Uh, well? Maybe on the "internets." Did you see his Dean Scream
moment?
\_ *SCOWL*
\_ Kerry mistakes so far, add if you wish:
1) "I'm a lawyer too" (most ppl hate lawyers)
\_ I don't think this was a mistake
\_ First thing we do is kill all the lawyers.
2) "Join me to defeat ppl who make over $200,000"
(bad bad bad, they control YOUR life)
\_ my combined income is, in fact, over $200,000. I don't
like Bush, but I like my nice house and I enjoy co-owning
my Piper Arrow. That is why I'm voting for Bush.
\_ hmm, so you are really dying for that $2000 taxcut you get
with bush huh with your $200k income?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters
discover that they can vote themselves money from the
public treasure. From that moment on the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most
money from the public treasury, with the result that a
democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy
followed by a dictatorship."
\_ I'm glad you believe that! Now take a history lesson
\_ My wallet isn't your public treasure, thanks. I'm not
the piper guy.
\_ Some money has to come out of someone's wallet for
the "public treasure". You just don't want it to be
you, because it's not *fair* to tax people more just
because they can afford more. So horribly unfair.
\_ Ever hear of equality? I know its a new and
radical concept, but perhaps you might want
to consider it. If all citizens are equal
then they should all pay an equal percentage
of their income as taxes. Why should I have
have to pay a higher tax rate just b/c my
income is higher, when all I did was study
hard, work late nights to get to a better
job, and mr. pot smoking slacker english
major drank his way through school and
now can't get a job and expects me to pay
more so that he can live off of my hard
work. That is BS.
\_ What if that English major wins the lottery,
inherits money, or happens to get a good job
through nepotism? What if I worked hard like
you did and yet make less money through
choice or bad luck? I am all for a flat tax,
but your argument is stupid. Some rich
people work hard. Some don't. Same as the poor.
\_ In general, barring lottery winners etc.
people getting paid more are doing more
economically valuable work. If you make
less money through choice then why do you
want others to make up the difference?
And let's say in theory we do the same type
of work, but you work half as hard and get
half the income. Why should your tax rate
be different for the year?
\_ Easily answered: "gimme! gimme! gimme!"
\_ simple numbers game, piss off 2% of the populus and curry the
favor of 98%, that doesn't make sense to you?
\_ no but under Kerry I'll have to pay a LOT more tax. No thx.
\_ Someone has to pay for all of this invading, you're
just going back to the Clinton levels
\_ Which were too high.
3) "Bush's [nonexisting] lumber company"
\_ Bush DOES have timber company...
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265
\_ good find.
******************* Partisan Tools Below This Line *********************
\_ Is it partisan to say Bush sounded even stupider in the
second debate?
\- it's not partisan, it is foolish. --psb
\_ Are you saying it is foolish because Bush did not
sound even stupider; or because the statement
invites scorn; or both?
\_ Did you even watch the debate last night?
\_ Bush started strong but he is fading fast
\_ Did you watch the same debate? Wishful thinking? Faint hope?
\_ That was the way it went in the first debate, too.
\_ And you didn't notice any difference between his first and
last night's efforts? Ok.... whatever.....
\_ Bush creamed Kerry this time.
\_ Dubya was even more stupid this time. You don't become less
wrong by yelling it louder.
\_ Would you like the pink or the blue kool aid?
\_ apparently that's not how people outside of California
think. My officemate from Indiana (very pro Bush) shouts
loudly when 1) he feels that he has a strong point
2) when he doesn't want to hear from you again.
People outside of California seem to have different
social protocols, and shouting works for them.
\_ your co-worker from Indiana is pretty stupid
\_ that may be so, but people like him are
all over the United States, voting for Bush.
\_ True. And liberals all across the U.S. are asking
"Why isn't Kerry whooping this chimp?"
\_ I know why, and you should too, if you have been
paying attention. -- ilyas
\-My opinion on the two people at the top of
the ticket is well known but i have to say that
Melman fellow from BUSHCO is 100x better than
mary beth cahill. it was sort of sad that charlie
rose basically gave the bush campiagn a lot more
free airtime to "clarify" [and it was well done]
than kerry's spokespeson. it was lame of kerry
co to let bushco go last and get a lot more time.
they need to be more ruthless on "details" like
this. --psb
\_ Charlie Rose? Who watched *that*?
\_ Yes, I know why. People are dumb. Dubya and his
handlers know how to talk to dumb people, as he is
himself: dumb. Granted there are smart
Republicans out there, but they don't form the
majority of those voting for Dubya.
Clinton: "When people think, Democrats win."
\_ I'm voting for Dubya and I'm dumb! Woot! We
is all jus' whitey craker red neck hiks on thiz
side uh da ile! You just keep telling yourself
that if it makes you feel better about last
night. I prefer to always assume my opposition
is not moronic and not take things for granted
like you do with your weak labelling.
\_ when people start thinking, we'll democratize
both parties so that party bosses don't control
every political position where one party
controls a safe majority.
\_ When people who profess to care actually
bother to vote then Democrats would win,
too.
\_ Isn't the DNC asking for volunteers to
take an hour or two to make get-out-the-vote
phone calls on election day? I think if
you do have spare time, this could make
a big difference.
\_ The election is done. Everyone already
know who they'll vote for. Everyone who
is going to show is already going to show.
The only thing we don't yet know is which
polls are more accurate than others.
Anyway, when I see "political call" show
on my caller ID, I don't pick up. I
doubt any apathetic person would either. |
| 2004/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33982 Activity:high |
10/8 Bush was secretly wired during the debate
http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html
\_ It was a personal Holtzmann shield.
\_ too much risk of nukular explosion in case of lasgun usage.
\_ I believe he was wearing something, but I'm curious-- why didn't
they position the bulge lower, in the small of his back? I can fit
an ipod or even a thin novel just above my belt with very little
visibility, and that's not even wearing a jacket.
\_ Transmission distance. This proves liberals are smarter: Kerry's
magic cheat pen with wireless receiver and handwriting-
recognizing transmitter had a wider operating range.
\_ so...let's suppose that Bush *was* secretly connected to some
wireless device during the debate. Do you really think that
they couldn't use something more compact? It just doesn't add up.
And where is the wire going to his ear? most cameras were pointed
at his head, and that wire would surely be visible.
\_ It could be a receiver/transmitter with a tiny earpiece you can't
see. Look at websites for spy stuff, we can assume that Bush
has access to the best.
\_ Right. Let's assume he has access to the best. Does that
really include a bulky rectangular thing worn on the back
under one's shirt?
\_ Well, if you wanted to be super-cool you'd use encryption,
spread-spectrum, and transmit constantly so it just looks
like background noise. That all requires more electronics
and battery power. To top it off, they might not have
wanted to bother with some custom design, and chose to go
with something 'off the shelf' that may not have been
optimized for size.
\_ here's something off-the-shelf:
http://www.thespystore.com/covertcommunicationequipment.htm
I don't see any reason why spread spectrum or encryption
would take more space or batteries. this is just
what 10 seconds with google turned up. I'm positive
that if Karl Rove really wanted to beam spread spectrum,
encrypted signals into W's ear, no giant battery
pack would be needed. One wonders how many kids are
cheating their way through school with these things,
though.
\_ Both encryption and spread-spectrum require extra
chips, and cen be fairly demanding (several watts)
depending on what encryption or DSS you use.
Continuous transmission (to look like background)
would up the power requirements a lot. Thing of a
cell phone operating continuously, with more
complicated signal processing and you get a sense of
the power requirements. CDMA uses DSS but it's only
spread over (I think) 1.5MHz. You'd want a much
wider spread for being sneaky.
\_ Alcoa is up today.
\_ Heh. -- ulysses
\_ Let's assume GWB had access to Star Trek Tech(c). There was
obviously no one feeding him lines through it.
\_ 'Obviously'? How do you figure that?
\_ Did you *see* the debate?
\_ Read the article. Their expert seems to be saying that this is
both plausible and technically possible to do wirelessly. Given
how poorly Bush did in the debate, however, I'd almost believe
that someone hacked the feed.
\_ Yes, I go to Salon for all my non-partisan information. Could
you use something less biased like the http://democraticrepublic.com
or http://www.johnkerry.com next time? Thanks!
\_ Not everything http://salon.com or http://drudgereport.com reports is
a lie.
\_ Salon: Abu Ghraib scandal, Drudge: Monica Lewinsky
\_ Liberals, trying to outstupid stupid. They might win.
\_ Couldn't somebody just start blasting the debate with broad-spectrum
whitenoise (or move up and down through the frequencies until Bush
looks pained)? Or what about a cell-phone killing EMP?
\_ Broad-spectrum white noise would work, but it would disable every
wireless device in the room. (Did the moderator have an
earpiece? Did somme backstage techs?) Shifting frequency would
not jam it if it uses spread-spectrum. An EMP would fry the
cameras.
\_ So no one has mentioned the fact that Bush wears body armor when
he's in public (at the insistence of the Secret Service)? It
appears that Salon is doing spin in a response to the video showing
Kerry violating the rules of the 1st debate. See
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc57.htm for a link to the video.
\_ Don't delete my mocking or I'll delete your post.
\_ KERRY BROUGHT A MAGIC DEBATE-WINNING PEN! HE CHEATED!!!
\_ i thought it was a magic penis
\_ "I'll take 'The Penis Mightier', Alex."
\_ Personally, I think he was packing heat. Probably that pearl
handled revolver that they took off Saddam Hussein when he
was captured.
\_ 1. If he wore body armor because the secret service required it,
you would not know about it. Making that info public just
tells potential assassins to go for a head shot.
2. Presidential candidates are also given a SS detail, so both
Bush and Kerry would be wearing it. Any shots of a Kerry
bulge?
3. Body armor is BULKY and HOT. You would see it much more
clearly, and the Bush team would not be asking for 70 degree
room temperatures.
\_ all three of these "arguments" are weak as hell. #3 is
true of some armor but not of the light-duty armor
plates that are thin and flexible. i find it
instructive about your cognitive abilities that you
make arguments which rely on the assumption that you
know everything there is to know (about, for example,
body armor). #1 is a really shitty argument and doesn't
hold up to any sort of logical scrutiny. compare to
"if bush had a bodyguard, you wouldn't know about it."
#2 assumes that all security details have the same
threat model. to sum up, you're a fucking idiot. --aaron
\_ you suck --aaron
\_ Is this what Google Millionaires do with their spare
time? Send some of that green my way, aaron, and I
guarantee I'll have more fun with it.
\_ I know that facts carry less weight than your from-the-ass
speculation, but here's at least one reference:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26143
"The concealed body armor currently worn by George W. Bush,
the Secret Service and many law-enforcement folks..."
Hackworth is not exactly a Bush partisan.
\_ WorldNetDaily is a piece of shit.
\_ Then read the same commentary at:
http://www.hackworth.com/21jan02.html
And find out who Hackworth is before dismissing him. Dumbass.
\_ just a technical point. If you wear body armor that
doesn't have bulky plates, it won't protect you against
assault rifle rounds. It's mainly for pistols.
Hackworth should know better. |
| 2004/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33969 Activity:very high |
10/7 maybe he's lying, but Bush claims no draft while he's president:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041005-6.html
\_ there won't be a draft because draftees are useless or have
negative value to the modern US military. it takes a few *years*
to train a new recruit to be useful on the high-tech battlefield.
by the time they managed to draft and train a million slackers,
whatever event they were drafted for would be long over. modern
warfare is so fast now that when war breaks out there is no time
to build up anything. it's a bring-whatcha-got kinda thing now.
thus, the idea that there will be a draft for anything short of
a mass invasion by a foreign nation (which we know can't happen)
is simply daft.
\_ Kerry wants more troops sent in.. so more likelyhood of draft
\_ not necessarily US troops.
\_ not necessarily US troops. likelihood _/
\_ "as long as I am President, there will be no draft" -Dubya, Tuesday
\_ Read... My... Lips.
\_ I believe Dubya says this because he thinks the current Iraq
plan (currently deployed U.S. troops + Iraqi National Guard)
can work. He'll probably say his commanders on the ground said
Samarra was the example of this.
\_ And we can trust everything Bush says, because he is so honest
and straightforward with the American people. Not to mention
having such great judgement.
\_ I think he's a lying sack of shit. I also think he's not
going to restart the draft unless there is a really major
attack on American soil. -op
\_ I want to play devil's advocate: If there is a terror
\_ I want to play devil's advocate: Say there is a terror
attack on American soil that does not do significant damage
to the economy/stock market and business infrastructure,
Dubya may still implement the draft, while a whole lot of
people may think it wasn't a "really major attack" but won't
say anything because they'll be accused of being traitors.
Then we go after Iran even though it was al Qaeda that did it,
because you know, this is the post-9/11 world and if America
shows weakness or uncertainty, the world will drift toward
tragedy. SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP!
How do we like dem apples?
\_ Do you buy your tinfoil hat off the rack or do you get
them custom made?
\_ Homemade from only the finest heavy-duty Alcoa foil.
\_ How _much_ do you think this differs from what happened
with Iraq, justification 9/11? Except I can definitely
say Iran is a much greater threat today, than Iraq to
U.S. national security before we invaded.
\_ The rest of us carry state information. Perhaps
you don't.
\_ I make a solid devil's advocate case.
I can't say much for what you provided.
\_ If you're making a devil's advocate claim,
then the question of tinfoil hat is justified.
\_ So says you without any meaningful
indication of why, even after three posts.
\_ Yup, just like when he said he wouldn't do any nation building.
\_ I'm a uniter, not a divider.
We must be humble.
\_ We mut have a strong but humble foreign policy. |
| 2004/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33968 Activity:very high |
10/4 What personal gain does Soros have for not electing Bush
(did Bush turn down Soro's contract or something? If anything
Soros has a lot of gain from Bush's tax cut for the super
wealthy). And did http://factcheck.com/georgesoros.com help undecided
voters determine which way to vote?
\_ Soros is rich enough that he can go with his conscience, which
he never did when he was younger. He is an example of someone
who can afford to be a liberal.
\_ among the other plantation owners
\_ What a hypocrite. Okay, I'll go with my conscience when I become
super-rich someday.
super-rich some day.
\_ Maybe Soros sees how BushCo is royally fucking up this country and
wants to use his power and influence to do something about it?
Did you actually read the speech? Maybe it's hard for Bush supporters
to imagine someone doing something without gaining from it financially?
\_ Maybe he has witnessed fascism in his lifetime and doesn't
want to see it again. Maybe he doesn't like the idea of the
plutocracy which will result from the Bush tax agenda. Maybe
he sees that serfdom is a bad idea.
\_ Soros is concerned about the drift toward totalitarianism
in this country. He grew up in a Soviet block state so
he knows the dangers.
\_ You know, most ex-Soviet block folks are not on the DNC
side... Equating Bush et al with fascism is like equating
Cheney with the neocons -- stupid. -- ilyas
\_ You'll have to explain this one in more detail, tou've lost me.
\_ You'll have to explain this one in more detail, you've lost me.
\_ Pronoun dereference error. -- ilyas
\_ I've definitely had issues with the man who destroyed the Thai
\_ Not true. I beat him to the punch. Fascism is governement
working hand in hand with industry. The bush administration
is replete with examples of cronyism, favoritism,
deregulation (read lawlessness). All fascist tendencies.
\_ This is incoherent. -- ilyas
\_ First of all totalitarianism is not the same thing as fascism.
Are you deliberately trying to change the topic by Godwin'ing
it? Secondly, do you honestly believe that George Soros is
"stupid?" He seems pretty brilliant to me.
\_ I wasn't the first to bring up fascism in this thread.
I ve never met Soros, so I can't comment on how 'stupid'
he is. I think being concerned about totalitarianism is
always healthy. Thinking that Bush is a dangerous lunatic
like we had 60ish years ago is ... overreacting.
Bush is not a dangerous lunatic, he is a frat boy.
I ve heard so many shrill comparisons of Bush and
that short german guy that I have a hard time taking
these sorts of discussions seriously anymore. Having
said that, is anyone willing to give a thoughtful
argument for how the US politics are in imminent danger
of sliding into something unsavory if Bush is reelected?
-- ilyas
\_ Bush has eroded civil liberties, more than any
president in my lifetime. This concerns me. And I
certainly did not bring up facism. I think you are
responding to the wrong entry. Just because
totalitarianism took one historical path (by
following a lunatic) once in history 60 years
ago does not mean that there are not other ways
to it. Read up on the history of Mussolini, Pinochet,
Franco and Peron for more germane historical
examples.
\_ Yeah, that concerns me too. However, compare to
Roosevelt during WWII (specifically internment and
press restrictions). -- ilyas
\_ Or WWI, which was even more severe, with the
alien sedition act. But the problem with these
comparisons is that during WWI and WWII we were
fighting a state actor and had a clearly
defined goal and endpoint to the civil
liberty restrictions. Today, we are fighting
"terror" something so ill defined that it
will never be defeated. And to top it off,
Bush used a war that he chose to get into
as an excuse to further the crackdown on
civil liberties. Combine these and you start
to see a dangerous precedent, especially
compared to historical actors who have
done similar things.
\_ Yes, that's true. Though one wonders how
these restrictions managed to steamroll
their way into law. It's not like the
POTUS can randomly rewrite laws without
some help (or at least inaction) from other
branches. I am less concerned with Bush
specifically, and more concerned with the
government machine which makes the
crackdown not only possible but a reality.
The office of the POTUS doesn't have enough
power to be a worry in and of itself.
-- ilyas
\_ Don't underestimate the power of
demagoguery combined with an enraged
populace. Though I suppose the biggest
threat has passed for the moment. What
about after the next 9/11? And there
will be a next one.
\_ I've definitely had issues with the man who destroyed the Thai
economy for fun and profit preaching about high-minded politics
but I am mostly over it.
\_ Is he heavily invested in dollars? Could he be afraid
"4 MORE YEARS!" will result in the dollar losing value?
\_ warren buffet also likes kerry, and he has like a 19 billion
bet on the dollar falling. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33963 Activity:nil |
10/6 Where have all the MOTD conservatives gone? Are you guys just
licking your wounds at this point, or what? Now that you've been
proven wrong about just about everything, are you just going to take
it and vote for Bush anyway? |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33949 Activity:moderate |
10/6 If you look in the transcript of last night's debate, Cheney said
the following: (from http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html
"...They know that if you go, for example, to http://factcheck.com (sic),
an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania,
you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton."
Try it. go wo http://www.factcheck.com oops.
I wonder exactly how this happened.
\_ Here's the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12901-2004Oct6.html
\_ whois http://factcheck.com:
Registrant: (I bet it's an offshore Halliburton subsidiary)
Name Administration Inc. (BVI)
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
\_ this is already all over the blogs
\_ It now redirects to Location: http://www.georgesoros.com
"George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is
beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war
in Iraq is making America less safe -- and why President Bush
should not be re-elected." How wierd..
should not be re-elected." How weird..
\_ slate claims Soros took advantage of Cheney's blunder and bought
up http://factcheck.com.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107809
Is this even possible? Could the domain name propagation even
happen that fast?
\_ It's more likely someone already owned the domain and put in
a redirect.
\_ slate has corrected the article to state this. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33945 Activity:nil |
10/4 "if you compare the language used to describe Jeffords to the
language used to describe Zell Miller [after the Democrat's
pro-Bush speech at Republican convention],
you will know almost everything you need to know about the
modern media."
Remembrance of Contracts Past
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/691zjgqk.asp
\_ Except Jeffords is right, and Miller is wrong.
\_ I know nothing of Jeffords, but Miller tried to challenge
his interviewer to a duel. Now THAT'S news.
\_ Honk if you demand satisfaction! |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33943 Activity:nil |
10/4 This seems a bit...unfair.
http://tinyurl.com/45qwp
\_ fairness is when you're in kindergarten and a kid steals
your candy bar and you cry and the teacher spanks that kid.
GWB wasn't born with the gift of logic and speech, is that
fair? Cheney wasn't born with nice hair and nice white
teeth, is that fair? Get real you hippies and liberals,
there is no such a thing as fairness in the real world.
\_ Everyone look at the cynical heartless Republican!
\_ Not really. Networks are supposed to give equal air time to
political ads from the two parties leading up to the election,
so the speech probably won't be carried on network TV. |
| 2004/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33917 Activity:low |
10/4 Apparently Michael Moore was offered the fraudulent Killian memos
during the making of F9/11 and decided to pass on them. So who was
shopping these things around, and why did Dan Rather take something
that Michael Moore wouldn't even touch?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000097.html
\_ Michael Moore *claims* he was offered the memos. Thanks.
\_ (1) Some liberal. (2) Moore sees a trap; Rather sees a scoop.
\_ Sure smacks of Karl Rove hiding a bug in his own office only to
find it and pin it on the opponent.
\_ As much as some liberals think of Rove as Emperor Palpitine,
I believe there is no credible evidence that he goes beyond
misrepresentation to Watergate-level stuff.
\_ I don't think the Killian memos were Rove. A tactic that
subtle just doesn't seem like his style. Rove treats
politics like an FPS videogame. Find a simple attack that
works and just keeping doing it until it doesn't work anymore.
At least that's what I've gathered so far... -- ulysses
\_ If the Killian memos were Rove, how would this compare to
Watergate? Illegality here would be hard to prove. I
suppose Bush could sue for slander, but why bother? |
| 2004/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33908 Activity:high |
10/4 Still think the draft is just a rumor? Check out HR163 and S89 at
http://thomas.loc.gov
\_ Direct link, for the lazy: http://csua.org/u/9bc
\_ Old news. A bunch of Democrats suggested we resart the draft.
What I don't understand is why Kerry now seems to want to pin
this goofiness on Bush. Don't worry about it, it won't go
anywhere.
\_ Regardless of reality, it is becoming a campaign issue. "Don't
worry, be happy" isn't a very good way to deal with it.
\_ So let me get this straight... a bunch of democrats want
to restart the draft, and the campaign issue is "Bush will
reinstitute the draft"!? Do you have brain siphilis?
reinstitute the draft"!? Do you have brain syphilis?
\_ http://www.blatanttruth.org/draft.php
\_ So now we backed off from the credible *.gov link
(which implicated democrats) into some fly-by-night
left wing freep show which implicated Bush with
t0p-s3kr3t d0cz!!~!```11 You are pathetic.
\_ News flash: the Dems were lodging protest legislation
designed to point out the class inequalities in the
current SS. BushCo is looking to start up a Skills
Draft.
\_ This is a retarded link. None the less, it's old
news. The draft was never "stopped" you know, the
Selective Service still exists, and I see no reason
it shouldn't be updated with the rest of the
military. Call me when that democrat bill goes
though.
\_ Not just Democrats, dude. Chuck Nagel is a Republican from
Nebraska.
\_ Virtually all are Democrats. One Republican doesn't
prove anything.
\_ Here's the sponsor list. Where's Chuck?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@P
\_ Surely you can type "Chuck Nagel draft" into google
all by yourself.
\_ Whoops, it's apparently protest legislation:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft
More likely to affect us here at CSUA is the Skills Draft:
http://csua.org/u/9bf (sfgate)
Sorry about the confusion. -op
\_ Skills draft? I don't think the typical sodan's el8 linux
hax0r skillz are draft quality.
\_ Spent any amount of time with GI Joe lately? The ability
to use a computer is in high demand in the army these days.
\_ Because knowing is half the battle!
\_ Special Skills Draft:
Putting your Counter-Strike skillz to the ultimate test! |
| 2004/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33898 Activity:moderate |
10/1 A dimwit conservative is asking questions and is waiting to be flamed.
Can we find all the falacies in these statements and mass mail them
to Bush supporters?
http://forums.go.com/abcnews/thread?threadID=8246
\_ Republican: stupid/evil, Democrat: smart/good.
If he's so dim, why don't you have the answers at the tip of your
fingers? You shouldn't need help and research to find flaws in
such obvious crap. Right?
\_ No, you have got it backwards. Democrats: evil/stupid,
Republicans: smart/good. Just ask Rush! |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33879 Activity:moderate |
10/1 So what do Kerry supporters think of the whole "draft is coming"
misinformation campaign?
\_ The Bush Administration has reinstated the draft as a "backdoor"
draft already. People whose terms of duty in the military are being
required to continue to serve. Reservists are being shipped out.
Reservists, by and large, signed up thinking that they would only be
used in the direst of dangers to the US. Bush's using them like
normal combat troops, for which they are untrained, unready, and
unfit.
\_ While this may be a legitimate concern (though what I've read
doesn't support this entirely), that wasn't my question. I'm
referring to MTV's "Rock the Vote" and emails going around saying
that Bush will reinstate the draft after the election.
\_ So what do you think, as a Bush supporter, of the RNC mailers
going around Arkansas saying the Democrats want to ban the
bible?
\_ No matter who's in the white house, if the president decides to
"Stay the course" or increase our commitment, there will have
to be a draft as our "volunteer with an asterisk" army is
starting to really show the strain and lack of manpower:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_9_24_04.htm
-nweaver
\_ This link is so biased and ill-informed, it's almsot useless.
The national guard and the reserves are military units with
expectations and training commensurate with soldiers in the
US Army, because, well, they ARE in the army. The whole
article seems to miss this basic point. Enlisting in the
Gaurd or the reserves with the expectation that you won't be
sent into combat is just fucking stupid. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
THERE FOR.
\_ Considering that William S Lind is politically VERY
conservative and militarily brilliant (after all,
he literally wrote the book on Maneuver Warfare, which
became the basis for Marine Corps tactical doctrine),
he is probably one of the best commentators on this
whole mess. -nweaver
\_ If he's one of the best, then field as a whole must
suck. The article is couched in phrases that go a
long way toward undermining its credibility.
Perhaps this brilliant man has a better article
which you can reference to make your point.
\_ There's no problem with calling up the reserves. The
problem is with calling up the reserves for multiple tours
of duty which they're NOT for. And calling up the IRR
(individual ready reserve) which is a system whereby an
enlisted soldier can be called to serve AFTER the term of
their enlistment expires. The IRR is intended only to
cover emergency mobilizations, not a long-term elective
war planned a year in advance. How would you like it if
you served your term in the army and they call you up YEARS
afterwards and order you to return. Wouldn't it feel like
a draft to you?
\_ Unfortunately, the link does a poor job articulating
this, instead focusing on sensational comparisons to
Soviet Infantry regiments, and silly statements
such as: "Most Guardsmen enlisted expecting to help
their neighbors in natural disasters" as if this has
any relevance. When you sign up, the contract is
pretty clearly stated: it's NOT about natural
disasters or repairing roads four miles from your
home; it's about going to war as unit of the US
Military WHEREVER and HOWEVER the US Military sees
fit. It's a crime that the tours are being extended
the way they are, but at least find a more objective
link to make your point.
\_ I think the draft is coming, no matter who wins the election.
There is a severe manpower shortage. We have not activated
the IRR since Vietnam and when we did, the draft followed
the next year. -Vet |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33878 Activity:moderate |
10/1 fuck you narrow minded liberals who have to resort to selectively
nuking when you can't make intelligent counter arguments. Expect
more mass deletion from now on.
\_ I can counter-argue anything you'd like, but if you ask me to debate
20 points with you, I'll just give you the finger. FWIW I did not
nuke your "debate". -dgies
\_ why don't we outsource the nuking of motd the same way GWB
outsourced killing bin Laden to Afghan warlords?
\_ You mean they'll ask for lots of $100 bills and then let the motd
escape? |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33869 Activity:nil |
9/30 <DEAD>www.democrats.org/support/kerry.html?dsc=NETHAM1<DEAD> I'm drafting a chain letter asking people to donate just $10.00, do you guys have suggestions? \_ Chain letters are evil. Are you trying to help Bush? |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33865 Activity:very high |
9/30 this is the url i give to my relatives who tell me they
are voting for bush:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/slideshows/pop/?040510onslpo_prison
\_ http://csua.org/u/9a4 is better. - danh
\_ Yeah, Bush is responsible for that. It's just the same as
Saddam cutting off their hands, and rape. After all they
are prisoners, right?
\_ true conservatives should be angry bush hired guys dumb
enough to take those photos on their digital cameras and
and attach them to email to their buddies back home.
and attach them to email to their buddies back home. - danh
\_ shit rolls downhill. Bush has hired a cabinet of people who
show consistent, deliberate contempt for the Geneva convention,
and for basic American ideas of human rights and justice
(ashcroft, Rumsfeld, etc.). This is why my mother in law
who voted for Reagan twice, voted for Bush Sr.(in 88, not
in 92), and voted for Bob Dole is actually giving money
to the Kerry campaign. All this in spite of her hating Kerry
and never having given to a political campaign before ever.
You can keep telling yourself that swing voters are too dumb
to understand things like the Geneva convention, but you're
wrong.
\_ Well put. -John
\_ Bravo, and thank you for speaking up.
\_ Your mother is deeply concerned about the Geneva Convention
and is going to change her life long (R) voting pattern
because some goof balls put underwear on some guy's heads?
This is unbelievable.
\_ This is a ridiculous response. "Political activism is
dumb, sheeple! Don't stand up for your values!" Fuck you.
\_ Strawman. Political activism is not dumb. Your
'story' about your mother is. Try again.
\_ Nice reading comprehension, guys, it's "mother in
law", not mother.
\_ Ad hominen. It isn't relavent if it was your
\_ hominem
mother or your spouses mother. Try again. |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33864 Activity:low |
9/30 Does the president get live input during the debate? or
do they have everything in their head?
\_ why do you think bush continues to say "um"?
\_ No. Yes. |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Media] UID:33862 Activity:moderate |
9/30 NUCULAR! NUCULAR!
\_ Has anybody seen sweat?
\_ Stop picking on Jimmy Carter! The man is out of office for almost
a quarter century and is ~80 years old. Let his speach errors die.
Enough abusing the ex-President.
\_ Assuming you're not being ironic, have you considered that they
might be picking on the Chimp-In-Chief?
\_ Don't you mean Commander-In-Chimp (a-la Simpsons)?
\_ I've seen that Simpsons and was NOT referencing it.
Chimp-In-Chief is Bush perjorative which *may* derive from
the Simpsons, or maybe just from Bush's appearance and
percieved intelligence.
\_ I see you've put a lot of thought into your
dehumanization of the opposition. Carry on. -- ilyas |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33856 Activity:high |
9/30 Poll, I predict that in today's debate:
Kerry will mess up, 4 more years of Bush: .
Bush will do great, 4 more years of Bush: ..
Kerry will finally have a position, 4 more years of Bush: .
Bush will mess up, 4 more years of Bush: .
\_ Kerry is getting is ass kicked as of 6:39 PM PST. Its
great.
\_ yeah what are you talking about? bush is floundering
big time. - danh
\_ I'm watching channel 7. Bush is doing great.
Just one example: Kerry trots out the Global
Test wrt US pre-emptive action, gets his ass
kicked on it. He also got schooled on Iran
NK issue and the whole more sanctions and
diplomancy bullshit.
\_ i guess this must be a case of liberal vs conservative.
from my viewpoint bush is doing awful. - danh
\_ I think this a motd troll. Even the freepers can't
find nice things to say about this Bush performance.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter what happens now -
it's all in how its reported by Pravda.
\_ I'm not a troll. Bush did well.
He basically said America First,
the world be damned. Kerry said
America First but only if the
Euro-peons say its okay and btw
I went to Vietnam. I'm more
libertarian than conservative.
[ why was this deleted? ]
\_ Er, not to get all freepy on you, but Bush got
pwned. I think you're delusional.
\_ You live in a leftist echo chamber. Stop
reading Bab's website for news and info.
\_ Which debate are you watching?
\_ you're not watching the one on fox news where they swap
bush and kerry's voices, are you...? |
| 2004/9/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33829 Activity:high 69%like:33823 |
9/28 Best Bush 2000 flashback ever. Bush would "use the power of
persuasian" to lower oil prices.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/062800wh-bush.html
\_ Bush did convince the Saudis to open the spigot, you know.
Problem is it's still not enough.
\_ You missed the best line in the article though:
Asked why the Clinton administration had not been able to use
the power of personal persuasion, Mr. Bush said: "The
fundamental question is, 'Will I be a successful president
when it comes to foreign policy?' "
\_ I can believe people get so uppity about oil prices. $2 a
gallon is really freaking cheap. The evidence is that people
are driving around in cars much bigger than they could
possiably need. All those people commuting to work in F-250s
like to whine about oil prices, but they are just making it
really obvious that oil is dirt cheap. -jrleek
\_ Not to mention Mercedes sedans that look small but get less than
20MPG on highway.
\_ Why single out Mercedes? All of the major manufacturers are
guilty of this, with their blind horsepower quests of the
last five years or so. And the cars have all been
generally getting bigger - its just that they look
small next to the other behemoths on the road. Compare
a modern Accord, for instance, with one from even
five years ago.
\_ But even a low-end C-Class, which looks pretty compact,
gets less than 20MPG on highway. Anyway, people only pick
on SUVs but not these deceiving cars. My SUV has better
mileage than that.
\_ According to fueleconomy.gov you are incorrect. C-class
gets ~26MPG.
\_ And that's the 2.6L V6. The 3.2L V6 gets 27 hwy,
and the tiny C230 Kompressor that he's complaining
about specs at 30, almost identical to all other
cars in its class. He's just a hater.
\_ It may be cheap relative to other things, but it's expensive
historically speaking. If salt went up to $5/lb, it would still
be dirt-cheap for food purposes, but people would rightly
ask "WTF?"
\_ It's cheap historically too, if you adjust for inflation.
\_ Wow, jrleek and I agree on something. That said, our economy
is fairly dependent upon cheap oil. Adjustment will be
painful.
\_ And who are you, mystery man?
\_ Who knows? The shadow knows!
\_ One of the annoying things (to me) in this election is
that niether Bush nor Kerry has a realistic energy
policy. -jrleek |
| 2004/9/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33823 Activity:nil 69%like:33829 |
9/28 Best Bush flashback ever. From 2000 election,
"Bush Would Use the Power of Persuasian to Raise Oil Supply"
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/062800wh-bush.html
\_ Bush did convince the Saudis to open the spigot, you know.
Problem is it's still not enough. |
| 2004/9/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33816 Activity:kinda low |
9/28 This is great. Crawford, Texas newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2000
endorses Kerry.
http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
And of course, the inevitable "Why does Crawford, Texas hate America?"
\_ cuz they like shooting illegals in the back as they run? |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33809 Activity:high |
9/28 To all the "beat a chimp" people: It's been frequently quoted that
Dubya has never lost a debate.
\_ It's not like he's had dozens of debates under his belt ... I think
it's hard for his opponents to perform in Bush's reality distortion
field.
\_ good point. I think I'm listening to the liberals too much.
\- I am pretty sure Kerry never has either, right? That is how
they both got this far. It is the battle of the two middle aged
heavyweights, for the boxing crown!
\_ Putin could kick both their asses in a fight.
\_ He could probably kick their asses in a debate, too. |
| 2004/9/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33808 Activity:kinda low |
9/28 I still can't quite comprehend how the majority of people want to
vote for BushCo given everything he has done in the past 4
years. But come to think of it, if they are dumb enough to
believe everything that's coming out of BushCo's mouth, then
they probably deserve 4 more years of BushCo.
\_ Beware the person who believes that all who disagree with him are
dumb.
\_ The problem is, for the rest of us with a triple-digit IQ, we get
stuck with 4 more years of BushCo as well.
\_ Too bad the there aren't enough of the triple-digit IQ
voters as shown by the polls.
\_ Maybe you are the idiot?
\_ Maybe you ALL are homosexuals. -- Rainier Wolfcastle
\_ A majority does not. Only one poll has Bush at +50% and all the good
ones have it tied:
http://www.pollingreport.com
My prediction: Kerry by 7 points and the Senate to the Democrats.
\_ http://www.electoral-vote.com shows 14 states tied or nearly tied, using
*many* polls. They are:
Pennsylvania Michigan Washington New Jersey New Mexico Missouri
Iowa Nevada Oregon Minnesota Maine Florida Maryland New Hampshire
Every single one shows an increasing Bush trend. see them for
yourself:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/pennsylvania.html
\_ This trend line is a joke. Look at it yourself. Bush
is obviously trending down here.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/michigan.html
\_ Bush still loses.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/washington.html
\_ One outlier does not make a trend.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/new-jersey.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/new-mexico.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/missouri.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/iowa.html
http://http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/nevada.html
http://http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/oregon.html
http://http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/minnesota.html
http://http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/maine.html
\_ No Bush trend here.
http://http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/florida.html
\_ This is an increasing Bush trend? You need to have
your eyes checked.
\_ I am reminded of "Band structure in Germanium, my ass"
\_ That writeup kicked ass. Reminds me of the good
old physics 7abc days. -- ilyas
http://http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/germanium-humor.htm
http://http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/maryland.html
http://http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/new-hampshire.html
\_ Read Zogby, The Christian Science Monitor and The
Economist polls. The problem with electoral vote is
that they throw in the obviously cooked Gallup numbers.
Electoral vote is biased and the guy even admits it.
You need to look at unbiased pollsters like the CSM.
What is your prediction? Let's see who is right on Nov 2.
I really don't mind you being self deluded, just don't
cry how the election was fixed on Nov 3. Things will
be clearer after the first debate.
\_ Do you think Bush lied about WMDs, or do you think the CIA screwed
up and Bush acted on the best available intelligence? Do you think
the war was illegal, or that the U.S. enforced the "serious
consequences" clause of a UN resolution and showed the world that
not complying when WMDs are concerned is not tolerated? Do you
think Bush is a fool who alienated our allies unnecessarily; or do
you think he is always acting to protect America no matter what
anyone else thinks, domestic or foreign, while relying on the best
advice of his cabinet? Do you think he is a reckless deficit-
spender, or do you think when he says tax cuts are coming, they are?
Do you think Bush went into Iraq without a well-thought-out plan to
win the peace against advice from the Army chief of staff who was
fired because he disagreed (and happened to be right); or do you
think they already understand this and are trying their best to
leave Iraq stable, and domestic dissent and public criticism both
aids the enemy and hurts the morale of soldiers in the field?
\_ I think that we should elect Bush President For Life and
incarcerate and re-educate anyone who says anything bad about
him until the War on Terrah is over. Which will be never.
\_ Tear
\_ I'm just trying to show how a lot of people can still vote
for BushCo given everything that's happened. IMO, they're
all wrong, though, so I agree with your sarcasm. |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33803 Activity:nil |
9/28 Has there been any election year in the US where no voting was
conducted because there was only one presidential candidate?
\_ Yes, Bush/Ashcroft 2008 -- They got 99% of the vote after
suspending the constitution. |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33800 Activity:very high |
9/28 What happened to the color of Kerry's skin? He's orange!
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/sep04/kerry1092704.jpg
\_ pic? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Carter? Now HE'S
looking like he had too many carrots.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1096306030421_91715230/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
\_ Hee, hee. It looks like someone dipped him in tanning oil.
\_ Makeup? bad lighting?
\_ Now we can choose between Orangity Orange, and Lemony Yellow!
\_ Photoshop |
| 2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33746 Activity:nil |
9/24 http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm Vote Bush, or the terrorists^W satanists have won! |
| 2004/9/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33728 Activity:very high |
9/23 Not trying to incite another flame war but what are some of the
advantages for voting Bush? I live in S Cal and I see a lot of
pro-Bush stickers on cars. What is Bush good for and why do ppl
want to vote for him? ok thx
\_ We are voting for Bush because we are eEEeeeEEEVvvvVvvvIIIllLLLLlL
Republicans! What more did you need to know? --E.R.
\_This is dumber than ilyas. - tom
\_ Pure. Flame. Bait.
\_ no really, let's hear it from the other side. Lots of people
are voting for Bush and I want to know what they have to gain
by doing so. It's good to understand the psychie of your
enemies so that you can crush them.
\_ he's not Kerry
\_ I suspect most Bush voters honestly believe he's better for
the country. I know that's incomprehensible to you, but
Bush voters don't live in the same world you do.
\_ obviously they believe he's better, but why?
\_ I think some voters believe he might be worse for the
country but he's better for them. So they vote for him.
\_ The same could be said of "some voters" for Kerry. So?
\_ Bush is for anti-gay, pro-God, anti-abortion, pro-gun,
pro-America, anti-terror, anti-tax voters! Kerry = the reverse.
\_ pro-corporation, anti-littleguy.
\_ anti-trial lawyer, neutral-littleguy.
\_ trial lawyers gave more money to Bush than Gore.
\_ URL?
\_ Here's the breakdown by industry for Kerry:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?id=N00000245&cycle=2004
and here it is for Bush:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?id=N00008072&cycle=2004
They don't break it down by type of lawyer,
but the above poster appears to be incorrect.
\_ If they don't break it down by type of
lawyer, how does this make it appear the
above poster is incorrect? And where's your
Gore data?
\_ you are one lazy ass motherfucker.
http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/indus/AllCands.htm
You're right about Gore, though. I somehow
read "Kerry" instead of Gore.
\_ If you make enough money, he has lowered your taxes a lot.
\_ He's going to bankrupt social security by giving big business
all these tax breaks which was his plan all along. Transfer
money from the middle and lower classes to the haves and have
more's.
\_ Yeah, hence the haves and have more's probably vote for him.
\_ SS isn't funded by business taxes. Try again.
\_ No, but the business tax breaks are funded by the
SS trust fund.
\_ He's protecting us from the likes of Cat Stevens.
\_ YOU'RE NEXT DAVID BOWIE@!@@@@!!!
\_ Well, he did write that song "I'm Afraid of Americans."
OFF TO GITMO WITH HIM!!!!!1!
\_ I was expecting more intellectual responses, like "Bush's tax
has made X percent improvements in this and that sectors" but
it's obvious that there are no pro-Bush advocates on motd.
\_ We keep getting censored. I am not sure why. Nothing
inflammatory. Maybe that's why.
\_ that's dissapointing. could you put it in a seperate file?
\_ It's a troll. Read the motd everyday and you'll easily figure
it out. The real question is why would anyone think a man like
Kerry who did *nothing* with his *19 years* in the Senate is
magically going to fix the world as President.
\_ He broke the BCCI scandal which lead to the Iran-Contra
affair. Republicans like you still can't forgive him
for proving that Reagan was a lying scumbag like
the rest of them. He is a great muckracking Senator,
and has done lots of other stuff in his 19 years.
And you a lying FUD throwing sociopath, just like the
rest of the "power at all costs" Republicans.
\_ You live in OC, d00d. I'm in West L.A. and I see mostly Kerry
stickers.
\_ i've been seeing a lot of stickers too and wish i could get
a "i drive this piece of crap and will be cancelling out your
vote for bush" but more succinctly put bumper sticker
\_ You're both in CA. Your vote is meaningless. |
| 2004/9/23 [ERROR, uid:33723, category id '18005#4.3125' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33723 Activity:nil |
9/23 CBS apology on TANG memos received significantly more media
coverage than NYT apology on WMD coverage:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409230005
\_ This is election season. There's more coverage of everything. |
| 2004/9/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33720 Activity:very high |
9/23 Ladies and Gentleman, Irony is officially Alive. Apparently,
"60 Minutes II" ran the Bush TANG memo story by preempting a story
about the forged Niger Uranium documents. [why was the last line of
this description deleted?]
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6073449/site/newsweek
\_ I apologize for brutally hijacking a motd thread, but gwbush
is the original master of irony. An example:
James Harding (Financial Times): Mr. President, I want to return to
the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this
week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon
lawyers have essentially worked out a way that US officials can
torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say
you want the US to adhere to international and US laws, that's not
very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever
justified?
President Bush: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. ...Maybe I
can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to
adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We
adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws,
and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the
instructions...from me to the government. - danh
\_ Yeah, and? The law also allows for people to kill others given the
right political circumstances.
By your logic:
Soldiers, they kill people, that's bad.
But they were following law, so people who make the law are bad.
Therefore The US Government is bad.
But wait a minute, all governments allow people to be killed for
political reasons.
Therefore government is bad in general.
We should do away with government because killing people should never
be justified.
\_ wow. this is too stupid even for ilyas. -tom
\_ If the alternative is to be smart like you, tom, I d rather
stay an idiot forever. -- ilyas
\_ you're doing a good job. -tom
\_ I think we should pass a law that basically sanctions
torture solely for tom, either that or ship him off
to Afghanistan. I'd think that would get unanimous
consent from both the House and the Senate.
\_ I think we should pass a law not only allowing
tom and ilyas to get married, but forcing them to.
Then we could have a whole reality TV show around
the happy couple.
\_ I think tom's peculiar brand of bulldog yapping
is exclusive to the safety of the Internet. I
would be very surprised if he was like this face to
face. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not sure what you mean by "like this." tom
is just as opinionated in real life, but it
doesn't come off quite the same way. Do you talk
so much about your weapons and about punching
people in the face so much in real life? If so,
I bet you get laughed at. A lot.
\_ I don't remember ever mentioning 'my
weapons' on the motd. I think I mentioned
punches to the face once, maybe twice. I have
never threatened anyone with violence. By
'like this,' I mean that tom comes across as
stuck in ad hominem mode about 90% of the time.
I mean I have to wonder about his mental
health sometimes, he seems really angry, all
the time. -- ilyas
\_ Way to miss the point.
\_ i am aware that torture happens in all wars, it's just a fact
of war. the bush administratoin is doing a spectacularly
bad job of lying about it and pretending they had absolutely
no idea this was happening. we're suppoesd to be the
good guys. if you want to turn into aaron, go read
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17430 - danh |
| 2004/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:33701 Activity:nil |
9/22 The story about forged documents that 60 Minutes should have run:
http://csua.org/u/95x (MSNBC) |
| 2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33660 Activity:low |
9/21 Burkett explains how he obtained memos: http://csua.org/u/951 After he received the documents in Houston, Burkett said, he drove home, stopping on the way at a Kinko's shop in Waco to copy the six memos. In the parking lot outside, he said, he burned the ones he had been given and the envelope they were in. Ramirez was worried about leaving forensic evidence on them that might lead back to her, Burkett said, acknowledging that the story sounded fantastic. "This is going to sound like some damn sci-fi movie," he said. -USA Today Another story: http://csua.org/u/952 (Post) \_ Sci-fi movie? Shouldn't he have said suspense movie if that's really his recollection? \_ Never fear, the kosers are now searching Texas for Lucy Ramirezes, and they've even found a few. This proves that a Lucy Ramirez does exist, and therefore the memos are legit. http://csua.org/u/94w |
| 2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33654 Activity:moderate |
9/21 One day after I post about how Dubya is going to send more troops
to Iraq to crush the insurgents, Paul Krugman of the NY Times expresses
his opinion on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html?hp
\_ csuamotd/csuamotd doesn't work any more.
What happen?
\_try csuacsua/csuacsua
\_ Some one set us up the password change.
\_ use mine! dykewhore / dykewhore - danh
\_ danh must have changed the password in an attempt to
monopolize the free password market with his popular
dykewhore brand name!
\_ I am just trying to prevent your brain be polluted with
liberal biased media. |
| 2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33652 Activity:insanely high |
9/21 What would we do without the true believers at dailykos? These guys
are just as wacky as the freepers! http://csua.org/u/94w
\_ I agree. "Hunter" sounds like a freeper, but he's a liberal.
The characteristic in common is that the typical freeper and
Hunter here just won't acknowledge central weaknesses in their
position. E.g., for this dailykos guy, it's
http://csua.org/u/94h (the Post comparison of memos), and the Post's
reporting that all existing Texas Air National Guard memos have
reporting that all 100+ existing Texas Air National Guard memos have
been in fixed-width font, except these four from Burkett.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html
-liberal
\_ Not to mention that the signatures on the comparison memos
aren't even remotely similar.
\_ This is really embarassing, and it just goes on and on!
\_ They are just as whacky as Freepers because they point out
that Freepers are liars and extremists? Whatever.
\_ You don't think that "The right-wing are liars. They have
been liars. They will continue to be liars. It is part and
parcel of modern "movement" conservatism." sounds just like
a freeper, but with right-wing instead of left wing? Not to
mention such great explanations as: "Does it remain possible
that Killian re-typed them at a later date, and that his
inexpertise as a typist is responsible for the differences
between those docs and official TANG docs? Certainly." It's
POSSIBLE, but it's pretty freakin' unlikely, don't cha
think? You know, on the same level of possibilty as the
plot of "The Day After Tomorrow."
\_ The modern right wing movement is based on extremist and
easily disproven religious BS like creationism and the
Virgin Birth. It is extremism to point out this obvious
fact? The guy could be more tactful, but the truth is
the Religious Right's entire worldview is based on
fantasy.
\_ "Easily Disproven?" Go ahead. Prove to me that
virgin birth is impossible, and creationism isn't
true. Or heck, why not just go straight for it and
prove there is no God?
\_ If you continue to believe that the world was
created in seven days in the face of all the
evidence from the fields of biology, geology,
physics and astronomy, then there is no hope
for you and I will not waste my time. Take
a science class sometime. The existence or
non-existence of God is tangential to what
any particular sect or cult believes in. Oh,
I agree with you on the memos, btw.
\_ it was reformed in 7 days, not created
\_ You need to study up on your Christianity. In
the Hebrew in the bible it doesn't say "7 days"
it says "7 periods of time" which could mean
ANYTHING. People who literally believe 7 days
are probably idiots. Although, if you can't
prove the non-existence of God, ANYTHING
becomes possible, and 7 day creation is just as
logical as anything else. Anyway, the point
was that the people you're calling wackos are
using the same argument as the people you're
defending. You mock the belifs of one and not
the other, although they use the same argument
style to back up their conclusions. "You can't
prove it's NOT true!"
\_ that's ridiculous. There is physical evidence
which supports the Big Bang and evolution.
There is no evidence to support the creationist
view except some book that some wack jobs wrote,
and there are portions, like the Great Flood,
which are directly contradicted by all the
physical evidence as well as simple logic.
Shit, I've been trolled. -tom
\_ Why are they idiots? I say you're an idiot for
believing in your version. The early bible
stories are all ripoffs of old Babylonian etc.
mythology anyway. So you really believe the
Bible is some kind of elaborate metaphorical
construct that could mean ANYTHING? Or do you
simply apply that to things science disagrees
with?
\_ ripoff? nah, I would say they have the
same origin. afterall, abraham was a
babylonian, being from ur. different
books of the bible are written in very
different manner, so yes, parts of it
could be metaphorical and other parts
not.
could be allegorical and other parts
not. Jesus used parables all the time.
(ref. "dict ur")
\_ "7 day creation is just as logical as anything
else." No. It is not logical to believe something
in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. It might be conceivable, but it is
not logical.
\_ You've convinced *me* there's no God. Would you
please sign your name so I'll know who to thank
for completely changing my world-view? |
| 2004/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33647 Activity:very high |
9/20 Novak suggests Bush may withdraw almost immediately from Iraq if
reelected, regardless of consequences:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
\_ How about Bush sending 100K more troops there with the aim of
crushing all insurgent havens while still training up the Iraqi
national guard / police / Army and hoping it gets down in four
years?
national guard / police / Army and hoping it gets done in four
years? If he's going to do a job, he's going to try to do it
right as soon as the election is over. Otherwise he'll just
look like a flip-flopper by abandoning democracy in Iraq.
And, this also puts a lot of people ready to go into Iran.
If you ask me, this is what Bush will do. Heck, we might send
200K more troops there by that logic.
\_ Only if people like you join up to make up the 100k
troop deficit. Time to put your mon-, lives where your
mouth is.... Thought so.
\_ Don't you think this is what Dubya was pulling back all
the troops from Europe / S Korea for?
\_ Bob Novak, mouthpiece of the regime and supreme douchebag. |
| 2004/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33645 Activity:moderate |
9/20 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/eveningnews/main644664.shtml Burkett: "I also insisted when I sat down with your staff in the first face-to-face session, before I gave up any documents, I wanted to know what you were gonna do with them. And I insisted they be authenticated." The failure of CBS News to do just that, to properly, fully scrutinize the documents and their source, led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so. It was a mistake. CBS News deeply regrets it. \_ Then how come Burkett didn't provide CBS the original doc to be authenticated? \_ It's their fault for not insisting on it if they didn't get it. They aren't babies. They are adults with a professional responsibility to the public and special Constitutional protections. \_ The failure of CBS News to do just that ... \_ What a complete disgrace. The democrats and their media sycophants have sunk so low. sycophants have sunk so low. Their behavior completely vindicates Zell Miller. \_ wherefore art thou trollio? \_ "Uh! It says a bad thing about my media whores! You must be an evil trooooolll!!! No content reply required!" \_ so you're saying you aren't a troll? If you meant every word of what you wrote, then more power to you. |
| 2004/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33635 Activity:kinda low |
9/20 CBS recants. http://csua.org/u/94g I hope all the defenders of the authenticity of the Killian memo have the intellectual integrity to admit they were misled. I can understand the impulse to defend all things anti-W. But when the subject is unworthy, the defense ultimately hurts more than it helps. \_ What, I've been saying all along that at least one was probably a fake or transcribed. You must be talking about those sodans posting the http://dailykos.com links, right? Anyway, for those who STILL think they're authentic copies, here's a side-by-side comparison of real vs. fake. -liberal http://csua.org/u/94h (Post) \_ I wish the defenders of the memo would be at least honest enough to admit their faith in their authenticity was unjustified. I'm a Salon reader, and they defended the memos when they came out. I don't think they've mentioned CBS's apology except in passing. \_ I never said they were real, I just said that they were not produced with MS Word. I still stand by that. -real liberal \_ you sound like how dubya wants to portray kerry. -"fake" liberal \_ I guess I don't follow. \_ yer dodging the substantive question and trying to have it both ways. \_ Which is what this whole debacle is anyway. I like how the secretary saying "I didn't type that memo, but I typed others with the same sentiment" quickly was shortened to "I didn't type that memo." \_ Are you the "That is correct" guy in the following motd posts? Quoting... \_ Are you saying that the specific memo talked about in the URL is not fake? \_ That is correct. If you create a document using a font with a typewriter and then reproduce it 30 years later using a computer, they should look very much alike. That is the whole point of having a font. And then later in the same thread, (more quoting) \_ Look, I just proved that it was not produced with a computer. What else could have created it? \_ In response to: "At least one of the memos is MS Word generated." Admit it, you were wrong about the MS Word bit. That was all I was contending, which is obvious if you read the whole thing: http://csua.org/u/94j \_ It looks like you started arguing against MS Word generation and then broadened your claim when you said "That is correct" to the question "Are you saying that the specific memo...is not fake?". How else would you interpret "That is correct" to "is not fake"? \_ I do wish people would be honest enough to admit they backed the wrong horse. - !pp \_ If you misinterpreted it, then I am sorry. I should have been more clear. But if I had intended to proclaim them genuine I would have done so in the start. I just knew that the LGF claims were bogus. \_ "Are you saying that the specific memo... is not fake?" "That is correct." \_ I was the liberal who wrote "At least one ... MS Word generated". Later on I wrote that I read the dailykos stuff (completely) and this created reasonable doubt on MS Word. Later on, I wrote that, even with reasonable doubt, the preponderance of evidence was still at least one or more memos were transcribed or fake. (especially with the Post finding that all verified memos didn't use proportional font, see the URL nearby topic header for example) \_ Ah, the "raised 'e'" nonsense. The scans in the .pdf are so bad that it looks like an aliasing problem. They were scanned-in faxes stored at low resolution. The raised 'e's look sharper than the surrounding text which would suggest imaging problems rather than a typewriter. \_ I never cared either way but I had a problem with faulty logic being applied to "prove" they were fake. \_ What are some of the examples of faulty logic? Were the defenders of the memo logically more correct? \_ CBS has more credibility to lose than freepers. \_ Why doesn't someone (CBS?) just find a reputable lab and run forensics on the original document, and see whether the ink on the document is laser toner, inkjet ink, or typewriter ribbon ink. Or just see if the paper itself is today's paper or 1972 GI paper. \_ CBS never had access to the original documents. \_ CBS is airing an interview tonight with Burkett, who passed the documents to CBS. Burkett will say he misled CBS. Don't know where Burkett will say he got them from. \_ 'So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." ' \_ This is incredibly lame, even for soda motd. \_ But hey, Gibson made Pilate out to be the good guy, misled by the eeeeeeevil Jews! If Mad Max says it, it must be true! \_ Um, no, that's not what he did. \_ Yep. Rather and CBS is blameless in all this. Crucify Burkett. \_ Between blameless and the crucifixion quote, the truth is found somewhere in the middle. \_ "There are some people who will argue whether the flames are blue or green when the real issue is that their arse is on fire." The memo was a fake. The facts outlined in the memo were not. \_ As much as Rather would like the only fire to be Bush-related, an equally legitimate fire is the memos probably being fake. \_ In fact, it looks like controversy over the memos will make it difficult to talk legitimately about Bush's National Guard non-service. \_ If the memos were false, how do you know their claims are true? The 30-year memories of an addled 86-yr. old? The claims of a partisan Democrat? \_ Yes, but she's a spry 86-year old. \_ Why won't Bush simply sign his Form 180 and put this controversy to rest? |
| 2004/9/20 [ERROR, uid:33634, category id '18005#16.7297' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33634 Activity:kinda low |
9/20 I like how some Republicans are honest and not just chanters of "Four
more years!":
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/bush.monday.ap/index.html
"The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required.
We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount
to the point where we finally lost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel ...
\_ Bush should've been out on his ear this election. He shouldn't
be re-elected, and even most Republicans agree. The Dems
should've had it in the bag, but the screwed it up.
-conservative
\_ Don't conservatives usually know how to spell the word?
\_ we dont need no fancy book-learnin
\_ Do you only believe what Repubs say when they disagree with Bush?
\_ No. I also don't believe Democrats when they're being stupid.-op
\_ Bush has support because this is a campaign about America and
Americans. America is great because of great Americans. Americans
are good, strong people. They support a strong America. The American
people are good people of Faith. We believe in our kids, and in our
young men and women in the armed forces. Americans support our
troops. George W. Bush understands Americans, and knows the value
of maintaining strong communities that are the heart of America.
His opponent may not share these American values. His opponent may
stand up there and complain about America, and tell you Americans
are wrong. Well that's for Americans to decide. There's an old
Texas saying, it went "America: the land of the brave". Or was
that the home of the brave. And the free. Because this is about
freedom. Thank you.
\_ Brilliant summation of the Bush argument style. It's so hard
to believe people lap this up.
\_ People lap this up because they are STUPID DOGS. They need
a FEARLESS SOCIALIST PARTY TO TAKE CARE OF THEM AND SHOW THEM
THE WAY! Save us Berkeley liberals! Save America!
\_ That's right! Those evil socialist communist terrorist
homosexuals think they're so damn SMART! We don't need
their droning pompous WHINING! Real Americans know a Real
American President when they see one! Oh and here, have
some free conservative prescription drugs!
\_ Agreed, however this is simply Nationalism which can be
very dangerous in the wrong hands. I would give examples
but don't want to be mistaken as a troll.
\_ Dude, bring a napkin, you are getting your liberal jizz all
over the motd.
\_ I'm surprised you can speak with your mouth wrapped around
Cheney's dick.
\_ Is this some sort of liberal overcompensation for the
Clinton fiasco(s)? Kind of like how the DNC convention
looked like a military junta because they were accused
of being anti-military wimps for so long they had to
lurch too far the other way?
\_ Boys, boys, please! This is not http://freerepublic.com!
\_ It's easy when the dick is so BIG and TAX FREE! |
| 2004/9/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33621 Activity:high |
9/18 Defend private property from illegal invasion, get shot by the
FBI
Federal agents surround ranch in Douglas, Arizona
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1218545/posts
\_ from one of the freeper posts a bit down on the page:
"I remember that we held our noses 4 years ago. The pubbies told us
to give him a gop House and Senate and we'd get what we wanted. We
held up our end of the deal. This year, I'm not holding my nose."
Hah! you fuckers are losing your base. It continues to amaze
me how the same people who claim to be radical opponents of
excessive government power can support the Ashcroft justice
department.
\_ As much as reality may upset you, gun toting freeper yahoos
are not the (R) base. Someone who refers to them as "The
pubbies" clearly sees himself not as the base but outside the
party and needing to be bought. Carry on.
\_ Generalizations accomplish very little - there are statists
in both parties. Exactly which provisions or actions by
Ashcroft are you upset about? I never heard
outcries from the left about Clinton's 1995 anti-terror act,
of which the Patriot Act simply ties up the loose ends.
\_ Explain this to us less tinfoil-oriented types.
\_ Because Clinton:good, Bush:evil. Very straight forward. |
| 2004/9/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33615 Activity:low |
9/18 Relax, fat sysadmins. You're not nearly as fat as these people:
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/kjn/people/heaviest.htm
\_ don't get too relaxed. you are probably as dumb as this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse
\_ What about skinny sysadmins? Why are we always left out? |
| 2004/9/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:33598, category id '18005#5.48425' has no name! , ] UID:33598 Activity:low |
9/17 About the girl with the ripped sign. The blog suggests it's really the
guy's son who's staging it (with of course no data). I just heard an
interview with the guy and he absolutely denies that. In fact he says
his two older sons are in the military.
pic still here: http://csua.org/u/934
\_ The guy's a real estate salesman with political aspirations. He's
run for local offices 4 times, failing every time. Don't you think
it's a bit too much of a coincidence that for 3 different election
cycles he's been able to get the same story into the national press?
\_ No coincidence, but no conspiracy either. He attends some
rallies for the opponent with a sign for his candidate. That's
it. His comments were that he's had many union families come up
to him and tell him "good job, glad to have you here".
\_ And here's the audio for free of the interview:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/09172004-2.shtml
\_ Nice. This incident happened in Huntington, W. Va. In another
story, someone fired a gun into the Republian party HQ there:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/September/08/LNtop1.htm
\_ You're going to have to work harder to convince me there's
sinister intent behind a stray bullet in West Virginia.
\_ Both of you losers: The bullet was through the center of a
sign saying "Marriage - One Man, One Woman".
They took down the sign and then started snapping photos.
\_ Probably staged.
\_ The article said it was a pellet gun. What bullet?
\_ Are you illiterate?
\_ Did you read the article? |
| 2004/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33597 Activity:high |
9/17 2^10 dead soldiers in Iraq .. GO BUSH! FOUR MORE YEARS!
I know he can make it 2^20 with a just a bit more time
\_ You are inferring nukular detonation in a city center of a Western
nation, right?
\_ No, I was thinking more battlefield nukes on the plains
of Iran. Not to mention a good exchange in Korea.
\_ I think he was implying, not inferring. |
| 2004/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33591 Activity:high 50%like:33592 |
9/17 What is wrong with George W. Bush. Ridiculous!!1!
http://csua.org/u/93e
\_ So Kerry looks like a moron, and Bush looks like a pediophile.
\_ A ped-i-o-phile? What's that?
\_ apparently a typo. get over it.
\_ rediculous!!! |
| 2004/9/17 [ERROR, uid:33584, category id '18005#8.03066' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33584 Activity:high 100%like:33610 |
9/16 Classy.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040916/480/wvrs10309162250&e=2&ncid=1756
\_ are you talking about this family of morons?
link:csua.org/u/939 - danh
\_ I think this is part of Kerry's campaign to look "strong."
\_ The guy is a union thug. Union members commonly attack protestors
at political rallies.
\_ The guy who did it is a union thug. Union members commonly attack
protestors at political rallies.
\_ The guy is his SON.
\_ No it isn't. The blog is unsupported and refuted by the guy
himself (see above). How much of a tinfoil hat nut are you?
\_ Who is, the guy holding the kid?
\_ http://csua.org/u/934
\_ This guy is a fraud. Read this entry:
http://csua.org/u/935
\_ Um, yeah that's conclusive. Not.
\_ I don't know that this means he's a fraud, just that he
likes to cause trouble. Considering this seemed to be
standard operating procedure for dems at the RNC, it
hardly bothers me.
\_ So what about Young Republican shown on ABC news kicking the
female protester when she was down? Where's your outrage now?
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109542699935507535
\_ That bitch deserved it for embarrassing our Commander In Chief
that way. Too bad she didn't end up in the hospital.
\_ Dumb asshole subjecting his little girl to that stuff, standing
around at an airport antagonizing people. That girl is what, 5?
"I'm a victim!"
\_ Didn't see it but it sounds scummy. But ripping the sign out of
the hands of a 3-year-old child?!?!?
\_ Read the above URL. It seems to be staged.
\_ That blog is less evidence than the CBS memos. |
| 2004/9/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Computer/SW/Apps] UID:33538 Activity:high |
9/15 http://www.electoral-vote.com Has nice popups per state which shows currently numbers and the way each state voted in 2000, gives details on how the numbers are gathered, compiled, and generated. Excel spreadsheet and xml is available free from the site. Updated once per day in the morning. \_ woah! bush wins! I guess we don't have to have an election now, since the compueter and the polls tell us who should be president. \_ you're a moron. \_ This is a great site. It was posted on the motd a while ago and I've been following it for a few weeks. Every time a state poll is conducted the thing jumps around. |
| 2004/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33534 Activity:nil |
9/14 AP Uses Fake SEAL to Back Kerry, Slam Bush
MSM caught lying again.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214014/posts?page=1,50
\_ See, there's no point in censoring you when you post laughable
crap from http://freerepublic.com. Let me see if I can find a Mother
Jones link to keep you similarly entertained.
Here you go: http://csua.org/u/91i
Repubs gerrymander San Diego district! pimp for Military-
Industrial Complex! All liars and crooks!
\_ Well freerepublic broke the false ANG story. Authentiseal
says this guys muslim name and original name do not
exist in their database. Believe what you want, the guy
or AP author lied. SEALs take frauds very seriously.
\_ so why haven't they beaten up jesse ventura? - danh
\_ visit their sites.
\_ So, the guy may or may not be a SEAL, but, the evidence is
inconclusive. He claims to have changed his name since he
served, and as it says in the SEAL response, if he's changed
his name the search is meaningless. -motd conservitive |
| 2004/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33533 Activity:nil |
9/14 Killian's secretary talks to DRUDGE
http://www.drudgereport.com/bushtang.htm
"I typed memos that had this information in them, but I did not type
these memos. ... The information in these memos is correct." ...
Knox speculated as to how she thought the forgeries were created
saying, "My guess is that someone in the outfit got hold of the real
ones and discussed it with a former Army person." ...
Knox told the DRUDGE REPORT that she did not vote for Bush in 2000
because he is 'unqualified' for the job, and does not intend to vote
for him in 2004, either. ...
"Bush was not the only person of privilege who had a spot in the Guard.
Senator [Lloyd] Bensen's nephew was in headquarters. There was a big
jewelery store, Gordons. Their son was in the Guard. The owner of
Batelstein's, a posh department store in the area, his son was in.
The other kids couldn't get in like that. Hugh Roy Cullen's grandson
was also in. He was a big oil man."
Knox, however, did have some kind words about then Lt. Bush. "[Bush]
was always pleasant and gentlemanly to me," she said. "I never noticed
him not being respectful. I thought he was a nice young man and that he
must have had very nice parents to produce a son as nice as he seemed
to be." ...
Ms. Knox states emphatically that she is not acting for political
motives, and has no formal relationship with any political party. She
says she just wants to set the record straight.
\_ I don't think I buy that some Army person got ahold of the
originals are rewrote them. That doesn't really make sense.
Seems more likely to me that some Kerry supporters just wrote
them, and since the info was true, the forgeries loosely
corrospond with what she actually wrote 30 yrs ago. |
| 2004/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Media] UID:33528 Activity:nil |
9/14 WaPo defends CBS and Killian memo. Not. http://csua.org/u/91e |
| 2004/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33515 Activity:high |
9/13 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted "th" in expressions such as "147th Group" and or "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron." [There is reasonable doubt, but the preponderance of evidence is that one or more memos are either fake or transcribed -- also, the authenticity of the memos is independent of whether the events described occurred or not. -liberal] \_ Your last sentence there is probably the most interesting. To be frank, I'm pretty sure that Bush got special treatment. Kerry did to, so no real biggie there. However, none of that justifies pathetic forgeries. -conservative \_ Kerry was a really smart Yale guy who leveraged that and his connections into becoming a swift boat captain. \_ Kerry was a smart, accomplished Yale guy who leveraged that and his connections into becoming a swift boat captain. Dubya was a frat president jokester at Yale with below-average or average grades who leveraged his connections into getting OUT of the war into the Texas Air National Guard. This should be supremely obvious to everyone, regardless of political viewpoint. |
| 2004/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33509 Activity:very high |
9/13 Right Wing Nutjob Bloggers schooled by dailykos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
\_ You know, I think both candidates are pretty much poor in this
election, and I'd really like to think of myself as neutral in
all the mudslinging. But Kerry supporters trying to pass this off
as a legit memo is just irrational. Through this fantastic series
of coincidences - some backwater base buys this super expensive
typewriter to write memos, and some guy whose family says he could
barely type uses proportional spacing in his memos, and the word
wrapping and font just happen to be identical to what MS Word does
on the default settings, etc. etc. ... sheesh. It's fake. Deal with
it. Save your breath for an issue where you might have some
legitimacy.
\_ Yeah, go back to your hole, ya left-wing bleeding heart wannabe
independent. If the memo was real you'd be all over it like a
dog in heat trying to hump a dead tree stump. Fact is that the
memo was from the Kerry campaign. Fact is that it was a blatant
attempt by the Kerry folks to retaliate to swiftboat. Fact is
that they failed miserably and now CBS and the Kerry boys have
egg over all their collective faces because Kerry doesn't know
how to hide his trail.
\_ Speaking of slimy political maneuvering:
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6224278
\_ Did you read the article? They refute every argument against
the memo's legitimacy. Better get in a few more quick "just
give it up"s before your whole argument falls apart.
\_ Like I said, save your breath. "Falls apart". Hah. Would
you be willing to bet a Kerry presidency on those memos
being legitimate?
\_ While the line wrapping is exact, the font is not, according
to that http://dailykos.com URL.
Also, the http://dailykos.com consensus now seems to be the IBM
Executive typewriter, not the Selectric Composer. The former
is common; the latter is expensive and not.
http://dailykos.com people are trying to get their hands on an
Executive now.
\_ Anyone know, how did line wrapping work on these electric
typewriters? Did people just guess where to hit the
carriage return or was there some better indication to avoid
going over the margin?
\_ I owned one a selectric--you could set mechanical tabs
which would either stop the carriage and not let you type
any more, or on some models do a CR/LF for you. -John
The spacing is the most suspicious, including the centered
header on another memo (although it is actually not centered
but shifted over to the right by 1 tab).
\_ This link unsatifactorily addresses two, yes only two, of
the inconsistencies found in the memo. The blog contains
only information found earlier on the 'right wing nutjob'
websites. Another example, one of the Gen. referred to
had retired 18 months prior to the memo. There are 10
or 15 more discrepancies. So, try again.
\_ As ex-Army, http://dailykos.com should realize that the abbreviations
used in the memos reveal they were written by someone who was
never in the military. He should know what a Form 180 is, and
which candidates have and have NOT signed it. |
| 2004/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:33507, category id '18005#26.1328' has no name! , ] UID:33507 Activity:high |
9/13 http://tinyurl.com/3wyfy (story.news.yahoo.com) fucking little bush. \- things like the steel trarrifs were not "flipflops" they were far worse. that particular case was cynical vote mongering ... burying principle for electorial votes. in re: flipflopping over changing circumstances, as JM Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind -- What do you do, sir?" Another good Keynes quote: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." --psb \_ Also note that changing your mind based on changing facts is different from denying facts while making your decision, then changing your mind when your polls drop. \_ If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. -GW Bush \_ cf. letting the ban on assault weapons lapse to gain the NRA endorsement. "I support the ban," the President said. \_ "I would sign it if Congress passes it" is not the same as "I support it." \_ http://csua.org/u/90v (NYTimes article, abstract.) He vowed to support the ban on assault weapons. \_ yes, he vowed that, and then he didn't do anything to support it. Do you think Tom Delay would be saying "it'll never come up for a vote" if Bush supported the ban? Don't be obtuse. -tom \_ Speaking of obtuse, tom, my point is that GWB vowed to support the ban on asssault weapons, has not publicly reversed himself on that position, and yet still won't push his fellow repubs to bring the matter to a vote. In other words, he's pimping for votes. |
| 2004/9/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33506 Activity:nil |
9/13 This is incredible. The press is now fabricating anti-Bush
stories repeatedly. First false "Clinton booing" at a rally,
then the blatantly fake CBS documents, now this.
AP stands by its story about anti-Bush SEAL
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40427
\_ Well, not to meantion that's just a stupid think to print in
the first place.
\_ Your "blatantly fake" claim about the CBS documents isn't any more
true the more you say it. We have no way of knowing, and to claim
you do is foolish. As for the Clinton booing, the reporter made
the report. The recording of the speech doesn't have the booing.
That doesn't mean there weren't people booing away from the mics...
I'm not saying anybody booed, but i'd be surprised if no one did.
Now I'll look for your new outrage on something OTHER than world
net daily.
\_ A cursory glance at the evidence concerning the memos shows
they are false. I can recreate the memos with Microsoft
Word, overlay them, and they match perfectly.
Your media sources have now resorted to fabricating lies in
order to win a political campaign. What a pathetic disgrace.
\_ And you can do the same with a late 60's model IBM Selectric
Typewriter. And CBS has not shown itself in any way as anti-
Bush.
\_ No, it's theorized that you could, with a lot of work,
produce something kinda similar to what Word does
automatically. Getting that that type of letter
spacing out of a seletric involved pulling a
little lever everytime you wanted the letters closer
together. Almost no one ever did this. It also
probably wouldn't be in the Word font either.
And what about the super scripts? They're DEFINATLY
done Word style. And what about the lack of page
indentations from the typewriter head and the
lack of cloth fibers from the Selectric's cloth
ribbon? Have you ever used a typewriter? You don't
seem to know anything about them.
\_ Some of the lines in the Killian memo were centered,
right? I learned to type on an old typewriter, and
it's a pain to center a line. And that's with a fixed
width font. I imagine it's pretty painful trying to
center a proportional-spaced line on a typewriter.
In fact, how *do* you do that? Does the alleged
typewriter have some special lever or switch to do it?
\_ I haven't seen the one with the centered line.
\_ for example, link:csua.org/u/90s
\_ Has anyone done this experiment? Get the correct period
typewriter (I assume there must a functional one some-
where) and try to reproduce the letter? It'd be
instructive to see how much of a task it would be.
\_ There is one thing about the memos that a period
typewriter at all, and that is to make the super-
script 'th' in 4th:
http://tinyurl.com/qqe6 (suntimes.com)
Also as the article says, Times New Roman was not
licensed for use by anyone other than the Times of
London till the 80s so it is not possible for a
60s era typewriter to produce the memo in question.
\_ False. IBM was using it since the 50s.
\_ URL please.
\_ You are right, it is "incredible." Your source has no
credibility, neither do you.
\_ Courier's vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in
1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the
Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman
Victor Lardent... (Ironically, at the same time
IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric
Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)
[edited to retain point but remove unnecessary verbosity] |
| 2004/9/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:33505, category id '18005#7.99559' has no name! , ] UID:33505 Activity:nil |
9/13 At least one of the memos is MS Word generated. Look here:
http://csua.org/u/90r (blog, and downloadable Word doc)
You will find the Word doc was created using all the default settings,
with word wrapping occurring precisely where they do in the CBS News
documents. Don't be a dumb liberal. -smart liberal
\_ Don't be a tool:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
At least one of them could not have been generated by
a computer, with the funny "e"s moving up and
down the middle of various words. -real liberal, not fake "liberal"
\_ You need to acknowledge that at least one document (the one
discussed in the URL) is probably fake.
\_ In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or
below the baseline. For example, in the original document,
lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the
baseline. Look at the word "interference", or even "me".
Typewriters do this; computers don't. Granted, if you are
comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high
with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high,
you're not going to see such subtleties. That doesn't prove the
differences aren't there; it just proves you're an idiot, for
making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they
almost match!"
\_ Are you saying that the specific memo talked about in the URL
is not fake?
\_ That is correct. If you create a document using a font
with a typewriter and then reproduce it 30 years later
using a computer, they should look very much alike.
That is the whole point of having a font.
\_ I will only believe this if someone can come up with
a 1972 typewriter that outputs MS Word Times New Roman 12pt
exactly as in 19-May-1972.doc.
Please provide URL when you find evidence of this, and
exactly this.
Or ... if you can find a verified National Guard-related
document also from 1972 that shows the same style as
19-May-1972.doc. |
| 2004/9/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:33480, category id '18005#3.5' has no name! , ] UID:33480 Activity:high |
9/12 Why is the story surrounding fake ANG memos presented by CBS
and 60 minutes not receiving more coverage? The story has
huge implications.
\_ It was front page news on CNN for two days. You'll probably see more
once they get a better idea who produced them. What more do you
want?
\_ There is no left wing media bias. Please ignore fake memos and
swift boat vets behind the curtains. Thank you. You shall be
escorted from the building by security. Have a nice day.
\_ Yeah, I am sure they are real. Makes perfect since he got an
honorable discharge. Afterwards, he threw his medals over
the White House fence as well.
\_ If they aren't real, then the white house should come out and
say it. That they haven't should tell you alot.
\_ What? No it doesn't. It's supposedly a secret memo this
guy wrote and hid. How would Bush know if it was a
forgery or not better than anyone else? He never would
have seen the document before. Dang, I think I've been
trolled.
\_ Hid? They came up in FOIA requests.
\_ URL for this claim?
\_ Sorry I was wrong. They were supposedly from
Killian's personal files, but they are marked
"for record". As FOIA requests in regards to
this matter are all funneled through the white
house, we won't know until the presidency changes
hands. |
| 2004/9/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33474 Activity:high |
9/11 Hi soda losers. I had my panties in a bunch worrying about Dubya
ruling for the next four years, but I'm now in the middle of Cat's
Cradle (book) and learning to not worry so much. Thanks, bye!
"There's nothing there!"
\_ Why is the GWB censor afraid of the truth? Oh, yeah, he's
a liar, a cheat, and an idiot. |
| 2004/9/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33472 Activity:very high |
9/11 Happy 9/11 Anniversary! Or, maybe not so happy, I don't know...
\_
\
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that
says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
[President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time
on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."
[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
\_ I am glad you like to edit his speeches because he is so
difficult to understand.
\_ You do realize his sentiments simply reflected pretty much that
of the American public, at the time. Taking quotes out of context
won't make a bush voter vote kerry. |
| 2004/9/10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33456 Activity:kinda low |
9/10 New poll shows Bush stomping Kerry. I guess people like it when they
know where someone stands.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/bush_campaign_poll_040909
.html
\_ Dubya delivered a good speech, but it's aaaaa-llll baloney.
Take it from me. -smart liberal
\_ No, the *new* poll has Bush with a two point lead. Do you really
only check the poll that Rush tells you to look at?
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm
Has a survey of all the pollsters. |
| 2004/9/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33447 Activity:very high |
9/9 So CBS and 60 Minutes are so set on bringing down Bush they
usef fraudulent documents!?? This is crazy.
\_ The white house released their own copies and have not denied
their authenticity. You're pretty damn quick to jump on noise.
\_ at least describe what you are trolling with.
here i'll help you out
http://www.powerlineblog.com
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40376
\_ You know, I think they are fakes. -liberal
\_ I think you are a fake.
\_ But the blog sounds so real. We're all D00M3D!! -liberal
\_ DAMN THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!!!
\_ Proportional fonts notwithstanding, all military documents
require the date be in caps.
\_ The documents are real.
\_ Have you ever served? Do you not know military protocol in regards
to writing the date in only capitalized? It is like when armchair
warriors do not know what Zulu time is. Format is always Zulu Time,
Day, Month CAPITALIZED, year.
\_ Is military protocal ALWAYS followed? Even in things like
slapdash memos? The existence of a regulation != 100%
compliance with it. Not saying it's not a forgery, but
you should be a bit more precise (especially with badly
formatted motd posts.) -John
\_ Could the documents be transcriptions?
\_ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html
See, even the Post agrees. Wah, I don't want Dubya to win. -liberal
\_ Well no, that is not what that article says. Reread it.
\_ It says the Post's experts say it's fake, and CBS won't
reveal its experts and that CBS checked it with Killian's
Republican, Bush-loving superior, but the guy isn't
returning calls!
\_ The pdf's presented by CBS are obviously fakes. One can overlay
a Microsoft Word version and they match perfectly. The
question now is the motive and culprit. This story first
broke on http://freerepublic.com, BTW.
\_ Please provide one in /csua/tmp. I believe you, but I want
to see what you've created.
\_ Look here
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog
\_ I am not convinced either way (yet), reading all this neat
stuff about the history of fonts is fun, your liberal friends
have posted responses
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603 - danh
\_ Thanks. That pretty much seals it for that particular
memo, at least, in that it's not an original 1970s
copy. The only possible explanation, for that memo at
least and perhaps the others, was that it was forged or
transcribed. -liberal
\_ Whee! More media circus of irrelevant bullshit.
\_ Call me paranoid but what if the Bush people are secretly the
source of the forged documents? having this stuff come out and
slathered all over the press and then proven to be fake is really
benefitting Bush, because now he can still say he served his time
etc, but also say "look at the dirty tricks the Democrats are up
to!" so it just makes the Democrats look evil AND stupid.
\_ Guilty as charged! -democrat |
| 2004/9/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33435 Activity:high |
9/9 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20040909 pl_nm/campaign_sticker_dc Why are they angry? They are the same as hitler. The comparison is perfectly valid. \_ http://csua.org/u/8yy \_ This is a blatant lie "MoveOn.org, an independent liberal group, briefly aired advertisements that featured a photograph of Hitler transforming into Bush's image. " The bush/hitler ad was one of hundreds of entries in a contest *run* by http://moveon.org. It lost, was never even a finalist, and never aired. \_ Please note that the Dems came out immediately to denounce the sticker. Who in the RNC denounced the purple heart bandaids? |
| 2004/9/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33412 Activity:high |
9/7 Hmmm apparently the Japanese word for Poop needle is Kancho!
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=414&page=12
(Guy #2)
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=379&page=17
This one's about organ donataion. The first and third ladies are
pretty funny.
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=367&page=18
Best one yet! First lady wants to be Bush's "Monica Lewinsky!" |
| 2004/9/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33404 Activity:very high |
9/7 Kerry cosponsored bill banning gun he waves
http://www.drudgereport.com/dncg.htm
\_ a waste of a great gun :(
\_ MacGyver wised up and became Colonel O'Neal
\_ pistol grips on shotguns are way less accurate then
regular grips, they should let the twinks keep them
\_ it could help in close, urban situations where accuracy
of one shot isn't the primary concern.
\_ most experts agree, pistol grips should be removed
cuz they suck in urban situations
\_ how bout for full auto shotguns
\_ TWO MILLION JOBS LOST! $9 BILLION "UNACCOUNTED FOR" IN IRAQ!
A UNILATERAL WAR BASED ON COOKED INTELLIGENCE! SHUT THE FUCK
UP YOU ASS! I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK! FUCK YOU!!!!!!!111!! --aaron
\_ Amen. There's not really enough "stfu, u teh gay" in US
politics right now; in addition to agreeing wholeheartedly
with Mr. Smith, I welcome this move to introduce better form
into the political debating process. -John
\_ You are cruel, John. -- ilyas
\_ I would like to note at this point that I just gave my
largest donation to date to the DCCC and DFA, and I now feel
much better. Thank you for your concern! --aaron
\_ lose one for the flipper! Let me tell you my impression
\_ you really should stop posting this "quip" unless you're
trying to sound totally inane.
of Kerry. I was watching him on a book interview on CSPAN.
He was asked what books he was reading or would
recommend. He stammered on for 3-4 minutes and
effectively said nothing. He stated one childrens book
he had read and something about the importance of the
Bible. The rest of his response was nuanced evasive
nonsense about what types of books, how many... on and on.
He could of named 5 books in 30 seconds and been done with
it; instead he was afraid to define himeself. Someone
with this type of personality does not make an
effective executive, especially during national crises.
\_ Let me tell you my impression of GW Bush. I was watching
him read _My Pet Goat_ for seven minutes after he learned
of the 2nd tower being attacked. He knows how to delegate
authority -- someone else was taking care of it, so he
doesn't have to worry about it himself.
didn't have to worry about immediate action himself.
\_ That wouldn't define him. naming a few books with
no explanation? I don't buy that about effective
exectutives. Bush wasn't a particularly effective
executive. (And I doubt he could give a fast and direct
answer to that question anyway). Bush had both houses of
Congress Republican. This thing about strong
leadership is some kind of folklore. Simple folks love
to think that down home backwoods wisdom always beats
fancy book learnin'. If something can't be stated in
a simple sentence they don't want to hear it. The
real world isn't black and white and involves nuanced
decision-making. People base the whole image of Bush
on "he invaded Iraq => strong!" That decision had
many consequences and many of us think it was wrong
at that time, and inadequately planned. His economic
policy is sustained by record-busting deficit spending.
Bush's only other executive experience was the company
he ran into the ground. NCLB act a funding disaster,
and a bizarre thing in principle from a traditional
conservative standpoint (taxing billions from the
states, then handing it back to them on a restricted
and problematic basis). Industry-coddling energy,
environmental, and medicare policies.
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_lies
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_flipflops
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/specialinterests
You guys keep saying "Kerry is nothing but not Bush".
The reason this is somewhat true is that's pretty
much what we want. Bush on the other hand is nothing
but "invade the middle east".
\_ This is bigotry. You are speaking of people you
have no familiarity with. You think you are
smarter than everyone else, and thus, entitled
to tell them how they should live and what they
should believe. Inside every leftist is a
tyrant. So are so vain you can't even see
yourself for what you are.
\_ You're saying I have no familiarity with "simple
people"? I can't even respond to this because
you don't even make an argument here. You're
simply lashing out with incoherent bile. My
point with that was to criticize the idea, which
certainly exists, that intelligence and nuanced
thinking is unneeded and even undesirable in leaders.
I see this notion in the popular mythology. You
should look up what bigotry means. And inside
every rightist is a coke-sniffing pedophile.
\_ Your use of the work "simple people" is
telling.
\_ what does it tell?
\_ It's usually considered derogatory and
belittling when you call someone "simple".
\_ It's an abstract group of people. It
should only offend people who consider
themselves simple, but then they wouldn't
think it's derogatory. Or maybe they hold
the "dumb is wise" view, in which case I
I heartily belittle them.
\_ For your criticism to be relevant it is incumbent
on you, or anyone, to propose a cogent alternative
foreign policy paradigm. No such policy was ever
proposed, all you and left could offer was
appeasement.
\_ appeasement of what? Saddam did not have WMDs and
was not attacking anyone. Letting countries run
their own business is not "appeasement." -tom
\_ False. Alternative paradigms were loudly proposed.
You can even look it up and read about it, if you
choose. I can't objectively prove such alternatives
could be as cogent as "invade". It would be pointless
to go into that whole argument right now, I think we
both know what's been said.
\_ Where? What? By who? Here is concise
explanation of that which you speak: appeasement,
cede sovreignty to the UN.
cede sovreignty to the UN. You want
"nuance" terrorists, its rediculous.
\_ false again. a U.N. vote != ceding sovereignty.
appeasement applies to giving in under threat.
and the saddam <=> terrorism relevance is
primarily a concoction.
\_ So I can sum up your position as: you want
entitlements from the government? You believe you
have a ordained right to a job, free health care
and other free gov't services? Right?
\_ No, you can't, because I didn't say that. I'm not
a libertarian though, so basically the gist of
that is true for most people. Here's another case
where a little "nuance" might let you acknowledge
that there are more possibilities than pure
libertarian versus full-on communism. I don't know
anybody talking about "right to a job" and you use
that as a straw man because you have no argument.
\_ The other 50% of the country would like to keep the country as it
is and away from the likes of you. C'est la vie.
\_ There is no pistol grip on that shotgun. You are no gun owner or
you would know that.
\_ The deal is that the language of the bill defines "pistol
grip" broadly: "... grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other
characteristic that can function as a grip"
\_ That shotgun still does not have a pistol grip, even
by that definition.
\_ According to that bill, this counts as a pistol grip.
http://www.gunslocal.com/gunimages/1385.jpg
This is the one he was presented with:
http://www.berettaweb.com/semi%20auto%20shotgun/A300.htm
\_ (a) Yes, it's not 'really' a pistol grip
(b) As guy above says, the language of the bill was stupid
enough where yes, it was considered a pistol grip.
(c) I have yet to hear an effective argument from the
gun control crowd about how these regulations involving
pistol grips and 'assault-looking' weapons do anything
other than piss off gun owners. It's the stupidest
thing I ever heard. If you want to ban automatics, I
could see the argument for that (I don't agree, but I
understand it). If you want to ban scary looking
weapons you are an idiot or a fretting soccer mommy.
-- ilyas
\_ Obviously somebody thought pistol-gripped semi-
automatic shotguns were not meant to hunt game,
but whose sole purpose was to kill people.
Note that the bill is for a renewal of an assault
weapons ban on AK-47s, AR-15s, and military sniper
rifles, and is not only for aforementioned shotguns,
as some might infer.
\_ Ok, I don't understand that. Why are
pistol-gripped things bad for hunting game?
Is this because Elmer Fudd doesn't use a pistol
grip? Take a handgun. Very few people hunt with
handguns, they are generally for 'killing people'
(and going to the range, but no one seems to
bring that up).
So what? Why is this bannable? Hunting rifles
kill people just as well. I guess I don't see the
thought process at all. Also, what's a
'military sniper rifle' and how is it different
from a hunting rifle with a scope? -- ilyas
\_ Let me summarize the "answer" for you.
For many liberals, it's "How many guns
can I outlaw?". For many conservatives, it's
"How many guns can I leave legal?"
There's your answer.
BTW, a Dragunov is one of the named illegal
sniper rifles, and is obviously military-
grade; a hunting rifle with a scope is a
hunting rifle with a scope (with less
penetrating rounds, less accuracy when you
take your run of the mill hunting rifle, and
not necessarily semi-automatic or automatic).
Pistols are for "killing people", but are
strongly associated with self-defense, unlike
assault rifles. Semi-auto shotguns with
pistol grip make you think of semi-auto
shotguns used by police, except they use them
to take out bad guys.
\_ I am a liberal, and I am anti-gun control.
I believe that this is more consistent
with the pinciples of liberalism than
being pro-gun control. Personally,
I find hunting to be excruciatingly dull
and I suck at target shooting and live in
a safe area, so I have no guns, but
I support the rights of others to have
whatever guns they want.
\_ This is where I point out I know more about
guns than you. A run of the mill remington
700 with a 'decent' scope will have:
(a) more penetration than the dragunov
(308 is a bigger round)
(b) larger effective range (900 yards vs
400 yards)
(c) better accuracy than the dragunov
(dragunov is semiauto, and not that
well made, the remington uses the nice
mauser bolt-action).
By any reasonable standard, a remington 700
is a deadlier rifle than the dragunov, yet
the dragunovs are the ones that are outlawed
because of the 'scary grips.' That things
are 'associated with' or 'make you think
of something' is a dumb (and scary)
argument for outlawing anything. I realize
you may not necessarily hold the position
you are presenting -- I am
attacking it, not you. I was hoping for
a defense of 'how many guns can I outlaw?'
-- ilyas
\_ semi-auto vs. bolt action, clip ammo.
I dunno, I think it's reasonable to
think the Dragunov can be deadlier vs.
multiple targets. I don't know too much
about guns though... are pistol grips
so useless? Why then are they on all the
military rifles? --otherperson
\_ Against multiple people you use a
sprayer, not a frigging sniper rifle.
Sniper rifle = single kills. Pistol
grips are on military rifles because
they are comfy. Of course comfy
grips make it easier to 'kill people.'
*sigh* -- ilyas
\_ Well, actually, no. You don't use
a sprayer, you practice...you
know...accuracy? So you hit what
you shoot at when you pull the
trigger? 1-3 seconds of full
auto on most assault rifles is
really only useful for
suppression and making lots of
noise.
\_ I have to admit that when I'm
killing people, I look for as
much comfort as possible.
That's why I use a
Dragunov<tm>. -geordan
\_ also maybe it makes it easier to identify the
real assault weapons, if you ban lookalikes,
that might possibly be modified? |
| 2004/9/7 [ERROR, uid:33401, category id '18005#4.8325' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33401 Activity:nil |
9/7 What does history suggest when the polls have the election
tied on Sept 1 and again one week after the end of the
Republican convention?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm |
| 2004/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33395 Activity:nil |
9/7 NYT on Kerry's prospects. http://csua.org/u/8y4 \_ ob article from a paper that wants Dubya to go down. -liberal (even though it's less inaccurate than "Kerry is toast!") \_ Have you read the article? \_ Yeah, just pointing out that the NY Times does want Dubya out \_ That might matter on the editorial page, but it has no effect on the news reporting. \_ ... if the NY Times didn't let their personal opinions affect their news reporting. This is the point of contention. I guess I'm not arguing for or against on that point, but I'll wait and see. \_ I predict that President Bush will win California! \_ LANDSLIDE IS THE STANDARD! \_ In every election except one since the 1930's, the Gallup poll leader at the start of September has won the election. Margin changes, intermediate lead changes, but in every presidential except the 1960 one the September leader ended up winning the election. The only exception is Kennedy 1960, when he was behind 46% vs 47% and won with 50.1% of the final vote. This doesn't mean that Kerry is doomed, since this is a very unusual election, but he clearly has history against him. \_ Never before has the convention occured just before Sep 1. Did you even read the article??? \_ Quoth me: "...since this is a very unusual election..." Apparently I have read the article. -pp \_ Your reading comprehension skills are poor then. \_ Methinks your wishful thinking is showing. \_ Of course, just because it isn't on the editorial page doesn't mean that it doesn't read like an editorial. I find little news in it. And look at the sources for the quotes: Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry adviser David R. Gergen, a veteran adviser of the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton White Houses. |
| 2004/9/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33376 Activity:high 57%like:30994 |
9/6 USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll: No bounce for Bush among registered voters,
Bush with 7% lead among "likely voters". http://csua.org/u/8xs
Poll conducted Sep 3-5. (Time and Newsweek were several days earlier.)
Was there a Beslan effect?
\_ Well, the problem (if you are a democrat) is that people are voting
against bush, and not for kerry. Traditionally this has been a
sign of a weak candidate. If you take a look at elections like the
76 or 80 elections people voted for the alternative, not against
the establishment. The 92 elections might well be described as
against the establishment, but it also had a sizable 3rd party
presence (sizable in terms of hype, movement, and somewhat of
a spoiler) in Ross Perot which offered an alternative for the
conservative basis (somewhat like Nader in 2000, but more so).
conservative base (somewhat like Nader in 2000, but more so).
In the 2000 election people who voted for Bush actually liked
Bush (neocons, religious conservatives, general hawks, etc.) vs.
people who voted for Gore didn't particularly find Gore appealing
(people liked Clinton, so in essence Gore was supposed to be
Clinton 3rd term like Bush Sr. was Reagan 3rd term). They voted
for him because they didn't like Bush.
\_ I think this time you're going to see a lot more non-likely
turnout. A _lot_ more.
\_ No, you're not. Outside your hyper active political we-hate-
Bush bubble, the Bush haters I know are the standard non-
voters who whine a lot and saw F9/11, but they'll be too
busy or traffic was too high or there was a show on that
night or they had a date. History doesn't back your theory.
The number of people voting vs. registered vs. legal to
register people is at an all time low and continue to sink.
\_ Wrong. In 2000, there were 9.5 million more votes cast
than in 1996, a 2% increase relative to eligible voters.
http://www.fairvote.org/turnout. -tom |
| 2004/9/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33364 Activity:high |
9/5 Four more wars!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004635.php
\_ What font is that, and why do liberals seem to like it?
\_ This is depressing.
\_ Yeah, I can't believe this hack has any readers.
\_ "I disagree with someone, therefore they must be a hack"
\_ Yeah, that too.
\_ why do you keep replying to yourself? - danh
\_ Uhm, there's at least 3 participants in this thread.
You're not as clever as you think you are. |
| 2004/9/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33360 Activity:nil |
9/5 sfgate at spin control. http://csua.org/u/8xd "While som early polls show that Bush may have gained from the convention..." Or "Early polls...showed Bush getting as much as an 8-point bounce. A Washington Post/ABC News poll...with Bush just barely ahead of Kerry 48 to 47 percent" and no more mention of the big bounce. Well done! |
| 2004/9/5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33356 Activity:nil |
9/4 A sagging economy, endless violence in Iraq, record high oil prices,
\- not "record high" [yet]
oil prices were higher
in early 80s. --psb
a bad employment picture, an uncertain future, and everybody in the
world hates us, yet the Democrats are now BEHIND in the polls? WTF?
What the hell happened? How can the Dems lose both in 2000 and now
it looks like 2004? Are you guys cursed?
\_ Perhaps a belief that, as bad as things are, the Democrats
would have made an even greater mess, and better days are ahead.
\_ 3% GDP growth and 5.4 % unemployment is a sagging economy?Contrast
that with Carter's double digit inflation, interest rates, and
unemployment. Oil prices will be ~30-35$ per barrel by November.
Also, maybe this has something to do with it:
Boy who begged for water was bayoneted
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1207663/posts |
| 2004/9/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33353 Activity:nil |
9/4 Frances comes. Bush will declare Florida a disaster area, pump lots
of Federal fundings, and Florida will vote for Bush. Four more years.
That, is my prediction.
\_ This proves it -- Satan is on the side of Bush (he sent the
unholy hurricane as an election aid).
\_ Even with Florida voting Republican, the electoral college is
still roughly split 50-50 according to
http://www.electoral-vote.com To win this election, all things
being equal, it would be enough for Kerry to win in one or two swing
states like Colorado, Iowa, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and maybe Arizona
or Missouri most of which are split roughtly 50-50 right now.
Though, I think you are probably right about Florida. If I was
JFK.v2, I'd ignore it from now on and concentrate on the states I
have mentioned above. |
| 2004/9/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33338 Activity:high |
9/3 Sigh. Big bounce for Bush. http://csua.org/u/8x3 . Yes, I know. It's unreliable. It's pre-debates. It'll disappear. It still sucks. \_ Its also an outlier with the other polls, and it was done mostly *during* the convention... \_ Yes, it still sucks. Did they do the same poll during the Democratic convention? \_ How can it be an outlier when it's the only reputable poll taken during the convention? It can only be an outlier if there are other reputable polls taken during the convention which show a small lead or none. Do not easily dismiss the Ah-nold and Giulani effect. Do not easily dismiss the Ah-nold and Giulani effect, and the fact that Dubya delivered a speech that sounds very good. \_ Zogby, through 9/2: Bush 46, Kerry 44 American Research Group, through 9/1: Bush 48, Kerry 47 \_ I found the URL for you: http://csua.org/u/8x4 Hard to tell who's right, since Zogby leans a little left and IMO Time leans a little right, and one day can make a difference (especially with the Chechens). I'd wait for more polls, but Dubya definitely has his "We got a bounce!" line, unless Time comes out saying they goofed, which I doubt will happen. \_ Apparently even the Bush people are saying this poll is an outlier, although it seems most of the data was gathered before Bush's actual speech. Its actually the media which is currently doing the "Bush GODDA BOUNCE!" dance. \_ Well, Time is. I think the news media would have no problem saying "Tiny Bounce For Bush! Race still deadlocked!" \- did the idea futures mkts move of bush v kerry? \_ Tradesports has him as a 57/43 favorite now, where it was even right after the Democratic convention. It was 57/43 about six weeks ago, just before the Democratic convention, so they cancelled each other out essentially. \_ Not that big really, since he was +2% by that same poll a week ago. So it was an eight point bounce and that poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%. So the move was less than the total margin of error. Or am I confused about my statistics here? |
| 2004/9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33334 Activity:nil |
9/3 I'm kind of glad Bush was President 2000-2004. We needed to be total
assholes to lock up the U.S., and Republicans are good at that.
(Democrats aren't as practiced at being assholes.) Now the Democrats
can take over for 2004-2008 and restore good relations with our
neighbors (who were right about Iraq after all), say it was all a bad
Bush dream, and peel back some of the really bad civil rights
violations and unnecessary security precautions.
\_ Lock WHAT up? Innocent US citizens? They haven't locked down
SHIT, least of all our port facilities. --aaron
\_ Well, ONE good thing Bush did is inspire me to give money to the
Democratic party for the first time. |
| 2004/9/3 [ERROR, uid:33324, category id '18005#3.3325' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33324 Activity:very high |
9/3 Loved this AP headline:
"Bush Glosses Over Complex Facts In Speech"
http://csua.org/u/8ws
\_ In other late breaking news, things continue to fall due to
gravity.
\_ Heh, exactly.
\_ Nope, no bias there.
\_ So now the FACTS are partisan? You keep sucking the "liberal
media" shit out of a tube, we'll keep living in reality.
\_ Hey, at least it provides a tiny smidge of balance against the
raw Leader-Worship the networks engaged in after the speech.
They were comparing him to Churchill!
\_ Our President is a dumbass, and he has acknowledged this. |
| 2004/9/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33312 Activity:nil |
9/2 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-09-01-moore_x.htm Michael Moore: ... I would like to hear [GWB] say tonight, "I'm sorry. There never were weapons of mass destruction and there never was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There was no imminent threat, our lives were not in danger, no missiles were going to hit Cleveland." (The next sentence regarding oil was stupid.) ... The other thing I would like to hear tonight is: Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden? You've had three years to find him. The man killed nearly 3,000 people here on our soil. \_ The Village Voice told me that BushCo already caught bin Laden a long time ago and is waiting for some key moment to let us know. \_ The eve before the election? \_ To deny that Iraq, along with Iran, Syria, and Lybia, were the largest state sponsors of terror over the past 30 years is patently false. Two are down, two more to go. \_ Who's denying Iran, Syria, and Lybia [sic] are the largest state sponsors of terror? |
| 2004/9/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33290 Activity:very high |
9/2 I figured the motd socialists would be out in force insulting the
Republicans this week during the RNC convention. You've got more
fresh speeches and material to work from right now than any other
time since 2000. I'm disappointed you can't even make something
up or take something out of context to get snarky and cute about.
\_ Go stick your head in a pig. To quote a whole lot of people on
the motd from the last convention, who watches the damn things?
They're just scripted television commercials.
\_ This would fly except y'all get so hot n bothered and spend
so much time digging up other old quotes and speeches. Sorry,
no dice on this reply.
\_ Many of my friends are depressed because they have this sinking
feeling (strictly gut-based) that Bush is going to win. One
is talking about retiring to his Tuscan villa for the next 4
years.
\_ Can we get them to promise in writing that they'll leave? I
thought it was really funny 4 years ago when a number of
celebs were recorded promising to leave the country if
Bush won, but mysteriously none did...
\_ Is there a list out there of all of the celebs that promised
to go away? I only know of one guy who actually did and he
isn't a major public celeb (some artist/writer) and already
had a place in France anyway.
\_ http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/leave.htm
\_ Sad, isn't it? That Bush can have 4 years with absolutely no
meaningful accomplishments other than looking good standing in
the rubble of the WTC, and yet he seems to have the momentum.
\_ Isn't it just as sad that Kerry had 20 years in the Senate
and his claim to fame was marrying a rich widow and being
a war hero despite a handful of medals he might or might not
have thrown away?
\_ Its certainly better than what we got now. His tax cuts
haven't worked and his war was a disaster. In the words
of Donald Trump, "I'm sorry, but you're FIRED!"
\_ His tax cuts have been working. Do you have a job? Do
you know anyone who wants a job and doesn't? The war
was the best fought war in the history of the planet.
We lost more soldiers on each beach on DDay than we
have in a year+ in Iraq. Are you trolling or simply
ignorant of basic historic facts?
\_ The best fought war in the history of the planet?
The war that found not a single WMD and has created
a virtual jihadist factory?
\_ We took over a country in record time with fewer
deaths than seen on our highways in a few weeks.
Yeah, it was a poorly fought war. You're an uber
military genius. Were you one of the scumbags
that was hoping it would turn into a vietnam style
quagmire with body bags coming home by the
hundreds every week?
\_ Hmm... so you're bragging by saying we've lost fewer
soldiers in a war aginst a militarily inferior foe
than in one of the biggest battles in the largest war
ever, against a foe our technological equal?
I guess by your logic, Bay of Pigs was a resounding
success because we only lost a few hundred people.
\_ The Nazis were our technological superiors, btw.
\_ No they weren't (except for tanks). -- ilyas
And your comparison to the Bay of Pigs is silly
because maybe you didn't notice but we won in
Iraq but the Cuban nationals lost in Cuba. They
weren't American soliders. This isn't even
apples to oranges but more like celery sticks to
Ford pickup trucks. At least get your very basic
history correct before you step up to bat.
\_ What do you mean? I'm saving $30k just from personal
tax cuts and gobs more if you count in estate tax
changes.
\_ Then you're far better off than the larger chunk of
us, and probably were not hurting from it before...
Tell us. How many new jobs have you created?
\_ Me personally? I grew my group from 12 to 17
people in the last 2 years. Before that I
started a company that went from 3 (the founders)
to 23 at its peak. Hurting? Why did it have
to hurt for me to appreciate keeping more of
the money I earn?
\_ YOUR anecdote trumps all statistics! The
economy is roaring like never before! Bush
has created millions of jobs!...oh wait, right,
he'll likely be the first president since
Hoover to have negative job growth...maybe them
pesky tax cuts aren't working out so well.
\_ He was asked how many job he created, he
answered and then you attack him for
answering! BWHAHAHAHAHA! YOU SO FUNNY!
\_ The recession started at the end of the
Clinton years. The troubles in high tech
(and certainly in the telecom space where
I play) now comes from over investment
during the boom years. Blame runaway
optimism in the 90's if you want to assign
blame. The price of getting drunk is the
hangover.
\_ Uh huh. I seem to recall Clinton pulling
us out of a similar recession in 92 quite
capably. Then again, he didn't go
starting some useless disaster of a war
either. Sorry, you're still FIRED!
\_ According to the National Bureau of
Economic Reserach, that recession
went from 7/1990 to 3/1991. It ended
well before the start of the Clinton
terms. They also said the current
recession was from 3/2000 to 11/2001.
This started 3 months after the start
of the GWB presidency, but it's still
hard to pin it on him since it started
only 3 months into his watch. Please
try to base your argument on data
instead of urban myths and silly
catch phrases.
\_ Facts just trip us up and get in
the way of our partisan frothing
and mewling. --wannabe motd lib
\_ Is this the first presidential election your friends have
voted in? This convention back and forth is typical.
\_ Late 30's, not likely their first election. Kerry can't
win this election; Bush can lose it. It doesn't seem like
Bush will lose.
\_ Still too close to call, exactly the wrong time to give
up hope. Kick your friends in the ass for me.
\_ Not really. Unless Bush rapes a nun on national TV,
the whole thing is done.
\_ In your dreams. It is not even close to finished.
It isn't even halftime yet. Do you even bother
to look at polls or do you just figure you can
predict the future better than the experts?
\_ http://hosted.ap.org/photos/R/RNC18709020300-big.jpg
http://hosted.ap.org/photos/R/RNC18809020300-big.jpg
A picture speaks a thousand words.
\_ All I can say about Zell Miller is: YEEEEEAAAAARGHHHHHHH!!!!!
\_ Really? 'Cos "sell-out" and "collaborator" are what I'd
say about the man. Mind you, that pic doesn't exactly
catch him in his best light: you know, a smoky back room....
\_ Just curious, did you feel the same way when the Senate
briefly changed hands when whats his face switched to
voting (D) from (R) a few months after he was elected
using (R) funds? Or were you cheering like a partisan
hypocrite?
\_ The difference there is Jeffords actually followed his
conscience instead of hanging onto a misnomer like Zell
does. Also, he didn't "vote (D)". He tossed his vote
to the (D)'s for organizing the Senate and to give them
the majority and changed his affiliation to (I). He
didn't necessarily vote with them on their bills. In
fact, looking at what little that session did, his
switch didn't really do all that much.
\_ Jeffords was called a traitor, etc, by the (R) side.
He did the one thing which fucked the (R) for that
entire time period. Voting however afterwards
doesn't matter as there are many in both parties who
cross lines for various things. In this case, he
fucked his party so he could get the chairmanship
of a dairy committee he wanted to control for his
dairy state. So short sighted and stupid he now has
nothing and his state got fucked twice over. What an
idiot. Anyway, as I said, you thought it was a-ok
for a (R) to turn coat but it is treason of the
highest order when a (D) does it. Hypocrite. At
least try to be honest with your rationalizations.
\_ Nah, I just meant he had some serious Howard Dean moments
last night. First he chewed the scenery up with that
speech ("unleash rage" was the headline that the AP had).
Then he goes on Hardball and keeps challenging Chris
Matthews to a duel!
\_ Well, maybe he was having a Ted Koppel moment (TK
challenged Jon Stewart to a duel on The Daily Show).
\_ It doesn't matter how it played to some motd/Bay Area
leftists. It matters that a Democrat Senator got on TV
and said his country was more important than his party
and that his party was fucked. |
| 2004/9/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33289 Activity:insanely high |
9/2 It takes a republican to put Elaine Chao, the first Asian American
women in the U.S. Cabinet:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.main/index.html
\_ more like, she had to marry a republican senator first.
\_ Republicans are oppressing her with their big white penises?
\_ http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/chao-bio.html
\_ I am sure she's very capable herself, but that alone
isn't usually enough.
\_ that is right. Chinese communities knows Elaine Chao for years.
and, if she never married to a powerful senator, she would never
gotten where she is now. Further, I hate her policies, and
that alone is good enough for me to discredit her despite she
belongs to the same ethnic tribe as I.
\_ That's fine. There are lots of Irish politians I don't
support. I think race based support for anyone is
stupid.
\_ I don't think the gwbush administration is racist. I think
they just hate poor people.
\_ I hate those racist republicans! We need more equal
opportunity supporters like John Kerry and his all-white
all-the-time campaign!
\_ Yeah, like the way GWB has more non-whites in his administration
at any level than Clinton did in 8 years and Kerry has on his
staff now. But don't let facts trip you up on the way to the
next meeting of the proletariat, comrade!
\_ You respond to obvious sarcasm by pretending it is an
honest statement. Boy are you stupid.
\_ Hi fool! I was joining in on the sarcasm fun. Thanks
for adding your idiocy to the motd. We didn't have
enough stupid people here already. Everyone understood
and let it be. How'd you get so stupid?
\_ But wait, say the Republicans, we're not racist. We put Colin
Powell and Condi Rice in positions of power (where we can
veto them immediately if they get uppity). See? How can an
Administration with token blacks possibly be oppressing blacks?
Oh, that's right, by cutting valuable social services that help
to redress more than 228 years of discrimination and outright
oppression.
\_ By putting people on the public dole, we lift them up and give
them incentive to do better from one generation to the next.
Er uh, yeah. Right. Have you ever been on the dole? It is
the most anti-incentive thing I ever experienced.
\_ Except that the programs Bush has cut haven't only been
the welfare checks. He's also cut housing subsidies,
funding for pre-school education, and tons of counseling
services. If it was welfare alone, I'd be right there
with you, but when you take away the means to improve,
that's just wrong.
\_ Then you'd be unique among the left who think welfare
reform is the ultimate evil.
\_ Untrue. See "Clinton and welfare reform."
(And if you're going to restore, restore it all.)
\_ BWAHAHAHAHA!
\_ Hey, can I have some of that? My people were totally oppressed
for longer than yours. -- ilyas
\_ Than mine? I'm a Danish-Irish-Pole; my Danish ancestors
were oppressing my Irish and Polish ancestors before
Columbus was ever born.
\_ Wait, ilya, I missed the part where Russian Jews were
brought over in ships to do forced labor for their entire
lives on cotton plantations, and then "freed" only to face
official government policies of segregation and
discrimination for 100 years.
\_ Dude! You had ships? We wish we had ships. We had to
go to Egypt and Babylon ON FOOT, UPHILL BOTH WAYS,
long before your ancestors even knew what slavery was.
-- ilyas
\_ This conversation has reached epic stupidity.
You don't think Jews have ever been SEGREGATED?
\_ You miss the point. American government policy and
its people supported slavery and, later, "Jim Crow."
American government policy had nothing to do with
the oppression of the Jews - if anything, we helped
to save what was left of them with WWII. The plight
of the African-American is a uniquely American
responsibility.
\_ The plight? 1) stop using crack, 2) stop shooting
your neighbors, 3) send your kids to school, 4)
install some values in your children, 5) stop
listening to music that glorifies thuggish street
life and says all women are whores and property.
That would be a good start. You know, that whole
self responsibility thing. Maybe we need a
Federal entitlement program to encourage more
self responsbility?
\_ I'm the guy who wrote the bit about tokens, and
even I can tell you straight up that American
government policy at several points had plenty
to do with the oppression of the Jews. We nearly
didn't even get involved in WWII because of
anti-semitism. Look, both Jews and African
Americans have suffered. Cutting support to one
because the other's not getting a leg up is
just plain stupid and spiteful.
\_ I repeat, WHERE'S MY PIECE OF THE PIE!?
My ancestors suffered, damn it! Gimme gimme
gimme! -- ilyas
\_ I blame the Jews.
\_ And why not? Everyone else does. The
weak always make good targets.
\_ Um, alright you should dig up the American
government and its people (who were around at
the time) and get them to pay up. See, the rest
of the world has gotten past the feudal concept
of familial inheritance of legal responsibilities.
Maybe you should too. -- ilyas
\_ Do you support increasing the estate tax?
\_ jesus fucking batshit. why don't you
spill some blood in the sharktank while
you're at it?
\_ Do you support sending people to prison for
what their 4x great grand parents did?
\_ Hey, it's not regressive to see that the
current social situation in the ghetto is a
direct result of both that "peculiar
institution" and Reagan's policy of cutting
assistance and enrichment programs, as
continued by the current administration.
\_ It may not be regressive, but it is BS.
The "great society" did not increase
the speed of blacks entering the
middle class, it DECREASED the speed.
Furthermore, prior to the great
society, ghettos were pretty safe. Now
no one lets their kids walk down the
street in the ghetto. Woohoo! Did we
ever get a great society from LBJ!
\_ Your claims are ludicrous. Please back
them up.
\_ Yours is more so. How does flooding
an area with government cash encourage
anyone to do better with their life?
Please back up the claim that the
ghettos are a result of Reagan's
policies and slavery. There were
shitty ghettos and crime long before
Reagan was around.
\_ And yet another fallacy: throwing
money at the problem does nothing.
Spending money to improve schools
(read: not on vouchers), provide
retraining, educate children
through Head Start and other
pre-school programs, and provide
drug-, health-, and job-counseling
decreases crime and social welfare.
\_ Spending money intelligently
works. Throwing money at a
problem, by it's very nature,
does not solve problems. The
schools are fucked because
parents won't take responsibility
for their kids in your nanny
state and the teachers unions
are all about the teachers
unions and couldn't give a fuck
about the kids.
\_ I notice you have not provided
the evidence. Perhaps because
it does not exist?
\_ I notice you have not provided
the evidence. Perhaps because
it does not exist? See how we
can both play that game? You
made a stupid statement. I
challenged it. Then you try to
back your statement by saying I
didn't back mine when you have
provided no backing for your
earlier statement. That turkey
doesn't fly. Your debate fu
is WEAK!
\_ This is the first time you
have requested evidence.
I can provide plenty of it.
\_ It isn't but thats ok.
You're doing your best
and for that I think you
have earned a social
promotion to the next
level so we don't damage
your self esteem.
\_ Corporations live forever and can write
contracts far outlasting the life of their
signees. I think they can be held responsible
for their actions 150 years ago.
\_ Sue them.
\_ Change the law so I can.
\_ BWHAHAHAHA!!! SO FUNNY! Poor baby!
You are such a victim! What exactly
are you going to sue them for and who?
\_ There are plenty of corporations
that benefitted from slave labor
and could be sued. For economic
damages of course, what else do
you sue a corporation for? Are you
this ignorant and rude in person?
\_ I asked you to name them and
what you'd sue them for since
you weren't damaged by it. Are
you this obtuse in person?
\_ A very quick google gives:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/26/slavery.reparations
http://www.millionsforreparations.com/lawsuit-ww.html
I think you can make an
economic argument that
the descendants have the
right to sue. We already
return solen art to the
decendants of the victims.
But the law would have to
be changed to make this
possible.
\_ Tell us about the legality of the sacking of Jericho
and the displacement of the Canaanites, ilya.
\_ Without the Infinity Trident we're defenseless
against the Five Jew Bankers!
\_ John is that you?
\_ Where's the magic spear and shield?! I must
have the ring else all hope is lost!
\_ You idiot! We made up the Five Jew Bankers!
\_ http://internationaljewishconspiracy.com
(Relax, it's a satirical site, not racist.)
\_ How did a conversation on Elaine The Asian And The Big White Penises
become so intellectual?
\_ Where exactly did it become intellectual?
\_ I agree that the claims that the Republicans are racist are
silly and
counter-productive. It is not surprising that the Republicans are
the first to put an Asian woman into the cabinet though. There is
a great J. K. Galbraith quote about how it is the fate of American
politics that the party that is not believed to embody a particular
quality is the one that actually has to put it into practice. Just
like how the Democrats are the party that actually has sensible,
business- and growth-friendly economic policies. The Republicans
don't need to have these, because everyone assumes that their
policies are economically sound. The first Black or Female U. S.
President will be a Republican. - (one of many) motd liberal
\_ thank god, there are people on motd has non-volitile memory.
\_ last week we caught a Jewish spy, for some reason, we don't have
the cox report and all that witch hunt. Racism at work...
(if the motd-format God would like to come bless me, I would
be appreciative, otherwise sorry about the formatting)
\_ I would except those other morons put their crap in the
middle making me uncertain who is writing the parenthetic.
--motd formatd
\_ Chacellor Chang-lin Tien would have been another asian in the
cabinet but the big China stealing nuclear secrets brouhaha made
it impossible.
\_ Tien was from Taiwan, not Mainland China.
\_ it doesn't matter. wenholee is from taiwan too.
incidentally, so it elaine chao.
\_ Elaine Chao's chinese name means Little Orchid.
\_ Does it ever occur to you guys that Lincoln was a Republican?
\_ Somewhat clever troll, or didn't pay attention in U.S.
History. Which one are you?
\_ Are you saying Lincoln was a Democrat?
\_ Yeah, Lincoln didn't want to ENSLAVE Americans, otherwise
he would be a Republican!
\_ CSUA has its own Elaine |
| 2004/9/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33273 Activity:insanely high |
9/1 Anyone else catch Arnie praising Nixon? High-larious!
\_ yeah so you were all alive back in 1968 and wanted Humphrey
don't you know anything about history, I'm talking the complete
story not just Watergate.
\_ In the draft of the speech, it was Hitler, but they softened it
a bit in the rewrite.
\_ I guess you are part of the 30% who disapprove of Arnold
in this state.
\_ Of course. He didn't slip it in secretly. And the talking heads
commented on it afterwards. What about it? What Nixon did would
not even get mention today. What happens commonly today and is
dismissed by the media and public would yield prison terms during
Nixon's era.
\_ You mean it wouldn't matter if a Republican did it. Or have you
forgotten that a blowjob in the Oval Office seems to be more
impeachable than leaking the identity of a CIA agent?
\_ Um, no. Perjury and suborning perjury. Not a blowjob.
\_ Yeah wow, lets have THIS argument again. Woohoo. You've
heard of the Nixon tape where he tells Chuck Colson to
BLOW PEOPLE UP, right?
\_ I'm not the above poster, but what does blowing
people up have to do with blowing people in the
oval office?
\_ Lying about getting a blowjob ... How many politicians
tell the truth about affairs unless confronted directly
with incontravertable evidence?
\_ Sheesh. This is such a lame attempt at
justification. He was under oath in front of a
grand jury. Lying to a grand jury is not ok no
matter who you are.
\_ Note that it appears to be ok to lie to Congress
(Reagan, Bush Sr), the SEC (Bush Jr), and to fuck
your employees even if you're married (Gingrich).
Don't be a democrat.
\_ And the earth is round and the sky is blue. All
true, but not the issue. The man should not have
been questioned about an infidelity in front of a
Grand Jury to begin with.
\_ The case was a SEXUAL HARRASSMENT CASE.
\_ which was THROWN OUT for being MERITLESS
\_ Nope. Sorry. It was in the context of the
Whitewater probe, remember?
\_ And you remember this?
"Having an affair with an intern is not a
federal crime, but lying about it, or asking
others to do so, is. And that's why
Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth
Starr's inquiry has expanded to include it.
Allegations so far involve possible perjury,
suborning perjury and obstruction of
justice."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/cnn.content/starr.legal
\_ and then there's lying in front of grand jury
compared to lying about WMD's infrot of everyone.WTG!
\_ Nixon was an effective president, a crook, but a pretty good
president. -liberal
\_ So its okay to be a criminal, as long as you are an effective
criminal?
\_ Isn't that what all the Clinton lovers taught us?
\_ If lying under oath about your infidelity is wrong, I don't
want to be right!
\_ So you think infidelity is ok? Does your wife/gf know
you think that way?
\_ Nixon started out with great intentions and fell into paranoia
and dirty tricks. By the end, he was up to his neck in ethical
and legal violations, and the only thing he could think about
was trying to save his own ass.
\_ if Nixon rose from the dead, I'd vote for him
instead of gwbush.
\_ Oh no! Zombie Nixon!
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/store_tshirts.php
\_ yeah so you were all alive back in 1968 and wanted Humphrey
don't you know anything about history, I'm talking the complete
story not just Watergate.
\_ Put your drivel at the bottom like everybody else. Ok tnx.
\_ In the draft of the speech, it was Hitler, but they softened it
a bit in the rewrite.
\_ I guess you are part of the 30% who disapprove of Arnold
in this state.
\_ I haven't taken part in this thread at all yet, but while
I had once approved of Ah-nold prior to his speech, I now
disapprove and this probably won't change. "If you still
support George W. Bush, you're still stupid."
\_ Sheesh, just trying to inject a bit of humor into this
landmine filled motd "debate"
\_ Put your drivel at the bottom like everybody else. Ok tnx.
\_ Yeah because you can win any debate by just comparing the other
guy to Hitler. This is brilliant! Now I have the key to
winning any debate on any topic! Thank you motd!
\_ What did Ah-nold actually say?
\_ "I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was
full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I
remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on
TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I
heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism which
is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was
talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back,
lowering taxes, and strengthening the military. Listening to
Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air."
\_ What's really great is that Nixon NEVER DEBATED Humphrey...
\_ Ah-nold never said he watched them debate.
\_ He has in the past, and it's what he implied. Listen
to the speech rather than just reading the transcript.
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/08/1951245&mode=nested&tid=1
\_ See, I don't see what's so bad about this. I probably
wouldn't have said it, but saying he liked what Nixon
said about economics in his campaign speech is hardly a
big deal to me.
\- also see:
home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
\_ so, how is Nixon different from Dubya and friends, other
than getting caught? -lame troll #69 |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33259 Activity:nil |
8/31 Frances ready to strike US!
http://csua.org/u/8um [sfgate.com]
\_ Don't you mean Freedom? |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33253 Activity:high |
8/31 Michael Moore learns not to rant and plays it cool at GOP Convention.
His column is actually well written, IMO.
http://csua.org/u/8uj (Washington Post)
http://csua.org/u/8uk (official USA Today column)
\_ It's not bad. Aside from the bad statistics he uses to justify
him is own far-left views, he's right. Most republicans aren't
far right. What he's missing is that not being far right
doesn't make them far left either.
\_ Yes, you're so clever. I'm sure Michael Moore doesn't
understand false dichotomies. Go play in the street.
\_ This response was needlessly agressive, perhaps to make
up for the fact that it doesn't actually say anything.
Anyway, yes, I assume Moore knows what a false dichotomy
is. However, understanding it doesn't mmake you immune
to using them. This RINO concept in this column is
basically one big false dichotomy.
\_ I'm not the "you're so clever" guy, but Moore is just
saying there are the small-government Republicans with more
liberal views on social policy (Ah-nold), and there are the
Republicans who are conservative in the social policy
sense. Moore is saying this latter group is not a
reflection of America.
\_ Fair enough. Although Moore also annoyed me with his
useless straw-man arguments.
\_ ... which were? Granted Moore didn't write anything
about how Dubya and friends have a clear, precise,
\_ i guess you're right, "shoot them all" is clear,
and consistent... not too precise though
and consistent policy on terrror, whereas Kerry and
friends do not. Is that what you're annoyed about?
\_ An example "I asked whether women should have
equal rights, including the same pay as
men." Name a promient republican who would say
no to this. I can't think of any. Do you
think Rice makes less than Powell?
\_ ugh, Michael Moore. Can we just stop talking
about this guy? How about this - we'll stop
talking about Moore and you guys stop talking
about Hannity, O'Reilly, and Coulter. --liberal
\_ w00t! Deal! Although it should really
go the other way. I'll stop talking
about Moore, and you stop talkint about
how stupid O'Reilly, Coulter, etc. are.
\_ Moore is talking about the religious right and
the associated traditional family structure.
Not a straw man. But yeah, I do think it's a
stretch -- he would make a stronger case just
to stay with pro-lifers.
\_ It IS a straw man. Being pro-family is
not pro-opressing women. Saying women
should take care of the babies they have
is not the same as saying women who work
shouldn't get a paycheck. That's just
dumb, and I've NEVER heard anyone even
suggest it. Even the Bible is against
that.
\_ No, I say Moore makes a weak argument,
but I still say it's not a straw man.
What's a straw man? "Name a prominent
republican who would say [they favor
policies that would create a situation
where women earn 0.75 cents to the
dollar]." Even if a prominent Republican
did favor this, they would never say so.
What's a straw man? "saying women who
work shouldn't get a paycheck". No one
says that or thinks that, period.
Moore: weak, completely unsupported
argument on women's pay.
You: straw-man king.
\_ Sheesh. Sorry for the hyperbole.
No one says or thinks women
should get paid less for equal
work either.
\_ The Bible says that women should be
obedient to their husbands and their
fathers, not that they should have
equal rights.
\_ The Bible also says, in the same
way, that children should honor
their parents. Saying that means
women should have equal rights is
a mis-interpretation of scripture.
\_ You're either with us or against us!
\_ MM'08!
\_ Funny how he says, "we New Yorkers" when he's always tried to play
up his whole everyman Flint, MI angle in the past.
\_ Meh. He grew up there, worked in the SFBA for a time, and is now
a New Yorker. He's probably qualified to talk casually about any
of those places.
\_ What? He moved?? FLIP FLOP!!! |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33240 Activity:insanely high |
8/31 Bush makes Garrison Keiller go nutzoid:
\_ psb was certainly not in the "republican:evil
democrat:good" camp 4 years ago. This is another one of
gwb's achievements. - psb #37 fan
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/979
\_ I enjoyed that. Thanks. --aaron.
\- A good example of irony is the flourishing of political
rhetoric [in english anyway] set off by the rise of
the Chimp-in-Charge --psb
\_ HAIL GREAT EDUCATOR PSB! REPUBLICAN:EVIL! DEMOCRAT:GOOD!
\_ psb was certainly not in the "republican:evil
democrat:good" camp 4 years ago. This is another one of
gwb's achievements. - psb #37 fan
\_ Keillor is a great writer. Even if you like Bush you should
check this out - definitely in the great tradition of the
American polemic a la Mark Twain.
\_ Waaaa! I liked it better when MY party were the gerrymandering
fear mongers! What happened to Democrat victimhood, and
Democrats being the ones taking all the bribes? Davis, 'O
Davis, where art thou?
\_ Garrison Keiller is most definitely not a Californian, so why are
you blabbering about Davis? Trying to start another Arnold flame
war? I've got news for you - Davis lost. We've moved on to
Swift Boat.
\_ Sheesh. Did you notice the whole post was about Democrat
things of the past? I was making fun of Keiller's
article by pointing out that everything he accuses the
Republicans of are things the Democrats are famous for.
And I used things from Democrats past. Since I'm
posting on a forum that almost exclusively read by
Californians, I thought it fine to invoke the name of a
California democrat famous for the things Keiller attacks
Bush for.
\_ So you think the playground mentality justifies something?
"But he did it first!" does not qualify as a moral stance.
\_ Umm... no. I'm not saying that what I think the
Republicans are doing is GOOD. I'm just saying
it's funny to watch the pot call the kettle black.
\_ Fear-mongers? When were the Dems the fear-mongers?
\_ Certainly my whole life. "Hole in the Ozone! Global
Warming! Return of Jim Crow Laws! Vouchers cause racism!
etc. etc."
\_ Yeah that's the same as preemptive invasion. Die painfully. |
| 2004/8/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33233 Activity:nil |
8/30 Another claim about his past Kerry can't seem to get straight:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/040830
(Kerry claims to have run in, and finished, the Boston Marathon "in
'80, something like that" -- but there's no official record of his
feat, and his campaign did not provide further details despite
repeated inquiries.)
\_ What an important issue. Send this to Lehrer so he can bring
it up in the debates.
\_ I heard Kerry eats French cheese!
\_ I've climbed Mt. Tam but you won't find that documented anyplace.
If I ran for office I wouldn't bother trying to document it either.
\_ Climbing Mt. Tam doesn't usually have a sign up to get on the
mountain unlike running in a marathon.
\_ He was probably on a secret CIA / Seal mission at the time, that's
why. |
| 2004/8/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33221 Activity:high |
8/30 I was in Oregon yesterday on the way to the airport. Some old guy
in a station wagon in front of me had written a note in Sharpie and
taped it to his back window:
"If you still support George W. Bush, you're still stupid."
\_ In 2000 it wasn't so much a matter of stupid as gullible. Now it's
stupid.
\_ I'm sorry but, Gore? Come ON!
\_ A smart man with no soul who would bring in a cabinet largely
from the Clinton administration, or an affable man with no
brain who would bring in a cabinet largely from the Reagan
administration.
\_ Cthulu/Yog Sotthoth '00!
\_ Why vote for a lesser evil? Bush/Cheney '04!
\_ I'm sorry but, Bush? Come ON! |
| 2004/8/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33216 Activity:high |
8/30 Looking at the latest http://pollingreport.com numbers, our boy's back! \_ huh? how are those polling numbers any different than we've seen for the last couple months? What are you talking about? \_ Wow. A tie! You mean it hasn't been tied before? Horrors! \_ The polling looked a lot bleaker for bush even around the beginning of the month. \_ Anyone who thinks this election isn't going to come down to the wire is smoking some serious drugs. [restored] \_ Anyone who thinks it's better to go into the debates 5 points down rather than even is also smoking some serious drugs. \_ who's 5 points down? Are we talking about the same polls? some polls have bush ahead by margin that's in the noise, and some have kerry ahead by a margin that's in the noise. just what the fuck are you talking about? \_ He's on crack or he's only been reading the questionable polls like Zogby or Rasmussen. Good polls like Fox or Gallup have consistently shown a dead heat for quite awhile. \_ Time with leaners 8/5 has Bush down for 7. Even Fox 8/4 has Bush down for 5. NPR 8/24, Bush -5. Democracy Corps 8/5, Bush -7. Zogby 8/14, Bush -7. \_ Are those likely or registered numbers? A lot of people get confused and compare the two sets. \_ Our? |
| 2004/8/29-30 [ERROR, uid:33215, category id '18005#8.21625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33215 Activity:very high |
8/29 Dan Rather, corporate media whore, boosting GWB:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/29/opinion/main639222.shtml
\_ Damn liberal media.
\_ so, that makes General Electric a liberal company?
\_ Well, they own a media company, don't they? Must be liberal!
\_ what mainstream media are consider "conservative" then?
\_ Fox News
\_ Sorry but what idiot reads Dan Rather's opinion
pieces? Stick to the colored pie charts in USA Today.
\_ Dude, Dan Rather rocks! I still remember how he called
California the 'Big Burrito' on live coverage of the 2000
elections. A guy that dumb had to do a LOT of sexual favors
for Satan to make it this big. -- ilyas
\_ what about his "bush is storming through the south and
midwest like a tornado through a trailer park" line?
that at least made me snicker.
\_ Dan Rather, sucking dick for Satan. Thank you, ilyas, I
think we have a new bumper sticker. |
| 2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33158 Activity:insanely high |
8/26 Why is there still this misconception? Wouldn't everyone be better
served if at the least the truth is known? Quoting from below:
\_ "Your media"? Anyway, some major news
organizations (NYT included, I think) did a full
manual recount of the state and showed that under
most recount rules if there had been a full
recount Gore would have won Florida. Of course
this happened several months after the Supes
appointed GWB, so by then it was a moot point and
it didn't get a lot of press.
\_ Actually, you are exactly wrong. The study
you referred to (done by the National Opinion
Research Center, commissioned by NYT, CNN,
etc.) showed that Bush would have won by
493 votes had there been a recount. And, no,
it didn't get a lot of play in the media.
http://csua.org/u/2b5
\_ Good article and thank you. Your single
statement from it is exactly true but
the article says a great deal more. I
suggest people read it. -- ulysses
\_ This NORC???
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CarolASThompson/NORC.htm
\_ Rehashing the recounts is pretty pointless, I'll agree. But the
larger concern is Florida's continued registrar shenanigans.
\_ There is a lot of anger over the recount that is unjustified,
given the above link. We can argue over politics, but I hope
we can all agree there should be more civility in our
argument. These kinds of misconception make civility impossible.
\_ The misconception about how the votes went down in Fl'2k is still
being perpetrated because the more you tell the big lie, the more
people will believe it and get mad because they won't do their own
research into the truth which is that in all the ways the votes
were being counted and recounted, Gore lost, no one was appointed
President and it pisses off the left to no end. Had Gore only won
his own home state, it wouldn't have mattered what happened in Fl
anyway.
\_ You are precisely a victim of the kind of propaganda you decry.
Read the NORC link above.
\_ I read it before posting, thanks. What next? You're going
to tell me that there was a huge conspiracy across Florida
between Jeb Bush, the police, and the dog catcher's union to
prevent blacks from voting?
\_ I would sincerely hope that a Cal CS student would know
what precision of measurement is. The above link very
clearly shows that Bush won under some methods of
counting and Gore under others. Which you still deny,
even though the evidence is right in front of your face.
You are either 1) insane, 2) lying or 3) unable to
read and comprehend English at a 12th grade level.
I suspect #1, actually.
\_ Gore did not win under any method that was actually
being proposed to count ballots. He won only under
a method that neither side suggested which was
fabricated by the media counters so people like you
could claim there was bizarre circumstance under which
Gore won. Bush won under all the ways the votes were
being counted. By the courts. Not by the media who
was making up more ways to do it, although Bush won
under some of those methods as well.
\_ This is false as well. By the standards set
by the Florida Supreme Court: "one in which there
is a clear indication of the intent of the voter"
Gore would have won, due to the overvotes that both
marked him clearly and had his name written in.
This was what the State of Florida law required,
but the US Supreme Court ruled that there was not
enough time to conduct this recount. Remember that
the Bush team did everything it could, both
legally and illegally, to delay that recount.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Just admit that the vote was "tied" by any
reasonable interpretation of the results. In
our legal system, "ties" go to the courts to
adjudicate. This one belonged in the Florida
State Supreme Court, but in a maneuver so suspect
that even they claimed that it was not precedent
setting, the USSC took it away from them. That's
\_ Would you have preferred the method of the
1876 election? Then Bush would have won.
the breaks, I say, but it is Constitutionally
suspect and the reason there remains a cloud
over the results. The Bush Administration from
the very start believed that they didn't have
to answer to the rule of law. Thanks for
reminding me all all that, btw, I am going to
donate another $100 to the John Kerry campaign.
\_ A Federal election is a state court issue..
huh!? Read article 2 and Amend. 14, the
implication is obvious. The legislature has
plenary, manifest authority over the choice of
electors - period! What provision of
Federal or Fl. state stature talks about
'ties go to the courts' - that statement
tells me you have no understanding of
the law or intent of the Const. authors.
This has been discussed an nasaeum, the
decision was 7-2 and Bush won under every
possible scenario except the bizarre one you
promote. If one extrapolated these absurd
scenarios far enough you could probably make
Buchanan win too - he should have sued!!!
\_ I would say that the article showed that Gore would
have won under the most permissive interpretation of
ballots, and Bush under more generally accepted
methods of interpretation.
\_ Are you the same guy that claims that "in all the
way the votes were being counted and recounted
Gore lost"?
\_ Nope. I'm the Gore-would-have-won-under-the-
most-permissive-interpretation-and-Bush-
everything-else guy. The in-all-ways guy is
someone else. |
| 2004/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:33142 Activity:high |
8/25 Dear god, I agree with the Nazis about something:
"Schoep, who's from Litchfield, Minnesota, says the National
Socialists are protesting the "corrupt dictatorship" of
President Bush."
\_ I hate Illinois Nazis. And the ones from Minnesota too.
\_ Calling all party members in the tri-state area
\_ I've always loved you!
\_ So, in other words, the Nazis agree with Jewish liberals. There's
irony for you.
\_ Self destruction is a common trait among Jewish liberals. I
believe it has something to do with a cultural sense of self-
hatred. "They're always trying to kill us so we must be bad
people". Something like that.
\_ I met a Jewish Nazi skinhead once. I kid you not. At a Chateau
Party. I am still trying to figure that one out.
\_ that's still not as ironic as the black white supremacist.
\_ Well maybe he kid you.
\_ I hope so. He was hanging out with another azzhole wearing
a "Screwdriver" t-shirt, so I don't think so, but maybe
it was all some kind of sophisticated joke that I
didn't get.
\_ I'm Jewish? That's news to me! -op
\_ You're not sure if you're Jewish?
\_ *shrug* All I'm saying is that lots of Jewish liberals hate
Bush, too.
\_ Nazis. I hate these guys. |
| 2004/8/25 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33135 Activity:high |
8/25 Does anyone know what Kerry's polling margin over Bush is in
CA, NY, or IL? What Bush's margin over Kerry is in TX? I know,
"huge" or "double digit". Anything more specific?
\_ Insurmountable!
\_ 18% in NY, 13% in IL, 12% in CA
\- we are on our way to a landslide victory for Dubya in California.
See URL below. -troll
\_ heh, too bad you didn't actually read the content in the
link. Train harder, grasshopper.
\_ http://www.electoral-vote.com
\_ Thanks. This is exactly what I am looking for. |
| 2004/8/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:33126 Activity:nil |
8/24 More garbage from the State Department, a waste of taxpayer money.
Islamic Influence Runs Deep in American Culture
http://csua.org/u/8ra |
| 2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33123 Activity:nil |
8/24 It could be worse, he could have claimed he was in Cambodia a week
before he really was:
http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1704
\_ There is still zero evidence Kerry was ever in Cambodia. And
despite the media blitz stating otherwise two of Kerry's purple
hearts continue to have gaping holes as wide as the Mekong
Delta itself. |
| 2004/8/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33100 Activity:very high |
8/24 IMO, Dubya has been looking pretty tired/beat up recently. Take note
of how he looks the next time you see him on TV.
http://csua.org/u/8qo (Yahoo! News)
\_ He's supposedly on heavy anti-depressants and psychoactives..
\_ LIAR!! If he were, he'd look happier.
\_ I keep seeing photos of Bush like this one with halos / sunbursts
behind his head- is this intentional? Were other presidents
photographed in this way?
\_ The AP thinks it's cute when it runs photos like that:
http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000576.html
\_ The halo is just a very common way of shooting portraits. I
don't know about the sunbursts.
\_ I've never seen anyone, especially a politician, photographed
this way. I'd be very surprised to see Clinton in this pose.
Or do I just never notice it because the guys were never so
overtly Christian?
\_ Yes, it's intentional, and yes it's a Christian sainthood
motif. Bush also sprinkles his speeches with coded phrases
that are grounded in biblical language. |
| 2004/8/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33085 Activity:nil |
8/23 http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/23/news/election_models/index.htm?cnn=yes models predict the election result \_ "Despite an embarrassing failure in their forecasting four years ago ..." |
| 2004/8/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33076 Activity:nil |
8/23 Old, but summarized: Florida felon can't-vote list includes
highly disproportionate number of black voters, but only 50 Hispanic
names, in a state where 1 in 5 residents is Hispanic. ("Hispanic
names" is a superset of Cuban, which votes heavily GOP). Total
size of list is 50,000 names.
http://billmon.org/archives/001601.html |
| 2004/8/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33034 Activity:high |
8/20 The Vietnam thread below is almost interesting except the
participants are speaking past each other. Anyway, what Kerry
or Bush or anyone else did or didn't do in Vietnam really isn't
important to me as a voter. Bush went AWOL and Kerry faked his
own records. They're both losers and better off not relying on
their 30+ year old stories there. I want to hear what Kerry did
for the country in 19 years as a Senator and Bush in his first
term as President and detailed plans of what each intends to do
in the next 4 years. And really, as far as security of the country
goes, ask yourself this one, "If foreigners could vote in our
elections, who would Osama bin Laden, Castro, Chavez, Chirac, and
other America haters vote for?"
\_ An idiot who's demonstrated his willingness to financially and
diplomatically ruin the US?
\_ Hussein, too?
\_ Hussein always wins 100% of the vote, so obviously he voted
for himself.
\_ In SOVIET CUBA, politicians vote for YOU!
\_ You ask too much. WDYHA?
\_ I like how you try to claim both Bush and Kerry's Vietnam
experiances are the same. Ok, we all know about Bush and the AWOL
accusations and how the documentation pretty well supports that.
But Kerry lieing about his records? Well let's see his is accused
by a doctor who claims to have treated him on the front although
there is NO documentation to support that. The same docotor
somehow remembers minor details about an insignificant wound someone
recieived in a war zone 30 years ago. Then there is the guy
claming Kerry doesn't deserve his Bronze Star because there was
no combat going on in the incident. Well, let's look closer shall
we? That same accuser RECIEVED A BRONZE STAR FOR THE EXACT SAME
INCIDENT. Oh and the "who would america haters vote for" bit is
classic. Especially lumping bin Landen (now what ever happened
to him anyway) with the rest. And Castro? Please, are you that
stuck in the 60s? Oh and why don't you care about domestic
policies as well?
\_ Sheesh, why do people keep saying the documentation supports
that Bush was AWOL? There's NO documentation to support
that. There's just a suspicion that some documents claimed
missing really exist and haven't been released that might
support that Bush was AWOL.
\_ Documentation doesn't support that he went AWOL, but there's
scant documentation that he was where he was supposed to be.
That all documentation has not been found leads some (myself
included) to believe there's a coverup, but it is also
plausible that he did serve and the papers have been lost.
\_ And that's cool. I don't mind if you have your
suspicious, heaven knows I have mine. Just don't try
to upgrade your suspicions to fact in public debate
with out evidence. Thank you.
\_ So if all the evidence supports Bush and is against
Kerry we still have a man who got out of going to
Vietnam versus a man who volunteered to go when he
could have avoided service.
\_ I think its clear that terrorists fear Bush much more than
probably anyone else. The problem is that so do many Americans.
I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but I'm sure Muslim terrorists were
very afraid of Hitler, too. He was a dangerous man. Bush is
likewise a dangerous man. He'll attack the terrorists, but what
will he sacrifice in the process?
\_ Have you read 'Inside an Al-Qaeda Hard Drive' in "The Atlantic"?
It had emails from Osama in 2001 basically talking about how he
wanted to get more publicity and that by attacking the US he
hoped the US would end up in a quagmire which would result in
more Muslims joining his cause and the US military too occupied
to flex it's muscle in other parts of the world. Kinda sounds
like GWB gave him just what he wanted, doesn't it? |
| 2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32998 Activity:very high |
8/18 Play if you want. (Hurry, Bush's people will have a response tomorrow
morning!)
13-term House representative Bereuter will be discredited in what way?
[blah blah]
\_ Eh, forget it. I noticed http://cnn.com has some responses already.
They are: political vendetta, entitled to his opinion. I also
missed one, which is: Dismissing him as small fry. There's also
another approach, which is to attack one or more weaker elements
of his letter, which is probably what they'll do tomorrow morning
(something like "we are achieving peace, just as with the
disbandment of the Sadr militia") -op
\_ Why does he need to be discredited? All he's saying is that with
20/20 hindsight, the world was better with Hussein in power than
with him out of power. I think Bereuter says loud and clear all
on his own what he believes. No need to discredit him.
\_ there have been other consequences to that war besides
(in_power? hussein iraq)
\_ The big deal is, with hindsight, Dubya still says going
to war against Iraq was the right thing to do. This Republican
(also vice-chair of the House Intelligence Committee between
2001-2004) has said in hindsight after reviewing all the
data, it was a mistake. |
| 2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32990 Activity:very high |
8/18 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/congressman.iraq/index.html GOP lawmaker: Iraq war a 'mistake' ... Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, who until earlier this month was the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- a panel that reviewed much of the evidence the administration cited before going to war: ... "I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition ... Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action" \_ Hey, what's in the "..." sections? I hate when partial quotes are posted. Now I've got to go read the whole thing to find out what he really said. Motd bits aren't that expensive. Just post it next time. \_ Oh gee.. Another politician who doesn't march lock-and-step! \_ Well, he was vice-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2001-2004. He's going to catch a lot of hell, even though he's retiring. What I'm really curious about is how Dubya's people will do it. <SARCASM>He really needs to be made an example of.</SARCASM> -liberal \_ Are you serious? He needs to be make an example of for stating an obvious truth? \_ Are you serious? He needs to be make an example of for stating an obvious truth? [formatd] \_ For breaking party ranks: Loyalty > "making the right decision" > "truth" If it was such an obvious truth that it was a mistake, Bush wouldn't still be saying it was the right decision anyway. \_ Independent thought! Horrors! \_ Another entry for the "No shit sherlock" file. \_ Why isn't this on http://freerepublic.com yet? They're usually pretty fast. \_ it is. \_ Wow, you're right. I see the freeper responses are: he's Kerry's toady; disunity shows weakness, encouraging terrorists; France/Germany/Russia had financial incentives for not joining a coalition; just what is this Asian Foundation he's joining; he lives in a city of liberals. |
| 2004/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32930 Activity:high |
8/16 Washington Post columnist: "Who's the Flip-Flopper?"
http://csua.org/u/8m1
"Bush would not negotiate with North Korea. He did. Flip-flop.
Bush told the United Nations to butt out of Iraq. Now he wants it in.
Flip-flop. ...
But it is the areas in which Bush's convictions have not changed that
are the most troubling, and this includes a religiosity that comforts
him in his intellectual inertness and granite-like beliefs that are
impervious to logic, such as his tax policy and his relentless march
to war in Iraq."
\_ In a nonpartisan spirit, I'd just like to mention how
the timing of this sort of thing mirrors simple playground
politics: "you're wishy-washy!" (wait wait wait) "no YOU are!"
(*bell rings*) "damn."
\_ Your characterization is significantly more cynical than
"non-partisan".
\_ In a nonpartisan spirit, I'd just like to mention how GW Bush
is perhaps the most inarticulate U.S. President of the last
century.
Now here's the partisan spin by press secretary McClellan:
"... just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken
people misspeak. But the American people know this president
speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by
his actions he means it."
\_ Is our children learning?
\_ "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we."
\_ "Karen is with us, a West Texas girl, just like me!"
\_ Either you or this columnist should really quote where it's clear
that "Bush would not negotiate with NK"
\_ I'll assume you're serious about this, and I won't need to quote.
The Bush administration's whole stink was that Clinton negotiated
and appeased; Bush would not, and would only expect NK to back
down without any guarantee of foreign aid. Bush realized that
he couldn't count on South Korea to side with him on an
aggressive posture, and in the mean time, NK had probably built
one or two nukes. Bush negotiated. |
| 2004/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32918 Activity:high 80%like:32924 |
8/15 Why does Bush refuse to release his military records?
\_ yermom's record is she's a slut
\_ yer reaching.
\_ Maybe he's waiting until a few days before election to make the best
use of it. That is, if there's nothing wrong with his records.
\_ if Nixon had immediately released the tapes, even with editing
for "national security interests", chances are that he could
have survived Watergate. But instead, he delayed and temporized
encouraging the belief (which just happened to be true anyway)
that there was a coverup.
\_ But nowadays, the media are compliant lapdogs. Just look at
formerly hallowed institution of the WaPo, who brought down
Nixon. Now they have to run apologies after the fact for
their lazy and dishonest WMD reporting. So its in Bush's
best interest just to sit on anything he has that's
embarrassing, because the media will quickly get bored and
return to Bennifer or Laci Peterson or whatever else sells
papers and increases ratings.
\_ And Kerry's as well for his records but no one asks for
those from a man who is running solely on his 4 months
of duty on a swiftboat. |
| 2004/8/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32907 Activity:very high |
8/14 Norman Podhoretz, "World War IV: How it Started, What it Means, and
Why We Have to Win". http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
The reason I post this is not because I believe or disbelieve his
historical world view. The reason to read this is to get an all-in-one
-place summary of every terrorist attack going back to the 70s. I
found the number of attacks shocking. I knew about each one but I have
never seen them together like this.
\_ Good article, a few serious errors though (ex.: Khomeini's
motivation to not have the Soviet embassy stormed--USSR was not
a major sponsor of the Shah.) Also, he makes a common mistake--
"sneers and jeers" are not directed at the Bush speech use of
"good" and "evil", but rather at ham-fisted and faulty (and
dishonest and ineffective) response to these. -John
\_ You haven't read the 9/11 commission report, have you? read it.
everything in your article is covered in much greater detail, and
without the partisan noise. Pundits love to trash the 9/11
report because if people actually read stuff like that they'd
be out of a job(which they should be.)
ok, i retract my attack on your article; it's actually pretty
interesting. Everyone should still read the 9/11 report.
\_ I didn't read the report, true. Is there a historical summary
of events section? It's not my article. I'm just posting for
the historical summary part. I don't accept or deny the rest
of it. -op
\_ read it. seriously. All the pundits are trying to spin it
as being useless because it doens't trash the politician
they hate(be it clinton or bush), but just sticks to the
facts. It gives all the historical background on the
attacks in your article, all kinds of background info
on al qaeda, lots of relevant information on how the structure
of our government is or isn't set up to deal with terrorism,
and some basic American history that everyone should
know but probably most people don't. And that's just from
the first five chapters i've read so far. It also gives
a blow-by-blow narrative of *exactly* what happened on 9-11-01
that I don't think you'll find anywhere else.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911
\_ Good article, thank you. -- ilyas
\_ [ troll gone ]
\_ "What Clarke for all practical purposes did--both at the hearings
and in his hot-off-the-press book, Against All Enemies--was to blame
Bush, who had been in office for a mere eight months when the attack
occurred, while exonerating Clinton, who had spent eight long years
doing little of any significance in response to the series of
terrorist assaults on American targets in various parts of the world
that were launched on his watch."
Clarke did blame Bush, but the rest is flat-out wrong. You guys
should all know this when you read it.
It's so sad that Americans still don't get it. What
happened to |
| 2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32863 Activity:high |
8/12 So can anyone tell me where the political wingnuts on the motd came
from? I don't remember anyone so nutty when I was involved
in the CSUA (97-01).
\_ I think we somehow gave an account to a pissed off
re-entry veteran student. - danh
\_ Young people are generally apathetic about politics. My theory
is that as the posters to the motd grew older, they became
more interested in politics. As to why they are so nutty,
your theory is as good as mine.
\_ I think the nutty stuff is mostly trolls from people who have
boring jobs with nothing to do most of the day- and the recent
increase is just from post-dot-com-bust-shitty-job-market. From
97-01, people had too much to do. From 01-02, nobody was employed.
Now, people are employed, but don't do anything.
\_ two words: graduate school.
\_ So you think Freeperguy just keeps track of the latest freeps
so that he can troll the rest of us?
\_ http://FreeRepublic.com. Fox News. Not really liking poor people.
That's all you need to create a right-wing "wingnut".
Liberal media. Michael Moore. Not really liking rich people.
That's all you need to create a left-wing "wingnut".
\_ This kind of Red-State/Blue-State thinking is the whole problem.
Reducing people to abstractions doesn't teach you anything about
them. The computer science solution to problems is not always
the correct one.
\_ agreed. i think the average "red state" or "blue state"
person would be horrified by most of the socialist/communist
lefists and ayn rand rightwingers that prevail on both
sides of the political spectrum among geeks.
\_ Hey, someone asked how wingnuts came about, I gave an answer.
Of course there are a lot of non-wingnut left and
right-wingers. Hell, my "I will kill Michael Moore if I
ever see him" younger brother who watches O'Reilly all the
time managed to get his hands on my copy of Starship Troopers
(book not movie): He nows says he's joining the Army as
long as Kerry isn't elected.
\_ Your brother sounds like he really needs a CSUA account.
\_ Rent him the DVD. See if he gets the satire.
\_ He saw that movie 10-20 times already. Apparently
he likes both.
\_ Politics have gotten far more acrimonious since the 2000 Election.
This election cycle has simply built upon that.
\_ Labelling people as a wingnut if they don't agree with you.
\_ Ha. No. |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32843 Activity:nil |
8/11 Is George W. Bush a satanic mass-murderer?
http://csua.org/u/8k8 |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32838 Activity:nil |
8/11 "Afghanistan's interim president, Hamid Karzai, faced questions
during a news conference ... about the legitimacy of that
election in light of reports that many voters have registered
multiple times and may try to vote more than once. 'This is an
exercise in democracy. Let them exercise it twice!' Karzai
said. 'We cannot be perfect.'"
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040811_1192.html
\_ "Karzai later hastened to add that voters will have their hands
marked in ink that will be difficult to remove in an effort to
prevent them from voting more than once."
Oh boy, Taliban targets! |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32834 Activity:very high |
8/11 Wouldn't even Republicans agree that any administration that purposely
leaks classified info (in the latest case, the identity of a Al Queda
operative working for us) for political gain, endangering this
country's security in the process, should be removed? Isn't this on the
level of Nixon's crimes, if not greater?
\_ Wouldn't even Democrats agree that any administration that
purposely sold nuclear secrets to China in exchange for campaign
money, endangering this country's security in the process, should
be removed? Isn't this far above the level of Nixon's crimes, if
not far far greater?
\_ Yeah, if such a thing actually happened, it would be. But since
it is only a fiction of some paranoid loons imagination, I
not going to worry about it too much. Forget your tinfoil hat?
\_ Which Clinton administration official admitted that this
happened? Condi Rice actually ADMITTED the name was leaked by
the Bush admin
\_ It's minor compared to what Nixon and Reagan administrations did.
Nixon used the CIA to counter the FBI investigating his reelection
committee's illegal activities. Reagan sold arms to an enemy state
to fund an illegal war. This said, what Bush's admin did was just
really stupid, not illegal. The Valerie Plame thing was illegal.
\_ Nixon/Reagan stuff was clearly wrong ... but did it give aid
and comfort to a foreign enemy we are at war with? Scale vs.
direct effect.
\_ Why no recrimination for Clinton buying arms from Iran to give
to the KLA? So having another Soviet satellite state in
our hemisphere would have been a good thing?
\_ 1) Because after nearly 20 years, attempts of normalization
of relations with (supposively moderate) Iran through
economic mean is not a totally bad idea.
\_ The arms tranfers were illicit, just like those in
Iran-Contra.
\_ Sigh. Context has no meaning to you. -EOT-
2) The US Congress had outlawed the sales. Both El Salvador
and Nicaragua were economically, politically, and militarily
incapable of threatening the US.
\_ So a Soviet controlled Central America would have
been no problem during the 1980's?
\_ The US told these nations "our way or the highway."
They took the highway and Cold Warriors struck back.
If the US had tried to fix the oppressive (pro-US)
regimes, socialism wouldn't have taken root.
\_ I had never even heard of this charge before. Are you sure
it is not one of those "who killed Vince Foster" type
Clinton-hater legend?
\_ SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! - Bill O'Reilly
\_ He only says that to people repeating liberal nonsense after
they've had their turn.
\_ Only 40% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be
\_ And when encouraging people not to speak out about the war.
And when the son of a man killed on 9/11 tries to point out
that the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
\_ Only 38% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be
capable of that.
http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101040816/poll/images/poll_2.gif
\_ No, it's only incompetence that led to the al Qaeda operative's name
being leaked to the press at an inappropriate time. Who exactly
leaked it? Tom Ridge says he doesn't know. Rice implies the name
was purposely released by the administration to press.
http://csua.org/u/8jx
\_ It's worse than that. The guy had flipped and was giving the
Pakistanis viable intelligence, plus feeding Al-Quada trash.
Knowing that someone had been found drove Al-Quada back
underground instead of into the hands of authorities.
\_ I'm just talking about the motive, not the results (which
are as severe as you say). I say incompetence, not politics. |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32832 Activity:high |
8/11 Kerry states he was in Cambodia multiple times, and compares
himself to Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now. Nevermind
Kerry's swift boat was 50' long.
http://instapundit.com/archives/017129.php
\_ Why do you read Instapundit? The guy has been so wrong so
many times and he never admits or corrects his mistakes.
\_ http://www.falloutshelternews.com/BushHitlerLinks.html
\_ Hitler? Ok.
\_ Tet 1969 would actually fit his story perfectly. We started
bombing Cambodia in March 1969, I am sure we sent in some
guys undercover to do recon just before that. Did Nixon
make some speech like that during Tet?
\_ Tet was Jan of 1968.
\_ Tet is every year. It is a Vietnamese holiday similar
to Christmas or Chinese New Year.
\_ Oh, a wiseguy, eh?
\_ I am just telling you the truth. You can't handle
the truth! |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32830 Activity:very high |
8/11 George W. Bush sucker-punches a rugby opponent at Yale (photo)
"George Bush delivers illegal, but gratifying right hook to opposing
ball carrier." http://csua.org/u/8jv
\_ Clinton puffs and cheats. So? People still love him.
\_ It must be nice living in your own reality.
\_ Yeah he played rough rugby in school. He should be impeached!
\_ Punching the guy with the ball == "rough rugby". HA HA!
\_ Worse than that, he claims that he played Varsity rugby for
Yale for four years, when there is no such thing. And he only
played Rugby at all for one year. He can't remember every single
exact detail from his life 30 years ago, he is a lying scumbag
that cannot be trusted with the Presidency!!!
\_ He only claimed one year, but it was still a lie, yes. Not
as consequential as lying us into an illegitimate invasion
and destroying America's soft power/credibility. LOACFAG.
\_ At least it wasn't lying about getting blowjobs in the
oral, err, oval office.
\_ What about his claims to have played rugby with Mulan Rouge in
Cambodia!?! |
| 2004/8/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32801 Activity:high |
8/10 Bush: "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether knowing
what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."
Kerry: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the
authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to
have but I would have used that authority effectively."
\_ Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own --
why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used
faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would
go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table.
"There are four not hypothetical questions like the president's,
real questions that matter to Americans and I hope you'll get
the answers to those questions, because the American people
deserve them," he told reporters.
\_ Have you stopped beating your wife? The American people
deserve to know the answer to this real question.
\_ The charge that Bush had no plan to win the peace is legitimate
but the charge that Bush relied on intelligence agencies
implies that Bush should have become fluent in Arabic, Farsi,
and Pashto, handed the presidency to Cheney, and went off and
gathered his own intelligence.
\_ No, it just requires that he was willing to search out and
listen to people who disagreed with the *false* phoney
consensus presented by Wolfowitz and Tenant. He could
have found them with Google, or by talking to the numerous
CIA career agents who quit in protest to the hyping of
the intel. The fact that he either does not have people
in his inner circle willing to tell him what he doesn't
want to hear or that he ignores them speaks volumes about
his competence and ability to lead the nation.
\_ So when the President, who already suffers information
bombardment, gets info from the guys he is supposed to
rely on to give him info, he should dismiss them and
read blogs he found from google to create our foreign
policy? This is a joke, right? IHBT?
\_ He has surrounded himself with yesmen and ideologues
and doesn't even read a newspaper. Even after they
failed him, he has not shaken up his cabinet. He
demonstrates a fundamental inability to think
critically. Stop deleting this. If you can't reply,
just nuke the thread.
\_ What newspaper? According to the wall, the mass
media is all dog food and we should get our news
from blogs. If he shook up his cabinet like Tenet
getting the axe, you'd just be here saying like you
have before that he was blaming his subordinates for
what he is resonsible for and he should resign, not
leave the buck at his subordinate's desks. There is
just no making some people happy. You hate the guy
and that's ok but don't try to hide it behind that
sort of noise. Just be upfront about it. It's ok.
[and no i didn't delete anything, get over it. my
reply is there. you havent posted anything that
isnt trivial to reply to.]
\_ Nope, if he shook up his cabinet, I would have
some respect for him. At least he would have
admitted to himself that there was a problem.
As it is, he claims that he makes no mistakes.
He is an arrogant boob and should be trusted
with the kind of power he has. As for what
newspaper, how about the Christian Science
Monitor? How about the WSJ? How about
anything at all??? And what *I* said was that
Bush should fire Cheney, Wolfowitz and the
neocon cabal, apologize to the nation, apologize
to the UN and apologize to France and Germany.
Hell, if he did all that, I would probably
vote for him. But since I post anonymously,
you are to be forgiven for confusing me with
some other "Bush hater."
\_ So you think the WSJ, CSM, etc, have better
access to information than the FBI, CIA, and
other multi billion dollar funded intelligence
agencies?! Ooookeeey.... Why should anyone
apologise to anyone? For what exactly?
\_ For leading the nation to war under
false pretenses. It is okay to make
mistakes. It is not okay to make mistakes,
pretend like you never did it, and not
fix the problem that led to the mistake.
At least the CSM isn't a bubble filled
with people who all agree with each other.
Perhaps you didn't notice that a bunch
of CIA analysts quit in protest over the
poor handling of the intel, as well as
half the British cabinet. I suspect Bush
didn't notice. Here is a bunch of great
stuff from conservative commentators
agreeing with me, that Bush will never
see, because, sadly, he doesn't read
anything except from his bubble world:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/18/bush/index.html
\_ Which false pretenses? WMD was not the
only reason to go in. And has been
posted and censored many times before,
the intelligence agencies in this and
many other countries all believed Iraq
had large stock piles of WMD. Clinton,
Gore, Kerry, Albright, and many others
are on record as saying they believed
he has had WMD for years. Why did none
of them fire all their people and go
read a blog or the CSM? Robert Novak,
1 elected official and 1 random paper
is hardly "a bunch of great stuff from
conservative commentators". It's some
stuff from 3 sources. I don't consider
Novak a conservative, btw.
\_ "Iraq has ties to al Qaeda"
"Iraq can mobilize chemical and
biological weapons within 45 minutes"
"Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors"
And could this be considered a flip
flop? Then: " It costs a lot to
fight this war. We have spent more
than a billion dollars a month
-- over $30 million a day -- and
we must be prepared for future
operations." Now: they plan on
putting off their funding requests
until after the election, then have
to ask for $50B emergency
authorization...
\_ WMD was certainly one of the major,
if not the major justification given
to the American people. And they are
not there. No, your one 10 year old
sarin shell does not count. It does
not really matter that much who else
made the same error, since the
decision to go to war was with Mr.
Bush, but it mitigates it somewhat
He still needs to say mea culpa
somehow. Which he has not.
\_ But they had Weapons of Mass
Destruction-related program
activities!
\_ By "I would have voted for the authority", did Kerry mean he would
have voted for going into Iraq today knowing that there is no WMD
anyway?
\_ I believe he has said that he looked at voting for war powers
as giving the president a new tool for handling the situation,
but that he thought it would be used as a credible threat and
possibly a banner to rally allies behind rather than us diving
in with a pitiable coalition.
\_ Nuance! So really he meant to show the world (again) that the
US is a paper tiger that makes threats but never backs them up
in modern times. Good plan. That'll scare em! That and his
fighting a more 'sensitive war against terrorism' (his words)
will keep the world safe! I'm voting for Kerry this fall for
sure! --Osama
\_ That's not how I read it. I read it as: I would have fought
a war againt Iraq, but I would have listended to Shinsheki
and gotten 300k troops like he requested, not taunted him,
called him a coward and a traitor and run him out of
Washington.
\_ That's not what he said. Anyway, even if that *is* what
he said or meant, 300k troops would do what exactly for
us in Iraq right now and the last year? Make more
targets? Make the Iraqi people even more upset about
the even larger force sitting on their territory? We
have more than enough fire power to genocide the entire
country. Lack of troops is not the problem.
\_ Tell that to the generals who have said otherwise.
The big problem is our military is trained to go
in, destroy quickly, and leave. We are not trained
for peacekeeping missions, let alone nation building.
Bush's biggest failure in Iraq was not taking this
into account and alienating our allies who have a
better track record in this area.
\_ Shinseki was canned for saying we didn't have enough
troops. Now Bush says, "If the military asks for
more, I'll give it to them". The military doesn't
ask. Get it now? (just google for shinseki fired) |
| 2004/8/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32772 Activity:moderate |
8/8 I despise Bush, and will certainly not vote for him in november,
but IMHO Bush's recent speech at the UNITY conference was the best of
his presidency. Definitely worth viewing. Go to http://www.cspan.org
and click on "Pres. Bush Remarks at UNITY Conference"
He actually manages not sound like a dumbass or a right-wing nut for
over half an hour. Particularly impressive in front of an openly
hostile audience.
\_ 1/2 hour out of 4 years just doesn't cut it.
\_ Erm, wasn't this the speech where the audience was laughing at him,
mostly to do with his answer to the question about Indian
sovereignty? Something like "sovereignty is well ... sovereignty,
and if you have sovereignty you are sovereign."
\_ I said "over half an hour." There were still some dumbass parts
during the q&a session. OTOH the fact that they got him to
publicly come out against legacies in admissions is pretty
funny.
\_ Without legacies how would the next generation of politicians
like Al Gore get into school? We know he isn't smart enough
to get in on his own. |
| 2004/8/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32737 Activity:insanely high |
8/6 Whoever posted that Norman Mailer dialogue -- It is actually a
decent read. It shows Mailer excercising more subtilty of judgement
\_ how subtle!
than I thought him capable of.
\_ The observation about Rumsfeld was something that resonated with
me immediately. -- ulysses
\_ 1. Donald Rumsfeld is a mammal.
2. Donald Rumsfeld fights ALL the time.
3. The purpose of Donald Rumsfeld is to flip out and kill people.
\_ Anybody still have the link?
\_ http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9574
Now just don't say I never did you anything. -- ulysses
\_ Oh yea, perpetual America hater and 60's leftist ingrate.
Cause celebre for Jack Henry Abbott and Mumia. I can't
wait for these 60's leftovers to die off.
It's as though they didn't do enough damage to the country
in the 60's.
\_ you miss the day when you don't have to share anything
with colored people, don't you?
\_ The south was solidly democrat in the 60's and
70's. Right back at ya!
I counted the word 'feel' 12 times in that article -
appropriate or what? |
| 2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32729 Activity:nil |
8/7 Didn't Bush snub CA a while back? How supportive do you think Arnie
is going to be? Should he pull a few punches to try and
negotiate or is he better off going 'all out' so that Bush 'owes us'.
I don't like Bush, but you have to give him credit that he's pretty
damn good at returning favors to his buddies... |
| 2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32709 Activity:nil |
8/5 I just ran the numbers again, and I was wrong. Even if Bush wins
Florida, I have Bush leading Kerry a little on electoral votes, before
counting seven medium states in a dead heat. |
| 2004/8/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32700 Activity:nil |
8/4 http://barlow.typepad.com/barlowfriendz/2004/07/dancing_in_the_.html Come dance with John Perry Barlow in Manhattan |
| 2004/8/4 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32686 Activity:nil |
8/4 I've seen it claimed on the motd that Sandy Berger has been
cleared and that Bush has military documents he can release but
hasn't. I've asked for links substantiating both these claims,
but have not receieved a single response. Not even a blog link.
Can I conclude that these are silly lies now?
\_ Christ, just quit bitching and google.
http://members.aol.com/forvets/htomr.htm
\_ Oooookay... so I knew this. But I thought the claim was
that Bush's records of 72-73 were MISSING....
\_ I believe the beef that AP has with the Bush records is that
he didn't grant them the rights to the records, he requested
his own copy and then forwarded them with the wax stamp
unsealed, so to speak.
\_ I do not think Bush has released all possible military records
\_ Dewd, there are a lot of unverified claims on soda, and some
posts that debunk them and tell you exactly why. Berger has been
cleared of obstructing the 9/11 commission by 9/11 commission
representatives; the Archives people are still deciding what to do
about Berger violating Archives policy on notetaking and removing
classified photocopies.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/10235294p-11155782c.html
\_ Thank you, I wasn't able to find that link.
\_ Kerry has not released all of his military records.
\_ Yeah, so what we have is:
Bush claims he has released all relevant records. It can perhaps
never be verified that he did or did not.
Kerry has said he has released all military records, but from
press reports, reviews by superior officers were not made
available (unclear why).
\_ and medical records related to his medals. |
| 2004/8/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32679 Activity:nil |
8/4 Did you know, Powell re-confirms Bush did the right thing?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/21/231135.shtml
\_ Everyone thinks Bush did the right thing, unless you
are a commie scum bastard
\_ then, Bush must has done the right thing! |
| 2004/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32664 Activity:nil |
8/3 To the guy who claimed Bush can release some gaurd duty records by
signing something, do you have a reputable link for that? It's
the first I've heard of it. |
| 12/24 |