| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/26 |
| 2004/12/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35479 Activity:very high |
12/29 Some called the Bush administration's early reaction to the
disaster in Asia a missed opportunity to show leadership at a
time when the United States has been trying to build support
for its "war on terror." "I think politically they've done
poorly," said Derek Mitchell, an expert in Asian affairs at
the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International
Studies.
\_ I felt exactly the same when I saw the 15mil initial offering.
\_ Me too. It should have been $0 and we should have been informed
where to send our donations.
\_ The 35 million pales in comparison to Steve Job's annual bonus
of about 90 million.
\_ Are you complaining about Steve Jobs? What's the relevance here?
\_ socialism: you have two cows, and you give one to your
starving neighbor. In the process, the middle man
(government) takes 1/2 a chuck, and your neighbor's
probably going to sell the other 1/2 to buy booz but
whatever.
US capitalism: you have two cows, and you loan one to your
starving neighbor for an exorbitant interest rate. Fuck
criticism, it's every man for himself. |
| 2004/12/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35461 Activity:insanely high |
12/28 Is it me, or is $35 million the US has pledged seems rather
small? I mean we are the fucking United States of America and
all we can give in a tragedy of this magnitude is 15 million?
\_ It's just you. How many of our tax dollars should the US government
pledge to help another nation?
\_ Yes, help someone in need that you will have nothing to gain
from, that's obviously a new concept to you.
\_ It's not new at all. But that giving should be done by
individual citizens, not by allocation of our tax dollars.
\_ None. Our tax dollars should only be used to bomb them.
\_ I agree that it is rather small, compared to the amount
we have spent so far to invade another country.
\_ like Darfur, this is another opportunity which we can use
to counter Osma Bin Laden's propaganda. We should of dragged
those Arab satellite TV stations along with us, show them that
we do help out people, including those Muslim as well.
\_ the USA is not socialist! We have low taxes so that people can
keep most of their money from wasteful bureaucracy, and more
efficiently and voluntarily give to charities people can
individually select! -New Republican l0ser who STILL p0wn5 4ll u
dem0cr4tic l0s3r5!
(sarcasm aside, the problem is that Democrats intuitively know
there is a problem with the above argument, but just sit there
and fume about rich/ignorant freeper bastards instead of giving a
persuasive counter-argument)
\_ 0mgz! n3rf tr0015!!!!``111!!~@!
\_ I d like to hear some. I became a libertarian because someone
changed my mind. It could certainly be changed again. -- ilyas
\_ The problem is that, left to their own devices, people will
donate inefficiently. We need a coordinating authority to
make sure the money is spent wisely. Of course, the
government also seems to do a bad job of steering money to
projects that have the greatest positive impact.
\_ I agree that given perfect information, and given
incorruptibility, a central planning agency will do better
than a set of independent agents. However, since those
assumptions are both incorrect when applied to governments,
and since independent agents have shown to be more effective
in resource allocation for investment, for instance, than
a central agency, what makes you say the same is not true
for charity? -- ilyas
\_ fyi, "The problem is that ..." guy is not the same guy
as the "sarcasm aside, ..." guy.
\_ Note that I agreed that the government seems to do an
inefficient job of allocating charity money. So my
argument is not so much individual vs. the governemtn,
but rather the individual vs. a "charity planner".
Individual investers often (usually?) do a bad job of
managing their own investment strategy and they would be
smart to leave the job up to professinoals (mutual
funds managers, financial planners, etc.) Why not use
the analog for charity giving? Instead of individual
persons making donations based on personal whim or
public appeals, why not use follow the recommendation
offered by a charity expert? Why not donate money to a
mutual fund of charities, just as a person would
investment in a mutual fund of stocks? This is likely
not the optimal strategy (for both charitable giving
and investment), but it'll probably yield better long
term results than going it on your own.
\_ I see no problem with this, as long as people, just
as with mutual funds, have a choice of where to
donate, or whether to go at it alone. In fact, isn't
this how charity works now? -- ilyas
\_ Do I get a choice to opt-out of paying for
the war in Iraq?
\_ There are a few possibilities here:
(a) You are an anarcho-capitalist. Then I
sympathize with your plight.
(b) You don't believe in democracy as a form
of government. Then I sympathize with your
plight and agree.
(c) You are a liberal troll. Then I advice you
to go stick your head in a pig. -- ilyas
\_ Dude, you just said "Why do you hate
America?" and you didn't even realize it.
\_ Hahahaha, you are my hero!
\_ You two both took the choice of not
volunteering for the citizen-soldier armed
forces! Freedom is not free!! Now get back
to work traitors!@1! -Troll
\_ So long as the rest of us also get to opt out
of paying for the things we disagree with, sure.
\_ Um, you do realize that >90% of managed mutual funds
perform worse than the market as measured by major
indices (e.g. DOW, S&P 500, etc.), and that's
*before* deducting commissions, management fees, and
other overhead.
\_ 1. Do you think Moses came down from Mount Sinai
with the lists of stocks that comprise the Dow
(not an initial, BTW, unless you say DJIA),
S&P, etc.? 2. Asset allocation is everything.
The effect of selecting particular securities
is secondary.
\_ How much did you donate? How does the $35 million compare to
what other nations contributed? How much do they donate to us
when we have a disaster?
\_ $35 million is a lot of money for countries like Sri Lanka.
Anyway, we've donated enough money to 3rd world countries over
the years, and we've bailed them out countless times.
\_ you have to put things in perspective. Taiwan donated whopping
$50k USD to Thailand for the relief effort :p
\_ I'm sorry to say this but the wealthy Taiwanese people are one
of the most self-indulging people in this world. They drive
nice cars and eat expensive Chinese seafood yet do not
understand the meaning of charity. They don't seem to care
about anything other than keeping their blood and money in
their own circles. -dated an X-gf who was Taiwanese
\_ What about reallocating a week's worth of aid to Israel
to this earthquake/tsunami relief fund. That will be at
least $50million.
\_ Yea, but that's because they have to pay US$18 billion
(multiple times what other countries pay for them)
to the US for its outdated older generation weapons.
Generally speaking I agree with you. Part of the
reason is that Taiwan has too few Christians (2%).
\_ Hello, are you a conservative? Are you a Republican?
Do you think the war has made the world safer? Do you
think the world will be a better place when everyone
is converted to a Christian? -moderate
\_ "have to pay"?
\_ Yes, or surrender to commie China.
\_ Some one asked how much other countries have donated. Here:
The United States is offering a total of $35 million, followed
by Japan with $30 million. Australia has now pledged $27
million, Saudi Arabia $10 million and Germany $2.7 million.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/29/asia.quake/index.html
\_ Australia and Japan have more incentive to contribute,
being the major players there. What about France, Russia,
and so on? |
| 2004/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:35460 Activity:low |
12/28 http://tinyurl.com/4agjg (SI/cnn.com article regarding swimsuit model who survived) Is it me or is this a very arrogant article, considering how many thousands have died? Or is it in fact appropriate because it's sports illustrated reporting it? \_ I don't really think so. Two reasons, A) It's really difficult to empathize with 50,000 people you never knew existed, and B) people always want to read about the survivor. It's a pretty crazy story, she clung to a palm tree for 8 hours with a broken pelvis and internal injuries. \_ In SEA people are hearing all kinds of harrowing tales. I think it is just SI choosing one for its market. Everyone who survived either was lucky enough to be on high "ground" or went through the wringer and somehow came out w/o a broken neck, smashed head, impalement, etc. 80% of stories I read pivot around "luckily, the wave tossed me into a tree/window/roof" such that the survivor avoided the churn and under currents. Quite a few were swept to sea and rescued, as well. |
| 2004/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35457 Activity:moderate |
12/28 http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-3/talk_of_the_town_susan_sontag.htm "In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." -Susan Sontag, Sep 24 2001 issue of the New Yorker Goddamnit, I hate stupid liberals, especially those who are "smart". We're on the same team, but these people make us look like idiots. -liberal \_ Courage cannot be a morally neutral virtue in Platonian ethics, for obvious reasons. Plato is so influential in ethical philosophy, I am surprised this point isn't addressed more. Unless, of course, she's just a demagogue. -- ilyas \_ With what do you disagree? That courage can be evaluated in moral-neutral terms? What was "cowardly" about the attacks? They were horrendous, shocking, unthinkable. But cowardly? Calling them cowardly may be a salve for us here, but it's not necessarily true. \_ Killing civilians, where the idea is to kill as many as possible, is almost the purest definition of cowardice. It's discouraging that someone as "smart" as Sontag couldn't recognize this. This is no "salve" -- this is the truth, long and short of it. -liberal \_ They went after US symbols of monetary and governmental power. If they wanted to kill as many civilians as possible, they could have flown the planes into any of the nuclear plants along the route. I'm not trying to make light of the deaths, but you've forgotten what the target was. \_ Actually, the nuclear plants probably would have killed less people and would have been much harder to hit. \_ Says you and who else? \_ Read up on dirty bombs, and nuclear materials in general. As for harder to hit, are you an idiot? \_ I think Osama thought it was great to kill two birds with one stone: (1) "Spectacular" attack from killing so many innocents, and (2) the financial repercussions from taking out the WTC. I haven't forgotten anything, hombre. \_ She wasn't exactly a "liberal", more like a "rabble rouser", like just write/say crap that's total nonsense and dress it up with high-brow veneer and make it look like someone intelligent wrote it. I never liked her novels. \_ Terrorists are all cowards. \_ It's pretty courageous to drive your car into a crowd of innocent and unarmed people, which is basically what the WTC attackers did. If that's not courage then what is?! \_ how many troll points is this worth? \_ Your sarcasm meter is on the blink. \_ you needed more "?!!!" \_ "Cowards are cruel, but the brave Love mercy, and delight to save." -- John Gay "When all the blandishments of life are gone, The coward sneaks to death, the brave live on." -- Dr. George Swewll "To wish for death is a coward's part. [Lat., Timidi est optare necem.] -- Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso) \_ Those last two quotes miss the point entirely. But agree with Sontag, willfully piloting a plane into a buildings is a lot of despicable things, but cowardly it is not. \_ I believe Sontag and you are both missing a key point. The term "cowardly" is NOT morality-neutral. http://m-w.com: "cowardice": lack of courage or resolution "courage": mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty Now, if there were a morality-neutral term to use for piloting a plane into a building, killing yourself, then use that term. This is where you say: "Oh, but it says 'mental' OR 'moral' strength, and I meant mental courage, and that's morality-neutral, so there!" Then here is where I say: "The moral connotation trumps in this case; use a clear, morality-neutral term." \_ "Well, I believe [...] that the novels of Susan Sontag are self- indulgent, overrated crap." - Crash Davis, "Bull Durham" |
| 2004/12/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35431 Activity:nil 62%like:35432 |
12/24 Evidence that there are some sane minds in the Islamic
World:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-12-2004_pg3_2 |
| 2004/12/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35426 Activity:high |
12/24 Today I saw a few protesters on union square handing out flyers
reading something like "stop Bush's Pinochet social programs." They
looked like reasonably educated, intelligent kids, but I couldn't help
but think that, regardless of whether or not I agree with their points
(which I could sort of infer) there seemed to be a pretty hilariously
bad interpretation of politics, history, and reality in general there.
So just as a general observation, if you're going to argue about a
particularly emotionally or ideologically charged topic, no matter
which side you take, it helps to do some _basic_ research first, or
you look like an idiot. This has been a public service announcement,
Happy whatever. -John
\_ maybe they're being ironic? pinochet had lots of great
social programs involving tossing people out of helicopters.
in other news, that "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE! NO SEX ! NO SEX!
NO SEX!!!!!!!!" guy who sits on a fire hydrant all day
outside of the cable car turnaround on powell in a suit is
still there - danh
\_ union square in... Switzerland? Wait, where are you really?
\_ Sorry, you are siply misinformed:
http://www.econop.org/SS-SocialInsecurityChile.htm#PrivatizationScheme
You *do* know that the Republicans pushing for Social
Security privitization hold up the Pinochet example, right? -ausman
\_ No, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the information. Mea
culpa, I should have done more research myself, but it seemed
like a pretty absurd connection. Anyway, Hitler built nice
highways... :-) -John
\_ Stop the Mussolini BART reform! The flyer guys are still
dumbasses. Well, either dumbasses or cynics of the worst
kind. -- ilyas
\_ better than sitting on their welfare state public univeristy
grad school ass.
\_ Yeah, well calling it the "Pinochet" plan is kind of over
the top and stupid, imho, but at least it got your
attention, right? I really don't know if this kind
of grandstanding works in American politics, but it
appears to have worked pretty well most of the time.
American politics is laughably stupid. -ausman
\_ It got my attention, got me to (indirectly) find out
about it, and (a) dismiss these particular guys as kooks,
and (b) dismiss their points as invalid. So, net effect
of kookish presentation is negative... -John
\_ In my experience, most protest signs about something
more complicated than "NO WAR!" are so badly written
as to be worse than useless. If I wanted to stand on
the side of a road all day telling people about my
oddball political position, I'd just buy an easy to
remember domain name, post a clear statement of my
position at the website, and hold up a sign with
the url on it. I've pointed this out to protesters
who had crappy looking, cryptic signs before and they
never seemed to appreciate the advice. I'd read
a url if I saw it on a sign.
\_ It's obvious you've never done anything like
campaign or run for office or try to get something
voted on a ballot. Probably only 1% of the people
who would read your URL sign would actually go
to the stupid website. The point of protests
is to get attention, preferrably media attention.
People aren't going to pay attention to you if all
you've got is a hard to remember URL. If your URL
is easy to remember (which is quite difficult nowadays
with all these URLs being taken) you wouldn't
need the URL anyway since your message would
be short enough to put on a sign.
\_ I had a long reply that got deleted. Your
sentence is to live in darkness forever. |
| 11/26 |
| 2004/12/23-25 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35418 Activity:kinda low |
12/23 Does the US president need to get a visa, like normal
tourists, to countries that require visas?
\_ No, because they're heads of state. Heads of state are
invited to other countries, so visas don't generally apply.
You need a visa if you're not invited specifically to a country.
That's like 99% of us.
\_ It was said that Bush would have to get special permission to
visit Canada, thanks to his prior DUI. But we'd probably invade
if they actually made him do it.
\_ I would assume he gets a diplomatic passport from
the US State Department. Diplopats are above the law.
\_ Do you think the reverse situation works the
same (i.e. foreign president visiting the US)? |
| 2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35405 Activity:very high |
12/22 The Confederate flag is fighting back, the Red is the latest fashion!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142338,00.html
In other news, rural area is expanding and the Conservatives are
way out-reproducing the Hippies:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142320,00.html
\_ The Latinos are way outproducing both.
\_ true, and they are Conservatives who hate you Hippies.
\_ Why do they vote overwhelmingly Democratic then?
\_ Depends on their income and generation. They vote more
and more Republican the more money they make.
Middle-class Latinos tend to be Republican and all
are conservative by virtue of their religion.
\_ overwhelming? In 2000, they were 25% Rep 74% Dem.
In 2004, the were 44% Rep 54% Dem. Go figure.
\_ That 44% is a Republican fantasy. Bush got
about 40% and that is far better than your
average Republican. He also got 35% in 2000,
not 25% as you imply. Been listening to Rush
Limbaugh again? You really should fact check
that guy before repeating his falsehoods.
Latinos are over 3:1 currently Democratic.
Latinos are currently over 3:1 Democratic.
http://www.lif.org/civic/vote_2000.html |
| 2004/12/22 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35404 Activity:nil |
12/22 "Time Magazine - Hitler - Man of 1938 (January 2, 1939)"
on eBay, for $71.00. The seller says "(It is not often we
have the privilege to have a leader like our current President
Bush ...thank you Mr. President..thank you God!)"
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=280&item=4513674003 |
| 2004/12/22 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35394 Activity:nil |
12/22 Just realize Bush's big political gamble. His State of Union address
is about a week after Iraqi election...
\_ What political gamble? It's his second and final term. He can
basically do whatever he wants without worrying about
repercussions. It's not like anyone can even recall him. |
| 2004/12/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35384 Activity:moderate |
12/21 Protest GWB's inauguration, please join and help out, YOU
can make a difference!
Orig story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142235,00.html
http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org
http://www.internationalanswer.org
http://www.codepink4peace.org
http://www.dawndc.net
http://www.counter-inaugural.org
http://www.globalizethis.org
http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1021-01.htm
\_ you know there was a time in history when protestors would
gather at say, Woodstock or Berkeley and make big noise
with songs, dances, drugs, and riots, and they would be on
prime-time news. I'm sad to say this but the new apathetic
materialistic and often ignorant student body of Gen Y at
Cal is failing to live up to traditions. |
| 2004/12/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35382 Activity:high |
12/21 Funny how my mind works. NYTimes headline "Blast Kills at Least 24 at
U.S. Base in Iraq" I read as "Bush Kills at Least 24..."
\_ omgwtfw00t!
\_ Yeah!!
\_ Bush killed over 1000+ servicement, 15000 Iraqis, and the world
credibility and trust of US. |
| 2004/12/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35377 Activity:low |
12/21 News coverage polls from pollingpoint:
http://www.pollingpoint.com/results_111804.html
Computer programmers get some deal of respect from people:
http://www.pollingpoint.com/results_111004.html
\_ The hell is with this sudden respect for farmers? Is this some
strange retro thing?
\_ same people who voted for George W. Bush. 51% of them. Go figure
\_ What the hell is this sentence fragment? |
| 2004/12/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35367 Activity:nil |
12/20 Three cheers for Dubya! http://CNN.com today: As for Bush, 49 percent of respondents said they approved of the job the president is doing. That number is down from his November approval rating of 55 percent. Bush is the first incumbent president to have an approval rating below 50 percent one month after winning re-election. The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. [Gallup poll. Washington Post poll says the same thing.] \_ Not that I love Dubya, but didn't we all just learn how much you can really trust polls? \_ Actually, I think the Gallup poll matched the election results. It was Zogby that fucked it up. |
| 2004/12/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35358 Activity:insanely high |
12/19 In case some of you haven't heard, W is the man of the year:
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html
\_ That makes it official, the time man of the year means
absolutely nothing.
\_ Time's Man of the Year has never been an honor,
just a recognition that good or bad, that person
made the biggest impact in the news.
\_ I know, but in recent years, the MOY hasn't
even accomplished that. Take for instance,
"the whistleblowers", or Jeff Bezos, or
the best example yet: Rudy Giuliani. None
of those people made a huge impact on domestic
or global affairs. Most of those people were
clearly chosen because there wasn't a single
person that made a great accomplishment (in
other words, a slow news year), so they just
chose someone that was semi-prominent.
\_ That makes it official, you have no idea what you're
talking about.
\_ why?
\_ You know how last year they selected the American soldier? This
year they should have picked the American voter. He definitely
wins out over Dubya in terms of stupidity.
\_ I agree. I can't believe something like 5.8x10e7 people voted
for John Kerry. Where did all these idiots come from?
for Dubya. Where did all these idiots come from?
\_ I agree. I can't believe something like 5.5x10e7 people voted
for Kerry. Where did all these idiots come from?
\_ wow when you state it that way, I realize how wrong I was.
\_ I said Kerry, some ass keeps changing it to Dubya.
Personally I can't believe there are people in America
dumb enough to vote for the "global test". Fortunately
enough sane people went to the polls in Ohio.
\- http://www.cafepress.com/ipa_politics.15527178
\_ Wasn't Hitler Man of The Year in 1938?
\_ Hitler, Stalin, Khomeni, Castro.. pretty good company.
\_ I'm glad you neglect to ignore the above about the American
soldier who you owe your very right to say such ignorant
things. Demonstrates your supreme grasp of MOY award.
\_ we wouldn't be in this war if there weren't so many
_voluntary_ American soldiers. Conscription woulda
nixed it.
\_ that's right, because the american soldiers who were
honored as MOY that year are really helping to
provide our current freedom. you sure sound like one
of the many geniuses who seem to confuse who we're
fighting in this war and why.
\-I think they should have picked K. ROVE. --psb
\_ Yeah, I read they were considering him. If
they wanted someone in the Bush camp as MOY,
Rove should have been picked, since he was
responsible for Bush's victory. |
| 2004/12/17-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35342 Activity:high |
12/17 For the person who didn't believe me on the armor production,
do a google news search for "Armor Holdings", the company that
supplies the armoring for those vehicles. After Rummy said his
"It's a matter of physics", they came out and said "We can boost
production by 22% with no extra investment, but we haven't heard
anything from the military about doing so." Fuck you. You're
apologizing for people who truly do not support our troups.
\_ Uhm, if you knew anything armor you'd realize that you typically
don't get something for nothing. Sure, you can put more armor
on a vehicle, but the vehicle gets heavier, uses more gas,
and is less manueverable. Anyway, the world isn't perfect,
neither is the U.S. Army. There are tradeoffs. Deal with it.
\_ Um, are you Rumsfeld? That was the biggest non-answer
on this thread.
\_ 1000 fatalities isn't enough to make the American public
care. How many people on here actually know someone
who died in Iraq?
\_ Again, fuck you. --scotsman (i know two.)
\_ with how many degrees of separation?
\_ Seriously. Fuck you.
\_ why do you hate America?
\_ I don't actually know any black people who have been
lynched either. Or Jews killed by the Nazis.
\_ I know people who have lost family members to the Nazis.
I would have to be pretty freakin old to actually know
someone who was killed before 1945.
\_ So you get the point then?
\_ That in 60 years no one will be left to remember
what a dumbass Bush was? We will have history books
to remind us. And oh, look! Their children will
still be around to remind people of the stupidity
of starting a war for no good reason:
http://csua.org/u/aex
\_ That's the point! You don't have to personally
know someone that was effected to care about it.
\_ I didn't believe YOUR ASSERTION dumbass. I still haven't seen any
sourcing for your claim. Do you believe everything everyone tells
you without question?
\_ What claim? Isn't it enough that Rumsfeld was pretty directly
grilled by a bunch of combat troops about why they're not
getting enough armor? With 1,000+ fatalities, you'd think the
military-industrial complex would go into overdrive. I don't
care if the war is right or wrong, it's being run by a bunch of
sad amateurs. -John
\_ John, don't be a fucking moron. ~1100 fatalities in 1.5 years
of combat is nothing. In order to achieve the same numbers
that we lost in 'Nam we'd have to fight for 50 years, five
times longer than 'Nam. 1100 fatalities equals about 1% of
our ground forces in Iraq. That's like a fucking unheard of
fatality rate for a war. If it WERE run by morons like JFK
and LBJ in 'Nam, we'd have 10000+ casualties by now.
\_ I wrote a long rant in response to this, but deleted it,
as it's pointless to clog the motd with basic historical
concepts. You can look it up in the archive if you want.
Upshot: You are completely off, your premises are wrong,
your Vietnam comparison is a straw man, and I encourage
you to go to the Cal ROTC office and ask any of their
(generally) very friendly military history instructors to
explain why you are wrong--they'll probably lay out more
eloquently and succinctly your fallacies. You're at Cal,
dialectical process and all that. And kindly have the
courtesy to sign your name if you insult me. -John
\_ 'sad amateurs'? I think you mean 'politicians'
\_ Wolfowitz has never been elected, and Rumsfeld was last in
office in '69. They're the NeoCon version of Ivory Tower
professors, and their experiment has resulted in the
the current Mess-O'Potamia.
\_ But that's kind of my point-o-potamia, isn't it?
\_ If you're making some comparison between the two,
I'd agree. If you're saying they're not sad
amateurs, I'd have to ask you to step outside for
reeducation by fisticuffs.
\_ What part of SEARCH ON FUCKING GOOGLE do you NOT UNDERSTAND. It's
been reported by the entire media. Fuck you.
\_ I did a search, first few links I clicked on didn't have any
info. Do you understand the difference between SEARCH ON
GOOGLE and a fucking source you dumbfuck?!?
\_ Boy, you're angry. Read below. -John
\_ I'm irritated when someone makes an inflammatory claim
and backs it up with "stfw". My answer is a big fat
FUCK YOU. If you don't think it's worth your time to
source your claims, it's not worth mine to take them
seriously.
\_ Sourced below. Put up or shut up.
\_ I'm annoyed with both of you. Yeah, he should've
put up a link, but you should have looked harder.
Two wrongs don't make a right, even on the motd.
\_ God, you're both lazy pricks. Here's a recent Bloomberg article:
http://csua.org/u/ael Here's a Google Cache of the original
article: http://csua.org/u/aen
\_ You know, I'm having a hard time actually finding the full text for
Rumsfeld's response. I wonder why that is? You do know that the
vehicle supplier is only part of the chain, right?
\_ http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html
\_ Yes, the supplier is part of the chain. I would argue they
are the start of the chain. They were never asked to increase
production, even when they had told the pentagon they could.
That's a military leadership failure.
\_ No, that may mean that the rest of the chain can't handle
faster production.
\_ They are _the single provider_ of up-armored humvees
according to the article. They say they could increase
production immediately with no new investment. You're
being unreasonably apologistic.
\_ So you're saying there's no limit on transport and
deployment? Apparently the rest of the supply chain is
handled by Santa Claus.
\_ This is before transport. They didn't set anything
in motion. They failed.
\_ If the rest of the chain couldn't handle that
supply it would be pointless to "set anything
in motion" you moron. They'd just be humvees
sitting in a warehouse in the states.
\_ "It's a matter of production and capability of doing
it." SecDef apparently disagrees with you, soldier.
\_ This is called 'passing the buck'. It's like when your
boss asks you why something isn't done that should've
been done by now and you blame someone else, even though
you could've done your part of the job without that
person having done theirs. This company is trying to
avoid taking blame by saying 'We weren't specifically
asked!'. I am sure they were not going out of their way
to tell the military they could produce more for free.
\_ Uhh, why wouldn't they want to produce more? They
get paid by the piece sold you know.
\_ I guess you've never worked in/for government.
\_ "I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that."
This is just not your day for reading, is it?
\_ What do you expect them to say? Don't take
everything at face value. I am not saying the
company should produce more when it is not asked
to, but they are painting it to make themselves
look better.
\_ To look better to whom? Apart from you, who's calling
them liars? Not the military, and they're the ones
who would gain most from being able to pin this
on the company. Face it, SecDef dropped the ball.
No amount of signed letters is going to fix that.
Also of note, Rumsfeld was asked basically the same question
8 months ago at a similar town-hall meeting. He bullshat on
them then, and did so again.
(Oops. It was general meyers who took the question.)
\_ Huh? Wha? meyers is in this thread? Uh oh -- time to ilyas
it.
\_ No, it was General Myers. -meyers, no relation
\_ Hi, you are both dipshits. Have a good weekend.
-- ilyas |
| 2004/12/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35322 Activity:high |
12/16 GW Bush shutting down GPS http://tinyurl.com/6dtb3 \_ You fucking liar. \_ Do you mean liar as in "There Are WMD in Iraq, I Guarantee It!" kind of liar or "No Honey, I never think about your sister when we are having sex" kind of liar? \_ Look at the headline in the link and then at what the OP posted. \_ So more like a Bush, totally exaggerating but from a germ of truth. \_ Wow. What a completely misleading title. \_ Assume for a second that you don't trust GWB's big brother tactics. That they wantonly label anyone they don't like a terrorist sez, yes, he could shut down GPS for any stupid reason he chooses to. Welcome to the future of the past. \_ Welcome to the sanitorium. Would you like coco-puffs with your anti-psychosis medicine today? \_ Kind of depends on whether he intends to jam Galileo signals outside of the US when someone decides it's terror alert time again. If not, who cares. -John |
| 2004/12/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35304 Activity:nil 66%like:30894 |
12/15 Do it for Dubya!
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/index.php?p=948 |
| 2004/12/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35303 Activity:nil |
12/14 So Paul Bremer, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet were awarded the
Presidential Medal of Freedom today. Can someone else think of any
other semi-competent jackasses that have won this, or has Bush set
a new precedent here?
\_ Mr. Rogers. Always hated that bastard.
\_ Seriously lowers the bar. Fucking assholes.
\_ I have to wonder what Tenet has on Bush.
\_ It's Dubya's loyalty reward.
"Stick with me, I'll take care of ya".
He's trying to recruit for his administration.
Lieberman reportedly already won't take the Homeland Security
job or the UN ambassadorship.
\_ "Come with me if you want to live!" |
| 2004/12/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35221 Activity:very high |
12/8 Is it known who would replace Rehnquist when he dies? Would
a current justice become chief and a new justice appointed,
or would they appoint a new chief justice directly?
\- the president could do either. rhenquist would probably resign
before dying. even thurgood marshall resigned inspite of saying
"i was appointed to a life sentence and i intend to serve it".
if the chief is out of comission for a while, the senior justice,
john paul stevens, would assume some responsibilities. oconnor
would be a fine chief but is probably too close to retiring herself.
people keep talking about scalia being elevated, which seems crazy
to me, but that certainly hasnt stopped bushco. even worse would
be putting ashcroft on the supct. the other people being discussed
you would probably not be familiar with unless you follow this
closely. --psb
\_ http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4049
\_ Bush will probably nominate Posner (7th Circuit) for the the
vacancy rather than promote any of the existing justices.
\- Posner would be cool. Easterbrook would be ok. But the names
I've been hearing more are nutjobs. Where did you hear the
Posner rumor? Posner wrote some well publicized stuff on
intelligence reform and is very much the opposite of a
stealth justice, so that may alienate some right wing
support. i think the democrats may go for him because
he is not totally crazy, and in this climate he looks
pretty good. --psb
\_ Not sure where I heard the Posner rumor, but he
seems like the best overall choice to take over
as CJ b/c (1) he is widely regarded as the
smartest judge in the federal judiciary (sort of
like a modern Cardozo or Holmes), (2) he would
face the least opposition in the senate, (3) the
rest of the USSC would likely accept him as CJ
w/o reservations.
Easterbrook (also 7th Circuit) would probably
not be as easy a nomination b/c he has made
some crazy decisions in the past.
\-i was suggesting resistance to posner would come
from the right, not the left. "best choice" !=
"likely bush nominee"...q.v. bush41 & "clarence thomas,
the best qualified man for the job" --psb
\_ Just to keep the record straight, C.T. was chosen
only after a qualified justice was rejected by the
congress.
\_ Who?
\_ just chedked out the bios of the justices online, they all either
went to harvard law or stanford law. what, are those schools
that much better than all other law schools? or is this also a
good ol' boys club?
\_ Yes, we need one from Boalt. And I know the perfect guy:
(future) Supreme Court Chief Justice John C. Yoo!
(and Dubya's future new favorite justice)
Both Yoo and Thomas strictly interpret the Constitution, not
legislate from the bench! </troll>
\_ You are not seriously this naive, are you?
\_ I realize its kind of a naive question but it is an
interesting observation still to me. and I wasn't
implying that someone from boalt should be chosen. |
| 2004/12/7-8 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35198 Activity:high |
12/7 Economist article on the slide of the dollar
http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3446249
\_ What I got out of it:
(1) Dollar falls too far
(2) Foreign banks which keep a lot of dollars (as a currency which
retains value) will convert to Euro / yen
(3) Dollar falls even farther
(4) The U.S. government and consumers just can't buy as much with a
dollar == Inflation
The unmentioned kicker:
The U.S. will beat the shit out of any foreign government which
wants to sell its dollars.
\_ Much as I'd like to see it happen, I don't think the US is going
to start nailing most of Asia and Europe. The countries we are
capable of "beating the shit out of" are most likely not the
ones holding a lot of dollars, or are they? -John
\_ Are Dubya and friends working on ways to make it economically/
politically painful for foreign governments to sell their US$?
\_ what for? dubya and friends want the US dollar to fall,
just not in an uncontrolled panicky way. foreign governments
all want the US dollar not to fall too much, but they also
don't want to be the one left holding the bag.
\_ Isn't low Dollar good for our exports?
\_ insofar as imported stuff getting more expensive in the U.S.
is good and domestic stuff getting more expensive at a
smaller rate -obviously not an economist
\_ Yes, but our exports are way out of whack vis a vis imports.
\_ true, so what happens to the 90 pct of consumer goods
we buy that are made in china when the renminbi increases
50-100 pct over the value of the dollar?
\_ at most 20 pct. prc government won't let it float
freely but just increase the range where the yuan
is allowed to trade.
\_ That will not be true if the dollar falls a lot,
though. The other plus of a weak dollar is that it
makes it less expensive to pay back the debt we are
borrowing. The US will raise the dollar once Iraq
stabilizes. Right now, we want it weak since we are
borrowing a lot for the war.
\_ It creates pain for holders of our treasuries,
but does it make it less expensive for us?
The debt is still in dollars and dollars are
what we have. No? It only becomes less
expensive for us if there's inflation?
\_ If we borrow Euros then we have to borrow fewer
of them. A falling dollar is much the same as
inflation.
\_ don't understand what you are saying.
all our debt are denominated in dollars.
\_ Yes, US don't export much anyway. The main effect
would be inflation since we buy lots and lots of
stuff from overseas.
stuff from overseas. I mean, what does US export?
Mainly like food stuff. But yes, letting dollar
slide is the least painful way for US to get out
of its fiscal and economic mess.
\_ Uhm, the U.S. is the single largest exporting country
in terms of dollar value. We are basically the
bread basket to the world. We are also the largest
importing country in the world. We just simply
import more than we export in terms of dollars.
\_ the difference isn't that much either, only
about 500 billion a year. US economy is
like 10 trillion.
\_ Try spending 5% more than you make every
year and see how long you can get away
with it. Then again, the average American
consumer is probably doing just that right
now. Oh a cold rain is gonna fall!
\_ Well, we could just not repay the debt.
It's not like this is the first time an
industrialized country just reniged on
it's debt. Since we're the proverbial
300lb gorilla in the room, you think
anyone is really going to mess with us
if we just say "sorry, we're just not going
to honor all those treasury bonds"?
Sure, there would be economic repercussions,
but it isn't like we'll be invaded and I
doubt that other countries will just stop
investing in us. After all, we are the
largest market in the world.
\_ Do we do that against US based holders
of those bonds? If not, how do you tell
who is who? In any case, as dire as
the current situation is, I don't
think we're at the stage where such
a drastic and disastrous measure
needs to be taken.
\_ Nobody invaded Argentina when they
defaulted on their debt either, they
just suffered mightily economically.
As we will if we defualt on our debt.
\_ How about software exports? Is it big $ in the big
picture of things?
\_ what you missed in the last paragraph:
"American bond yields (long-term interest rates) would soar,
quite likely causing a deep recession."
Another article quoted that 50 pct of new mortgages are
variable interest rates. In fact, Greenspan himself urged
consumers to borrow @ variable interest rates. When bond
interest rates start to soar, mortgage interest will soar,
and the number of defaults and bankruptcies will be epic.
Don't be a home-owner when that happens. Oh, not to
mention interest rates for all other debts: equity lines,
credit cards, etc. The US consumer is deeply deeply in
debt, and when interest rates start to rise, the picture
won't be pretty.
Oh, the other thing you missed. the US will not do anything
to the Asian countries which will do the majority of the
dollar reserve sell-off. China which has $515 bn in reserve
has already announced a planned sell-off that will likely
accelerate as the dollar fars further.
\_ Oh look, Mr. Housing Bubble Is Going To Pop is back
with a better argument. Are you still bitter that
you didn't buy a house in the Bay Area back when
you could still afford it?
\_ Hmmmm, if nobody can afford to buy a house in the bay
area in the future, wouldn't that mean that house prices
will FALL in the future?!?!?!
\_ This has nothing to do with the housing bubble. This
is about overall massive recession of the US economy,
which will take housing prices with it. If you have
a house, and you're making 5 pct 30 yr fixed mortgage
payments on it, more power to you. Just hold on to
your job, and weather the storm.
\_ US is stuck in Iraq. All our allies hate our guts.
Nobody will give a damn about us "beating the shit out of"
anyone.
\_ Troll. Has the US announced war on China?
\_ I like US dollar falling. It makes my parents very rich
when they move to the US. |
| 2004/12/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35177 Activity:nil |
12/5 So we know nothing good has come out of Texas since before the
JFK shooting. What was the last good thing to come from Texas?
\_ Liberal talk radio!
http://www.radioleft.com
"...from the liberal and progressive capital of the world: Dallas,
Texas!"
\_ Troll |
| 2004/12/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35168 Activity:nil |
12/3 Cobra comman.. i mean Cobra Hands stays.. muwhhwa
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/cabinet.main/index.html |
| 2004/11/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35105 Activity:nil |
11/28 The first post-election analysis that makes sense:
http://www.exile.ru/2004-November-13/moscow_babylon.html
\_ Let's do a Stalin on the Reddies! |
| 2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35093 Activity:nil |
11/27 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/27/bush.radio/index.html If drafting can't be possible, let's try a bit of advertisement, guilt trip, and peer pressure. \_ And this is different from Clinton's praise of the military while he sent them to Kosovo and godknows where because? This only after he realized they could win votes did he decide to stop kicking them out of the White House. |
| 2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35089 Activity:nil |
11/27 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/11/27/bush-plot/index.html Cheney almost became the President. The rebels DO hate America!!! \_ A.. D'uh |
| 2004/11/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:35042 Activity:high |
11/23 Jeb Bush for 2008! Long Live the Bush Dynasty! -religious guy
\_ Fuck you. Seriously. Fuck you, fuck bush, and fuck jesus.
fuck all of you assholes. If you like jihad, why don't you
convert to islam, and move to Iran where you belong?
\_ jihad is already upon you.
\_ Congratulations, you've been trolled.
\_ Who censored the fuck jesus guy?
\_ restored.
\_ http://bushislord.com
\_ republican: good, democrat: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil |
| 2004/11/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35034 Activity:high |
11/23 http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/23/hunters.killed/index.html the 6th shooter dies from the hunting incident. That's 6 less Republicans voting for Jeb Bush in 2008. \_ Wow, you're really funny. Do you enjoy hearing about the death of people and making off-topic jokes like that? Oh wait, anyone who doesn't conform to your concept of normality HAS to be a Republican. I forgot about that. \_ Turns out shooter is Hmong, arrrived in US at age of 16, and is a US Army Vet (possibly Desert Storm). It's almost certainly going to end up a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder case. \- Did Vang have an Vang barrel on his gun? --psb \_ Army of One \-http://www.cafepress.com/ipa_politics.14699021?zoom=yes#zoom \_ I'm glad you liberals like to compare Bush to Hitler When I see that count fly past the population of Britain, I wonder if the UK would like doubling its populuation with all you blue nuts. |
| 2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35022 Activity:high 50%like:35088 |
11/22 Hey script people, did he "ilyas" the motd again?
\_ Basically, we've determined ilyas' Kryptonite: just mention how
he's a hypocrite for being a libertarian who lives for free
off of the UC system.
\_ This is as moronic as blaming wall socialists for not moving
to Cuba. Rather than sitting in CA, and reaping the benefits
of the evil, worker exploiting capitalist society with
BushCo at the helm. -- ilyas
\_ I don't know of anyone on wall advocating socialism.
\_ Heh. Then I am not a libertarian, but a Queen of
\_ Heh. Then I am not a libertarian, but the Queen of
England. -- ilyas
\_ I thought you could always make ilyas look like an idiot just by
deleting one of his posts or signing his name to something he
wrote. It never fails. He always does something stupid in
response.
\_ Since he insists on strict ordering, and prefers everyone
sign their posts, why doesn't he wall instead of posting
on the motd? Is it because he can't nuke the wall log??
\_ Because on wall he can't pretend to be 5 different people. |
| 2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35007 Activity:insanely high |
11/22 So the hunting shooter turns out to be Asian. I hear
a race card getting ready to be brought out. BTW, I hunt
and I'm Asian. Hunting has far fewer accidents and far
more participants than most people know.
\_ The "hunting shooter?" What the crap are you talking about?
\_ Who's pulling out the race card? I only just saw this story, but it
looks pretty straightforward to me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4630724,00.html
\_ RACIST!!!
\_ I dunno about the race card, but if he's a displaced Hmong, expect
to hear the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder defense soon.
\_ The most charitable explanation I can think of goes like this:
Redneck: Git offa my property! <BLAM>
Asian guy: Oh shit! <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM>
Redneck 2: What was that? He shot pa!
Asian guy: On no! More rednecks! <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM>
\_ There was only 1 gun found amoung the 8 shot.
\_ The dialog above only has one redneck shooting. So what's
your point?
\_ But let's not let facts get in a way of good ol' fashioned
redneck bashing.
\_ One gun among 8 hunters? During a 9-day hunting season?
This is suspicious.
\_ Only one gun was found amoung the 8 shot.
\_ Haven't read the article, have you?
\_ This is Wisconsin, not Kentucky. Wisconsin has a large number
of Hmong refugees. It's possible that the victims used racial
epithets and heated language, but it's not likely they shot
first.
\_ More likely, as a member of a Dem. mascot group, he feels a
sense of entitlement. |
| 2004/11/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35005 Activity:nil |
11/21 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139211,00.html Gun loving Republicans hunters got into an argument and shot each other. 5 Republicans dead. \_ The guy was Hmong trespassing on private property. Hmong have become a Dem. mascot group in this area. |
| 2004/11/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:34995 Activity:very high |
11/19 What is the political slant of the following people?
1. William H Gates III
2. Warren E Buffett
3. Karl & Theo Albrecht
4. Paul G Allen
5. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud
6. Lawrence J Ellison
7. Alice L Walton
8. Helen R Walton
9. Jim C Walton
10. John T Walton
11. Theodore Leanord
12. Robert Wainright
13. Agnes P Johanson
14. John C. Dvorak
15. Miles F. Chancery
16. Henry Mulborough
\_ walton, walmart, hick states, very very red. Buffet, Bush's buddy,
should also be very red. I'm guessing that Gates is very blue
because he's in Washington, but that's kind of far fetched.
\_ Buffet's a liberal. Gates is an Ayn Rand fan, apparently.
\_ Buffett's a liberal. Gates is an Ayn Rand fan, apparently.
-- ilyas
\_ Buffett is a Democrat, but he's hardly a liberal. -tom
\_ I ve heard enough from Buffett to know he is only not
a 'real liberal' to a Berkeley kook like you. -- ilyas
\_ Probably the best description of Buffett is
"Fiscal Conservative Democrat".
\_ Ayn Rand, objectivism, self reliant, etc etc etc.
Republican?
\_ Objectivists range from (moderate) conservative to
libertarian. They don't like government very much.
-- ilyas
\_ Larry Ellison. The bastard is the most conceited, selfish
dickhead who cares about nothing except beating Gates.
You know I've never seen him at work the 5 years I was at
Oracle, a company that makes *1* great [overpriced] product
and 99 other shitty products, like apps, tools, ERP, CRM.
Anyways, Ellison reminds me of Bush with his "fuck everyone
else" attitude, so if I had to make a guess, I'd say he's
a Republican. In fact I'd say most of the people on the
list are probably Republicans. |
| 2004/11/19 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34980 Activity:nil |
11/19 Hey angry voter fraud guy, Bush received more votes than the number
of registered voters in several Ohio counties. Where's your
outrage???
\_ COOK COUNTY!!!1! KENNEDY WAS A FRAUD!!! YEAAAARGHHHHH!!!!1!! |
| 2004/11/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34976 Activity:high |
11/19 The motd readership seems to have an excess of free time and
mathematical education. Why doesn't someone here analyze the
election data themselves to look for anomalies and put it in
/csu/tmp? I'll bet if one of you conservatives can use the numbers
to show convincingly that there was *not* a problem, you'll be
on a foxnews talkshow faster than you can say "spin." Why not?
\_ on a related note, anyone wanna play nettrek later?
\_ I think the burden of proof is on folks who say there _is_ a
problem. (Who do stupid things like observe some things, and
claim VOTING MACHINES CAUSE INCREASE IN BUSH VOTES! W00t!!!!!!!!)
\_ And the right wing ignores evidence such as a county in
ohio where only 600 votes were cast, yet Bush received
over 4000 votes. Nothing wrong there.
\_ url-p. Evidence-p. -- evil right-winger fact-checker
\_ http://csua.org/u/a1a (Washington Dispatch)
\_ More evidence at http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp
\_ Would you like some cheese with that whine? Give it up.
You lefties lost this year and you are going to go on
loosing because people are finally realizing that you
losing because people are finally realizing that you
guys have never had a good idea and that its time to
take our country back from the New Deal and the Great
Society or this great nation will end up a hell hole
like Europe. |
| 2004/11/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34969 Activity:high |
11/18 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138985,00.html Scroll down. Republicans are going to take the 2008/2012/2016 elections too. The Democrats are screwed. The Dark Age has begun. \_ For heaven's sake! Start working on finding someone decent to nominate! I mean, come on, Edwards? Who thinks THAT'S a good idea? Hillary? Yeah right. Suddenly it's clear how Kerry got nominated. \_ Michael Moore for president! |
| 2004/11/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34966 Activity:very high |
11/18 UC Berkeley sociology prof reports Florida statistical anomalies
http://csua.org/u/a0p
"According to the study, counties with electronic voting machines were
significantly more likely to show increases in support for Bush
between 2000 and 2004 compared to counties with paper ballots or
optical scan equipment. This change cannot be explained by differences
between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout,
or size of the Hispanic/Latino population, said Hout."
Again, I say how THE FUCK did we end up with voting machines without a
paper trail in the 2004 election?
\_ How the fuck are you stupid enough to believe in statistics?
There are competing studies at three other universities, including
one from MIT and Harvard, all of which refute one another. Before
you present something as factual try to read up on competing
papers before you jump to conclusions.
\_ Interesting, where can I find the competeing papers?
\_ This is serious. Hout is among the leading quantitative
social scientists.
\_ Because HAVA intentionally sucked.
\_ Hey! I went to Berkeley!
\_ Hout will die of a mysterious disease soon.
\_ But the feds and everything is under the republican's control.
By the time the truth comes out, Bush will be long dead and it
won't make a difference.
\_ Hehe, I like how the study is called the _effect_ of the voting
machines on blahblah. -- ilyas
\_ The election equipment is purchased by local county election
boards, all Democrat in these questionable districts.
\_ You guys do realize that these machines are made in Omaha,
Nebraska, home of the most red and devout church going
people? Secondly, there is no system in place that checks
or audits the machines. There no accountability whatsoever.
Thirdly, the report coming out from a school known for its ultra
leftism, will make sure that most of the right wingers will ignore
this report.
\_ This comment reminds me of Lakoff's work on metaphors. It's
good work and all, but he couldn't resist making some jibes
at the conservative world view at the end there. Kind of
spoiled the whole thing for me, his biases oozing through
otherwise good work like pus from a boil. -- ilyas
\_ oh my, you are so smart and we're all eager to know what
you think, ol great one ilya.
\_ thank you! we are all eager to hear the important stuff
you have to say, ol great wise ilya s. Share your
wisdom and we shall worship you!
\_ This metaphor (pus from a boil) doesn't work in context.
You just said it's otherwise good work. So to be consistent
the biases would have to be oozing from something otherwise
good, which a boil is clearly not.
\_ Eh, you are right. Meh. Maybe I can beg off on my
poor-russian-immigrant-boy status, or something. I guess
I should have said it was like seeing an otherwise
beautiful face with an ugly ass witch mole. -- ilyas
\_ or, it's like seeing an Ayran but only to find out he's
just a Russian Joo. -conservative
\_ Hey, I'm a Russian Jew. -John
\_ That sounds pretty damn ironic. - a. morissette |
| 2004/11/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34946 Activity:nil |
11/17 Interesting. A blog dedicated to a group strategizing on how to
push the Democratic party in a libertarian direction.
http://libertariansforamerica.blogs.com/index
\_ what. ever. Conservatism is in, everything else is out. Get
on with the program. -liberal converting to conservative |
| 2004/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34926 Activity:very high 66%like:37533 |
11/16 Today is 11/16
\_ The subsequent sentence is true.
\_ The previous sentence is false.
\_ This sentence is true.
\_ This sentence is provable.
\_ No it isn't.
\_ This sentence is provable under axiom S.
\_ None of the above are true.
\_ It's all lies spread by the liberal media.
\_ Bush won! |
| 2004/11/16 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34916 Activity:nil |
11/16 Gee, I'm reading Yahoo News and I've never seen that many photos of
Powell and Rice together before. |
| 2004/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34913 Activity:very high |
11/15 I've read the Republicans in Congress will repeal the 22nd
Amendment so Bush can run again in 2008. What do you guys think?
\_ I think, "troll".
\_ I think 55 < 66.
\_ Bill Clinton vs Bush. Gee, who do you think would win?
\_ Well let's see. In 1992 Clinton got about 43% of the popular
vote. In 1996 he got 49%... |
| 2004/11/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34901 Activity:high |
11/15 If Rice gets the Secretary of State position, it will be the one where
she can do the least damage. Dubya really wants to keep her on, but
my guess is she's gonna get out.
\_ oh well, the freepers are saying Peter Jennings just scooped Condi
for State. It would be funny if Rice said, "hey, I said I was
still THINKING about it" -op
\_ Of what alternatives is this "the one where she can do the
least damage"? As National Security Advisor, her only
power was her (apparently considerable) influence on Bush.
Presumably, Bush will still listen to her whatever her
title is, so wouldn't giving her a position with actual
executive powers to boot strictly *increase* the amount of
damage she can do?
\_ Why do you guys particularly hate Rice? Is this just general
hatred of Bush and neocon wingnuts in general, or is there
something particularly evil about Rice? She seems to me to
be one of the less crazy members of the first term Bush
administration (although that's not saying much.)
\_ Who said anything about hating Rice?
She just strikes me as having been incompetent in her role
in Dubya term 1.
\_ I personlly don't hate Rice at all. Of all the members of
Bush's inner circle, I think she is the most reasonable.
I won't go on about the rest. She deserves Secretary
of State. -liberal
\_ Is Condoleeza Rice a perfect example of why Stanford is evil? |
| 2004/11/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34873 Activity:moderate |
11/12 Bush up to 60 million votes!
http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults
\_ and Bush only wins Iowa by 13498 votes.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=1229
\_ how is that even closer that Bush's win in NM in 2000?
\_ It's not. My bad. |
| 2004/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34863 Activity:nil |
11/12 List people who you don't mind die by natural cause or what not:
Michael Moore: .........................................................\
................................................................................\
.............................................
Mel Gibson: .
Van Gogh: .
Dick Cheney: ..........................
GWB: ...................................................................\
................................................................................\
...............x10^100^100
\_ So you like Dick Cheney as President? At least Moore dies there's
one less fat person driving up the cost of airfare.
\_ and the cost of healthcare.
\_ Thank you. Your responses have been recorded with the
Department of Homeland Security.
OBL: ..
My mom: .
AMC: .
Kim Jong Il: ..
\_ *sigh* -- ilyas
ilias: .
\_ these above motd posters.
\_ You know, I think it kind of says something about you people that
there are no Kim Jong Ils, Robert Mugabes, Viktor Kuchmas,
Turkmenbashis, Pinochets or their ilk in this list (aside from
the obligatory OBL.) Pretty fucking sad. -John
\_ GWB killed more Iraqis than they killed the Americans.
GWB killed more Afghans than they killed the Americans.
In the Bible, it says "Praise thy leader who leads without
violence, without bloodshed." I shall not praise GWB.
\_ GWB is a closed-minded idiot, but (a) he didn't kill
anyone, (b) I doubt he said "yee haw let's go whack them
towelheads", and (c) fuck what it says in the bible.
No one's asking you to not loathe the guy, but wishing
someone dead is pretty pathetic. -John
John: .
Anonymous Coward with closet ass link issues: .
Sharon: .
Bud Day: .
Michelle Malkin: .
\_ is she hot?
\_ yes.
\_ If you have APF. Okay, even if you don't have APF... |
| 2004/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34856 Activity:insanely high |
11/11 What will the Euro/Dollar ratio be in four years?
1/1: ..
1.3/1:
1.5/1:
1.8/1: .
2/1:
higher:
\_ if there is a general perception that the dollar is falling,
would that cause a mass movement of the dollar (many people
moving their money), which would cause the actual change?
\_ In general, that is how a market works. People pay for
what they percieve the value of something is.
\- while this may be trivially true [like buy low sell high]
it's not a theoretically meaningful statement. the "theory"
of FX appaches the question either by modeling supply and
demand ... like say "portfolio balance theory"or my looking
at boundary condition/equillibria [see say uncovered interest
parity, purchasing power parity etc]. --psb
\_ If I wantto invest in Eruos what would be the best way?
\_ http://www.everbank.com
\_ Dollar will strengthen
\_ Can I have some of that crack you're smoking?
\_ Interest rates will rise and bring the dollar up with
them.
\_ Interest rate is cyclical. This dollar correction
is a structural correction.
is a structural correction. Lately, the focus has
been on the structural need for the dollar to
depreciate. Your quarter point interest rate
increases would likely not be enough to convince
people not to dump the dollar if they are
convinced the dollar is going to drop by another 20 or
30 percent.
\_ This is rather circular. It's going to drop because
people think it will drop. Yes, it plays to how the
market works but WHY would people think it is going
to drop? It will rise when it again becomes a
good investment, which will be when interest rates
rise.
\_ No it isn't circular. I was just pointing
out that interest rate as a cause of fluctuation of
the dollar is cyclical. And that there are
other structural reasons that would likely cause
the dollar to fall. The most important of these
is the continuing trade deficit. Another reason
is that China's economy is overheating and
they are raising interest rate for the RMB,
and thinking hard about letting the RMB
appreciate, which would likely lead to other
asian currencies appreciating.
\_ The structural reasons *have* caused the
dollar to fall. The question is: Where will
it be in 4 years? I predict up.
\_ The structural reasons *have* caused the
dollar to fall. The question is: Where will
it be in 4 years? I predict up.
\_ We are running massive budget and trade deficits.
\_ Was the dollar low or high in the 1980s
when Reagan was doing the same thing?
Bush says "deficits don't matter" and intends
to pile up even deeper deficits. This is all
hard on the dollar.
\_ Was the dollar low or high in the 1980s
when Reagan was doing the same thing? |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34850 Activity:very high 61%like:34847 |
11/11 Here's one for the Arafat trolls to chew on for a while:
http://tinyurl.com/4sljz (boston.com)
\_ Hell NO! We won't think!
\_ You are right. It was so much easier when the Palestinians
peacefully accepted their ethnic cleansing. I hate that bastard
for daring to fight back.
\_ Wow. Revisionist history makes yet another appearance on the
motd.
\_ What's revisionist about it?
\_ Um, 'ethnic cleansing'?
\_ The Palestinians just all left their own homes
and farms on their own accord? Right-o.
\_ What's to chew on? Palestinians have used terrorism. Is this news?
Shall we chew on that while ignoring Israeli occupation? How does
that make sense?
\_ wait a minute, so suicide bombing is evil, but killing civilans
blindly using American donated Apache gunship, missiles,
and tanks is perfectly ok? -peacenik
\_ I think there's a substantial difference between thugs that
TARGET civillians with carbombs and suicide bombers and
beheadings as a tactic to control the people vs trying to
kill the people that are doing this TO THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN
(mostly, anyhow). The US is doing everything it can to
minimize civillian deaths, but the remorseless insurgents
must be eliminated. I suspect that if the US just ... left
... that the people stepping forward to fill the vacuum would
create a legacy hideous beyond describing. It's rather sad
that someone getting a Berkeley education would need this
explained to them. If you think the use of these weapons is
blind, then honestly, you're saying you can't tell the
difference between random violence against innocents and
violence targeted against inherently violent people that have
no respect for life.
\_ in war, there's no such a thing as good civilians vs. evil
militants. The militants are the civilians, and at times
the civilians are the militants. The civilians give birth
for new militants, and they feed and shelter
each other, period. And by the way there's no such a
thing as Berkeley educated people having homogeneous
opinions, and in fact, not everyone on motd is educated
let along having a Berkeley degree. The idea that the
world is so black and white, is so Bush.
\_ Holy shit, you've missed the point so completely it makes
my teeth ache! The point is a matter of intent b/t the
US military vs the intent of the terrorists. Likening
them is dumb. Jesus H Christ, are you even posting in the
correct thread? I'm honestly baffled.
\_ It's not entirely binary, but there really are normal
civilians and thugs. Civilians mostly just want to be
left alone. Thugs terrorize them into giving them shelter,
etc. You = m0r0n (the dangerous moral relativist kind)
\_ Come on, don't be so harsh. Where would this world
be without Lenin's "useful idiots?" |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34849 Activity:nil |
11/11 ""Midwesterners don't really relate to Democrats," Carol Kolb,
editor-in-chief of satirical newspaper The Onion and a Wisconsin
native, told http://FOXNews.com. "Especially Kerry, he was much more
intellectual than Bush, and that's not what someone in Middle
America relates to."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138347,00.html |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34844 Activity:nil |
11/11 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html Pro-life wing nuts all pissy at Bush because of Gonzales, who is pro-choice. That's for electing Bush you dumb fuck right wing Christians!!! \_ thank you for the rant, left winger \_ Bush is actually pretty centrist. He may be trying to reign in the far right parts of his administration. \_ OMG you made a funny! \_ Supreme Court nominee will be liked by the more conservative in the party. |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34838 Activity:high |
11/11 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/01247/557 Excellent discussion of the reality of Bin Laden and where we're headed. \_ Thank you. I go to dailykos for all my unbiased political analysis. \_ What does "dailykos" mean, any how? Daily Kooks on S***? \_ I never read the site; got the link off a KDE developer's blog. It doesn't seem biased actually... more about the futility of waging a public opinion war with guns and bombs. -op \_ dailykos doesn't seem biased? WOW! \_ The guy who started it is nicknamed "kos," pronounced with a long "o." Hence "dailykos." It is a left-wing echo chamber, similar to Freerepublic but just a hair less loony and obviously on the other side of the political spectrum. Occasionally they have some good top level links. \_ dailykos has some good stuff sometimes. most of the freerepublic people have net personas of dangerous psychopaths. \_ Do you lean conservative or liberal? \_ lib. i read and have read the free republic urls, a lot of them have "let's go shoot some libs!" tangents. dailykos does not. \_ What?!? The right is NEVER violent!! \_ Kos himself is not looney at all, in fact he is pretty much a mainstream Democrat. He is about as "looney" as say, John Kerry. Some of his posters are nuts though. \_ The posters are mostly what I was referring to. I like kos, but his site has been almost completely taken over by the fruit loops. He doesn't even write most of the entries any more. \_ Read "Guerilla Warfare" by Che Guavara. He describes fighting a superior force using exactly those tactics. |
| 2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34816 Activity:high |
11/10 Too bad Bork was Borked
Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/schlueter_bork.html
\_ why's that? Bork is almost universally agreed to be
way more conservative than any member of the supreme court.
i'm glad someone that extreme isn't on the court! no matter
how much he prides himself on his faithful interpretation
of the constitution. just because he's brilliant
doesn't mean he belongs up there.
\_ he's a strict constructionist! Dubya would LOOOVE him!
\_ Bork's too old. Dubya wants to destroy USSC credibility for
generations to come!
\_ Dubya's too late. Earl Warren did that already.
\_ 'agreed' - by who? Did you even bother to read his
article in the link?
\_ agreed on by the entire planet.
\_ Yes, but *which* planet?
\_ are you seriously going to debate with me whether most
of the world does not agree Bork is the meanist orniest
strict constructionist ever put forth before the
nomination process?
\_ We've just had an election where most of the voters
thought Dubya would make a better president. Do you
really want to argue whether what "most of the world"
thinks has any connection to reality?
\_ "Strict constructionist" == interprets the way I like
"Activist judge" == interprets the way I don't like
\_ strict, as in thomas, scalia, and bork = if no
constitutional mandate defer to the people and their
legislative representatives.
activist = I know whats best for the unwashed masses. |
| 2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34811 Activity:high |
11/9 Bush appoints Gonzales to replace Ashcroft. The majority of the
Latinos are expected to switch to Republicans. News at 11.
\_ Bush is a racsist! He's just waiting to stuff the supreme
court before he reinacts Jim Crow Laws!!1!!11
\_ bush is not a racist but he is more than willing to
play racial politics to enforce his agenda and to leave
a legacy.
\_ Did Bush create the concept of reserving <minotiry> seats
on the Supreme Court?
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effects the opium
trade had on China?
\_ Are there any good (leftist or rightist, I don't care) summaries
of AG's positions/policies? Abortion, Patriot Act, religion, etc.
\_ there are excellent summaries of his views on torture
all over the net. - danh
\_ I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! |
| 2004/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34806 Activity:kinda low |
11/11 Why do unbleached coffee filters cost MORE than the bleached ones?
Is the price of bleach negative?
\_ Just a guess: economy of scale + higher quailty materials
\_ Just like brown rice costing more than white rice: no idea why.
\_ Well, if rice bran is worth more than the endosperm, that could
do it. Also, brown rice spoils more easily than white, so you're
also paying for the brown rice that spoiled before it got sold.
\_ I see. Why does brown rice spoil more easily?
\_ The bran contains fat and protein, which go rancid. Fat
and protein make it a good component of animal feed.
\_ Maybe the cost is lower, but only the price is higher because of
higher demand?
\_ It could also be a case of lower supply. Maybe only one
factory makes the unbleached ones while twelve factories
make the bleached ones.
\_ feelgood markup
\_ I wonder if unbleached paper products are made by dyeing bleached
paper brown. Else how come the brown color is so consistent.
\_ Must be a conspiracy. Oooooh aaaaaah. |
| 2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34805 Activity:very high |
11/10 Bush to appoint Alberto Gonzalez as AG:
http://csua.org/u/9w8 (Yahoo News)
\_ I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
\_obNOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
\_ Heh!
"Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy -
essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought
out in the lower courts - of detaining certain terrorism suspects
for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.
He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush
claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international
treaties providing protections to prisoners of war."
[This article is also wrong. It's not "certain terror suspects";
Dubya claimed the right to detain any person, citizen or not,
indefinitely, he deemed a threat to national security.]
\_ I think he's a lot less evil than Ashcroft. Obviously
I dissagree with the Administrtions detainee policy, but
I spent some time researching Gonzales yesterday when his
name was being mentioned as a possible AG, and he really
seems much more balanced than Ashcroft. He seems to make
single issue pressure groups on both the left and the right
nervous, which is a good thing for a supreme court judge to
do (and let's face it that's where this is heading.) In contrast,
I think Ashcroft was both incopetent and an actually evil man.
\_ Can you give me a good URL which describes just how bad
Ashcroft is? It seems to me that the Patriot Act, although
giving the government just too many powers, has not been
seriously abused, yet, and that Ashcroft has just been
the convenient pincushion for all the Bush-haters. Mainly,
I want actions which show his incompetence and evilness,
not attitudes. -liberal
\_ Suspension of Habeas Corpus. That should be sufficient.
\_ Not to disagree, but do you also think Gonzalez (and
even Dubya) are MORE responsible than Ashcroft for
habeas corpus suspensions?
\_ There was a great segment on CSPAN to this effect a
week or so ago.
\_ Powell: "Who's the new AG, Don?"
Rumsfeld: "AG."
Powell: "Yeah, AG."
Rumsfeld: "Yeah."
Powell: "......"
Powell: "So, who is he?"
Rumsfeld: "Who's who?"
Powell: "The new AG."
Rumsfeld: "Like I said, AG."
Powell: "Yeah, AG. Who's he?"
Rumsfeld: "The new AG."
Powell: "Yeah, the new AG. How many times do I have to ask?"
Rumsfeld: "I just told you. AG, Powell."
Powell: "Don't call me pal. I'm no pal. Just answer my question."
Rumsfeld: "Alright. It's AG, Colin".
Powell: "How dare you call me asshole? You're fired."
\_ Our Secretary of State is Colon Powell:
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/forumpost1.shtml?pid=186905 |
| 2004/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34798 Activity:moderate |
11/9 For williamc and for the rest of us:
http://www.gutfest.com/usanumberone/traveloneway.html
\_ Is there *any* major Canadian city more than a 4 hour drive from
the U.S. border?
\_ Yes there are many major cities more than a 4-hour drive from the
U.S. of C. border.
\_ Are you making this happen? |
| 2004/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34795 Activity:nil |
11/9 Conspiracy Theories Abound After Bush Victory:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=239735&page=1
\_ Like I am going to waste my time with liberal ABC News.
Why don't you just post a link to Democratic Underground?
\_ Actually, I watched this over dinner. They debunk three of the
common theories about the election. Worth looking at.
\_ Hmm. I found only the first "debunking" compelling and
finishing off with "don't worry your little head" from the
American Enterprise Institute hardly sets my mind at ease. I
am still waiting for more rigorous analysis than this. |
| 2004/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:34793, category id '18005#5.62793' has no name! , ] UID:34793 Activity:moderate |
11/9 DEATH TO MICHAEL MOORE!!! He didn't donate money to the Democrats
and ripped us off. Now he's 200 million richer and all we have
now is a dumb president. DEATH TO MICHAEL MOORE!!!
\_ What, you're realizing just now that MM is anathema to Dems? He's a
raving loon socialist.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-20 |
| 2004/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34773 Activity:high |
11/8 Why aren't the media/liberals capitalizing on the man who committed
suicide because Bush got re-elected? I mean, they should use that
to make a point that Bush sucks, like "the first man who commit
suicide because of the presidency."
\_ troll. I'll bite. because the guy Was CRAZY
\_ Maybe because you've had too much of the partisan kool aid and
the media is actually less liberal than you think.
\_ I think you were intended to see "LAME" below.
\_ Actually it highlights the mental state of Kerry followers. |
| 2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34763 Activity:low |
11/7 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/watson.policy/index.html Alright since when did CNN switch to the right side? Frigging traitor, I'm going back to the good 'ol CBS liberal news. \_ The behind-the-scene look at the campaign by the Newsweek embeds is a pretty good read. Not terribly flattering to the Kerry camp. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6407226/site/newsweek \_ Nice of them to fail to report any of this until after the election. \_ I assume holding off reporting till after the election is part of the deal that got the campaigns to allow the embeds access in the first place. \_ If the press has real news that would make a difference to the way people vote we should know about it. If the reporters in the Bush campaign saw the same things, they'd be leaked all over the place. I want everything from both campaigns equally. I want the truth. If you can't get the truth from the media in a timely manner that would make a differnce what the hell good are they? |
| 2004/11/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34755 Activity:moderate |
11/8 So Powell wants to go, Condi wants the position of Defense secretary,
and Rumsfeld still ain't finished yet. What is Dubya, Moron-in-Chief,
going to do? The only decisions he makes -- as ultimate delegator --
are appointments. (He actually doesn't make any decisions himself, he
follows the advice of the person in charge, and blames them if
something goes wrong. The only mistakes he's made are in who he has
appointed, according to him.)
\_ that's what a good president does, you want a dictator?
\_ See, just add in the great speechwriters, and any good American
can be President!
- Iraq WMDs: Blame and fire CIA Director "Slam Dunk" Tenet
- Iraq post-war: Blame "catastrophic success"!
- Abu Ghraib: Blame Rumsfeld!
\_ Wait! I thought he was this manipulative evil genius? I'm so
confused! What are the ABB talking points today?! -confused lefty
\_ Dummy!! Karl Rove is the evil genius. Dubya is the slack-jawed
idiot. Get your evil org-chart straight!
\_ If Cheney were to die, Bush might become President.
\_ that's what a good president does, like Reagan.
\_ See, just add in ...
\_ "The buck stops here." -H. Truman.
\_ Dubya will have to ask Cheney for permission about any cabinet
changes. |
| 2004/11/7-8 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34735 Activity:kinda low |
11/7 Man commits suicide at ground zero:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/07/ground.zero.suicide.ap/index.html
\- Does anybody find it odd these people dont er "take some people
with them" ... or i guess the peopel inclined to do this kind of
thing dont have that kind of personality.
\_ They're an Army Of One
\_ What about that Japanese guy who cut a bunch of people with
a samurai sword in a supermarket in Irvine before he was shot?
\_ liberals are crazy -patriotic conservative troll
\_ This was a patriotic conservative crazy Japanese samurai
sword Irvine supermarket suicide warrior. -John
\_ How many more to go? |
| 2004/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34731 Activity:high |
11/5 http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html Everyone here who isn't a moronic bible thumping pig fucking red neck should read this. Most of you won't "get it" but I still have hope for a few of you. \_ The party of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter claims that the Democrats are full of hate. Pretty amusing. \_ So... you've been in a cave for the last week? \_ No, did Rush Limbaugh agree to stop calling his political opponents Nazi's or something? Have The Republicans announced that they distance themselves from the hate speech coming from the above and Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the rest of the Religious Right? Have they decided that gays are human beings yet? \_ She missed one important component, as described by Zell Miller. There is nothing as treacherous as committing, as political party, to a war and then, later, actively campaigning against it for political gain. Completely disgusting and unforgivable. Lieberman seemed to be the only prominent candidate that appreciated this - congrats to him. \_ Stop arguing about all those reasons you have lost! Many who voted for Kerry can tell you they would have voted for Bush if only .... There are moments in history, like the fall of Memphis, the conquest of Syracuse, the defeat of Maxentius, or the burning of the Forbidden City, when destiny is supreme and everything else is inconsequential. The new Genghis Khan is on his way. Be wise and get on good terms with your new overlords for the safety of yourself or your descendents. You may only keep your ideas of enlightenment to your heart, or transmit them on scripts to some future mythical future generation, who will live through the same cycle of renaissance and ruin. |
| 2004/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34729 Activity:high |
11/5 I had a beautiful dream. Bush comitted suicide, and I was like
"No way. It must have been the CIA." Then I woke up.
\_ go read www.exile.ru
\_ I had a weird dream in which Bush dreamed that you committed
suicide. Dream within a dream within a dream.
\_ Then you're stuck with Cheney. I think that's worse. Then the
(R) Speaker of the House, who knows what he'd do.
\_ is that Hastert? that guy is crazy!
\_ I had a dream where the left got over it, "moved on".org and
stopped thrashing, whining, and stopped acting out their drama
queen fantasies. You lost. It isn't the end of the world. It's a
4 year term for 1 man in a single branch of the 3 in our
government. Your incessant whining has gone way beyond the usual
post-election boo-hoo and is now verging on obsession and low grade
insanity.
\_ Riiiight. So, you're hoping we're all too young to remember
the 90's, huh? Keep dreaming, motherfucker.
\_ has any president ever been in a position to appoint
3 or 4 supreme court justices ? -danh
\- are you kidding? this has happened tons of times.
better question: who was the last president to get 4
(successful) nominations (nixon). i think FDR got 9 ...
and that wasnt good enough for him! ike 5 i think. --psb |
| 2004/11/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34714 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0102-04.htm Brazil, yes BRAZIL to start their own nuclear program. What would happen if all the other countries simultaneously do so? |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34708 Activity:high |
11/4 Glitch gave Bush 3893 extra votes in Ohio. A technician from
the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election
Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the
problem.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html
\_ Assuming the election was by and large fair, as liberals and
conservatives have asserted, such glitches would on average affect
both Kerry and Dubya votes, such that a > 130,000-vote win would
be well outside the margin of error.
Anyways, IMO, WHY THE FUCK do we have voting machines which don't
leave a paper trail? Liberals are just standing around scratching
their heads trying to figure out whether THEY were fucking with
the exit polls; or that the original exit polls were right and they
GOT FUCKED by e-voting machines, with no real evidence either way.
\_ I think the simple answer is that politicians of all stripes
are retarded about technology. They think that more expensive
and complicated is always better. And since the folks who make
expensive machines pay for their campaigns, they tend to listen
to them. That's why NIST needs to start a division to deal
with the problem of voting device accuracy. If we had formal
standards for what constitutes an accurate, reliable voting
machine, then politicans, companies and the public could
actually talk about this rationally instead of all the shouting
we have today.
\_ The reasons are numerous (listened to a program about it)
but I think the primary reason is the revolving door between
the makers of the voting machines and the voting
commissions, and that the opinions of the companies selling
the equipment are crowding out common sense. And why oh
why should there be any laws that make it difficult to
verify election results? There can be no reason for it
unless you wanted to hide fraud!
\_ Omaha, Nebraska is a godamn redneck place. |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34705 Activity:very high |
11/5 Why do we care about politics so much? Why can't we go
back to being apathetic?
\_ Because we're educated people and this is a very interesting
topic to discuss. -John
\_ because those pesky politicians have this nasty annoying habit of
creating laws that interfere with our lives, and making taxes
that take away our money!
\_ Cause Dubya is a polarizing figure, duh.
In the same way Clinton made waves by having an intern on his cock,
Dubya is leading this country as the most inarticulate President
of the 20th century.
of the last 100 years. |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34704 Activity:high |
11/5 A somewhat different reaction to the election by some Iranian
activist types.
http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4319.shtml
\_ A more normal reaction from America's lefties
http://www.sorryeverybody.com
\_ The liberal media doesn't want to cover the millions of Iranians
who expressed their satisfaction of Dubya's victory by calling and
congratulating each other, many of whom were seen walking in the
streets shaking hands and showing discreet V signs!
I haven't seen a single article from the liberal media on this,
including the AP and Reuters! WTF??!? |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:34702 Activity:very high |
11/5 Loyal Bush supporter attempts to save the lions:
http://www.local6.com/news/3887764/detail.html
\_ Loyal Kerry supporter posts misleading headline. Oh and he's an
idiot too.
\_ Loyal Bush supporter can't take a joke.
\_ That was a joke?
\_ heh, that's funny, in a 2004 Bush mandate sort of way -!op
\_ Of course. Given a choice between "misleading idiot"
and "jokester", which would you choose to be?
\_ more reasons to nuke the uneducated country folks! -neo-liberal
\_ My link was funny. You are not. --op |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34700 Activity:moderate |
11/5 http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/47785163.html Hahahaha... I want to see sissy liberal vs. a gun-toting, redneck. \_ I want, to grammar unnecessary, commas. |
| 2004/11/5 [Finance, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34699 Activity:nil |
11/5 At least one sector of the economy will always do well under Bush:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com |
| 2004/11/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34698 Activity:high |
11/5 What left-to-center EU newspapers would the motd recommend? The
ascendancy of the BUsh theocracy has me orienting myself towards
the EU, whose community-oriented policies and multilateralism
speak to my progressive/liberal values. I have reading proficiency
in French and Spanish, and presently I'm learning Italian. My
Tagalog & Ilokano blow chunks. Thanks. --elizp
\_ Yeah the EU really has a spine.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/05/eu.summit/index.html
\_ To be honest, it's a bit sad if you only want to read stuff that
echoes what you believe in. The left-wing Euro papers are just as
dogmatic, biased and repetitive as anything you'll find on the
other side of the spectrum. Just because it comes out of
Europe doesn't magically make it politically more insightful. Why
don't you just go for a broad sampling of editorial opinion? -John
\_ Between the NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes, and ChiTribune, I have
a lot on my plate; I already subscribe to The Economist for
a smart conservative perspective; and I asked for left-of-center
b/c the EU press has a longer tradition of papers affiliated
explicitly with political parties. ANd if I want a Libertarian
opinion, I can just turn to my husband @ <DEAD>marginalrevolution.com<DEAD>
--elizp
\_ The Economist is not a 'smart conservative opinion'. I
\_ The Economist is not a 'smart conservative perspective'. I
think you are misled.
\_ Understand, liberals think that's an oxymoron anyway.
\_ What perspective is it?
\_ globalist agitprop
\_ Look, if you want to build an independent, viable,
intelligent view of what's happening in the world, you
could start by getting away from the whole "liberal/
conservative" black & white stuff. The economist is
decidedly not what I would call "conservative" along the
lines of what conservatives in the US seem to call
"conservative". You're also not going to get a good
representative sampling of the European (or any) press
if you don't differentiate between viewpoints in various
areas (economy, social issues, environment, diplomacy,
etc.) or even more detailed nuances there. Start by
leafing through all the big name ones (no one's suggesting
you read the FT cover to cover) and you'll get there. -John
\_ OK, then help me out: what big name ones should I
start with? If all you wish to do at this moment is
berate me for my all-round myopia, rest your case:
my shock at the outcome of this election has already
unmasked it. --elizp
\_ OK, for the classic 'leftie' ones start with the
Guardian (UK) and Liberation (FR). FAZ (DE) and
Times (UK) tend to be very sober in terms of
presentation (both optical and with their editorials)
The big ones in Spain are El Mundo / El Pais, and
in Italy one of the more widely read ones is Corriere
della Sera. Also check out Le Temps in France.
I doubt you're interested in Dutch/Scandinavian
papers, but to get a fairly complete overview have
a look at http://www.onlinenewspapers.com .
To be honest, I prefer the IHT. -John
\_ BTW reading freerepublic and democraticunderground doesn't
count as a broad sampling. -jrleek
\_ Le Monde is a nyt partner. But if you are really more interested
in facts than fictions and lies, you should try to read a lot of
sources (which can take some time). The number one job of any
journalist, whatever his political orientation is, is to lie. But
if you sample widely AND have a GOOD processor, you might be able to
average the lies out and get some truth. Keep this in mind: they
ALL lie.
\_ But there's bias, and there's intellectual honesty. Those
qualities are distinct from each other, but not always
easily identifiable in any range of arguments. That's
why I came to the motd for some recommendations, and
so far no one has been helpful. --elizp
\_ Uh... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I listed at least two papers
that fit your initial criterion, along with a good
sampling of major papers from which you can draw
your own confusions. And once again, it is my view
that most "left of center" editors and columnists
here tend to be as demagogic and undifferentiated
as the "right of center" media that seems to annoy
you in the US. Intellectually honest, maybe, but
definitely sanctimonious. I will gladly let you
know when I find one that isn't so holier than thou
as to be really really tiresome. -John
\_ but anonymous cowards on the MOTD always tell the truth. -tom
\_ That's uncalled for.
\_ Not necessarily. The AC just slagged off all journos
with his needlessly nasty review. Tom responded in kind.
Status quo preserved. --erikred (nice try, AMC)
\_ Tom is unable to respond in any other way. It's
misleading to say a constant function is responding to
anything, it just sort of stays constant.
\_ hey, it's NERFAMC! -tom
\_ The Guardian is pretty good and in English:
http://www.guardian.co.uk
Right after 9/11, when the entire American media turned itself
into a cheering section for Bush, I read it for an alternative
perspective. Now I can find that in the American media, so
my reading of it has dropped off quite a bit. -ausman
\_ try the Al Jazeera. Halaalalalahahahalala. |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34695 Activity:low |
11/5 All you kids planning on moving your money out of the dollar should go
check the jobs report today. I wish you well betting your money on
a cynical and pessimistic view painted by your politics.
\_ I'm not sure what you mean. -!moving money out of $ guy
\_ Well, Dubya and friends are incompetent. |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34690 Activity:kinda low |
11/5 Do people think Rumsfeld/Ashcroft will resign for "personal"/"health"
reasons? If anyone in the administration has half a brain, that'd be
a pretty easy way to sacrifice two of the bigger fuckups as a bit
of a sop to the opposition. -John
\_ Ashcroft is going to resign because he's not well. He's publicly
known to have already had at least 1 surgery recently. I forget
exactly for what but I remember it wasn't some minor BS. I don't
think Rumsfeld is going anywhere too soon.
\_ Best Ashcroft poster ever, seen in a co-op: 8x10 glossy of Ashcroft
with a speach bubble "I'm watching you" beneath which someone else
has written "POOP!"
\_ Why would Ashcroft resign? I thought Bush likes Jesus-freak
big-brother types? He certainly wouldn't need to throw a bone to
liberals.
\_ Once again, that careful wording bit. Note the part about
anyone with half a brain. -John
\_ I don't believe any of the chatter from media punditoids. They
all said some shit about Bush dropping Cheney from the ticket,
also. But that's just not Bush's style. No matter how much of
a fuck up someone is, if they're loyal, they're in 100%. Conversely,
no matter how good someone is, if they don't toe the line, they're
out. I predict Powell gets fired, and they call it resignation.
Everyone else stays. If you think Bush sees Ashcroft as a failure,
I think you overestimate Bush's quality as a human being.
\_ Ashcroft is going to resign, and Dubya will say he did a great job.
Rumsfeld? He probably wants to finish up Iraq first. If he
resigns, he'll have a trusted lieutenant take up the reins to
finish his second goal of transforming the force.
\_ people say Condi will take over for him. Also dont forget about
Powell, seems certain he will step down as well. -rory
\_ Yeah but I think Powell's seen more as sort of a tragic
figure who didn't do enough, rather than a blithering
failure. CNN intl. this morning seemed to think that Rice
was also going to quit. -John
\_ well then its anybody's guess I suppose. I barely
remember as I was hitting snooze on NPR this morning
a correspondent reporting that W found her too valuable
to let her leave. whatever that means. -rory
\_ Dubya won the election. Having done so, he has no reason whatsoever
to change his style, his cabinet, or his direction. Expect four
more years of the same, only now with more arrogance and swagger. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34682 Activity:nil |
11/4 jesus fucking batshit on a burning stick! you won! get over kerry
already. He's not ever going to be president, and he's not even
a senator anymore, so just fucking get over it.
\_ Seconded.
\_ No. It is not sufficient to win elections. We must utterly
destroy any Democrat stupid enough to try and stand against us.
Then the Enemy will know to not try and stop our Christian
agenda.
\_ Who said he is no longer a Senator?
\_ Ok, I was wrong about that, but this is still absurd. He's
not a California senator. Why can't you jackasses say something
positive about your guy who just won instead of launching negative
attacks against someone who has ALREADY lost?! What the hell
is the matter with you people?
\_ yeah, at least they can complain about how the liberal media
and the left in general are going to make everything Dubya
does in his 2nd term look stupid, as they are complaining
about right now on http://freerepublic.com.
\_ I wonder if there are more leftists on the motd reading the
freeper crap than any other group here. I tried reading
the site when it first went online. I haven't been back
since then so I have to trust what you say is posted there.
I don't understand why you keep dragging the freepers to
the motd as if there's some huge block of motd conservatives
that are also ardently pro-freeper. There's just that one
freeperboy who I really wish would grow up because he makes
us all look bad in the same way the tinfoilers at dailykos
and democraticunderground (which I do regularly read) make
leftists look bad but I don't come here trying to pin those
two crap sites on motd leftists. I just read them because
it amuses me.
\_ Seriously, just delete the crap. It's worthless. (Although,
as far as dividing America goes, I don't think all the "Bush is
the most evil president ever!!!1!1" stuff is too helpful
either.) |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34678 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2522316 BUSH: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions. ... BUSH: Yes. Again, you violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people. -- Was Dubya kidding or not? I take this as some light-hearted joking, or did he look irritated and say it seriously? |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34676 Activity:nil |
11/4 See, there are reasonable people in government:
Vice President Dick Cheney went a step further, calling [the election
results] a "mandate." Moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter cautioned
Wednesday that President Bush did not earn "a mandate" in his election
victory and said the president should be "mindful" of potential
confirmation problems should he have the opportunity to nominate a
justice to the Supreme Court. "If you have a race which is decided by
a percent or two, if you have a very narrowly divided country -- that
does not qualify for the traditional mandate and ... to govern, we
have to bring the country together," he said. "I believe that
President Bush will have that very much in mind." ... "We start off
with the basic fact that the Democrats have filibustered and you can
expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad
range of acceptability," Specter said. "And I think there is a very
broad range of presidential discretion. But there is a range." |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34666 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 Should Democrats Get Religion? CBS special:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/04/politics/main653667.shtml
\_ CBS is great. While all the other news corps are starting
to align to Fox News because that's where the money is
(majority has spoken), CBS seems to be tilting more to the
left. It is great.
\_ To take this seriously, I think no. At least, I think the
Democrats should stop treating religion so contemptously, but I
don't think they need to become bible thumpers. Bush came
accross well because he actually believes his religion and acts
accordingly. Kerry looks silly on religion because he makes a
big deal about his relgion, but obviously doesn't belive it
personally. Regan, Clinton, and Bush Sr. were all fairly
non-religious, but they didn't try to pretend to be religious
either.
\_ Hmm. You and I have different memories of Ronald Reagan.
-- ulysses
\_ I admit, Regan is probably the biggest stretch in that
group. He certainly ditched pleantly of church though.
\_ Reagan used religious rhetoric, but I am fairly certain
he was not a religious man. -- ilyas
\_ Al Gore was a fairly religious man. Not only was Tipper
absurdly conservative, but I know for a fact that Al
attended church often, because my gf went to the same
church. It didn't really help him win.
\_ I'm pretty sure it hurt him. I would have voted
for Gore had it not been for the tipper/lieberman
religious asshole axis. |
| 2004/11/4 [ERROR, uid:34652, category id '18005#9.16625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34652 Activity:nil |
11/3 "In the crucial swing state of Florida, which Mr. Bush won, blacks
accounted for 12 percent of all voters, down from 15 percent in
2000. In Ohio, blacks were 10 percent of the electorate, up by
only one percentage point from 2000."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/politics/main653592.shtml
\_ so the free crack did not work, oh well.
\_ you can never count on dem niggas
\_ Maybe because more "other" voters showed up? |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34647 Activity:nil |
11/4 Here's one for the could'a, should'a, didn't file:
Dubya: "If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the
world will drift toward tragedy."
Kerry: "Our current President, Mr. Bush, shows moral weakness. He
shows the moral weakness of not being able to admit to
America that the primary reason we went into Iraq was because
of an imminent danger of WMDs, of which his vice president
said we had no doubt Saddam possessed. He shows the moral
weakness of not being able to admit he was wrong, when he
was clearly wrong. Instead, the world views Americans as
arrogant bullies, more intent on saving their own lives --
saying t'hell with the rest of the world.
If America chooses to re-elect President Bush, we will be
putting our moral, yes, moral stamp of approval on a man
whose incompetence has directly led to the deaths of tens of
thousands of innocent Iraqi bystanders, and the
condemnation of most freedom-loving individuals of the
world, while most Americans sit safely at home in the
richest nation in the world. It is the moral weakness of
our current President, one who can simply not admit that he
was wrong and perhaps never learn from his enormous
mistakes, that will surely lead the world toward tragedy." |
| 2004/11/3 [Recreation/Celebrity, Computer/SW/Apps/Media, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34645 Activity:nil |
11/3 So after all that political advertisements, guess who the real
winner is? MEDIA COMPANIES. They are like the arms dealer, getting
rich from both sides. And now that Bush wins a second term, all
the media corporations will be aligned to the current admin.
My guess is that the Democratic party will bicker and disintegrate
in a few years while the one party US will just get bigger and
bigger. Maybe it'll implode, but that'll not happen for
many years to come. -troll rant dude |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34644 Activity:nil |
11/3 We underestimated rednecks. Now what?
\_ No -- we chose a candidate that no R or conservative would EVER
vote for. Time to start playing a smarter game in the primaries.
\_ I pray the Dems put up someone reasonable next time, and I
pray the Republicans can get someone better than Bush.
But they probably learned the wrong lesson. -voted for Bush.
\_ I suspect the R can't put up Cheney in 08, so who then?
McCain or Powell, I'd vote for (as a D/I). Frist? Lord,
I hope not. If all D can put forward is Obama or La Clinta,
then it's going to be a pretty one sided race. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34635 Activity:high |
11/3 Bush and Cheney are probably laughing right now and thinking,
"Those idiots, we fucked them and they still voted for us, god
bless America! Is this a great country or what?"
\-Eh Eh Eh
\_ you know this is not the case.
\_ How so? They really fucked America for good during the
last 4 years. Pocketed most of the billions of surplus
into their own and supporter's hands. Dragged us into a
war that was based on a proven lie which they knew from
the beginning. But hey, once you are in war, what can
you do? Created far more potential terrorists than any
president in history. Alienated us from the rest of the
world (use the UN when it fit our agenda, fuck them when
they don't. Heck, why do we even have laws, why don't we
all just take justice into our own hands. Fuck the
police). And the best part is, they successfully
convince the average American that getting a blow job is
a far worst crime than killing thousands of innocent
lives for greed and money. But hey, Bush is dumb and
strongly believes what he's doing (unlike the
flip-flopper), just like your typical dumb Republican
rednecks. It's sad but Bin Ladin really does have a good
cause, because people that run a country like a greedy
blood sucking company need to be killed, period.
\_ I think you just contradicted yourself. If Bush really
believes in what he's doing, and believes his rhetoric,
then he's not laughing at us.
\_ And I was called a ranty bigot in the motd -eric
\_ What, Nooo... No elitism here... |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34634 Activity:high |
11/3 GW Bush gives one to all you liberals: -troll
http://www.gwpda.org/tomorrow/bushsuckerpunch.gif
\_ This was in the media a while ago.
\_ Yeah, and I'm the one who posted it to motd several months ago.
I thought it was relevant to today's result. -op/troll
\_ Yeah that's true.
\_ This is great! This is exactly what I walled about, let's make
it happen! |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34632 Activity:moderate |
11/3 Hello, fellow liberals. We have been defeated. I guess we
might as well as embrace all the things that our conquerers
would like us embrace. What's the best way to go about learning
Christianity, country dancing, guns, Southern food, dating
hot Southern belles, and other good stuff? -ok thx
\_ I know you're trying to be funny but there are quite a bit
of Democrats who are Christian, do country dancing, have a
hobby in guns, etc... Not all of those things are Republican-
only things.
\_ yes and there are good Muslims and bad Christians,
that stereotype sucks, blah blah blah. Who cares. The
exit poll numbers speak for themselves. If 91% of the
Bush supporters value Bush's religion and faith while
only 9% of the Kerry supporters value the same thing,
then the majority has spoken to us what they really
are.
\_ Learn proper anal intercourse technique. Southern Belles seem to
love that shit.
\_ Hello German John. No Hail for you.
\_ I would have (a) signed it, and (b) provided an ass link
for your convenience. Bad. Down. -John
\- south western belle ass link: link:csua.org/u/9rg
\_ I, for one, welcome our old Republican overlords.
\_ All us liberals really want now is another Bill Clinton, less
the hobby of getting blow jobs from interns.
the predisposition of getting blow jobs from interns. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34630 Activity:low |
11/3 Why did Kerry have a strong, early exit poll lead?
- Because while the Democrats were voting during the day, the
Republicans were working. (bahrump bump)
\_ Dick Morris (who predicted a Bush win) says it was liberals
attempting to depress conservative turnout - says it's very hard
to get an exit poll wrong - you have to work very hard to do it.
\_ Bush either won for one of 4 different reasons:
1) Electronic voting machines were rigged (hence the exit poll
inconsistency in states with EVs)
2) People really like Bush's policies.
3) People don't like Bush's policies, but like his "moral compass"
or whatever
4) People don't like Bush's policies, but where more scared by
John Kerry's potential policies.
For me, order of scariness worst to best: 1,3,2,4 |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Foreign/Canada, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34628 Activity:high |
11/3 So there was a lot of griping about the BushCo victory on the
motd and on wall with people threatening to leave the country
for "friendlier" shores. I was thinking of setting up a fund
to help our disenfranchised liberals reach that goal, kind of
like the HELP-US fund a couple years ago to help defray the cost
of moving people like Alec Baldwin out of the country. Anyone
interested in helping out? Perhaps we could call it the
"Alec Baldwin Pledge" fund. Email if interested. I already
have one person willing to donate. -williamc
\_ Pretty huffy stuff for somebody who has a Smiths quote in their
finger file.
\_ I could find a high-paying job in Canada without your help if
I wanted, motherfucker. Instead I choose to stay and fight.
You will fucking taste defeat, and I'll be there to kick sand
right into the bleeding wounds of your party's dying body
when it happens.
\_ Bring It On!
\_ mmm, I'm going to laugh at anyone that even SUGGESTS that BushCo
is the Great Uniter. Here's prime counter example of the sort of
uniting in action that BushCo instills....
\_ Ah yes, it's nice to see 'tit-for-tat' schoolyard mentality
in our nation's scholars. Well done!
\_ Ha ha. It's nice to see that the decline of our once great
country is such a joke to you. Enjoy the tax cuts.
\_ it's not a joke to him, which is why he's probably
setting up such a fund. and it's not that easy
to enjoy the tax cut when it's going to bite us in
the ass in the future.
\_ My kids and grandkids won't be paying for the taxcuts
cuz I don't have any.
\_ Leaving the country now would be like leaving a loved one in the
presence of a serial rapist because you don't approve of rape.
I'm here for the long haul, and I'll stop your corporate plunder
by any means necessary, bitch. --erikred |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34623 Activity:moderate |
11/3 If the deficit continues at the current rate, what would it imply?
I mean, what does all the deficit really means?
\_ Deficit/surplus as a percentage of GDP:
1976, -4.2%
1983, -6%
1992, -4.7%
2003, -3.5%
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
\_ Any figures for national debt as % of GDP?
\_ Looks like we'll have to raise taxes to get out it.
\_ Taxes were coming regardless of who won the election. The
question is who is going to get taxed. Kerry would have taxed
the rich. Bush will likely gut the EITC among other things.
\_ One of the problems with taxing the rich that
raising taxes often just makes them put their money
in shelters, which doesn't help the economy OR tax
revenues. Notice how Kerry's wife only pays 15% of
her income in taxes?
\_ Shhh... We're not supposed to talk about Teresa.
\_ Raise taxes or pray for the economy to get hot, but
unfortunately the current bunch in Washington is religious.
However, we've clearly been here before, and the chicken
littles are likely overstating their case.
\_ Nah, we'll just keep borrowing until total collapse. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34621 Activity:high |
11/3 Hillary in '08...
\_ Do you really think she'll win the nomination?
\_ I assume McCain '08, which is how they got him to play ball.
\_ Do you mean on a republican or democrat platform?
\_ Actually I mean the presidency. The economy is likely to
improve during Bush's 2nd term, and if Iraq didn't stop
Bush '04, I don't see what will stop McCain in '08.
\_ Rudy G!
\_ Hillary is not a serious candidate. Edwards is more likely. -tom
\_ Can you elaborate? I would vote for her in 08 if she does.
\_ She has a lot of baggage around her already, and she's
female. You really think any of the redneck states are
going to vote for a Democratic woman from New York? -tom
\_ The rednecks will not vote for her, but the woman in
those states will right?
\_ Very unlikely. They might vote for Laura Bush. -tom
\_ She gets a lot of play in the exact same places that voted
for Kerry, and she gets bagged on in the exact same places
that voted for Bush. I love Hillary, but this is a non-
starter.
\_ To take that a step further, I think it'll be
Bush vs. Clinton
in '08. Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush. The Bush Dynasty should last
a good 20-30 more years.
\_ You really think America could survive 20-30 years of
continuous "leadership" from the Bush clan? Look at the
state we are in today with just 4 years under our belt! |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34616 Activity:kinda low |
11/3 Bush first president since Bush Sr. to win > 50% of popular vote:
http://truthnews.net/comment/2000_11_mandate.html
(article written in 2000)
\_ uh, so it was Bush Sr. > 50%, then Clinton < 50%, then Bush Jr.
Term 1 < 50%, now Bush Jr Term 2 > 50%?
\_ yes
\_ What about Clinton Term 2?
\_ Clinton got < 50% of popular. See infoplease link below.
\_ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34610 Activity:kinda low |
11/3 Dear Mr. Osama Bin Laden, please continue your cause. Please
don't target your friends in big cities like New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, etc. Do please target ultra right
Christian gun-owning rednecks in the red states like Ohio
and Florida. Thank you.
\_ And if you target Indiana, pretty-please spare Bloomington.
The Demos won all but one of the county and city races last night.
\_ I guess the end of the election hasn't made the trolls go away for
even a second.
\_ Hello? This is the motd?
\_ How is this a troll? In 10+ years, when the orphaned Iraqi's
grow up, what do you think the first thing on their mind is?
Do you really think terriorism can be solved by killing more
innocent people? Kill first, ask questions later? If BushCo
wants to fuck the rest of the world as they pleases, then
they have every right to strike us back however they can.
And idiots who vote for Bush and think Bush will make them
safer just don't see it.
\_ That's why we have to round up and kill all of the Iraqi
orphans! Duh! You liberals are too soft! |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34602 Activity:nil |
11/3 On the other hand, if most Americans believes an idiot like
BushCo will bring peace and prosperity to the US in the long run
then they probably deserve to be bombed in the future. Only time
will tell.
\_ Unfortunately, if some place gets bombed, it's probably going
to be somewhere in North Eeast again or CA.
\_ Those idiot bombers, strike where it hurts, the red states.
They are the fuckers who draw up the US foreign policy that
makes the middle east what it is today.
\_ *cough* *cough* |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34597 Activity:low |
11/3 Bush gets 4 more years. What does that mean for the US?
Gas price will continue to go up. Four more years of war in the
middel east. Bin laden will likely live four more years. More tax
cuts for rich. Possible Alaska drilling. Quest for alterative fuel
will be held back.
\_ Bah! I hate Bush, but some of this is a little silly. How exactly
would Kerry bring down gas prices? ANWR drilling will probably
continue to be stopped by republicans who cross the aisle to vote
against it for economic reasons (it's more about corporate
welfare than energy security), and as for alternative fuels
Bush has poured money into hydrogen vehicles and even without the
government, the economic incentive to invent something that
really kicks the ass of the gasoline engine will always be there.
\_ Oil prices would trend upwards with either President but
with Bush there is a huge premium due to the various
instabilities in oil producing areas of the world, which
is guaranteed to continue or worsen with his reelection.
\_ I shudder to think of some of the evil shit the Bush admin has
been holding back due to worries of losing the election/impeachment,
that can now be unleashed. Don't forget a tilt of the Supreme
court to the right, endangering abortion in the South. Oh, and
the twin deficits going even higher.
that can now be unleashed since neither of those can happen now.
Don't forget a tilt of the Supreme court to the right, endangering
abortion in the South. Oh, and the twin deficits going even higher.
\_ That's what I worry most. -- op
\_ What is this? Continuously nuke the motd so only "Bush is
EEVVVILLL" can be read here?
\_ I am more concerned with supreme court justice appointments...
three of them had enough radiation that they probably glow
in the dark (O'Connor, Renquist, and Ginsberg... sp?)
\_ I don't get this.
\_ Investigate cancer treatments. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34587 Activity:nil |
11/2 Bush=president, Daschle=losing seat, Edwards' seat=gone.
Liberal ideas=pwned at the polls.
\- daschle falling doesnt really matter except for rep++
i suppose. you disagree?
\_ daschle's fall is largely symbolic though. He was a powerful
man once. Now he exits stage left, and with a whimper to boot.
\_ It's not. Look at '94 when Foley got booted. Leaders of parties
don't get voted out unless there's a shift. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34586 Activity:nil 60%like:34642 |
11/2 Anyone have a http://democraticunderground.com user ID so I can lurk? Thanks. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34580 Activity:low |
11/2 Someone please tell me the consequences of Bush 4 more years?
So he'll appoint judges and make abortion illegal, fine.
Privatizing social security, fine. National deficit stays
the same or worse, fine. What else?
\_ My prediction is that the worst, from your point of view, that
will happen is more tax cuts. -- ilyas
\_ Abortion will never be outlawed, get over yourself.
\_ It will be outlawed on a state level.
\_ He will continue to lead the country such that we alienate _every_
other country on Earth. Terrorist factions receive increasing
support (indrectly) from those nations who were once our staunch
allies. The World is a More Dangerous Place, and we're back in an
arms race, but this time it's only a defensive one to protect our
borders, because we can't attack everyone and we'll find no allies
on any future targets, no matter how deserving.
\_ Dubya bombs Iran. Iran builds nukes with hidden centrifuges our
CIA couldn't find. Iran loses nukes. Oops! U.S. city nuked
with fission nuclear bomb. In the mean time, world continues to
hate us.
\_ Exactly like the 1980s, right?
\_ You talking about Osiraq?
\- abortion will be avail for upper middle class people. they are
also unlikely to be significantly affected by say a poorly
designed school voucher program ... the schools in a place
like saratoga will be fine, and in a place like SF, the white
people already send their kids to private school [sf pub sch dist
is <20% white?] ... poor people will be given things like $100
tax cut and told they can create some kind of health savings
account, but will probably shaft them in the long run. hopefully
dumb programs like going to mars or a moonbase wont happen from
science hacks the admin listens to. the plutocratization partly
under the guise of the "ownership society" will be one of the
worst effects, and the other is brown people getting the big
shaft via the patriot act and other auxilliary "enabling"
legislation for war on islam. there are a few other bad things,
but those would probably ocurr under the dems too. it would be
nice to image we would intervene in darfur, but i dont think
nice to imagine we would intervene in darfur, but i dont think
these guys care about something like that. at least cliton and
albright appear to feel some shame over usa non-action in
rwanda. i agree, iran gets nukes. but at this point that
probably happens under kerry too. will be interesting to see
if EU picks a fight with USA. i mean who is going to take the
first step or reconciliation? --psb
\_ Are you drunk? |
| 2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34577 Activity:nil |
11/2 "Yeehaw! Bush is re-elected!"
look at the Union/Confederate states:
http://www2.lhric.org/pocantico/civilwar/map.htm
Don't they resemble the current Democrat/Republican states? |
| 2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34573 Activity:moderate |
11/2 "If Bush wins, this country is filled with a lot more pigfucking
inbred moronic loser bible-thumping assholes than I originally
thought."
Mmm. Tolerance.
\_ That's just dumb anyway. Sure, Bush is about to win solidly, but
it's still within the margin of error of the polls we've all been
watching for weeks, so where's the suprise?
\_ The Dems will continue to struggle until they realize why some
people see this as unjustified elitist bullshit. 'Know your
enemy and keep him close.' --Kerry voter
\_ Yeah I agree. Watching wall tonight was both fun and revealing
for me. -- ilyas
\_ 'Rednecks' in Louisiana voted for their first Republican
senator since Recontruction. Think about that next time
you call them 'pigfuckers'. California is the state that
voted for Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan!
\_ The 'Southern Democrat' isn't what you conceptualize as a
California or New York Democrat. This statement shows that
you really don't much understand the South.
\_ The fact that Pete Wilson was a Republican senator
and later governor (who went to UC Berkeley!) shows
you don't understand anything at all. The very fact
that a Southern Democrat is different is the point
I am illustrating! Likewise, so is a California
Republican (see: Arnold). No one wants a New England
liberal! GWB is *soooo* much better than a Southern
Democrat, huh?
\- yes, i suppose in the edwin edwards vs david duke
they made the "right choice". however, a state that
nominates duke ...
\_ Fuck you. We will have 4 more years of this country going down
the toilet that's why I walled that. If seeing massive deficits
with no end in sight, universal hatred of our country, erosion
of civil liberties, weakening of environment protections, crony
capitalism running amok, chaos and instability in the world, etc.,
makes me "elitist" then you can call me that. At least all the
bad shit Bush is going to put into motion the next 4 years won't
make me feel guilty since I didn't vote for him. Plus I've got
another country to move to if this whole deck of cards known as
the US economy collapses. - eric
the US economy collapses. Oh BTWM, just for the record, I'm
equally annoyed at the extremists on the other side, you know,
the pseudo-intellectual surrender monkey pussies who think that
the proper reaction to 9/11 was to send a basket of flowers to
bin Laden and that we should give communism just one more chance
... It's just that there are a lot more of the former than the
latter in this country, you know it's true - eric
\_ Eric, don't take this the wrong way, but you come across as a
ranty, intolerant, close-minded bigot. That the liberal
movement has come to be defined by people like you is why you
lost at the polls yesterday, and why you will lose again and
again.
\_ Hey, I know I'm way out of the American mainstream, and
you can attack me personally if you wish. But at least
give me some credit for caring about the state of the
country.
\_ You may care about the country, but if you insult its
majority in the way you do, your care seems a little
cold and distant and abstract. It's the people, not the
country, that are important.
\_ I never said the majority of the country were
"pigfucking inbred moronic loser bible-thumping
assholes" ... Although I do believe that group
is much more likely to vote Bush than Kerry.
is much more likely to vote Bush than Kerry. -eric |
| 2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34569 Activity:high |
11/2 with 95% reporting in florida, how come it hasn't been called yet?
bush is up like 300k votes.
\_ Where are you guys seeing this stuff? URL? |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34566 Activity:high |
1/2 Oh fuck, Bush is ahead with 102, ^%@$#^%@#@Q!!
\_ Rural places tend to vote Bush. Rural places also have less
votes to count so they'll report early. Things might tip as
the night progress.
\_ get a clue. did you really expect Kerry to win Alabama?
\_ Makes you wish we had let the Confederates secede, huh?
\_ Daily Bruin editorial today:
"If Kerry cannot succeed, CA must secede." For once,
I agree. -- ilyas
\_ If you have TX for Bush and CA for Kerry then it is almost even.
\_ but Bush is ahead in FL with over 50% reporting, and may
get OH.
\_ Independents are breaking 3-2 for kerry in FL. It's gonna
be tight. In OH, kerry's leading in exits.
\_ Dubya is leading in Florida by 270,000 votes, with
67% of precincts reporting. May not be that tight.
Democrats may have gotten margin-of-error'd in the exit
polls there.
\_ Populist precincts in FL report last though. -- ilyas
\_ It's now 76% of precincts reporting, and the
lead is now 264,000 votes, you know what I'm saying?
If I were Fox News, I'd call FL now. |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34564 Activity:high |
11/2 Wouldn't it be funny if Bush won the popular vote but lost the
electoral vote? How would the Right Wing Spin Machine handle that?
\_ With wailing an gnashing of teeth? I don't know, I wouldn't
mind. -voted for Bush |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34555 Activity:high |
11/2 I've never followed the election this closely. But apparently
Bush is pretty ahead. Does that mean Bush will win in a landslide?
\_ hey, it's Bush Landslide Guy!
\_ Bush, Kaleeforneeyah, Landslide!
\_ What you are seeing are results from states that are "Red".
Wait until some of the "battle ground" states start to report
results.
\_ Current results are based on exit polls (4:55 pm CA). Nothing so
far has disagreed with the latest on http://electoral-vote.com (which had
Kerry 262, Bush 261).
\_ True, but that's not saying much since we've mostly tallied in
states that are HEAVILY bush and offered little chance of
surprise. |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34550 Activity:kinda low |
11/02 OK, someone has to talk politics. I'll start: The Bush futures
contracts have dropped 12 points today to 40.
\_ What's the URL?
\_ http://tinyurl.com/3p7w7
Also: http://128.255.244.60/quotes/78.html
\_ Not that it matters now, all motd and wall chatter is even more
meaningless than usual (if that's even possible) but you might want
to know that the better markets have been manipulated heavily
before. A 12 point drop based on no new information is rather
remarkable. Don't bet your house on it. |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34539 Activity:nil |
11/2 Man, http://freerepublic.com is slow today! \_ My heart bleeds. |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34517 Activity:moderate |
11/01 if i put in Chimp for pres, does GWB get the vote?
\_ In florida? Probably.
\_ Not if they're black or not smart enuff to use a butterfly ballot |
| 2004/11/1 [ERROR, uid:34512, category id '18005#6.4775' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34512 Activity:high |
11/1 OMG! I know this is Rush and he's a shill and a liar but are his
numbers real? Can someone help me to refute this stuff? Someone
sent me this and I'm raelly worried now.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110104/content/stack_a.guest.html
\_ He's completely full of shit.
\_ Election day is tomorrow! Just forget about the stupid polls!
\_ how much right is Rush? Ultra right, slightly right, ???
\_ The important thing about Rush is that Rush is an idiot.
His actual political leanings are much less important. -- ilyas
\_ Rush is a radio guy first, an idiot second, and a right-winger
third, IMHO. By that I mean that you shouldn't compare him
to, say Ann Coulter, but rather to Howard Stern or Adam
Corolla. His job is to entertain people who are stuck in
their cars with nothing to do but listen to the radio.
Being an idiot and a nut comes second, and frankly as a guy
who used to commute over an hour in a car with only AM radio,
I have to admit he's pretty good at what he does.
\_ Of course, just as Michael Moore is good at what he does.
I compare him to Moore, though their media of expression
are different. They are both 'dangerous' for the same
reason. People like Rush or Moore have a way of defining
discourse far beyond what is their legidimate due as
entertainers. Actually, I take back my earlier comment,
Rush may not actually be an idiot, he may merely have a
certain radio persona. He is sort of in a Turing test
equivalence class with idiots. -- ilyas
\_ This may be the first time an ilyas sentence made me
laugh out loud. |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34510 Activity:nil |
11/1 "A Failed Presidency", LA Times editorial (no endorsement for Kerry)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-bush1nov01,0,6861797.story
"If elections were solely a job performance review, President George W.
Bush would lose in a landslide. He has been a reckless steward of the
nation's finances and its environment, a divisive figure at home and
abroad. It's fair to say that Bush has devalued the American brand in
the global marketplace. What keeps this a close race is voter
discomfort with Sen. John F. Kerry and the success of Republicans in
stoking concerns about Kerry's fitness for office. But the thrust of
the Bush campaign message -- essentially, you are stuck with me in
this frightful time because the other guy is too unreliable -- is a
tacit acknowledgment that he can't allow the election to be a
referendum on his record."
\-i think framing this in personal terms, i.e. you are not just
voting for bundle of policies A or B, is good. however evaluating
BUSHCO with sort of a "wall street journal metric" i dont think
is adequate ... i think he deserves moral condemnation as well.
presiding over something like abu graib goes beyond he didnt deliver
enough shareholder value. and delivering shareholder value doenst
make up for allowing something like that to happen ... we hopefully
have higher standards for heads of state than for pro-athletes.--psb
\_ It'd be like if Michael Eisner let some low-level Disney animation
department create a Mickey Mouse hentai film.
\-it would be like if michael eisner kept a japanese schoolgirl
in his basement. us presidents:bush :: musicians:r_kelly --psb |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34508 Activity:nil |
11/1 A Failed Presidency
LA Times editorial criticizing Bush (no endorsement for Kerry)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-bush1nov01,0,6861797.story |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34503 Activity:very high |
11/1 Wow, one more day til Election. By Wed we'll know who's the next
president, how exciting!
\_ According to the highly-accurate slashdot poll, Kerry will win by
about a 5:2 margin
\_ I am going to be really pissed if Bush wins again.
\_ Don't you mean...for the FIRST TIME?!?!?!? HA HA HA HA HA
*cough* *hack* *wheeze*
\_ What is the CSUA motd opinion on some of the CA measures?
\_ if a h07 42n ch1x supports it, so do I!
\_ hot asian chicks don't vote. hence http://www.leastlikely.com
\_ Oh I want to have sex with a hot asian chick!!
\- by Wed there will be riots. If Bush wins ppl will get mad and send
out lawyers. If Kerry wins the Fox news network will distort more
views and Bush will send out troops, impose martial order, and
scare the minorities to not cheer for Kerry. |
| 2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34494 Activity:nil |
11/1 rory, I don't care about the election. Just post pictures of hot
conservative chicks and a video of you infiltrating into their right
wing conservative ultra Christian organization. And post a
3-some video of you and the 2 other dumb but hot religious
right wing chicks who think that you're also voting for the
Christian values. -don't care about the election, BushCo will
just pull out another dirty trick like 2000 |
| 2004/11/1 [ERROR, uid:34492, category id '18005#16.2225' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34492 Activity:high |
11/01 It turns out that http://www.electoral-vote.com is being run by Andrew Tanenbaum. Yes, that very Andrew Tanenbaum. Who could have possibly thought it was him? http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/votemaster-faq.html \_ Jesus fucking christ. I kept telling myself that this guy didn't understand anything about statistics because he's just some poly sci guy who's trying to figure it out on his own. As a fellow physics major, I'm embarrased on his behalf now. \_ Partisan much? He say something that doesn't toe your party line so he's a moron? Uh huh. Grow up. \_ Context clue for those of us who have none? \_ Tanenbaum's the Linux-vs-monolithic kernel anno 1991 flamefest guy, right? -John \_ yes, that guy. \_ Sheesh. Give him a break. This is, bar none, the most informative poll summary site out there, and it's free. \_ so... what is his political slant? \_ see the URL above \_ He thinks the BBC and the Guardian are neutral, fair, unbiased, and don't have an axe to grind. |
| 2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34486 Activity:very high 50%like:34333 |
10/31 How man here will emigrate from America if Bush wins?
\_ Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger promised to leave America if Bush
won. In 2000. Unfortunately, they didn't.
\_ Not really. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/leave.htm.
\_ "Alec is the biggest moralist that I know. He stands
completely behind what he says. I can very well imagine
that Alec makes good on his threat. And then I'd
probably have to go too."
Wish they had left. What the heck do celebrities know about
politics? Why do they think anyone cares?
\_ obviously you do.
\_ I don't care what they say; I do care that it's somehow
newsworthy what they say. There's more than enough real
issues out there that we shouldn't be wasting reporter
time talking to actors about their political views or
sending dozens of reporters to cover the trial of a
fertilizer salesman from Fresno which will never have the
slightest impact on our lives whatsoever.
\_ I just saw Alec on Dinner for Five responding
to this. He said: "15% of people agree with you,
15% of people hate you and want you to die. The
rest don't care." I doubt too many reporters
seek out popular media figures for their political
opinions, just the usual hype machines spewing
stuff out that the news channels pick up from
time to time. Blame Hollywood if you must,
but really you need to lighten up.
\_ Not Hollywood's fault - you stick a microphone
in someone's face, they're going to answer. I
think it's amusing that celebrities think being
a celebrity automatically makes them an authority
on politics, but that's a side point. It's media
that says they don't have the resources to cover
issues in the depth they'd like, instead
parroting the spin of the mouthpieces of
political parties and figures, and then spends
time and money covering crap like this.
\ s/celebrities/motd pundits/ Honestly, I don't
see the problem. If you disagree, let it be.
Most of us, if we had a strong belief about
something and were given a platform to
pontificate about it, would probably go for
it. -John |
| 2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34480 Activity:kinda low |
10/31 It appears that news on Iraq, OBL, healthcare, education, etc have
very little effect on the public perception of the candidates, esp
those that are protected in the religious belt region of the US.
How about dirt on the candidates? Let's say someone finds a
video footage of GWB in drag/makeup, or an intern sucking his
dick, or something to that effect. Do you think the people in the
religious belt regions would finally change their mind?
\_ Yes, they should all play Dubya flicking the bird 24/7 on
Fox News Channel
\_ Yes, they should play Dubya flicking the bird on Fox News Channel
24/7 |
| 2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34474 Activity:high |
10/31 You guys still remember the Rodney King case? When the verdict
came, people were so pissed that they started a riot? Well
\_ No, the mayor gave them the OK to riot. B4
that news conference LAPD had no calls.
me thinks the election will trigger 10X the resentment between
people of very different beliefs, each side genuinely feeling
that it is right and the other side is wrong, causing mayhem
we have not seen since the Civil Rights riots. Your opinion on
me opinion?
\_ Not likely. It's not a question of how mad people are, it's a
question of *which* people are mad. The people who rioted over
the King verdict probably mostly don't vote, or see Kerry as
just as much "the man" as Bush. Conversely, the people who think
the sky is falling are mostly professionals and intelectuals who
have never even participated in a riot and wouldn't know how to
start one.
\_ I don't think Republicans will riot if they lose.
\_ why not Democrats?
\_ you live/school in berkeley and wonder about the left
rioting? "To the Gap!" |
| 2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34467 Activity:nil |
10/30 Prediction for the week of November 3-- there will be riots, lots of
riots and we will not know who the president is until next year.
\_ dude, just let Bush win. Let him handle 4 more years of mess.
Let him fuck up so that there will be less ultra
right wing religiously close minded fanatics in 2008.
\_ I really doubt 4 more years of a bush administration will lead
to fewer religiously closed-minded right-wingnuts. What are you
smoking?
\_ A useful question to ask is what *would* lead to fewer people
following extremist religious ideology? We need to solve this
problem in more than one country right now. Electing leaders
that the wingnuts hate does not help. So what does?
\_ Electing muslim wingnuts would help. You are framing
the problem incorrectly. -- ilyas |
| 2004/10/30 [Health/Men, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34465 Activity:nil |
10/30 Dear Secret Service Men who monitors motd, aaron@csua.berkeley
says bad things about Bush and talks about killing and sodomizing
him. Please visit aaron ASAP before something really happens.
Thanks. -a concenred Patriotic conservative
\_ hi ilyas
\_ bullshit. "men who monitors?" Ilyas at least speaks English. |
| 2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34461 Activity:high |
10/30 http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=73550 ilyas, I guess next time just report aaron to the FBI. \_ Why does this story get so much milage? The girl didn't just say "some things." She said she wished someone would kill president Bush. ANY THREAT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS INVESTIGATED BY THE SECRET SERVICE. This has been true since it was made law in 1917! Get over it! PS. and yes, if aaron says he wants to kill the president, he should be visited by the Secret Service as well. \_ No Bush = Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all rolled into one \_ You forgot Genghis Kahn, Lenin, George III, Dr. Claw and Cobra Commander! \_ Yeah, Bush has killed 60 million people (that's the lowest estimate for those 3 combined) Keep thinking this way, it'll help with your therapy. |
| 2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34458 Activity:high |
10/29 More BushCo incompetence. Enough other unsecured high explosives
left sitting around to be looted to make 10s of thousands of roadside
bombs. How many more smoking guns will it take to get this chimp out
of office? 4 more days!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/10/30/international1256EDT0534.DTL
\_ Oh yeah, it was far more important to get these french,
russian explosives than it was to look for WMDs.
\_ This is what I don't get. HDX/RMX can be used as the compressor
in a nuclear device. The IAEA told us those stocks were still
there under their seal. Why wouldn't al qa qaa be one of the
first locations secured? This really seems like the highest of
incompetencies. How can you excuse it away? |
| 2004/10/30 [ERROR, uid:34456, category id '18005#3.65625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34456 Activity:nil |
10/29 Well, so much for the OBL tape having any big effect on the polls.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=917
\_ The tape only came out yesterday afternoon. The effect of anything
on the polls takes more than 8 hours in either direction. The tape
is also not the only thing going on. Be realistic.
\_ it has very little effect on the Christians because they do not
listen to what's going on in the world (killing in Iraq, OBL,
etc). They'll vote for the God chosen GWB no matter what. |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34445 Activity:moderate |
10/29 Bin Laden speaks out right before the election. Is that going
to help or hurt our great President of the United States?
This can't help, but I'm not an pigfucking inbred moronic loser:
"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat
and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting
of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to
carry out the operations, thank God," he said.
\_ Hurts Dubya. He didn't nail Osama and Osama is laughing at him.
\_ you guys realize that the Democrats are sheltering Bin Laden
for the purpose of winning the election right? -conservative
\_ How's that koolaid tonight?
\_ Are you serious? Who is the "Commander in Chief" right now?
\_ Bin Laden is taunting Bush, but also trying to persuade
Americans to vote for Kerry. So the question is: Why would
bin Laden want Kerry as President?
\_ http://andrewsullivan.com
But why release a tape just before the elections? The obvious
impact will be to help Bush. Any reminder of the 9/11 attacks
will provoke a national rallying to the commander-in-chief. The
deep emotional bond so many of us formed with the president back
then is Bush's strongest weapon in this election, and OBL has
just revived it. The real October Surprise turned out not to be
OBL's capture (sorry, Teresa!) but OBL's resilience. I have a
feeling that this will tip the election decisively toward the
incumbent. A few hours ago, I thought Kerry was headed for
victory. Now I think the opposite. I also have a sinking feeling
that that was entirely bin Laden's objective.
\_ I don't think criticism of Bush is meant to help Bush
win. How the heck do you draw that conclusion?
\_ Let's see... "Any reminder of the 9/11 attacks
will provoke a national rallying to the commander-in-chief.
The deep emotional bond so many of us formed with the
president back then is Bush's strongest weapon in this
election, and OBL has just revived it." Just a random
guess of Andrew Sullivan's thinking, of course.
\_ There is a good rebuttal to this ridiculous line of
thinking right on his own web site.
\_ It's total bs-- up til now Bush could probably claim that
Osama was buried in a cave somehow. It's not good for
Kerry, but it's definitely bad for Bush.
\_ He might be right, but Osama is pretty nuts, and his
understanding of American phychology is sketchy at best.
Who can tell what he's thinking?
\_ Derka Derka Derka?
\_ So much for the tin-foil-hat brigade saying we had him in custody
and Bush was saving him for the Oct. surprise.
\_ "Bin Laden" is a computer program in a pakistani movie
studio. The kurds will release Bin Laden (in a daring US
Army Raid) on monday.
\_ There's still 3 days. |
| 2004/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34426 Activity:moderate |
10/28 http://bakedbeaver.com/bushfighterpilot.html Bush wants to be a fighter pilot again for Halloween. \_ Lame |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34417 Activity:very high |
10/28 Mostly serious inquiry for BUSHCO supporters: If Bush were revealed to
have a catamite back at the Crawford Ranch, would you still vote for
him? If you are supporting him so that your dividends arent taxed,
is it still about the money? On the flip side, would you Clintonistas
have had a "problem" if Monica were say 15 ... I have to think the
people who defended the Mark Rich pardon would stick with him through
thick [monica] and thin. --psb
\_ This is why I think there should be a mechanism in place to
rescind the nomination and renominate on a dime. Or have a
succession plan, like the VP-hopeful becomes P-hopeful. It seems
silly to suddenly become a liberal for an election because a
conservative ended up being unusually slimy this election season.
-- ilyas
\_ Pardons cannot be defended, as there is no offense. The power
of pardon, as abused as it might be is at the discretion of the
President. Some people are more discrete than others. Personally,
I'm a good deal more bothered by Bush I's pardons than Clinton's.
\- is it not obvious i am not accusing him of doing something
illegal but hypocritical, sleazy etc w.r.t. to the marc rich
pardon. yes, this is not a great issue of state like the
nixon pardon, but i think it significant for its egregiousness
not its significance, if you see what i mean. --psb
\_ Well, I'm male, so I'm not a Clitonista, though I was a stolid
\- You know, not all the Sandinistas were women.
supporter of Clinton. But to answer your question, if he'd been
caught with a 15 year old, I'd have very sadly, and with much
grief in my heart howled for his blood.
\_ I don't think I count as a Clintonista, since I voted for Nader,
but I supported him through the impeachment hearings. But if
Monica had been 15, yes, I would have called for his hide.
\_ What is catamite and why should I care? I vote republican
not b/c of Bush. I vote for GOP candidates b/c I think
that in the long run only republicans can return us
to a "wise and frugal government" that restrains men
from injurying one another, but otherwise leaves them
free to regulate their own affairs.
\_ example: invasion of Iraq :p
I also feel that the major problems stem from stupid
socialist policies brought about by democrats (New Deal,
Great Society, &c.). Also Democrats will likely bring
about crappy social policy like abortion on demand,
legal pot, condoms for jr kids and garraige. I'm also
appalled at the prospect of a more liberal judiciary
that doesn't understand the fundamentals of federalism
and willy nilly makes law.
The last democrat I would have considered voting for is
Truman (the only bad thing I can say about Truman is
that he didn't let MacArthur win in Korea).
\_ MacArthur wanted to use *WMD* on China. Then again,
if MacArthur can open fire upon USA's own WWI veterans,
nuking civilians shouldn't be much of a moral challenge
for him.
\_ There's nothing frugal about Bush's government. The problem
with your thinking is that you're voting based on a predetermined
partisan mindset regardless of the actual candidate. You are also
falling prey to GOP scare tactics on the garriage thing which is
\_ MacArthur wanted to use *WMD* on China. Then
again, if MacArthur can open fire upon USA's own WWI
veterans, nuking civilians shouldn't be much of a
moral challenge for him.
\_ MacArthur would have solved the China problem.
The Bonus March was probably not the smartest
thing to do, but I agree w/ MacArthur's view
that "we fought for our country, not for money".
\_ There's nothing frugal about Bush's government. The
problem with your thinking is that you're voting based
on a predetermined partisan mindset regardless of the
actual candidate. You are also falling prey to GOP
scare tactics on the garriage thing which is
\_ BUSH = DRAFT!!!!!```11one~uno!!!
ridiculous.
\_ Can you seriously tell me that any Democrat
will roll back the progressive income tax?
Can you honestly tell me that any Democrat
will reduce social programs? Which Democrat
will tell kids to stop taking drugs and
having sex and stay in school and study?
How many Democrats really advocate personal
responsibility? Also which Democrats truly
will put America first and go against world
stupidity (need I remind you that Democrats
were opposed to Zero Option and were pro
detente)? |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34408 Activity:low |
10/28 Bush campaign admits doctoring campaign ad image:
http://csua.org/u/9p5 (yahoo! news)
Please don't nuke.
\- as has been established, i'm no fan of BUSHCO, but why
is this interesting/disturbing/bad? --psb
Please don't nuke. |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:34407 Activity:nil |
10/28 This is funny. And I do agree that Bush is an effective leader.
Lead us to wrong directions, but an effective leader never the less:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/opinion/27kristof.html
username / pw = bobbob
\_ obLongUnproductiveThreadAboutWhatEffectiveLeaderWrongDirectionMeans
\_ America, fuck yeah!!!!
\_ That is funny. Thank you. |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34403 Activity:moderate |
10/28 Here you go, Partha. Actual Economist endorsement of Kerry:
http://csua.org/u/9oz (economist.com)
\_ The editor, Bill Emmott, put it this way: "It was a difficult
call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the
war in Iraq. But in the end we felt he has been too incompetent to
deserve re-election."
\_ Summary: Guantanamo bad!!! Waaaaaa!!! Nothing to recommend for
Kerry. And apperently they haven't actually read the Geneva
Convention resolutions.
\_ where does it say "parade people around naked and make
them masturbate into the mouths of the prisoner over there
and have some dumbass from virginia take photos of them"?
\_ Um, that didn't happen in Guantanamo you idiot. That was Abu
Ghraib in Iraq.
\_ That's what you think! - seymour
\_ Why do people keep forgetting that in a two-candidate system,
any refutation of one candidate automatically recommends the
other candidate?
\_ "You're either with us or against us in the fight against
terror." -GW Bush
America, Fuck Yeah!!!!1!
\_ Which is why you should always vote *for* someone instead of
*against* someone.
\_ If your choice is between handing a loaded gun to the guy
who just shot you in the foot and some guy who hasn't shot
you in the foot yet, go with the guy who hasn't shot you
yet. He *might* shoot you, but the other guy *will* shoot
you.
\_ I'm voting for the guy who isn't George W. Bush!
\_ Hint: it's not "instead of". You do both, unless you don't
vote at all, which would accomplish nothing.
\_ Holding people indefinitely without trial or right to council
or right to defend themselves or even know what the charges
or right to defend themselves or even to know what the charges
against them are seems fundamentally unamerican to me. -ausman
\_ Yeah, at least Dubya could have done what the JAGs
argued very strenuously for: some way to vet all the
detainees and some kind of a process.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34401 Activity:high |
10/28 Smoking gun on the explosives issue:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102904Y.shtml
\_ Liberal media consipracy. Jason Blair. CBS. NANANANANA
CAN'T HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAR YOU.
\_ This isn't anything like a smoking gun for anyone seeking a real
answer. Your link says that they don't know what they were
looking at. It says the place was looted but it would have been
"unlikely" anyone could haul 380 tons of anything away while the
streets were "jammed with American armor". This is a very serious
issue and you're making a big fucking joke of it. If the stuff was
gone before we got there, we need to know that. If it was somehow
looted (all 380 tons) by the guys with the pickup truck mentioned
in your link, then we need to know that. If it was moved to Syria
or just other places inside the country which had 1 *million tons
of other crap all over the place, we need to know that. Your link
is speculation, not fact and certainly not a smoking gun. No one
needs to cry out "liberal bias!" to see your link doesn't say what
you say it says. Your link isn't biased. It reports facts. You
are spinning the facts presented by the media into biased and
unsubstantiated conclusions.
\_ see first comment
\_ http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1
Couldn't be clearer.
Yahoo News on the analysis:
link:csua.org/u/9pc
\_ The second URL doesn't go anywhere.
\_ There has been no smoking gun. It's STILL not clear what happened
to the 380 tons of RDX/HMX between March and May 2003. Securing
this facility was not a priority for Dubya -- finding bio,
chemical, and more significant nuclear components was his priority.
\_ No it wasn't. This was one of the biggest friggin
NUCLEAR sites in Iraq!
\_ What else besides RDX/HMX was nuclear-related at
Al-Qaqaa in March, 2003?
\_ A huge amount of dual use manufacturing and
research equipment. Also all looted.
\_ Are you sure this was at Al-Qaqaa?
What is clear? The general problem of not having enough troops,
widespread looting of explosives from arms sites and from every
public institution that began immediately after Baghdad fell (if
not earlier), and the post-war plan being botched in general.
\_ What are "proximity fuses" made out of? This is a serious
question. |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34395 Activity:high |
10/27 Economist endorses Kerry. Come on, someone be snarky!
\_ GIRLY MAN ECONOMICS!!1!!1!!!
\_ Ok. BUSH/CHENEY! THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES EVEN CONSERVATIVES HATE
\_ let's see the URL
\_ It's in their subscriber only content for now. But here's
someone who was kind enough to transcribe the print for you:
http://csua.org/u/9ou (foreigndispatches.typepad.com)
If you do happen to have a subscription, the article is here:
http://csua.org/u/9ov (economist.com)
\-I think the E'ist will endorse Kerry if they do endorse
somebody [and I'd be surprised if they didnt ... they
live for this kind of thing]. The E'ist was really angry
about AbuG and Guantanamo, they are not religious fanatics,
the dont get nervous when the hear the "dont change horses
midstream" rhetoric ... they know Kerry wont give Manhattan
to the UN, the Louisiana Purchase back to France and TX back
to Mexico. The may be slightly worried about some of Kerry's
tax plans and protectionism and I think Kerry's recent semi-
disingenuous claims may have slightly tainited his position
in academic terms, but it's a nasty election and BUSHCO made
it that way. We'll find out in the next 24 hrs. The trajectory
of my thinking at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP --psb
of my wondering at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP --psb
\_ Wow. Check out the big brain on psb. After reading a
magazine for how many years? he finaly picks up on how
they think. Way to go,psb. And thanks for sharing. -saarp
\-you've been alive for how many yrs and have yet
to pick up how to think? [is this really you?] --psb
\_ I see. So by inference, since you supposedly
have picked up this skill, you have free license
brag about it? One thing I have picked up:
those who boast usually have little to boast
about. And for the record, it is I. -saarp
\- i guess we'll have to recalibrate.
this is like finding out absolute
zero is lower than you thought it
was. --psb
\_ Bush made this election season nasty? Bush was dead silent
through the entire Democratic primary season where they
spent their time trying to out-smear the man. Sheesh, how
much more deluded or self blind can a guy get? For a guy
who claims to know so much and be so informed, you come
across as very ignorant and biased.
\_ Why is the free link dated in January?
\_ Sorry, I linked to the wrong article. Sully mentions the
new article here and quotes a paragraph of it:
http://csua.org/u/9oy (andrewsullivan.com)
I will try to find a link to the real article.
Here it is, for free from the Economist itself.
I'm going to delete the old links above:
http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3329802 |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34391 Activity:moderate |
10/27 "There was another election season, back in 1952, when a presidential
contest seemed too close to call, America worried it was vulnerable to
attack, and a single company dominated computing."
http://tinyurl.com/5qk8f
\_ Univac predicts landslide victory for Bush in CA!!11!1!!
\_ Univac's polling completely ignores circuits which use
transistors and no longer have a conventional vacuum tube.
\_ Thanks Captain Obvious. And your point?
\_ It's a joke on people criticizing the Gallup poll
methodology.
\_ The Univac I used mercury delay line memory. Very cool technology.
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-univac-mercury-memory.jpg
\_ Looks like a jet engine.
It appears that the delay line was only used as a stack. Had they
implemented a time-slot-based memory system, they could have used
the delay line for random access, and this would have presaged the
later Rambus architecture. Of course, a time-slot based system
would have been too complicated to implement given 1950 technology.
\_ The Univac I use cleans my carpet well. I'm waiting to upgrade to
Multivac which can clean two rooms in parallel.
\_ Which single company dominates computing today? Microsoft? Intel?
IBM?
\_ Actually, it's Apple
\_ Microsoft is only small stuff. Intel is small and mid-sized.
IBM has their finger in everything. But I don't think there is
one single company that owns computing in that sense anymore.
\_ Uhhh... Yeah, sure. Whatever. |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34388 Activity:moderate |
10/27 Form 180. Bush signed it. Kerry did not. Where is the media?
\_ It was probably there when Bush announced that he signed it.
\_ Bush did not sign it: 'At the White House, press secretary
Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether
Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did
request and release his own military records in February.
"I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize
making his military records available publicly," Mr. McClellan
said.' Why do you and Rush Limbaugh keep lying about this?
\_ He ordered the release of his records as an Executive Order as
some flashy PR stunt. What has Kerry done?
\_ So, has Dubya signed Form 180, as op has written?
\_ Nope. Do you think an Executive Order is less than F180?
What has Kerry done?
\_ Do you think just repeating Executive Order actually
defines what the order actually specified?
\_ You tell me which of these EOs applies and I might
be able to answer your question:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/wbush_subjects.html
\_ So I am still waiting for the number of the executive
order that Bush supposedly signed to release his records.
I went through all of them and could not find one that
could possibly be it. I think the Bush campaign is lying.
Again.
\_ No, a random Bush supporter was wrong. Some of us Bush
supporters are just as hacked-off at Bush for not signing
form 180 as we are at Kerry for the same thing. |
| 2004/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign] UID:34375 Activity:high |
10/26 Vote Bush! Let's not repeat 2000 again.
\_ You so funny!
\_ Not really. If your single issue is the importance of the
voting process and the long term health of our nation's most
basic principlesm then voting for the guy ahead in the polls
is the most likely way to lopside them enough to avoid further
lawsuits and post-election uncertainty.
\_ ...by that logic, giving all your money to people who look
threatening is a great way to avoid getting mugged. It's true,
but it's missing the point.
\_ Well, it's more like if you're going to get raped anyway,
you might as well supply your assailant with a condom.
\_ no, it is saying that there is a greater issue at stake
than which guy will fuck up the country for 4 years.
\_ Whereas the point is that one guy is definitely going to
fuck up the country, while the other guy stands a good
chance of _not_ fucking up the country.
\_ Wheew! Another Bush supporter on the motd!
\_ The trick is to figure out which guy is which.
That's why there's a horse race.
\_ Right, I'm having difficulty deciding between the
guy who's been lying to me and shooting the
country in the foot for the last four years and
the guy who wants a chance to try something new.
\_ I'm sure you think you're on the right. I'm
also as sure there are just as many people on
the opposite side who think they're on the
right. That's why there's a horse race. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34372 Activity:very high |
10/26 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html (username / pw = bobbob) Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test. \_ The difference is that Kerry didn't spend his 20s and 30s doing blow. \_ That explains a lot. :-P \_ Boy, it sure is a good thing that IQ tests and ratings are such a meaningful and credible measure of an individual's intelligence. I'm glad I can estimate either candidate's intellectual fiber based on this decisive piece of information. -John \_ Whoops, there's a small problem here. Gottfredson, the psych. prof. who made the correlation, took the candidates' rankings on their respective Officer Qualifying Tests and directly correlated those ranks to IQ tests. Since Bush was in the 95th percentile of his class for the AFQT, Gottfredson extrapolated that he had an IQ of corresponding rank. However, the 1960s AFQT, like the ASVAB, was an aptitude test, not an IQ test. Drawing correlations between the two is more like comparing Fujis to Grannies than apples to oranges, but it's still prone to significant errors. What the AFQT does tell us, however, is that GWB is not a moron, but Bush-watchers already knew that; he's much too cunning to misunderestimate. \_ psb said Bush was a ChimpBrain. Surely, the great psb was not wrong. You have a fault in your reasoning somewhere. \- When Bush first emerged on the scene, I thought he looked like Alfred E. Newman. I have since decided he looks more like a Chimp. I do not believe he is an especially bright fellow, but I also dont believe most people are especially bright. I agree that he is smarter than a lot of the people who call him an idiot ... same goes for Rush Limbaugh. Most of the people calling them idiots could not give a 30min talk and a fair number of them probably could not tell you who Francois Mitterand was. Of the presidents since 1980, Bill Clinton is the only one I would call "really smart". BUSH's and RUSH have serious character defects but they arent idiots [which doesnt make them geniuses either]. It's actually fun to ask people ranting about how dumb Bush is "do you think he is dumber than <name some dull acquaintance>". As I asked on wall previously, "who would you rather have as president: bush or saarp?" --psb \-BTW, I also think intellectual curiosity counts for a lot. A friend of mine at Berkeley who used to get A+ in upper div physics classes [including from people like Steiner, if that means anything to you] once said "I thought Cambodia was in Africa ... because that is where all the starving people are." This guy was a genius when it came to physics problem sets but you dont want him running the world. I am not sure I want somebody who says "jesus is my favorite philosopher" or "sovereignty is sovereignty" running much of the planet. Yes, I know Bush understand legislative nuance and is being disingenuous with comments like "he voted for/against it". Yes I agree not one person in 50 who laughed at the sovereignty comment could have defined sovereignty. --psb \_ Wait, not being a moron somehow equates to not being a chimp- brain? Being smart is no defense against being wrong and morally bankrupt (cf. Richard Cheney). \_ I'm confused. I keep hearing Bush is stupid and incompetent. If so, how did he get the Whitehouse, is ahead in polls for a second term, foll John Kerry and others into voting for the war, fool millions of Americans and the media on a continuous basis and pack the supreme court with right wing partisans? \_ You *are* confused, but it has nothing to do with the fallacious "points" you bring up. \_ Could you please explain? Thank you. \_ Sure. You believe that getting into the White House, maintaining a good approval rating, and lying to a bunch of Senators about how he's only going to use war as a last resort somehow requires intelligence and the ability to be a good President. It doesn't. You can do much the same with a well-oiled political machine, a popular tough-guy image, and a heaping serving of arrogance and bravado. That's where you're confused. You're welcome. \_ Hey confused boy: Dubya delivered his GOP convention speech very well, spreading the gap as much as 51% Dubya, 39% Kerry. Yet, he looked like a total d00f during the debates, especially debate 1. Therein will you find your answer. \_ Who would win in a debate between W and PSB? \_ That's easy, PSB would just get thrown in Gitmo. As for "foll [sic] Kerry ... into voting for the war", Kerry voted for war authority, not for war. Purportedly only the President has the best intelligence and perspective to make the final call to take the country to war. Let me remind you that the Senate never saw conflicting reports on aluminum tubes from the Energy department, unlike the President. \_ Kerry wouldn't have seen any reports anyway since he hardly ever showed at any Senate Intelligence meetings. \_ Now I'm reaaaally confused. Since the polls you're implicitly citing changed their voter mix calculations at the same time as the debates and I keep reading that the polls don't mean anything anyway, at least when GWB is up. Please help! \_ Where do you keep reading this? Certainly not on the motd. Wherever you keep going to read misinformation, stop it. \_ It's standard (D) spin. I watch the news shows, I see the Kerry people saying the polls don't matter. The Kerry campaign is my source of misinformation. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34371 Activity:moderate |
10/26 Majority of Bush supporters believe things that simply
are not true:
http://www.pipa.org
\_ http://Pipa.org?
\_ Being a Bush supported would have to mean you at least partially
believe that "Bush is a good President", so you're already in a
world of make-believe! |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34365 Activity:very high |
10/26 So now that almost every major newspaper has endorsed Kerry does
this prove the notion of a liberal media? Why would newspapers
controlled by mega-national corporations throw in with Kerry?
\_ No, and because Bush is a radical.
\_ Dude! I totally agree! Bush is gnarly!
\_ If you're not trolling, you may wish to look up the word
'radical'
\_ Try googling "define:joke"
\_ This will be only the 3rd time that the democrat presidential
candidate has had more endorsements from newspapers than the
republican, since Editor and Publisher magazine started tracking
them in 1940 (the other two were Johnson in 1964 and Clinton in
1992). At least 35 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 are endorsing
Kerry this time, while only four who endorsed Gore are endorsing
Bush. And this is despite a tendency of papers to endorse sticking
with incumbents. So no, it doesn't "prove the notion of a liberal
media," it helps demonstrate just how terrible Bush has been.
\_ Nooo! Do not you bring your facts here! They are not
compatible with my blind partisan indoctrination!!! -op
\_ Question: if Bush wins, does that mean the print media is out of
the mainstream? Shouldn't the paper endorsements roughly follow
the country's nearly-even split?
\_ Yes. No, unless you want the papers to tell the people
what they already think.
\_ BZZZT! on point 2. These are editorial opinions. If the
newspaper people are "just like the rest of us" then they
should have roughly the same opinion split. Unless of
course you feel newspaper people are somehow more
enlightened and posses superior intellect and moral
status. If you believe that you haven't met enough
newspaper people.
\_ newspaper editors have significantly more education
than the general population, and also pay more
attention to the news; therefore they should, on
average, have "better" opinions than the median
American. -tom
\_ Am I the only one who sees a certain circularity
to this argument?
\_ No, it's just a tom thing. At least he's honest
about his mistaken belief that newspaper people
are better than the rest of us.
\_ What is mistaken about my belief? Specifically,
I think newspaper editors have more education
and pay more attention to the news than the
median American. I think they are more likely
to know Kerry's and Bush's positions on the
issues, for example. I don't think they are
"better"; they just have a more educated and
informed opinion than the general population.
The same is probably true of computer
programmers. -tom
\_ Here tom, let me spell it out for you.
Newspaper editors help create the news we
see. Therefore, when the editors 'pay
attention to the news' as you say, they
are paying attention to something
that other newspaper editors helped create.
There is a circularity in this system.
\_ I gave a specific example; I think
newspaper editors are more likely
to know what Bush and Kerry's positions
on the issues really are. I don't have
a poll of newspaper editors to show you,
but there are a number which show that
the American public has no fucking clue.
-tom
\_ You guys should be arguing specifics,
say, the Washington Post.
I don't think you'll get anywhere talking
about "newspaper editors" and "the
median American", apart from irritating
each other.
\_ Link? Which papers? I don't care about the Podunk Review in
Lincoln, Nebraska. I disagree with the definition of 'major'
below but certainly it is not so wide as to have 35 papers
flipflop. I am not sure the universe includes 35 papers.
\_ You should care about the Podunk Review. Millions of people
read the PR across America and take it seriously.
\_ http://csua.org/u/9nv [editorandpublisher]
\_ Thanks. So what do you think a reasonable cut-off for
circulation is?
\_ Since the circulation numbers are being rigged (they're
outright fabrivations to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
outright fabrications to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
make sense to have a circulation based cut-off.
\_ The alternative? I imagine they are 'rigged'
equally. Only relative size matters, not
absolutes.
\_ Why do you imagine all newspapers are equally
criminal? But let's follow your reasoning
anyway: a newspaper with a real 100,000 readers
inflates by 10%, another one with 1,000,000
readers inflates by 10%. The first has created
10k non-existing people, the second has created
100k.
\_ Uh, so? The idea is to identify the
largest papers, not to guess at their
actual circulation.
\_ Your "universe" is small and tiny, as yermom described among
other things.
\_ Even if we grant that newspaper people
may know better what each candidate's
beliefs and policies are (which I
still dispute but enough on that), to
know more about a topic is not the
same as being correct about ones
conclusions on that topic. Having
knowledge does not make one's opinion
more "right". Don't confuse raw fact
oriented knowledge with wisdom.
\_ The major newspapers are:
The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. (the latter three have not
made an endorsement)
\_ Don't forget The San Francisco Examiner and the Washington Times.
\_ These are tier 2 or lower, along with:
the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, and all the other
newspapers.
\_ Tribune owns the LA Times.
\_ These aren't even second tier. Neither one is in the top 100
papers in the country by circulation.
\_ The Washington *Times* has endorsed Kerry? Seriously?
\_ Follow the sub-thread, please! The topic is:
Identifying the major newspapers.
\_ funny, how most of these majors also called Kerry a crackpot
for making a link between Iran/Contra and CIA cocaine trading,
and after the CIA said it was true years later, put the news
well behind the front page. irony.
\_ What are you talking about? The CIA has never admitted
links to cocaine trafficking.
\_ CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz admitted that "there are
instances where the CIA did not, in an expeditious or
consistent fashion, cut off relations with individuals
supporting the contra program who were alleged to have
engaged in drug trafficking activity."
\_ Which is nothing like, "The CIA engaged in the cocaine
trade to fund secret off-book programs" which is what
the original accusation is about. The Cold War was a
dirty fight for survival. The CIA existed to do
exactly that sort of dirty work and deal with those
sorts of people. Lesser of two evils and all that.
\_ Shrug. The original thread was about how Kerry
was not off his rocker about there being a link.
It also directs evidence against the guy who wrote
"What are you talking about? The CIA has never
admitted links to cocaine trafficking".
\_ A "link"? Of course there was "a link". That
is who the CIA was created to deal with, duh.
Did you really prefer the Carter version of
Cold War intel where the CIA wasn't supposed to
talk to "bad people"? You're still mixing two
different issues: a "link" vs "selling" cocaine.
A "link" is meaningless FUD.
\_ You're off-topic, sodan. The comment was
directed toward the "CIA never admitted" guy.
\_ Isn't it obvious by now... based on Sandy Berger, Jayson Blair,
ANG Memos, SVFT, Kerry's post war activities and now this
'missing explosives' fraud??
\_ I can't see all that through the bottom of my kool aid glass.
\_ When the media pushes Kerry as hard to sign Form 180 as they
beat up Bush over his military records, I'll believe they're
something other than partisan left wing hacks. When they tell us
about Kerry meeting Madame Binh in Paris while still an active
duty officer for the US military, I'll believe. When they say
they're sorry and they fucked up with the bogus Bush documents
instead of spinning it into some bullshit "false but accurate"
which only an extreme leftish partisan finds acceptable, I'll
believe. When they stop write large print headlines in response
to positive Bush admin job news that say, "BONDS DROP ON JOBS
REPORT!", I'll believe. The list goes on, but my fingers are
getting sore. You get the idea.
\_ It's hard work. I know how hard it is.
\_ Yes, being an honest and unbiased media person is hard
work. Our mainstream media has failed miserably. Mostly,
because they're not even trying.
\_ Bush still has not signed his form 180 and Bush documents
are still leaking out.
\_ Thank you for making my point. The media has bashed the shit
out of Bush on this issue but has completely ignored it in
Kerry's case. In trying to attack Bush you have made my
point on this thread's topic which is about the biased Media.
\- Does anybody know how many papers that endorsed BUSH2000 are
endorsing KERRY04. Are there any papers that endorsed ALGOR
who are now endorsing BUSH? Even 1? [chicago?] --psb
\_ There are about 37 switches for kerry. i can't remember
how many for bush. one of the links above has the totals.
http://csua.org/u/9nv --scotsman
http://csua.org/u/9nv
Better: http://csua.org/u/9o7
--scotsman
\_ The Denver Post endorsed Gore and is endorsing Bush.
There are two others.
\_ Fortunately, the people decide, not newspaper editors in
this country. Endorsements will carry little weight as
most papers have a bias which leads to readship which
shares that bias. The SF Chron wouldn't survive in OC,
for example. The OC Register wouldn't make it in SF.
\_ you don't think nazi sympathizing and union busting
would play in OC? The SF Chron recently fired a
reporter for attending an anti-war rally; they are
not any kind of liberal bastion. -tom |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34359 Activity:nil |
10/26 Media Watchdog: 'October Surprise' Blows Up in Faces of
NY Times
NyTimes pulls a CBS
http://csua.org/u/9no
\_ "Cybercast News Service"? Whoizzat?
\_ right-wing news outlet. Media Research Center is a right-wing
source as well. You better believe the right-wing is spinning
this as much as they can: Dubya lost 380 tons of HMX and RDX
(not just artillery shells and general-use explosives) at a site
we knew about and that the IAEA explicitly warned the U.S. about
before the invasion ("hey dumbshits, don't forget about the
Al-Qaqaa site with the stuff that can start a fissile reaction").
\_ Uhh, it is becoming increasingly clear that the NBC story
was wrong. The troops were jsut there for a resting stop
and no inspections were done. If there were 380 TONS of high
explosives taken from the facility in the month leading up to
the start of the war don't you think people would have known?
I mean shit you don't think we had every single satalite we could
looking at places like MAJOR AMMO DUMPS. you can spin away but
it might be better if you jsut faced facts for once. There was
NO postwar planning. Bush and co really thought that the iraqis
would rush to love us and everythin would be wonderful. The fact
that they are still refusing to admit their mistakes is leading
to disaster after disaster in Iraq.
\_ Like the Bush ANG memos eh? I should just believe the 'facts',
as in whatever the Jayson Blair says is a fact.
\_ NBC pulled the story. Get a grip.
\_ Uh, hardly any of the oil refineries were affected during the same
time period, unlike Al-Qaqaa; the "it was gone before we got there"
excuse is incredibly stupid.
\_ Of course it was gone before we got there. If you take your sweet
ass time guarding sites other than the oil ministry it gives the
bad guys plenty of time to steal explosives. The only alternative
"It was stolen right under our noses" makes no sense because if you
actually assigned people to guard the stuff nobody could have simply
waltzed off for it. Saying "It was gone before we got there" is a
bit like saying "Things are always in the last place you look".
\_ Uh, it was last seen before the war, like 5 years before. Do you
have any clue about this story at all? Let's blame Bush for
the missing gas Saddam used on the Kurds. After all, it could
have been there JUST before the Americans got there...
\_ What was last seen before the war, like 5 years before?
Are you talking about the RDX and HMX at Al-Qaqaa?
\_ No it was last seen shortly before gulf war 2. There were
inspectors in iraq shortly before the US told them to bug
out because war was coming. This was one of the sites they
had under inspection. |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34355 Activity:high |
10/26 Why are you a Democrat? Why are you a Republican? What is the
top reason you belong to either party?
\_ I am independent but I hate Democrats because they want to decide
everything for you, except what happens in the bedroom.
\_ I am a democrat for exactly one reason: George W. Bush. I was always
an independent before.
\_ Yes, I am precisely democrat for the same reason. I was pretty
neutral before, but GWB truely showed me what Republicans
are made of.
\_ I wouldn't go that far. If anything, i've become much more
willing to listen to moderate republicans over the last
four years, and I have in fact found that I have far more
in common with them than I would have thought. It's
just that one man, and some of his more wingnut cabinet
members.
\_ You are right, it is also men like Tom Delay and Bill
First. The moderates are totally cowed by the extreme
wing of the party, and until that changes there is no
moderate republican party.
\_ I'm a Democrat because I want to work within the system to improve
it. The Republican Party is full of assholes who justify their
beliefs and actions with survival of the fittest - and who wants to
party with people like that? If Republicans were just about smaller
government and having a safety net for the poor without this asshole
attitude and the derived characteristics, I'd probably be a
Republican. Why not just be an independent? You can always vote
for the other guy or criticize other Democrats as a Democrat.
\_ Independents get no say in the primaries.
\_ I grew up poor, and I believe in the "democrat" policies that helped
poor families like mine and now my family is pretty well off.
I don't mind paying more taxes to paybackk for the government
services I received in school like financial aid. I am democrat.
\_ I am democrat because I hate Republicans. They tend to be arrogant
and have no respect for other people.
\_ Nice troll!
\_ http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
\_ I am a Republican because I am stupid and evil. Once, a long
time ago, I was smart and good and a Democrat just like you.
\_ I was ignorant and blandly neutral until I came to Cal. After a
few years of seeing the left completely unfiltered, I found them
deeply intellectually dishonest, hostile, angry, mean, bitter,
and unworthy of serious consideration. I vote Republican because
they're the other major party and I've never met Republicans as
vicious and mean spirited as the left I met at Cal.
\_ I didn't have this experience when I attended 92-97, but I would
say (like Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary) they're
just stupid liberals, and stupidity is common to both parties,
and to independents as well. I would actually say my experience
(during Cal and since Cal) has actually been the opposite of
yours. -liberal
\_ I have the impression that states tend to be more strongly
polarized Repulican or Democratic. What are the top R and D
states? Do R or D states tend to do better (not in the fun-to-
live-in sense, but in the fiscal/crime/social services/education
sense)? CA is pretty screwed up. Is the equivalent Republican
state (TX?) equally screwed up? Does anyone know of relevant
research?
\_ I realize this is not exactly what you're talking about, but
it's interesting:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gspmap/mappage.asp
Blue states have higher per capita state domestic product.
If you broke it down by county, I think you'd see something
much more dramatic. When you actually look at the numbers,
it's the republicans who are the non-productive welfare
whores. Just look at the water projects in the western
states.
\_ Do you really need to ask motd?
\_ Most D states are along the coasts. R states are anywhere in
between. You be the judge.
\_ You don't know either, huh?
\_ What you have to understand is that there are really three
American political parties, the Republicans, Democrats
and Appropriators (to quote Dick Armey and Trent Lott). Most
Dems are Appropriators, and alot of Repubs (RINOs) are also.
The fiscal discipline (and other successes) of the 1990s
resulted when the small government conservative contingent
of Congress was able briefly take control in the 1994 elections,
aka the Contract with America. After Newt left, Congress
slowly returned to normal, although with a different letter in
charge.
\_ Fine. The question remains though. Which states are doing
better? Is TX as screwed up as CA? Is NY as screwed up as
GA? |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34354 Activity:high |
10/26 BoingBoing has a list of news organizations that typically stay away
from political endorsements (or otherwise would predictably be in the
Bush camp) that are currently endorsing Kerry:
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/26/boingboing_endorses_.html
\_ My favorite are when they advertise articles from anti-Bush
conservatives but when you read closely and look up the authors
they're all card carrying libertarians. I got a big kick out of
the Cato Institutate article that Salon posted in full for free
because they felt the message was "so important". |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34351 Activity:low |
10/26 Creepy. Rat brain cells + computer control F-22 simulation
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041018/brain.html
\- ChimpBrain controls world's largest economy and military. --psb
http://csua.org/u/9ni
\_ You're one post too high troll boy.
\_ Is this the real psb? I didn't think he was this brain dead, and
he's supposed to end with "ok. tnx".
\_ Don't you know, psb is a 'kantian.'
\-IAJS,YSTL. --psb
\-Hello, ok tnx. |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34348 Activity:kinda low |
10/26 Insufficient trolling. Please insert troll to continue.
\_ I think all illegal aliens should be shot. What do you think?
\_ Would you raise taxes to buy the bullets?
\_ Here's a good one from OSC
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-10-17-2.html |
| 2004/10/26-27 [ERROR, uid:34344, category id '18005#2.7' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34344 Activity:low |
10/26 "Stolen Honor" uploaded to /tmp for all those interested. You
may have silenced Sinclair but not the motd.
\_ All extremist trolling aside, the reason for not showing SH on
Sinclair just before the election was that it's propaganda on
public airwaves; there's nothing wrong with (and indeed much that's
laudable in) giving the general public the option of viewing the
film at some private venue (or online). Political speech is well
and truly a good thing; it was the time and place that marred the
Sinclair plan.
\_ I thought they might have been able to get away with it if
they at least showed advertising during the showing. With
no immediate profit motive, it looked really wierd.
\_ Does it bother you at all that Kitty Kelly got 3 full days of
free air time to push her anti-Bush book on TV? Was that wrong?
\_ Two things. 1) Your whine boils down to "The FACTS are
partisan!" and 2) Kitty Kelly is credible, and you'll
note her "anti-Bush" factual book has not gotten her sued.
Contrast with Carltoon Sherwood left to you, bitch. --aaron |
| 2004/10/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34340 Activity:very high |
10/25 Is it true that you have to sign a loyalty oath before being
admitted to a Bush campaign rally?
\-_ and rat out a jew
\_ I thought you had to infect him with ebola and collect money
to have him raped? (not necessarily in that order) -- ilyas
P.S. Your jokes are in bad taste and on strict reading are
a solicitation of violence. Maybe if I say I feel threatened
and sleep with the current CSUA president, I could get wall
shut down!
\_ why do you automatically think the above was about
you? - danh
\_ for someone who isn't interested in what wall has to say
you sure pay a lot of attention to it.
\_ I grep for my name in the logs. I started doing it more
since my name started popping up more. -- ilyas
\_ for someone who isn't interesting in what wall has
to say you sure pat a lot of attention to it.
\_ Oh, how wrong I was. It was very revealing indeed.
-- ilyas
\_ Whine whine whine.
\_ is this the motd version of a push poll? - danh |
| 2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34337 Activity:low |
10/25 The New Yorker magazine endorses a presidential candidate for the
first time in its 80-year history. Who? George W. Bush! Not!
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors
"As a variety of memoirs and journalistic accounts have made plain,
Bush seldom entertains contrary opinion. He boasts that he listens to
no outside advisers, and inside advisers who dare to express unwelcome
views are met with anger or disdain. He lives and works within a
self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation. Nowhere has his
solipsism been more damaging than in the case of Iraq. The arguments
and warnings of analysts in the State Department, in the Central
Intelligence Agency, in the uniformed military services, and in the
chanceries of sympathetic foreign governments had no more effect than
the chants of millions of marchers."
\_ has any major media outlet endorsed bush except
the new york post and the washington times?
\_ I was stunned that The New Yorker would would endorse Kerry.
Stunned, I tell you. And I was so sure that they were pro-Bush too.
\_ The American Conservative magazine endorses Kerry:
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
"Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing
president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office
will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations."
\_ which part of "major media outlet" did you not understand?
\_ you funny guy! that comment posted OUTSIDE this thread,
and AFTERWARDS. Americans so fucking illiterate!
\_ Right. This is a mucher stronger endorsement. I would lead
with this and mention The New Yorker in an OBTW.
\_ The take-home message is that Dubya is perceived to be so
bad (IMO, he is that bad) that sources that have
traditionally sat it out or endorsed the Republican are
endorsing Kerry or not endorsing any candidate.
\_ Now, if only we can get David Duke or some other Klan guy
to endorse Kerry because Bush has behaved like the caricature
of a racist... |
| 2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34333 Activity:low 50%like:34486 |
10/25 Can we have a riot if Bush wins?
\_ Only if you'd like to have your rights stripped away and
spend a lot of time in Guantanamo. Oh wait, our rights've
already been eroded.
\_ We had one for 2000! Dubya's limo was pelted with eggs from an
angry mob on inauguration day!
\_ This is Berkeley. You don't need a reason to riot.
\_ Ooh! Ooh! I got first dibs on The Gap! |
| 2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34331 Activity:low |
10/25 Strong soviet leader prefers Bush. (yahoo news)
http://tinyurl.com/3ngsc
\_ NASCAR supports Bush, which is much more important.
"I'm not an issue guy," Waltrip said. "I know the man."
I really think that's what it comes down to for most people. Most
people aren't geeks or political junkies, so for them all the
discussion of this and that policy detail is irrelevant. The only
things that resonate are the guy's general charisma and the
play-on-emotion stuff like gay/god/gun/abortion shit. And Bush
kicked the ass of them terrists.
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/10/21/twins102104.html
\_ Al Qaeda supports Bush, too. With Bush, they have an easier time
recruiting suicide bombers.
\_ No, they're still using the same idiots as before.
\_ "their" is possessive. "they're" is the contraction of
"they are".
\_ uh, and he is saying "they are." -tom
\_ To replace the ones Bush killed. I'm sure Al Qaeda is really
happy about losing an entire country to use as their own personal
training facility and play ground and is really happy to see
American tanks rolling through Falluja. It has all become so
clear to me now.
\_ They don't care how many Bush killed (since they can recruit
same number that are killed). They are enjoying how
many US soldiers they are killing each day.
\_ They who? The AlQ leaders who are dead or captured? Could
you please cite something, anything, even from Al Jazeera
that says they want Bush in office because it helps them
recruit instead of claiming your own opinion as fact. Do
you actually hang out with AlQ leadership?
\_ So I guess the only reasonable response to AlQ in your
opinion is to cave to their demans?
\_ Trying to fight them by sending tons of troops out to
roam the countryside is stupid. It makes our guys an
easy target and causes lots of innocents deaths, which
undermines our support among the moderate population.
If we attacked them using good intelligence, making
friends with the locals, and only using our troops in
small targeted raids, we'd have fewer US casualties,
a more friendly populace, and we'd be killing enemy
leaders, not just their cannon fodder. -!pp
\_ Nice insertion of the laughable Al Quada/Saddam connection
meme. |
| 2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34330 Activity:high |
10/25 Can this be? Will Bush really win again? I hope that http://CNN.com poll is not accurate of the american public's true opinion.. \_ The poll results are diverging; there's too much noise in the system. -tom \_ What is your source for diverging polls? Try this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com http://www.realclearpolitics.com \_ http://pollingreport.com but they have the same data. Try plotting the polls against each other; they were much closer to converged in August and September. -tom \_ http://pollingreport2.com/#bars http://csua.org/u/9n5 (Post graphic) CNN uses Gallup. Zogby said Gallup sucks. \_ "My competitor sucks! Buy my product instead!" \_ http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/050971.php "While being diplomatic, Zogby basically said Gallup's numbers are junk. They use different methodologies but Gallup's variations from poll to poll are too big to be creditable. In Zogby's polling Kerry and Bush both bounce between 44 an 48, and haven't deviated from that range." blah, blah, you can read the rest. \_ Translation, "Buy my election reports! I can only make real money every 4 years with a small bonus lump during mid-terms!" \_ You're supposed to also check both URLs to see how Gallup compares to other polls. The Post also has Kerry over Dubya today by 1% (yes, statistical tie, but the trend is up). IMO, Zogby is trying to make an honest analysis of why the other guy sucks - but the only vindication will come the day after the election (and it would be really funny if the numbers came out exactly half-way between Zogby and Gallup). \_ So? Zogby has Bush up 48%-45%. The 3% spread is within the MOE, but it's still hardly cheery news. \_ Zogby's poll has 6% Unsure, and that number has consistently been in the 6% to 9% range since July. That is very odd, since almost every other poll has the unsure number in the 1% to 3% range. \_ Traditionally you get the Not Sure number down by nagging the respondent for an answer "which way do you lean" until they break down. This suggests that Zogby's people didn't nag that hard. \_ It's a possibility/nightmare. My big hope is that the huge turnout combined with cell phone only young crowd will prove the pollsters wrong. \_ Sheesh, you guys put up a hugh douchebag as your canidate, and then you're surprised when he has a hard time beating the opposing idiot? \_ Can you coherently explain why Kerry is a douchebag? Or are you just a right wing troll trying to assuage your unease by tossing around ad hominem nonsense? If you can explain coherently, then please -- I'd welcome the post. \_ Dubya has never lost a debate! (until this year) \_ They are both douchebags. Don't kid yourself. \_ That's my point. When you're whole campaign is "Don't vote for that douchebag, vote for THIS douchebag!" Don't be surprised when it's hard to get a majority of the vote. \_ obhttp://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com \_ Don't let the wrong lizard get elected. \_ The poll numbers are way off. They don't take into account a sizable number of people who vote for Democrats every election but don't have land lines: dead people. \_ Do you have any evidence at all for this endlessly repeated assertion, other than the Cook County, Illinois allegations from 1960? \_ What happened in Cook County, Illinois in 1960? \_ There was some evidence that Richard Daley's machine was using the names of dead people in Cook County to cast votes for John F. Kennedy. Nixon decided not to pursue it, perhaps because he thought that even if a lot of votes were invalidated, he still would have lost. \_ JFK would have won even without Illinois. \_ And the battleground states in this election don't have dead people. So even if the dead do determine the winner in IL, it still won't matter. Right. \_ Wow. You never responded to my question. You have absolutely no evidence of any of this, do you? You need to stop blathering. \_ I'm not the original Cook County poster. I'm merely questioning the logic of the poster that implied that dead people voting in this election is immaterial since the dead votes didn't affect the outcome of the 1960 election. -pp \_ Of course you have no evidence of dead people voting in this election either. So you are either paranoid, or just making shit up. Or both. \_ You do realize that claiming that there is no evidence of a huge turn-out amongst the dead in this election (what you just claimed) is quite different than claiming that a turn-out by the dead would be irrelevant (which is what a poster tried to imply earlier). I have no problem with the no evidence claim, especially since I'm not the dead-voter guy to start with. I do have a problem with the irrelevant claim, since I am somewhat fond of logic. \_ You cannot make that claim until *after* the election is over. I think that one side or the other will win pretty handily. |
| 2004/10/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34325 Activity:high |
10/25 Bush Bulge Meme getting more mainstream: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20041025 \_ Please. Doonesbury is about as mainstream as Michael Moore's movies \_ yep no one reads doonsebury. \_ Well the guy above you seems to think no one saw F9/11 |
| 2004/10/25 [ERROR, uid:34322, category id '18005#7.95375' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34322 Activity:very high |
10/24 Comments on the election from a Doctor of Gonzo Journalism. --psb
http://csua.org/u/9mh
Nixon ... I despised everything he stood for -- but if he
were running for president this year against the evil
Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him ... Some
people say that George Bush should be run down and
sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would
be a lot easier to just vote the bastard out of office on
November 2nd. --HST
\_ Another good quote from the article:
"I told him that Bush's vicious goons in the White House are
perfectly capable of assassinating Nader and blaming it on him.
His staff laughed, but the Secret Service men didn't."
\_ Were you even alive when Nixon was president? Man...
Anyway, Nixon opened up China and started SALT and got us
out of Vietnam. He also abused his presidential powers
and certainly would have been convicted if Ford hadn't
pardoned him. A very flawed presidency, but aren't they all?
Reagan got Iran-Contra, Clinton had more scandals than you
can shake a stick at. Politics, as you will discover when you
grow out of your adolescent mentalities, is hardly ever
black-and-white. The realities of power are much more complex
than your little diatribe would indicate.
\- Er, I think you are probably the confused one here ...
1. Who do you mean by "you" in "were you even alive"?
2. Did you read the article pointed to? I think you
may also be unaware of the "special relationship"
between RMN and HST. [see http://csua.org/u/9mn]
Speaking for myself: I actually kind of liked Tricky
Dick Nixon ... in a horrible kind of way, except for
his being a bit racist [although so was JFK, something
not well known, or at least well-forgetten].
And yes, I agree the "American Monster" is was far better
than this curent crop. --psb
\_ i sometimes think just about every president would come
off as a weird paranoid freak if they had the foresight
to record every single conversation in the oval
office like Nixon! - danh
\_ Vote for "less worse". -John
\_ "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford,
"the wrong lizard might get in." -- ilyas |
| 2004/10/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34295 Activity:high |
10/22 Diversity, tolerance, and all that good liberal vibe in LA.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
\_ This pretty much matches my expectations.
\_ Actually, this matches the soda experience pretty well also.
\_ I thought the article was rather funny and well-written, but as
far as the social phenomenon it's not really fair. Ignoring the
strong geography aspect (people in California are either democratic,
apathetic, or too rich to care; things might be different in Texas)
I think the scorn for Bush/Cheney is appropriate-- these men have
proven themselves to be whatever people see them as, while Kerry
remains a wildcard. You can't hate a man for thinking he can do
better, but you can hate a man for needlessly taking your country
to war. See the difference?
\_ Right. Thanks for the confirmation.
\_ Right. Thanks for the confirmation.
\_ Presuming you're op: being angry with people for proven
reasons is not an indication that liberals are hypocrites,
or whatever it is you're trying to imply.
\_ Just a bit sensitive, aren't you?
\_ Only my nipples. Or were you not being sarcastic?
\_ So a guy wore a Bush/Cheney t-shirt in a liberal area, and
the worst thing that happened was a couple of people muttered
"asshole" under their breath? "Help Help I'm being oppressed!"
\_ Compare that to people attacked and beaten for being
Kerry supporters in Texas.
\_ Link please?
\_ If this is true, fucking Nazi bastards. They should
go live under Hitler, Hussein, or some such.
\_ And if it isn't? And if there are Republicans
out there getting attacked and beaten is that ok?
\_ I've been looking, but I can't find anything from the
news on this. All I found was a blog report where
some Bush supporters were assulted at a Kerry rally in
Milwaukee. Which I take with a grain of salt...
http://disjointed.org/archives/001032.html
\_ Kerry supporters are all peaceful victims. Bush
supporters are all evil and we can't trust them not
to lie about this. Not even that woman at the (R)
campaign office that got her wrist broken by some
piece of shit union thugs.
\_ Link?
\_
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=70201
What happened to that guy who was claiming a
month or so ago that only the American right
wing has a history of violence, and the left
wing is never violent?
\_ This always amuses me; the notion that because
people ascribe to one philosophy or another that
it somehow magically makes all its devotees
special and somehow superhuman. They always
seem to ignore that these are aspects of basic
human nature, and in any large enough group,
there will ALWAYS be vile, violent and unethical
people...and that this doesn't necessarily
reflect anything on the philosophy or group
(obExceptBlatantlyEvilGroupsLikeNazisOrSlavers). |
| 2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34291 Activity:high |
10/22 Watch Fahrenhite 9/11 for free. http://csua.org/u/9lq \_ Huh? Is this the right URL? \_ Fixed. Sorry. \_ What for? It was discredited. \_ If the right-wing tells you F9/11 is left-wing propaganda, then you're saving time by not seeing it. Yay! \_ If it's left-wing propaganda then you're saving time by not seeing it. Yay! \_ Right-wing Wins! Yay! \_ Gay! \_ Is there a refund for the first time viewers who had to pay? Where's your link to Celcius411? How about some fair n balanced? |
| 2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34289 Activity:insanely high |
10/22 NY Times editorial: Iran's nuclear threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/opinion/22fri1.html (user/pw: bobbob)
This is my prediction of what will happen:
- Iran suspends enrichment, but says it will never renounce right
- Iran accepts reactor-grade uranium from Russia
- Iran operates reactor
- Iran retains knowledge of weapons-grade enrichment
- Israel, U.S. do nothing
- IAEA maintains inspections
"Nightmare" scenario:
- As previous scenario, but ...
- GW Bush re-elected
- Joint U.S./Israel attack destroys reactor, 1/2 enrichment facilities
- 2-3 years pass
- Iran successfully detonates nuke, announces nuclear stockpile
- Israel responds with first public nuclear test
- U.S. stalled in UN by Security Council vetoes
- U.S. rapidly deploys primarily air-based systems near Iran's borders
- Iran blows up some nearby U.S. airbases with nukes before attack
- New Republican administration elected
- U.S. nukes Iran, destroying entire population
- Draft receives Congressional approval, including special skills draft
\_ Okay, and the bad part?
\_ So in your worst case scenario the ultimate bad thing that is going
to come from a nuclear war is the special skills draft? Okey dokey!
That was quite the stretch to get the geek draft in there. Anyway,
we've been over this before. The military is different now. The
draft would be worse than useless. It takes roughly 2 years to
take an off the street slacker and turn them into a soldier. WTF
good is a draft when the conflict will be long over before the first
draftee has a uniform on? FUD.
\_ Two years? Pshaw. It just takes 10 weeks of basic and 12 weeks
of infantry school. -Vet
\_ no you idiot. it's Us nukes iran, destroying entire population.
get your head out of your ass. i hope you're not allowed to vote.
\_ I don't think it's quite true that a _Special Skills_ draft
would be useless. It might take 2 years to train a guy
you want on the ground in Iraq, but support roles probably
aren't that hard. A special skills draft would allow the
military to stuff the support roles with draftees and put
the volunteers in the field.
\_ What about all the discipline, standards, and shit that
militaries want from their goons, support roles or
frontline grunts? You'll never get someone unmotivated
to be a usable combat grunt; rear-area support type will
simply be a tremendous waste of a lot of time. Your best
bet is shooting them on arrival, pre-body-bagging them and
using them as human sandbags. -John
\_ I think you're over-estimating the difficulty of
something. I'm not sure if it's "hearding
sysadmins" or what. Support roles aren't that
hard, and they don't require much discipline. It's
just like coders and sysadmins at IBM, you don't
show 'em to the public, you hide 'em in some back
room, while the marketers (soldiers) do the front
line stuff.
\_ Yes, you know that and I know that, but we don't
run an army. Now find me one of those which
follows this sort of sensible philosophy.
\_ Nah, you just need to transfer out the company
commander once the reservists don't show up
for their contaminated helicopter fuel run.
\_ Drafted sysadmins, coders are cheap. Anyways, I'm just showing
how Dubya keeps his "no-draft" promise - it's for the President
*after* Dubya. Also, anyone can come up with a worst-case
scenario. I'm painting a *realistic* "nightmare" scenario. -op
\_ You're showing nothing but your lack of understanding of the
modern American military. The realistic nightmare scenario
is that Iran is allowed to continue developing nukes, gets
nukes and has a nuclear exchange with Israel. The so-called
skills draft wouldn't make the list even if such a silly did
thing happen. What skills do you think you have they'd want
anyway? Surfing and restarting apache servers aren't
critical military needs.
\_ My scenario (the U.S. and Iran lobbing nukes at each other)
is not far off from Iran and Israel lobbing nukes at each
other. This second scenario is far more obvious, which
is why I didn't mention it. You missed my point on that
part - which is to argue how the U.S. realistically decides
to do some nuking itself.
Now, if the skills draft isn't that important, then why did
the military decide to plan for one, just like adding
a plan for a draft of Middle Eastern language experts?
My basic argument is that engineers are cheap when you
draft them. I'm also participating in FCS design, so I
know what I'm talking about. -op
\_ The Pentagon has a plan for everything. If they didn't
have a plan for everything collecting dust on a shelf
somewhere and getting updated every 10-15 years someone
would scream, "WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE A PLAN FOR A SKILLS
DRAFT! YOU MORONS!". The US won't be nuking Iran
because Iran won't be nuking anything American. They
would hit Israel first. Once Israel is in ashes, they
"win", no matter what else happens afterwards. By
"they" I mean Muslims across the ME who want every
Israeli dead and Israel destroyed utterly. As far as
language experts go, were you upset they didn't have
enough Pashtun speakers when we went into southern
Afghanistan? They're making sure that sort of thing
never happens again. As an aside, my English instructor
at Cal was also a Baltic languages expert. The CIA was
paying his entire way and then some so long as he
continued to keep up his language skills and promised
to be available as needed. Was that a bad thing? Are
you opposed to that?
\_ Baltic?!! You mean Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian?!
Are you sure you don't mean Balkin? Why does the
CIA want Baltic language experts? I've been to
Estonia, and it seems odd that the CIA would go
to so much effort to spy one a very small country
of extremely peaceful people who mostly speak
english anyway.
\_ It might seem odd to you, but they do. |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34278 Activity:nil |
10/21 CNN still manages to spin Laura Bush's comments
http://cnn.com: "Laura Bush brushes aside Heinz Kerry's remarks" |
| 2004/10/21 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:34275 Activity:kinda low |
10/21 Does someone have a link to the Daily Show clip with the "weapons of
mass destruction program related activities" and Dubya using words to
save the day? I accidentally deleted my copy. I notice there are no
more clips in /csua/tmp/dailyshow.
\_ if you email me the date i can help you out - danh |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34273 Activity:very high |
10/21 Some asswipe turbo-deleted the thread, so I ll resurrect something
from it. Ben, are you saying about 30% of the country actually
agrees with what Bush et al are doing? I am not sure where you get
this number from, but even if you are right, do you think it's any
different from any other president? Clinton himself said something
about the 4 years being necessary so the POTUS has the leeway to
make unpopular decisions. Are you saying popularity is the yardstick
of the Presidency? Do you think all presidents had a 50%+ mandate
on their work (or should)? I don't really see WHAT you are saying
(other than "I REALLY disagree with this Bush guy, I wish he would
just fuck off and die!"). I STILL don't see what his policies have to
do with royalty, it sounds like some sort of liberal figure of speech,
like me calling liberal policies 'communism' in jest. Even the
most venal pro-corp anti-everything else folks don't want Feudalism
back, it will cut into the profits. -- ilyas
\_ I was talking about election turnout/civic involvement. -scotsman
\_ Bush is the most authoritarian President the US has had in
at least 125 years, probably ever. I am sorry that you are
so biased that you cannot see that. When you add that to his
personal arrogance, there is a reasonable cause for concern.
\_ I'll spell it out slowly. I'm not talking about the
popular conception of individual families. I'm talking
about ceding our wealth and civic power over to wealthy
individuals and corporations (which for some damned
reason are people too...). By cutting or eliminating
taxes on unearned or inherited wealth, the burden shifts
to income taxes and other revenue streams. It also allows
massive wealth consolidation which means massive power
consolidation. At the same time, deregulation takes away
our (the people's) recourse against bad actions by
these increasingly wealthy entities. The reason we have
regulations are to keep meat safe to eat, drugs safe to
take, planes safe to fly on. To keep the air breathable,
the water drinkable, and our economic markets running
smoothly. The end of this slide would be feudalism, which,
as ilyas correctly says, will "cut into profits". He seems
to say that people aren't that shortsighted, and that these
philosopher-kings of industry will be able to hold this
together. I'm scared our society will break before that.
--scotsman
\_ If taxes worked so well on inherited wealth, how
come the Kennedys are all still liveing off
inherited wealth? (This question is only sort of
Trollish, I am sort of curious about what the
Kennedys do to make money.)
\_ The Kennedys live off a trust, and therefore do
not pay "inheritance taxes." Only poor people
pay inheritence taxes, rich people all have
trusts.
\_ Yeah, all those poor people with estates >$1.5m
\_ You mean scotsman is worried about all those
schmucks with houses in Palo Alto?
\_ I think that number is wrong. It says
here that, before Bush's change, estates
over $1mil were charged at the "top
rate." This suggests that estates smaller
than that would still be taxed. Also,
$1mil isn't that hard to hit if you're
running a small business.
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2003/04/rules.html
\_ I'll try to summarize your two concerns firat. You
are worried that 1. the change in tax code will
cause a concentration of wealth and power in the
elite classes, and 2. deregulation will offer the
common people less protection against the whims of
the elite. I have good news for you, my friend.
Trivially googling found the following paper from
the Urban Institute (http://csua.org/u/91e From
its conclusion, the study finds that "the evidence
suggests that the playing field is becoming more level
in the United States. Socioeconomic origins today
are less important than they used to be. Further, such
origins have lttle or no impact for individuals with
a college degree, and the ranks of such individuals
continue to increase." So evidence suggests that,
contrary to your worries, the upper classes are becoming
less stratified and not more. I recall reading that
most of the people on the first Forbes wealthiest list
are no longer there, and most of the members of that
list earned there money instead of inheriting it.
list earned their money instead of inheriting it.
I'd like to see evidence that there is the formation
of a calcified layer of feudal lords.
of a calcified layer of feudal lords. On the
\_ It's actually http://csua.org/u/9le
and it was published in 1997. Dumbass. We're
talking about the absurd extremism of the last 3
years. --scotsman
\_ Well, I am sure you can come up with contrary
research that says the socioeconomic mobility
is decreasing, especially due to the tax policies
of the last few years. Well? How about research
that shows the increase of SE mobility after the
imposition of the tax? Since that was adopted
in 1916, surely there has been enough time for
researchers to study the matter? If the imposition
of the tax did not improve mobility, then would
the removal of the tax decrease it? I wonder how
much the super-rich used to pay in inheritance
under the previous tax regime. Have they already
been successful in avoiding those taxes? You
made a lot of claims, how about some data?
deregulation side, I will take the less common
argument that fewer regulations making it easier for
new players to enter a particular field, and therefore
creates even more opportunity for socioeconomic
mobility. Fewer rules makes it more difficult for
the entrench players to use government regulationis
to fend off new challengers, which in turns contributes
to the churn of players at the top.
\_ Oh come on. Is Bush as bad as Tricky Dick? Or FDR (to be
fair about picking authoritarian presidents)? Bush hasn't
been caught yet, and he hasn't had the chance to pack the
Supreme Court either.
\_ Yeah, he is. Nixon, contrary to popular belief, made a solid
go at adhering to the Freedom of Information Act at the
beginning of his term; FDR never lied to get us into war.
\_ Ahem... lend-lease... ahem...
\_ ...waiting for relevance vis-a-vis lying to get us into
war.
\_ While lend-lease may have been a lie, it didn't get us
into war. The Japan Embargo did, and that was done for
honest, if questionable reasons.
\_ I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam war...woops,
sorry, I don't!
\_ Don't take the Paris Peace Accords deal! I'll make
you a better offer later!
\_ And you base this authoritarian accusation on what? Personal
experience? You have studied the history and in context
background of every President? I find this... unlikely. If
you just hate the guy, just say so. You don't have to make
outrageous, unsupported and unsupportable claims in a useless
attempt to make it appear that your hatred is based on some
false intellectual premise instead of personal animosity.
\_ Who was the president 126 years ago, and why is Bush not as
bad as he was? Was it even an election year 126 years ago?
Did you just pull the 125 year number out of your ass?
\_ Rutherford B. Hayes was the evilest man to ever darken God's
green Earth. On a more serious note, he lost the popular
vote but came out ahead in a 8-7 partisan split in a Senate
commitee to decide the election. One of the 3 states whose
EVs were in dispute was... Florida. -!pp
\_ I wouldn't say "Bush is the most authoritarian President" --
without backup, you sound like a dumb liberal. At least, you
were an easy target for above posters.
The argument is much sharper to describe the most important and
obvious event instead of just applying a label.
E.g.: "The primary reason for invading Iraq was to eliminate a
regime possessing WMD stockpiles, from which it could dole WMD
kits out to terrorists who would without question use them.
Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past, viewed them also
as his trump card, and could believably distribute them to exact
his vengeance against the U.S., which would be under the watch of
Bush Sr.'s son. President George W. Bush, having seen the
stockpile reason vanish, instead insists that, had he known
everything he knows today, would still have directed the U.S.
to invade Iraq. This is absurd."
\_ ilyas complaining about a thead being deleted.. Welcome back to
BIZARRO WORLD!! In other news, the Red Sox are in the world
series! -meyers
\_ Yeah, right.
\_ It'd be hypocritical for Democrats to decry royalty in American
politics. (ref. the Kennedy clan and Camelot)
\_ Democrats don't choose to get rid of dividend/capital gains/
estate taxes. Democrats don't vote for massive deregulation/
reduced corporate oversight/stripping tort powers. -scotsman
\_ You do realize that many people think that cutting taxes
and deregulating industry are good things. And none of
this have anything to do with claims of royalty. Are the
Bushes more royal than the Kennedies?
\_ Bush: evil. Kennedy: good. You need to be sent to the
Martin Luther King Reeducation Kamp immediately!
\_ You're not very intelligent, are you? It's okay, I'm
sure your parents still love you.
\_ Yeah Ben, "no progressive taxation -> feudalism" is a new
'line of attack' for me. I am sorry, it's really off the
wall. -- ilyas
\_ That's not "no progressive taxation". It's tax the poor
and middle class, and give the rich a pass.
\_ Which isn't happening, but it makes a good scare
tactic!
\_ Counting all the tax cuts (including captital gains,
dividends, and estate), people in the 2nd-lowest
quintile got a 17.6% tax cut. The middle quintile
was cut 12.6%, the 2nd-highest quintile 9.9%, and
the top quintile 11%.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108201
\_ Ah, short term vs. long term. Numbers are funny
things.
\_ Data please. Or are you just making
unsubstantiated claims?
\_ estate tax exemption will increase for next,
what, 7-8 years until no tax at the 10 year
mark. dividend tax was halved in 2003, gone
in 2004. running the numbers for the last
2 years is patently dishonest.
\_ I don't have a problem with regressive _tax cuts_
as long as they result in a system which is closer
to a flat tax system, which I believe is fair.
(Regressive _tax_ is bad of course). If you
think a flat tax system will lead to feudalism,
you are at the fringes of political discourse,
sorry. -- ilyas
\_ I posted the data to counter the claim that
the tax system is now less regressive. It is
if anything more regressive.
\_ The Kennedys are really great people so its ok. |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34270 Activity:high |
10/21 http://csua.org/u/9l8 (Yahoo!) Laura Bush proves herself not to be a cog in the Dubya machine: "She [Teresa Heinz-Kerry] apologized but she didn't even really need to apologize," Mrs. Bush told reporters at a coffee shop ... "I know how tough it is and actually I know those trick questions." \_ NOO!!!!1!! MUST MAKE PARTISAN ISSUE OUT OF THIS!!!! YELLING AND SCREAMING IS THE STANDARD!!!1!!! MARY CHENEY!!!1!!! BUD DAY!!!!!!1 \_ In other news, expect no apology from Karen Hughes. \_ A cog is the Dubya machine? It was the most mild rebuke of the most clownishly stupid woman to ever set foot on a political stage. This must be a troll. Please tell me you don't really believe what you're saying. \_ Who are you talking about? |
| 11/26 |