| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2005/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38286 Activity:nil |
6/24 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/veterans.budget.ap/index.html With support like this... \_ What the hell? So they increase the budget to make up for the shortfall. |
| 2005/6/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38278 Activity:nil |
6/24 Sen. Kennedy: "There have been a series of gross errors and mistakes.
Those were on your watch. Isn't it time for you to resign?"
Rumsfeld: "Senator, I've offered my resignation to the president
twice, and he has decided that he would prefer that he not accept it,
and that's his call." June 23, 2005
\_ Did Mcnamara ever try to resign? Just wondering. |
| 2005/6/23-25 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38275 Activity:high |
6/23 I blame all you liberals for this Eminent Domain fuckup. Hang your
heads in shame. -- ilyas
\_ I thought all liberals would think this decision was stupid and
wrong since I am a liberal and that's what I think. The motd has
proven me wrong, and I do indeed hang my head in shame for my
fellow liberals.
\_ It's not liberals, ilyas, it's corrupt and stupid government, aided
by lack of transparency and control. Happens on both sides of the
spectrum. -John
\_ fuck you. there is nothing on the liberal docket to justify
Eminent Domain.
\_ Finally, we actually found an issue on the motd where the far-right,
far-left, moderate liberals and moderate conservatives all agree.
Leave it to you to turn that into a anti-liberal flame war.
\_ What flame war? Are we reading the same motd? You think
_this_ is a flame war? And as for everyone agreeing, apparently
the more 'liberal' justices didn't agree. I mean my original
comment was sort of tongue-in-cheek, but as the russian proverb
goes, in every joke there's a grain of a joke. -- ilyas
\_ Uh, why? How exactly would your typical liberal favor eminent
domain for a private developer? Most liberals I know don't even
favor eminent domain for storm drains. The politics of redevelop-
ment don't fall along the lines you might imagine. I will admit that
the voting over the recent SC case mystifies me. -- ulysses
\_ We had a rather heated discussion about this just now on irc.
My view is that liberals favor more conventional uses of ED,
while it tends to be a 'hot button' issue for conservatives.
Furthermore, liberals in my view tend to favor 'public good' at
the expense of 'private property' if these come in conflict.
Also, you can take the private developer out of the equation here,
the government can take full initiative here (or not even involve
a business at all). -- ilyas
\_ I think this view is a rather ingenuous application of a
stereotype. I know very very few liberals that are
comfortable with this development, or would have actively
campaigned for it. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but no
less so than your blanket assertion about 'all liberals
are bad, etc'.
\_ I don't think liberals are 'bad,' nor have I asserted this
as you claim. I happen to disagree with their moral
framework though. Some of them are fine people, really.
They are well behaved in public and everything.
Some of my best friends are liberals! -- ilyas
\_ Okay, my bad -- that was phrased very poorly...
But I think you're confusing the clout of big
business and their poilitcal alliances with rabid
Berkeley students fresh from HS.
business and their politcal alliances with rabid
Berkeley students fresh from HS. While the liberals
have some big philosophical weaknesses, I don't think
it's reasonable to blame them for the actions and power
of big wealthy, powerful, connected business interests.
it's reasonable to blame them for the actions of big,
wealthy, powerful, connected business interests. As
someone points out below, the simplification of this
issue into liberal vs conservative is, at best, naive
and at worst, a smoke screen to distract the people
from the not-very-subtle shift of power.
\_ This has nothing to do with big, powerful, connected
business interests. This is the supreme court
approving this and all future money grabs by the
government through increased tax revenue at the
expense of individuals.
Getting 'business interests' involved is a red
herring. Though they may be involved, they are not
necessary for application of ED, especially this
shiny expanded "I am gonna kick your ass" ED.
I hope you don't think the actions of the scotus
were the direct result of 'big business' interference.
You can't buy off the scotus that easily. They are
old and set for life. -- ilyas
\_ Ok I'll bite. What are the "big philosophical
weaknesses"?
\_ ^liberals^homosexuals
\_ I think it's enough for all the "liberal" SCOTUS judges to
have voted for expanding ED powers, and all the pricks
to have voted the other way, I mean, conservative judges.
\_ That too. I was sort of trying to explain why scotus voted
as it did. Frankly there are plenty of reasons to dislike
this ruling for almost every point of the politial
spectrum except perhaps some full-on hivemind
utilitarian/authoritarian. -- ilyas
\_ did you read the full opinion below? It explains why
the majority voted as it did. Additionally, Kennedy's
op. also illustrates it. For the record, I'm liberal,
and I think I'm hesitantly in favor of the ruling. But,
it's very borderline. I am not comfortable with what they
did to Kelo, nor the other home-owners. I'm also not
comfortable with the future resale of the land to Pfizer.
However, I am sympathetic to the logic of the ruling,
given current interpretation of law. You're right about
the sociological generalization of liberals favoring
"public good" over "private property," and if it weren't
for my philosophical leanings towards principle, I would
have no problem with this ruling. However, there's another
generalization about liberal principles that should be
noted: a favoring of individuals' privacy and rights over
that of corporations. These two liberal principles are
at odds in the Kelo case, which is why I'm very borderline
in my support for it. I would be amenable to an amendment
limiting eminent domain to cases like Hawaii or extreme
blight. But current law supports "economic development."
-nivra
\_ Out of curiousity, assume there was no private business
involvement at all. The gvt bulldozed over some
buildings to build a government business, like a post
office or a lottery. What would your feelings be
in this scenario? -- ilyas
\_ I'll be your token liberal. Neither of those qualify
as far as my "feelings" go. An eminent domain seizure
should serve a function beyond simply grabbing land
for a public (or private) project. Storm drains and
transportation corridors are a good example since
both are large scale systems that require continuity.
Landowners are rarely willing or able to properly
maintain drainage corridors they happen to own, for
instance, which can cause widespread flood damage.
The funny thing is, as I said, there is little
support for such an eminent domain act while
apparently grabbing land to build a gamepark is OK.
Whatever I might "feel" about particular eminent
domain applications has little bearing on how to
interpret the eminent domains clause. -- ulysses
\_ I agree with the last sentiment, as well. The law
and my perceived interpretation of it(favoring the
majority) are two different things. I feel like
Kelo was treated unfairly, but as the law cur-
rently stands, I support the majority interpreta-
tion. -nivra
\_ the usage of eminent domain needs to be demonstrated
as necessary. For instance, in Berman v. Parker,
the dept. store wasn't blighted, but was part of the
blighted community fixed to undergo wholesale
redevelopment. In this case, eminent domain
condemnation of the dept store can be seen as a
necessary portion of the "public good" over "private
property" as it is necessary to implement the grand
plan. In your example, the questions that need to
be asked are: 1) why this location? 2) why a post
office? 3) what is the public use/good of the
proposed development? 4) are there any alternatives.
For something as small as a post-office, I think the
answers will reveal that there are other options
available than eminent domain condemnation of an
un-blighted property. I can't off-the-top-of-my-head
imagine a scenario where that wouldn't be the
conclusion. Btw, this is also the prevailing
reasoning behind why Kelo v. New London makes sense.
-nivra
\_ stupid troll. The life of a few can and should be sacraficed for
the benefit of the mass. If you can tear down a few insignificant
houses for a huge Walmart that everyone can benefit from, then
you've done a great service for the community. Eminent domain is
a good thing.
\_ Don't blame me. I'm a moderate! -moderate
(Psst. So is Hillary. Pass it on.)
\_ well you can also blame Bush I and John Sununu, in part anyways.
\_ I agree this time around, the liberals have fucked it up. -eric
\_ Who is on the side of Wal-Mart? Hint: it ain't the "liberals."
This is classic big business conservatism, where government
dances the tune sung by corporations. Real liberals have been
fighting this drift for at least a generation.
http://www.corporateering.org
Get the book and read it. It is interesting stuff. -ausman |
| 2005/6/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38254 Activity:high |
6/23 Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts?page=1,50
\_ More like "SC upholds ED as is."
\_ Can we get a non freeper link about the same subject? I'll start:
http://tinyurl.com/bepw2 (forbes.com)
\_ Here is the opinion:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
\_ anyone find a url for the dissent?
\_ It's all here: link:csua.org/u/chm (pdf file)
\_ The cornell page has links to the dissents as well.
\_ what's so new about imminent domain?
\_ When eminent domain is used to acquire land for private
development, the potential for abuse is large. A politically
conected businessman can 'suggest' that the city use eminent
domain to help build a new retail or office development. The
city uses its power to acquire the land for a value which is
much less than if the developer had to sweet-talk homeowners to
sell. -dgies, !op
\_ Because this isn't eminent domain. This is a greatly expanded
and never seen before abuse of the power. Any developer can
now come into any area and tell the city council how much more
tax revenue they'll get from a new Walmart and it is now legal
to tear down any homes in the way. This is entirely new which
is why the SC had to rule on it. You're just trolling, right?
\- While I see the potential for abuse, I find it odd to see
STEVENS as a corporate tool and THOMAS and RHENQUIST as the
defender of the "little guy", so I think some closer reading
on this case may be in order.
\_ Ok, you tell us what you find that says this isn't a new
huge expansion of ED and isn't easily abused. We both
read the same article. Go see O'Connors quote in the text.
She has it right on the money. It's about the money. Mr.
Developer promises new tax renevue from flattening a bunch
of homes and it's legal. Period. Please link to the
further reading you find that says this isn't the case.
\_ 1981: Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit:
http://csua.org/u/chd (law.berkeley.edu). It's not
"new." It's re-establishing something old. key grafs:
MAJORITY: "The power of eminent domain is to be used
in this instance primarily to accomplish the essential
public purposes of alleviating unemployment and revi-
talizing the economic base of the community. The bene-
fit to a private interest is merely incidental. If the
public benefit was not so clear and significant, we
would hesitate to sanction approval of such a project."
DISSENT: "With regard to highways, railroads, canals,
and other instrumentalities of commerce, it takes little
imagination to recognize that without eminent domain
these essential improvements, all of which require
particular configurations of property - narrow and
generally straight ribbons of land -would be "otherwise
impracticable"; they would not exist at all... [I]t
could hardly be contended that the existence of the
automotive industry or the construction of a new [GM]
assembly plant requires the use of eminent domain." -!pp
\_ Ok, did you miss below where someone posted this was
over turned later? Maybe you have something else to
link to that shows this isn't a new and dangerous
ruling expanding ED to places it has never been?
\_ A PDF version of the Connecticut State Supreme Court's
decision on the appeal:
link:csua.org/u/che (300k)
This is LONG, and I'm not going to summarize. It bears
reading, as the appellants' challenge has a lot to do
with interpretation of the phrasing of state law.
A large number of documents were filed on this case:
http://csua.org/u/chf (Findlaw.com)
Hope that helps. --erikred
\_ very interesting (che link). Thanks. -nivra
\_ Precedent for this application of eminent domain was established
in 1981 in Poletown, MI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown
Detroit seized 1300 homes & 140 businesses to build a GM plant.
The 1981 decision was overturned in 2004: http://csua.org/u/chc.
What I don't understand is wtf was going on in the intervening
23 years? Didn't houses get razed for the GM plant? Was the
plant never built? The overturn happened in MI SC by 4 very
conservative judges. In this case, conservatives are arguing
for private property rights, and liberals are arguing for
"public good," including economic development. The public good
for economic development policy's glaring drawback is the
vulnerability to corruption: city planners can easily be bought
by greedy developers. Wiki link on eminent domain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
\_ The solution to government corruption is to stop the corruption
not try to stop government from functioning.
\_ I'm pretty liberal, why oh why does the Supreme court keep making
rulings that make me agree with the rightwing of the court?
\_ Yup, all the liberal justices are fighting for the little guy!
\_ yah... I think my principles also steer me towards preferring
the conservative side of this one. If the corporations want to
the dissent on this one. If the corporations want to
develop the land, make the tenants 2x or 3x fair market price
for the land. -nivra
for the land. -nivra [edit: I misused cons/lib labels]
[Note: On 2nd reading, I agree with majority, see below]
\_ See, this shouln't be a conservative/liberal issue. It's
about private property. This ruling basically says there's no
such thing as private property. A free society shouldn't
accept this. -emarkp
\_ This is a conservative/liberal issue. It is an issue
of who decides what is best - the state or the people?
Liberals generally want to take things out of the hands
of the people and stick them in the hands of the state.
Look at the opinion - it basically says the state said
this was a good idea, who are we to second guess the
state.
Conservatives (real ones) would prefer to leave things
in the hands of the people - Let the developer PAY Ms.
Kelo the amt of money she wants in order for her to
willingly sell.
\_ This is simplistic and ridiculous. I'm a liberal who
believes in private property, individual responsibility,
freedom of religion, and government non-interference
in reproductive rights. Liberal and conservative are
labels that do not accurately reflect the level of
complexity needed here. --erikred
\_ Eh, it doesn't say there's no such thing as private
property. The City still had to pay compensation, so
it still falls under Eminent domain. I don't agree
with the ruling (as i currently see it), but I
wouldn't go so far as the above. -jrleek
\_ If I can't determing the selling price for my property
(whether anyone wants to buy at that price or not), how
is it that it's mine? -emarkp
\_ Uh.. You can determine an asking price. A selling
price, no. Now, if you lose bargaining rights, that
sucks.
\_ By that reasoning the constitution never
protected your property rights at all.
"nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation." Doesn't say you
get to decide what is just compensation. -jrleek
\_ And if you think it's not just, you petition for
redress.
\_ The fact that the onus is on you in the first
place is evil and fucked up. -John
\_ Compensation doesn't take into account things like
subjective value in the property. In this particular
case Ms. Kelo family has lived in the same house for
many years, the house has a very nice view of the
Thames river, &c. The assessed value of the house
isn't that high and no where near enough for her to
afford to buy another river front home.
What give some rich ass yuppie who works for Pfizer
more rights to that river view than Ms. Kelo? If he
wants Ms. Kelo's home he should be prepared to pay
what SHE feels is a proper price for the property,
not what the assessor thinks.
Under the Kelo regime it seems that the only way
to have private property is to be willing to lay
down your life to defend it. (At least they won't
be able to take your home while you are alive).
\_ this is a totally different issue: ie.
how to determine "fair market value" or "fair
compensation." The issue at hand is one of
viable use of eminent domain clause and what
constitutes "public use." -nivra
\_ I was just pointing out that compensation
in this case will likely not be adequate.
BUT, if anything can qualify as a public
use (and anything the city says is a pub
use seems to qualify under the Kelo view)
compensation becomes VERY important. If
the city can just walk up to a perfectly
good home and say that it is taking it
b/c some yuppie is willing to pay more
for it and just pay some pittance where
is the justice?
\_ Re: the ad-absurdia claim that "there is no private
property." The Conn. SC said: "This claim, while
somewhat incalescent, affords us the opportunity to
reiterate that an exercise of the eminent domain
power is unreasonable, in violation of the public
use clause, if the facts and circumstances of the
particular case reveal that the taking specifically
is intended to benefit a private party. Thus, we
emphasize that our decision is not a license for
the unchecked use of the eminent domain power as a
tax revenue raising measure; rather, our holding is
that rationally considered municipal economic
development projects such as the development plan
in the present case pass constitutional muster."
-nivra
\- again it does sound like there have been some iffy
uses of eminent domain recently, but i havent read
about them in depth. but the world is a complicated
place. see again something like the pruneyard v robins
case. property rights arent absolute or always trumps.
similarly, simple "common sense" principles like
"coming to a nuisance" dont always make the most
sense. see e.g. spur v. del webb, and Guido Calabresi
and Melamed: Property rules, liability rules and
inalenability: one view of the cathedral, from the
harvard law rev. --psb
\_ There are two underlying principles to this
decision:
1. Property should be put to the best possible
use
2. The law should be allow rsrcs to be allocated
in the manner that maximizes their use
From a certain pov Ms. Kelo's use of the prop.
was not the most profitable (ie best possible
use) of the land; the property could be put to
better use by Pfizer (or their proxies).
Once the city decided that Pfizer could make
better use of the land than Ms. Kelo, the duty
of the cts is to see that this decision is
implemented UNLESS it can be shown that the
decision will not maximize the use of the
property.
If this is the view then Ms. Kelo bore the
b/p to show that her use was as good or better
than the proposed use - she could not show
this, so her b/p was not met, so the city's
wins. Case closed. Everyone go home - except
Ms. Kelo, she doesn't have a home.
\_ What? You actually believe those 'principles'
and what follows from them?
\_ Absolutely not, but that is the only
way that I can make sense of this
garbage.
\_ This may need a Constitional amendment, from a first reading.
-moderate
\_ Yes, the majority ruling is constitutional and I agree insofar
as this is correct within what's currently legislated. But, law
doesn't provide for what's "ample and reasonable compensation."
An amendment should probably address that to favor excessive
recompense for the "condemned properties." After perusing the
pdf opinion from the Conn. SC erikred posted, I agree that
(1) public use for economic development should be allowed.
(2) limits on this are a flexible and changing issue, and
need to be determined case-by-case via the legislative and
judicial system. In this case, the economic development in
question was planned by the city for a large economic develop-
ment zone, which happened to include Pfizer offices. There's
also a marina, park, etc. Eventhough some of the specific land
in question may be sold to a private entity(Pfizer), the plan,
in whole, is justified under "public use." -nivra
\_ You want case-by-case. I think raising the bar higher via
Constitutional amendment is something which should be
seriously considered. -moderate
\_ I think recompense should be increased, but the correctness
of interpreting "public use" --> "public purpose" is valid.
case-by-case allows the correct judgment to be made in
borderline public good/private benefit situations. If
the recompense to the existing property owners is aug-
mented, I don't see why "raising the bar" is needed. -nivra
\_ Like I wrote before, a Constitutional amendment is
something which should be seriously /considered/.
I'm not sure the American people believe being paid
"more" is sufficient for an interpretation of eminent
domain that goes beyond transportation and military
bases. -moderate
\_ I parse "raising the bar" and "wider interpretation
of eminent domain" as two different issues.
Raising the bar is increasing the burden of proof
that the economic development is public use.
"wider interpretation" is changing the definition
of "public use" -nivra
\_ Let's just change the Constitution so it qualifies
"for public use" with "limited to improving
transportation infrastructure or in the interests
of national security". -moderate
\_ Opinion: This is bullshit. Eminent domain is one of those issues
where I set the bar REALLY REALLY high for the government to even
have a right to get involved directly. -- ilyas
\_ In your opinion, which side is more strict constructionist --
interpreting the Constitution as it is written, as opposed to
following the spirit of it as a loose constructionist?
\_ Is this a joke? -- ilyas
\_ No.
\_ Your question is a tautology. -- ilyas
\_ This discussion reminds me of something a guy I knew from the
Caribbean said. He asked, "How come Americans can't own land?"
Huh? "Well, do Americans have to rent the land from the
government or something?" Uhhh.. no. "But you pay property
tax. How can you say you own something when you have to pay
someone to keep them from taking it from you?" Uhhhh...
\_ This ruling is a disaster. Now any tract of land anywhere in the
country is up for development, all a wealthy developer has to do
is to pay off a city council, and the city council can make a case
that the development will benefit the public by creating jobs or
whatever, and you can kiss your house and your neighborhood
goodbye!
\_ Realistically speaking, I wonder how much an average Joe would
have to spend to fight a dubious eminent domain claim in the
courts? Could be a lot, I think. I'd just sell and forgo my
rights, unless nice GOP people gave me money.
\_ see ad-absurdia claim above. -nivra |
| 2005/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38243 Activity:nil |
6/22 Every year the House approves one of these idiotic flag burning
amendments, and every year the Senate lets it die. Is this the
most important thing that they could be doing?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning
\_ Was the Terry bill? They love looking like they're doing something.
\_ What's more important than rallying the base?
\_ they should attach it to one of the annual fund the troops
bills
\_ Amendments take a bit more than that to pass. |
| 2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38218 Activity:nil |
6/21 Tim Russert interviews VP Cheney on his predictions on post-war Iraq
prior to the invasion http://csua.org/u/cg6 (Post)
\_ It's amusing how quiet the motd conservatives are now that they've
been shown to be wrong in so many ways.
\_ We've learned that there's no point trying to discuss things
rationally with crazy wing-nut lefties who don't give a shit
about facts. -conservative
\_ Facts that are verifiably untrue don't help in a rational
discussion.
\_ "Ah. I'll have to think about that more carefully. That
does suggest a problem in my reasoning." -emarkp
(From yesterday's thread)
\_ w00+! +5 points for using someone's desire to learn
and be rational as an insult!
\_ hey, it's not a crack @ emarkp. At least he gives
"a shit about facts," unlike the previous nutjob
conservative above. -nivra
\_ Yeah, you could scarcely conceal your glee on
wall though. You are pathetic.
\_ Wow. anonymous ad-hominem attacks. I'm honored.
-nivra
\_ There was no attempt to insult. I will spoon-feed it
to you:
"there's no point to discuss things rationally with
crazy wing-nut lefties" conservative guy wrote.
Yesterday, emarkp (another conservative guy) was
discussing the Lancet article with nivra (lefty).
They had a rational conversation, and emarkp
(conservative) left saying nivra (lefty) had a point.
This contradicts the idea that "there's no point to
discuss things rationally with crazy wing-nut lefties".
Got it?
\_ Are you implying that nivra is a "crazy wing-nut
lefty"? I'd guess that the "It's amusing" guy is
(but have no knowledge of nivra's political
leanings).
\_ I'm liberal. And yes, conservativeguy(TM)
will probably view me as a "crazy wing-nut
liberal" as long as he's stuck in his warped,
faith-based right wing echo chamber. -nivra
\_ http://csua.org/u/cg9 (kchang's archive) |
| 2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38216 Activity:moderate |
6/21 Boy, it's a good thing Bush knows how to support the troops!
"Marine Units Found To Lack Equipment"
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/21/marine_units_found_to_lack_equipment
\_ I'm glad you rely on the fourth estate for all your military
information. You'll make a fine draftee because you buy into
the lies much easier than way. Don't let reality get in the
way and believe that under a Republican President the military
has more supplies and more of what they want.
\_ Yeah, it pisses me off when the press goes to people who know
nothing about the situation for their information. I mean,
c'mon.. The Marine Corps Inspector General... What a liar.
\_ So you think missing Humvees and tanks that don't work while
hundreds of billions are siphoned from the taxpayers wallets
is normal and acceptable?
\_ Um.. there's a war going on. But even before that, ask
any soldier serving under Clinton, things were scarce.
\_ How many soldiers were killed in their un-armored
humvees by roadside bombs under Clinton?
\_ How many engagements did Clinton start w/o UN
approval also? Don't know? Ever wonder?
Your argument is like gun control. Blame anyone
else but the crook.
\_ Other than kosovo? dunno.
\_ Bush has gotten every cent he's asked for on Iraq.
It doesn't take 5 yrs to backorder flak jackets
and humvees. Hell, it doesn't even take 2 years.
If supplies were low at the start of the war, why
not send up an appropriations bill to pay for them?
Don't pass the buck. It stops @ Bush.
\_ Actually, it's probably more accurate to say it
stops at Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is the highest up
guy who is a believer in the 'leaner military.'
I would be interested if anybody did any homework
on WHY on earth there would be shortages in the
military. It might well not be a money issue at
all. Blaming Bush might be satisfying, but it
doesn't really explain anything. -- ilyas
\_ Didn't we already have this discussion? The
suppliers of vehicle armor came out after
Rumsfeld said they were producing armor at
full capacity and said "Uh, no. We could
boost output if the Pentagon ordered it."
They tried to do this on the cheap and have
failed because of it. In WWII domestic car
sales were stopped so the factories could be
repurposed to provide new war vehicles.
Have we been asked to sacrifice? At all?
No. We were told to go out and shop.
They don't want us to notice that there's a
war.
\_ So I don't understand. The
\_ This article does not imply the shortages
the Marines are experiencing has anything
to do with fundamental industrial capacity
issues, but with poor planning regarding
replacements. Is there actually an
insufficient production problem, or a money
problem? -- ilyas
\_ Sorry, I sort of talked against myself
there. I believe it's poor planning,
period. I don't think it's a production
capacity problem, and for money, Congress
has been more than willing to loosen the
purse strings. I think it's the civilian
authority not listening to their military
which I think stems from political
concerns.
\_ I agree that it's a poor planning
problem, and I am interested to learn
where the problem actually lies.
I wouldn't be surprised if a part of
it was just large bureaucracy overhead
the military always seems to incur.
I think the military just has the
same kinds of horrendous inefficiency
issues which plague NASA, for much the
same reasons. I am not sure if this
can explain all shortages though.
I would be interested if there was,
indeed, the tradeoff between sacrifices
the civilian population makes and
sufficient stuff for the military.
I am guessing not -- the US isn't
that poorly off. -- ilyas
\_ But it's all systemic. I think
the administration under-requested
because they're trying to keep the
costs low. I think they're trying
to have their cake and eat it too,
what with taxcuts in wartime and
big pushes of war dollars to
private contractors. If the war
had been necessary, we could have
accomplished it without going
far deeper into debt, by asking
the people to tighten their belts
for the good of the nation. Instead
we're heading for a point where we
can only afford paying interest
on our debt.
I wouldn't be surprised at the
level of inefficiency in the
military. But I think looking at
the troops as a bottom-line item
that can be squeezed is disgusting.
\_ As I said, I am not at all sure
this is a real tradeoff (troop
supply vs belt-squeezing). We
aren't Russia, we have mind
boggling industrial capacity.
-- ilyas
\_ What do you suspect is the
problem then?
\_ I think the real problem
is inefficiency and
corruption, not any
particular conscious
evil ploy. -- ilyas
\_ What would you say
to a Truman-like
commission
\_ Creating oversight
is good, but I would
be more interested
in what is it about
the military
structure that caused
this sort of thing
to happen.
Commissions might be
a good short term
solution, but I am
more interested in
building a government
robust to corruption
and inefficinecy
is good. -- ilyas
\_ You're correct, but what pp
is saying is that it's a
politically motivated trade-
off, not an economically
motivated one. -!pp
\_ So we agree there's a planning problem.
That makes it Rumsfeld's problem. I hold
the view that Bush should be held
accountable for poor planning that's
been ongoing for 2 years.
which I think stems from political
concerns.
been ongoing for 2 years. -!pp
\_ Bush? Naw! He's a good guy. He can't
help it if some hardworking Americans
under him make mistakes now and again.
What's important is that they're good
people working hard for America.
\_ You can blame Bush for almost
any given thing that went wrong
during his tenure, and be right.
But, again, it's not a helpful
thing to point out because you don't
explain any particular failure --
usually a complex affair. -- ilyas
\_ Bush changed 80% of his cabinet for his
second term. He declined to change Rumsfeld.
You're argument is like blaming the Director
of IT for a 5 year IT systems debacle while
exculpating the CEO.
\_ Nice diversion. Now let's talk about "support the troops"
Bush. -tom
\_ God, that was classic Bushie: if you haven't got a point,
blame Clinton. |
| 2005/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38159 Activity:low |
6/16 The Man Behind the Attack on Guantanamo -jblack
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18446
\_ Any publication that has Horowitz in its nav bar...
\_ Typical Republican smear job. I am surprised they didn't
accuse him of murdering Vince Foster.
\- I killed Vince Foster ... just to watch him die. --bclinton
\_ I think that should be -hclinton
\_ mmmmmm, I can taste the bias. Delicious. -mrauser
\_ I love the Lawyer's Guild is a Communist Front
charge. Even McCarthy didn' go that far. |
| 2005/6/15-17 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38149 Activity:nil |
6/15 George Bush bust/sculpture on eBay for only $4300. "...the artist
commenced sculpting on September 14, 2001 in order to capture the
strength and determination that are required to lead our nation.":
http://tinyurl.com/8l7ez |
| 2005/6/15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38140 Activity:nil |
6/15 If I buy or rent movies like Control Room, Outfoxed, Bush Family
Fortunes, Fahrenheit 911, The Corporation, Rebels With a Cause, and
other similar DVDs from Amazon or Netflix will I eventually get on
the Republican black list database that they use so successfully
against their enemies from the Nixon "dirty tricks" era? |
| 2005/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38126 Activity:high |
6/14 Gotta love the House
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH
\_ Sponsored by 4 democrats and one republican.
\_ Well, it makes sense. The only President to serve more than
two terms was a Democrat.
\_ Who?
\_ FDR. Elected to four terms. Died in the first year of his
fourth term. Learn some history.
\_ Thx. When did we start limiting presidents to serving
two terms? And something bad triggered it?
\_ I think FDR triggered it
\_ Washington started it as a policy in order to
avoid autocracy or personal dynasty in the office
of president. FDR was just the first president to
break with the policy, after which it was legislated.
\_ ^policy^tradition
\_ The 22nd Amendment limits people to 2 terms as
president. The fact that FDR kept getting elected
was the motivation. Truman was exempt from the 2
term limit but voluntarily chose to forgo a 3d
term (he probably wouldn't have won one anyway).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22
\_ Wow. You WENT to Berkeley?
\_ As a foreign student I never took any American History
class.
\_ Again, you WENT to Berkeley? Well, I guess if you
were in CoE, you might have slipped by without AmHist
\_ WTF are they smoking? Term limits are really important for the
President.
\_ Not for President For Life George W Bush!
\_ What about President For Choice John Kerry?
\_ Does anyone serious believe this? |
| 2005/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38120 Activity:nil |
6/14 Bolton's first defeat
http://csua.org/u/cd0 (LA Times editorial)
"ElBaradei's return might be Bolton's first major diplomatic defeat
since President Bush nominated him, but if he's confirmed, it won't be
his last." |
| 2005/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38076 Activity:nil |
6/10 A top congressional Democratic supporter of U.S. action in Iraq said
Thursday that President Bush should make a nationally televised speech
and "level with the American people" about the long road ahead there.
Faced with declining public support, Bush needs to tell Americans "it's
going to take a lot more time ... at least through the end of 2006"
... after finding "a total disconnect" between the situation in Iraq
and optimistic statements by Bush and his top aides. ...
Premature withdrawal "in my view would be a disaster ..."
http://csua.org/u/cbj (Dallas Morning News)
\_ With Bush's approval rating at 43 percent, is it time for a Carter
style "crisis of confidence" speech? Anyone wanna start a pool?
\_ Time to start another war!
\_ Hey, Gallup says he's been 48 +/- 2 percent since April!
And Gallup was right on the money for the 2004 election.
Don't forget this is a country where 67% say religion is very,
extremely, or the most important thing in their lives.
\_ I'm not sure this is as bad as you think. Even if you're just
an "Easter Sunday Christian", you know in your guilty heart
because it's been drilled into you that it's the MOST important
thing in your life. So if someone asks you directly in a
survey, I think you might be likely to say it is, even if you
don't live accordingly or even particularly agree with most
of its tenets.
because it's been drilled into you that it's the MOST
important thing in your life. So if someone asks you
directly in a survey, I think you might be likely to say it
is, even if you don't live accordingly or even particularly
agree with most of its tenets.
\_ Um, no. Gallup had Bush at 45% in April, the lowest for
any second term President ever.
\_ Curiously, Chirac's approval rating is at 20+%. -- ilyas |
| 2005/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38074 Activity:low |
6/10 http://csua.org/u/cbk (wapo) Finally, we drive that final nail in the coffin of the libidinous, treasonous PBS. \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PSB. \_ Oh, I read that as libidinous, treasonous PSB. \_ Less PBS funding, less children's shows that promote diversity. Translation: Less PBS funding, less toxic exposure to my kids on topics such as faggots and AIDS. This is definitely good news for the Religious Right. All Heil GWB, bring them on, and God Bless. \_ Yeah, because Sesame Street was the prime target. Sure. Please apply for the job below, because you seem to be qualified. \_ Would it make it better if SS _were_ the prime target? \_ No. Though SS has declined dramatically in quality in the last 5+ years, it's not exactly leftwing drivel. \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PBS. \_ So to what, other than Bill Moyers (who may be leftwing but to call drivel is your own failing), would you object? \_ There is too much left wing drivel on public broadcasting. They got all these brit shows like Red Dwarf, HG2G, Antiques Roadshow, etc. They need to put on more quality programming like the 700 Club. I mean, Dr. Who is definitely gay and that whole Tardis thing is just obviously phallic. \_ I want to think this is a troll, but since it's williamc, i'm never quite sure. \_ No, it's not a flame, we're all serious here. Especially you. Down with Wall Street Weekly! \_ It's cute when you try to be funny. :-P \_ Wasn't this just about the dumbest thing the Republicans could have done, politically? I mean, what with all this hugely wasteful billion-dollar pork everywhere and a trillion-dollar war that nobody wants, they decide to kill a very popular and very visible $500M program in the name of "cutting costs." Way to go guys, I hope you enjoy President Hillary. \_ Hillary is unelectable. Come on, after the previous election, it's clear that this kind of stuff doesn't sway enough votes. They vote on gay marriage and stuff, and how the candidates look. I guess it all depends on what candidate the pubs come up with next time. \_ Rudy? \_ Powell? \_ jeah right! \_ McCain \_ Destroyer of the 1st amendment. \_ Could you give a reference or some context for that? I'm not as savvy about McCain as I'd like to be. -mice \_ Think "McCain-Feingold" restrictions on political speech. As in "congress shall make no law..." \_ Huh? \_ The votes of the republicans on that sub-committee do not reflect the opinions of many republicans. Personally I feel that PBS is the most unbiased source of information currently available (I'm mainly speaking of things like the NewsHour, Nova and Frontline) on television. \- for the cockroaches in power, "fiat lux" is not especially desirable ... like televised hearings on judges, john bolton etc. and when they want to be on TV, its easy enough for them to get airtime. --treasonous psb |
| 2005/6/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38072 Activity:moderate |
6/10 A case made of fans (from /., in case you're not reading that):
http://www.peteredge.orcon.net.nz/casepics.htm
\_ What is it with /. and their obsession with running Linux on
unusual devices and stuffing cheap PCs into unusual cases?
\_ In the world of honda civics and other run of the mill cars
it's called "ricing". as in riceboy.
\_ Is it just me, or does this whole "rice burner" term smack of
racism?
\_ Vin Diesel in The Fast and the Furious is not Asian.
\_ Only if you think the fact that asians consume lots of rice
is racist.
\_ Don't be stupid.
\_ It does. So? -John |
| 2005/6/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:38046 Activity:high |
6/8 Janice Brown: Liberalism --> Slavery
http://csua.org/u/cb0 (nytimes.com)
\_ WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
\_ GOP is brilliant. By hiring minorities who align with their agenda
they attract other minorities who are ignorant of Republican agendas
\_ Would you care to enlighten us poor benighted savages about
the real Republican agenda?
\_ In my opinion... in theory, their ideology is good for the
society. But in practice, it is flawed. That is not to say
that Dem ideologies are in practice flawed as well. However,
it's not hard to see that in the past decade or two that
the Rep ideology is being abused much more, by the religious
right, the homophobes, big Corporate sponsors, and the
NeoCons. Lastly I simply have a lot of problems with Rep's
fundamental idea of using personal responsibility to solve
most of life's problems. In many cases, people are not born
with the ability to solve their own problems, but would be
ok if given a second or third chance. We talk about
equality, but in reality the world is not equal. Regardless
of abilities and merits, the rich still get better education
and the minorities are still getting a shorter end of the
stick. Personal responsibility-- great in theory, unfair in
practice. That is why I am opposed to Rep agendas: tax
reduction, flat tax, completely personal responsible social
security, reduction of welfare, reduction of public
education, reduction of public/gov owned entities. A more
balanced approach is personal responsibility AND social
responsiblity. -pp, a Moderate
\_ You realize that poor == minorities is a false
equality, right?
\_ There's a remarkable correlation. one of the sins
of our society.
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032004/pov/new01_100.htm
Do your homework.
\_ correlation != causality && correlation !=
equality. Do your homework.
\_ I didn't say it was equality, but just to throw
that statement out was disingenuous of you. To
speak of poverty and try to gloss over ethnic
disparity is dishonest. And who said anything
about causality?
\_ I just threw it out because "-pp, a
Moderate" seemed to be implying it. I
didn't think it really warrented
discussion. I figured causality in
because I figured that was what you
must be thinking, since you brought up
the numbers. ie, from these numbers it
seems that being a minority causes one to
be poor. Furthermore, why is glossing
over the ethnic disparity dishonest?
Including the figures is often used to
suggest that the disparity is caused by
racism, which I think it dishonest. Any
culture that discourages education will
produce more poor, on average, than one
that encourages it. It doesn't matter if
you're white, black, brown, or any other
race. Many poor families in the
states exhibit this characteristic.
\_ All ideologies are open to manipulation, not just
Republican ones. However, I disagree that Republican
ideas unfair in practice.
ideas are unfair in practice.
In my experience the Liberal Democrat pov is one that
emphasizes the importance of the elites and what they
think is best for us "masses." They decide the agenda
and tell us what it important and we have to go along
and tell us what is important and we have to go along
with it. It doesn't not allow us to think and decide
what is best for ourselves. In the guise of "fairness"
they suppresses creativity and ingenuity and rob people
of the incentive to work hard and make their lives
better.
The Republican pov is that there should be a minimum
level of restrictions on the activities of people and
that people ought to be left along to decide how they
that people ought to be left alone to decide how they
want to live their lives. (Some GOP administrations
are worse at this than others, but one the whole they
are much better than Democratic administrations).
are worse at this than others, but on the whole they
are better than Democratic administrations).
Re: Education - I completely disagree that the rich
get or have access to a better education than the
"poor." My family came to this country w/ ~ $10.
My mom managed to put both of her sons through
engineering at Cal, one of the finest institutions of
education in the whole world. In no way would I
characterize my education as lesser than what some
rich guy who went to Yale and couldn't even manage A's
in humanities classes got.
rich guy got at Yale (he got 5 D's and not even one
A in a humanities major, give me a break).
A in a humanities major, give me a break). -scotsman
\_ Is that why the Republicans keep trying to outlaw
sodomy and marijuana and stuff the prisons full?
Republicans are in favor of big government just
as much as Democrats, they just prefer the kind
that wields a truncheon.
that wields a truncheon instead of a welfare check.
\_ I don't really care about sodomy laws but as
far as pot (and other drugs) are concerned,
they are a legitimate arena for government
control b/c drug abuse leads to costs for
all of society. When you smoke out and
crash your car into mine, I'm stuck having
to deal w/ it and I shouldn't have to.
Anyway, at least the GOP *tries* to get
rid of gov controls in many aspects (esp.
economic) vs. the Democrats who want to
control everything from Washington.
I wouldn't characterize Bush II as the
best GOP administration but they are
better than any Democratic administration
would have been.
\_ I don't see evidence that the GOP tries to do
this at all. I see lip service, but no action.
Name one action that the current administration
has done that has either diminished federal power
or devolved any to the states. I follow the news
pretty closely and I cannot think of anything.
Incarceration rates in the US are ten *times*
what they are in Western European countries,
but there does not seem to be an abundance
of drug fueled crime in Europe. It is all
about fear and control, and using government
to enforce these values, not public safety.
\_ Anecdotal evidence it not proof. Study after study
has shown that children in wealthier neighborhoods
get a better education. Do you honestly believe that
Oakland schools are as good as the ones in Orinda?
\_ scotsman, you are smart and special. But you are simply
ONE data point, which does not accurately represent
poor people as a whole. Put it another way, if the
criteria to get into Ivy League schools were based on
nothing but merits, by throwing out external factors
such as connection and money, do you think the mostly
[Caucasian] student demographic representation would
still be the same?
\_ Wow. Someone signed my name to someone else's post.
cute. --scotsman (to future forgers, I use 2 -'s)
Btw, I was fortunate enough to be born to a 3rd/4th
generation family, with highly educated parents.
And I agree with you.
Oh, and even cuter, you're the one who signed my
name.
\_ So what if a big name gets you into a Ivy League
school? It doesn't matter - there are plenty of
equal or better opportunities in this country.
There is a proven path to the middle class in
this country - it involves frugality, education
and hardwork. Yes you can't buy all the things
that rich people have, yes you have to study
harder than the rich kids and yes you have to
go to work early and stay late and put up w/
crazy bosses, but that is the price you have
to pay. If you aren't willing to do that, why
should the gov fix it all up for you?
\_ Appointing minorities with conservative opinions exposes the true
Democrat belief: only minorities that toe the Dem. line are
acceptable. The others aren't "real" minorities.
\_ Democrats want minorities and they want liberals. Given a
choice between a conservative minority and a liberal white,
idealogical correctness trumps political correctness.
The only people I ever hear say conservative minorities aren't
"real" minorities are conservatives attempting to impugn
liberals
\_ http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021010.asp#6 |
| 11/23 |
| 2005/6/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38034 Activity:low |
6/8 "A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against
limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate
reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global
warming, according to internal documents. In handwritten notes on
drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip
A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that
government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior
Bush administration officials, had already approved."
http://csua.org/u/cai (nytimes.com)
\_ Thanks anon. W/o I would believe the Bush administration
is filled with honest, non-partisan ex-industry officials
here for our own good and not out to make money in life.
\_ Kind of sad that we're so jaded that this kind of Orwellian
document editing isn't even surprising or worth mentioning any
more.
\_ "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
\- "The quality of many who people our public
life--that is not democracy, it is disarray, it
is free-fall." ... "Governance", [Arun
Shourie] argues, "is not golf: that we are a
democracy does not entitle us to a handicap."
\_ "In a room where people unanimously maintain a
conspiracy of silence, a single
word of truth sounds like a pistol shot."
-- Czeslaw Milosz
\_ was this written by Jayson Blair?
\_ Mmm, straw man. You can get this particular piece of news
from whichever source you like. It's pretty cut and dried. |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38023 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://csua.org/u/ca6 (Post) The Bush administration, having found no alternate candidate or support from any allies, has given up on its attempt to force out Mohamed ElBaradei as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to two U.S. officials. |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38015 Activity:kinda low |
6/7 Poll on your perception of Mark Felt. Put "d" if you're a Democrat,
"r" if you're a Republican, and "i" if you're Independent, "." if
you're not sure:
Hero: .ddid
Traitor: .r
\_ Why is he a traitor? They say Veritas vos liberabit, the truth
will set you free. Mark Felt was honest and told the truth,
freeing America from lies and deceptions.
\_ The poll is a false dichotomy anyway. !Hero != Traitor. It
looks like what he did was motivated not by doing the right thing
but by being passed over for promotion. -emarkp
\_ Damn you and your sensible observations. They have no place
here in my senseless invective!!
\_ I love the old crank conservatives coming out of the
woodwork with their long essays about how Nixon
wasn't so bad.
\_ Compared to Bush, Nixon was a choirboy.
\_ He divulged information that was protected and broke the
law and his oath as an FBI agent in doing so. This to me
is treason.
\_ to me this falls under the same heading as civil disobedience.
sometimes in order to make change for the better, one has to
question the letter of the law. If the intention of the law
is to make the world safer for individuals of our nation,
what do you do when living by that law allows others in power
to threaten the rights of individuals in our nation?
\_ ah, yes, one shall not tell a lie, ANY lie, even if it does
greater good.
\_ What greater good? Personally I don't think that
what Nixon did was wrong. He was trying to run
cover for some stupid idiots. While the right
cover for some stupid flunkies. While the right
thing to do would have been to not get involved,
its not like his actions were all that bad.
\_ B&E, plans for arson, blackmail, use of Federal
Agencies for political vengeance-- these do not
constitute wrong? Physician, heal thyself.
\_ And when are we having Robert Novak's public execution by
firing squad? You can't eat your cake and have it too.
\_ You need a dictionary.
\_ It's clear to me that the Republican party of today hasn't
changed much from the Republican party of The Crook 3 decades
ago. They still keep dirt on all of their enemies. The real only
difference is that the Republican party of today conceals
activities a lot better.
\_ It shits me to tears to hear the so-called liberal press fall
over themselves to tell us what great presidents Nixon and
Reagan were. Mao never had it this good. Kim Il Sung is turning
over in his grave with envy. |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38009 Activity:nil |
6/7 When will the Chimp admit that he dodged service?
\_ When will all the people who call Bush dumb realize he's no dumber
than Kerry?
\_ Can't speak for them; never thought it myself. As for honesty and
integrity, however, Bush has shown over and over that he has
none.
\_ Make your own Bush-Bashing thread. Here, I'll help you. |
| 2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37989 Activity:nil |
6/6 Hilarious shit. Ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The entry under Das Kapital is particularly funny.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
\_ Hmm, now I know how the left feels when they start to imagine a
vast right wing consipiracy. These guys must be being manipulated
by some liberal power. Why else would they do something so
obviously contrary to their agenda. -not in earnest.
\_ I find it highly amusing that the ads are for "The Ultimate Fitness
Program" and "electron machines" (some sort of water purifier, I'm
guessing). More push-ups, and prevent the defiling of those
precious bodily fluids, young conservative!
\_ Hahahaha!
"FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now
has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt."
That's right, ignore those huge fans of Keynes, Reagan and Bush Jr. |
| 2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37977 Activity:kinda low |
6/6 "In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block
the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use":
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana
So what are you faggot-loving drug-using tree-hugging protesting
LIBERALS gonna have to say about this? Ha ha ha ha
\_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
want you on our side. This tramples on state's rights.
-emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
\_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I don't want to think about how you would get
sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
\_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
\_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
than any other city in America.
2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
\_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
could avoid them. -emarkp
\_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
be disruptive to interstate commerce through
the area with respect to gas stations, public
accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
falls under the "provide for defense" and
provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
perhaps we might instead expand the National
Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
\_ Since when did the motd become /.? You must have missed the
"Medical Marijuana, RIP" post.
\_ Yeah I did, thanks -op, conservative
\_ If you're a real conservative, we don't want you on our side.
This tramples on state's rights. -emarkp
\_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
want you on our side. This tramples on state's rights.
-emarkp
\_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
\_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I don't want to think about how you would get
sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
\_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
\_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
than any other city in America.
2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
\_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
could avoid them. -emarkp
\_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
be disruptive to interstate commerce through
the area with respect to gas stations, public
accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
falls under the "provide for defense" and
provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
perhaps we might instead expand the National
Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
[ threads merged ]
\_ O'Connor complaining that it's not repsecting state rights? I'm so
confused. Is this the Bizarro SCOTUS?
\_ States rights are only good if we like what the right is, like
citizens owning anti-tank weaponry and the government not knowing
who those owners are.
\_ Interesting that Justice Thomas dissented.
\_ Along with O'Conner and Rehnquist (he's still alive I
guess)
\_ Is this in line with Rehnquist's record? Does
anyone think he's changed his priorities because
of his health?
\_ They're voting as "state's-rights" ideologs.
O'Connor also wants to be perceived as the
compassionate/sensible conservative.
Scalia is not a buffoon so will judge according
to law, along with the other 5 in the majority
opinion, even though it hurts people.
\_ There's that all-inclusive "interstate commerce" line again. Just
like "provide for the general Welfare", it's broken.
\_ The reasoning in the opinion seems really weak.
\_ I read the opinion last night and I think that
Scalia's concurrence probably is more illuminating
than the majority opinion.
The way that I understand it is that the decision
is based on the 'necessary and proper' clause that
allows congress to regulate intrastate activities
to the extent that they affect interstate commerce.
As Scalia states the test is whether the means used
by congress are "'reasoanbly adapted' to the ...
legitimate end[s] under the commerce power."
Since Pot is a Schedule I drug (you may dispute
classification, but that was not at issue) and
Congress's desire to eliminate Schedule I drugs
from interstate commerce is legitimate (again
you may dispute this, but it was not at issue),
the question is whether it is possible to distin-
guish local pot from "imported" pot. Since it is
not, Congress's desire to restrict pot growing
preempts state law.
Notes:
(1) I have not taken Con Law yet, so my understa-
nding of the commerce power and the necessary
and proper clause is a bit weak.
(2) The real problem is that pot is misclassifed
as a Schedule I drug. If pot is reclassified,
then the outcome should be different and these
people can go about their business.
(3) My agreement of w/ the outcome is colored by
my general dislike for things like pot,
cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, &c.
\_ If nothing else I enjoyed hearing "The evil left-wing liberals
are trying to steal our pot" on right-wing talk radio this
morning. |
| 2005/6/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37971 Activity:nil |
6/4 Protests in Azerbaijan! (interesting pictures)
http://csua.org/u/c99
\_ A Neocon Republican's dream come true.
A Moderate Republican's nightmare.
\_ Depends. Guess what leads through there since May 25? -John
\_ It couldn't be a pipeline, because motd told me they weren't
working on one. |
| 2005/6/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37969 Activity:high |
6/4 FUCK http://cnn.com! Every single news site has a different take on it than toeing-the-fucking-Administration-line http://cnn.com. Even http://foxnews.com! \_ O.o you're weird. \_ Um, what exactly is it? -dans \_ Well, they changed it this morning. \_ They changed it this morning. Good thing they woke up to their fucking senses. \_ Right, but what is it? Were they stating that modern bombs do, in fact, tick not vibrate? Did they have it backwards, do they vibrate? Must we not imply ownership and refer to it as ``a dildo,'' not ``your dildo?'' -dans |
| 2005/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37965 Activity:high |
6/3 I once read an article that says 70% of the Jews vote Democrat. Now,
I kind of understand why 90% of the Blacks vote Democrat because it
probably has something to do with Civil Liberty, but why Jews? I mean,
don't they have the most [financial incentive] by voting Republican?
\_ A large fraction of the Jews in my family are Trotskyist athiests.
They typically hold their nose and vote Democrat, though. I have
seen no correlation between their income and their political
positions. One of the most dogmatic Trotskyists is a multi
millionaire.
\_ Plus religious incentive.
\_ Actually, in a recent article, the Economist argued that
the process of defection of religious Jews from the Dem. to
republican party has started during the 2004 election. In fact,
one major thing that delayed this process was the fact that Joe
Lieberman was running for vice pres. on the democratic ticket in
2000. They argued that these days people are starting to vote
for one or another party not based on which religion they follow
but based on the intensity of their faith. Given that, I wonder
if this is also going to apply to blacks many of whom are
religious and socially conservative.
\_ Hello? Where have you been? Many Latinos and Blacks already
switched to Bush in 2004. California Latinos are much more
likely to go for Bush for whatever the reason. Even Asians,
\_ I think you pulled this from your ass. in fact the one
report of an exit poll i just found had CA latinos voting
almost 3-1 for kerry.
\_ used to be 7-1 for Democrat 10 years ago. ?Que Paso?
\_ determined media campaigns.
esp. greedy Asian immigrants favor Bush for obvious reasons--
they fall into certain tax brackets that Kerry promised to
raise. Even Taiwanese people favor Bush because they believe
that Bush has the guts to stand up to China (which is totally
bullshit). Back in 2004 I saw quite a few Bush commercials
on channel 18, foreign channel, and none from Kerry. It's sad
to say this but Bush did a much better job appealing to
minority voters than his predecessors. As a result of double
fuckups from Gore and Kerry, we'll most likely see similar
voting patterns in 2008. -Pissed Off Asian Liberal
\_ What party was Lincoln?
\_ Wow, that's one of the more racist comments I've seen. All Jews are
rich, eh?
\_ You're mixing up the word racist and stereotype. I've always
thought racist remarks are derogatory stereotypes. For example,
the statement "all Asians are smart" is a stereotype but not
racist. The statement "all Asians are sneaky" is a racist remark.
\_ Wrong. Both comments are racist stereotypical remarks.
\_ You're an idiot.
\_ From Merriam Webster: "a belief that some races are by
nature superior to others." You're right, I'm an idiot.
\_ Yup, and you won't even realize it..
\_ Wow, you're a jerk. -!pp
\_ No, I'm pretty sure racist just means "race based
stereotype."
\_ I think it's important to distinguish illegal acts inspired
by racism (such as discrimination, or racial violence)
and race-based stereotypes themselves. I, personally, have
no problems with valid stereotypes, race-based or not. If
that's racism, then I have no problem with that form of
racism. -- ilyas
\_ Russians are always drinking Vodka and drive like
they're drunk. It's a miracle that during the cold war
they didn't accidentally launch a nuke.
\_ No, it's a fact.
\_ No offense if you're a white trailer Joe, but on average, Jews
have 2X the income and more than 2X the likelihood of going to
college. In another word, Jews are smarter and more wealthy than
your average trailer trash Joe that voted for Georgy.
http://www.jbuff.com/c052302.htm
\_ I guess I have elaborated more: all Jews are rich and that's
the only thing they care about?
\_ I find it worrisome that the plebes are beginning to accept the
idea of talking about "the jews" as some monolithic social body.
It showcases a pretty spectacular decline in the level of
civilization of the lower classes. -John
\_ I find it worrisome that John is beginning to accept the idea of
talking about "the plebes" as some monolithic social body.
-- ilyas
\_ Hooookay....
\_ Ever heard the saying "Ask 2 Jews, get 3 opinions"?
\_ No, but I've heard from a self deprecating Jew that to be a
Jew, you need to have a lot of money and a nose job. |
| 2005/6/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37956 Activity:nil |
6/3 Every once in a while, Feinstein shows herself as worthy.
(re: filibusters)
http://feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/cr-judicial-nom0510.htm |
| 2005/6/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37936 Activity:kinda low |
6/2 After 1950, 5 Presidents have been Democrats and 9 presidents
have been Republicans. What does that say about Democrats, that
they've sucked not just in the past 10 years but in the past
5 decades? That they just can't seem to get their acts together?
-Disillusioned Democrat, now Independent
\_ They controlled Congress for most of that 5 decades. You know
that Congress thing, I'm sure you've taken Civics. I'm assuming
you're familiar with the separation of powers thing?
\_ yeah, they should make sure their brother is the governor of
a key swing state. -tom
\_ Please don't tell me that you believe Jeb Bush rigged Florida. I
know you're obnoxious and rude and sometimes stupid, but I didn't
figure you for a conspiracy nut too.
\_ I am sure that if Al Gore Sr. were governor of Florida,
the election would have gone differently; voter rolls
wouldn't have been purged of black-sounding names, for
one thing.
In any case, what's so special about 1950? If you look at
1960, or 1945 (end of WWII), Democrats and Republicans
have held the presidency about an equal amount of time. -tom
\_ Because numbers are fun to fuck around with. The question
itself is deliberately misleading, and was posted by one
of our stealth motd posters. I simply assumed it was a
troll --scotsman
\- a pretty smart observation about election 2000 was
\- a pretty astute observation about election 2000 was
"when an election is that close, all theories are
true" ... i mean you can claim it was a sunny day
true" ... you can plausibly claim it was a sunny day
and the young hedonist democrats and homosexuals all
went to the beach.
\_ The DNC in Chicago was the site of one of the most heinous cases
of police brutality in the nation's history. The Dems of today are
not the Dems of 1950-1974. Get used to it. |
| 2005/6/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37925 Activity:nil |
6/1 http://csua.org/u/c8l (Reuters) "The Pentagon on Wednesday postponed [to June 10, a Friday] the release of military recruiting figures for May ... The military services had routinely provided most recruiting statistics for a given month on the first business day of the next month. ... 'Military recruiting is instrumental to our readiness and merits the earliest release of data. But at the same time, this information must be reasonably scrutinized and explained to the public, which deserves the fullest insight into military performance in this important area,' [a Pentagon spokeswoman said]." \_ Is there an election coming up? \_ Nah - if they were thinking about elections, they'd be covering up football hero deaths. Oh wait! |
| 2005/6/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:37917 Activity:nil |
6/1 Who was the first female Secretary of State? Thx.
\_ Duh. Madeline Albright. Her dad inspired Condi Rice to switch
from music to politics.
\_ BTW, "Albright" doesn't sound like a foreign lastname.
\_ Uh, what are you talking about?
\_ She made up that name herself and changed it.
\_ I like the pic of her toasting Kim Jong-Il:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Madeleine-Albright |
| 2005/5/31-6/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37902 Activity:nil |
5/31 Woodward and Bernstein confirm that W. Mark Felt was "Deep Throat."
See washington post.
\_ Linda Lovelace is turning over in her grave!
\_ She didn't die. In fact, she was born again.
\_ Which came first?
\_ I don't think LL ever came for real.
\_ "On several occasions he confided to me, 'I'm the guy they used to
call "Deep Throat,"' ... [Felt] still has qualms about his actions,
but he also knows that historic events compelled him to behave as
he did: standing up to an executive branch intent on obstructing
his agency's pursuit of the truth. ...
Felt, having long harbored the ambivalent emotions of pride and
self-reproach, has lived for more than 30 years in a prison of his
own making, a prison built upon his strong moral principles and his
unwavering loyalty to country and cause. But now, buoyed by his
family's revelations and support, he need feel imprisoned no
longer."
\_ I'm waiting for a Deep Throat equivalent for GWB. Let's pray for it.
\_ Deep Fist is actually our own Tom Holub! You heard it here first!
\_ And he failed to change GWB's Regime of Incompetency.
Homeland Security begins with regime change, at our homeland.
\_ Not going to happen. Loyalty to GWB is paramount to those in
a position close enough to affect the administration. The
American public has accepted that the current admin engaged in
Operation Iraqi Freedom with less than solid proof. Mr Bush's
Splendid Little War will fall through the same cracks as Reagan's
Iran-Contra dealings. History will judge in another 50 years.
\_ Actually, a majority of Americans still thinks that Saddam
had WMDs.
\_ They also can't find Canada on a map, can't tell you when
WWII happened, can't identify when Jesus lived to within
a hundred years, and can't solve a quadratic equation.
My mom teaches college freshman, and started giving them
a quiz sometimes to see if these things you hear about
Americans' ignorance are true. They are.
\_ And most still think SH had terrorist ties. GWB has
reached teflon levels with this. |
| 2005/5/31-6/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37899 Activity:nil |
5/31 Yearbook picture of boy voted "most whipped" features boy wearing
leash.
http://csua.org/u/c86
Angry editorial (includes picture)
http://csua.org/u/c87
\_ did you mean to post the same URL twice?
\_ Those same people probably have no problem seeing Jet Li wearing a
leash held by Morgan Freeman.
\_ That girlfriend looks like Jenna Bush. Ah, it's all Dubya's fault!
\_ "School officials will use stickers to cover the offending photo.
They want the 240 students who already received their books to
return them for alteration." -bwwwwaaaaaahahahha.
\_ I wish I had a girlfriend in high school.
\_ If she's underaged then it's not legal. |
| 2005/5/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37881 Activity:nil |
5/28 williamc, while many of us accept that you're ugly, you're also
pretty dumb [for an Asian]. We suggest that you give a hard look at
yourself before you decide to flame back. We wish you well.
\_ Dumb? I think not. I think the appropriate label for him is "bad
person", and "bad citizen". The "love it or leave it" crowd are one
of the more loathesome components of the American political scene.
Just by fouling our country with their bullshit attitude, they
make America a worse place to live. I suppose he thinks America
would be a better place if everyone who has fought to improve
something that was wrong with our country for the last 200 years had
just picked up and left instead of fighting for change?
\_ Yes, your ad hominem attacks are indeed very intelligent of you.
As for your political views, why are you so defensive when
someone disagrees with you? After all, isn't the point of political
debate to foster discussion? As for "love it or leave it," instead
of complaining about it why don't you actually try to come up
with some real solutions instead of whining about it? As for your
political views, I would urge you to closely examine all issues
on both sides of the fence before coming down to conclusions that
"bush is bad" or "we have to kill all the terrorists". Unfortunately
the world is much more nuanced than the political propogandists
would lead you to believe. As for idiotic proposals that we've
seen recently, they include:
1. Suggesting that everyone ride a bike (very smart).
2. We begin protesting just for protests sake (save your energy).
3. There actually needs to be a discussion on evolution (save
your breath).
4. We should support a people who celebrated 9/11 (the Palestinians)
Now, whether you are a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, etc.
if you went to Berkeley and had an iota of common sense you'd realize
that any of these ideas are pretty dumb. If you don't like people
responding to your political views, then don't post them.
Anyway, send me an email if you really want to debate any of these
topics. We can pick a forum and we can have at it. -williamc
\_ You've been trolled. Yes, you're very smart.
\_ While I don't like your personal attack, I do agree that it's
important to keep an open mind. This country was founded by
immigrants and visionaries who continually shaped America a
better place to live. Our fathers have done a lot of good things
from Emancipation, Women's Sufferage, all the way to Civil Rights.
I've lived in US most of my life and have been taught that
America's the best place in the world. I think that may be true,
but as I get older and have more opportunities to travel abroad
I also see a lot of good things in other countries like Canada
and Denmark. Just because our country is the greatest doesn't
mean we should stop making it even better. Our fathers have done a
lot of good things, and we should too. I love America, and I
also have some things I think could be improved. That is why I
refuse to leave America. I will stay here, and fight for things
that matter to people, like more tolerance, more compassion,
better city planning/transportation, and more accountability in
both the government and corporations. If anyone tells you to "get
the fuck out of US", that person is narrow minded to a point that
he/she is unable to take any criticism and should be the one to
get the fuck out of US. So do us a favor and stay. Continue the
tradition our fathers have made by continually making America a
better place to live. |
| 2005/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37856 Activity:nil |
5/27 Not all republicans are anti-stem-cell... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25stem.html?pagewanted=all |
| 2005/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37835 Activity:nil |
5/25 Haha, it's about time:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/25/wilbanks/index.html
\_ It's about time people stopped caring about bullshit non-news items
that are none of their business.
\_ True, but with the big deal ALL the news sources made about
that bitch, it was hard not to get suckered into showing
some interest.
\_ Not really. Do you also consider the Michael Jackson
trial to be important news?
\_ Right now, no. I'll probably show some interest
once a verdict is reached though. Same thing
with that runaway bride. I didn't care about the
updates, but once she was caught and no charges
were filed against her, then I started caring some.
\_ You're really that flaccid?
\_ It's about time people stop posting un-descriptive URLs without a
brief description of what the page is about.
\_ Hey stop it, she seems like a very nice typical all American girl.
\_ A very typical all American Bush voter from Georgia. |
| 2005/5/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37820 Activity:nil |
5/23 LucasFilm reminds me of how everyone says that one should avoid excess
alcohol, tobacco, and donuts because they're not good for you, yet
almost everyone goes on drinking, smoking, and "Jenny Craiging". You
know, for every $9 you waste on LucasFilm, 1/2 of that is going into
the next huge crappy LucasFilm. It's like... people say they hate
George Bush but keep on donating to the RNC. Dumme Amerikaner. Dumme. |
| 2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37817 Activity:nil |
5/23 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050523/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_139 "Centrists from both parties reached a compromise Monday night to avoid a showdown on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees and the Senate's own filibuster rules ..." \_ Watch freepers scream and rant http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408993/posts \_ Bill Frist got pwnd. \- how do you figure this isnt a 95% republican victory? --psb \_ It's a delay of game penalty. When a Supreme steps down and Demos try the same thing, the filibuster will fall. In fact, I doubt it will be that close. \_ So you're saying the 7 Democratic senators in on the compromise will filibuster the next SCOTUS nominee, and for that nominee, there won't be 6 Republican senators to vote to prevent use of the nuclear option? In any case, I could see use of the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominees by both parties (initiated by the GOP and tit-for-tat by Dems in 2008-2012), but a general reluctance for appeals court and other judges. I also give it a 50% chance that Dubya will nominate a non-wacko SCOTUS candidate as the first one, obviating the need for a filibuster. \- without taking a stand on what that probability p will be [and it may depend whether it is the CJ or and AJ] i think the probability certainly is affected by how bruised he is ... over Bolton, over Social Security etc. This is obvious but the point being you can score points that have an affect down the road even if you lose early on. |
| 2005/5/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37814 Activity:nil |
5/23 Fox's angle on Star Wars vs. Republicans:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157229,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157229,00.html
\_ I see everything twice!
\_ "By and large, the rebellion's supporters were ordinary people who
wanted self-determination, republican government, and free
enterprise in place of the Galactic Empire's oppression, economic
controls, and high taxes."
Typical Fox handwaving, to imply that republican government is
the equivalent of Republican-dominated government. |
| 2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37809 Activity:kinda low |
5/23 http://csua.org/u/c5y (Post) A certain and clear pattern has emerged when a damaging accusation or claim against the Bush administration or the Republican-led Congress is publicized: Bush supporters laser in on a weakness, fallacy or inaccuracy in the story's sourcing while diverting all attention from the issue at hand to the source or the accuser in the story. ... Some will argue that such questions are irrelevant or miss the point because Bush's bold action in Iraq got rid of a tyrant who was abusing his own people and because it will eventually lead to the spread of democracy in the area. Both may be true. But the case for war was built neither on humanitarianism nor on spreading democracy. Those arguments were, at most, used to bolster the main case, which was that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction and presented an imminent threat to America and its allies. \_ Bud Day doesn't appreciate your tone of voice. \_ If you really respected BUD DAY you would always capitalize His name. \_ You've obviously never served. \_ If he did, it would destablize the middle east for generations! \_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect BUD DAY had on the American War effort in China? \_ Heh, I missed this one. |
| 2005/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37792 Activity:nil |
5/20 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/politics/main697013.shtml Bush says "the way to honor [Pope JP] is to continue to build a culture of life where the strong protect the weak." Is that why we're torturing Iraqis and bombing civilians, so that they will not terrorize other people? \_ No, dumbass, it's the reason why we keep brain-dead people alive against the wishes of those with the power-of-attorney and also why we are defunding stem-cell research so that we'll be behind every other industrialized country in biotech in the near future. The torturing Iraqis and bombing civilians has to do with this nation being good Evangelical Christians in general. Your propoganda fu is weak. |
| 2005/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37790 Activity:nil |
5/20 Headline of the day: "Bush promises probe into Saddam underwear
pictures" (on Yahoo! news)
Sadly now amended:
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/canderson/2005/05/20#23a505 |
| 2005/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37766 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 Ha ha. http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180008 Media Matters cracks me up. Glenn Beck's motto is "half the politics, twice the comedy". The quote they have from him is during a bit about "what you would do for 50 million dollars" because of Dave Chapelle's problems. The quote was entirely tongue-in-cheek. I've put an mp3 of the whole thing in /csua/tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3. -emarkp \_ Hahahaha, those whacky conservatives, always threatining to \_ Hahahaha, those whacky conservatives, always threatening to kill judges or beat up liberals or blow up the New York Times. What a great sense of humor you guys have. Hahahaha. \_ Whatever. Listen to the clip. http://MediaMatters.org did *not* put it in context, and it proves how ful of crap the site is. -emarkp \_ Threatening to kill your political opponents is just not funny. Does Jon Stewart ever do this? \_ Listen to the clip. Heaven forbid you judge someone in context. \_ I will listen to it later, when I am not at work. \_ soda {158}% ls -l /csua/tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3 -rw------- 1 emarkp wheel 13222106 May 19 13:56 /csua/\ tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3 \_ Permissions fixed. Sorry 'bout that. -emarkp \_ Not having researched this, it appears to me that you are looking very hard to find problems with http://mediamatters.org, when in contrast, it's not very hard to find serious problems with Dubya. \_ No, Beck mentioned it on his show, and I checked their site to verify it. \_ Oh, and the http://mediamatters.org article says he has 6 million listeners. That's incorrect--he has 8 million. \_ Check out the Conservative "Accuracy In Media" crowd for fun sometime. \_ Oh, I'm sure there are partisan R's twisting the truth like crazy too. -emarkp \_ It doesn't pretend to be an unbiased sorce, just a liberal media watchdog, like all the Conservative media watchdog groups out there. It is better than the vast majority of them, if you ask me. But then again, I am liberal, so I would say that. |
| 2005/5/18 [Recreation/Pets, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37755 Activity:nil 80%like:37753 |
5/18 Bush Attacking People in Texas:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/18/birds.attack.ap/index.html |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37731 Activity:moderate |
5/18 Hand grenade thrown at Dubya during Georgia stop was live, but
landed bad and didn't explode:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/18/bush.georgia/index.html
\_ This is pretty old news. It's been around for the past couple
of days. Where have you been, poster, under a rock?
\_ Old news == Grenade was fake or inert; there was no grenade
New news == Grenade was live and may have exploded
Where have you been poster, crying while masturbating in bed?
\_ <YAWN> Whatever was tossed didn't explode. Who the fuck
cares anymore.
\_ Wouldn't have killed him anyhow, would've just killed
some random people in the crowd.
\_ <vague threat against the president removed>
\_ Damn the Georgians are stupid!
\_ perfect example where the Americans interpret this statement as
"Damn they're stupid for trying to kill our great leader" and
everyone else interpret this statement as "Damn they're stupid
for not successfully killing the world's biggest living tyrant."
\_ Bias I sense here. -Yoda |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37729 Activity:moderate |
5/18 Yes yes yes! Enough with racial fighting, violence, and failing
educational system in the second largest city in the US. DOWN with
wealthy, out of touch white male politicians and in with a new
minority mayor! It is about time. It's a huge victory for diversity,
minorities, and average Americans -white male politician hater
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4554873.stm
\_ Why am I reading about a US mayor on the BBC?
\_ uh, because your sense of perception is usually better when
you're far away, whereas when you're closer things tend to be
over-magnified or distorted? Or if you're asking why a foreign
news cares about a sucky US city, is it because most of the
world is well in tune with what goes on in the US, whereas the
other way is untrue? This is, perhaps we are the most self
indulgent species in the entire planet and we don't care about
the world, or our perception by the world? Or maybe this is
because unlike Europeans, we don't travel as much for
whatever reason? Take your pick.
\_ The Euros as a whole (massive overgeneralization) tend to
look at US politics as a pretty monolithic affair. I
remember my gf watching Rumsfeld get the bitchsmack laid
on him at some Senate hearings and being extremely astounded
at how aggressively they were treating him. You don't often
get that sort of depth of detail in most countries about
other countries' politics. Who here heard of George
Galloway before he appeared in the Senate? (You didn't miss
much) -John
\_ What did BBC have to say about the District 2 special
election in Oakland? 'Cos I'm never heard of any of these
people, and I've been living here for six years and
worked for the City of Oakland for 3.5 years. --erikred
\_ Oakland is not the biggest 5 cities in the US, so it's
not really a city :)
not really a REAL city :)
\_ Damn you and your logic! :)
\_ I thought Oakland is the biggest US city by area,
although not by population.
\_ Not a chance, but you would be forgiven for thinking
so if you've ever driven down San Pablo and then
moved over to International all the way to San
Leandro. Speaking of which, are there any movie
theaters south/east of the Parkway?
\_ Follow-up: Oakland ranks 98th in area among
cities with pop > 100k.
http://www.demographia.com/db-us90city100karea.htm
\_ I love how the state of California is more
densely populated than the city of Anchorage.
\_ This is not the first time LA has a non-white mayor, racist. |
| 2005/5/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37714 Activity:low |
5/16 "But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that
somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of
America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't
think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to
continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should
not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my
advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't
appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution
of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I
am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying."
-Sen Adams (R) NH on his filibuster of Clinton appointee Richard Perez
\_ Where is that in the senate record?
\_ You know, when googling this, it appears to be a quote from Senator
Robert Smith on March 7, 2000, not Senator "Adams". Where did you
get this quote from?
\_ I got it from a discussion forum I am on. I guess the guy
got the author wrong, but Sen Robert Smith is a
(R) from NH, right?
\_ "Mr. President, this is just one year of the Presidency I am
talking about. I have only dealt with 1992 when circuit court
nominees were blocked in committee. I could have gone back
further into the Bush Presidency. I could have gone back
into other Presidencies. I didn't do that, but these are
filibusters. When you don't allow a nomination to get to
the Senate floor--it may not be under the technical term
``filibuster,'' but when you block it, that is a filibuster.
You are not getting it here and you can't talk about it if
it isn't up here. If it is languishing in committee, then
we are not going to be able to debate it, approve it, or
reject it. No matter how you shake it, they were filibusters
led by committee chairmen rather than the majority leader
on the floor." From the same speech, Mr. Smith goes to
washington and redefines the filibuster to include blocking
in committee. His speech starts on page S1209, and this
quote is on page S1212, March 7 2000. |
| 2005/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37689 Activity:low |
5/15 Star Wars anti-Bush?
http://csua.org/u/c2r (Yahoo Movies)
\_ "Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations
from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel
trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his
space fantasy."
Let's see, Bush=Dark side, storm troopers=Marines, and US=facsist?
If that's what Lucas is trying to convey (consciously or
subconciously), I totally endorse him. GO LUCAS!
\_ Cue Empire / Darth Vader music. You should all play Kotor 2:
"With all that talk about standing up on your own two feet, I
shoulda known she was with the Dark Side!"
\_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20050511
\_ I think it is pretty clear "turning to the dark side" is a
reference to homosexuality and sodomy.
\_ The more seductive side of the force?
\_ And here I thought it was a reference to stouts. "Once
you go black, you'll never go back."
\_ I actually think Star Wars I (the very first one) favors
conservative/religious thinking. In the end, when Skywalker flys
the X-plane and disengages his computerized scope in favor of
using the "force", it is like a subtle way saying that science
and engineering is no match for the almighty super-natural force.
It's not clear what that force is, but one can easily interpret it
as the force of Jesus, Allah, or whatever you want it to be.
\- mysticism != organized/dogmatic religion. i think it is more
a case of romantic anti-rationalism. although "ironically"
the man in metal perhaps puts this best: "Don't be too proud
of this technological terror ... insignificant next to the
power of the Force." ... That's part of the reason it seemed
leem when the whole midichlorlian thing came up. ok tnx.--psb |
| 2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37668 Activity:moderate |
5/13 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050513/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/base_closings When was the last major closure of bases? Clinton? Kennedy? Does this mean there will be a lot of pissed off military men, with rifles and sniper guns and no jobs? \_ I REALLY hope pissed off jobless military men get militant and start throwing pies at Bush. \_ People from closed bases need to move to other bases. \_ yeah like bases in... Iraq. \_ so the cut-back is just savings from operational costs associated with geography? \_ Well there are the buildings on top of the geography and the resources to keep them running. \_ Clinton closed a bunch of bases. As I recall Republicans complained. I bet the Dems do this time. \_ Mmm... a little history might give you a FUCKING CLUE. Dick Armey's legislation under Reagan created the commission so that Congress would be in on base closings. Over the last 17 years through 4 different presidents, there have been sporadic base closings. In 2002, Bush said he would veto the defense spending bill if they didn't include a provision for another commission for 2005. \_ Who cut more? Clinton closed down Treasure Island right? \_ Most of the moderately-recent Bay Area military base closures were under Clinton -- NAS Alameda, Treasure Island, Mare Island, Moffett, Fort Ord, maybe a few others. I seem to recall a lot of military resource consolidation stuff under Clinton's administration, much of which was (in my opinion) fairly justified given the post-Cold-War reduction in military forces. -gm \_ Although the last round of closures did hit the bay area, Dellums' clout as the ranking member of the armed services committee protected us somewhat. services committee protected us somewhat. Things could be much worse this time around. \_ Hang on a second. Bases exist as tools for the military to better protect the United States from foreign aggression. They are meant to be neither the TVA nor the CCC nor any other make-work economic stimulus. When you start talking about being "protected" from base closings, you get into dangerous pork territory. There are better and more efficient ways of spending federal money than by suckling communities on the teat of the military, such as on Homeland Defense in threatened Iowa. -John \_ That is just the way politics works John and it is somewhat naive to think otherwise. -ausman \_ Of course it is, I'd assume you know I'm aware of this :) However, even if "it's just the way it is", it's stupid and wrong and I'll certainly point it out. -John \_ This is simply not true. The bay area was hit disprportionately hard and this was a deliberate disproportionately hard and this was a deliberate sacrifice on the part of Dellums (and by extension the Bay Area) to lead by example. Personally, I I think we are better off with the Presidio being converted to civilian use, for example. \_ Bay area was hit hard because they couldn't get enough gays/lesbians/peace-loving-liberals to sign up and they couldn't take the heat from protestors :) |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37660 Activity:kinda low |
5/13 Listen to Bolton in his own voice (proof that he's not a nutjob):
link:csua.org/u/c17
\_ Wow, I didn't know anything about this till now. He seems to have
a lot of Bush's qualities. Go America!
\_ I was expecting beautiful voices of Michael Bolton but... nevermind
\_ I was expecting beautiful voice of Michael Bolton but... nevermind
\_ Our future UN Ambassador is so BIG and TAX FREE, and Condi Rice is
behind him 100%! Thanks for the URL, but I also think the spot
would be much more effective without the text cues and the credit.
behind him 100%! Thanks for the URL.
behind him 100%!
\_ Okay I have a video without the text cues
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/images/uploads/Bolton-UN.wmv
\_ Gee, I don't know about this Bolton thing. I think it's just a
setup. The conservatives want to put in a conservative candidate but
know that he/she'll get rejected, so they put in an obvious radical
nutcase (Bolton) that they know will get rejected. And while the
Democrats declare victory for turning Bolton down, Republican's
will put in the candidate they intended in the first place--
conservative. It's kind of like a store where the merchant raises
his price by 50%, then offer a 25% discount to buyers who think
they're getting a deal. The merchant still get the better
deal, but at least both sides are happy.
\_ I don't think so. I think the Bolton nomination was a total
overreach, and when Voinivich put the breaks on a few weeks
back, the WH had a big "oh crap" moment. They could play the
obstructionist card when it was just the opposition working to
stop their nominations. When R's start to break ranks on you,
especially in today's party, you've seriously fucked up. |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37657 Activity:nil |
5/12 http://www.fair.org http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=2 Search for Fox WMD. 85% of the Fox viewers think that there's WMD and only 16% of the other news think so. That is just one small example. FYI, it also reports that CNN and other liberal media are unfair as well. Basically, ALL news source suck, some more than the other. \_ And what do you conclude from those numbers? \_ And in other news, CBS has apparently hacked up an interview to make the interviewee say what they want. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010443.php \_ The world is not about United States. The world is about... THE WORLD. That's why I balance spotty and biased U.S. News sources such as liberal LA/NY Times and red neck Fox News with other news source, such as European Daily, Japan Times, and Al Jazeera. I'm serious about the last one. To really understand the world, one needs to temporarily detach oneself from his/her cultural roots and try to understand and even empathize from all perspectives. I don't mean you should become a suicide bomber or burn American flags, but at least try to think the way they think. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask from your average Yankees (with IQ below 90). \_ Average IQ is less than 90? \_ Average IQ is 100, although in the past few decades it's been rising steadily. And I don't think average American necessarily have average IQ. More tests are needed, obviously. http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm \_ First off, the average IQ is just that, the measure of the average IQ of a cohort. Therefore, the average American has an average IQ by definition. If you mean that the average American has a lower IQ than the average XYZ country, then that's another story. You can't say that the average American doesn't have an average IQ, that's like saying the average American doesn't make an average income. Second, IQ only measures a very finite quantitative subset of reasoning skills. Just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean that you have a high EQ or that you are more intelligent in things which the test does not measure for. Trying to correlate IQ with politics is one of the dumbest exercises around. You might as well correlate favorite colors with politics or favorite foods with politics. \_ Who are these people? They even have problems w/ the Newshour. |
| 2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37628 Activity:nil |
5/11 Die liberals die! Nuke all Muslims and cure all homosexuals! I'm George Bush, and I approved this message. |
| 2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37627 Activity:nil |
5/11 I have a tribute to our great President, George W. Bush.
.--. |V| HAIL
/ \ _| / GEORGE W BUSH
q .. p \ / FREEDOM
\--/ // LIBERTY
__||__// AND JUSTICE
/. _/ FOR THE WORLD
// \ /
\_ How people did Bubba Clinton free from oppressive leaders? |
| 2005/5/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37609 Activity:kinda low |
5/10 http://csua.org/u/c02 (ifilm.com - wear headphones) Chris Rock in: How Not to Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police Courtesy of http://freerepublic.com and "Police used Taser on pregnant driver" link on http://drudgereport.com. \_ Okay, that was great. Where was that from? Is there more? \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400021/posts \_ And on Fox News today, "Taser Guns Used As Abortion Device" \_ No no no. I mean more Chris Rock, and is there more video where that came from? \_ that's really old. freerepublic my ass. |
| 2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37591 Activity:nil |
5/9 Bush spying on terriorist communications!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050509/photos_pl/mdf555296 |
| 2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37586 Activity:nil |
5/9 Moonbats on parade!
http://csua.org/u/bzs
\_ Ungrateful Europeans! Let's nuke them all! -Conservative Red Neck |
| 2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37582 Activity:nil |
5/9 So when is the draft coming?
\_ "The last thing we need is a draft!" -D. Rumsfeld, Apr 27 2005
\_ Are they preparing for the next "Bush big lie (tm)"? |
| 2005/5/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37538 Activity:nil |
5/5 Libertarians rejoice: President Bush has presided over the largest
overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon
B. Johnson.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750 |
| 2005/5/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37488 Activity:nil |
5/3 See, I am not the only one who thought it was a "smoking gun."
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/001795.html
Will Bunch is the senior political writer for the Philadelphia
Daily News.
\_ You can never trust a Philadelphian. Goddamn "brotherly love".
\_ Perhaps the mainstream media felt stung by CBS/Rather memo-gate
and thought a new memo with text like this was definitely forged
and/or easily dismissed by right-wing commentators as the biased
perspective of a Labour Party staffer.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a
perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as
inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no
enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.
There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after
military action." |
| 2005/5/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37441 Activity:high |
5/2 Can someone please tell me this memo is fake before the freepers do?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html
\_ My UK minions assure me that it's real. Quote: "Death's too good
for him. They need to invent the Pit of Sysiphus for him.." -John
\_ Doesn't the Conservative Party practically run the Times? - danh
\_ Who's quote is that and who is it referring to? Blair's in
reference to Saddam? Your friend in reference to Blair? -dans
\_ I believe John is quoting his UK minion, who feels that
Blair should be in the Pit of Sisyphus.
\_ Okay, that was pretty much the only reading that made
sense to me. That said, my memory of the Myth of Sisyphus
is hazy... I know he was condemned to roll a boulder up a
hill in Hades for eternity, and every time he rolled it to
the hilltop it would roll back down and crush him.
Where's the pit come into the picture?
\_ Maybe he's wishing Blair an eternity of answering
silly, pedantic questions :-) -John
\_ This is it: the smoking gun. Proof that Bush lied. Good work.
\_ WTF are you talking about? You don't score too well on reading
comprehension tests, do you? This is proof that Tony Blair
lied, but it's quite a stretch to try to pin internal minutes
from an UK government meeting on the US president. Don't get me
wrong, I loathe Bush at least as much as you do, it's just that
you don't improve our collective credibility much by crying,
``smoking gun, smoking gun!'' every time some marginally
incriminating document pops up. Unless of course you're a
troll, in which case, way to go, Mission Accomplished! -dans
\_ You a dullard. Here, in the simplest possible terms for
you:
"AS a civil service briefing paper specifically prepared
for the July meeting reveals, Blair had made his
fundamental decision on Saddam when he met President
George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.
When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President
Bush at Crawford in April, states the paper, he said
that the UK would support military action to bring
about regime change."
I will find the quote from after that were Bush
contradicts that in a second. Are you sure you aren't
really a Republican pretending to be a Democrat?
" Straw warned that, though Bush had made up his mind
on military action..." -Aug 2002
" THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I have told the
Prime Minister that my hope is, is that we could
achieve a disarmament of the Iraqi regime peacefully.
I haven't given up on the fact that we can achieve
it peacefully. We have no plans to use our military
until -- unless we need to. I explained to the
Prime Minister, just like I explain to every citizen
who is interested in this, the military is my last
choice, not my first choice." -Oct 2002
Do you see how Bush claims that no decision to use
military force has been made, even though the decision
was made months before?
\_ And you are the bloody boy who cried wolf. I see how you
can make a case for your point, but what you're so-called
smoking gun lacks (aside from the smoke and the gun) is a
bullet-proof piece of evidence that the decision was,
indeed, made months before. Keep in mind that I *believe*
this to be the case, but it's one thing to believe that
events happened a certain way, and an entirely different
matter to have unassailable evidence (cf. The Pentagon
Papers) of what took place. -dans
\_ Did Straw meet with Bush or did just Blair? If Straw
didn't hear it from Bush directly, then it's all just
hearsay and not admissible.
\_ you've been trolled. that sentence is dripping w/sarcasm.
\_ you're stupid.
\_ I think there maybe an error. Jack Straw was not the foreign
minister at the time. Robin Cook was - he resigned in protest
over the invasion.
\_ From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Cook
"After the 2001 general election he was moved from the
Foreign Office to be Leader of the House of Commons.
This was widely seen as a demotion, but Cook welcomed
the chance to spend more time on his favourite stage.
As Leader of the House he was responsible for reforming
the hours and practices of the House."
Jack Straw was indeed Foreign secretary from 2001 on. |
| 2005/4/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37419 Activity:nil |
4/29 Rumsfeld, Spider-Man, and Captain America (work-safe)
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/29/snap6_gallery__550x391.jpg
The Washington Post was good enough to crop the image. |
| 2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37390 Activity:high |
4/28 http://csua.org/u/bw0 Dubya asks networks and cable to show prime-time 8:30 EDT news conference, the first prime-time conference since last year. The topic last year: Iraq. The topic this year: Social Security. Yes, reporters will probably ask about the Duelfer report, and I predict Dubya will say "Removing Saddam was the right thing to do. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein. The people of Iraq no longer suffer under the rule of a ruthless dictator." If reporters persist, Dubya will say, "By removing Saddam, we have given the people of Iraq a taste of freedom. Freedom is on the march. Freedom has spread to the Ukraine ... to the people of Lebanon ... and Libya saw the example we made out of Saddam and gave up their nukular program." If asked specifically about the lack of WMDs, Dubya will say, "I always supported reforms to our intelligence services, and I have informed members of Congress to take the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission seriously, so that the events of that day will never replay again." "Was it worth it? Sure it was worth it. Ask the person who got his hands cut off because he opposed Saddam. Ask the Kurds who were gassed to death because they wanted freedom. Of course it was worth it, and if I had to do it all over again, I would." I'm sure you can think of more. \_ What is your fucking point. Yes he'll say things that you predicted. And that is the appeal to an average American-- a President who sticks to his guns, a President who is repetitive, a President with whom he can relate more to [than an intellect]. The fact of the matter is, most academics think he sucks, but the average Joe doesn't think so. The average Joe selects the President, and the average Joe prefers George W Bush, not some uncharming intellectual dweeb. \_ You haven't seen any polls in the last three months. This president being popular is a myth. \_ So where are the Vietnam-like protestors? Where are the tomato throwers? Bush may not be popular but he is a lot more popular than say, Nixon. \_ There have been tons of protestors. If you haven't seen them, you're watching too much tv news and not enough newspapers. Also, the protestors in vietnam-era were probably a similar proportion of the population. Minds are changing. Majorities don't build in protest. They build alongside them. \_ whoah there, nellie. Here comes the "at least we're not as bad as Saddam" argument again. \_ The whole reason we have Dubya is "at least he's not as bad as Kerry" although a lot of people are having second thoughts \_ The average Joe still thinks there were WMDs in Iraq. \_ The average Joe probably couldn't point to Iraq on a fucking map or tell you what the difference between Iran and Iraq is aside from a letter of the alphabet. \_ Wait, there's a difference? \_ Keep laughing. The Average Joe selects our Idiot In Chief, and will continue to do so until you stop making fun of his low intelligence and until you DO something about it, like education and awareness. \_ You think I'm laughing? Once again, the Average Joe still thinks there were WMDs in Iraq. That Dubya hasn't been loud and clear on the facts of the primary reason we went to Iraq is the greatest tragedy of his presidency. \_ None of the reporters asked about the lack of WMDs. Why didn't some brave reporter ask: "Mr. President, you are known as a plainspoken man, who prides directness and honesty over long-winded explanations. From what your intelligence people are telling you now, did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction or not? Please don't give me a long-winded explanation: Please answer with a Yes or No. If the intelligence folks are not sure, please tell me which they think is more likely. In a Washington Post / ABC News poll take March 13 this year, 56% of Americans say they think Saddam did have WMDs." -op \_ According to Tenet it was a "slam dunk" so there you go. |
| 2005/4/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37368 Activity:nil |
4/26 Happy Chernobyl day!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1469597,00.html?=rss
http://www.chernobyl.info - danh |
| 2005/4/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37358 Activity:kinda low 52%like:36226 |
4/25 So what was the gay male prostitute doing at the White House
on those overnight stays? Why is the press not reporting this?
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm
\_ Because this is old news that Jon Stewart covered weeks ago.
\_ Weeks ago we hadn't heard that he bypassed usual sign in/out
procedures...
\_ Because the press is owned by Fox, Bush, and affiliates.
\_ Because no one cares?
\_ Because the Gannon was performing his day job on various "members"
\_ Because Gannon was performing his day job on various "members"
of the press at those times?
\_ A couple of the instances, there were no press conferences. |
| 2005/4/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37351 Activity:kinda low |
4/25 Is Bush and the Crown Prince actually holding hands in this
photo?
http://csua.org/u/bue
\_ Looks like it. That doesn't bother me. You realize that's
totally normal in a lot of countries, right?
\_ I've been to a lot of different countries, but i've yet been to
one where it's normal to be close personal friends
with an evil theocratic dictator.
one where it's normal to be close personal friends with an evil
theocratic dictator.
\_ Bush would drop down and blow him if it would drop oil
prices by $10/barrel.
\_ Actually, he wouldn't. Bush is the man who blew $300B
and thousands of lives to "get saddam".
\_ The Iraqi resistance didn't go along with the
oil price reduction plan like they were supposed
to.
\_ I heard it's normal for many Arab nations. I presume when
you said you've been to a lot of different countries,
Arab nations are included, no?
\_ They are merely exchanging long protein strings. If you can think
of a better way I'd like to hear it. |
| 2005/4/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37337 Activity:nil |
4/24 Battle for control of the Democratic party
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390299/posts?page=1,50
[ip address replaced; fuck you.]
\_ doesn't everyone know it's http://freerepublic.com by now? |
| 2005/4/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37295 Activity:nil |
4/21 Yay!
"Republicans on Thursday moved closer to a showdown with Democrats
over filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees, sending two
judges under dispute to the full Senate. ... Conservatives during the
last Congress accused Democrats of being anti-minority for blocking
Brown, who is black; anti-women for blocking Owen, and anti-Catholic
for blocking Pryor."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/filibuster.fight.ap/index.html
\_ Because it couldn't be that they're anti-psycho.. |
| 2005/4/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37282 Activity:nil |
4/20 http://csua.org/u/brv LA Times editorial staff says Bolton should voluntarily withdraw from consideration for UN ambassadorship - saving Dubya the embarrassment of yanking him - and instead take an ambassadorship to France. \_ oh, they'll love him in France \_ Interesting, but I thought he had every vote he needs thanks to a Rep senator who is, by his own admission, voting against the wishes of his consituency. Then again, that was yesterday morning. \_ Ooh, you missed a good one. Voinovich (of all people) threw in a monkey wrench. They put off the committee vote for 3 weeks or something. But it doesn't look good for bolton. \_ Go to http://freerepublic.com, do a search for Voinovich, and guess how fast this guy's going to buckle. |
| 2005/4/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37278 Activity:nil |
4/20 Today in History: Jimmy Carter Attacked by Killer Rabbit (Apr 20, 1979)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387141/posts
\- well in a weird version of Godwin's Law, also Hitler bday. --psb
\_ EOT |
| 2005/4/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37248 Activity:high |
4/18 Here's a fun one. If you could pick any historical era to have lived
during, what would it be? I would choose Enlightenment era Europe.
\_ If you mean other than the current era, I would choose Ancient
Greece, around the time of Socrates.
\- you mean during the peloponnesian war and plague of athens
which kills +25% of the population? what are your second and
3rd choices? the black death and london 1666? --psb
\_ To see Socrates deliver the Apology would be
worth it. The only thing that even comes close
would be to see Lincoln at Gettysburg.
\- Socrates was ugly and smelled bad. --fwn
\_ Yeah, but he was honest about it. -socrates #1 fan
\- i think it is pretty tough to pick an "old time"
to actually live in [no antibiotics,anesthetics etc],
but if i had to pick single day, I would rather go
hear Homer the singer of songs tell of the Wrath of
Achilleus. Not only would it be an amazing and
unique performance, but you could answer the great
"Homer Question". If I had to pick from from 5th
Century Athens, tough call between Apology and
something like the Pericles Funeral Oration. However,
speading the day with Socrates in Pireaus beats
both of those [and certainly beats Symposium] ...
"I went down yesterday to Pireaus with Glaucon
some of Ariston and PSB son of NGB ... Polemarchus
some of Cephalus, noticed us in the distance and
son of Ariston and PSB son of NGB ... Polemarchus
son of Cephalus, noticed us in the distance and
sent his slave to tell us to wait for him ...".
If I had to spend 5 min somewhere, it's temping
to be a "fly on the wall" at the meeting of Attila
Hun and Leo I [one of the two "Great" Popes] to
figure out what the hell he said to get Attila that
figure out what the hell he said to Attila that
got him to turn around and go home. There is also a
story about Scipio and Hannibal meeting [in Plutarch,
I believe] but I am not sure that really happened.
\_ Ah but would you understand anything these people
were saying?
\- It would be greek to me.
--pater andron te theon te
\_ If I get to keep all the knowledge that I know now then take me
back to 1995.
\_ Only the modern era has the three most important inventions:
Hot running water, air conditioning, and dentistry.
\_ Just a few years back so I could take advantage of well known
stock price fluctuations.
\_ Sheesh, don't you guys understand the term "era"?
\_ Early 1930s or late 1940s if I got a boatload of cash. -John
\_ This really depends on WHAT I'm going to be. Do I get to choose
to be a peasant or a war lord?
\_ Let's say you keep your current relative level of wealth and
power. So, if you're in the 80th percentile for wealth now,
you'd be in the 80th percentile then. Bush would get to be a
warlord; maybe you can be a successful merchant. -!op
\_ So how do I find out what percentile I'm in? Am I above 80%
by the simple virtue of having a degree from Cal?
\_ In 2003, the 80th percentile U.S. household made $86,860.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032004/hhinc/new05_000.htm
\_ If I can keep prior knowledge, I would pick the 40s. In fact,
I'd pick 1945. I'd study to be a nurse, and then work at New Haven
Hospital in Connecticut. I'd wait for a new born, Georgy, on
7/6/1946. And then I'd "take care of him". By doing so, I will
have saved a lot of innocent blood and revived our Great Nation.
\_ Such a deep sense of patriotism, and you served when?
List other government offices you've served in:
\_ oh, I dunno, offing stalin might have done us better.
\_ Stalin affected Russians, and I don't really care about
them. I care about how US economy and US policy is fucked
up, because I'm an American, and I'm here. Now. 21st century.
\_ you are reason #1 why we should go back and start offing.
\_ unless it is a holiday you experience relative to your real life,
only a romantic fool would prefer to live in the past. born there,
you will miss the context within which it seems so nice to
modern daydreamers... i'd consider the future but not without
some reasonable travel guides so i can pick the utopian or livable
parts and avoid some b-movie post-apocalyptic cannibal feast.
\_ Soylent green is PEOPLE!!! |
| 2005/4/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:37243, category id '18005#6.34125' has no name! , ] UID:37243 Activity:nil |
4/18 It Can Happen Here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-15.htm
\_ Reasonable point. Problem with the presentation, though; such a
phaenomenon in a "western democracy" would be unlikely to take the
shape of Hitlerism. Conjuring up images of Nazism immediately
makes Joe Average think "oh, a kook" and look away. -John |
| 2005/4/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Canada] UID:37231 Activity:nil |
4/17 Who is Maurice Strong? - international political player
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v49/ai_19722906/print |
| 2005/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37220 Activity:nil |
4/16 Evil Democrats are 'against people of faith':
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/15/republicans.filibusters.ap
May conservatism be strong in the US, and GOD BLESS. |
| 2005/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37150 Activity:nil |
4/12 It is easy to dismiss this guy as a crackpot, but he is
a Senior Fellow for EPIC, a retired NSA analyst and
was an intelligence officer in the Marine Corp:
http://csua.org/u/bnk (onlinejournal) |
| 2005/4/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37122 Activity:low |
4/8 Evil AP: "The Republican president's job approval is at 44 percent,
with 54 percent disapproving."
Holy CNN: "In the poll taken Friday and Saturday, Bush's job-approval
/Gallup rating is 48%, 3 percentage points higher than in mid-March.
His standing on personal characteristics such as
trustworthiness remains above 50%."
\_ Regarding AP, only 1% is neutral or has no opinion? Hard to
believe.
\_ Evil AP:
"Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings
about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
If "mixed feelings" or not sure: "If you had to choose, do you
lean more toward approve or disapprove?"
Holy CNN/Gallup:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is
handling his job as president?"
\_ So AP forces people to make choices.
\_ The idea is to get the guy a higher approval rate.
Doesn't that make sense?
Independent of this, it is natural to assume (without
any evidence, usually) that the AP has liberal leaning
staffers, and CNN has pro-administration leaning staffers.
Following this reasoning, the true approval rating is
between 44 and 48%. |
| 2005/4/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37100 Activity:moderate |
4/7 Why does Laura Bush get to go to Rome as part of the official
delegation but Jimmy Carter doesn't? Is a current First Lady, which is
not an official, more important than a former president?
\_ one word: BJ. Sleeping with the CIC does have perks.
\_ Idiot, Carter didn't want to go. He was offered but he
declined, ergo the First Lady/Rice took his spot.
\_ I heard dubya denied brook berry too!
\_ 'Former President Carter had hoped to go as well, but backed off
when told the Vatican had limited the official delegation to
five" (http://csua.org/u/blv
five "and there were also others who were eager to attend,"'
http://csua.org/u/blv
\_ "eager to attend" doesn't show up in that story. The version
I was told was that Jimmy wanted to take his wife, but that
would have made 6 people. Should he have been able to take
his wife while Laura Bush stayed home?
\_ We should be ecstatic that Bush actually went, dressed the
part, and didn't pull a Cheney.
\_ The pope is part of old christianity. We're allies with
new up-and-coming denominations like born-again
evangelicals, yadda yadda...
\_ And Poland, and Italy, and (we wish) a ton of
S. America, and and and... -John
\_ link:www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2005/04/07/news/nation/11332763.htm |
| 2005/4/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37081 Activity:moderate |
4/5 Watch total moron write about how "we were ALL wrong!" on WMDs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28418-2005Apr5.html
(Yes, you can be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and be an idiot.)
\- Richard Posner has been called a lot of things for sure, but
nobody ever calls him an idiot. The same is said for Scalia, but
Posner >> Scalia. --psb
\_ OK, he has a lot of poorly founded assumptions in there, and
neglects a lot of very compelling arguments that counter his
article's points. -John (!op)
\- He's writing in the WaPo. He writes more substantially
but still to the general informed reader at:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com
You can also follow Poser via "Article iii groupie". --psb
\- This is a good article about Posner, by Alan Ryan, who
is well-regarded philosopher. --psb
http://csua.org/u/blb
\_ OK, I wasn't commenting on Posner per se, as I know he
can be a smart guy, but even smart guys write shit
articles occasionally. And this one is not worthy. -John
\- Posner does "skip steps" a lot. You have to have some
insight into the Giant Hedgehog World View to follow
what he is saying often. Also, sometimes he is
making a narrow technical point and should do a little
more to circumscribe his comments and clearly indicate
certain generalizations should not be drawn. He really
is somebody who weighs in on everything (see google).
One reason he probably wont be nominated to USSC. --psb
\_ If there is an opening, many feel that Posner
will be nominated b/c he is universally recognized
as one of the finest minds in the judiciary, the
Cardozo or Holmes of our generation if you will.
\- you mean you dont think BUSH I was correct when
he said THOMAS was the best man for the job?
while i think he'd be a good chief [would be
respected by current justices, is a machine
when it comes to productivity] i would be
surprise to see ROVECO nominate him, --psb
\- You know if by some miracle posner became
chief justice, he might bag on THOMAS some,
which would be really awesome. here is the
hatchet job on DOUGLAS. --psb
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/posner-antihero.html
\_ I think Posner is better than Thomas,
\- gee, really?
(which does not imply that Thomas is
a bad justice, I would be overjoyed
to be as "bad" as Thomas.)
\_ Is Posner being a devious asshole, by ignoring his higher
intellectual faculties? Is Posner helping his good friends /
associates while consciously ignoring the obvious truth of the
matter?
Perhaps. Until then, he's an idiot.
His reputation for non-idiocy may have gotten him on the Post
opinions page for this article, but his non-idiot cachet just
took a big hit.
\_ He's not an idiot. He is a very smart and clever propagandist.
Note his use of "nearly every competent observer." Anyone who
disagrees with the Establishment line, is by definition,
incompetent and not worth listening to. It is this kind of
self-sustaining insular world view that has put Washington DC
on such a collision course with the rest of the world. These
people are like Michael Jackson: they are nuts, but so wealthy
and powerful that they can just fire anyone who tells them
anything they don't want to hear.
\_ Competent observer means those who have invested sufficient
time and resources into investigating and observing the
situation. This does not mean anyone who disagrees w/ the
establishment's line is incompetent. In this case there were
no parties who had invested as much time and effort as MI-6,
CIA, &c. into investigating the situation and had reached a
dissenting opinion.
When it comes down to it, who are you going to trust, the
spooks or a bunch of loony tie-dye pot smoking kooks w/
purple hair and body piercings shouting free mumia, free pot
and no blood for oil? I'd go w/ the spooks everytime, they
have a much better track record than the kooks.
\_ The kooks knew about COINTELPRO before anyone else. |
| 2005/4/1-3 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37040 Activity:nil |
4/1 I don't get it. How is the Schiavo case going to lead to more
restrictive laws? The vast majority of the public was against
all the last-minute theatrics and interventions. Or is this the
New York Times being a bunch of hacks again? (not the liberal use
of the phrase "may be")
http://csua.org/u/bk2 (nytimes.com) |
| 2005/4/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37021 Activity:nil |
4/1 Seriously, the last post on the Schiavo Circus:
http://csua.org/u/bjt (St. Petersberg Times)
\_ It can't be the last one. I declared a 5 day discussion period
before we can forget about it forever. |
| 2005/3/31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:37005 Activity:nil |
3/31 I have no problem trusting my life to my other-half. But I DO
have a problem if he/she is fucking someone else, not to
mention have 2 kids with them. In that situation, I trust my
parents more. Think about that for a sec, would you trust your
'loved' one if they were fucking someone else for so many
years and then all of a sudden decided that you should
probably die? The probability of your parents want you dead is
a lot lower than the probability of your partner want you dead
for whatever reason there might be. I do agree with Dubya, in
a situation like this, we should error on the side of life.
Even if she has no chance of recovery, what's wrong with just
keeping her alive? How different is this from stopping
medication to cancer patients because after all, they WILL
die? Is it because the cancer patients says "oh I want to
live" and she can't?? If both the parents and the husband
\_ Your brain has been classified as small.
believe the tube should be removed to end suffering, then I
have no problem with that, but if there's a disagreement, then
there's a disagreement, and I really have a problem with the
fact the husband have more 'power' than the parents. If he
wasn't fucking someone else then my position would be neutral.
But he IS. If he's practically married to the other person,
then he loses all credibility to decide her life. And why
doesn't the husband come out and say anything himself?
Everything is said through the Lawyer, yeah, sure, that really
helps to show his sincerity. At least the parents have the
guts to say things to the media themselves and for that I gave
them credit and was one of the things that swing me from
neutral to their side. May her rest in peace.
-someone who hates GWB
\_ If I have no brain response, and have no hope of recovery, and
deteriorate over time, I hope to GOD my spouse would move on with
her life. If I told her I didn't want to live that way, I would
hope she would be my guardian until I was dead. After the shit
that was this case, I would be CERTAIN to make a living will. But
I sure as hell would not want my parents challenging my own
decision. BTW, just how long would you want your spouse to wait
before moving on with their life? If doctors told them you would
not recover?
\_ Dude, the bitch is dead. You and your little pro-life freaks
lost. Get over it.
\_ I trust the three out of four neurologists who have conducted a
neurological exam and deemed her to have been in a persistent
vegetative state for 11+ years.
\_ Quit flogging a dead ... Oh never mind, too easy. |
| 2005/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37001 Activity:nil |
3/31 You'd think a "liberal" media would be all over this. As it is
you have to do your own searching of various Texas newspapers to
learn about Sun Hudson, the six month old boy who was put to
death by a hospital, despite his mother pleading for his life.
Sun Hudson had a fatal disease, but was alive and conscious when
the hospital staff, following a law signed by George W Bush,
killed him.
And Bush says: I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue
to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and
valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of
others.
Unless "others" excludes hospitals in Texas, and "all Americans"
excludes six month old boys from poor families.
\_ Well, don't forget: They were black and not Christian. So others
also excludes non-white pagans or atheists.
\_ What law signed by Bush ordered the hospital staff to kill the boy?
\_ The Futile Care Law. It didn't order them to. It allowed them
to make the decision, without recourse. I'm not so much bothered
by the law, but by the hypocrisy in having signed such a law,
then sweeping in to the aid of Ms. Schiavo.
\_ I saw it here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43311
but of course people dismiss worldnetdaily because it's full of
right-wing nuts, right?
\_ It seems like it would at least be worth mentioning that the law
this action was taken under was signed by the President.
\- i think this episode does show the republican controlled
legislature has gone nuts ... considering they were repeatedly
chastised by multiple judges with solid conservative but
not populist credentials. As John Dryden wrote:
The moderate sort of men, thus qualifi'd,
Inclin'd the balance to the better side:
...
But when the chosen people grew more strong,
The rightful cause at length became the wrong.
--psb |
| 2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36998 Activity:nil |
3/31 Yay! Wolfowitz elected as World Bank president!
When you're on the right team, Dubya takes care of you!
\_ May actually be a good thing. Wait and see. At least he's not
afraid of pissing people off who can use a good pissing off.
Problem is, he might just piss off everyone else too. -John |
| 2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36994 Activity:high |
3/31 "We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost
all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"
-Bi-partisan Commision on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
U.S. Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, in letter to Pres. Bush
\_ What fucking difference does it make? "The world is better
without Saddam", no shit!
\_ I wonder if this will significantly change the 56% of those polled
in mid-March that still think Saddam had WMDs.
\_ That would require people actually paying attention.
\_ you misspelled "with brains".
\_ You don't need brains. All you need are conservative
talk show hosts talking about how "EVERYBODY was wrong"
how Dubya ain't a liar, EVERYBODY thought Saddam had
them. Instead, they're all talking about a vegetable,
but that's life, uh, the culture of life.
\_ "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised. ... The United States and
other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we
will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward
tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of
horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be
removed. ... Recognizing the threat to our country, the United
States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use
of force against Iraq." Pres. Bush, 3/17/03
\_ "The commission said it was ``not authorized to investigate
how policy makers used the intelligence assessments.''"
I thought that's what this one was supposed to be...
\_ Nonono ... they were authorized to investigate whether policy
makers PRESSURED the intelligence analysts / agencies while the
intelligence was being analyzed.
If you were right, then Condi "centrifugue tube" Rice would be
out as the moronic Stanford Provost that she was.
\_ Listening to NPR's freshair made me really depressed
to hear how many morons are in the State Department and how
good they are at squashing people who actually come up with
good ideas. Damn depressing.
\_ I told you so. -motd thought leader
\_ So it was for oil right? Yeah prices are at record lows.
So it was a distraction right? Yeah Iran is going to nuke Israel
A narrow vision
\_ It was to assert America's military strength, and change US
policy to one of aggressive intervention, per PNAC. -tom
\_ which is yet more proof that republican men have bad
sex lifes and take it out elsewhere just like the famous
quote from Good Morning Vietnam ... The world would be a
safer place if there was alot more sex (and the condoms to go
with it)
\_ say WHAT? tom holub is a hard core left wing socialistic
dweeb and he's not getting any.
\_ wrong, kchang. -tom
\_ Tom does seem to take the MotD awfully seriously.
Tom, do insults here keep you up at night?
\_ No, but yermom does.
\_ It is not George's fault he trusted the most important decision
of his life to a guy code named "Curveball."
http://csua.org/u/bjl |
| 2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36992 Activity:high |
3/31 Terry Schiavo dies.
http://www.cnn.com
\_ Any guesses on coverage ratio of this vs. the scathing WMD report
that came out today?
\_ Well, on the major news sites, it's in big print, but it's
invariably #2 to the Schiavo story.
\_ is it over now or do we have to put up with weeks of bickering over
who has burial/disposal rights?
\_ I give it about 5 days of additional bickering, and then everyone
will totally forget about it.
\_ Her name was Terri. Short for Theresa. If you don't give a damn
about it, please don't comment on it.
\_ woke up on the wrong side of the bed, did we?
\_ I've been following this case for 2 years. I never saw it as
a "right-to-life" or "right-to-die" issue. It was a "can a
husband kill a wife" issue. I'm sad that a single judge was
able to order her to be killed. I "woke up" to find out that
Terri was dead and all our futures are in danger.
\_ can a husband kill his wife and get away with it?
\_ ask oj
\_ If you could exchange places with someone terminal in
excruciating pain in the last few weeks life for an hour
I'll bet your entire viewpoint of the situation would
change. All our futures are in danger -- what is the
% chance of ending up on life support for 15 years while
in a PVS?
\_ Of four neurologists who have done a neurological exam on
Terri, three said she was in a persistent vegetative state.
That's how it is.
\_ Actually, it was 8 doctors, 7 concurring.
\_ I'd read from CNN or AP (can't remember which) that
evidence from 5 doctors was used, 2 from husband,
2 from the parents, and one appointed by the court.
Unsurprisingly, 2 from parents said she could recover,
2 from husband as she wouldn't, and the court
appointed doctor said she wouldn't. So, bascially
3/5 with 4/5 giving largely meaningless testimony.
\_ How about letting a hospital kill a six month old boy,
following a law signed by then governor George W Bush?
Um, right, that's somehow different.
\_ "a single judge"? the u.s. supreme court refused to hear
the case multiple times. 9 judges there. an appeal went
to a 3-judge panel on the 11th circuit court. 2 ruled
against the schindlers, one for. the full 11th circuit
court later upheld that ruling. of the 12 judges, only 2
dissented. and lest you argue the "evil liberal judge"
tack, the majority of these judges are republican.
\_ "can a husband kill a wife"? please. are you one of those
religious zealots who relies on the bible for the law
(as opposed to the constitution), who doesn't believe in
the multiple clinicans who thoroughly evaluated her, who
doesn't believe that she made a living will...who, when
all those failed you, resorted to a smear campaign
against the husband? it sure sounds like it. don't worry
about our future so much, it'll be ok.
\_ Theresa? Can they still make her a saint? Since there's already
Mother Theresa on the saint track. How do they deal with
ambiguously named saints?
\- there is already a famous st. theresa [of avila].
theresa isnt mother therasa's orgiginal name.
you are a doofus. --psb
\_ I take pride in not knowing
about saints. --dufus, patron
st. of MOTD
\-it's not a matter of being
versed in the history of
the church. do you really
think they turn down people
because there already is
somebody with the same
name canonized? ... "you
should have considered
thomas beckett, before you
started writing summa
theological, thomas aquinas".
you have never heard of them
or st. thomas more? there are
like 50 or a 100 st. marys.
what is sort of weird are the
nuns who pick a man's name
after taking holy orders.
--psb
\_ I was being facetious
with the saint question
and asked about the names
since it came to mind and
I'd never considered it.
I was thinking in type, so
to speak.
After that I went to
http://catholic.org/saints and
saw the multiplicities of
certain saint names, many
don't even have "of Rome"
or anything else to
disambiguate. I guess they
divinely know to which one
the prayers are directed.
\_ Wait...St Dufus of MOTD or of
CSUA? Which? Or are they the
same? Shit...now I'm all
confused.
\_ It's "Dufus of the CSUA,
patron saint of MOTDs and
trolls".
\_ You shall be named: St. Dufus of the CSUA
\_ Surely there is already a St. Dufus of CSUA? what's the
next level of disambiguation?
Almighty and eternal God,
grant we beseech Thee that,
through the intercession of Saint Dufus the lesser of CSUA
troller and nuker,
during our journeys through the MOTD we will direct our
hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee
and treat with charity and patience all those trolls whom
we encounter.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen |
| 2005/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36964 Activity:low |
3/30 Pat Buchanan on democracies killing themselves:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_28/buchanan.html -John
\_ Nice essay by Pat. Wonder what he thinks of the power grab
by the White House? --PeterM
\_ Good question--I don't recall PB being much of a statist, yet
this article article seems to have a bit of a contradiction
between "government must safeguard liberties" and be restricted
by the constitution (the Jefferson quote) and "don't let the
people decide anything". Hmm. -John
\_ PB is a statist of the Old School. I think "Conservative"
had a much different meaning in his day. My favorite bit
from HST "The Great Shark Hunt" is where Pat talks about
how Chuck Colson wasn't a "real" conservative.
\_ "the U.S. is a Republic not a democracy!!1!"
Yes, yes, we know. |
| 2005/3/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36956 Activity:nil |
3/29 Leno: "Well, they had the annual Easter egg roll today at the
White House. That was kind of fun. And President Bush did not miss an
opportunity. He told the kids that the Easter Bunny would be out of
eggs by the year 2030. ... And that 4% of all their eggs should be
put in a private account, so they can later ... they can use it, yeah."
Letterman: "But at the White House Easter egg hunt, no eggs were
actually found but President Bush continues to claim that they are
there."
\_ Hahahahaha |
| 2005/3/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36898 Activity:insanely high |
3/26 I think it's pretty clear the American public is being intentionally
distracted from something right now by all this bullshit. But what
is it?
\_ Maybe the fact that we haven't got any sort of contingency plan
for when oil prodcction can no longer meet the rate of increasing
consumption? Just a thought.
\_ Yer right. Michael Schiavo made a deal with Dick Cheney to pull
out the tube while the VP was busy dealing with some unexpected
tapes of Condi-Dubya "69" action.
\_ more like DeLay and Frist and all the rest have been watching
and waiting for the perfect case with which to bring this
issue to the forefront of public discourse. I'm more skeptical
about this being some kind of "cover up" ... and rather just
a way for Bush Dick et al to throw a bone to the christian
nut jobs who he's pissing off by letting them down on the
marriage amendment, etc etc.
\_ Let's bomb Iran!
\_ Massive protests in Taiwan: http://tinyurl.com/6vtmv
\_ euthansia and killing mentally handicapped people is not an
issue worth your attention, eh? Well, I hope in the future
you are put down when you get old or are mentally incapicated,
and leave no living will.
\_ Go fuck yourself.
\_ go euthansize yourself. Here's your logic, someone
is a murderer, kills a cop for example like Mumia,
give him 30 years to go through the Fed courts and
deify him as a victim. A woman is mentally incapicated
and her husband remembers she wants to die 7 years
later after receiving 1 million in money that
is deemed to be spent on recuperation but isn't,
starve her to death. I hope you and your children
embrace and enjoy the culture of death you are creating.
\_ Hi, motherfucker. So I guess you figure that once the
constitution and the rule of law have been suspended,
everything will be fine as long as your little club
happens to be in charge. Fuck you. I hope the next
federal abuse of power is you getting executed with no
trial...because that's exactly where the present abuses
of federal power are heading.
\_ the Constitution grants to right to starve the
mentaly incapacitated on the sole basis of compromised
testimony from someone who may inflicted the injury
in the first place?. That was summarized in
Federalist 12, right? This was one of most heated
points of discussion at the Constitutional Conv.,
right? Honestly, have you ever even read the
Constitution? I suspect you are ignorant of the
facts surrounding this case and are projecting your
irrational vitrol towards anyone who is not a
Communist on this poor women. It's ok to starve a
mentally incapacitated woman who has not received
due process but god forbid we disturb a few elk on
a barren tundra.
\_ I am not pp, but your argument re this poor
woman's constitutional rights are flawed.
There is something more important at stake
here than whether this woman lives/dies:
Are we a nation of laws or men?
\_ Law, but the law is not an end in and of itself.
I can't take a side in this gigantic tragic
clusterfuck of a personal and legal travesty, as
I really don't know what I would do (this sort of
reminds me of the "would you use torture even
though it violates your laws and principles if
innocent life is at stake?") but it's pretty
clear to me that, either way, some part of the
judicial and democratic processes has failed
pretty horribly. -John
\_ Laws are instituted among men so that
we may order and plan our affairs better.
Whether or not you like the result in
this case, the laws have served their
proper purpose. Simply b/c the result
is not palatable to some, is not a
reason to throw out the laws and
take an opinion poll to decide what
should be done.
BTW, the only way that you can say
the judicial process has failed is
if you think that the trial ct judge
hugely screwed up in the original
\_ As I recall there was some discussion
about various expert opinions, some video
tape that wasn't used, etc. I don't know
the specifics, honestly, but the whole
thing just reeks of "fuckup". -John
\_ Actually, the stuff that the
media is making a big deal
about (experts, video,
hearsay, &c.) are things
that frequently get messed
up at trial but are generally
not grounds for a new trial.
proceedings. This is not likely
given that the record has now been
reviewed by the FL Appellate Ct,
the FL Supreme Ct, a FL Fed Dist Ct,
and the 11th Cir Ct of Appeals.
I somewhat agree that the democratic
process has failed, b/c congress
clearly overstepped its bounds.
Yes the constitution does not grant the
right to starve a mentally incapacitated
woman. However, the constitution does
limit the power of the fed gov/judiciary
(see Art. 3 Sec 2).
This is a dispute about whether her husband
or her parents have the right to decided
when to end her life. The dispute is
governed by state law.
In creating original jx for a particular
fed ct to rehear her claim from scratch
congress has extended the power of the
fed cts beyond what the constitution
allows: the fed cts cannot hear state law
claims w/o diversity, which does not exist
here. [Yes Art 3 allows congress to enact
legislation that delineates the powers of
the fed cts, but that power must be w/in
the limits set by Sec 2.]
WRT 14th amd due process claims, due process
means that her rights are adjudicated in
ct w/o being subject to material errors.
In this case there is no evid that the cts
of FL have screwed up and have violated any
state or fed statutory or constitutional
right this woman has. Thus due process
has not been violated.
WRT 8th amd cruel and unusual punishment,
this is not applicable to her case.
Re ANWR, I have no opinion. Drilling may
be a good short term soln, but long term
soln are needed as well.
\_ As long as you and yours are first in line, we will.
\_ The "facts" your screed is based on are lies and half truths.
You need to educate yourself before spreading this
propaganda further. What is your purpose in doing this?
\_ As a resident of FL, that poor lady is subject to the
laws of FL. Her rights have been properly adjudicated
under that law. There is no reason for me or for the
feds to get involved in what is essentially a private
matter covered under state law.
\_ Can they move her to another state or country? Will
her rights then change?
\_ If she was in a different forum, her rights may
be different (state law/constitution can give
you all sorts of rights beyond what the fed
versions do, same goes for foreign countries).
One of the compromises that we make in order to
live in a given part of the world is that we are
sub to the laws of that part of the world.
\_ Could she be moved? Who determines that?
\_ Her primary caregiver.
\_ Your whole line of argument is based on a bunch of outrighT
lies and misinformation. Either you are deliberately
misinforming people or you are passing on falsehoods.
You need to educate yourself before spreading this
propaganda further.
\_ Tom DeLay is a disgusting hypocrite. What a surprise:
http://csua.org/u/bi5 (LA Times)
\_ The cases aren't even remotely similar. If Terri had been on the
same equipment as DeLay's father, there wouldn't be an outcry.
Terri's "life support" consists of food and water. Can we
disconnect your life support too? -emarkp
\_ Unlike Terri, I feed myself and drink on my own.
\_ So Christopher Reeve should have been put down? How about
infants? -emarkp
\_ you're very good at coming up with new red herrings.
-tom
\_ ANWR just got opened up. Bankruptcy bill just got passed, making
it safe for CEOs to continue running companies into the ground. |
| 2005/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36882 Activity:kinda low |
3/25 Why is it that the pro-life crowd is so worked up over the
Schivao case, but can't be bothered with what happened in
Texas because of a law signed by Mr Pro Life himself, Bush
Jr? Despite the pleas of his mother, a hospital pulled the
plug on a six month old boy because they were unable to pay
for treatment, a move made possible by the law Bush signed
while governor of Texas.
\_ Because they're hypocrites. Yes, it's that simple.
\_ Those so-called pro-life people should concentrate their energy on
children in this world who are really dying from hunger, rather
on one individual who has less than 1% chance of recovery.
\- add "malaria, cholera, TB". Amen. --psb
\_ Malaria would be largely solved if we simply used DDT
in developing nations.
\- Fair enough. Significant progress can be made on
each of the above for modest policy reforms and
financial outlays. In contrast to AIDS, which
appears to be a hard problem. --psb
\_ Sheesh. You all know, just like the ACLU, they're
really interested in precedent.
\_ I guess technically "less than 1%" is correct. The correct
number is 0. Large parts of her cortex are gone.
\_ Eh, even so, it's not quite 0. People have gotten along
with very low percentages of their brains. There are a
few recorded "miracle" cases.
\_ And yet, with Bush's plan for Medicaid, more people
will be denied life support based on a corporate profit
assessment, instead of a medical one. Life is important,
but the dollar is fucking *sacred*!
\_ I work with medical images all the time, and I have seen no
serious proof of this. Certainly not lately. Furthremore,
the more I work with doctors, the more I distrust them. They
can be sloppy and capricious when lives other than their own
are one the line. -emarkp
\_ http://csua.org/u/bi0
Some commentary on the medical issues, and a link to
another site that has actual cat scans. There are large
portions of her head filled with fluid where her brain
used to be. It isn't a question of interpretation.
\_ Not very useful. It's just a reassertion. A CT (CAT)
scan is almost unusable for distinguishing structure in
the brain. An MRI is far far better. Furthermore, the
one tiny CT image I've seen is from years ago, and we
don't actually know the state of her brain today.
-emarkp
\_ Clearly you did not read anything from that link,
since it addresses precisely the red herrings that
you are spouting.
\_ No, it doesn't. It simply reasserts that the
cerebral cortex is gone. I disagree with that
assertion (that is, I haven't seen enough evidence
to conclude the same thing). How much time have
you spent looking at medical images of the brain?
-emarkp
\_ OK Dr. Ping, what is the alternative
explanation for what appears to be a large
fluid-filled area where her cerebral cortex
used to be?
\_ Without seeing the entire data set, I can't
answer that. The single small grainy image
I've seen isn't enough determine the
condition of the entire cerebral cortex.
I've worked with enough doctors that I don't
trust one analysis when others have
disagreed. Oh, and sign your name. -emarkp
\_ Hey guys, I think emarkp's point is that
not all of the cerebral cortex may be
gone, and what's left may be sufficient
to qualify as "life", especially if the
leftover brain takes on a heavy load.
\_ If that's his point, he should say so.
So far all he's provided is red
herrings that avoid the central point.
\_ You failed to answer the question or
provide any useful insight. Oh, and fuck
you. |
| 2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36840 Activity:low |
3/23 My my...
CBS News. 3/21-22. MoE 4%. (February results)
Congress Job Approval
Approve 34 (41)
Disapprove 49 (44)
Bush Approval Ratings
Approve 43 (49)
Should Congress and the President be involved in the Schiavo matter?
Yes 13
No 82
\_ Does anyone care about Bush's approval ratings now? Bush won't be
running again.
\_ I just think it's amusing that he is likely the least popular
second-term president in the history of the Union. -op
\_ So? PEople hate him but he's still your president.
\_ It's more like, "We told him Iraq should be our #1 priority,
so wtf is he doing spending his 'political capital' trying to
cut our social security?" |
| 2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36837 Activity:high |
3/23 Modern Conservatism has truly become the party of Big Government.
Now Jeb Bush wants to "take custody" of Terri Shiavo, away from
her husband and away from her family. How can anyone who calls
themself a Conservative really be in favor of this kind of thing?
http://csua.org/u/bh5
\_ I don't think that they do. The polls I saw had 58% of self
described conservatives opposing the federal intervention.
This is a direct consequence of the religious right hijacking the
Republican party.
\_ "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts
and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the
process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the
social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a
violation of federalism."
-(Conservative) Hoover Institute member
"This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate
your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this
country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."
-Sen. John Warner (GOP), Virginia
\_ Now it's around 32 different judges
\_ every one of them is a tyrant!
\_ You misspelled "activist"
\_ None of the judges other than Greer have ever looked at the
findings of fact. That's why they're trying to have his findings
of fact reviewed 'de novo'
\_ The standard for appeal is that findings of facts by
the trial ct are accepted as true unless there is a
showing of abuse. There was no showing of abuse in
this case b/c Greer did nothing wrong.
While a de novo review may turn up something different,
this is unlikely. Absent some huge new revelation, the
facts found by the dist ct judge will be roughly the
same and if he applies state substantive law the tube
will stay out. Unless she finds some fed statute to
sue under (maybe disabled persons), she is SOL.
\_ Personally I hope the USSC takes this case and lays down the
law. Under Art. 3 congress cannot create subject matter jx
over a particular state law claim in favor of a single citizen.
What congress did was ridiculous and I hope that many of them
lose their jobs over it and are replaced by true conservatives.
\_ Please quote the section ofArticle 3 you are referring to.
\_ Please quote the section of Article 3 you are referring to.
\_ Art 3 Sec 2.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03
The original jx of the fed cts is limited to admiralty,
international disputes, federal question (arising under
the constitution/fed statues), or diversity (btwn two
or more states, citizens of different states, citizens
of the same state claims lands under grants of different
states, btwn a states/citizen of a state and a foreign
country).
Congress cannot create more jx for the fed cts than
the constitution provides w/o an amendment. In the
Schiavo case, congress has created jx for the Dist
Ct in the Middle District of FL to hear a suit on
behalf of Schavio for violations of her rights arising
under the constitution.
While one might argue that providing a specific dist
ct w/ jx over constitutional claims is still w/in Art
3 Sec 2, what congress is really doing is creating
jx for a fed ct to hear claims that are already
subject to res judicata under state law. This is not
allowed.
\_ The SC will refuse to hear the case and send it back down with
no comment. This is modis operadi. Shiavo will die and social
conservatives will have a new face for an old issue to play
with next election. Ooooo. Shiny.
\_ I'm hoping the USSC has a vested interest in telling
congress that they can't overstep their bounds.
\_ http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.03.22.GrandOldPragma-X.gif
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367722/posts |
| 2005/3/21 [Computer/SW/Apps/Media, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36801 Activity:high |
3/21 http://CNN.com = liberal trash media. The front page has a poll that asks "Who would you want to make the decision about pulling the plug if you were in a vegetative state? Spouse:78%, Parents:15%, Somebody else:%7. http://CNN.com, trashy, unfair & unbalanced liberal media. Go Fox! \_ Your troll is limp and flaccid. \_ Did they cancel your Free Republic account for trolling too? \_ Who would you trust, Jesus? |
| 2005/3/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36788 Activity:moderate |
3/21 Nurse: Terri Can Eat Normally
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/20/102601.shtml
http://www.zimp.org/stuff/06%20-%20CindyShookDepo.htm
\_ "'When is that bitch gonna die?'" Do you really buy this?
\_ I really don't care about this case one way or the other,
but, do you this the Nurse is lying? How do you know?
\_ I think there's a lot of shit being piled on a guy who
has gone through a horrible ordeal. As he has no political
gain in the matter, and others do, I tend to give him more
benefit of the doubt than newsmax.
\_ You may very well be right, but it seems like there's
enough evidence of douchiness that it makes sense to at
least try feeding her by mouth. I mean, this sort of
decision is supposed to happen with full support of all
involved.
\_ Ordeal? 1.5 years after she collapsed he was screwing
another woman. At the same time he was telling a court
that he loved Terri! And only needed $1M to take care of
her. Then he got the money and hasn't stopped trying to
kill her.
\_ The money went directly to her care. He has declined
an offer of $1M from some loony businessman to walk
away. If he were trying to kill his wife for personal
gain, as you seem to think, would he have done that?
You suck.
\_ This case is not about the husband being a jerk. And
1.5 years is not short. Most people would have pulled
the tube within 6-months and move on with their lives.
\_ Um, yes it is. He's the one who decides whether she
lives or dies and he's fucking someone else. 1.5
years after her collapse he WAS IN COURT ASKING FOR
MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF HER, WHILE FUCKING ANOTHER
WOMAN.
\_ You do not know this person. You would never
have known about this person in a sane world.
You spout anger as though Terri was your sister.
Check yourself. When you can translate rage
at something like this (which is truly a false
rage perpetuated by selected facts and rumors)
into empathy, you might learn to get your point
across.
\_ Her parents encouraged him to get on with his life.
Look into it.
\_ I have no problem with keeping her alive as long as the medical
bills don't go to the taxpayers.
\_ What do you think happens when an insurance company pays for
medical care? They do it out of the goodness of their hearts?
\_ Insurance companies have no hearts. They're out there to
maximize profits.
\_ which is why they pass on their costs to their policy
holders; that is, taxpayers.
\_ She's on Medicaid, which Bush is in the process of trying to
cut.
\_ The congress should be focusing on the real problems.
\_ 70% of Americans think Congress is wasting time on this circus:
http://csua.org/u/bg1
\_ arbiter says she had no awareness
link:www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2005/03/20/news/nation/11185214.htm
link:tinyurl.com/4vnsh
(mercurynews.com/noway1@nohow.com/nopassword1)
\_ Terri is practically Einstein according to some of the more fundie
websites. Let's see, she can talk, swallow, communicate, and her
husband tried to kill her. The big questions are, why did 7 years
worth of court trials and doctor examinations not uncover any of
this (are they all idiots or in a conspiracy), and why did the
husband not accept the multiple $1M+ offers to let his wife go?
\_ Her husband can't stop it now even if he wanted to. As for
medical care, you will see when you are very sick and/or old
that doctors stop caring as much when they think you are not
worth the effort. I watched my 86 y.o. grandfather die because of
this kind of nonchalance. "Well, we *could* do xyz, but he's
so old that..." I am sure the doctors think she's not worth
their time at this point. My neighbor is a neurologist and
one time he ordered an MRI for a boy who had severe
neurological problems. He was diagnosed with a stroke, I
think. Anyway, the insurance refused to pay.
one time he ordered an MRI for a boy who had severe neurological
problems. He was diagnosed with a stroke, I think, by the
previous doctor. Anyway, the insurance refused to pay for an MRI
on a 'stroke victim'. My neighbor resigned as the boy's doctor.
Later on, it was discovered the boy had a brain tumor. It was
removed and the boy is fine now. The MRI would have caught it.
There are a lot of doctors who don't care enough to fight
the bureaucracy and you can't really blame them.
\_ This is obviously not the case here since she's lived for
15 years despite having little brain function. Why can't
her husband stop now even if he wanted to? Take the money
and run!
\_ He can't stop, because it is the court's decision to
make now. My point was that maybe Terri would be
better now or would be improving if she had had
better medical care. However, lots of doctors see
'vegetative state' and 'Medicare' and don't do
anything for her. For many of those years she was in
a home with no specialized therapy or care. She has
had nursing, but not good physicians. Most of the
doctors around her now are trying to determine if
she is a vegetable, not what the best treatment
might be. Frankly, they hold out little hope and
project that lack of hope onto her.
\_ it's in the hands of the courts. congress is trying
to take the decision out of the hands of the state courts
right now. at this point it's out of the husbands control.
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/opinion/22tue1.html?hp
Republicans take a dump on the Constitution then wipe up
with the Bill of Rights.
\_ There is a strong possibility that the fed ct judge
or the 11th cir ct of appeals will rule that article
3 does not give congress the power to authorize a
new c/a wrt to a previously adjudicated state law
claim. The parents seem to have hedged their bets
and are claiming that the procedural errors by the
judge amount to a depravation due process rights
under the color of law, which is actionable in fed
ct. If this claim works out, the case may be remanded
to state ct to fix the procedural errors, assuming
that they were prejudicial. |
| 2005/3/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36761 Activity:very high |
3/19 Congress is being run on motd-logic - they subpoenaed a brain dead
person today!
\_ I remember when the GOP was the states-rights party. What the
hell happened?
\_ Like most Christians, they are raging hypocrites and do
the expedient thing at the time. When they're not in power,
they're all for devolving power to the states. Now that
they have control of the federal gov't, it's all about using
its power to shove their agenda down everyone's throat.
\_ they subpoenaed George W. Bush?
\_ you are all disgusting individuals. Does the phrase "deprived of
life, liberty, or proerty..." mean anything to you. You want to
starve to death a woman who is not brain dead.
\_ And of course the wishes of the woman (while she was still
capable of making decisions for herself) are no longer relevant
in the face of your righteous religious agenda. And so the
religious hegemony settles in.
\_ her wishes have never been established. There is no living
will, only hearsay from her husband and his family, whose
motives may be compromised. Her wishes were "revealed"
after 3 years into her ordeal. Don't you think someone
on her side of the family, her brother, father, mother,
anyone, would also have had known about this "wish"?
This is not a right to die case, it is a euthenasia.
\_ Apparently the Florida courts have felt that her husband
and witnesses testifying on his behalf (yes witnesses --
as in more than one person heard those sentiments
expressed) have the truth of the matter. And no, the
fact that she didn't explicitly express those wishes to
her family means almost nothing; there are a lot of things
a woman is more likely to discuss with her husband than
with her family.
\_ She's not brain dead? If so, then her brain is not getting
much exercise, what by just sitting there all day, not letting
her speak, eat, move in a coordinated fashion, or do other
activities that involve higher intelligence. For 10+
years, mind you.
\_ I bet it means alot to BUD DAY!
\_ you are pitiful excuse for a human being. Consider this:
Michael Schiavo: Loving Husband or Monster?
http://opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/brogoff_20050222.html
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect Monsters
had on China?
\_ Don't you mean Japan?
\_ Obviously you've never served in China. |
| 2005/3/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36641 Activity:insanely high |
3/10 Polls for alumni: what big companies do you guys work at? No name
start-ups need not respond:
Intel:
Microsoft:
Google:
Yahoo
LLNL: .
Ask Jeeves: .
Enron:
Pan American Airways:
\_ Is this random or you want to know what it is like to work at
each of these companies so you can compare offers?
\_ What about no-name decade-old companies? |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36634 Activity:very high 66%like:36625 |
3/10 Violent Dems!
http://sptimes.com/2005/03/10/Hillsborough/Bumper_sticker_evokes.shtml
\_ Gosh this sucks. I wished the man had actually run down the woman
and have gotten away. That damn bitch supported an illegal war
that killed a lot of innocent lives. Fuck her.
More Violent Dems!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
\_ Republicans do this kind of shit every day.
\_ Every day? Do tell!
\_ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#bias |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36625 Activity:moderate 66%like:36634 |
3/10 Violent Dems!
http://sptimes.com/2005/03/10/Hillsborough/Bumper_sticker_evokes.shtml
More Violent Dems!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
\_ Republicans do this kind of shit every day. |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36608 Activity:high |
Blogger Sheds No Tears For Rather
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1359777/posts
\_ IP address replaced with hostname.
\_ oh, we all know it's http://freerepublic.com anyway by now, it's ok |
| 2005/3/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36601 Activity:moderate |
3/9 some thoughts on why Bush is so obsessed with paving
over Social Security:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18684
-danh
\_ Flat tax, no government social services people
== It's fair; the huge liberating effect on the economy will
be felt by everyone; and even if an even larger gap does form
between the wealthy and non-wealthy, it's a fair system;
progressive taxes and social services keep lazy people lazy
Progressive tax, government social services people
== It takes money to make money (rich have a much easier time and
can make money at a much higher rate); extreme wealth-gap is
bad; progressive taxation and government social services as
they exist today are cheap for what you get -- no revolutions
\_ I was unable to find any thought there. YMMV
\_ I was unable to find any thought here. YMMV
\- A fine paper to read is "The Procedural Republic and
the Unencumbered Self" by Michael J. Sandel. Available
most easily from JSTOR.
\_ Ultral Left-Wing Liberal Troll Alert. If you really want good
info, you should check out fair and balanced sources:
http://federalist.com, http://newsmax.com, http://taemag.com, http://tysknews.com,
http://worldnetdaily.com
\_ you forgot http://www.jeffgannon.com - danh
\_ I hate that it's impossible to talk about Bush's plans without
sounding like an absolute conspiracy nut.
\_ Way to be a total idiot. Your first paper says its a farsical
comedy making fun of the left. How about you take your
rediculous conservative propaganda elsewhere. -mrauser
\_ Mmm... better check your sarcasm detector.
\_ Be nice to him, he's a bit new around here. |
| 2005/3/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36585 Activity:nil 66%like:35387 |
3/8 Bush announces exit strategy from Iraq: http://csua.org/u/bb2 |
| 2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:36573 Activity:moderate Cat_by:auto |
3/7 Wouldn't it be funny if you type Republican on google and out comes
anti-Republican sites? YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN! On your homepage, insert
the following "<a href=http://www.bushin30seconds.orgRepublican</a>"
If you get enough friends to do this and if they can do the same, it
will happen! Now go and spread the word!!!
\_ Eh. Googlebombing is so 2002. Try starting a blog, they're much
more effective at googlebombing than static web sites. -dans |
| 2005/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:36521 Activity:moderate |
3/4 North Korean diplomat talks about what NK things of the US. There
are some great quotes here. BTW everything is Bush's fault.
http://csua.org/u/b9d
\_ Listen. Bush is a great president because he stands by his
belief. Bush ousted Saddam who was personally financing
Palestinian suicide bombers and was making ties to Al Qaeda.
I don't care much about world and overal liberal perception of
the US. The right thing to do is sometimes unpopular. Now go
ahead and mock me with immature liberal insults.
\_ This has got to be a liberal trolling, but on the off
chance that it isn't: the "BTW everything is Bush's fault,"
is a joke on the contents of the article. Read it and come
back. Sheesh. -op
\_ Sorry. I didn't read it at first because I thought it was
another liberal drivel. Thanks for sharing the article.
\_ First rule of motd: Do not respond to link
descriptions with out reading the link.
\_ Story quotes:
He believes that Americans have the wrongheaded notion that North
Koreas are unhappy with the system of government under Kim Jong Il.
"We Asians are traditional people," he said. "We prefer to have a
benevolent father leader." ...
The North Korean criticized some Japanese politicians' efforts to
link the nuclear talks to the question of Japanese citizens
kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s.
"This was something done by a few overly enthusiastic people long
ago," he said. "We tried to make amends.
[Okay, between his being an idiot, or trying to sell us, I'm going
to say the latter.]
\_ Is it that hard to just let the kidnapped go home if they are
really trying to make amends?
\_ The big deal was that N. Korea sent over a body, said it was
so-and-so who was kidnapped and their papers. Then testing
of the body showed it was someone else, and review of
documentation showed it was forged. Japanese officials said
"What the fuck?!?" And N. Koreans said, "Did you say
something?" and has been pretending not to hear.
This is why most of Japan is currently super-pissed.
\_ Lying commies.
\_ I like this one:
The declaration [of nuclear weapons possesion], which jarred
U.S. officials, was not intended as a threat, he said, but
merely a way to advance negotiations..."We were hoping for
change from the U.S. administration. We expected some clear-cut
positive change."
Riiiighhht.
\_ Highlights:
"There is a question of what is a political prisoner. Maybe these
people are not political prisoners but social agitators."
"We should have food, shelter, security rather than chaos and
vandalism."
Yeah, food would be nice. When were they planning to provide that?
Typical schizophrenic North Korean-speak.
\_ I'm still trying to figure out the difference between a
political crime and social agitation. |
| 2005/2/28-3/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36466 Activity:kinda low |
2/28 Making of a 9/11 Republican:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/02/24/cstillwell.DTL
\_ Was this supposed to be enlightening? Just because she's a
conservative, don't assume she can actually write.
\_ Huh? Just because you disagree with her, doesn't mean she
can't write. -!op
\_ "Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing
school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all
evil in the world."
I'm really not trying to make an ad hominem attack or wave a red
herring, but I've read and heard similar statements made by white
supremacists.
\_ If this isn't a red herring, I'm really wondering why you
posted it.
\_ Good question. What I'm trying to say is that the expression
of former solidarity followed by an example of redemptive
eye-opening is often used to excuse a following diatribe
of vindictive railing against the school of thought once
held. In both cases, however, what's being demonstrated is
not a logical progression from one carefully thought out
position to another but a wild swing from one radically
deficient position to another predicated (mostly) on the
rancour generated by a philosophical falling out with the
former. In other words, from one extreme to the other still
makes you an extremist.
\_ You are right. You often see this pattern. However, you
haven't really demonstrated why such a wild swing must be
unreasonable, you just used 'negative words': 'wild swing,'
'radically deficient,' 'extremist,' etc. You are
complaining about rhetoric using rhetorical means.
-- ilyas
\_ It's not such a wild swing. It _is_ a failure of logic.
To reject the existence of problems in society under the
duress of grief is as bad as rejecting grief under the
duress of principles. In making such a switch, she is
as disgusting as her coworker who seemed completely
insensitive to the victims of the attacks. Also, this
insensitivity is nothing more than her perception of the
guy. If she took the time to talk to him, she'd probably
find grief under the arrogance.
\_ It's clear to me that poster was NOT making the general
claim, which would be obviously wrong. Of course there
are people who switch sides who remain rational
throughout. -someone else
\_ It also doesn't make her a decent writer.
\_ I liked how she talked about "small government"
conveniently neglecting to mention what's currently
happening -- Let's face it, when either party totally
controls government it goes to hell. |
| 2005/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36461 Activity:nil |
2/28 Regarding Putin accusing Dubya of firing Rather and friends:
Is Putin trying to outstupid Stupid?
\_ He is trying to deflect criticism about his censorship of
the press by implying that the US does some of the same stuff.
I agree that this is silly, but it probably plays well in Russia.
\_ Link?
\_ http://csua.org/u/b7f (Post news summary) |
| 2005/2/28-3/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:36457 Activity:moderate |
2/28 Alexf, Can you please answer this? Condemning the whole organization
over Mumia seems ... overzealous:
(from yesterday)
\_ Hey, I got no problem with the concept, but once they start
defending terrorists and cop killers, the implementation is,
in my book, obviously hopeless. -pp
\_ To what are you refering? You're claiming something I
can't find any reference for. Please give some context.
</yesterday>
\_ (FWIW, I don't check the motd nearly often enough to have
time to respond before these threads get purged). Anyway,
how's this quick selection for a start:
Re Mumia:
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/Pages/amnesty.html
AI supporting the Jenin myths:
http://csua.org/u/b7d (honestreporting.com)
AI promoting ludicrous notions of moral equivalence:
http://csua.org/u/b7e (ibid.)
As far as what the rest of the thread brought up -- I
don't think them particularly in the wrong on Abu
Ghraib (the media has, though, blown it far out of
proportion IMHO), and am rather ambivalent in regard
to their involvement in the Gitmo stuff. I'll readily
admit that they've done a lot of good work in the
past, but many of the things they do now, and, yes,
the Mumia case is the most disgusting behavior of
theirs in my book, color my perception to the point
that I definitely think the world would be better off
without them (or with a monumental change in their
leadership and culture). I don't intend to continue
this debate on the motd. If you really want further
responses from me, email or better yet come to Soda
in person. -alexf
\_ ob group masturbation of hooded prisoners at abu ghraib
video; also: "I went down to Tier 1 (the cellblock where
much of the abuse is said to have occurred) and when I
looked down the corridor, I saw two naked detainees, one
masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open," he
is quoted as saying. "I thought I should just get out of
there. I didn't think it was right, as it seemed like the
wrong thing to do. I saw Staff Sergeant Frederick walking
towards me, and he said, `Look what these animals do when
you leave them alone for two seconds.'"
\_ AlexF, I understand you want to provide a more balanced
view of the cases cited, but do you really think citing
a website devoted to avenging Daniel Faulkner and a
website devoted to denigrating any criticism of Israel
balances things in any meaningful way?
\_ Maybe they were the first things up on Google. In
any case, I hope we can all agree that the far left
has been taken for a ride on the whole Mumia thing,
and should really just let it go.
\_ "Mumia probably killed that guy. There, I said it.
...the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the
fact that he did indeed kill that cop. ...He probably
did kill that guy." -Michael Moore, from "Dude,
Where's My Country"(2003), page 189.
\_ I don't know about that. You have to remember
that the Philly police bombed a whole city block
and killed something like a dozen people to
eliminate the MOVE crowd. It was the Waco of the
80s but since it was a bunch of black people, not
that many people got upset about it. Mumia
was a good spokesperson for their efforts. This
is all tangential to his actual guilt or innocence
I know, but in the real world, this is the way
politics works.
\_ Repost the link, some ass deleted it.
\_ There was no link. Mumia is the only thing I could think of
that he could have been talking about.
\_ Amnesty International = Evil, Torturing Innocents At Gitmo = Good
\_ There are no innocents in Gitmo! They're all very bad people,
and we're not cutting off people's fingers or feeding them into
the woodchipper feet-first like Saddam.
Anyway, even if there's 1 or 2 people in Gitmo who weren't
planning an attack on the U.S., they were at least doing
something that they shouldn't have been; otherwise, they wouldn't
be in Gitmo!
If a Democrat were in charge the terrorists would be blowing us
all up by now! -typical Dubya voter who p0wn3d u liberals
\_ You forgot at least one reference to God, and your faith in
His wisdom, etc, etc. |
| 2005/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36453 Activity:very high |
2/28 Baby Gap - How birthrates color the electoral map
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_20/cover.html
[anonymous reference to me deleted] -emarkp
-disillusioned liberal still pissed off at the 2000/2004 campaign
\_ So what's your excuse? Are you busy making liberal babies, or are
you part of the problem?
\_ Don't worry, mexican immigration should help.
\_ except they are leaning conservative thanks to the increasing
huge Latino military population in San Diego bases.
\_ Yes, and we all know that all Latinos live in San Diego.
\_ Haven't you heard of youthful rebellion? Parental politics !=
politics of children.
\_ "The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get."
That's odd, I thought causality went the other way. The more
actively pro-bush you are, the more babies pop out. That's what they
taught us in health class in middle school...
\_ Conservatives sleep in double beds, Liberals sleep together.
This is why there are far more liberals than conservatives.
\_ But two liberal men sleeping together don't produce babies.
\_ they can sure have fun trying, though.
\_ I've found it funny for a few years that:
Birth rate varies inversely with income and education.
Evolution acceptance rate varies with income and education.
Those who believe in evolution are evolving away.
\_ The stupid shall inherit the earth.
\_ No no no. You don't understand. The 'stupid' are those who
accept evolution but are choosing to have fewer children.
\_ This seems like where darin should step in. He's the
only person I've met to decide to have lots of babies
because he believes in evolution and is smarter than
average.
\_ [troll deleted]
\_ What? Why is it smart to have a lot of children? You take
care of a bunch of kids for years. Be my guest. You can't
win that game anyway and it doesn't benefit you either.
You're gonna be dead.
\_ Having many kids means that your genes are more likely
to be propogated. That's why it's smart.
\_ You'd be smarter to learn to spell propagate. How
do you benefit by having your genes propagated?
Answer: you don't. Hey you know what? You'd have a
better chance if you went around killing other males!
Give that a try, let me know how it works out.
\_ Why are there still stupid people who think
that what's good for the propagation of their
genes is good for them. Please, you are not
your genes! Don't let your genes be your
master.
\_ Because historically, the genes for smart
people who don't care about propagating their
genes don't last very long.
\_ What's your point?
\_ So does that mean there is a evolutionary
counter-pressure on intelligence?
\_ Which is why humanity is doomed.
\_ At first glance I thought it was about the fashion company. :-)
\_ Apparently, at some subconscious level, liberals understand that
their genes are not worth passing on.
\_ This much chatter over an American Conservative article? Holy
moley, are we bored or what? Read this instead:
http://csua.org/u/b78 (SF Weekly, punking white supremacists)
\_ I thought the gun control part was incisive. |
| 2005/2/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36450 Activity:high |
2/28 Baby Gap - How birthrates color the electoral map
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_20/cover.html
From American Conservative. It says that fertile conservatives (like
emarkp's friends and family from Utah) are wayyyy out-reproducing
liberals. Come on you dumb fuck stupid lazy liberals, stop playing
EverQuest 2, stop using condoms and start reproducing kids.
-disillusioned liberal still pissed off at the 2000/2004 campaign
\_ Don't worry, mexican immigration should help.
\_ except they are leaning conservative thanks to the increasing
huge Latino military population in San Diego bases.
\_Me gustan los aviones, me gusta viajar, me gusta el atentado,
me gustan los muertos, me gusta soñar, me gusta Air Force One,
me gustan los cazas, me gusta el western, me gusta la lluvia,
me gusta los misiles, me gusta George W. Bush.
\_ Haven't you heard of youthful rebellion? Parental politics !=
politics of children.
\_ "The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get."
That's odd, I thought causality went the other way. The more
actively pro-bush you are, the more babies pop out. That's what they
taught us in health class in middle school... |
| 2005/2/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36390 Activity:high |
2/23 Survey, do you still remember what you did the day before 9/11,
and if do you what were you doing?
\_ On 9/10, I posted 2 questions on motd, the Accuvue question and
the Java == and equals(...) question. I didn't get to see the
responses till now, how funny.
\_ Working. had a rehearsal that night (and the next night as well).
Did Iolanthe with San Jose Lyric Theatre. You wouldn't believe
the outporing of appreciation for the performances (couple weeks
later). Everyone wanted something they could enjoy.
\_ working. I remember this old polish guy who lived through WWII
running into the room and telling us not to panic, that we should
listen to the news and just keep working as normal, which is
exactly what we did(after making a couple phone calls).
\_ What was on the news on 9/10/2001?
\_ Gary Condit all day and night.
\_ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/10/ED226834.DTL
\_ http://tinyurl.com/6olqm (sfgate.com)
\_ Remembering what I was doing when Kennedy was shot.
\_ yes I do and I feel sad just thinking about it. I don't want to
talk about it.
\_ No, I don't particularly recall the day before 9/11, but I do
vividly recall the morning of. I remember waking up to NPR on the
clock radio next to my then girlfriend's bed, hearing something
about the World Trade Center being attacked, and
thinking to myself ``Oh, it must be the anniversary of the World
Trade Center bombing.'' I think the relationship was beginning to
come to a close, though I didn't realize it at the time. What's a
little strange to me is that much of my memory that time period
hazy, but I vivdly remember many of the little details from that
morning, e.g. the smell of the sheets, the light coming through
the window. -dans
\_ WOW that's exactly how I felt! The little things... Also...
my gf and I were woken up by a call, my gf's mom in Taiwan was on
the other side telling us that both WTC towers had been attacked.
I turned on CNN and it said only 1 tower was on fire. I thought
it was just an accident, like the Empire State Building accident
they had many decades ago and given that Taiwanese
news were mostly trashy sensationalist news I thought they were
just exaggerating. 30 min later CNN finally broadcasted the 2nd
tower footage. A while later her mom called again and said one
of the towers collapsed. I didn't believe it because I had never
heard such a thing in my life, and because CNN didn't broadcast
it. Surely enough 30 min later, CNN finally broadcasted the
collapse. Then she called again about the 2nd tower collapse, and
30 min later, CNN broadcasted that. It's weird how we get our own
news later than people outside the US.
\_ I first heard about the first plane a couple minutes after
it happened when Cmndr. Taco posted it to slashdot. Slashdot
was pretty much the closest thing to real time all morning.
There were posts on slashdot from people who could see what
was happening outside their windows the whole time.
\_ Same here. My dad called me from Hong Kong to tell me to
turn on the TV when I was getting ready to go to work without
realizing that something was happening.
\_ I was getting a demo system prep'ed for a customer were were
\_ I was getting a demo system prep'ed for a customer we were
visiting the next day. I was on a plane 1/2 way to my destination
when the first wtc attack happened on 9/11. --ranga
\_ Busting my ass to put together a report for City Council. Stayed up
all night, went to sleep just as the first plane hit, then got told
the report wasn't necessary.
\_ Clearly Sodans have reading comprehension issues. As for me, I have
no idea what I was doing on 9/10.
\_ Quite a few got it right. Read above.
\_ Why is 9/10 interesting? It was a day like any other day.
May as well ask about 9/9, 9/1, and 7/29.
\_ Do you really need this explained to you, or are you just
being willfully obtuse?
\_ I remember I was sitting at home, unemployed, feeling sorry for
myself because I couldn't find a job. I spent most of the day
playing WoW and applying for jobs. |
| 2005/2/23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36379 Activity:high |
2/23 So, the Supreme court is going to examine the Oregon euthanasia laws.
170 people have used since it became legal in 1997 to end their lives
prematurely, mostly cancer patients, who I assume were in horrendous
pain or discomfort. I can sympathize with the arguments of the
prolifer, even if I don't agree. I am totally baffled by the Bush
administration's meddling with the Oregon law -- I thought Republicans
were for states rights (or is that states rights only if we agree
with those rights?). This law is not being abused (20/year?),
doctors are not "killing off their patients" -- Is the Bush
administration in favor of suffering? Or is their religious zeal
clouding their judgement?
\_ The latter. Suicide is a sin and this law opens the door to stuff
like late-term abortions of severely abnormal fetuses.
\_ "opens the door"? Abortion is a legal choice (thankfully) for
women with severely abnormal or terminally ill fetuses. At least
for now. In my eyes, legally forcing someone and their loved ones
to endure a painful illness that can only end in death is about
as un-loving as you can get.
\_ Bush and company want to live in a black-and-white world
with clear delineation of good and evil, no gray areas,
no exceptions, (and also little room for thought,
compassion, and mercy).
\_ The bottom line is that doctors will help patients end their
lives no matter what the law says. Doctors have always helped
their patients with this and they always will. |
| 2005/2/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36367 Activity:high 66%like:36017 |
2/22 What is your career?
\_ Manager
\_ Software Engineer: .....
\_ Design Verification Engineer
\_ SysAdmin .
\_ Teacher .
\_ Consultant ..
\_ that's not a career. you have to say what you consult on.
\_ Actually, I agree. Maybe the original poster should delete
the Consultant line, and I'll move my dot somewhere else.
\_ Don't be dense. I get hired as Victor-Nettoyeur by
companies with annoying problems that they can't or don't
want to deal with by themselves, and which can't be
classified as purely "engineering" or "management" or
"astronaut" or whatever, even though it's usually something
to do with IT security. If it makes you happy I'll change
it to "Professionally adaptible tech whore". -John
\_ Well, "IT security consultant" would be a career I guess
but "consultant" says nothing. There are all kinds of
consultants even outside tech.
\_ Professionally adaptible tech whore .
\_ White male oppressor .
\_ Student .
\_ I'm a graduate student who takes YOUR tax money to advance my own
education while spending ~15hr/wk reading and writing motd. What
category do I fall into?
\_ I'd say the Not Funny category.
\_ It can't be the !psb category
\_ Might it be our favorite government funded "libertarian"?
-meyers
\_ And if you try to do something about it, your government
will punish you!
\_ your tax dollar (NSF, grant, DARPA, etc) soon to be gone:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/21/bush.science.ap
DAMN IT! Maybe We need to get real jobs soon. -grad student
\_ Bad troll. If you're just interested in number one,
our present totally broken visa system is in your best
interest, since it cuts down on competition from talented
foreign students. Bush's moronic, politically driven
science policy is bad for the nation, but it really
doesn't hurt you as a grad student.
\_ Actually, the NY Times last week printed an editorial
saying that the visa system for international students
and scientists has recently been greatly streamlined.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/opinion/16wed3.html
\_ Whatever. I'll believe it when I see it. I work in
a lab where about half of the scientists are non-U.S.
citizens, and dealing with the U.S. visa system
continues to be a total fucking nightmare.
\- The Economist says the opposite.
\_ Assuming you're talking about the article
"On the turning away", you need to re-read the
article. These two articles are talking in
different time frames. -jrleek
\_ Very true, thanks for pointing this out. By cutting down
savages and foreign competition, Manifest Destiny shall
be reborn. GWB is proclaiming a message of hope and
deliverance for White Christian America. God Bless GWB
and John Ashcroft. -conservative
\_ Are you a citizen? The military-industrial complex is in
dire need of software engineers, not as if you're probably
not already funded by it:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=541
The funniest part is that this is true.
\_ Yeah, my PC hippie grad student tenant, who is married
to the peace activist grad school drop-out hippie wife,
just took a job with a CIA funded corp because they were
the only ones willing to hire a linguist in his field
of expertise.
\_ Scientist: ...
\_ Slacker: .
\_ Tax Payer:
\_ Music Industry: .
\_ Help Desk Specialist and Unix SysAdmin
\_ Help Desk pecialist and Unix SysAdmin
\_ Our company is the leading provider of ircII scripts for
Fortune 500 executives.
\- Gigolo -ok, thnk
\_ Househusband: . |
| 2005/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36362 Activity:high |
2/22 See if you can spot the loaded questions and false dichotomies on this
"moral politics" test.
http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home
\_ Apparently I'm a socialist! I never knew. -jrleek
\_ That's "terrorist" to you, young man. Get with the new
terminology.
\_ Looks like a ripoff of http://www.politicalcompass.org
including the bad questions. -emarkp
\_ "These so-called ill-treatments and torturing in
concentration camps, stories of which were spread
everywhere amongst the people, and particularly by
detainees who were liberated by the occupying armies,
were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but by
individual leaders, sub-leaders , and men who laid violent
hands on them." -- Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz
hands on them." -- Rudolf HM-vss, Commandant of Auschwitz
until 1943, in his post-war testimony
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.php
\_ "The problem is, this kind of thing occurs in
prisons across the country and across the world. And
you have to know it's going to be a possibility. And
therefore the training and the discipline and the
doctrine has to be such that you anticipate that
risk. And clearly, that wasn't done to the extent it
should." -Don Rumsfeld, Feb 3 2005
\_ I consider myself liberal and I got:Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59
\_ I am a moderate social democrat. No American party represents
me. But I already knew that! |
| 2005/2/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36336 Activity:nil |
2/20 Bush and Doug Wead?? Dug Weed, are you kidding me??? |
| 2005/2/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36226 Activity:high 52%like:37358 |
2/18 Latest news on the Gay Male Prostitute at the White House story:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=92
\_ Real title: "Washington reporters skeptical of photograph
purporting to show hard pass; 'Inconclusive'
\_ Actually, the latest is that he was in the press room before
his "employer," Talon "News," was in existence.
\_ http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005127.php
\_ Why is this such a big deal? Other than lofting a few
puffballs at Bush, what did he do that was so wrong?
\_ After all, Pravda is always true!
\_ How am I going to explain to my children that the President
had a gay male prostitute working for him?
\_ How was this guy "working" for the President?
\_ He was planted by the administration to ask softball
questions. |
| 2005/2/17 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36213 Activity:high |
2/17 Bush warned 52 times before 9/11 attacks:
http://csua.org/u/b3f
\_ we are constantly warned of an attack from Al Qaeeda,
it's going to happen, what are you doing about it?
\_ Heed the warnings and order up a full complement of armed air
marshals. Oh wait, we only did that after 9/11, right?
\_ You missed the point. There is no way to know which method
Al Qaeda will use to attack us. They might not use planes
at all. They have just threatened attack. So how do you
stop them?
\_ did you read the URL? yes, the whole thing.
\_ Did you read my post? Yes, the whole thing. I'm
Al Qaeda. I tell you I am going to "attack the USA".
What will you do about it? The point here is that
Bush would get the blame in that instance, but what
can he do about it, really? The instance in the
article is specific. I am talking about a general case.
\_ You increase security and alert law enforcement. You
take it as an actual problem and work to increase
human intelligence. You look at the outgoing
administration's thoughts on the matter and develop
a strategy. You don't go back to crawford to "clear
brush". If it had been a priority issue, maybe the
FAA would have said yes when NORAD asked them if they
wanted an intercept on the off-course flights.
\_ Yes, I read your post, the whole thing.
I got your point, a long time ago.
You missed my point.
Your point is obvious to everyone.
My point, the same one in the article, is not.
That's why I asked you if you read the whole URL.
Had we heeded the warnings and ordered up a full
complement of armed air marshalls prior to 9/11,
we might not have had a 9/11, or at least had
competently placed security to afford a chance.
And, you still haven't said whether or not you've
read the entire URL, which was my question.
-- If you really did, maybe you wouldn't have wasted
your words on me.
\_ You are talking about a general case that did
not exist.
\_ It exists at this very moment and as such is
more pertinent than what someone did or did
not do 5 years ago. |
| 2005/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36203 Activity:very high |
2/16 How do the Republicans on the motd think about this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4805078,00.html
Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security
\_ What bullshit. Bush'll raise taxes for Social Security, but
the money will actually go to fund the Iraq war and other
budget needs, just like the current Social Security surplus.
Yes, that's right: SS tax brings in more money than SS
beneficiaries receive, and Congress spends the rest and gives
the SS system an IOU--which will never be paid because when
the IOU comes due, we won't have enough tax base to pay it.
Spending has to be cut. Period. --PeterM
\_ The SS surplus by law is used to buy T-bonds. Currently the
SS program has trillions in t-bonds and will continue to accumulate
more until 2018 or so. After that the SS program will start cashing
in the t-bonds to pay benifits.
\_ I don't think you are a republican, but thanks for your
input anyway. -op
\_ Didn't I sound like a Republican? --PeterM
\_ No, a loyal Republican would support private accounts and
be opposed to any across the board increase in the
payroll tax.
\_ You sure about that? If what you were saying were true, "IOU
... will never be paid ... enough tax base", don't you think
Dubya would be saying it would be a lot EARLIER than 2042 when
we'd be in trouble? I believe we start drawing on the "IOUs"
as early as 2010.
as early as 2018.
\_ He is: "Some in our country think that Social Security is a
trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being
accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll
taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent
on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is
no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what
goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in
-- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says
we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now.
The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem."
- Bush 2/9/2005 http://csua.org/u/b3g (whitehouse.gov)
\_ Thanks. Okay, Dubya does mention 2018 in saying "we've
got a problem". And from what you posted, Dubya is
saying the trust fund does not have "a pile of money being
accumulated".
So I ask you, peterm, and Dubya, will those government
bonds "never be paid" -- never be redeemed?
Someone please answer question below:
Question: Has the U.S. ever redeemed any of the government bonds
that surpluses have been used to purchase?
\_ have you ever redeemed IOUs you wrote to yourself? SS is
a fraud ponzi scheme. If I, as an individual, tried to
sell this kind 'insurance' plan I would be put in jail.
\_ "The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred
for payment of pensions and bounties for services
in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall
not be questioned."
Why do you hate America?
\_ You would also be put in jail if you overthrew a foreign
government. This is a stupid argument.
\_ You and peterm are saying:
U.S. economy + U.S. government bonds
== Your personal finances + IOUs you write yourself
... when in fact the above equation is a myth.
Since this is an important topic, I'll start a new motd
thread on another day (sorry, got a lot of work - can't
monitor the motd today). -the "You sure about that?" guy
\_ Bush is the one spending all the damned money. Of course
he doesn't want to come clean.
\_ Bush is brilliant! -conservative
\_ You misspelled 'Republican'.
\_ Will benefits also be raised? I doubt the plan is for high
income to pay more in and get the same back out.
\_ How is this different than what Kerry proposed, which is pretty
much distributing wealth from the wealthy to the poor?
\_ Republicans aren't supposed to be raising taxes, at all,
especially since this is Bush Jr.
... Read my lips!
\_ FUCK POOR PEOPLE! Maybe if we cut their benefits enough of
them will FUCKING STARVE and not hold our mighty economy back!
\_ if there are not poor people, then the middle class becomes
the poor people.
\_ I am not really interested in hearing what Republicans think
about Kerry. I already know that. -op
\_ I'm irritated at this. I'd rather see bigger cuts to the federal
budget. But then I'd also like to see the borders secured. Those
are the two things that make conservatives scratch their collective
heads about GW. -emarkp
\_ you can't fight a war and then cut taxes and balance the budget,
something has got to give, and in this case his rich friends
(ppl making over 90K) are getting fucked. Now they can only
afford to buy BMW 500s for their kids instead of BMW 740is.
\_ 90K/year is rich? Are you a troll? No one making 90k/year
can afford a 740is, kids, mortgage, etc. Try some math.
\_ 90K/year anywhere other than SFBA, LA, or NYC puts you
nicely well off, able to afford a house, save for
retirement, and leverage into real estate/entrepreneurship.
It's not rich, but for most of the nation is upper middle
class.
\_ The rich friends aren't worried about payroll taxes. They're
sitting pretty with dividend and capital gains cuts, not to
mention lower attention on tax avoidance.
\_ Your assumption is that cutting tax rates reduces revenue.
That is not necessarily theoretically true, and isn't actually
true in GWB's case. I've charted the last 100 months of
income/expense (from cbo.gov) and while revenue dropped
dramatically post-9/11, we've increased year-to-year for the
past 2 years. Tax revenue is actually above 1997/1998 levels.
-emarkp
\_ This is silly. Tax revenue _should_ increase year to
year. Why? Because the economy grows year to year. It is
rare for the economy to not have a net gain over the whole
year, and even rarer for it to not have a net gain over
two years. The 2004 economy _should_ be larger than the
1997 economy. That's 7 years. On average the economy has
grown ~3 pct(iirc) per year. That's 21 pct growth since
1997, assuming the boom/bust years even out.
\_ Except the predictions were that the Bush's economic
policy would destroy the economy, 9/11 was a serious
blow, and the tax cuts lowered the revenue in theory.
-emarkp
\_ Not destroy the economy right away, duh. Def-i-cit.
\_ Deficit/GDP is lower than 1990-1993 years.
\_ It is true that it is lower than the worst
period since WWII. It is the second worst.
\_ Tax cuts did lower the revenue, look at the numbers
below. The economy was not destroyed. Yes, it
entered recession, but overall, growth occurred from
2000-2004. The key is that _despite_ economic
growth almost equal to the Clinton boom years, gvmt
tax revenue dropped SUBSTANTIALLY. Ergo, in
actuality, tax cuts reduce tax revenue.
\_ "From 1996 to 2000 GDP grew by $2 trillion, and tax
revenues grew by $550 billion. From 2000 to 2004 GDP
grew by $1.9 trillion, but tax revenues declined by
$143 billion. What changed? We had roughly the same
level of economic activity. If tax cuts lead to more
federal revenue, shouldn't $1.9 trillion in growth
have yielded more than $550 billion in new tax revenue,
and not a $143 billion decline?" -Former conservative,
now liberal economist. All numbers from Chamber of
Commerce and CBO.
\_ Good reference, and thanks for pointing it out:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html
Includes tax revenue as percentage of GDP. I had no
idea it has been hovering near 20% since WW2. That's
amazing and horrifying. -emarkp
\_ Add in state taxes and the total government take
is more like 30%. But still lower than every other
member of the OECD. -ausman
\_ So you have discovered tax revenues fall when
the economy enters a cyclical downturn after a
bubble market, and after the World Trade centers
are destroyed which send the economy reeling,
and that tax revenues fall in a war based economy.
Congratulations for this perspicacious revelation.
You should rename yourself former conservative
liberal economist who is also stupid.
\_ Can you even read? 4 year period. Same economic
growth: ~1.9-2 trillion dollars. Cyclical economy,
bubble economy, 9/11 should have _nothing_ to
do with it. If the economy grows the exact same
amount, why in the world would any of your factors
affect tax revenue? The _only_ thing affecting
tax revenue, after economic growth is the Bush
tax cut.
\_ Well, it's simple. Bush's morals inspired more
ppl to take him as a role model and cheat on
their taxes.
\_ three words you may have heard of and were
alluded to in my post: capital gains, bubble
\_ The shortfall has to do with capital gains,
but only because GW Bush cut cap. gains and
dividend taxes. If you think the difference
in capital gains taxes(at an equal level of
taxation) comes out to $700 billion, you're
crazy. Prove it. Meanwhile, I'll say that
the bulk of that $700 billion tax revenue
shortfall is due to Dubya's tax cut.
\_ Tax revenue is up, but interest rates are still abnormally
loose, and the tax cuts have not fully hit yet. Also, the
promise of yet more money into military action and cutting
meat rather than fat is going to make continuing these
trends difficult if not impossible. State and local
governments are trying to pick up the slack while already
bankrupt. I can't remember which agency (maybe gao)
governments are trying to pick up the slack while heading
for bankruptcy. I can't remember which agency (maybe gao)
reported that if the tax cuts were made permanent, by 2024
the only thing the fed gov could afford would be debt
interest.
\_ this is nice, but would be much better and more convincing
to us stupid liberals if it came from someone other than
religious right conservatives.
\_ Then track it yourself. sheesh. -!pp
\_ All the data is at:
http://www.cbo.gov/byclasscat.cfm?cat=35
Where I couldn't find a simple line-item for monthly
income or expense, I used the estimated value.
I've uploaded the data to /csua/tmp in OpenOffice and MS
Excel format. Check it yourself. Let me know if there
I've uploaded the data to /csua/tmp in OpenOffice
format. Check it yourself. Let me know if there
are errors.
/csua/tmp/bud_1997_to_Present.sxc
/csua/tmp/bud_1997_to_Present.xls
-emarkp
\- Can you do this back to 1990? Also, are these
inflation adujusted? ok thx.
\_ Historical data:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I don't think any of the numbers are inflation
adjusted. Do you have a handy inflation table?
[Found one. I included inflation and remove the .xls
file. Use OpenOffice.]
-emarkp
\_ Haha, this remark made my day. -- ilyas |
| 2005/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36186 Activity:moderate |
2/15 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147731,00.html Bush is going to cut education as promised. I bet this is going to help with the military recruitment, hence killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Bush is brilliant, simply brilliant -conservative \_ You are about as conservative as Howard Dean. \_ RAAWWWWRRRRGGGHH!! |
| 2005/2/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36129 Activity:very high |
2/10 http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html Heil Bush. Article by conservative writer about the birth of fascism in Germany and present-day US. \_ Does it use the word 'neocon'? (okay, I checked--what a surprise it does.) \_ I know you guys are upset because we came up with a word that pisses you off as much as us being called liberals pisses us off. Payback's a b****. \_ I don't get pissed off by "liberal". I'm liberal and proud. --scotsman \_ Except conservatives didn't come up with 'liberal'. The whole 'neocon' usage has been a too-thinly-veiled attempt to associate conservatives with neo-nazis IMO. That fact that no one can define 'neocon' doesn't help. \_ Wrong: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html Here is another (similar) definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States What is the definition of a liberal? \_ Hehe. There is no way me and Cheney can belong to the same ideological group. We disagree on almost everything. -- ilyas \_ I don't believe you and I'm not trolling. If this is so, I would like to see it elucidated. Near as I can tell from reading your stuff here for the past couple of years, you've been a consistent apologist for Cheney and his ilk the entire time. That might not, I suppose, mean you *agree* with him. That's fine. On a great number of things I didn't agree with Kerry or Dean. -- ulysses \_ Oh, I just go by the issue quiz I took during the 2000 election, where I agreed with him the least, and with Lieberman the most (omg j00!). I don't think I am an 'apologist' for the Bush administration policies -- I don't like a number of things they did; the war in Iraq is not one of them. (I also liked how you framing me as an 'apologist' also neatly frames their entire tenure as something that needs an apology). Bush admin != Cheney. Near as I can tell the only remotely controversial thing about Cheney was the Halliburton thing, which I have no problems with for reasons unrelated to my disagreements with Cheney himself. One thing I really like about Cheney is that he's really smart. -- ilyas \_ I suspect you and Cheney can both agree that Tom is a twink. \_ Touche. -- ilyas \_ There is one obvious solution: you are not a neocon. \_ A fair number of people on soda will disagree with you. Which is sort of my point. It's a non-concept. -- ilyas \_ How about "signatories to PNAC"? \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States \_ What pisses me off is the neo-liberals hijacking the "liberal" name. \_ Thanks for the article. I realize that Nazis are often used to criticize political opponents who are nothing of the sort, but I this is a valid comparison. I used to wonder how the Nazi party could come to power in a democracy, but after living through the first Bush administration I can now imagine it. When the leaders of a country are so convinced that they are right that they will repeatedly deceive everyone else about their policies, disaster can't be far behind. Unfortunately, I think that our country is so polarized that people can no longer have a rational discussion about this. \_ You are actually comparing Bush's first term to Nazi Germany? WTF? How tight is your tin-foil hat? \_ Did you read the article? It compares the rise of fascist tendencies in Germany pre-WW2 to a similar rise in post-9/11 America. There is no direct comparison between Bush's first term to Nazi Germany, but rather a comparison between the term and the factors existing in Germany that _preceeded_ fascism. -op \_ I think you are just needlessly confusing things by your repeated referencing of Nazi Germany. There were many many countries that have been fascist that were not racialist, the way the Nazis were. Franco or Mussolini are better examples to use because they less emotion laden. \_ point taken. edited accordingly. -op \_ Dude, you said racialist. \_ No, I have not read the article and have no intention of doing so. I'm worn out from so many stupid attempts to call Bush Hitler. It was done in that UCB study last year, and it's been done elsewhere. Here's an idea. Read the essay again and try to match anyplace else to Nazi Germany. I'm confident you'll be able to compare Clinton or anyone else as well as Bush. \_ The article doesn't call Bush Hitler. In fact, it doesn't even call Bush fascist: "I don't think there are yet real fascists in the administration ..." As mentioned in prior posts, the article is about the populace more than the leadership. -op \_ The magazine it is written is The American Conservative, not some lefty rag. For that reason at least, you should be willing to read it. \_ Meh. I've never read the mag before, why should I read it now? This paragraph grabbed my attention and made me realize it's full of crap: "But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as .hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now.. One of the biggest right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it.s not just us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood, Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold War. .It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth.not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.." \_ You're missing quotation marks. The last two sentences are a quote from Rockwell, and not the author of the article. The rest of the paragraph describes facts, except for the one statement that the mood described in these facts is "latently fascist." So why was it full-of-crap? Because you don't agree that those facts are latently fascist, or because he quoted another author's wording to illustrate the other author's point? \_ The Free Republic is not hate filled! \_ And it isn't free either ... Any post that doesn't toe the party line is instantly nuked. \_ And this is different from motd and DUmmies (aka "democratic"underground) how? \_ Rockwell and Raimondo were former, and maybe current, Free Republic posters. Raimondo has been driven from/left the site too many times to count. |
| 2005/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36083 Activity:nil |
2/6 One of those "programs" that must be "redundant"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/politics/07budget.html |
| 2005/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36070 Activity:high |
2/4 Proof Enron turned off the lights in California:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/national/04energy.html
\_ uh DUH, everyone already knows that, what good is proof gonna
do for Californians now? It's like the Clinton scandal, everyone
knows that the dress has his sperm, what good is the DNA test
gonna do? It's like the Bush war scandal, everyone knows that the
war's a dumb & hasty decision, but what good is it to prove that
it's bad via all the numbers? Shit. You're pissing me off.
\_ what exactly do you expect companies to do when the PUC buys
daily all of their energy on the spot market and even anounces their
intentions? It is called a free market for a reason. This game
sure had a big effect on LA, not. You might as well
rename the article "Company acts in a manner to maximize
shareholder profit that is legal under existing system".
\_ Except it wasn't legal.
\_ it was unethical, but sadly, legal at the time.
\_ You are an idiot.
\_ It was illegal. Hence the billion dollar judgements
against them. Do you understand the difference between
criminal law and civil law?
\_ the government is the law and can change the law
as it sees necessary, including to retroactively
sue companies such as the tobacco industry. Its funny
that none of the california legislature members never
returned the hundreds of thousands given by Enron during
the '90s, nor did Davis ever return the hundreds of
thousands he received. The California taxpayer was
in fact screwed by its government.
\_ Which is why we recalled Davis. |
| 2005/2/4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36063 Activity:high |
2/4 What do you sodans think if an Alien race came and claims that our
democracy is inferior than their whatever system. Does that
give them the right to attack us? Will any of you be working
for the "Alien" for a "better America"?
\_ definitely. i'd embrace their culture and worship their kind
\_ let me be the first to welcome our new alien overlords.
\_ damn, you beat me to it!
\_ What would you sodans do if a stupid troll was posted on the
motd?
\_ ilyas wrote the question so it's not a troll. anyways, yes,
they will have the right to attack us, as long as it's done
in the name of Jesus Christ. God Bless.
\_ Actually ilyas wrote one of the replies. But don't let me
get in the way of the infallibility of your spy script.
P.S. You are an idiot. -- ilyas
\_ Well. That would depend on whether it is _actually_ better.
\_ this is a matter of opinion, and if the Alien race used their
\_ No, it's not. Some forms of government are better than
others. You = Lenin's useful idiot.
super media power to convince us, YES, so be it. But if the
alien race failed to convince us at first and then attacked us,
then it's their fault. Case in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/web.us
The point is that information warfare is just as important as
traditional warfare, and in this case, the US failed to win
information battles and has a hard time catching up
\_ No, it's not. Some forms of government are better than
others. You = Lenin's useful idiot.
\_ Better in terms of what? Freedom? Economics? Military
Power? Control? And better for whom? Your brain has been
classified as: American, self-centered and self-righteous
\- you must pay me 5cents
\_ American! Now that stings! Your brain has been
classified as: European, relativist, and morally
bankrupt. This game is fun.
\_ Your brain has been classified as: Russian Jew,
\- you must pay me 5cents
sarcastic, not funny, and attention whore.
(seeking attention on motd. how pathetic)
\_ Wasn't my brain American a second ago? Make up
your mind! And yes, I stand suitably humbled
your brain! And yes, I stand suitably humbled
by a fellow motd poster, who clearly is not
limited by any kind of whoring himself.
\_ But is democracy _actually_ better than what was in Iraq
before?
\_ your brain has been classified as: small.
\_ wait... whose brain?
\_ The brain of anyone who disagrees with ilyas on any
subject.
\_ We are the Americans. You will be democratized. Resistance is
terrorism.
\_ Hahahahaha, you've made my day! This about sums it up!!
\_ ARe you Chinese? Do you understand the impact of the opium
trade on Cnina?
\_ I think that you fail to understand something fundamental
about how the world works. Behind the protective wall of
civilization people are free to argue about this right or
that, but outside of those walls, a man's rights are based
on his ability to defeat and destroy all those that oppose
him. If the Aliens are stronger than we are, then we may
have no choice but to live by their rules.
Personally, given a choice between American and the Alien,
I would fight and die for this nation b/c I believe that
no better alternative can exist in this life.
\_ My country right or wrong! -John |
| 2005/2/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:36050 Activity:very high |
2/3 Obama for Pres.
\_ Obama lin Saden!
\_ Obama for Pres... in 20 years.
\_ Seriously guys, he only just got in the Senate. Let him
actually do something before you make him a saint.
\_ Saint, schmaint. I just want a Pres.
\_ I really don't know much about the guy, what makes him so
popular?
\_ Charismatic, young, liberal, good public speaker. The
overachieving son of an overachieving immigrant father.
\_ And yet, somehow not Republican. What's not to love?
\_ Not to mention true believer
\_ What does he believe in? Democracy? America?
\_ Spiderman!
\_ I don't understand it either. Although I'm proud to see
fellow Mixed person get so much press, it seems
underdeserved. If he does something like craft a balanced
budget, or start a successful initiative I would take
more notice.
\_ The first black president (if we ever elect one) will not be
a Democrat. -tom
\_ To quote you, "you're an idiot."
\_ He's not Black, he's Bi-racial, which means you could call
him as much White as Black. But electing even a Mixed
person would be an achievement for America as long as he was
qualified.
\_ He was raised in Hawaii by his white mother and grandmother,
so I don't think he's "black" in any way that really matters.
But that's not the way people in the red states see it. -tom
\_ Don't you know the one-drop rule?
\_ My bad, thought we were in the 21st century.
\_ The Democrats would never allow Bush to get a non-White
elected; I mean, just look at Gonzalez, right?
\_ That's because any non-white Republican is a traitor
to their race. They even have special racial epithets
for them, like "Uncle Tom" or "House Nigger."
\_ It's funny, but these are the horrifying words
that black people give to Condoleeza Rice and
Colin Powell. Bush has so many 'token' minorities
in his cabinet that I think they outnumber white
folks.
\_ Not even close, fella:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html
Two blacks, two asians and 11 whites.
\_ This is the current cabinet excluding Powell.
I was exaggerating, but the point is the
same. If 1/3 of the cabinet is 'token'
minorities are they really tokens? I find
that notion in itself to be offensive.
\_ Aren't minorities overrepresented (given
population proportions) in the Bush
cabinet? -- ilyas
\_ the next president will be Jeb Bush, not some lame ass Democrat
who has no connection, no clout, nothing, like our dumb ass
losers like Gore and Kerry. -disillusioned Democrat
\_ Man, I sure hope the Republicans can come up with someone
better than Jeb. I really think the whole elcet Jeb thing
is just democrat whining anyway. I sure do wish the dems
could come up with a reasonable canidate though. Is it
really THAT hard? --republican
\_ Funny. My view of the republican noise about Hillary is
similar to your view of the Jeb fears. I guess because the
hatred is so visceral on both sides. Just thinking about
Jeb raises my blood pressure, and my impression is that
a lot of republicans feel that way about Hillary. I'm
actually planning to register republican just so I can vote
against Jeb in the primary. That's how much I fucking
hate that guy. Call me irrational, but when a political
leader comes out in favor of voter fraud, I consider that
to be simply un-American, and worth fighting against.
\_ I agree with you on the Hillary thing. The dems would
have to be nuts to field Hillary.
\_ Obama is a marxist. In case you motd people who don't get out
much haven't noticed, Communism is dead.
Even worse, he is a muslim.
\_ It is funny to me that I can't tell the difference between
the trolls and the Real Bush Republicans anymore.
\_ yea, make the most powerful man in the world a marxist
muslim. The left's wet dream.
\_ Troll harder, young master.
\_ trite idiocy is not going to change his politics
or heritage.
\_ Link? |
| 2005/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35936 Activity:high |
1/27 3rd journalist now busted for being on the take from Bush administration
without disclosing it:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/27/mcmanus/index.html
How soon before we get to refer to Bush as "Comrade President?"
\_ It's Presidente. Like Potatoe.
\_ what about PBS, Sierra Club, Nature Conservatory, NOW,
Bill Moyers....
\_ uh, what about them?
\_ the context of the thread is receiving government
funds, so take a wild guess.
let us be intellectually honest here and not give money
to any of them.
\_ If you can't see the difference between the Sierra Club and the
government secretely paying journalists to promote its agenda,
umm... you're probably a troll.
\_ Don't you think that guy really is that stupid?
\_ Effectively what is the distinction between an advocacy
organization and a journalist? I would argue the
organizations, which receive millions, are more insidious.
PBS, NPR, and Moyers are not journalists? |
| 2005/1/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:35933 Activity:high |
1/27 I hate Bush.
\_ why did you put him up against Lurch?
\_ Culturally illiterate moron vwapped.
\_ fuck old people!
\_ Dubya is a nice guy, but he's dumb and surrounded by smart people
who all have something seriously wrong with them.
Dubya's smirk and asshole looks come from being dumb.
\_ That's okay. He cares not one whit what you think, either.
\_ I like bush, but don't rule out anal until you've tried it.
\_ ... or oral. |
| 2005/1/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35917 Activity:moderate |
1/26 Why do you guys like to post politics on motd? What does motd have
that http://freerepublic.com, http://cnn.com discussions, http://fox.com groups,
Air America forums, etc don't have? I'm just trying to understand
the motivations, thanks.
\_ There's one person (it's all it takes) who keeps posting
\_ Don't be rediculous. There must be a dozen or more people in
this forum that post political stuff.
this shit up here. We've asked him/her a number of times
on what the motivation was, response was some irrational
belief that they're making a difference, etc. etc. The one
poster puts up the most provactive unfounded bullshit and you
get the avalanche effect. I think a number of people have
started just screening and deleting this shit already.
Anyway, it was really bad after the election, I think some
guy was posting threats to kill the president, etc., stuff
that would no doubt have gotten us into hot water. -williamc
\_ You're part of the problem, Mr. Deport-Liberals-to-Canada.
\_ What makes you think it is only one person?
\_ When you're a nutjob, it's better to not have to sign your
posts. Trolls from nutjobs stop working once people realize
who they're dealing with. -tom
\_ Soda has a pretty busy nutjob contingent--sometimes I'm
\_ Surprised? Impressed? Enraged? Aroused? What?!? The
suspese is killin' me here!! -mice
\_ My mission is to make yourself interesting. If I _told_
you what I am, it wouldn't be very suspeseful, would it?
\_ NOOOOO! HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!1! WHY THIS
ALWAYS HAPPEN TO MEEEEEEEE????!?!!?
by how many simultaneous freeper troll threads they can keep
going. -John
\_ Much higher signal to noise ratio.
\_ As above, but also you get rational people from both sides.
\_ The format of the motd suits itself to political trolls. It's
anonymous, and the threads are compact with replies following a
natural tree-like structure. Certain online forum software can
achieve a similar effect, but most of them don't, and often
crack down on political trolls. Political trolls should really
have their own motd file but that would defeat the purpose...
trolls need a large lake in which to cast. |
| 2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:35896 Activity:kinda low |
1/26 Awesome. MOTD full of 5 most important subjects: Bush, Abortion,
Death Penalty, Iraq, and lesbians. -John
\_ dude, it's boring. How about posting something interesting or
funny or odd? For example your Black German link was pretty funny.
\_ But where are the Swift Boats?! |
| 2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35889 Activity:high |
1/25 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145330,00.html Your pro-Bush fanatic Bill says "The truth is the Bush administration has made mistakes in Iraq and in defining the new rules in the terror war." Fox is becoming more and more Fair and Balanced. \_ If you think O'Reilly is pro-Bush fanatic, you didn't see his interview with Bush (which is the only thing I've seen of him in 2 years). -emarkp \_ Is that something I might be able to find on the web? When was that? \_ Your google fu is weak: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133712,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133854,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133993,00.html \_ Dubya needs to clarify to Americans and the world that we were wrong about WMDs. He can open reconstruction bids to other countries. Then he can say, regardless of the U.S.'s mistake in presenting its case on WMDs to the UN, the people of Iraq don't deserve to Then he can say, regardless of the U.S.'s incorrect conclusions on WMDs as presented to the UN, the people of Iraq don't deserve to suffer because of one nation's faulty intelligence. Then he can ask for help from Americans and the rest of the world. Dubya has had the ball in his court since Kay and Duelfer's findings, and arguably, since his re-election. It has been fully Dubya's decision to not make the clarification on WMDs to the world, and all the consequences follow naturally and deservingly. WMDs to the world, and all the consequences of people not wanting to ally with him follow naturally and deservingly. \_ Dubya has made no mistakes that he can recall. Didn't you watch the debates? He has a mandate from God. He doesn't need to admit to error. \_ O'Reilly is neither Pro Bush nor Anti anything. He is merely Pro-Ratings and Pro-Publicity and Pro-OReilly \_ Pro-O'Reilly is closest, but I also say he's anti-liberal. Hard to defend Dubya's mistakes, but in the context of "liberals", O'Reilly says Dubya is still better than them. |
| 2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35886 Activity:very high |
1/25 Budget deficit of $368b predicted for this year, plus whatever Bush
gets for Iraq. How does that compare to Reagan?
\_ Here's a graph from 1960-2002. Sadly can't find one including
the last two years. Not sure if the projected '03 and '04
numbers include projected Iraq expenses. [thanks for stomping
my change, asshat]
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
\_ Great resource, thanks! More specifically, how do these deficits
compare in terms of real dollar value at the time (i.e., Reagan's
deficits in 1980 dollars vs. Bush's deficits in same)?
\_ http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
The tables are not in constant dollar, but they also give
the amounts in percentage of GDP, which is really what you
should be looking at anyway. The Reagan and the early
Clinton years were both worse for the deficit.
\_ Uh. When do you think the "Clinton years" started?
Starting in 93 (The start of the clinton years), the
deficit headed DOWN. It's Reagan and Bush I that were
"worse for the deficit".
\_ Clinton had the good fortune to enjoy the benefits
of the heavy lifting Bush I did on raising taxes.
Bush II won't repeat the same mistake of doing the
hard work so a Democrat can take the credit.
\_ Or you could say that Bush I took the brunt of
trying to keep the country solvent because of the
excesses of the 80's, and people realized that
cutting taxes while increasing spending ... doesn't
work.
\_ The 2 views are not contradictory.
\_ Have you heard of "The Pledge?" No Republican will
ever raise taxes again, ever.
\_ Why do Republicans hate America?
\_ "Read my lips" notwithstanding, Bush I might well
have won the re-election if he had another year
in his first term and the country started
enjoying the fruits of his tax increases.
\_ Maybe, but the lesson the Republicans learned
from Bush I was "Raise taxes and die."
\_ Much credit goes to Newt Gingrich, for keeping down
spending from 96 onwards. -liberal
\_ And for championing "family values" while in the
midst of a 7 year affair with one of his employees!
\_ $368 + $100B for war + ??? for SS "reform"
It could easily be over $600B.
\_ How the hell did Clinton get +523 while all the rest get negatives?
He didn't do anything that was so radical from the other
presidents. Talking about radical, Bush=radical conservative.
\_ Between 91 and 95, they fixed a number of structural budget
problems. From that, the discussion was able to move from
"how to balance the budget" to "how much do we use to pay
down the debt and how much to cut taxes". |
| 2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35879 Activity:high |
1/20 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/20/rollling.stone.ap/index.html What happened to the First Amendment? We will fight back and we will not rest until we get our messages across on every single newspaper ads, magazine ads, and commercials. \_ I know this is a troll, but advertising is not free speech. \_ Well, not quite. If Rolling Stone ran the ad, and the state banned the issue, that would be a violation of free speech/press. In contrast, Rolling Stone refusing to run the ad is not a violation. If I posted logical, persuasive anti-freeper statements on http://FreeRepublic.com and they were all wiped by admins, that would not technically be a violation of the 1st Amendment. \_ Plus, your account would be shut off. \_ Still, it's always kinda funny to see the shoe on the other foot. |
| 2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35839 Activity:moderate |
1/21 Turn Your Back on Bush is ineffective. What a bunch of stupid hippies.
Why didn't they just do Throw-Eggs-And-Tomatos on Bush? That would
have been more interesting.
\_ Because they'll then get arrested.
\_ All the tomato-throwers moved to Canada, duh! |
| 2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35837 Activity:nil |
1/21 Inauguration marred by cultural misunderstanding:
http://csua.org/u/as8 (Yahoo News) |
| 2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35834 Activity:very high |
1/20 NY Times opinion username/pw: nty42322
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/opinion/21herbert.html
"In January 1945, with World War II still raging, Franklin Roosevelt
insisted on a low-key inauguration. Already gravely ill, he began his
address by saying, "Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends,
you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form
of this inauguration be simple and its words brief." Times have
changed. President Bush and his equally tone-deaf supporters spent the
past few days partying hard while Americans, Iraqis and others
continued to suffer and die in the Iraq conflagration. Nothing was too
good for the princes and princesses of the new American plutocracy.
... As the well-heeled Bush crowd was laughing and dancing in tuxedos
and designer gowns, the situation in Iraq was deteriorating to new
levels of horror. The Black Tie and Boots Ball was held on the same
day that 26 people were killed in five powerful car and truck bombs in
Baghdad."
\_ I don't know if I agree with your point, but I think it's pretty
darn cool and considerate that you posted a user/pass. -John
\_ As if you cared when sanctions were killing Iraqis. C'mon
you won't admit it but if Kerry won, there'd be just as many
balls, just as big of a parade, and with Kerry's tone - even
longer speeches.
\_ It's obvious that the NYT and you, the poster, obviously know
nothing about history. May I remind you that William Henry Harrison
died from pneumonia due to giving out a 2 hour speech in bad
weather and having attended no less than half a dozen balls
commencing that night? This kind of commentary is the usual
leftist drivel is the sort of crap that just plain undermines
the Democrats. Before you believe in something, or before you
post, try actually doing some research on the history of
inaugration. And lest you be too ignorant to forget, LBJ's
inaugration was hardly a small affair. The point, for the denser
of the crowd, is that there is nothing different about
this inaugral that is different from those performed since
the beginning of this country. Attempting to dredge up
one which actually IS and attempting to discredit the current
one, however, is just really bad journalism. (William Henry Harrison,
for the clueless on the MOTD, was our 9th president and served
for some 30 odd days before dying).
\_ So your point is that it's OK for Bush to have an extravagant
inauguration while Americans and Iraqis are dying in his
mistaken war because most other presidents are just as bad?
Or is your point that Harrison was stupid and so its OK for
Bush to be stupid too? Why shouldn't people who have
loved ones in Iraq be upset with the president for celebrating
while people are dying? -!op
\_ I don't think that's his point. Not that I particularly like
the idea of any Bush inauguration, low key or not, I think
his point is that you're being hysterical. -John
\_ You're right. They do have the right to party it up while
Iraq is turning to shit.
\_ FDR was Stalin's best friend. In fact FDR was jealous
of Stalin because he was a more effective collectivist.
So perhaps if FDR spent more time reflecting on his
objectives rather than worrying about appearances,
Eastern Europe would have not been subject to 50 years
of Soviet rule, who were equivalent if not worse
than the Nazis, and the Cold War may have been averted.
Let's not forget the NYTimes glorified, almost deified,
Uncle Joe during the '30s and '40s.
\_ And the Republicans used to be for the little guys, and the
Dems were the party of choice for crypto-Klansmen. So what?
You think the same guys who were writing those glowing reviews
of Uncle Joe are still writing the OpEd page for the NYTimes?
\_ In spirit yes... except they are secular Jews and
gays.
\_ +5 self troll!
\_ have you ever seen any of the board of NYTimes
editors? It is not a troll just a simple
fact of life.
\_ Is William Safire a gay Jewish man?
\_ you leftists are fed this propaganda from
the NYTimes and you don't even know who
ths source is. Yes Safire
is Jewish.
\_ This thread has really diverged. If you
wish, you may start another thread about
your argument, since it's hard to tell how
serious you're even taking yourself.
\_ Does anyone know when the motd anti-semite
came on board? I don't remember all these
weird tinfoil hat-ish rants about Jews
starting until very recently...
\_ How do you know I'm not Jewish?
I am moderately pro-Isreal...
But I am not going to ignore
obvious constructs of our society.
Do you really think AIPAC is
larger than any other lobby
except AARP for fun? |
| 2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35828 Activity:very high |
1/20 What happened to the egg & tomato throwers? And what happened
to the Turn-Your-Back protestors? I don't see it on news.
\_ Yeah, I watch Fox News, too.
\_ actually Fox News has a section on protestors.
\_ "The procession of cars sped up as President Bush neared the
designated location for protesters on Pennsylvania Avenue. Two rows
of police lined the street in front of the main protest site.
Officers stationed atop buildings along the route kept close watch
on the crowd." -AP
\_ you know, the President probably didn't even get to see them
and even if he did, SO WHAT? You liberals are wasting your
time. You lost, get over it.
\_ Dubya now has the opportunity to fix his administration's
mistakes for the next four years.
\_ mistakes in the eyes of hippies and tree-huggers.
\_ "If I could just say one thing, though, about lessons
learned, and that is that I spoke yesterday about the
important work that we've been doing on the Office of
Reconstruction and Stabilization. I think that's a lesson
learned. We didn't have the right skills, the right
capacity, to deal with a reconstruction effort of this
kind." -Hippie / Tree Hugger Condi Rice
\_ Just a snowball! http://csua.org/u/as4 (Yahoo! News photo) |
| 2005/1/20 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35820 Activity:high |
1/20 CNN: "Bush vows to spread democracy" seems more like "Bush vows
to spread White-man disease", haha.
\__ Democracy IS a white-man's disease.
\_ world's largest democracy is India, where many brown
people live. - danh |
| 2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35810 Activity:very high |
1/20 How true is this "Trixter" thing, 20 somethings who live off
their parents, change jobs often, and change SOs often?:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050124/story.html
\_ It's a widely reported phenom in Japan, too, where they're called
"Furita" (from the the Japanese transliteration of "free time").
\_ The "changing jobs often" is a direct result of the destruction
of pensions in this country. As to the not getting married until
later, I think this is a definitely good change. I think in the
next generation you'll see a lower divorce rate because of it.
People have realized "I don't need to enter a world-without-end
bargain with this person I don't even know", and so they find
their own way in the world while looking for someone they can
go along with. I think these trends started with women's lib,
and are for the best. My mom married a horrible guy, got out
when my sister was born, met my dad, and has been married to
him for 25 years. My sisters and I learned from that. --scotsman
\_ ah that's because you're born in a hippie family. Look at
all the evil things in media-- violence, first person shooter
games, reality shows based on cheating and lying, etc. You
liberals don't know anything about family values and faith.
Have you been to your local church lately? You may find
peace and stability there. God bless.
\_ Hardly. Why would you say that? Because my mom
divorced? Because she's a churchgoer and school
teacher? Because my dad served in Vietnam and is
a retired LtC? Get your head out of your ass.
You prefer someone getting married right out of
high school and being miserable for years in a
bad marriage? I weep for your children.
Are you the same person that complained about the
guys who weren't allowed to "defend" the kid from
the empty water bottle? --scotsman
\_ Heh, I know the guy that posted the water bottle
link; it's not the same guy as the one you're
responding to above. -mice
\_ With all due respect to your veteran status (you're
almost as old as me) please don't feed the trolls.
\_ to the other guy: I'm a conservative, but in this
case, lay off scotsman even if he may be a hippie
\_ you are probably being trolled
\_ duh.
\_ Your brain is so small...I am so sad for you, so sad.
\_ Damn, what a bunch of horseshit. If faculty outside of the
technical fields are not going to spend their time teaching,
we should just fire their asses so they don't pollute the world
with their moronic ideas. Yes, these kids exist in massive
numbers, and yes, they're lazy.
\_ "Twixter" and this sounds exactly like my 25 year old brother
and his friends. I hear from older acquaintances that many of
their kids are the same way. In spite of what the article says,
I do think they are lazy.
\_ Anyone got the full article? Also, I agree with the poster
above. Most twixters I know are that way because they are
allowed to mooch.
\_ I was like that until I was 35, but I didn't live off my
parents. -ausman
\_ Here in Texas, we don't have Twixters:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/kdaly/2005/krd_0118.shtml
\_ what are the Liberal Parenting Mantras? What are the
Conservative Parenting Mantras?
\_ Conservative:
Spare The Rod, Spoil The Child
Children Should Be Seen And Not Heard
A Family That Prays Together, Stays Together
Liberal:
Bitch Betta Have My Money
It Depends On What The Meaning Of "Is" Is
\_ It is a worldwide phenomena, no doubt the fault of the Lib Media:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050124/sotwixter_chart.html
\_ I see teenage moms on the bus everyday. Is this what Conservatives
mean by "family values"?
\_ funny, I've always thought they're liberal single parents
like the ones you see in liberal media. Have you
people ever wondered why conservatives are dominating
politics? It's because they listen to people.
Many people in America are pissed. People are sick and
tired of liberal TV media that glorify late-20s/early-30s
jobless comedians, minority ganstas, and gays & lesbians in
NYC and Los Angeles. People are tired of seeing them
sleeping with and/or shooting at each other. Call it
evil media, bad influence, or liberal view, I don't care,
but that is not America is about. Look, people want safety,
security, stability, and family values, all of which
conservatives have provided many decades ago.
I know this thread is going to get a lot of flames.
Typical liberal response.
\_ The only thing in your list that any liberal would balk
at is "family values," and that's simply because of the
way social conservatives define it. Of late (read last
2 decades), conservatives have not provided safety or
stability. And many of the "family values" they offer are
not what I will try to instill in my family.
\_ I'm not sure about in general, but in the south bay I think
that more and more college grads are returning home after
college. About 1/2 of my friends still live at home (we
graduated 5-6 yrs ago). Some of us (including myself) still
live at home b/c we are working on PhD or LS/Med school and
don't want to pay rent in addition to tuition. Those who
are working have taken over things like house payments or
tuition payments for younger siblings. |
| 2005/1/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:35794 Activity:moderate |
1/19 "Bush begins his new term with the lowest approval rating at that
point of any recent two-term president -- 49 percent in an Associated
Press poll this month." (CNN.com)
So, how effective do you think authorities will be at confiscating
eggs prior to tomorrow's inauguration?
\_ They will just shoot any dissenters.
\_ Yawn. Wasn't there a thread about the same thing two days ago?
Please check motd archive.
\_ This reminds me of that old joke about the guys in prison
who've told the same jokes so many times that they just
say a number and everyone laughs. We could do that for some
of these trolls. Someone posts "221342353", and the usual
suspects all chime in with numerical responses, meaning things
like "you're an idiot" and long rants about guns. Thanks to
the motd web archive this is actually practical (and has now
happened a couple of times).
\_ uh, whatever. what number is this motd and what are other
numbers that are similar to this one?
\_ Yermom!
\_ Is there a commandline interface to kais motd? i.e.
"kais 23431" spits out that motd post, or "-d 2005.1.14"
spits out the motd for that day. Via lynx I guess.
\_ you got your wish, at your CSUA command line, type:
"~kchang/bin/kais 35794" for entry 35794 (THIS ONE)
"~kchang/bin/kais 1day" for today's entries
"~kchang/bin/kais 2005/1/1" for new year's entries
There are many other commands as well but you need an
account. For a preview of account capabilities you can
look at http://csua.com/?login=1
-kchang
\_ um, I think I'll wait until I can see the source first.
not that I don't trust you or anything...
Dear anal untrusty person, this is the source -------------/
{soda}/home/apollo/kchang/bin> cat kais
#!/bin/sh
lynx --dump 'http://csua.com/?text='$*
\_ oh, ok. nifty. now we can argue back and forth using only
backreferences. since all the politics have already been
discussed, according to popular belief.
suggestion: allow just "1/1" for the date (default to
2004) and allow 1/1/2004. ok thanks.
\_ It's how you tell it.
\_ Yeah, but that was in the Washington Post. Now CNN is reporting
Dubya's approval rating is even lower than Nixon's around his 2nd
inauguration.
Anyways, I'm asking about eggs.
\_ Eggs won't be a problem, because they are only inviting
the ideologically pure to the inauguration. Unless some
wounded soldier from Iraq goes ballistic. And I bet
they have those guys under close observation.
\_ The first sentence, after the comma, is not correct:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-inaug29.html
This is why you had eggs and a leadfoot limo driver in
Inauguration 2001.
\_ s/observation/sedation/ |
| 2005/1/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35777 Activity:high |
1/18 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/18/opinion/main667553.shtml An alternative inaugural speech. \_ Wow, I remember when PJ O'Rourke wasn't a raving ass. \_ when was that? I'm not fucking with you, I'm just curious, since I haven't really read much of his stuff. \_ That was a lot funnier than I expected. \_ I agree with the ass guy. |
| 2005/1/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35753 Activity:nil |
1/17 Yay, Dubya!
"The president's overall job approval rating stands at 52 percent,
unchanged in the past month. Of all presidents in the post-war era who
won reelection, only Richard M. Nixon had a lower job approval rating
at the start of his second term while the other chief executives began
their second term with job ratings of 60 percent or higher." -Wash Post
\_ Just wait till he starts his war with Iran and starts drafting
college students.
\_ AAAAGHH! The draft rumor was false last time, why would you
believe it now?
\_ What made it "false"? I still think Bush is going to have
to start drafting people. The National Guard has not met
their recruiting quota for six months running now, and
they are half of the troops in Iraq! Where is he going
to get the soldiers for this third front of his???
\_ !!!!?????`111`11one!!111eleven!!!!!
\_ Wasn't there a "Read My Lips: No Draft" moment?
Isn't Rummy anti-draft?
\_ Just a WAG, but IF there's a draft, I think they'd structure it
to be easy to get postponements for college. You want to draft
kids of those least likely to raise a stink.
\_ And Nixon also faced a press with a hard-on to publish anything bad
about him. Hmm...
\_ Dude, the press has rolled over for Dubya. Keep dreaming your
paranoid fantasies if you want, but please remember there is a
real world out there. |
| 2005/1/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35718 Activity:high |
1/14 Dubya interview tonight emphasizing the failure to find WMDs and
colossal CIA mistakes, where he says war was "absolutely" worth
it even if there were no WMDs.
Interview buried by Titan coverage and also Dubya's press
conference today admitting his plainspokenness may have "unintended
consequences".
Intentional? Who cares! Even if it wasn't, this is exactly how
the administration would have liked to have planned it. Burying
bad news on Friday has become a time-honored tradition for Dubya
and friends, the rationale being: The bad guys are the terrorists,
if the Dems are ever elected they'll unwittingly let the terrorists
destroy America; therefore, many actions are fine, and even heroic!
\_ Unwittingly? You must not be familiar with Ann Coulter's corpus.
\_ The interview is the "buried" news/ That's on 20/20 which is always
on Fridays.
\_ It is kind of hard to figure out exactly what you are trying to
say here, but the gist of it seems to be that you believe that
Bush traveled back in time and made sure that the Cassini probe
was launched in such a fashion as to ensure that it passed Titan
at the precise moment that scandal was erupting. I hope you
don't really believe that. And if you do believe it, please
join the other side. -Bush basher/American patriot
\_ No I don't believe that, and this was said explicitly in the
deleted thread. To sum up: "Bad news buried on Friday --
sometimes it's intentional, sometimes not, but Dubya's
people don't care either way, because they feel that they
are doing it for the greater good."
\_ Okay, then why drag poor Titan into it? And while I am sure
that Bush massages the news cycle, so has every President
since Nixon (maybe before, I dunno). |
| 2005/1/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35684 Activity:insanely high |
1/12 All political stuff where the Bush supporters were schooled
has been wiped in the name of national security.
\_ You still lost ! Get over it!
\_ And you are still a cowardly anonymous censor.
\_ I didn't do any censoring. In fact, I never have.
You can't handle the truth.
\_ Well, someone sure as hell keeps doing it.
Which makes you an apologist for an anonymous
cowardly censor, which is probably even lower. |
| 2005/1/12-13 [ERROR, uid:35682, category id '18005#9.54947' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35682 Activity:moderate 66%like:33439 |
1/12 Where did the wall love go?
\_ I have backups as of 12/17, but that's missing the last 3 weeks.
Maybe another root knows. Personally, I have no damned clue about
how all the wall stuff works (maybe the script borked itself).
*shrug* - jvarga
\_ If you could restore to /csua/lib/wall, with the owner as
someone other than aaron, it would be much appreciated. jon
has a log of the last couple months of wall in his home dir,
which could easily be split into logs for each day if anyone
is so inclined.
\_ Happy birthday. - jvarga
\_ Really? I don't see anything new at /csua/lib/wall
\_ backup is from 17 December.
\_ ask aaron
\_ aaron, where did the wall logs go?
\_ I don't think aaron logs on anymore
\_ why, did he have an aneurysm after realizing he's one of
the people he hates so much? -tom
\- he is fileld with recursive hate
\_ Did aaron wipe the wall log or something? -clueless
\_ He was probably embarrassed about his meltdown
(even by aaron standards) yesterday. So he is cleaning up
the tracks.
\_ Ooo! Details please!
\_ Wall-spamming.
\_ Has he been squished yet?
\_ This is the frist thing I've seen in a while that
might actually require squishing. He's been a
real bung hole.
\_ Awww. I miss 'squish ilyas' threads.
If we squish aaron, there would be one less person
to point and laugh at, at least for me. -- ilyas
\_ If anyone really tries to get you squished, I
think you might be suprised how many people that
would piss off. No one can say you don't
contribute to making the motd what it is.
\_ I am not entirely sure that's a compliment.
-- ilyas
\_ It is and it isn't. Let me put it this
way: I continue to disagree with you on
almost everything, and you've really pissed
me off with some of your posts, but they've
caused me to think quite a bit about things
I never would have thought about otherwise,
and to reconsider some things. What more
can someone who writes about ideas ask than
that they cause other people to re-think
their own ideas? That's what I read the
motd for.
\_ Hmmm.. I was going to say I had a
similar feeling about aaron, that
is, the motd just wouldn't be the
same without his mad ranting.
However, unlike ilyas, as far as I
know aaron has never actually
contributed anything other than
bile to a conversation.
\_ You know, I think you're confusing
motd with wall. I'm a total motd
addict, but I don't do wall, and I
still don't really know who this aaron
guy everyone keeps talking about is.
Can you point to a aaron/bile post
in the motd archives?
\_ I actually don't wall either.
I know aaron exclusively
through the motd. Just search
"--aaron" on KAIS motd.
Although, I have to admit,
after looking through the
archives, that aaron does
occasionaly post something
useful.
Some bile fresh from the archives _/
http://csua.com/?entry=33982
http://csua.com/?entry=33404
\_ I assumed this was a parody when I saw it.
http://csua.com/?entry=33330
http://csua.com/?entry=33214
It's not hard to find examples really.
\_ I was disappointed because I couldn't find any of aarons
enlightened postings on religion.
\_ I don't think he signed any of them on the motd. There are
plenty in wall.
\_ aaron ttyEJ 64.62.161.106 Mon Jan 10 15:14 - 15:25 (00:10)
drwxrwsr-t 9 root contrib 512 Jan 10 15:16 /csua/lib |
| 2005/1/11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35664 Activity:high |
1/11 What's the libertarian/conservative repsonse to the mudslide
in SoCal? Should be be forcing Ilya, at gunpoint, to pay to
try to rescue people who *choose* to live downhill from, um,
anything? Should surivors be able to sue the owner of the
mud for damages?
\_ I am no libertarian or conservative, but I think aid for people
who built million dollar houses in obviously idiotic places is
bullshit. When a once in a hundred years tsunami floods your whole
town, you can call it an act of God, but when you build your
house in a fucking flood plane and it gets flooded you deserve
what you get.
\_ I don't mean extra aid, I mean digging bodies out of the
mud. And suppose the mudslide was caused because the owner
of the land uphill cleared out the vegetation? Lastly, calling
the little bit of rain they're getting a tsunami is a stretch,
given the widespread destruction of the real one.
\_ [ bitch. ]
\_ La Chonchita was hardly a place of million dollar homes, fyi.
\_ If I remember correctly from yesterday's hate fest, ilyas would
deny such basic assistance as food stamps to poor people. Why
would he want to waste money rescuing anyone?
\_ It's not a waste to spend money to rescue people, but if I were
in charge of the country, I wouldn't consider it my money to
spend. I would encourage people to not be fucktards and help,
but I will not be a fucktard in return and make them help if
they do not wish. -- ilyas
\_ And while you're taking your time gathering support, real
people are dying buried beneath the mud.
\_ I think the libertarian solution would be to have people
donate in advance to a relief group which would help out
when necessary. --not libertarian, but trying to understand
\_ Or it could work kind of how home owner associations
work. Places have their own local organisations
responsible for providing or contracting private
emergency services. --also non-libertarian
\_ I will not force people to do good. If you want to go
down that path, why have free will at all? Just lobotomize
them into some sort of drone-saint and be done with it.
Of course, drone-saints are not moral agents, but that
probably doesn't bother you. If you ever wondered why
Christians tend to not be liberal, it might be because
they have this intuitive notion that God considered free
will important as far as doing good. Otherwise, he wouldn't
have bothered with it, and just made everyone act as they
should act. Liberals ignore the issue of human goodness
entirely using the machine of government. -- ilyas
\_ Hmm, libertarians seem to take the notion of human
goodness for granted, and conveniently ignore the fact
that expensive life saving equipment and training is
usually outside of the range of affordability for me
and neighbor Joe. That money's gotta come from
somewhere, and if that means through taxes, then so
be it. Saying that this 'ignoring the issue of human
goodness' seems, at best, non sequitur. Perhaps you can
give clarification.
\_ Eh, rescue stuff is sort of a gray area. In
principle libertarians tend to not fund stuff other
than police/army. On the other hand, rescue
operations are often done _by_ the army, since they
tend to be very qualified for this kind of work
(see the tsunami thing for example). Personally,
I don't consider rescue efforts, and general
'good samaritan' stuff to be the province of the
government, though I recognize government agencies,
even in limited government, tend to be good at it.
Anyways lifesaving equipment/training maybe outside
the scope of the average Joe, but so are blood
transfusions, or AIDS research. This does not mean
average Joe would not contribute, and that effective,
fast acting charity based rescue orgs cannot exist
(in fact they exist now).
I ll modify my original claim somewhat, and say that
short term crises of any kind can be reasonably
claimed to be the province of the army/law
enforcement agencies, which are tax-funded.
Or they may not (also reasonable).
The 'human goodness' comment is more of a general
comment on how libertarians view acts of charity
and decency. -- ilyas
\_ Eh, rescuing people in need of immediate disaster
response is part of the reason IMO we have government.
Long-term aid should be through private groups, etc.
Rebuilding should be done (if at all) via funds from
private insurance. -emarkp
\_ This mostly makes sense to me. I don't understand
why this would be 'ignoring the issue of human
goodness', though. -mice (a moderate)
\_ Haven't you been keeping up with motd? God punishes the
unworthy (esp if they're poor and ideologically unsound).
It's their fault, so sit back and enjoy yer stuff and feel
no conscience about (or need to participate in) society.
\_ Dig them out and then mail them a bill.
\_ Rescuing people is a reasonable government action. Paying them
relief money so they can rebuild in the same spot isn't. Morons who
drive around barricades to cross a river which was a road should be
charged the cost of the rescue. |
| 2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35639 Activity:very high |
1/10 This is so fucking childish. What's next, they going to register
the potential democratic presidential candidates?
http://csua.org/u/anp (Yahoo News, link substituted, http://csua.org=good)
\_ Bah! Both sides do this. Realistically, if I had any kind of
polical aspirations, I would have registered mynameforoffice.uld
five years ago. His dumbass fault for not doing it.
As long as the Forces of Good have http://www.whitehouse.org
I'm not going to complaign.
\_ Oh the horror! A Republican might win in MA! Last time that
happened was Weld, but he was a RINO.
\_ This will be deleted by one of the censor happy conservatives.
\_ I agree with the op (that it's childish). Why do you think
conservatives will censor it? -emarkp
\_ Because they censor anything that criticizes the Republican
Party. I get at least one motd post censored every day.
\_ I think you might be wrong in assuming that everything
critical of the Republicans which is censored is censored
by conservatives. Think about it. -emarkp
\_ Well I considered the possibility that it is just
someone who hates politics in general, but stuff like
the CBS firings entry stays up for at least a day.
\_ And yet I had to restore the John Fund reference. I
suspect the majority of deleted posts are simple
mistakes. -emarkp
\_ by dipwads like you who don't use motdedit? -tom
\_ Fuck motdedit. In the ear.
\_ Possibly by others who don't use motdedit.
However, I don't value people by whether they
use 'motdedit' or not. My editor complains if
the motd has changed while I was editing. I
copy my changes, reload the motd and paste the
changes back in. -emarkp
\_ who died and made motdedit the standard?
\_ Since this mostly happens late at night when
there is little editing activity going on, I
doubt it. But you might be right.
\_ Where is outcry on the DDOS attacks on the
littlegreenfootballs blog that helped bring down
Rather going on at the moment?
\_ http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com
What part of "stop it guys" don't you
understand?
\_ HA! A blog to "watch" a blog. Police ur own.
Esp. with the suggestion the writer killed
himself.
\_ Obviously a joke. |
| 2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35636 Activity:high |
1/10 No mention of the CBS firings here? Well here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml
Read it for yourself. Find out on page 153 they cite Freerepublic!
Woohoo! At least the Democrats can say they are winning at the
box office as a consolation.
\_ Actually, they can't even say that, unless you consider Shrek2
or Spiderman 2 to be Democrat movies.
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/2004/top-grossing
\_ I am talking about NOW. Meet the Fockers, Streisand and
the so-called People's Choice Awards for Moore F9/11.
\_ Please, "Mett the Fockers" is a sequel to a very funny movie.
\_ Please, "Meet the Fockers" is a sequel to a very funny movie.
It has absolutely zero competition. I won't see it because I
can't stand Streisand. Oh, and because reviews of it suck (a
whopping 39% on rottentomatoes). Did they miss The Passion at
the awards?
\_ Mmm.. why don't you do a little research. they gave it
the best drama award.
\_ Um...that was the point. How did the lefties miss that
one and claim the lead?
\_ This is how a professional organization deals with mistakes.
Too bad the White House promotes people and gives them
medals when they screw up.
\_ Tenet was what?
\_ Already on his way out.
\_ So who was given medals? General Franks screwed up?
\_ All right, Tenet and Bremer screwed up. Franks was
smart enough to get out of TMTA^H^H^H^HDubya's
administration while the getting was good.
\_ Actually, Franks was replaced for offering a candid
assessment of the situation on the ground.
\_ That was Shinseki. Franks retired because he
promised his wife he would. He was offered
Shinseki's job as CoS of the Army. Get it right!
\_ URL please. Everything I read was that he got
out while the getting was good.
\_ Didn't he and the proconsul get a Medal Of Freedom? |
| 2005/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35628 Activity:nil |
1/10 http://www.columbian.com/01072005/clark_co/230560.html |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35624 Activity:nil |
1/9 I thought I'd post this seperately. Here is the breakdown of
the Jooish vote in U.S. presidential elections going back to 1916.
Hell, even Mondale and McGovern managed to clean up in this demographic.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
And in case anyone cares, I'm both a Democrat and a (secular)Joo. |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35615 Activity:kinda low |
1/8 With-It Sanford The free-market South Carolina governor.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200406280927.asp
\_ Now why can't you republicans put guys like this up for national
office instead of porkbarrelling weasels like Bush or his asshole
brother?
\_ Dang if I know, why can't the Dems come up with someone
better than Hillary, Kerry, or Edwards?
\_ *sigh*
\_ because the party is full of RINOs |
| 2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35587 Activity:moderate |
1/6 Why Republicans rule-- they have clout and money:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/bush.journalist.ap/index.html
(synopsis: The Bush administration paid a prominent black
journalist to promote Bush and give Education Secretary media
time, records show)
\_ And this somehow surprises you? That's the nature of politics.
\_ That's the nature of American (or western) politics. In China
it's the other way around: "Why did he become rich? Because he
has political power."
\_ Well, it's actually the same. One becomes rich and one
attains political power which results in one becoming even
richer and attaining even more political power, ad naseum.
Whether one first attains political power or becomes rich
is somewhat immaterial. The bottom line is the powerful
are rich and the rich are powerful.
\_ In other words, the US is no better than China.
\_ Ohmygosh, you mean power corrupts, irrespective of
nation, race, or creed? Say it ain't so!!
\_ Yeah. Poor John Kerry. No clout and no money. |
| 2005/1/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:35551 Activity:high |
1/4 [WARNING: Libertarian love-fest below]
\_ Warning: communist dumbass above
\_ thanks for the case in point, false dichotomy, and needless
invective
\_ What makes you think there was any dichotomy? Or that the
invective was needless? Here's another question: which of
the following responses are "libertarian love-fests"?
Updated govt. aid figures:
Australia: $765m
Germany: $680m
Australia: $810m
Germany: $674m
Japan: $500m
US: $350m
\_ Australia's up to $1b now. The bidding is amazing.
\_ Politicizing disaster relief is sickening.
\_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20050105
\_ What? Isn't Sri Lanka a Buddhist country instead of Muslim?
\_ *cringe* Given Sri Lanka's history of "disappearing" rebels
and collaborators (i.e., from both sides), the second thought
that crossed my mind on hearing of the disaster was "Will
either side take advantage of the confusion to get rid of
rivals?" The same thought could well be applied to Aceh in
Indonesia.
\_ Egeland, the UN Humanitarian Chief, calls this "competitive
compassion".
\_ How much has been given privately? How much does it cost for our
carrier group and soldiers to be over there helping?
\_ ssshhhh!
\_ Sorry, didn't mean to feed the trolls.
\_ Yeah, but do the Indonesian people think that way?
\_ Who cares?
\_ Americans give privately, not through their government. (As it
should be.) Why don't you add up the contributions to, say, the
International Red Cross by country?
\_ Huh, well, personally I believe that forced charity is the
only real charity. |
| 2005/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:35538 Activity:high |
1/4 If Washington wants to boost America's image in the Muslim world, why
didn't Powell go directly to Indonesia instead of Thailand? Better
yet, why didn't Bush send someone higher like Chaney or even go there
himself? That would've been a big boost if Bush show himself there
even if he leaves the real work to someone else. (The prime minister
of Singapore went to Indonesia himself, for example, not that
Singapore has an image problem.)
\_ Powell got sent because they're building him up for something big
later on-- it's pretty much the same reason he presided over the
NYC New Year's Eve apple-dropping. Thailand is a strong US ally,
and BushCo have a pattern of recognizing allies first, potential
allies second; it's their way of rewarding loyalty.
\_ OK. I'll bite. What are they building Powell up big for
later on? Is he running for U.S. President in 08? Or the
U.N. Secretary General in 06? I thought Clinton wanted that
position?
\_ I'll bite too. What could they build him up for, since he
has vowed to leave politics?
\_ Pope.
\_ Because our image can't be changed in the Muslim world until the
Mullahs stop preaching hatred of the USA, or the people have enough
freedom to learn for themselves that we're not the great Satan.
\_ If Washington wants to change their image in the middle east,
they should simply not overthrow any more mossadeghs, not
support israel, and not invade any more iraqs.
\_ You've never spent much time with Arabs have you?
\_ You mean "crazed, fundamentalist Arabs". Lots of Arabs
are perfectly rational people.
\_ In my small experiance, most of the ones who come to
the states are perectly rational people. The ones
stuck in fascist hellholes are nuts because all they
hear is propoganda 24-7. It's hard to be rational
when your whole life experiance is insane. That's
what I was trying to get at above.
\_ you forgot that 53% of the Americans don't really care about what
the world thinks about U.S. Only sissy peacenik gay liberals
care what other people think about themselves. -conservative |
| 2005/1/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35529 Activity:high |
1/3 Where does all the money go that people donate? Who distributes it and
who buys stuff with it? Does it go directly to the area governments?
\_ Short answer: it depends on where people donate the money.
\_ ok assume Red Cross since that seems to be the big thing here.
\_ similar question (I'm not the op), what % of the money I donate
to Red Cross/Salvation/Good Will goes to admins and what % actually
gets distributed to the needy?
\_ Heh. Good question. -- ilyas
\_ How much research funding for ilyas' group goes to support to
his motd habbit?
\_ None. I work far more hours than I am paid for.
There is also the notion that certain kinds of work
cannot be adequately measured by hourly rates anyways.
Like, say, programming or research. There is also
the matter that you are an idiot. -- ilyas
\_ I see. You're underpaid, so that's the justification
for a libertarian living off the taxpayers' nickel.
\_ Are you dense? Didn't we have this conversation
already? Do you not understand that the only people
on whom this complaint does NOT work are those who
are perfectly happy with the way our current society
is. Because you know, if you happened to NOT like
something about society, you almost certainly
are benefitting from this feature you don't like in
some way, somewhere. You hypocrite bastard.
Too little taxation = more business investment,
too much taxation = more public good, etc. etc.
Do you think people who conceived of western
secular liberalism did not benefit from the
fucked up societies they had the misfortune
to be born into? Were they hypocrites to believe
in what they did? You are a pretty sad case even
for the motd. -- ilyas
\_ I think op is just saying you should practice
what you preach.
\_ I d be happy to, if ever I am elected into
public office. Wouldn't everybody? And at
any rate, where are the complaints against
environmentalists taking advantage of the
benefits provided by the evil soulless oil
companies? Liberals pocketing Bush tax cuts?
Practice what you preach, bitch! -- ilyas
\_ http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/comics.php
\_ Stop bothering me, can't you see I have
a deadline! -- ilyas
\_ My tax cut went straight back to the
DNC. Stick to talking about things
you know something about, hypocrite.
\_ Except it shouldn't go to the DNC,
Aaron. It should go back to the
state. I _wish_ I could spend my
taxes how I want politically.
Dumbass. -- ilyas
\_ It's about reinvesting the money
into the state rather than
actually spending the money on
myself. Get a clue, doofus.
\_ So the DNC = the State now?
Wtf? Also, who says
libertarians spend money
on themselves? -- ilyas
\_ Who cares if they spend
money on themselves? What
are you babbling about?
The issue is your willing
use of state money to
coast along, despite your
prolific and long winded
posts about your
libertarian Utopian
ideals. Hello? Earth to
ilyas?
I'm not libertarian but you're being dumb. _/
He was pointing out that a libertarian can
choose to invest in the state if he wants,
rather than being taxed for it (in theory).
\_ He's also being dumb by not answering the
other objections: DNC != State,
environmentalists driving cars,
shopping at republican donor businesses,
etc. Probably not actually dumb, but
playing dumb for trolling purposes.
-- ilyas
\_ heh, 3 ilyas points, but I still lost the
bet. well, shucks.
\_ What were the terms of the bet?
-- ilyas
Would you prefer my default reaction
to motd posts be outright dismissal
and derision? -- ilyas
\_ don't you think it's amusing to be a hardcore
libertarian AND a grad student at the largest public
university in the world? i see a lot of humor in that.\
i think you belong at Pepperdine with ben stein. - danh
university in the world? i see a lot of humor in that.
i think you belong at Pepperdine with ben stein. - danh
\_ I find it no more amusing than seeing you employed
at some soul-sucking corp you probably hate. Actually,
I find it quite sad. And I am not a 'hardcore'
libertarian. I am actually fairly moderate. Unless
it's one of those obligatory adjectives, like
'cold-blooded killer.' -- ilyas
\_ 'Cold-blooded libertarian' has a nice ring to it,
though.
\_ That was the insinuation, yes. -- ilyas
\_ I remember the Red Cross ranks #1 in this regard. I don't
remember the actual numbers though.
\_ $0.19 to raise $1.00. 9.9% overhead, 91.9% goes to programs.
http://csua.org/u/ak9
\_ Dont donate to the United Way. They are terrible.
\_ On a more positive note, I read in the Economist that each dollar
spent on charity results in a > 1 dollar net economic benefit.
That is, 1 dollar spent in helping someone get back to her feet,
etc. eventually results in a > 1 dollar return (eg. she starts
contributing to society again). Don't ask me how the Economist
did its calculations.
\-why does this come as a surprise? it is more or less axiomatic.
charity goes to those with very little and it is just the law
of diminishing marginal returns. if you want to spend your
money to go from having no fishing net to having a finshing net
obviously that has a bigger return than going from gold to
platinum jewelry. --psb
\_ Fishing nets won't get you laid; platinum jewelry will.
\_ Fishing nets catch fish which can be sold for money which
can be used to buy platinum which can get you laid.
\- suffering from amoebic dysentary probably wont either --psb |
| 2005/1/3 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35528 Activity:very high |
1/3 New (substantiated?) rumor that the bulge on Bush's back is a LifeVest
defibrillator. Apparently has atrial fibrillation, and suffered a
mini-stroke (2002 Pretzel incident). Any thoughts?
\_ More detailed discussion of the defibrillator theory:
http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/20636.php
\_ You know, it's crap usage like this that makes people talk about
"theory" vs. fact. It's not a theory, it's a steaming pile of
random speculation.
\_ "Conspiracy theory" is a pretty commonly used term, and most
conspiracy theories are pretty much exactly what you describe.
I am using the word "theory" in an identical context here.
If you don't like the way the English language has developed,
please fuck off and cry to someone else about it.
\_ Go read "Interface" by Stephen Bury (a pen name for Neal Stephenson)
at once.
\_ Sometimes a suit is just a suit.
\_ I doubt it. If he does in fact have a heart problem that
requires a defibrillator, he'd have an implantable one like
every patient with the problem.
\_ you're an idiot. -tom
\_ Almost by definition, you have shown that he is not. |
| 2005/1/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35516 Activity:very high |
1/2 Sean Penn says bad things about Bush and it gets published, how did it
happen, on *FOX*??? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143079,00.html
\_ because fox viewer's estimation of actors opinions are the same as
tom's evident opinion of published author's opinions. When some
hollywood celeb says somthing bad about Bush, it is probably taken
as a sure sign he's doing the right thing.
\_ crebbs, if you're going to personally insult me, have the balls
to sign your name.
Oh, and you're also an idiot. -tom
\_ Not really a personal insult as much as a slight. -crebbs
\_ now there's a fine hair to split. -tom
\_ <shrug>, You said something I thought idiotic, I
simply referred to it, that is a slight. If I
said, "you said this, you are an idiot" that would
be a personal insult. I see a significant distinction
there, but whatever. Whether or not that distinction
has any bearing on whether or not I should sign my name
is another question. -crebbs
\_ "Slight: The act of slighting; the manifestation of a
moderate degree of contempt, as by neglect or
oversight."
So, you're wrong. And it is clearly pathetic to
insult (or "slight" or "diss" or whatever term you
wish to use) someone by name while trying to
remain anonymous. -tom
\_ Words fail me.
\_ It is clearly pathetic to have words fail
you while trying to remain anonymous.
\_ tom, you're a crank. sometimes you're a lovable crank, but
in general you're just a crank. of course, I only know you
through the motd, so your Real Life persona may be entirely
different. --erikred
\_ Not the word I would use. -- ilyas
\_ YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE THE BALL LICKERS...
-Silent Bob and Jay |
| 2005/1/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35508 Activity:insanely high |
1/1 Randoids go berserk, disagree with tsunami aid.
http://csua.org/u/ajf (Ayn Rand Institute)
Money sentence is the one about how "most" of the victims were hurt
through "no fault of their own."
\_ Ah, yes, the age old question of governmental aid. The fallacy of
the article, like most of Objectivism, is its failure to acknowledge
interdependency, much like the failure of it's diametric opposite,
Communism, albeit in a different manner. Complex social systems
rarely break down into over-arching theories of what should and
should not be done. But it does raise an interesting issue, when
should aid be given and when should it not? If someone disagrees
with an agenda and questions its efficacy, shouldn't we take time
to consider it rather than outright rejecting it? It appears
that the left and the right are both ramming things down their
respective throats without evern considering the other side...
\_ Like all libertarians, they are right wing shills: take a look
at their essays on Iraq from the 90's when Clinton was in power, and
then what they have to say when Bush is in power. They use the
same rhetoric about how "our leaders lack moral certainty," but
the message is clear: Republican good, Democrat bad.
Libertarians: Republicans, only more pompous, and with more lies.
\_ This is flat wrong, which explains why you don't provide URLs.
Among libertarians many faults is a tendendcy to be overly
isolationist (politically). As with the vast majority of the
libertarian ideal, it is absolutely wrong in theory, but since
society is so far gone in the opposite direction, the policy
implications are mostly correct.
Libertarians, particularly the libertarian party, have been among
the most outspoken opponents of the war in IRAQ and this Bush
administration in general. I don't know what The Ayn Rand Inst.
has to say and don't care. She is an idiot and her followers are
worse. All groups have their fanatic/moronic fringe, and when
you are a fringe group to begin with, well ...
\_ The URL to back up what I said is simply the OP's URL. I
clicked around and read their essays on various subjects.
They sounded exactly identical to our loudest local
libertarian here on the motd. I hope I am wrong about
libertarians at large. Do you want to point me to what
you consider to be a representative libertarian
website/book/article?
\-For "respectable" academic Libertarianism, see
R. Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia. --psb
\_ Thanks! I'll check that out.
\_ 1st, The left-right dichotomy is lame (see other threads).
2nd, going with it anyway, the greens are shills for the left
much more than libertarians are shills for the right. As i've
said before: Libertarians gloat when they take votes away from
Republicans. Contrast this to Nader supporters. Libs under-
stand that one corporate bought, pandering, fear-mongering
aristocrat from one faction of The Party is effectively the same
as the other.
\_ While Randroids are libertarians, they represent libertarianism
about as well as the PETA folk represent Evironmentalism.
I.e. not at all.
\- As with racist and bigots, this seems to be one of those cases
where I want to see them "talk more" and undermine themselves and
reveal themselves for what the are. A good essay is "The Procedural
Republic and the Unencumbered Self". It is avail from JSTOR. BTW,
"randoid" has been deprecated in favor of "Randroid".
\- re: "all libertarians ..." i think there is a
respectable academic argument to be made by
libertaianism. however i think many libertarians
outside academia are "accidental libertarians"
... meaning they are really not interested in where
the philosophical arguments take them, but the cleve
to a philosophy which seems more respectable than
simple Hedonism to justify [sic] being the way they
are [selfish hedonists]. i think the philosophical
sophistication totem pole looks something like this:
hedonists [people who say things like "i need to be
true to myself"], then randroids ["altruism is
corrupting"], then libertarians ["contractualism" is
a pretty powerful argument]. there are a few
reasonable libertarians ... like by best friend, who
is one of the most considerate persons i know ... but
they are generally not "libertarians unius libri".
This is sort of a funny story about the Academic
Libertarian-in-Chief: http://csua.org/u/ajg ... one
Berkeley people can relate to. ok tnx.
\_ I am a little confused by the (lack of) distinction.
Hedonism is a moral commitment, libertarianism a
political one. Related to be sure, but not the
same. Are you saying it's unsophisticated to be
concerned with political philosophy? I think
adopting a position to see where it takes you
is quite a bit more phony than adopting one you
actually believe in (because of how you are).
Life is not a rhetoric class. -- ilyas
\-what is phony is shopping around for a
justification that sounds better than
"do whatever you want and take whatever you
can get" whent that is what you believe.
some people answer the question "what do we owe
one another?" with "whatever!" [in the sarcastic
sense of "i dont care to talk about this"], some
with "nothing." and still other with "nothing,
because...". what i am saying is the reasoning
in many people's case is an appendage adopted
for the sake of form, not truly to explain why
you have arrived at a particular place. BUSHCO
didnt invade iraq to free the iraqi people,
although it's convenient to trot out. on the
flip side, meaning you dont get moral credit
for someting done out of inclination rather than
duty, as sondheim writes "nice is different than
good".
\_ Partha, you are projecting. People who are
hedonists tend to view selfishness as a
virtue, not a vice in need of justification.
Whether you get credit for something done
out of inclination or out of dity depends on
your ethics. Not everyone's a Kantian.
-- ilyas
\_ I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I'm just
curious: why *do* you think BUSHCO invaded
Iraq, exactly?
\- i think they believed in WMD. I think they
were wrong. i think they should have been
fired for being wrong. i think they are
incapable of admitting it. i think thier
reputation in history should have been in
tatters.
\_ No, believing in WMD (which i agree they
did) is just like believing that tax cuts
for the wealthy are the right thing for
the economy. They believe it because it
justifies what they want to do. WHY they
wanted to invade IRAQ is because it was
an untennable situation with a leader who
hated america growing in power while his
country(and the world) suffered due to
sanctions that we couldn't/wouldn't lift.
The only people benifiting from the sitch
was the UN and
thoze embezzling from their program(s).
It was a bad situation and many leaders
in the bush admin felt it was a giant
loose end that they wanted to tie up.
They just grossly underestimated the
aftermath of occupation (as historically
countries have). -phuqm
\- another value of non-anon posting is
it's either to figure out who is
not worth talking to. you cant compare
facts [existence of WMDs] and values
[progressive taxation] and theories
[what econ effects of policy X will
be]. --psb
\_ I wasn't comparing facts with
values, i was comparing MOTIVATIONS
and rationalization. Politicians
wanted to cut taxes on those that
contributed to their campaigns, so
when some Academics came along and
told them that was what was good for
the country, they were quickly able
to believe that. When (other) pols
wanted to invade Iraq and the intel.
community said Iraq had, or soon
would have WMD, they found it very
easy to believe. -phuqm
easy to believe. To paraphrase and
distort: "The facticity of a
proposition has little to do with
it's believability." -phuqm
\_ Apostrophe abuse! Three demerits!
\_ ugg, fixed. -phuqm
\_ Demerits retracted.
\_ I somehow doubt that last bit.
Everyone else was talking about the
aftermath problems. They chose to
simply ignore that because it would
provide support for opposition. The
whole war was done this way: build up
troops without a war, oh now we have
to fight, it would look stupid to
withdraw all those troops, oh look
things are fucked up, well we can't
cut and run, you have to give us a lot
more money, sorry bout that, support
our troops and all, etc.
\_ http://www.newamericancentury.org -tom |
| 11/23 |