| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2006/1/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41256 Activity:nil |
1/5 Falling Bush on Bubbles:
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm -scottyg
\_ Strangely, this is much less difficult for me to watch than the
original falling woman/mannequin.
\_ scottyg, can I have the .fla for this? --erikred
\_Not my work...just passing on the link cuz I thought it was
funny. -scottyg |
| 2006/1/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41251 Activity:nil |
1/5 Wow, this is the first time in a long time (years?) I've seen the U.S.
admit to a bombing error. Previously it was always, "known safe house"
"insurgents making false statements about civilian deaths" etc.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iraq.target/index.html
\_ So what? USA never get punished for it. US military can do
everything they want, and call it "mistake." and continue to
do what they are doing.
\_ Ever consider the possibility that this is the first bombing error
in years? I'm sure not. |
| 2006/1/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41247 Activity:nil |
1/5 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/05.html#a6586 Former National Mine Academy director blames Bush administration's lax policy on mine safety (leading to failure to close mine) for men's deaths "Hannity: You want to turn this into a political thing ... Spadaro: No, I'm telling you what the truth is." \_ We don't want to play the "blame game". Let's move forward! \_ I thought we established that the miners died because Sharon divided God's land? Was it something else? \_ Let's move forward also means "let's make all the regulations strictly voluntary because corporations always do the right thing" |
| 2006/1/4-6 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41230 Activity:nil |
1/4 12 miners reported alive actually dead. God works in mysterious ways...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551516/posts
\_ And coal mining deregulation works in pretty damn mysterious ways
too.
\_ I like how the LA Times reported today the Clinton-era guy
saying mine citations were way down in the Dubya era, yet that
particular mine had citations up the wazoo recently. The logic
here is that the mine owner must have really neglected safety
issues to do so poorly with even relaxed inspections.
\_ That's beautiful. god, God, GOD did it! He's all powerful, he
controls everything he... oh, wait, what? <no more mention of God
being involved in, you know, death> It's media-bashing time!
\_ The media is obviously a tool of the devil!
\_ The best part was back when there was a mine flood, but the 9
trapped miners were rescued. Bush vowed to himself never to let
mining companies be burdened by survivors, and promptly cut
funding for enforcing mine safety laws. Pro-life!! |
| 2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41224 Activity:kinda low |
1/4 Hey, why pass laws at all when you have a king?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF
\_ What's the big deal? He's only going to ignore the law if he wants
to ...
\_ Another reason to block alito.
\_ URL tinyfied to please annoying, anal retentive motd block warden:
http://tinyurl.com/bdj8g -John
\_ I would like to hear Bush supporter's point of view on this one.
Please enlighten us.
\_ I'm not a Bush supporter but I can guess: Protecting the American
People! War on Terror! Liberty! Freedom! 9/11! Liberty!
Freedom! Terrorists! Freedom! Liberty!
\_ If you believe in an strong executive then it follows that
the inherent emergency power of the executive is subject
only to those limits explicit in the constitution. As there
are no applicable limits (the eighth arguably does not apply
as torture is not used as a punishment in this context), it
is within the executive's discretion to employ torture. This
view also implies that the executive's decisions are above
court review except in cases where there is direct conflict
with the text of the constitution.
[ Note that there is a "fifth freedom" view which says that
even the constitution is not a limit on the executive's
power when the survival of the republic is threatened.
BUSHCO does not seem to publically adhere to this view. ]
\_ Who does adhere to that view? (There is nobody to
review if said survival is sufficiently threatened.
By some accounts, sodomy threatens the republic...)
\_ While I do not know of any prominent figures
who publicly endorse the fifth freedom view,
I would argue that people like Amd. Poindexter
implicitly accept it.
For the sake of argument I will say that the
majority of America has implicitly acquiesced
to the fifth freedom view. I think that the
framers conception of the CinC power or other
limits on the executive power cannot be reco-
nciled w/ the fact that 1st strike is basically
entrusted solely to the President's discretion.
If the President chooses to exercise this cap-
ability, there will realistically be no review.
This to me suggests that the modern Presidency
has practically unlimited powers.
In day to day terms, it probably means the
while the President can't shoot you in broad
daylight for being a democrat, he probably
can deploy any covert means against you for
the same w/o any real review.
\_ "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool!"
\_ First strike and other military defense issues
I think fall under the general head-of-military
designation. For Iraq, Bush was sort of pre-authorized
to decide on war, and the same situation exists for
the nukes I guess. Some of the smaller operations
might be weaseled around by questioning the
definition "war". Anyway, I don't think we
are at a point where the Constitution does not
at least in theory grant US citizens protection
versus military operations, covert or not.
I suppose if they did their job well enough then
practically the question would not come up.
\_ I agree that the modern interpretation
is that the CinC power encompasses the
ability to deploy the nuclear arsenal.
but my point is that the framers prob.
did not intend to vest a single man w/
the power to unilaterally decide the
fate of every living thing on the
planet.
What if the President exercises this
power in circumstances (objectively)
not constituting a threat to the repu-
blic? Who really will be left to reve-
iew the decision? What remedial action
can really be taken? I think that the
answer is that no one will review and
no remedial action is available. This
to me means the President possess uni-
lateral discretion to wield almost abs.
power as the CinC.
From this one could argue that under
this power, the President could deploy
less than abs. force against arbitrary
targets w/o any limits on his power.
From this one could argue that the Pres.
could deploy less than abs. force w/o
limits on his discretion under the same
power.
Re Pre-authorized: If the President has
been preauthorized to act under certain
conditions, what happens when he acts
outside of those conditions? Will there
really be a Congressional hearing? If
not, then Congress has basically given
him unlimited discretion.
\_ Why wouldn't there be a hearing? They can
impeach the president. He could mess things
up pretty royally before then, perhaps
irrevocably, but it doesn't really nullify the
separation of powers except in the apocalyptic
sense. Basically he could destroy the other
branches of government. Maybe Nixon, instead of
resigning, could have started WWIII instead. But
outside of war, I can't see that the distinction
is noteworthy. The power to destroy isn't the
same as absolute power.
no remedial action is available.
If the President possess unilateral
discretion to wield almost absolute
power via the CinC power, is it real-
istic to say that there are limits on
his ability to deploy less than this?
not, then the President has been pre-
authorized to act in any situation and
Congress has implicitly given him abs.
power (one wonders if Congress can do
this). |
| 2006/1/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41197 Activity:moderate |
1/2 Hey, I thought we were having a draft in 2005. What happened? Will
there be a military draft in 2006?
\_ Whoever said there was going to be a draft way back when was
overreaching almost as bad as the greeted as liberators person.
\_ Only if Charles Rangel (D - http://www.house.gov/rangel gets his way.
\_ Damn warmongering Democrats.
\_ It's funny, but the reasons he gives for it are as a social
program (like busing) and a way to make people not want war
(they won't vote for war if their kids are in the service).
\_ I remember the reason why Rangel draft the bill is he wants
to make sure the process of draft is relatively equal, and
wealthy kids have their chances to see actions.
\_ Wealthy kids volunteer for service so they can be officers
or protect the homeland as part of the NG.
\_ There will be no draft because Dubya said so. Read his lips.
\_ There was one MOTD poster who swore there would be a draft.
Silly me, I thought he would be more credible than Dubya.
\_ that guy was saying that if we need to do this Iraq business
right, we need to have a draft to fill the gap in man power.
In that regard, he is still right. The reason why we don't
have a draft is because Dubya decided it is ok if Iraq really
fells apart, and he can always divert our attention to
somewhere else by, let say, bombing Iran.
\_ Nice revisionist history.
\_ Perhaps you can point us to the thread? Things like the
following seem more prevalent:
\_ ohh yeah? what happened to the "beacon of democracy
in the middle east?" are you saying that we've
accomplished this and this is why Rummy pulls out
5000 troops?
\_ Good job trying to switch the subject. Try to focus
on the draft here. You want to talk about Rummy?
Start your own thread about your pretty nicknames.
\_ Reference please. Things like the following seem more
prevalent:
http://csua.com/?entry=37623
At that point (5/05), someone claimed there would be
a draft within the next 18 months. Does that person
(-vet?) still stand by the claim?
\_ Are you claiming that the US will bomb Iran? Care to put
a time frame on that prediction and sign your name to it,
so you can be properly celebrated when your prediction
comes true?
\_ http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10415
\_ So? Are *you* claiming that the US will bomb Iran?
Time frame and name please, if you're willing to
stand behind your prediction. |
| 2005/12/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41147 Activity:nil |
12/26 Another Bush's Middleeast Democracy successful story:
http://tinyurl.com/9sgtb (SFGate.com) |
| 2005/12/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41143 Activity:nil |
12/27 Freedom of speech at its best: Bush versus newspaper editors.
http://tinyurl.com/bjdzw |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41119 Activity:high |
12/22 Okay, we know Bush isn't going to be impeached. It's Reagan and the
Contra arms deal all over again, but with Bush saying he did it instead
of "I don't know/recall." But is the unauthorized wiretapping of
American citizens in these times an impeachable offense? Discuss.
\_ Absolutely. And I think he _will_ be impeached, but not removed.
\_ you think a (R) controlled congress is going to impeach him?
you're totally off your rocker.
\_ Elections coming up here in 2006, and Repubs just unplugged
Grandma. It wouldn't even take a strong wind to swing this.
\_ While I share the general sentiment to a degree, I think
this is overly optimistic. Honestly, I doubt 06 will be
much affected by the budget cuts.
\_ The last time congressional approval rates were this
low was 1994. Granted, D now is _not_ R then, but
R's are rightly scared.
\_ Well, the GOP is certainly vulnerable right now --
a succession of scandals coupled with a general
decay of gung-ho support for our involvement in
Iraq has opened the door for change (not to mention
the bumbling efforts of FEMA during Katrina). Sadly,
as long as the economy is reasonably sound and
unemployment doesn't change significantly, there's
very little likelihood of any big shift from R to D.
It's a pleasant fantasy to imagine the Budget cuts
having a massive unintended impact, but I think the
reality is that it's not going to have any impact
*at all* when all considerations are taken into
account.
\_ Yep. If we had a recession, everything would be
perfect.
\_ Your reading comprehension is lacking. I said
"Sadly, as long as the economy is sound, change
will not happen". It is sad because one with
a reasonable ethical viewpoint would hope that
the succession of scandals would be sufficient
to bring about change without any other
external forces. Alas, this is not the case.
\_ neither. complete waste of time.
\_ Warrantless wiretapping is likely not an impeachable offense b/c
the Pres. has inherent emergency powers to authorize any means he
feels are necessary to protect the nation from its enemies in a
crisis. Consider that Lincoln suspended habeas on his own authority
despite a strong implication that only Congress had the right to
do this. If the suspension of habeas in direct violation of separ-
ation of powers is not impeachable, by no measure can one consider
warrantless wiretapping impeachable. Unlike your ave. motd poster,
most Dem. Congressmen and Senators understand that warrantless wire-
tapping is a common practice in intelligence gathering and they will
be reluctant to take this tool away.
Even if BUSHCO's assertion that an emergency is present is deemed
incorrect, there is a plausible argument that they were mistaken
and simply overreacted. In light of 9/11, Spain, London, &c. better
to overreact than underreact is a winning argument.
\_ It's sad that you believe that. Unchecked secret power grabs
are a terrible road to go down. Not in my country...
\_ Regardless of whether it is a terrible road to go down, it
is not an impeachable offense under Art 2 Sec 4. Given the
pressure to act in a crisis, it is not unforeseeable that
a Pres. might authorize these means. Given that these means
have been SOP for decades, BUSHCO is at most guilty of
expanding their use. Should they have resisted the tempt-
ation? Probably, but that doesn't mean it is impeachable.
It is our fault as voters that we did not select someone
better suited to resist the temptation. Fortunately, this
mistake can be corrected in a few years. Consider that the
A&S acts were repealed by Jefferson. There is nothing to
indicate that the next Pres. will be unwilling to restrict
the power that this Pres. has "acquired."
\_ "Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil
officers of the United States, shall be removed from
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
High crimes and misdemeanors would certainly cover
\_ certainly? what web site told you that it is
"certainly" a "high crime and misdemeanor" to
order wiretaps like this?
\
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
\_ http://tinyurl.com/bzaz4 (findlaw.com,
50 USC Ch 36) [ Same as the cornell url,
but you don't have to click through ]
warrantless wiretaps, especially if the use thereof
violates the current federal procedures. Although it is
SOP to begin wiretapping before asking for (and, in all
but 4 cases, receiving) a warrant to do so, it is
illegal to wiretap and NOT ask for a warrant within 72
hours; the latter has NOT been SOP for any administration
since the procedures were put in place except for this
administration. The legal requirement for impeachment
has been met; it now depends on the will of the Congress.
\_ In your studied constitutional expert legal opinion the
requirements for impeachment have been met? I'm glad
we don't need to discuss it further.
\_ We could say something equally as fatuous about
your comments. In fact, I will. Grow a set.
\_ It is certainly more serious than lying about a
blowjob, which is what brought the last President
down. As I said before, impeachment is primarily
a political process, not a legal one. If enough
Americans think he should be impeached, he will be.
\_ You want to discuss this further, bring something
more than "No, he won't be impeached!" to the
discussion.
\_ I was replying to someone who did nothing but
rant and make grand sweeping statements and
put forth partisan agenda driven opinion as
fact. Excuse me for daring to question the
brilliant legal minds on the motd.
\_ You misunderstand the argument completely. I agree
that there are procedures re wiretapping and that
these procedures have been violated. I even agree
that authorizing these wiretaps in violations of
the USC is a crime UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
These are not normal circumstances. In an emergency
the Pres. has inherent powers to take any action
that he deems necessary to protect the republic and
its citizens. His inherent power trumps the requi-
rements of the USC, thus no crime has been committed.
[ I also disagree that this is the first admin. that
has explicitly or implicitly authorized wiretaps
in violation of the USC; I think that this type of
thing has been going on since the start of the Cold
War. It has only become more extensive under BUSHCO ]
\_ Yes, we know, the John Yoo argument. It doesn't
hold water. Even under non-normal circumstances
checks and balances must have a place. Otherwise
we are not the nation we claim we are. Are you
going to hold your tongue if nationwide elections
in 2008 are suspended because "we're in an emergency
situation"?
\_ If normal checks and balances must have a place
during emergencies then why was Lincoln able to
suspend Habeas? The constitution strongly implies
that only Congress has this power. If violating
horizontal separation of powers is not sufficient
for impeachment, what make you so sure that some
wiretaps in violation of a federal statute (not
the constitution) is sufficient?
wiretaps in violation of a federal statute is
enough?
If nat'l elections were to be suspended wouldn't
it have made more sense to do so last year when
there was the very real possibility that BUSHCO
would be sent home?
\_ Show me a declaration of war.
\_ The Pres. emergency powers are not depen-
dent on a declaration of war. If we use
the habeas clause as a reference, it is
possible to interpret "invasion" as any
attack on American soil, thus confering
authority to act. Note that the habeas
clause does not require a declaration of
war under Art I Sec 8.
\_ ITYM Sec. 9. Btw, Lincoln's suspension
of habeas was ruled unconstitutional.
\_ That is why the Star Chamber had him
assassinated. No man is above the law!
\_ No I mean Sec 8 (yes habeas clause is
in Art 1 Sec 9, but it does not requ-
ire Congress to declare war pursuant
to its power to do so under Sec 8).
While I agree that in Ex Parte Merry-
man the USSC found Lincoln's actions
to be unconstitutional, Lincoln was
able to ignore that decision and no
habeas relief was granted until after
the war (iirc USSC restored habeas
in Ex Parte Milligan). This suggests
that the President's emergency power
is so extensive that even the USSC
lacks significant power to limit it.
to me that the President's emergency
power is so extensive that even the
USSC lacks the ability to limit it.
If the defiance of the USSC was not
enough to impeach, please explain
to me why ignoring a wire tapping
provision is? [ Note: I do not think
that "perjury" was enough ]
Re Elections: I'm not sure what I
would do. My family lived through
a similar situation in the 70s and
everything worked out fine in the
end (elections/civil rights rest-
ored, &c.) so I might just go
along w/ it.
\_ With "enough to impeach", you
seem to be ignoring the political
dimension. Impeachment, as you
well know, isn't triggered by
the act of the impeached. It's
triggered by the political machine
of the Congress. "Enough to
impeach" is determined by the house
when it votes on articles. "Enough
to remove" is determined by the
senate when it votes to convict.
Lincoln's actions, whether or not
a sufficient violation, did not
trigger impeachment because his
case was strong enough for Congress
not to bring it. In fact, Congress
passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1863
which voiced their approval of his
act. Here and now, Bush is sitting
at a point comparable to some time
before ex parte milligan. To claim
before ex parte merryman. To claim
Bush has an inherent right because
of Lincoln is claiming stare decisis
in congressional acts. i.e. that
today's congress will do what
lincoln's did. It's optimistic at
best to hope that congress will
be so tied to precedent, especially
when the situations are so
drastically different.
\_ Right, and since we're fighting perpetual war
with Eurasia, Big Brother can do whatever he
feels is best for us.
\_ While there are some parallels between 1984
and the present situtation, I personally
find that the Alien and Sedition acts and
their repeal is a far better parallel.
\_ Isn't warrantless wiretapping what brought Nixon down?
\_ Only indirectly. It was Nixon using his office to stop the
wiretapping investigation that led to his resignation. In
this case, there is no cover-up, just the wiretapping.
\_ Bush is already trying to obstruct the investigation in
this case, but admittedly nothing has come out to the
degree as did in the Haldeman case. But it is probably
only a matter of time.
\- maybe there will be another SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE
when ALBERTO is ordered to fire FITZGERALD and resigns
the HARRIET is ordered to fire him and resigns and then
JOHNYOO fires him and becomes AG/SG/CF in one! |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41117 Activity:nil |
12/22 These colors don't run, says Rumsfeld, they walk away slowly, not
making eye contact.
http://csua.org/u/eet (Seattle Times)
\_ A troop reduction does not constitute a full pullback. Some of the
moves makes sense. Iraquification continues onward...
\_ It makes absolute sense. It also contradicts everything
Rumsfeld and Cheney have said up to now.
\_ "depending on conditions on the ground" is pretty vague,
translates to, "whatever the hell I feel like" |
| 2005/12/22-23 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41114 Activity:kinda low |
12/21 Liberty is dead. All voice, email and most likely fax and data are
being monitored: http://csua.org/u/eeq
\_ Thank you peterl. You're now on my watch list. -Big Bro
\_ Hmm, maybe you should use the NSA's technology so you
will get the right username next time. --peterl
\_ Very well. Thank you peterl. You're on my watch list now -NSA
\_ Ever hear of Echelon? Liberty has been dead for a long time.
\_ God damn, what is the login you use for the post?
\_ http://bugmenot.com
\_ You don't need a login. Is this a ploy to prevent people
from reading the article? |
| 2005/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41105 Activity:nil |
12/21 Does Santa work for BUSHCO?
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/765.gif
\_ Santa only pawn in game of Life:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/21/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL |
| 2005/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41103 Activity:moderate |
12/21 Republicans declare political suicide, demand elderly and poor
run them out of office:
http://csua.org/u/ee6 (Washington Post)
(Actual title: With Cheney's Vote, Senate Passes Budget Bill)
\_ This is the most bizarre bill I've seen from congress in a long
time. It's practically a caricature of the Evil Republicans. I
don't understand why congress didn't chop out $40B in pork instead
of this. -emarkp
\_ Probably because pork fights back.
\_ The poor are religious. They'll vote with their faith.
\_ Troll harder. This one is pathetic. Young Troll, you are FIRED!
\_ Eh, while there is a heavy element of trollishness to the
post, there is still a kernel of truth in what he said.
\_ More than a kernel. Poor white southerners overwelmingly
vote GOP. This may be partly a racism thing, but I think
that's much less a factor than the bible shit. Maybe pp
thinks all those scare tactics about gay marriage were
targeted at college educated, middle class people?
Convincing the powerless to support the powerful of their
own free will has been the main purpose of organized
relgion for thousands of years, and the GOP happens to
be better at this game and evil enough to exploit it
shamelessly right now.
\_ 'a racism thing'? Do you mean 'racial' or 'ethnic' or
am I misreading what you're saying?
\_ Have you ever been to the south?
\_ Yes. I'm not disputing that there's racism in
in the South -- I'm just having trouble parsing
the PP's use of the word in that context. Is
PP calling himself a racist? It just seems like
a different word seems to fit the context better.
\_ Yes, bad choice of words, sorry. I meant the
GOP's "southern strategy", in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
If Nixon had not figured out how to use
"states rights" as a
code word for opposition to civil rights
reforms, those worthless fucks would all
still be voting Democrat because Abe
Lincoln started the "war of northern agression".
\_ Ah, I see -- thanks for clarifying!
\_ I would agree with you on this if the current bill
didn't make severe cuts to Medica[id|re]. That's a
sacred cow for a whole lot of poor white folks, race
and sexual orientation issues aside.
\_ Bullshit. Let's see what happens in 2008, and how
many of these deep south states leave the GOP.
Maybe in the north, you're right. But the demographic
we're talking about here believes the Earth was
created 6000 years ago and that homosexuals should
be jailed for crimes against God. As far as I'm
concerned, they're not even Americans, and there's
no way they'll stop thumping their bibles for long
enough to change parties over some nerdy policy
issue that doesn't involve the Old Testament.
\_ Whatever you may think of them, they'll squeal
when they realize their holy entitlements have
finally been fucked with. Cf. the Pres. inability
to shitcan Social Security. You won't have to
wait for '08; a number of Senators are up for
re-election in '06.
\_ Bush and his cronies fear middle class
mid-western swing voters, who will switch
parties over social security. It's not
the poor southern white trash that they
were afraid of with the social security
debacle.
\_ Yes, remember, all people who vote or think
differently than you are utterly comtemptible
hateful trogs. You have private access to the
only one true way of clear thought. All others
are darkly evil or just plain stupid. You are
my hero. You represent all that is good and
pure and clean in this country!
\_ Young Troll, the Young Troll Hiring & De-Hiring Committee has
received updated notice from the Sub-Committee On Young Troll
Quality Control and as per their advice has determined you shall
continue in your present role as Young Troll at current rate.
You do not need to report to the Young Troll Food Vat for
Additional Services. You're doing a fine job! Carry on!
\_ I believe now that the voting majority is now cut off from
actual policy feedback. They vote on sloganeering and perceived
cultural ideology. Some parts of this bill are sickening.
\_ Repubs are the party of the middle class. Screwing the poor
shouldn't be a surprise.
\_ Voting Dem is better somehow?
\_ Bull. Republicans are the party of the filthy rich. Middle
class Americans identify with the GOP because they hope to be
filthy rich themselves some day. Hopefully, mucking about with
Medicare/Medicaid will wake some of these people up.
\_ Most of the truly wealthy in this country are the ultra
rich. Who else can afford to be a Democrat?
\_ MOst of working-class Boston. |
| 2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41093 Activity:nil |
12/20 Sigint specialists respond to extra-legal NSA orders.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html |
| 12/24 |
| 2005/12/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41086 Activity:very high |
12/20 Suspicious motd silence on Bush's "It's good to be the king" argument
for his NSA decision^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawbreaking.
\_ I thought we covered this a few days ago. Who exactly are you
suspicious of anyway?
\_ Well, remember that TIA project? Well, #$@#$#$@#132323 NO CARRIER
\_ Ask Bork about his video rentals..
\_ MSNBC covered it. That makes it a lot more mainstream:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek
\_ Hah hah. There's been suspicious silence on the motd on any good
news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while. There was no mention of
the Iraqi election for instance.
\_ having an election is insignificant. It is mainly for the show
for USA domestic audience anyway. It is just another one of
those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with "transfer
of soverignty," etc, etc.
news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while. There was no mention
of the Iraqi election for instance.
\_ having an election is insignificant. It is mainly for the
show for USA domestic audience anyway. It is just another one
of those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with
"transfer of soverignty," etc, etc.
\_ A free election of a parliment, with roughly 70% turnout is
insignificant. Okay. Thanks for letting us know where you
stand. Please sign your posts in the future so I can know
which ones to ignore. -emarkp
\_ Please don't derail this with an Iraq flamewar. ok tnx.
\_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a dubious
claim. Iraq is still under occupation. I think that any
civil structure that comes to form while we are there will
be, by design, fragile. What Iraq ultimately becomes will
not take shape until/unless we leave. --scotsman
\_ Free as in speech. There were real elections with real
candidates, and the people turned out in droves. The
kind of thing people were saying would never happen.
Yes, the final state of the country won't be known until
they stand on their own, but it is a huge thing that
happened and a great beginning for the newest democracy
on the planet. -emarkp
\_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a
dubious claim. Iraq is still under occupation. I think
that any civil structure that comes to form while we are
there will be, by design, fragile. What Iraq ultimately
becomes will not take shape until/unless we leave.
--scotsman
\_ Free as in speech. There were real elections with
real candidates, and the people turned out in droves.
The kind of thing people were saying would never
happen. Yes, the final state of the country won't be
known until they stand on their own, but it is a huge
thing that happened and a great beginning for the
newest democracy on the planet. -emarkp
\_ Elections are easy. Governing is hard. -ausman
\_ I don't know... I just think this is so blatent that I am just
want to see how Bush is going to get out of this one.
\_ So blatant? Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of the
US who are associated with Al Qaeda? That's your definition of
blatant?
\_ So blatant? Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of
the US who are associated with Al Qaeda? That's your
definition of blatant?
\_ With people outside of the US that Bush et al have said are
associated with Al Qaeda.. Do you know the 4th amendment?
Do you know what FISA is? There are legal mechanisms to do
what they wanted to do. They have decided those legal
mechanisms don't apply to them.
Adding to this:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58437
Dem gays is a "credible terrorist threat".. mmhmm...
\_ Between US citizens, in violation of both the Constitution
and the law Congress passed to cover it. Bolton using the
NSA to spy on political opponents inside the State Dept.
The DIA spying on anti-war groups, including The Quakers
and the Catholic Worker. And this is just the stuff that
has come out so far. I am sure there is more.
\_ Oh come off it. This is no worse than having ~500 of your
political opponent's FBI files.
\_ Oh come off it. This is no worse than having ~500 of
your political opponent's FBI files.
\_ You mean that "scandal" that was investigated by an
independent prosecutor that resulted in no charges...
Okay, fine. Join me in a call for an independent
prosecutor here.
\_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated" is
\_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated"
is
\_ Yeah, because that's precisely the same as trying to
stop terrorism.
\_ Wow. Way to miss the sarcasm. You must be _this_
tall to post to this thread.
\_ They are both despicable, yes.
\_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants as
Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Go Dubya!
\_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants
as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Go Dubya!
\_ You're talking about this? http://csua.org/u/edz (LATimes)
"Neither presidents nor Congress have ever acted under the
belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war
before the U.S. can engage in military hostilities abroad."
Prof. Yoo, just because no Congress has taken a President to
task for abusing the War Powers does not grant every Pres. the
right to do so. It's a pretty justification, but it's still not
borne out by the Constitution, which means it's only as good as
your ability to stay ahead of the Congressional lynch mob.
Also, your speculation on the idea of Congress becoming the
initiator of wars is disingenuous-- no one's suggesting that
the Pres. doesn't have the authority to start conflicts, just
that he then must continue to obey the laws of the US even
after the start of conflict. We do not have a military
dictatorship.
\_ http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000328.htm
Congressmen calls for investigation and censure.
\- Where is Karl Rove in all this? [re: presidential summons
of nyt editors etc] |
| 2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41078 Activity:moderate |
12/19 Bush approval rating at 47%
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1421748
\_ Bush approval rating unchanged at 41%
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html
\_ I guess the +/- of these polls sucks.
\_ Bush approval rating unchanged at 41%
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html
\_ I guess the +/- of these polls sucks.
\_ So when is the impeachment? Where is Motd Poll Guy? We haven't
had an official update in weeks.
\_ He's been a lot more contrite lately and in fact the Iraq
election was pretty calm. The number of suicide bombing
have gone done drastically in the past few months and
things are in fact improving. I don't like Bush but I'm
glad to see things starting to improve. Who knows, maybe
we'll have a lot of troop reduction by next year. One can
only hope so.
\_ "The number of suicide bombing have gone down drastically"?
I thought it was: More attacks, less areas.
\_ Only limited data points, but 23 suicide bombings in
11/05, 50+ in 10/05, ~35 in 8/05, 70 in 5/05. So it is
true that the number dropped drastically in 11/05, and
that drop may be part of a trend. But the article doesn't
provide enough information to be certain. The number of
car bombings are also lower (from 130 in 2/05 to 68 in
car bombings is also lower (from 130 in 2/05 to 68 in
11/05), but again the article doesn't provide enough
information to know if that's a trend or an aberration.
In general, I again find it discouraging how *little*
useful information is provided by news sources.
http://csua.org/u/edg
\_ Isn't there supposed to be a quarterly report to
Congress measuring progress?
Oh goodie, I answered my own question, it's the first
google hit for "congressional report iraq progress".
I see, the report is only up to October. |
| 2005/12/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41044 Activity:high |
12/16 Bush uses NSA to spy on US Citizens:
http://csua.org/u/ebv
\_ Engage spin cycle:
"Those aren't citizens, they're enemy combatants"
"These are dangerous people. Do you want another 9/11?"
"We wouldn't be spying on them if they weren't bad guys"
"It's not spying, it's routine surveillance" -tom
\_ "Tom Holub is an unpatriotic hippy, let's spy on him" -Echelon
\_ I'm unable to find the word "citizen" in the article or headline.
Can you point it out?
\_ Gee, would we be as worked up if the headline said "Bush uses
NSA to monitor foreign nationals inside the US"? Of course
these must be citizens.
\_ Of course you would. You've been worked up over all sorts
of things that wouldn't bother you if the previous admin
did them.
\_ I call bullshit. Many people were worked up about
project Echelon.
\_ Dude. It's reiffin. Bullshit is self evident.
\_ No, I meant the wider issues of admin vs admin and the
typical political nonsense of "my guy is always right
and yours is always wrong" which is seen from people
on both sides of the isle.
\_ Well, let's see. According to kchang's MOTD archive,
there has been 4 Echelon threads. How good is that
archive's coverage back to 2001? Let's see how much
MOTD coverage this current story is worth. OBTW,
reading about Echelon coverage on MOTD, there did not
seem to be a lot of outrage as you claimed. Perhaps
you can substantiate your claim?
seem to be a lot of outrage as you claimed.
\_ Please, this is the motd, no facts.
\_ You think "Jam Echelon" day is a statement
in favor of Echelon?
\_ Boy, it must be nice to live in a binary world.
Someone said "worked up", someone else said
"outrage". To my mind, a 2 line "jam echelon"
thread doesn't count for either.
\_ And there have been no discussions about
whether watching paint drying is interesting,
therefore it *must* be interesting.
\_ Now, you really should be better at logic than
this.
\_ Do I have to do everything for you? Do you dispute
that citizens were being spied on?
http://tinyurl.com/ahlo5
\_ Tips balance on Patriot Act:
http://csua.org/u/ec8 (NYT)
\_ 'Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, called the
disclosure "shocking" and said it had impelled him to vote "no"
today.' Oh blow it out your ass, Chuck. Like you were going to
vote "yes" under any circumstances. -independent
\_ Hmmm.. I wonder how Schumer voted on the Patriot act in 2001.
Actually, I don't have to wonder. I know. Do you? Blow it
out your own.
\_ I do know, but that doesn't change the fact that if Chuck's
brand of reactionary blustering is the best face the
Democrats can put forward (and he's one of the ones I see
most often), they're in as sad a state as the Republicans.
-pp
\_ And look up "impelled" in the dictionary.
\_ Hey, this guy can't even bother to look up "lie" in the
dictionary and avoid looking like an ass. |
| 2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41032 Activity:high |
12/15 Yeah, Congress has the same access to intelligence as the President...
Except for the fact that they don't.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
\_ Why would you expect them to have the same access? The
intelligence agencies are part of the executive branch, which
has a responsibility at very least to restrict access to primary
material which may identify the source of that material. I can
understand arguing about whether the President restricts access
to intelligence too much or too little, but asserting that
Congress should have exactly the same level of access as the
President seems misguided.
\_ I wouldn't "expect them to have the same access". But that's
exactly what the president has used recently to defend his war.
He said that they had the same information on Iraq that he did
for their debate on authorizing war in some highly misguided
effort to create some large scale mea culpa. It's what he's
hinged every speech this week on. He's a liar.
\_ Did he hinge that on congress *always* having the same access
or having the same access before the war?
\_ "One of the blessings of our free society is
that we can debate these issues openly, even in a
time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit
to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible
charges. They say that we act because of oil, that
we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we
misled the American people. Some of the most
irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence
have come from politicians who saw the same
intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize
the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These
charges are pure politics."
\_ Right, so we're talking about pre-war intelligence
there, not current intelligence.
\_ I don't see what you're getting at. Do you?
\_ Which we know was not distributed equally before
the war.
\_ We do?
\_ Of course. We know now, therfore we must have
known before.
\_ Not to mention that Bush is personally
knowledgeable of everything known and done
by people in the executive branch.
\_ He may not be knowlegable, but, whether
he likes it or not, he is responsible.
it's his fucking administration.
\_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
\_ No, I agree completely. Bush should
be held accountable for the actions
of his administration. However, I am
a little confused. I thought here
we're taking him to task for claiming
Congress had the same access to
intelligence. So is he at fault for
making a claim when he didn't know
the facts, making a claim when he
should have known otherwise, or making
a claim when he did know otherwise.
And how do we decide which one that is
from the available information?
\_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
\_ Ah, the old "is he a liar, or is
he just incompetent" question. I
posit it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
And How do we decide? We tell
Congress (who is the only party
with the ability, not to mention
the DUTY to do so) to find out.
\_ You mean we shouldn't just hang
him first? I'm pretty sure
we're going to hang him first
and determine the facts later.
\_ He's not a carjacker, son.
He's the president, and the
only body qualified to
investigate is sitting on
their hands. In such an
event, saying "wait for
the facts" is unpatriotic.
\_ Wow. Maybe the truth *is*
out there! Have you been
talking to jblack about
the black helicopters
circling overhead? You
think that's part of the
Congressional plot to
sit on the impeachment too?
\_ Yes we do. The PDB for example, is not
shared with Congress. Are you really this
ignorant or are you playing faux naif?
The President knows he has access to
information that Congress does not have,
too, so he just lying his ass off now.
\_ You know, I'm pretty sure Bush isn't
telling the Congress what he's getting
the wife and family for Christmas too.
So the question is not whether Bush knows
something the Congress doesn't, it's
1. whether Bush knows something material
that the Congress doesn't, and 2. whether
Bush knows that the Congress doesn't
have access to that material information.
In the case of the daily briefing that
you specifically mentioned, you will
have to show that the relevant bits in
the briefing do not eventually reach
the Congress.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/94otb
\_ So you have one website quoting
another website plus some
conjecture. Wow. You have me
totally convinced now. Do you
information reguarding black
helicopters that are equally
helicopters that is equally
persuasive?
\_ http://csua.org/u/eco
Second paragraph. Look this is
shooting fish in a barrel.
\_ OK, by abandoning your first
website I assume you agree
that your first reference is
silly. Great. We're making
progress. Now let's look
at this one. On 9/5/02,
Graham & Co demanded to
see the National Intelligence
Estimate. 3 weeks later
(I assume that's 9/26/02),
Tenet produced one. One
10/10/02, Congress voted
to approve the use of force.
What's your point again?
\_ There is overwhelming
evidence that you are
wrong. I am just posting
it as fast as I can
google it:
http://csua.org/u/ecp
\_ To quote your reference,
"The report does not
cite examples of
intelligence Bush
reviewed that differed
from what Congress saw.
If such information is
available, it would not
be accessible to the
report's authors."
That Bush had
information unavailable
to Congress is a given.
The question is whether
the information was
material, and you
have yet shown nothing
to substantiate that
claim.
\_ You are trying to
use the fact that
the White House
classifies any
information that
proves that it is
lying as evidence
in *favor* of their
claim? Bizarre.
\_ At least you are
admitting that Bush
lied about this.
Now we are getting
somewhere.
\_ I think I agreed
half a page up
that Bush must
know something
the Congress
doesn't. The
question is
whether it's
material, and so
far claims of
"overwhelming
evidence" have
been under-
whelming. All
you have shown
are unreferenced
claims and
innuendoes.
\_ Did you even bother to
read the second paragraph
in the above cite?
"However, this
declassified version was
more like a marketing
brochure: 20 pages in
length, slickly produced
with splashy grahics and
maps, and with none of
the caveats contained in
the original...The
intelligence material
Congress had was what the
administration was willing
to give them, namely a
promotional piece whose
lies of omission outweighed\
what was included."
\_ [Sorry, broke up your
post to respond to
your points separately.
Hope you don't mind.]
The full classified
version was available
to House and Senate
intelligence committee
members.
\_ Right, but that
is not Bush's claim.
He claims "all 100
Democratic members
of Congress" had
He claims "more than
100 Democrats"
in Congress had
access to the same
material he did.
http://csua.org/u/ecq
\_ Boy, do you even
read your own
references?
1. Your quote
is completely
misleading and
*invented*.
Please use
quotations
correctly.
2. I assume
you mean "more
than 100 Democrats
in the House and
Senate". OBTW,
*that* is a
correct and non-
misleading quote.
3. Next
paragraph from
that quote, the
article article
specifically
mentioned the
daily briefing,
but it's not
clear if relevant
info from that
made it into
reports in other
forms, and the
National Intel
Estimate, which
even the artcile
agreed were
available to
the Congress
before the vote.
4. Given that
you have proven
to be dishonest
by inventing
quotes on the fly,
why should I even
waste my time with
you? Please addr
point 4 before
more arguments.
5. I see that
you've now gone
back to "fix"
your quote. Again
why should I waste
my time with some-
one shown to be
dishonest and
without honor?
\_ Blow it out
your ass. I
was trying
to quickly
summarize my
points. I did
not sub-
stantially
change any
meaning
(Congressmen
for members of
The House and
Senate). Why
should I waste
my time with
a crybaby?
\_ Right. You
made up a
quote (and
there is a
substantive
difference
between
"all 100"
and "more
than 100"),
got caught.
You went
back to fix
it without
admitting
responsi-
bility, and
got caught
again. Now
you're
indignant.
Do you have
*any* honor?
That was a typo that I corrected _/
before you even finished with
your counter to it. Your argument
on the facts has failed, so you
have resorted to ad hominem, I
understand. Another nail in the
coffin of your claims that the
Congress had all the same intel
as the White House:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
\_ This is getting *so* tiresome.
I agreed a page up that Bush has
info the Congress doesn't. Now
show that this info is material.
You still have nothing. How about
a quote from Feinstein's website?
Have you learned how to quote now?
Something like "Bush knew X, but
this was not known to the Congress
at the time. If this were known,
the vote might have been
different." That would show that
the info was material. You picked
the Feinstein site. Don't you
have *anything*?
\_ The "material" bit is your
trip, not mine. I don't know
if it would have changed enough
votes to stop the war or not.
But I do know Bush lied when
he claimed that Congress had
access to the same info (on
Iraq, to be pedantic) as he did.
\_ I take it that this means you
*can't* find a reference
that Congress is missing
material information. If
you don't limit yourself
to material information, then
the statement is silly. Of
course Bush knows stuff the
Congress does not. I mean,
did Bush tell the Congreess
when or with whom he lost
his virginity? So you are
limiting the info to info
on Iraq. Isn't that a
material test? Should Bush
tell Congress what his fav.
Bagdhad restaurant is? If
he didn't, would you hang
him for lying? You keep
saying you know Bush lied.
How? On what? You made a
specific claim. Now please
make specific charges. Some-
thing like "Bush knew X, but
Congress didn't or didn't in
time".
\_ Reread the Washington
Post article. Basically
anything that contradicted
the case that the WH
was trying to make was
withheld. There is
literally hundreds of
pages of it (far too
much to try and post
here). One example
noted in the WaPo article:
"For example, the NIE view that
Hussein would not use weapons of mass
destruction against the United States
or turn them over to terrorists unless
backed into a corner was cleared for
public use only a day before the
Senate vote."
\_ To address your quote
specifically, note
that NIE info was not
available for "public
use". Meaning the
info was available to
the Congress, but the
Congressman was not
allowed to release
it to the public. Now
how does that prove
your point? Re the
rest of the article,
it was either the
Congress did not have
enough time to review
the NIE (from your
earlier time line I
would guess the
Congress had 2 weeks),
or there must have
been *something*
missing. What
something? Specific
charges please. I'll
keep trying to help
you. Something like
"Bush knew X, but the
Congress didn't or
didn't in time." When
you have X, then you
have something. Until
then, your claim is
worthless.
\_ Bush didn't say "something material"
he said Congress had the same
information we did. We know the PDB
had information on Iraq. Q.E.D.
\_ Now you're being silly. Yes, I
am certain Bush isn't telling
the Congress what he's getting
the family for Christmas. I bet
he didn't even tell the Congress
when and with whom he lost his
virginity! Impeach the bum. How
are those black helicopters coming?
\_ You are grasping at straws here
and I think you know it. We
are talking about Iraq here,
not Christmas lists.
\_ Hey, you're the one who said
"Bush didn't say 'something
material'". I was just
follwing your when I started
on Christmas lists and
virginity. Now show me
that the daily briefing
information didn't eventually
reach Congress.
\_ Believe it or not, I do
not have the security
clearance to track this
kind of thing. Your blind
faith in the White House
is kind of touching.
\_ No, not blind faith in
the white house at all.
If I am guilty, I am
guilty of blind faith
that you could not
possibly prove what you
are trying to claim.
\_ I think you are
saying the opposite
of what you intend.
\_ You know, you're
right. Mea culpa. |
| 2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41024 Activity:moderate |
12/14 I'm a Republican but switched to I after the Iraq War. However,
Bush has since then grown up and admitted mistakes and took all
responsibilities, and in doing so he gained my faith in the
party again. It's good to be back. -Republican 2008
\_ After watching a recent interview with Bush, I have to admit that
he seems like less of a complete retard. He is actually admitting
that he has made mistakes. Of course, this still doesn't alliviate
the fact that he IS still a retard.
\_ So the unprecedented expansion of the size and power of the
government doesn't bother you? Endless deficits and total
fiscal irresponsibility doesn't bother you? The lack of any
realistic longterm plan to deal with America's energy problems
doesn't bother you? And I suppose you're probably proud to have
a president who is either so fucking stupid he actually believes
there is a real scientific controversy over "intelligent design"
or so craven that he's willing to lie about it to score points
with the theocratic wing of your party. Yep. You sound like a
typical republican to me. I'm sure your fellow bible thumping
pigfuckers are glad to have you back.
\_ They have a great plan:
1 - Get control of the white house
2 - Manipulate the "free" market
3 - PROFIT!!
\_ Is this a troll?
\_ Eh... could be. Why not be safe and throw rhetoric back?
\_ Dubya is channelling hillary, who "took responsibility" for her vote
for the war a few weeks earlier.
But don't worry, there's still three more years of the country
being run by a frat house president.
\_ Reagan showed the way to "accept" responsibility without having
to worry about consequences. It also worked for Rumsfeld.
\_ So you voted for his distant cousin in the last election who,
oh nevermind, don't let facts bother you.
\_ why so angry at a fellow sodan?
\_ Disappointed. Not angry.
\_ "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence
agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of
mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence
agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove
Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out
to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go
into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong
by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just
that." -GWB, 12/14/05
In other words, like Tookie, he did no wrong, and anyway it wasn't
his fault if he did.
\_ I bet you are much less tolerant to those who lied about his sex
life. 15,000 US casuaties, 30,000+ Iraqi casualties, versus
a blow job... hmm...
\_ Don't forget the cigar stuff. That has to be worth maybe a
squad of Marines and a small Iraqi village.
\_ Interesting. I was an R, I supported (and still support) the Iraq
War, but switched to I because of Bush + congress' ineptitude at the
border and at spending. I have no interest in returning to the R
party anytime soon. -emarkp |
| 2005/12/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41012 Activity:nil |
12/14 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/orleans/program.html Video Expert (James?), which of the three, quicktime, real, or WindowsMedia tend to have best quality in the above URL link? thx \_ Beats me. Watch them and judge for yourself. --jameslin |
| 2005/12/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:41009 Activity:moderate |
12/13 Haha. McCain no-torture amendment says "Follow the Army Field Manual."
Pentagon changes field manual. Go Dubya!
\_ So do we have to have a three screen long flame war about the
definition of the word "lie" to say Rice was lying now? Or can
we just agree that she was lying right through her teeth by
any definition?
\_ ObThatDependsOnWhatTheDefinitionOfIsIs.
\_ It's a lie whatever we say is a lie.
\_ url?
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/politics/14detain.html |
| 2005/12/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40980 Activity:nil |
12/12 U.S. Soldiers bring wheels to Iraqi man without legs
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=8328
\_ Yes jblack, the US Army is great, GWB is great, and whining
liberals should shut their mouths. I gotcha.
\_ "We killed 30,000 Iraqis but by giving wheels to one Iraqi man
without legs, we sure feel heck a lot better!" !gwb
\_ Hmmm... I wonder about how practical that is. Is it better for
him than a wheelchair?
\_ Obviously no, but a real customized American wheelchair costs
well over $5000, and the US government can't afford to pay
such an exorbitant price especially when it needs to
finance the War on Terror.
\_ ^War on Terror^tax cuts
\_ I'm glad you think we're paying for the tax cuts
for the rich. I bet you even thought Clinton was
right to intervene in Serbia.
\_ So, don't get a "real customized American wheelchair."
There are much cheaper/easier designs. Since the army
guy build it from scratch, he may have investigated other
designs.
\_ And now this guy has no incentive to better his life!
-libertarian |
| 2005/12/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40951 Activity:insanely high |
12/9 "Use democracy to DEFEAT LIBERTY.
Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that
liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety,
leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of
wedlock, and family breakdown.
And worst of all, LIBERALISM is soft on communism or terrorism - (or
WHATEVER happens to be the enemy of the moment.)
And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their
SECURITY, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they
will gladly renounce it." -Irvine Kristol, father of Neoconservatism
\_ This is really dishonest. This is not a quote of Kristol as you
claimed. This is actually a quote of Shadia Drury from her essay
"Saving America--Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives". This is
not what Kristol said; this is Drury's spin on what Kristol said.
And then on top of misrepresenting the quote, you threw in some
extra capitalizations that were not in the source. Advocacy is one
thing, outright lying is quite another. You should be ashamed.
(http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html has the original
Drury essay.)
\_ I am not sure if I am ashamed, but I am glad to be set straight.
Serves me right for using a random partisan blog as a source.
\_ What? A partisan blog lied and misrepresented an opposing
view? I'm *SHOCKED*! Nay, I'm *SHOCKED*! *laugh* When you
get your info from shitty biased sources, of course you'll get
propaganda and be misled as to what other people have said
and think and you'll end up hating them. The motd is a great
example of this. BushCo lied, People died! Halliburton!
Damn, this is funny. I'm busting up.
\_ Actually, the motd is much better at correcting errors
than most media sources.
\_ You are right, Bush told the truth and no one has died
in Iraq. And Halliburton has not many any money from
War Profiteering. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan.
\_ BushCo lied, people died implies that Bush knew the
the true situtation in Iraq and chose to act anyway.
His knowledge of the true situation has not been
convincingly demonstrated.
\_ We know that he has lied about Congress having
"the same intelligence" that he did. We know that
he fired generals who told him planning requirements
that he didn't like, whose predictions have turned
out to come true. If Bush didn't lie, he was simply
incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
\_ Gee, isn't this pretty disingenuous? The fact
that the slogan is "BushCo lied..." says pretty
much that lying is worse.
\_ The word "lie" has more than one meaning, as anyone
with even a casual knowledge of the English language
knows. You have chosen, for entirely partisan reasons,\
to pick the meaning that makes the people that use
knows. You have chosen, for entirely partisan reasons,
to pick the meaning that makes the people that use
it look the most extreme. You are being disingenous
yourself, to put it charitably.
\_ I'm surprised _your_ lie has been allow to sit
here unquestioned for so long. The common and
primary usage of the word "lie" is the one that
involves intentional and knowing deception. This
is *not* the "extreme" definition of the word
"lie". It is *the* definition of the word "lie".
Any other definitions you might like to use would
not only be uncommon but would lead to confusing
your audience if you didn't mean "intentional and
knowing deception". You are being extremely
intellectually dishonest. A 2 second dictionary
check would have shown that. So would asking any
normal human being on the street or any 5 year
old what they thought the word "lie" means.
You're just struggling to save the "Bush Lied,
People Died" rhetoric and doing a bad job of it.
Bush, the CIA, several other western intelligence
agencies, the Russians, and the entire Clinton
administration were wrong about WMD in Iraq.
None of these people lied, as we found out later
Saddam's own people were lying to him telling him
he had weapons and capabilities he didn't have.
The upper tiers of Iraqi government thought they
had WMD. Come play again anytime and bring a
dictionary or a 5 year old next time.
\_ Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to
D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. &
Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
[1913 Webster]
Quite seriously, your English skills, as well
as your ability to use simple research tools,
such as a dictionary, must be seriously
deficient. In the English language, words
\_ You are an idiot. "dict lie" and look
for the definition that covers truth
and not physical position. You'll see
quite clearly that to lie means to
intentionally deceive. If this wasn't
the motd I'd be stunned that someone
would have the balls to present some
random fuck #2 definition from some
unknown place they've carefully chosen
to cover their first lie and then
falsely accuse someone else of having
poor research skills or English language
ability. If this was something as
low level as Rhetoric 1A you'd get an
"F" for an argument like that. But
since this is the motd, I expect lies
(intentional knowing falsehood) as a
weak attempt to bolster a weak partisan
position.
\_ The most amusing thing about your
diatribe is that this definition above
comes from using "dict lie" on soda.
Are you trolling in a deliberate
effort to look stupid?
often have multiple meanings and it is not
incorrect to use an alternate meaning, though
perhaps confusing to some people. I talked to
a linguist about this, and he says it is an
example of a "contested case" where some
people believe their definition is correct
and the other definitions are incorrect, but
a simple use of the dictionary will show you
to be wrong. The word "lie" is used both
ways in the English language. You also
(deliberately?) misread my simple statement
about your picking the definition that allowed
you to paint the users of it as political
extremists. I said nothing about the "extreme
definition" of the word, you either twisted
or misunderstood what I meant.
or misunderstood what I meant. Five year
olds don't define the language.
\_ So, in your opinion, did the OP of this
thread lie? Should he be ashamed of having
lied?
\_ Sure, he (me actually) lied, by some
definitions of the word. He should be
ashamed of doing only casual fact
checking, which in this case was
a Google search of the quote, which
turns up many other examples of people
spreading this falsehood.
\_ So you are ashamed for not having
fact checked, but not ashamed for
having lied. So in your mind, the
lie was morally neutral? Afterall,
if the lie were morally reprehensible,
shouldn't you feel shame? Would you
say that in your case, "you lied" is
equivalent to "you said something
incorrect because you believed in the
wrong source"?
\_ Yes. If it makes you feel any better
I personally have stopped using the
construct "Bush lied" because of the
confusion it engenders. I prefer
the phrase "Bush is a bullshitter"
because I think it more accurately
describes the relationship that
the Bush White House has with
veracity.
\_ Great! I must tell you (and I
assure you that I do so without
any sarcasm whatsoever) that I
admire your honesty and integrity
in this discussion. I think Bush
was wrong, premature, lacked
planning and foresight, and a
whole host of other unpleasant
things. However, I do not think
he lied (in the sense of the word
that is morally reprehensible and
requires an intent to deceive).
\_ Here are some examples of the second use of
the word:
http://csua.org/u/e96 (Kerry lied)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/101405D.html
http://csua.org/u/e97 (Bush lied about attack)
Now all of these are politically charged
debates, but they all accuse the other of
"lies" when falsehoods would have been a
more clear statement. But nonetheless,
they used the word "lie" as many many
speakers of the English language do in
this situation.
\_ Sure! In the sense that 'Bush lied' ==
'Bush was incorrect in a morally neutral
way because he believed in the wrong
source". I'm ok with that. However,
'BushCo was incorrect in a morally neutral
way because he believed in the wrong source,
people died' doesn't have that nice ring
to it. OBTW, at least in your first 2
references there is a sense that the "lie"
were told with the intent to deceive. In
the Kerry case, one could reasonably assume
that Kerry knew what he did during and after
the Vietnam war, and the website claimed that
that Kerry knew he did during and after the
Vietnam war, and the website claimed that
Kerry gave a "scrubbed" version of his
activities later. The 2nd reference claimed
the media was "inventing" stories. I think
by definition invention requires on the part
of the inventor knowledge that the story is
not true. In the last case, the question
hinges on whether Bush knew he was wrong
when he claimed that the Irqais were in
charge. This was not addressed in the
link (though honestly I have not read
through all the comments), and therefore it
is not clear where the article and the
claim of "Bush lied" falls. Thanks for
proving my point, BTW.
activities during his presidential campaign.
The 2nd reference claimed the media was
"inventing" stories. I think by definition
invention requires on the part of the
inventor the story is not based on actual
truth.
inventor knowledge that the story is not
true.
\_ Waitasec. Are you saying that you believe
that Bush looked at all the information
and drew an impartial and logical
conclusion? 'Cos looking at the intel
now, I don't see how he drew the
conclusions he did without having a
distinct bias. It is clear now that he
had already made up his mind and he was
only looking for intel that supported
his ideas, and the rest could go hang.
In this regard, he intentionally withheld
the truth of the matter from the
American people, which, by your own
definition, constitutes lying.
\_ Nope. I think Bush looked at the
information he had and drew a
conclusion. Did he look at all the
evidence impartially, dispassionately,
whatever? Not likely. Still he
reached a conclusion. He believed
that his conclusion was correct, and
he led the country into war based on
that. Which means he may have been
stupid, premature, illogical,
emotional, short-sided, etc., but he
emotional, short-sighted, etc., but he
did not lie. Did he withhold "the
truth"? What truth? There's his
truth, your truth, my truth. Maybe
there's even *the* truth. Who knows?
He told us what he believed was true.
If a child who just learned addition
told you earnestly that 7+8=13, did
the child lie? Or was he just honestly
wrong? If you write down the wrong
answer on a mid-term, did you lie?
Or were you just wrong?
\_ Do you think Bush told the truth?
\_ I think he told what he thought
was the truth.
\_ It is a yes or no question.
\_ Whose truth? Bush told
the truth as he understood
it.
\_ Bullshit.
"Iraq has weapons of
mass destruction" was
not a lie. "We have
evidence that Iraq
has weapons of mass
destruction" was, in
fact, a deliberate lie.
I think that Bush could
have stuck with the
first of these and
justified the war
(which I supported),
but he chose to lie
about the evidence,
and that is important
(impeachable, IMO).
\_ I take it that you
agree with my propo-
sition that if Bush
merely told the
truth as he under-
stood it, he did not
lie.
\_ Nope. Kerry repeated what he had been
told by other sources, that he believed.
It turned out that these guys weren't
even Vets, but Kerry had no way of
knowing that. The Kerry lied crowd knows
this but still accuse him of lying.
\_ If I may read between the lines, are
you saying the "Kerry lied" crowd
should not have accused him of lying?
If so, thanks for making my point for
me.
\_ I don't hold an opinion one way
or another on the morality of
accusing a politician of lying.
I am just pointing out to you how
the English language is used. I am
sure I could come up with hundreds
of examples, given enough time.
You could, too.
\_ Well, I am perfectly happy with
2 kinds of lie: one that is
honest mistake with no intent
to deceive, and the other that
is deliberately untrue with an
aim to deceive. I think there
is no moral stigma associated
with the first, and the second
is morally reprehensible. I
also think that, given these
two definitions of lie, Bush's
belong to the first category.
And, given there is no intent
to deceive, there is also no
moral probihition against it.
Like I said, I'm ok with the
formulation 'Bush lied' == 'Bush
was incorrect in a morally
neutral way because he believed
in the wrong source".
\_ I'd be more comfortable w/ 'Bush misled, people
bled' b/c lie specifically requires knowledge of
the truth. In this case, knowledge of the truth
has not, and likely cannot be, demonstrated.
bled.' To me lie specifically implies a knowledge
of the truth, which I do not think can be shown
in this context.
\_ 'misled'? What is this if not a euphemism
for 'lied'?
\_ Actually, no. "lied" requires the liar to
have knowledge of the truth, or at least
knowledge of the lack of the truth.
"misled" allows for mistake or ignorance
on the part of the misleading person. - !pp
"misled" allows for mistake on the part of
the misleading person. - !pp
\_ That would be 'mistaken.'
\_ Ummm no. Use 'misled' in a sentence.
Then use 'mistaken' in its place in
the same sentence.
\_ Clever, but not a direct substi-
tution. Instead of saying that the
President misled the people into
believing that the war was just,
I would say that the President was
mistaken in believing that the war
was just, and he therefore led us
into war while laboring under this
mistake. He misled us; in order to
do so, he engaged in deceit, also
called lying.
\_ No, you are wrong. A lie
is an untruth given with the
intent to deceive. Note that
it requires an intent. I would
not be lying to you if I told
you the sun rises in the west,
so long as I believe that to be
true. I may have been wrong
when I said the sun rises in
the west, but I did not lie,
because I did not intend to
deceive you with that untruth.
deceive you.
\_ And in that regard you
would have been *mistaken*,
and you would not have
_misled_ me so much as
_mistakenly led me to
believe_. Regardless of
which, Bush *chose* to
ignore every sign that his
intel and sources were not
correct and created an
environment in which any
evidence for an opposing view
was discarded out of hand.
When he said we had no choice
but to invade, he was imply-
ing that he had explored all
possibilities; that was a
lie. From that complexity
to "Bush lied, peoplde died"
is an unfortunate simplifi-
cation, I agree, but no
less true.
\_ An "unfortunate
siimplification"? Who's
into carefully chosen
euphemisms now?
\_ Pray tell, what is
"unfortunate simplifi-
cation" a carefully
chosen euphemism for?
\_ "Inaccurate"?
"Wrong"?
\_ If you look just one
paragraph down you will
see someone accused of
lying, who had no knowledge
that what he was saying was
false before he uttered it.
How can you ignore the
evidence right in front
of your eyes?
\_ An "unfortunate
siimplificatoin"? Who's
into carefully chosen
euphemisms now?
\_ Actually, this exactly
proves my point (and
it should, since I also
wrote that post). Since
the originator of the
thread posted in error
(or he was misled by his
partisan website, to use
the language of this
subthread), I did not
castigate him for "not
[being] ashamaed for
lying". I so stipulated
because to my mind, and
I assume to his (since
he is not ashamed) he
did not lie, since he
thought he posted a
truth. The OP was
merely mistaken. That is
why I took him to task
for not exercising his
critical judgement
instead.
\_ If you believed Kristol (or anyone in this media age) would
be stupid enough to have actually said this, then you should
be too stupid to be admitted to Cal. If you're not ashamed
for lying, then you should be ashamed for not exercising
your critical judgement.
\_ If Bush can say dumbass things like "What an impressive
crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call
you the elite, I call you my base" and get away with it,
it is not that unreasonable to think someone like Kristol
might say something like that. Especially many years
ago, before the Internet, when people tended to speak
more freely in front of crowds. Or maybe I am just
a dumbass.
\_ I actually found it very reasuring when Bush said that,
since that crowd will never allow the Religious Right
to totally destroy American science and turn America
into a theocracy. The rich bastard section of the GOP
seems like the least loathesome faction, and they keep
the real fuckers at bay.
\_ You are just a dumbass.
\_ I assume you are not the same fellow criticizing
the anti-war crowd for saying that Bush lied, right?
If so, it would be pretty ironic.
\_ There are many ways to make money other than real estate.
I made more than 100k in the stock market since 2002,
with about 30% annual return. And the PE ratio of S&P500
is actually lower now than in 2002, unlike the ridiculous
Price/Rent ratio of homes in the Bay Area. |
| 2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40902 Activity:high |
12/7 http://CNN.com: "Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat" Oh oh, you know the guy probably wasn't a genuine terrorist if they lead with a line like that. Just compare the lead to the other major web sites' (foxnews.com too) if you don't know what I'm talking about. -jctwu \_ You're kidding me, right? \_ You're kidding me, right? --scotsman \_ Did you check the other web sites yet? \_ Did you check the other web sites yet? -jctwu \_ Uh, yes. Plus a news.google check. If anything, fox's is less descriptive of the actual circumstance than all the rest. I think, perhaps, I don't know what exactly you're complaining about. about. --scotsman \_ Re-read the original post. \_ Re-read the original post. -jctwu \_ Comparing CNN's leed to http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1517646/20051207/index.jhtml%3Fheadlines%3Dtrue&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/79ebc (news.google) makes them look in pretty good company. There seem to me to be three classes of headlines here: "Man made bomb threat, shot dead by air marshalls" "Shots fired on Miami Plane" "Air Marshalls kill crazy person" CNN and many others are in the first group, International feeds are in the second, and Fox and a number of other papers are in the third. papers are in the third. --scotsman \_ Okay, here it is, for the largest web sites: Man Shot Dead at Miami Airport (WP) Air Marshal Shoots Passenger (NYT) Marshal Shoots Suspect After Jet Lands in Miami (LAT) Deadly Confrontation (MSNBC) Air Marshals Kill Erratic Passenger (Fox) Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat (CNN) 4 of 6 make factual statements 2 of 6 also make claims which assign responsibility in addition to factual statements \_ Uh. You're insane. in addition to factual statements -jctwu \_ Uh. You're insane. --scotsman \_ Uh. I don't think so. \_ Uh. I don't think so. -jctwu \_ Okay, who do you think is being "assigned responsibility"? responsibility"? --scotsman \_ "It's the crazy dude's fault he got himself killed." himself killed. -jctwu \_ "Erratic" is accurate and does not imply blame. \_ Okay, that one I had trouble with. I'll revise that from 4 of 6 and 2 of 6 to 4.5 of 6 and 1.5 of 6 -jctwu \_ "Air Marshals Kill Erratic Passenger" assigns blaim to the air marshal, while assigns blame to the air marshal, while "Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat" assigns blaim to the passenger. \_ Uh.. No. No it doesn't. threat" assigns blame to the passenger. \_ Uh.. No. No it doesn't. --scotsman \_ As pp wrote, I had trouble with "erratic" since it can be interpreted as factual, so I'll give it a half point. point. -jctwu \_ I interpret them the completely opposite way. (And it's spelled "blame".) \_ You missed this one: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598 "Air marshal guns down man at Miami airport" \_ That's "Deadly Confrontation". If you went to all the sites earlier (now some of the stories have moved/etc.), you would have seen they're all the lead titles on the front-page of those web sites. of those web sites. -jctwu \_ Lessons learned: always do what armed law inforcement tells you to do. \_ ^law enforcement^* (box cutters don't count as "armed") \_ The air marshals are law enforcement, and are armed. \_ Someone doesn't know csh syntax. -pp \_ it didn't really help that Brazilian dude on the London subway -jctwu \_ It's not law enforcement's fault that the Brazillian dude didn't look white. - magneto \_ "his wife tried to explain that he was mentally ill and had not taken his medication." \_ A female accomplice of a suicidal bomber can very well say the same thing in that situation. \_ I agree. It's a tragedy if everything unfolded as Homeland Security is claiming. It's fucked up if HS or one of the air marshals isn't telling it quite like it is. air marshals isn't telling it quite like it is. -jctwu \_ Okay, http://CNN.com is now /not/ reporting that crazy dude reached into his bag, but that he approached the air marshals aggressively after refusing to put his bag down. Yippee, 0-day newz p0wnz m3. harhar, since then, the http://CNN.com story has changed from the original, to no bomb found, to now his luggage was exploded (implying there may have been a bomb but we'll never know), and back to the original story that he reached into his bag. he reached into his bag. -jctwu \_ Uh, dude. Exploding the luggage in question is standard procedure for suspected explosives. Whether there were or weren't explosive present isn't in doubt afterward. They know what they explode it with and can tell whether other/more explosive material was present. Take a nap. present. Take a nap. --scotsman \_ I know all that, "Take a nap"-dude. In terms of spin, "No bomb found" has a much different connotation than "luggage exploded" with a cool picture of a bag exploding. The former is also much more relevant. The former is also much more relevant. -jctwu \_ You're throwing a lot of epithets at CNN et al over things that are endemic to the 24 hour news cycle. If you're just discovering this, then more power to you, but seriously it's not a big deal. If you take issue with it, take note that <random event> happened and read about it the next morning. --scotsman \_ Do you know what an epithet is? -jctwu \_ You're calling them out on their journalistic cred, and sounding like an idiot in doing so. You've called them spinners and compared them unfavorably to Fox. What would you like me to use instead of "epithet"? --scotsman \_ Just say I called them out on their journalistic cred, not "throwing a lot of epithets". Congratulations you found the words. -jctwu \_ Because you're such the journalism critic... I called them epithets because they don't rise to the level of "criticism" or "allegations" --scotsman \_ So, did you bother to look up the word yet? -jctwu \_ Jeff, I know what "epithet" means. This ceased being amusing long ago. Goodbye. --scotsman \_ Ben, why did you name me? There's a reason why I didn't sign. This became an issue for me the moment you said "Take a nap", and then continued with "throwing a lot of epithets" and then "sounding like an idiot". I'm not the one who started with the personal attacks, and I'm not the one who broke the anonymity. For those following this thread, please note that scotsman and I did not sign our names until after after the "Jeff, ..." post. the "Ben, ..." post. -jctwu \- i personally also think that is a peculiar use of "epithet". --psb, pater andron te theon te \_ shrug, I'm sure scotsman is a good guy but we may have both gotten a little carried away, and probably just wasted our time more than anything -jctwu \- so no DUEL? |
| 2005/12/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40823 Activity:nil |
12/2 Zombie soldiers come back to vote Bush out of office... or
something.
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0548,lim,70455,20.html
\_ Here's Showtime's site about the show, along with some clips:
http://www.sho.com/site/mastersofhorror/movie.do?content=homecoming |
| 2005/12/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40814 Activity:moderate |
12/2 Can you find all 74 bands?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4530/1777/1600/bands.jpg - danh
\_ Warning: The picture is incomplete. To the left is Cake, Pet Shop
Boys, and oddly enough, a scorpion.
\_ Official Game W/ Zoom in Functionality:
http://www.heavy.com/heavy.php?channel=virginGame
\_ Neat! Got a larger image? --erikred
\_ http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/2808/74bands2ej.jpg - danh
\_ Perfect! Thanks. --erikred
\_ are there answers anywhere? I have
scissor sisters, guns n roses, smashing pumpkins, matchbox 20
rolling stones(?) ... what else
\_ Pixies, Zombies, Blur, Sex Pistols, Blues Brothers, B52, Led
\_ White zombie?
Zeppelin, Black Flag, U2, Eagles, Beach Boys, Seal, Dead
Kennedies(?), Radiohead, Talking Heads, Blind Melon, Red Hot
Chili Peppers, Alice in Chains...
Chili Peppers, Alice in Chains, Whitesnake, Monkees(?), Queen,
Ratt, Hole, Cowboy Junkies, Garbage, Black Crows...
\_ where are the talking heads? and dead kennedies?
\_ where are the talking heads?
\_ on the tv's under u2
\_ oh also Spoon. is that stegasaurus Dinosaur Jr? Where is
Seal? What's the guy in yellow? the making out chicks?
\_ Seal is on the poster at mid-lower left corner, next to
the zombie.
\_ Seal is on the poster at mid-left edge, next to the zombie.
the gymnists? the purple building?
\_ Oh. Iron Maiden.
\_ gymnists are twisted sister.
\_ Oh. Iron Maiden, Scorpions...
\_ where are scorpions?
\_ postal service, nine inch nails, prince, the police, the
cranberries (dried, under fruit stand?)
\_ On the grill, below the 50c.
\_ they look more like tentacles or tree roots
\_ ew!
\_ Vines
\_ postal service, nine inch nails, prince, the police, 50 cent,
the doors, the cranberries (dried, under fruit stand?), korn?,
cypress hill, lemonheads, phish
\_ crosswalk = white stripes
\_ wonder if they intended Pavement ... also, are those
the monkees or the gorillas
\_ could be 10,000 maniacs in the windows under the eagles.
\_ I figured they were Crowded House
\_ 50 cent
\_ Green day (Calendar underneath veggie cart in bottom right
corner) -eric
\_ Madonna (pic right above guns & roses) -eric
\_ how could they miss spinal tap?
\_ Sex Pistols
\_ running count: 47 so far (including 1 of monkees/gorillas)
\_ I've got 53 plus three others I'm not 100% convinced on
\_ who are the chicks making out?
\_ Tatu? -vadim
\_ Kiss!
\_ bee gees (next to talking heads)
\_ I can't locate Bee Gees. Where in the picute is the talking
head? (E.g. 20% from the left, 30% down from the top.) Thx.
\_ look for the letters: B G G
\_ Got it! Thanks.
\_ The Cars, The Eels, Great White
\_ Cornershop, Manic Street Preachers.
\_ Current list: 50 Cent, Alice in Chains, B52s, Beach Boys,
Bee Gees, Black Crows, Black Flag, Blind Melon, Blues Brothers,
Blur, Cars, Cornershop, Cowboy Junkies, Cranberries, Crowded
House, Cypress Hill, Dead Kennedys, Doors, Eagles, Eels, Garbage,
Great White, Green Day, Guns N Roses, Hole, Iron Maiden, Kiss,
Korn, Led Zepplin, Lemonheads, Madonna, Matchbox 20,
Monkees/Gorillaz(?), Pavement, Pixies, Police, Postal Service,
Prince, Queen, Radiohead, Ratt, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rolling
Stones, Roots, Scissor Sisters, Seal, Sex Pistols, Smashing
Pumpkins, Spoon, Talking Heads, Twisted Sister, U2, White
Stripes, White Zombie, Whitesnake
\_ Add: Bush, Deep Purple.
\_ where's this?
\_ The purple building.
\_ Carpenters, Blondie(?), the Dolls(?)
\_ Are those Nine Inch Nails just NW of MB20?
\_ yes.
\_ Flash version: http://www.heavy.com/heavy.php?channel=virginGame
Adds Pet Shop Boys, Cake, Scorpions, and something to do with a
little black chihuaha to the left, features a magnifying glass
that did nothing for me. --erikred
\_ the chihuahua is Skinny Puppy
\_ Phish, eminem(both on the ground in the foreground)
\_ I think the fish is more accurately Reel Big Fish
\_ my "questionable" list is: alarm, deep purple, jane's additions,
pink, twisted sister
\_ What are the surfers? butthole surfers?
\_ Traffic, Subway (Subway Sect?), Swing Out Sister(?) |
| 2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40794 Activity:kinda low |
11/30 NYT on Bush speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/opinion/01thur1.html?hp
"But after watching the president, we couldn't resist reading Richard
Nixon's 1969 Vietnamization speech. Substitute the Iraqi constitutional
process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr. Bush's ideas about the Iraqi
Army are not much different from Nixon's plans - except Nixon admitted
the war was going very badly (which was easier for him to do because
he didn't start it), and he was very clear about the risks and huge
sacrifices ahead.
A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon
needs to get out more."
\_ yeah, but our military commander (pace), iraq ambassador (khalilzad)
and our troops (non-draft) are all better than nixon's analogs,
so we might actually win despite the dumbass at the top (dubya)
and his lying cronies (rove, dick)
\_ what exactly are we winning? where is osama bin laden?
\_ winning means iraq not destabilizing the region and restoring
it back to its non-terrorist-training state
\_ huh? what happened to this 'beacon of democracy in the
middle east?' If we are shooting for non-terrorist-
training state, why we topple Saddam at first place?
\_ what happened to "beacon of democracy in the middle east"
again? and if victor == non-terrorist training state,
why we topple Saddam at first place?
\_ democracy is dubya's defn of "winning", not mine
anyways, like I said, it didn't train terrorists before
we invaded, unlike now, but returning it to that state
is part of my defn of "winning"
the best realistic outcome in my view is a buncha shiite
militias running the place with periodic sunni suicide
bombings and regular intervention of the shiite death
squads, token U.S. withdrawal in 2005, near-complete
U.S. withdrawal by end-2006, and the U.S. retaining
squads, token U.S. withdrawal in 2006, near-complete
U.S. withdrawal by end-2007, and the U.S. retaining
overflight and bombing permissions
U.S. withdrawal by end-2006, and the U.S. having full
permission to bomb the heck out of anything we verify as
a concentrated terrorist training camp
of course, none of this precludes the fact that dubya is
and will always remain a dumbass
\_ oops, I understated by one year. anyways, another
thing to keep in mind is that these dates satisfy
the military and the political overseers. |
| 2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40785 Activity:high |
11/30 Lieberman has visited Iraq four times in 17 months. He said there are
signs life is returning to normal, including a profusion of cell phones
and satellite TV dishes on rooftops.
"About two-thirds of the country is in really pretty good shape," he
said, noting most attacks are in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" region.
"Overall, I came back encouraged."
http://csua.org/u/e4m
\_ Lieberman's editorial:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
\_ Wow, if you only look at vast swaths of empty desert, the country
is doing fine!
\_ It is encouraging to hear about how well the Kurdish north... which
was already free and prosperous under Saddam... is doing.
\_ Except for the occasional spell of mustard gas before some
random kind people laid down the whoopass on anything airborne
there. Nothing serious, though. -John
\_ I think the poster meant post '91
\_ why do you listen to anything this scumbag says? --liberal
\_ Agreed. He's a tool.
\_ Why is he a tool? -uninformed moderate
\_ "Bottom line, I think Bush has it right." When
I asked if he was becoming a neoconservative,
Lieberman smiled and said, "No, but some of my
best friends are neocons."
\_ b/c he might actually be smart enough to know that
socialist big government programs are a dumb idea.
\_ if anything Dubya has increase the size of government
to an blowed level. why don't you vote him out of
office?
\_ Lesser of two evils. The Democrats don't
believe in liberal economic policies,
limited government or conservative/trad-
itional social policies. At least the GOP
pretends to believe in liberal economics,
limited govnerment and conservative social
policies. I feel less revulsion voting for
such candidates.
\_ The GOP stopped pretending to believe in limited
government. Well, unless you've got an Inc. or
an LLC after your name.
\_ My take is that many in the party still
believe in less government, but the
current administration does not. I was
never hot on either Bush, but I liked
the alternatives even less.
\_ Are you really that much of an ignorant fuck or are
you just pretending? Liebermann is *owned* by
the insurance companies. Saying that Liebermann's
position on health care reform are based on
\_ he is also owned by Accounting industry and
fanatically oppose to any of accounting reform
after Enron scandle...
position on health care reform is based on
principle is like saying that a senator from
a tobacco state's position on tobacco regulations
or Ted Stevens's position on drilling ANWR is based
on principle. Fuck you, and fuck Liebermann.
\_ I'm not talking about any particular issue.
I'm just saying overall he is reasonable in
comparison to many of his scum bag colleagues.
\_ Lieberman's loyalties are to Israel, not America.
\_ Yeah you just can't trust a Jew. They own the
banks, Hollywood, send our jobs overseas, they
steal our tech, and ZOG has been intentionally
destroying the environment since 1889 for their
own negarious purposes. Kill the Jews! Oh btw,
you overpaid your Klan membership fees, so you'll
get the difference back in the mail next week.
get the difference back in the mail next week. -lior
\_ You'd probably enjoy some of the requests for
email accounts or "membership" I get at http://zog.net.
Probably doesn't help that it's hosted on <DEAD>88.net<DEAD>
(no it's not what you think) -John
\_ I know you wrote this as a joke, but my dad
and *many* of his hard core democrat friends
(all asian) refused to vote for Gore b/c his
running mate was "JEW" Lieberman.
The best reason I've heard for not voting for
Lieberman is that he looks exactly like the
Emperor :-)
\_ I'm a Jew, and Liebermann was one of the main
reasons I didn't vote for Gore (along with
my deep loathing of Tipper.) I can think
of several Jewish friends who also veered
over to Nader becauese of how much they hate
Liebermann. In fact, when I think of all
my Jewish friends, I can only think of a couple
who *don't* hate Liebermann, and I live in
his home state.
\_ You voted against him *because* he's a Jew
like the above poster's racist family
friends? I wouldn't vote for or against
anyone based on their membership in a
mainstream (ie: we don't sacrifice goats
and virgins) religion. Voting against him
because you think he's an ass or an
insurance company shill or whatever makes
sense. -lior
\_ he is a scumbag, and happened to be a
Jew. Rather he is a Jew or not is
not important. -- liberal Asian
\_ Of course I didn't vote against him
because he's a Jew. For me it was 60%
his relationship with the insurance
companies, 30% his involvement with
music censorship(which is why I hate
Tipper), and 10% general hatred of his
idiotic positions on local pork issues.
There are a lot of defense contractors
in Ct., and I think Liebermann clearly
puts their interests above the overall
interests of national defense. Yes,
I realize everyone does that, but that's
no excuse, and I still hate the guy for
it. Also, what the hell is wrong with
sacraficing goats?
\_ You're anti-goat?
\_ I'm not a pro-goat zealot. That's
all.
\_ No, I didn't write it as a joke. I think the
guy I was responding to saying Lieberman is an
Israeli shill is a POS racist. When exactly
did Asians decide they hated Jews? They're not
did Asians decide they hate Jews? They're not
on the traditional list of anti-semite racist
types.
\_ Maybe joke was the wrong word. I was
just trying to point out that there
are democrat voters out there who
actually believe all that stuff that
wrote.
I don't know when Asians decided to
start hating jews, but anti-semitism
and racism are fairly common in asian
circles.
\_ Asians dont have guilt complex over the
Holocaust and dont feel beholden to Israel
over that issue nor their "stewardship"
over the Holy Land.
PP: you are overreacting. I think Judaism
is a bit snobbish but I don't like the Pope
either. I do respect the importance of law
to the Jews and respect the Israeli courts
have taken a number of wildly unpopular but
principled decisions.
\_ Guilt? So by that you're saying that
guilt over the holocaust is the only
reason to not hate Jews. And how exactly
is Judaism "snobbish"? Not only am I not
over reacting but I find your "it's ok
to hate Jews because my people didn't
take part in the holocaust" line quite
shocking. I'm used to racism, especially
on the motd, but not at this level. You
need to take a serious step back and
really look at what you're saying. Also,
Israeli != Jew. You can be a Jew and not
be Israeli and you can be a full voting
tax paying Israeli citizen and not be a
Jew.
Jew. -lior
\_ Dummy, you are running rabid. Just
because I am not a big supporter of
Israel doesnt mean I want to see them
driven into the sea. I think
Lieberman's advice to attack Iraq,
Syria, and Iran is suspect. On the
other hand I repect his not being an
other hand I respect his not being an
apologist for Pollard. Are you a
Pollard supporter? Are you also an
apologist for Israel over the USS
Liberty affair? I am laughing at you.
\_ Liberty affair?
\_ http://www.ussliberty.org
\_ Re-read the whole thread. Trying
to paint me as rabid but ignoring
everything I said when I directly
responded to your posts isn't
scoring you any points. You are
falling back on the age-old racist
debate tactics and I'm not going
to bite. Failure to stay on topic
and bouncing to a zillion new
things that have nothing to do
with your personal racism aren't
going to help you any. This has
*nothing* to do with Israel and
you know it. Bye. -lior
\_ You have a persection complex.
And you have been trolled.
Ha ha ha. Does it make you feel
better to think someone out
there is hating you?
\_ 1) no. 2) its the motd, its
all trolls, 3) whatever, 4)
why would you say someone
out there hates me? shrug.
you're still a racist.
\_ "I dont like Lieberman"->
"You hate Jews!"
\_ Never said that. Read
the thread. Thanks.
/
/
/
"Lieberman's loyalty is
to Israel" -> "Yeah
you just can't trust a
Jew."
\_ I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the
conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the
Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the
Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which
required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to
Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and
security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am
disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil
production and energy production are below pre-war levels.
Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security
situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for
reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about
60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the
$2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent.
And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from
about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of
attacks going down over time and with the addition of more
troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations
at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual
State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in
global terrorism. - Rep. Murtha
\_ I don't know who to believe, the guy who is an expert
on the military or the other guy! |
| 2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40783 Activity:nil |
11/30 Video of Pace clarifying to Rumsfeld that U.S. soldiers need to
physically stop inhumane treatment (not just report it) if in its
presence: http://pentagonchannel.feedroom.com
Click on Pentagon Briefing: Rumsfeld / Pace
Then drag the slider to about 60%. You can download the source .wmv's,
but for some reason you can't move around in time, I tried it.
I can't tell whether the exchange was pre-planned, or Rummy really
didn't know.
\_ Feel the shift of blame swing to the Iraqis on Rummy's part. |
| 2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40779 Activity:nil |
11/30 Why does Dubya look like der Kommandant in all these photos I'm
seeing of him today?
http://www.foxnews.com/images/185152/4_2_113005_bush3.jpg
link:csua.org/u/e4k (cnn.com)
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp11-30-05b.jpg
\_ Because you've got Bush=Hitler on the brain?
\_ It's the liberal media trying to make him look bad.
\_ oh goodie, the http://foxnews.com active photo changed, must'a been
a liberal intern who put up the original! |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40772 Activity:nil |
11/29 Freedom of speech at best: you are allow to say anything you want,
as long as the stuff you say is something we like:
http://tinyurl.com/7men3
\_ I don't see how what you put connects to the article. AJ reported
things, the US claims they're lying. How is that not free speech?
\_ I think op is talking about the UK Official Secrets Act, in
which Section 5 has been invoked to threaten newspapers for the
first time with legal action if they publish more details on
the memo recording the conversation between Dubya and Blair ...
\_ Just like on the Berkeley campus! |
| 2005/11/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40759 Activity:nil |
11/28 The long march of Dick Cheney, from http://salon.com. http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/11/24/cheney/index.html \_ cool article! \_ If Lucas ever makes another Star Wars, "Darth Cheneyius" sounds like a cool villain. |
| 2005/11/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40754 Activity:nil |
11/28 http://CNN.com lead story "The government of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin fell Monday evening when opposition parties united to topple him with a no-confidence vote. Martin's center-left Liberal Party has been dogged by a corruption scandal, in which it paid advertising firms with Liberal links more than $1 million with little or no work done in exchange. An election -- probably in January -- could now end 12 years of Liberal rule in America's largest trading partner." \_ I don't know much about Canadian politics. What does this translates to? Lower taxes? Welfare cuts? \_ I doubt it. I don't know much either, but there are quite a few parties in Canada. I would assume there will be a lot of confusion, and then a different liberal party will be in charge. |
| 2005/11/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40711 Activity:nil |
11/23 I remember I read on the motd that Cindy Sheehan was crazy
and her family all hated her. How come her sister just
got arrested protesting outside the Bush Ranch? Is she
crazy, too?
http://csua.org/u/e2m
\_ Have a cookie, troll. This one is chocolate.
\_ You don't seem to understand what troll means
\_ Can one be guilty of trolling if intent-to-troll cannot be
shown?
\_ You may wish to read up on the legal doctrine of
'mens trolla'
\_ She is crazy, and it was "many in her family" not all of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan#Sheehan.27s_sister-in-law |
| 2005/11/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40658 Activity:high |
11/20 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull If this is true, then who shall lead the heroic anti-BushCo forces now? [good idea: censoring important news because you don't like it] [funny that you keep deleting it because it's >80 columns but if it was anything else you'd leave it, hypocrite. why do you hate potentially good news? if you're truly upset at the line length, you'd tinyurl it instead of censoring it. you cant kill truth] |
| 2005/11/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40649 Activity:nil |
11/18 Bush's exit strategy for Iraq:
2005: We Must Stay the Course
2006: We Must Keep Our Resolve
2007: The Fight for Freedom Continues
2008: We Will Not Let the Terrorists Win
late in 2008: Well it's Been Fun, Good Luck Cleaning up the
Mess I Left You With!
\_ You're cruel. Stop it. Don't you know you're making jblack
mad? Therapy is getting expensive these days.
\_ Just like how Clinton had fun with a bubble for years and then left
a bursted one to Dubya.
\_ I thought the bubble is the good work of Mr. Greenspan.
\_ Hi there anonymous partisan! Thanks for playing! -emarkp
\_ What evidence to the contrary is out there? --erikred, !OP
\_ Contrary? The above barely qualifies as a bumper sticker.
"Staying the course" etc. includes things like free elections
(check), ratifiying a constitution (check), etc. -emarkp
\- i think bush only cares about his historical reputation.
i think his goal is to avoid major disasters and then
leave it to the next admin and is going to start working
on blaming the next admin for fucking things up. i think
the real question is the role iraq policy will play in
the next presidential election.
\_ nah, bush doesn't care about historical reputation.
he cares more about the reputation of America, as in,
if you're with the terrorists, America will never give
in regardless of how many citizens Dubya has to
sacrifice.
\_ glad you people were not around during WWII or the Korean war.
History tells us what you did to the Vietnam war, and let's
hope the country has the prescience not to let that type
of debacle happen again.
\_ You don't think there's a slight difference between fighting
back against a power interested in world conquest, that took
over Paris and was bombing London, and overthrowing a podunk
dictator with no army and no weapons? -tom |
| 2005/11/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40646 Activity:nil |
11/18 http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_rep_murtha_end_iraq_051117b.wmv http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_rep_murtha_end_iraq_051117b.mov Murtha speech, transcript: http://csua.org/u/e1a (Washington Post) House GOP does a bait-and-switch and puts forward GOP version of Murtha resolution to vote http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/18/163220/03 \_ A dailykos post from someone watching the C-SPAN debate: "Soms [sic] Republican jackass just referred to it as the 'Democrat resolution.' Jim McGovern then made a parliamentary inquiry--'The gentleman stated that this is a Democratic proposal. Could you tell me who introduced this resolution.' So Republican Jackass starts yelling for McGovern to yield and McGovern says, 'No, I have a parlimentary [sic] inquiry.' And the chair tells him Mr. Hunter introduced it. 'Mr. Hunter? The Republican?' says McGovern. That was great." -op \_ How is this a "bait-and-switch"? \_ Do http://cnn.com and http://foxnews.com think people are voting on Murtha's or the GOP resolution? \_ ??? How does the reporting mean GOP is doing a bait-and-switch? \_ As characterized by one poster: "Republican Jackass starts yelling for McGovern to yield" It's not "classic" bait-and-switch, let's call it Republican variation #69. \_ Let's call it "you don't know what you're talking about" \_ Nah, I think you don't. Okay, I got it. You want me to call it a "strawman", right? Okay, it's a strawman as well. \_ yeah, yer right, it's a strawman |
| 2005/11/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40631 Activity:low |
11/17 "I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political
environment ... people sometimes lose their cool, and yet ... you can
ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith
... the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the
President of the United States or any member of this administration
purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of
the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
-VP Cheney (Nov 16, 2005)
"Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to
disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say
that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's
irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did ...
patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn't bother
me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their
positions and playing politics."
-President Bush (Nov 17, 2005)
\_ I'm looking for the interest here.
\_ ok ok, I took out Dubya. shorter now.
\_ He added "I am not a crook"
\_ Dude, isn't the like "how can we use this to hit iraq" post-9/11
meeting like on record?
\_ I don't know, can you produce it?
\_ "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on
September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that
the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those
planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after
al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would
be done ... Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to
say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of
terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different
kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have
imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein
still in power." -Sec State Rice (Oct 16, 2005)
\_ How is this the "'how can we use this to hit iraq'
post-9/11 meeting"?
\_ Okay, what's the meaning of "this" in "how can we
use this"?
\_ We hit the trifecta! -GWB
\ |
| 2005/11/16-18 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40626 Activity:moderate |
11/16 So, it was Hadley who was Woodward's source.
He was Deputy Natl Security Advisor at the time (NSA was Rice), and is
NSA now.
\_ url?
\_ http://news.google.com/news?q=hadley+woodward
\_ "In his book, Plan of Attack, Woodward says he was given access to
classified minutes of National Security Council meetings. Both
Rice and Hadley were major players in these meetings."
Okay, so he was given access to classified minutes and info. If he
was aware that the information was classified and he revealed it,
then he's guilty of revealing classified info. If he did not
reveal it, then Woodward's a dead-end in this investigation,
except perhaps to point out that the Administration tried to leak
the info from multiple sources.
\_ Are you suggesting that Woodward had some sort of s00perd00per
sekr!t clearance, and thus revealing classified info to him
would not be a crime?
\_ If not, then yes, it's a crime, and Hadley should be charged.
If he _was_ given clearance, then no. Either way, Scooter's
still in the fryer.
\_ NYT has hinted the Senior administration official might be Cheney.
\_ but the NYT is a proven fraud, many times over.
\_ You don't know what the word "fraud" means. It has not
been 100% correct, nothing is, but it has won many
Pulitzers for fine reporting. It has certainly got
more integrity than the Bush Administration. At least
they fire the liars in house, instead of promoting them
and giving them Freedom medals. |
| 2005/11/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40619 Activity:nil |
11/16 The Dilbert 2005 Weasel Awards http://csua.org/u/e0x \_ Stupid. As usual. |
| 2005/11/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40612 Activity:nil |
11/16 How long will it take before Bush's approval rating is as
high/low as Nixon?
\_ If he applies himself, I'm sure he can make it by groundhog's day. |
| 2005/11/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Health/Sleeping] UID:40600 Activity:nil |
11/15 9/11 is Sacred. Except when it's not:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051115/ap_on_go_co/sept11_aid
\_ I can almost hear the House saying "What? You still here?"
\_ I can actually agree with the Congress on this one. The money
was only meant to treat "long-term lung and mental health problems"
I mean, do you really need 125 million to treat lung and mental
health problems for the workers on site? I don't think so.
\_ Um. wow. How many people do you think were expose to the dust
there? How much do you think medical care actually costs?
How much do you think $125 million actually gets you? |
| 2005/11/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40591 Activity:nil |
11/15 buy EMRG .. at 30 cents.. might go up when Bush visits
japan for opening beef market..
\_ Might go down when Bush fails.
\_ Hey, are you the same guy who was pimping EMRG as providing
big returns compared to soething like PEP, back when EMRG was at
2.00 and PEP was at 48? (PEP is now at 58.59). -tom
\_ i made a nice profit on it.. then it went back down
again.. it's a pure speculative play so PEP and all
that stuff doesnt mean a thing..
\_ Right...http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EMRG&t=2y
I'm sure you sold it on one of the two days when it reached
2.50, and that's why you're here trying to pump it again. -tom
\_ EMGR is for pure speculation (stay away), and PEP is a solid
company. |
| 2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40580 Activity:nil |
11/14 Gallup poll shows 60% disapprove of Dubya's handling of job as
president. For the first time, more than half of Americans do not
think the description "honest and trustworthy" applies to Dubya:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll/index.html
\_ 71% disapprove of the way Dubya is handling controlling federal
spending!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-11-14-poll.htm
\_ The other 29% are "fiscal conservatives"? |
| 2005/11/13-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:40568, category id '18005#13' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40568 Activity:nil |
11/11 http://nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200511110833.asp If Bush lied, it stands to reason that Democrats who followed are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan. -jblack |
| 2005/11/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40567 Activity:nil |
11/11 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Veterans%20Day.htm 78% Have Favorable Opinion of U.S. Military -jblack |
| 2005/11/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40536 Activity:nil |
11/10 Pat Buchanan, who was always against the invasion of Iraq, rubs it in
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210
\_ This is funny, because "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives"
were opposed by Partisans of both sides.
\_ Uhm, Pat was never on the Dubya bandwagon. Pat has always been an
isolationist. He is opposed to US membership in the UN and most
other forms of non-trade involvement with the rest of the world.
\_ uh, yerright about his being anti-neocon the whole time
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
\_ Yeah, weird how some people on the motd actually know wtf
they're talking about and are beyond the black/white "h8t
u awl!!1" political 'philosophy' espoused by too many here.
Pat has been consistent in his isolationist views going back
to GWB's pre-politics days. Too many people around here find
some random tidbit and post it thinking they're making some
big point or there's some giant earth shaking change going on,
but who have essentially zero real knowledge of history.
It's mostly the silly "gotcha!" and "we're winning!" stuff
which is no better than dailykos or freepers.
\_ shrug, it was random enough to be first on http://drudgereport.com
\_ exactly. I read drudge for the "man bitten by >insert
name of dangerous animal<" links. He also posts some
oddball stuff you won't find else where which is fun.
The rest is pre-posts of NYT editorials, political
sniping, various forms of rabble rousing to keep his
hit rates up, and the inevitable cross links to other
sites in what looks like an ad/link swap deal, mostly
recently with breitbart(sp?) news. I don't read drudge
for in depth and meaningful political commentary.
I honestly was completely oblivious to the notion that
there was a real conservative group (other than the
Scowcroft, etc. old-hands assoc w/ Bush Sr.) that opposed
the invasion pre-invasion -op
\_ That's why they're called "neo" cons. There are still
plenty (I'd guess a majority) of conservatives who are
in favor of not invading other countries, lower taxes,
less spending, smaller government, and all the other
traditional conservative agenda items. Thus it makes
me laugh and sad at the same time to see the various
motd personalities posting as if the freepers are the
sole representatives of the conservative movement.
Laughter from how ignorant a belief that is and sadness
at how closely otherwise intelligent people hold such
a belief.
\_ Okay, I'll update the link to reflect that.
\_ Isolationists are far right, not "non-neo".
\_ Those "agenda items" are far too vague and
meaningless. Anybody agrees with that. A politician
can go up and talk about that kind of general shit
just like they talk about helping the poor and
with prescription drugs and etc. and everybody
goes "yay!" to anything and everything except
actual tax raising or program cuts, at which
point both parties are looking exactly the same.
And the political discourse in this country is
more concerned about stuff like religion and
whether somebody "flip-flops".
\_ They're not vague at all. What is vague about
smaller government, less spending, lower taxes,
local control, and an isolationist leaning
international policy? These are policy platforms
for the ages, not specific laws, but you knew
the difference between policy and philosophy and
were just being silly. |
| 2005/11/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40534 Activity:kinda low |
11/10 Faux News shows 36% approve of Dubya's job performance
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
\_ Didn't we already go over this whole thing? What happens if his
ratings drop to 0? Nothing. What does it mean? Nothing. I guess
if it amuses you, whatever, it's harmless but you seem really hung
up on it.
\_ yes, we did, but it appears that you didn't actually learn
anything.
\_ I learned too many people are obsessed with the wrong things
and think random numbers on a lame duck president matter.
Politics is local. GWB didn't brain wash half the country.
When he's out of office and forgotten those 51% will still
vote the same way.
\_ I'm hoping the 20% of people who apparently changed their minds
since Bush's second election won't vote in another nation-
wrecking idiot. --PeterM
\_ Fat chance. their attention spans are too short to remember
any of this stuff in 2008. Especially if it's vs. Hillary.
\_ Yup in a few years Katrina, Plamegate, etc., will be
drowned out by the usual God, Guns & Gays.
\_ There's no "there" there.
\_ If the president has a low approval rating it becomes a lot
harder for him to convince modertate congresscritters to take
his side. That matters a lot.
\_ It also makes it potentially harder to keep a decisive
edge in the interim elections.
\_ Politics is local. If politics were national, then the
whole country would be (R) since we've had more (R) years
at the top level in the last 30 years than (D). |
| 2005/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40531 Activity:insanely high |
11/10 Pat Buchanan, who was always against the invasion of Iraq, rubs it in
"Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder
in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did
not want war with us, and did not threaten us--to strip it of weapons
we now know it did not have. Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated
from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new
base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been
radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida
have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East:
Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans
are dead and Walter Reed is filling up."
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210
\_ Uhm, Pat was never on the Dubya bandwagon. Pat has always been an
isolationist. He is opposed to US membership in the UN and most
other forms of non-trade involvement with the rest of the world.
\_ uh, yerright about his being anti-neocon the whole time
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
\_ Yeah, weird how some people on the motd actually know wtf
they're talking about and are beyond the black/white "h8t
u awl!!1" political 'philosophy' espoused by too many here.
Pat has been consistent in his isolationist views going back
to GWB's pre-politics days. Too many people around here find
some random tidbit and post it thinking they're making some
big point or there's some giant earth shaking change going on,
but who have essentially zero real knowledge of history.
It's mostly the silly "gotcha!" and "we're winning!" stuff
which is no better than dailykos or freepers.
\_ shrug, it was random enough to be first on http://drudgereport.com
\_ exactly. I read drudge for the "man bitten by >insert
name of dangerous animal<" links. He also posts some
oddball stuff you won't find else where which is fun.
The rest is pre-posts of NYT editorials, political
sniping, various forms of rabble rousing to keep his
hit rates up, and the inevitable cross links to other
sites in what looks like an ad/link swap deal, mostly
recently with breitbart(sp?) news. I don't read drudge
for in depth and meaningful political commentary.
I honestly was completely oblivious to the notion that
there was a real conservative group (other than the
Scowcroft, etc. old-hands assoc w/ Bush Sr.) that opposed
the invasion pre-invasion -op
\_ That's why they're called "neo" cons. There are still
plenty (I'd guess a majority) of conservatives who are
in favor of not invading other countries, lower taxes,
less spending, smaller government, and all the other
traditional conservative agenda items. Thus it makes
me laugh and sad at the same time to see the various
motd personalities posting as if the freepers are the
sole representatives of the conservative movement.
Laughter from how ignorant a belief that is and sadness
at how closely otherwise intelligent people hold such
a belief.
\_ Okay, I'll update the link to reflect that. |
| 2005/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40529 Activity:nil |
11/9 LA school district provided buses to send students to political
protests. http://csua.org/u/dz5
\_ It's okay to sponsor political activities with taxpayers' money, as
long as it's Democratic activities.
long as it's Democratic political activities. |
| 2005/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40504 Activity:nil |
11/8 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_an/election_analysis GWB is a political toxin in Virginia. Dems victory in your beloved state. How do you like that Justin Black? \_ I love the motd. From your own link, "Democrats said ... politcal toxin". Why did you feel the need to take your own link out of meaningful context? "Mice say, 'cats are the devil's spawn!'". If you were serious you'd be reading and posting something from someone more like Sabato who notes that historically there is no real evidence either way that an off-term election has any predictive value for future elections in any direction. Looking at the CA initiatives which as of *this* moment are all losing, one could claim the state is clearly swinging to the right but no it is clearly swinging left! But the reality is the voters are much more astute than analysts and party hacks give them credit for and mostly actually understand what and who they're voting on, case by case. I know you're just a troll but I was hoping to start a worth while discussion. And what does any of this have to do with Justin? He's just some guy. He isn't channeling GWB or Cheney. \_ The party of victimization, group identity politics, and government dependency. What can I say - congratulations on trashing the republic? \_ Which party is that? -John \_ you'd be a perfect fit. \_ That's what yermom said. What is this, "I have a secret and won't tell you"? -John |
| 2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40481 Activity:nil |
11/7 Realism and this Administration:
http://tinyurl.com/d3s3q (boston.com) |
| 2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40476 Activity:moderate |
11/07 So psb and all other experts in Constitutional law, I just
read Section 2 of the Constitution and it seems pretty
clear that everyone in the American legal system is entitled
to a trail by jury. How did this get overturned? When did
the Executive gain the right to run its own alternative (kangaroo?)
court system?
Section. 2.
Clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ...
and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 3:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said
Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any
State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress
may by Law have directed.
-ausman
\_ Just about the same time the supreme court has refused to hear
and/or sent back down the cases to lower courts where in the cases
where American citizens are being held without trial. The exec-
utive and judicial branches of the government are both at fault
here. Unfortunately, we are in danger of loosing our most basic
\_ "losing"
and fundamental civil rights if the supreme court chooses to ignore
logic and support the bush regime on this. If so, its only a matter
of time before we have American citizens who are "suspected terror-
ists" being held without council, trial, or indictment and with
\_ "counsel"
the new position on torture, they will be tortured too. -mrauser
\_ SCOTUS will be considering the constitutionality of military
tribunals (vs. application to be tried in the U.S. court system) for
terror suspects who are not U.S. citizens.
SCOTUS has already decided that all U.S. citizens (including those
designated terror suspects by Dubya) can be tried in the U.S. court
system. (Previously, the Bush administration had asserted the right
to indefinitely bar a U.S. citizen from accessing the U.S. court
system, if designated by Dubya as a terror suspect.)
\_ How does this explain Jose Padilla who is a US citizen "captured"
on US soil, but has not been officially processed via the courts?
\_ See: http://www.chargepadilla.org
\_ I made a mistake actually. For U.S. citizens, SCOTUS decided
that /some judge/ (even just a judge on a military tribunal)
needs to look at the case of a U.S. citizen designated as a
terrorist / enemy combatant. I was wrong when I said U.S.
court system. My bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
\_ I made a mistake actually. For U.S. citizens, SCOTUS has
already decided that /some judge/ needs to look at the case
of a U.S. citizen designated as a terrorist / enemy combatant.
I was wrong when I said U.S. court system.
I was wrong when I said U.S. court system. My bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
\_ Art 3 Sec 1 and Sec 2 cl 2 may answer your question. The original
and appellate jx of the Fed Cts is determined by Congress as per
Art 3 Sec 1 - it can refuse to set up Fed Cts or to give them any
jx over cases involving terrorists and choose instead to vest this
jx in Military Cts setup by the Exec, which I believe is the case
presently.
Although the USSC's original jx is determined by Art 3 Sec 2 cl 2,
notice that Congress can regulate and strip the USSC's appellate
jx. Congress has not restricted the USSC from hearing appeals by
terrorists yet, but conceivably it could.
As it relates to the jury trial right, a terrorist probably has
the right to trial by jury, but note this may not be the same
trial by jury right as in regular fed ct (12 ppl, unanimous ver-
dict may not be a requirement) and it is not clear to what level
the fifth and sixth amend. protections would apply.
I think the BIGGER issue is whether the writ of habeas corpus
can be used by non-citizens to challenge their detentions - note
that Hamdi does not answer this b/c he was a citizen. The other
problem is whether the writ can reach those held in Afghanistan
or somewhere else that is more than 100 miles from the nearest
Fed Dist. Ct. This is the bigger issue to me b/c under certain
circumstances the Exec. may have the pwr to strip a person of
US citizenship w/o following due process.
Fed Dist. Ct.
\- in addition to PADILLA and HAMDI, you may wish to follow HAMDAN
v RUMSFELD [which the USSC just agreed to look at, and ROBERTS
has just recused himself ... that is the OSAMA CHAUFFER CASE].
an older case [ww2] is Ex parte Quirin. in re: the checks and
balanaces issue, YMWTGF: "constitutional trifecta". |
| 2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40470 Activity:low |
11/7 "We do not torture." -GW Bush (Nov 7 2005)
It depends on what the meaning of "torture" is.
\_ It depends more on what the meaning of "we" is. Much of
the torture has been outsourced to private corporations or
foreign governments.
\_ But the foreign governments promised us they wouldn't torture!
\_ http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
Bush says we do not torture, yet he opposes a law banning torture.
Does this make sense to anyone?
\_ Of course, this is bush we're talking about, remember?
\_ It helps if you visualize a lying sack of shit.
\_ It depends on what the meaning of "torture" is.
\_ If you have the freedom to do something, you then have
the choice to not do that something. If that something
is banned, you can never do it legally. Surely this
makes sense to you pro-choice ppl.
\_ Gee, why have any laws at all?
\_ "We do not torture, and the video evidence hates America." |
| 2005/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:40459 Activity:high |
11/4 Washington Post is caught campaiging for Maryland
Democrats and perpetrating fraud. This is the
Dan Rather episode all over again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=md4bush
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401908_pf.html
\_ posted by jblack |
| 2005/11/5-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40458 Activity:moderate |
11/15 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4714.html Bad news for the left is good news for America. And, once again, Bush makes lemonade out of liberal sour grapes. \_ 36% approval rating is lemonade? |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40437 Activity:high |
11/4 New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;
ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates
By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach
President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a
new poll commissioned by http://AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots
coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President
Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded
non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S.
adults October 29 through November 2.
The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for
going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him
accountable through impeachment."
\_ My copy of the constitution seems to require "treason, bribery,
or other high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment. Unless
you have proof that haliburton (or whoever) bribed the chimp
into going to war, I fail to see how the threshold for removal
from office has been met. He is no worse than many who have
held the office. [I think that the threshold for removal was
not met wrt Clinton either, I do not know enough re Johnson
to comment]
\_ I'm with Bill Maher on this one: We need a California-style
recall election on Dubya, complete with Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Gary Coleman, and Mary Carey as candidates.
\_ You don't consider it a high crime to send troops into
battle for your own personal agenda?
\_ What personal agenda is that?
\_ http://www.newamericancentury.org -tom
\_ "I really don't like Saddam, so I'm itching to find a
reason to invade his country."
\_ "He tried to kill my daddy!"
\_ That didn't happen, and your repeated assertions don't make it
true. -emarkp
\_ emarkp, I've always wondered how the strict war
mongering Republican saddam toppling sending home
thousands of US soldiers with missing limbs just
so George W Bush has some sort of legacy side Right
Side of your brain coexists with the Left Side we
will bring the miracle of eternal progression to
all of god's children one love Mormon side of your brain.
\_ Hi anonymous troll! For one thing, I'm not R. When did
you stop beating your wife by the way? -emarkp
\_ If the anonymous troll is also a mormon, you might
need to specify which wife.
\_ Ah, but then he'd be a member of a splinter group,
not the SLC-based church. So your "also" is
wrong. -emarkp
\_ OTOH, there are plenty of religions that allow
polygamy besides these mormon splinter groups.
It's not at all clear to me that any religion
based on the Bible should prohibit polygamy.
\_ Your assertion that it didn't happen doesn't make it so
either. However, I wasn't asserting it, as in fact I don't
know. I suggest only that it is impeachable if true. But
what is being investigated now if you're so sure this is
untrue?
\_ Apologies. I didn't connect the logic to the parent
posts. However, "If President Bush did not tell the
truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq" is
not the same as "send troops into battle for your own
personal agenda". -emarkp
\_ Unless "the truth about his reasons for going to war
with Iraq" is the same as "his own personal agenda",
aren't the two accusations the same? -gm
\_ Okay, I amend my comments to "not /necessesarily/
the same". -emarkp
\_ No. I do not. Art 2 Sec 1 cl 1 gives the Pres. sole executive
pwr of the entire US. Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1 gives the Pres. complete
control of the Army and Navy (Yes, I know Congress has to give
the Pres. the pwr under Art 1 Sec 8, but they did give him the
pwr in this case - a sufficient showing of false pretenses has
not yet been made; please make one if you believe otherwise -
M. Moore video inanity is insufficient, I'm asking for real
proof).
The Pres. can use his discretion in deploying these forces into
action under the authority conferred by Congress.
I am even willing to say that the principle of "what is good
for GM is good for America" could be applied even it was shown
\_ Works for me. -gm
that he was motivated by a purely personal economic interest
(other than a direct bribe) as many US companies and thier
employees have prospered as a result of this engagement.
[I do not believe that the decision to depoly in Iraq was
correct, nor do I believe that the civilians have handled
the operation properly. But I do not consider the admin.
failures to be impeachable.]
\_ Treason is, by secondary and tertiary definition, a betrayal
of trust or disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior. The
standard can be as high or as low as one wishes to put it.
That said, if Clinton is the bar, I fear Bush has cleared it.
\_ Treason is a legal term. You can make up any definition
you want but it means nothing. And Clinton was not convicted
of anything. Impeachment is just a trial phase. He was
found 'not guilty' by the Senate so there is no 'Clinton bar
for treason' since he didn't get convicted of it and wasn't
on trial for it in the first place. WTF are you talking
about?
\_ Exactly. Bush should be put on trial: impeachment.
\_ Please point out an offense committed by the Pres.
which qualifies under Art 2 Sec 4.
\_ He violated the Geneva Convention by authorizing
torture and other War Crimes against the detainees
in Gitmo and elsewhere. That is a high crime and
a bunch of people at Nurenberg were hung for it.
\_ As much as you would like the Geneva Convention
to apply, it most likely doesn't therefore no
"high crime" has been committed by the Pres.
[For the present purposes I will ignore the
fact that Geneva is not self-executing thus
cannot be used directly to gain relief or
indict.]
The 3d convention applies to the treatment of
prisoners of war and you are correct that as
a contracting party the US is bound to follow
the convention wrt pows even though the
terrorist do not (Art 2).
But, Art 4 specifies prerequisites for prot-
ection and arguably no terrorist qualifies.
Furthermore, Art 5 only provides protection
to those whose status is in question until a
competent tribunal, such as a US military
tribunal, makes a determination re status.
Once a non-protection determination is made
by the tribunal any means may be used.
If a non-citizen is held outside of the jx
of a fed dist ct, then that person would not
have standing for habeas or 8th amend. relief
either so they could be treated in any manner.
[I think that is is stupid to authorize
torture, &c. but in relation to non-
citizens who are non-state actors and
are held beyond the reach of fed dist
cts, there is no legal bar to the Pres.
authorizing any and all means be used.
If you can point to authorization to use
torture, &c. PRIOR to the Art 5 status
determination I will agree that the Pres.
has acted beyond his authority; however
you will need to show an actual instance
of torture, &c. being used PRIOR to an
Art 5 determination under authorization
of the Pres. to make out an indictable
"high crime"]
\_ Almost none of the detainees have had
their military tribunals yet. Are you
talking about the hearings where they
determine the detainees guilt or in-
nocence, or some other hearing where
they determine their POW status? I do
not know about the latter. In any case,
I am sure there are some violations in
the sense that some people were tortured
before their hearings. I do not know of
any specific cases, but could find some
easily. The point being, there are ple-
nty of crimes out there that Bush has
committed that he could be impeached
for if he became politically unpopular
enough. I think we learned during the
Whitewater investigation, impeachment
is not really a legal process, it is a
political one.
\_ I am specifically talking about a
process to determine Art 4 status.
Until the cessation of hostilities,
a trial on the merits is not requ-
ired (for non-US citizens) only a
process to determine Art 4 status
is required. Given the realities
of war, almost any determination
(even a 5 min summary process by
a jag officer) will satisfy this
requirement.
In order to find a "high crime"
you need to show (1) that someone
was tortured PRIOR to an Art 4
determination and (2) this was
authorized. I'm almost certain
you will not find proof of (2)
b/c any memos/eo/er written by
the Pres., &c. will have enough
ambiguity to suggest that torture
was authorized ONLY if the person
was not protected under Art 4.
Please also note that the conven-
tion may not cover the practice
of handing pows over to non-sig-
natories.
\_ well said, many posters don't understand
that impeachment is purely a political process
the Senate can impeach the president on
whatever reason (see def. of "high crime").
and unlike a criminal process, there's no
appeal.
\_ Given that "high crime" are
specified in context of treason
and bribery, if the "crime" is
not of that magnitude, there may
be a separation of pwrs argument
to enjoin use of the impeachment
pwr. [If a "war crime" can be
shown, I think the Pres. has no
leg to stand on.]
\_ You honestly think that the USSC would
step in and tell the House that they
did not have the authority to impeach?
It would precipitate a Constitutional
crises. I think the USSC would step back
from that.
\_ Given that they interfered
in FL, I'm not entirely sure
that the USSC would stay out
wrt the current Pres.
\_ http://csua.org/u/dy7
\_ Please see above, one
can adhere to Geneva
and torture terrorists
b/c Geneva does not
cover them.
\_ http://www.answers.com/topic/high-crime
\_ Maybe they cut out Art 3 Sec 3 cl 1 in your copy of the
the const. but my copy says "Treason against the US shall
consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to
their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort."
Unless you can point out to me how Bush II conducted war
against the US or gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the
US, the threshold has not been met. (The argument that
Bush united the Islamic world against the US and thus
gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the US is far too
strained.)
[Note, I said that I do not think the bar was met w/
Clinton. This is one reason I chose not to vote for
Tom Campbell when he ran for re-election. As a law
prof. he should have known better than to vote for
impeachment regardless of the political pressure.]
\_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort to our
enemies, especially KHAN.
\_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort
to our enemies, especially KHAN.
\_ Can you prove that this was done under either
explict or implicit approval of the Pres.? |
| 2005/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40432 Activity:nil |
11/4 Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514509/posts -jblack
\_ http://zapatopi.net/afdb |
| 2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40424 Activity:moderate |
11/3 Anyone wonder why NYTimes circulation is down?
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/11/02/173917.html
\_ because Michelle Malkin is an idiot?
\_ wow, that was pithy and useful commentary! thanks!
\_ don't confuse "idiot" with "evil"
\_ Malkin is right in this case. The NY Times reporter should have
included more of the letter. I also do not disagree with the
general assessment that Malkin is an idiot. -moderate/liberal
\_ except this is status quo for the NYT. go see 'manufacturing
consent'.
\_ You think so, and I think George HW Bush thinks so, too, and
Bush Sr. is a very smart man. I think both of you are wrong
though.
\_ Come back when you have some idea what you're talking
about. This has zippo to do with Bush. WTF did that
come from? You have no clue what I was even talking
about. Go look up what 'manufacturing consent' even is
and then go see it.
\_ Come back after you've re-read my post and think about
what exactly I wrote. Okay, now tell me what exactly
my position is. (fyi, I happen to agree that the
mechanisms described in that book you mentioned are
accurately described)
mechanisms in that book you mentioned are accurately
described)
\_ Obviously I'm too dumb to get whatever your clearly
made point was. I still don't think you have one.
You agree that the mechanisms are described
accruately but you duck the point of who uses them.
Since he was specifically talking about the NYT,
how about we agree this sort of thing is status quo
for the NYT and this has nothing to do with Malkin,
Bush or wtf.
\_ you agree with the author of "In Defense of Internment:
The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II" but you are
a "moderate/liberal"? I think not! We had a word for people
like Malkin in the 1930s- it's "fascist." Look it up kiddo.
\_ Wow, what a poorly thought out troll.
\_ It sounds like the reporter got a little heated in his reply to
the reader, but even Malkin admits:
"Dao apologized to Valois for the tone of his snippy e-mail,"
Of course, she can't pass up the opportunity to flame him
anyway:
"but apparently feels no shame or sorrow for distorting a dead
Marine's thoughts and feelings about war, sacrifice and freedom."
Scumbaggery will out. |
| 2005/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40422 Activity:nil |
11/3 Okay, as I survey all the major (TV/print) news web sites, I see
all of them feature Libby/Rove as a main story (usu with photo),
except http://cnn.com. Even http://cnn.com International Edition shows Libby.
Even http://foxnews.com covers it prominently. |
| 2005/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40411 Activity:kinda low |
11/2 Wow, has only Nixon been more unpopular than Dubya in the 2nd term?
http://csua.org/u/dws (cbsnews.com)
\_ Heh, I got as for as "Dubya" before I realized that you weren't
talking about World of warcraft.
\_ But Dubya is the Great Uniter! He said so himself!!1!
\_ He's united everyone against him
\- the people who voted for BUSHCO in 2004 were:
1. single issue fanatics [abort,keep down assmastery,gunnuts]
2. NPV voters
3. stupid [bubba, cletus an me hate dem DEATH TAXES]
some single issue people got nervous with HARRIET THE JUDGE,
NPV people may be getting nervous about macro factors,
but i suppse he still has his "base" ... #3.
\_ 4. Flip-flopper haters.
\- 5. and people who SERVED ... oh wait ... and people who
*serve* the EVIL CYBORG.
\_ BUD DAY doesn't like your CYBORG.
\_ Are you human? Do you understand the effect
cybernetics had on humanity?
\_ what does NPV stand for?
\- "net present value". i.e. voters who say "ok maybe
bush is soft on torture, has tarnished our international
reputation etc, but i expect to have $130,456 more
if i vote for BUSHCO, so that's what i'll do. when i
travel abroad i can tell people i am from canada."
of course some of these NPV people probably dont care
at all about other issues [Halliburton executives]
or are being compensated via other means [Brownie ...
crony is a sub class of NPV]
\_ Maybe we can get this scumbag brought up on War Crime charges
afterall. At this rate, he will have no defenders left in three
years. |
| 2005/11/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40386 Activity:nil |
11/1 http://csua.org/u/dw5 (Wash Post) Fitzgerald appeared prepared to indict Rove heading into last week for making false statements, according to three people close to the probe. But that changed during a private meeting last Tuesday between Fitzgerald and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. ... [Matthew] Cooper's attorney ... said ... "that [Fitzgerald] is going through each of those things [that Rove presented] and seeing if they can be verified or not" ... \_ this has been posted like the 100th time. Search the f*** archiver |
| 2005/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40348 Activity:nil |
10/31 From <DEAD>dcbar.org<DEAD> via the intrepid Wonkette: I L Libby Jr Cheif of Staff, Room 276 Eisenhower Exec Office Bldg. Washington DC 20501 Email: Not available Phone: 202-456-9000 Fax: 202-456-6212 Membership Status: Suspended Reason for suspension: Non-payment of dues. Disciplinary history: None Date of admission: May 19, 1978 \_ So you're going to call him? What is the importance of this? \_ It's amusing how many of these lawyers around bush and company manage to get their licenses suspended. \_ Because he didn't pay his dues? \_ Miers had a suspended license as well. It's just something that seems to come up with remarkable frequency around Bush. Mediocrity in all things... http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1018051miers1.html \_ Wow, talk about trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. \_ You seem to think I'm saying more about this than I am. \_ http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41917 \_ Cheif of Staff != Chief of Staff (!!) |
| 2005/10/30-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40342 Activity:moderate |
10/30 Remember when they told you Valerie Plame was not really undercover?
http://csua.org/u/dvj
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Plame-Profile.html
"She was 22 and very young coming into the CIA, but she was very
mature, very professional." Other fellow trainees remember her as a
head-turning blonde who did well wielding an AK-47.
http://csua.org/u/dvl (Wash Post)
In 2006, she will have 20 years with the agency. As such she
qualifies for retirement but would not receive full benefits unless
she stays with the agency until age 50. ...
After she was named in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, Plame
had no chance of working again in her chosen field ...
"There are a variety of things she could have done at the agency.
She could have become a station chief overseas and run espionage
operations. It has destroyed her life on that front."
operations. It has desroyed her life on that front."
\_ typical Bush Administration's tactic. Destroy those who oppose
his political view. Another fine example of 'conservative'
virtue who cares more about 'personal behavior' eventhough his
policies may be completely out of whack.
\_ Naive question: what are CIA trainees doing wielding AKs?
Shouldn't they be handling non-commie firearms?
\_ dumbass
\_ they should wear all Made-in-USA clothes and only knows
how to operate American-made equipment. Toyota? that is
equipment for Japanese Spys.
\_ Valerie and Joe Wilson are partisan hacks who, at the behest of
their party, tried to fabricate a scandal, national security
be damned, in order to sway a presidential election. They were
caught and now both have been exposed as frauds and liars.
Valeria Plame was outed by Aldrich Ames in 1997. The notion that
once comprimised she would subsequently continue as a covert agent
is stupid.
That said, Fitzgerald has spent 2 years and 70+ million dollars to
find out who first released Plame's name. Why is no one asking the
answer to this question? It is clear Libby didn't do it.
Rove is not Novak's source. So who was it? -jblack
Rove is not Novak's source. So who was it?
\_ Aldrich Ames? To whom? To the public? When? Show, don't tell!
Bad troll, no cookie.
\_ What Libby did do was lie, over and over, under oath. Coverups
and perjury are illegal. Conspiracy and all that. But hey
feel free to ignore that all. Oh and as to the first paragraph
you are totally insane yes. Fabricating a scandal? Did they
LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC about WMDs in Iraq and
convince America to go to a WAR OF CHOICE under known false
pretenses. Did they burn a covert operative and her cover
company when some of those lies came out? Did they participate
in a coverup to hide this fact? If it was a made up scanal why
did Bush come out and say anyone involved woudl be fired (a
promise he rescinded later when it became clear that many people
in his administration were involved, imagine that. Why did
Libby tell Miller that hey, that thing he signed saying she
was released from confidentiality wasn't really a realease
cause see it was made under duress (ha! does that mean he was
lieing to his president as well? Or was Bush lieing to the
public once again...) Why the lies and coverup if it was
just something madeup? Why keep your head in the sand about
an administration that lies over and over again? That lied
its way into a war and will keep on lieing as long as it can
get away with it.
\_ you really expect someone to read or reply to your
jibberish? Based on your 1st sentence (as far as
I got) Libby has yet to be convicted, the US
does not have Napoleonic law. The accusations in the indictment
relate ONLY to inconsistencies between the memory of
Libby and two reporters, Miller and Russert, while testifying
to FBI agents.
\_ you really expect someone to read or reply to your jibberish?
Based on your 1st sentence (as far as I got) Libby has yet to
be convicted, the US does not have Napoleonic law. The
accusations in the indictment relate ONLY to inconsistencies
between the memory of Libby and two reporters, Miller and
Russert, while testifying to FBI agents.
\- "Now listen. Did you ever hear of the Napoleonic
code, Stella?...Now just let me enlighten you on a
point or two...Now we got here in the state of
Louisiana what's known as the Napoleonic code. You
see, now according to that, what belongs to the wife
belongs to the husband also, and vice versa...It
looks to me like you've been swindled baby. And when
you get swindled under Napoleonic code, I get
swindled too and I don't like to get swindled..."
oh, BTW, the ACT CoaHTR is NOT BAD. yes, i know they
dont really have the NC.
\_ You have been successfully trolled. -John
\_ "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" --
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary15.html
\_ urlP
\_ #f
\_ There's a difference between exposing the truth, and being a
traitor to your country.
\_ But but but but the washington post said that she would tell all
her neighbors every morning she was an undercover agent for the
CIA ... I'm so confused! |
| 2005/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40332 Activity:nil |
10/28 Liberal CIA trying to bring down Heroic American President:
http://csua.org/u/dv3 |
| 2005/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40322 Activity:nil |
10/28 Libby indicted, Rove not.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/28/D8DH5FOG0.html
\_ yet.
\_ Note no one's been indicted for the actual leak yet.
\_ The leak law is very narrowly written. It's entirely possible
that the leaking was done with malice and violates the spirit of
the law, but it will be too hard to get a conviction to they
don't indict for that. Perjury is somewhat easier to prove.
\_ Note, though, that the investigation is not over. The people
named in the indictment is an impressive list. If any one of
them end up indicted as well, this will be the story for the
rest of Bush's presidency.
\- i guess it takes more than invading a country on false
pretenses, torturing people, letting osama get away,
not really caring about well connected companies looting
the public coffers.
\_ Let's be clear on what he was indicted for. If you read the
document only real two charges stand up and they are based on
hearsay. 1) Libby said Russert "asked" him about Plame, Russert
in his testimony said this never happened. In fact, Russert
himself disputes the facts as they are laid out in the indictment,
saying publicly he never received any information on Plame at
all from Libby.
2) Libby testified he qualified to Miller his statement about
Plame with the phrase "that's what reporters are telling us".
Miller disagreed in her testimony.
Just he said she said, all pretty underwhelming.
in his testimony said this never happened. 2) Libby testified he
qualified to her his statement about Plame with the phrase "that's
what reporters are telling us". Miller disagreed in her
testimony. Just he said she said, all pretty underwhelming. -jblack |
| 2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40312 Activity:nil |
10/16 Black people advocating the final solution against white people. -jblack
http://tinyurl.com/czq24 |
| 2005/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40306 Activity:nil |
10/28 An Act of Federal Piracy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508617/posts?page=26#26
\_ Freeper quote:
"Lock and Load...and wear a copy of the Constitution pinned to your
shirt! It's gonna get UGLY for the next few years....
I am now 100% convinced that Bush is now doing all he can to ensure
Hillary is elected in 2008...hmm...Bush, Clinton...Bush, Clinton....
could another Bush be far behind?!
NO! Never again! "
Ha! So much for the base.
\_ "The gaia high priests were deeply offended that they and their
collectivist comrades weren.t offered bent knee respect by a
commoner, and he didn.t pay out a $270,000 tribute to study,
admire and appease their wetland god."
I thought there was some law requiring this sort of purple prose
to be preceded by a disclaimer-- oh, right, it's a freeper link. |
| 2005/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40301 Activity:high |
10/27 Looks like the Fitzgerald indictments might not turn out the
way the Democrats had hoped:
http://www.csua.org/u/cached/dua (redstate.org)
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/cia.leak/index.html
"Sources: Prosecutor focusing on Rove in CIA leak probe"
\_ "This sounds fishy By: Buckland"
\_ "Pobable indictments for Vallerie Plame, Joseph Wilson and one as
yet unknown high ranking Congressional Democrat."
LOL. This is a classic pipedream from the party faithful. It
only gets better if the Scooby team foils the Dems' evil schemes.
\_ More likely a troll. Whatever it is, it gave me a laugh.
\_ Hey, rightwingers can have a sense of humor -- who knew?
\_ Erm, I'd expect more a lefty going undercover... Do you
understand what a troll is?
\_ Yes but trolls usually aren't that funny. The
original article is. |
| 2005/10/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40299 Activity:low |
10/27 Does anyone else believe this BULLSHIT that Miers withdrew?
A much more likely sequence of events is Dubya's people hinting they
would no longer mind, and actually prefer it. Miers, ever loyal,
obliges, and they spin it as Miers withdrawing to Dubya's opposition.
\_ Well duh, were you born yesterday?
\_ sorry, reading too much freerepublic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510152/posts
"Withdrew herself?"
"Yes. Letter from her." ...
"It was the right decision, and I respect her greatly for making
it." ...
"Miers took one for the team"
\_ The surgeon general has determined that reading too much
freerepublic may be hazardous to your comprehension of
reality.
\_ Actually I think Bush is stubborn enough to have kept her at least
through the senate hearings. Did you read Krauthammer's column? He
pretty much presented the scenario that happened:
http://csua.org/u/dum -emarkp
\- just out of curiosity why does it matter if she jumped or
was pushed? i mean i can understand curious speculation but
you seem to be OUTRAGED.
\_ ??? It'd be better if she was pushed, i.e. GWB came to his
senses. How do I appear to be OUTRAGED? -emarkp
\- I am referring to the OP. I dont know if you are the OP
or not.
\_ Odd. I was responding to the OP--you responded to me.
I don't know why I'd respond to myself. -emarkp
you (mr "BULLSHIT" OP) seem to be OUTRAGED.
\_ Odd. I was responding to the OP--you responded to me. I
don't know why I'd respond to myself. [and why you keep
deleting this instead of fixing your followup to be to the OP
is a mystery] -emarkp |
| 2005/10/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40289 Activity:moderate |
10/27 Miers has WITHDRAWN!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4382370.stm
\- But the CSUA Politburo is asking her to reconsider!
\_ I have to admit I am suprised by this. I thought the WH could make
the Congress roll over. The next nominee ought to be interesting...
\_ Apparently Republicans basically told Bush that unless there
is some good proof that she has a grasp of constitutional
issues there was no way she was getting confirmed. Imagine
that, requiring someone interpreting the constitution to
be an expert on the constitution.
\_ CJ John Marshall only had about a month of legal edu
but is widely regarded as one of the finest justices
to serve on the ussc.
Personally I think that we should have *fewer* judges
and lawyers on the ussc and more intelligent regular
people in the ussc.
I opposed the Miers nomination not b/c she wasn't a
judge or a constitutional expert, but b/c she just
didn't seem bright enough to serve on the ussc.
Personally, I think they should nominate posner (if
partha is unavailable). - #10 psb fan
partha is unavailable).
\_ I have no problem with the "brain the size of
a planet" exception.
\_ Nice quote on dailykos:
It is a sad day when your choices for Supreme Court
Justice appear to be 'unqualified hack who may do some
damage' and 'qualified nutcase who will reap destruction a
cross the land'
\_ WHo's the nutcase? Roberts?
\_ The Scalia clone to come.
\- the comment about JM's legal educ is misleading.
it was quite common for lawyers "back then" to
have more of an apprentice style of legal educ.
i think law is sort of different from say biology.
today a bio prof has bs/ms/phd/postdoc ... which
can easily be a decade of post-grad educ. while a
newly minted law prof may be 3 yrs of law school
and maybe two 1yr clerkships.
\_ The Thomas/Scalia clone to come.
\_ Interesting that you chose Scalia and not
Thomas (the argument that Thomas is a Scalia
clone does not hold water, ex. Scalia concu-
red in Raich but Thomas dissent).
\- this is somewhat interesting:
http://voteview.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm
\- i dont believe SCALIA and THOMAS had the highest
percentage of voting the same way. Although it
is possible of the 7-2 decisions, they are most
likely to be S+T vs everbody else.
\_ Emphasis on the "QUALIFIED" in qualified nutcase |
| 2005/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40272 Activity:low |
10/25 What Congress Did Is Disgusting
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_26_05_JS.html
\_ Google maps image of where the bridge would go:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ketchikan,+ak&ll=55.355648,-131.711569&spn=0.041162,0.147749&t=h&hl=en
http://tinyurl.com/bqr2f (maps.google.com)
More info on the Gravina bridge
http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm
\_ Something liberals and conservatives can agree on. -emarkp
\_ This seems made up: "Last week, Alaska's other senator,
Lisa Murkowski, said it would be "offensive" not to spend your
money on her bridge. When she first became a senator, I asked
her if Republicans believed in smaller government. She was
unusually candid: 'We want smaller government. But, boy, I sure
want more highways and more stuff, whatever the stuff is.'"
\_ It's john stossel. don't expect too much.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/09/07/155361.html
http://csua.org/u/du4
Price gouging saves lives!
\_ Soo soo sook! |
| 2005/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40236 Activity:nil |
10/23 The Katrina rape and murder myth:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/24/katrina_horror/index.html
\_ I guess the writer saw the latest episode of South Park |
| 2005/10/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40231 Activity:nil |
10/23 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/international/asia/23rumsfeld.html Rumsfeld visited Mongolia. I wonder if he flew through Russian or Chinese airspace. |
| 2005/10/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40199 Activity:nil |
10/20 Powell fucks Dick
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002492.html#002492
"a plea bargain process has evidently been opened with Vice President
Cheney's lawyer ... Powell ... showed that memo only to two people--
president and vice president. ... Powell testified about this exchange
in great length to the grand jury ... Powell appeared convinced that
the vice president played a focal role in disclosing plame's undercover
status."
\_ Is it possible to overdose on schadenfreude?
\_ On the contrary, my mom is convinced that when my grandmother
was dying of a degenerative brain disease back in the 70's,
that Watergate-related shadenfreude added months to her life.
She was a Trotskyist, and of course loathed Nixon.
\_ Could the "schadenfreude" guy please give it a rest? The only
reason any of us gain any bit of enjoyment in what's happening
is in the possibly naive hope that America will wake up and
vote these corrupt, incompetent and treasonous clowns out of
power. |
| 2005/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40193 Activity:nil |
10/19 Freepers pile on Dubya
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505696/posts
\_ Naahhh, looks like the usual ass-licking of the GOP power brokers
to me. Sometimes this stuff is so over the top it almost reads
like parody, or even Bush slashfic:
"Whether it's the mass media or the obstructionist Democrat
Senators, the Islamic terrorists or natural disasters, the leaders
of the various 'minority' groups or the homosexual lobby, the
abortionist fanatics or the RINOs, even leftover Clintonites in the
Pentagon, FBI and CIA, there is always something standing there,
furiously attacking or opposing the President at every turn. Yet he
stands up and faces it all with courage and tenacity. Where will
anyone find a better man out there?"
\_ I hate the freeper whining so much. "We only control TWO branches
of the government. Daddy promised us THREEEEE." Internally I
translate everything that "stands in their way" (liberals,
democrats, Clinton, etc.) to variations of "the Man" just so I
can listen to it without slapping them upside the head. The
above quote slightly translated for my sanity: "Whether it's the
corporate Man or the obstructionist Man, the Bible thumping Man,
or natural disasters, the leaders of the various 'majority'
groups or the Missionary Position Only lobby, the anti-abortion-
ist or the Oreos, even the leftover Man in the Pentagon, FBI and
CIA, there is always something standing there, furiously attack-
ing or opposing the President at every turn. Yet he stands up
and faces it all with courage and tenacity. Where will anyone
find a better brother out there? Slap mah fro!" Yeah it doesn't
work. I still wanna slap a freeper around.
groups or the Missionary Position Only lobby, the anti-abortionist
or the Oreos, even the leftover Man in the Pentagon, FBI and CIA,
there is always something standing there, furiously attacking or
opposing the President at every turn. Yet he stands up and faces
it all with courage and tenacity. Where will anyone find a better
brother out there? Slap mah fro!" Yeah it doesn't work. I still
wanna slap a freeper around.
\_ They will only be happy once we live in the Christian
feudal corporate state, with 90% of the population slaving
away in vast polluting factories or off fighting in endless
wars, while they enjoy the most sinful pleasures on top.
We're not there yet, so they whine.
\_ Not slaving away in factories. Serving the upperclass
on their enormous estates/ranches, and in their shopping
centers. And those that serve the rich will be the
lucky ones. The rest will live in 3rd world conditions
without health care, public services, police protection,
public education, or hope, in places where the
upperclass never has to see or deal with them. And the
upperclass will say: "They deserve that, because they
don't work hard enough. They're stupid and lazy. In
this country, Under God, you get what you deserve!"
That is when the freepers will be happy.
\_ I don't know why you put no healthcare in the future
tense. Most of the people I know from highschool have
no health insurance now, and I went to an upper middle
no healthe insurance now, and I went to an upper middle
class highschool. |
| 2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40184 Activity:nil |
10/19 Original article on "Bush rebuked Rove about Plame affair"
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html
I'm confused, though, how does this make sense with this timeline?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/08/national/main577086.shtml
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031010-6.html
\_ Apparently not being under oath is not a "get out of jail free"
card for lying to investigators... |
| 2005/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40177 Activity:nil |
10/19 Thomas DeFrank at NY Daily News: Bush knew about Plame leak all along,
only got angry because it was done clumsily.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006782.php
\_ Maybe Bush will be included on the indictment. Has he talked
to the Grand Jury? |
| 2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40171 Activity:nil |
10/18 22 indictments? Is it really possible?
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012630.html
\- if this is true, i may start beliving in intelligent design.
but that post is from oct 5? |
| 2005/10/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:40152 Activity:nil |
10/18 Funny daily show clip on the staged telcon. 2nd half is good too.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/18.html#a5429 |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40146 Activity:kinda low |
10/17 Great new graph, showing Bush's approval rating:
http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall
\_ Ok, just curious... let's say his approval rating fell to zero.
So what?
\_ chance of people rebel against him within his own party
would increase and thus, chance of Bush successfully push
his agenda will drastically decreased :p
\_ possibly true, but a closer look shows that his approval
among his Republican base remains at 84%. These people
are innured to facts.
\_ The lower the approval goes, the crazier the stuff they
will try to do/get away with. Admitting fault and changing
are less likely.
\_ Oh, yeah? What happened to Bush's social security
agenda? He's playing defense. Thanks to Bush being
put on the defensive there might actually be a glimmer of
hope for social security. Neutering that fucker will
have real, notocable positive effects on peoples lives,
have real, noticeable positive effects on peoples lives,
and his present popularity disaster is doing exactly
that. Why do you think he nominated Meiers and
Robertson instead of some drooling fascist fuck like
Roberts instead of some drooling fascist fuck like
his base wanted?
\_ That's Roberts, not Robertson. And he nominated both
\_ That's what I love about MOTD. We never let the
ignorance of basic facts stop us from spouting
from our soapbox. BTW, isn't it Miers?
of them on the strength of his administration over
the GOP. I haven't heard one Republican senator say
they would vote no. They mumble about doubts and
concerns, but in the end they will nearly all swallow
their bile and vote "aye."
\_ I'm glad there will be notocable positive effects.
\_ Bush has indeed changed somewhat from his 1st term. After
9/11, he basically sought to unilaterally do everything,
regardless of public opinion. Since the 2004 re-election,
he at least seems to have moderated himself |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40140 Activity:nil |
10/17 Bush refuses to discuss CIA leak probe. Go Bush!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051017/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation
\_ "I refuse to comment on any investigation that might make my
administration look like it's full of crooks, liars and traitors" |
| 2005/10/13-14 [Science/Disaster, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40073 Activity:low |
10/13 Hi motd, while the press releases are saying shit like "Katrina
floodwaters not as toxic as thought", I'm going to quote from the ACS-
sponsored journal article:
"What distinguishes Katrina floodwaters are their large volume and the
human exposure to these pollutants that accompanied the flood rather
than extremely elevated concentrations of toxic pollutants."
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/html/es0518631.html
In other words, the floodwaters were as shitty and bacteria-laden as
"typical" storm run-off, but this time it's up to your neck as opposed
to something you can hop over at the curb. -Former Chem 1A/B TA
\_ After a month of toxic flood talk, it's just hard to get too
excited over the more realistic appraisal. |
| 2005/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40071 Activity:kinda low |
10/13 Polls don't matter!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/pl_nm/bush_politics_dc
\_ I can't remember where I saw this, but apparently one of these
polls give Bush a 2 percent approval rating among blacks.
2 percent!
\_ WSJ/NBC News poll. 89 blacks surveyed. I guess that means
2 out of 89 said "do approve". A Pew poll showed 12%.
\_ Yeah, obviously, margin of error is high. Still, 2 percent!
\_ That's within a margin of error of being zero. Neat! |
| 2005/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40070 Activity:kinda low |
10/13 http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/pl/081201presidentbush Photo op where soldiers read to Dubya only good news \_ Great headline: "Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged" http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration \_ "We're an empire now, we create our own reality" http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2004-10-16b.html |
| 2005/10/13 [Computer/SW/Unix, Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40060 Activity:nil |
10/12 root, please do not squish me for posting this treasonous
url anonymously. also the picture is wrong, p bush
was funding them until 1951.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/p1090147a.jpg - danh
\_ It's been nice knowing you danh, I shall miss you after your
mysterious disappearance.
\_ Huh, I didn't realize we were into punishing the sons for the
sins of the fathers. |
| 2005/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40057 Activity:low |
10/12 link:tinyurl.com/e3uvg (nytimes.com) FEMA paying avg $59/night to put 600,000 post-Katrina/Rita victims in hotels, because conservative ideology kept FEMA from giving vouchers to families for much cheaper apartments, like in pre-Dubya days. \_ why do you hate black people? \_ Do you think FEMA pays for room service and the mini bar too? How about pay per view porn? \_ In the name of social justice and equal access, they certainly should! |
| 2005/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40056 Activity:nil |
10/12 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers1.html I can understand "greatest governor ever" can be considered appropriate for b-day cards, but aren't there an awful lot of these kinds of comments? |
| 2005/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40053 Activity:moderate |
10/12 Bush: "Miers is qualified because she's an evangelical Christian!"
Huh? Since when is the Supreme Court our council of Mullahs?
\_ Wah? URL please.
\_ http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6K760J.html
\_ What you said and what that article said are not the same.
I don't like Miers either but you don't need to make stuff up
about her. It doesn't promote your point.
\_ Bush essentially said that part of the reason she is
qualified is that she's an evangelical. This is serious
business and borderline unconstitutional (see the
Establishment clause re: religious litmus tests for
holding office). I didn't make up jack shit about Miers.
\_ "Essentially said..." is not the same a making a direct
quote. I saw nothing new in the article. I was
looking for that shocking quote. Silly me, it's the
motd.
\_ "I would remind you that extremism in the defense
of libety is no vice. And let me remind you also
that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
virtue."
\_ Lying isn't what they were talking about when
they said that.
\_ An original constructionist! I am more of a
living document fan myself. In moderation,
of course.
\_ Funny. Thanks for the laugh.
\_ He's using that to pacify rabid pro-lifers, saying
she won't expand (and may overturn) Roe vs. Wade.
Unfortunately, most conservatives aren't one-issue
people, and we'd rather have someone who will interpret
the Constitution according to principles we agree with,
irrespective of any one issue. -emarkp
\_ True, she must oppose abortion, gay marriage, and
support "under God" in the pledge. That's three!
\_ if you want to bash Dubya, hyperbole / exaggeration is not required
\_ Perhaps, but invention is easier than truth.
\_ "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." -Dubya (March 17, 2003)
\_ Well, I personally aim to be more fair and honest than
GWB. Perhaps it's unreasonable for me to expect the same
of the OP.
\_ you're saying op is less fair / honest than Dubya?
\_ ! (op > GWB) != op < GWB
\_ okay, then let's put an equals sign in there too.
\_ It's not *me* saying it. It's the OP saying
it when he posted the GWB quote (or whoever
it is who poasted the quote) after I accused
him of invention. |
| 2005/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40050 Activity:nil |
10/11 King Aragorn against Bush behavior
http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/003486.html
\_ Yawn.
\_ On the Daily Show he didn't say anything political...just
hocked his new movie "History of Violence" and pulled some
rubber animals out of his coffee.
\_ I prefer to think of him as the hero of "Hidalgo".
\_ I thought the horse was the hero. Or are you making some
coy comparisons that I don't really need to think about?
\_ No, Hidalgo was the title character. The man was the hero (if
there was one in that stinker). My point is that LotR is the
only good thing I've seen from him, and I prefer not to sully
that with stupid comments from the actor.
\_ Actually, I always think of him as Weps from Crimson Tide. |
| 2005/10/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40032 Activity:nil |
10/9 Bush loves it bald (warning: sound):
http://bushlovesitbald.ytmnd.com |
| 2005/10/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40013 Activity:nil |
10/7 Another conservative thinker hammers the Miers nomination:
http://csua.org/u/dnr
And important point he makes that I haven't seen before:
"This, say her advocates: We are now at war, and therefore the great
issue of our time is the powers of the president, under Article II, to
wage war. For four years Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace
decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough
constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war
powers.
"Perhaps. We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to
the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years
-- crucial years in the war on terrorism -- she will have to recuse
herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because
she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The
Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the
laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much."
\_ While Miers' nomination seems weak, it's stronger than this
argument. -tom
\_ Oh, you actually support the Miers nomination? Can you tell us
all why?
\_ Did I say that? -tom
\_ not tom: The only good thing about the nomination is that
we don't know for sure if she's as bad as Thomas/Scalia.
Would I rather have an incompetent reasonable person or
a competent frothing loony? Tough call!
\_ Thomas didn't have any more experience than Miers
when he was nominated, so he's an incompetent frothing
loony. -tom
\_ Yes I was referring more to Scalia in that sense
\_ And her supporters are trying to soothe us conservatives
by saying, "Really! She's a religious preson!" Which
makes me wonder if Bush is trying to put someone in who
will overturn Roe vs. Wade but doesn't care about
anything else. I'd rather have someone who interprets
the Constitution with an Originalist eye. -emarkp
\_ good, that means get rid of hand guns. :p
\_ Funny, I've been thinking it was the opposite. The
republicans like to talk about "protecting the
unborn" to keep their religious base mobilized, but
the political strategists are smart enough to know
that actually overturning Roe would be political
suicide. Hence the relatively moderate (at least
compared to what liberals like me feared) nominees.
\_ I view Miers as the Ham Sandwich choice, akin to
the grand jury indictment rule. The way the GOP
is these days, Bush could have nominated a ham
sandwich and gotten it in. Sure, it's cronyism.
Yes, it's the victory of the mediocre. But, really,
maybe one or two Republicans might vote against
her or perhaps abstain from voting since all the
rest will vote for her. Given 55 Republican
Senators, it's a done deal. |
| 2005/10/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:40011 Activity:nil |
10/7 Al Gore on why Television (news) sucks. Aside from a few petty
digs at his enemies, and some mistaken historical facts,
(protests invented in the 60s?) I basically agree with him.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2IU703.html
\_ Gore is a smart guy, but the electorate decided they didn't like
sighing so we got W instead.
\_ This has what to do with the link?
\_ Watch the News Hour.
\_ Thanks, this is great reading. |
| 2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40006 Activity:nil |
10/6 Bush approval rating down to 37%
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Will the Rove and Libby indictments get him into the 20s?
\_ What can I say. Bush has inspired an entire generation of young
Americans to a whole new level of mediocrity.
\_ Maybe its not related, but I have noticed many more people on
television have been using poor english and/or idiotic southern
accents. Perhaps since our president is such an idiot, it
makes it "ok" for other tv personalities to be idiots too.
-mrauser
\_ being an idiot lets people recuse themselves of blame
\_ Nope. At least 30% of the people will believe it's not Bush's fault.
True believers.
\_ Not a big surprise. The Miers nomination is alienating his core.
For me it's the last straw.
\_ Does that mean you're among his core? How is this the "last
straw" for you rightwing drool monkies? Haven't you gotten
plenty of reactionary behavior out of him already?
\_ This is borderline schadenfreude. As a liberal, I think
we need to fix this guy's mess, not gloat about it.
\_ And "we" can't even begin that while people continue to
back the party that rubberstamps him (and is in power).
If we're going to fix his mess, we have to keep showing
people what a FUCKUP he is. And THEY have to start talking
to their R congresspeople (as well as the D's who vote
for shit like bankruptcy reform).
\_ I enjoy every SNL and Daily Show satire of Bush as
the next person. But that's all in good humor. I
also have a lot of friends who are R but they are,
for the most part, moderate. I don't think calling
for the most part, moderete. I don't think calling
them drool monkies is a good way to get them on my
side and making them realize what a screw up Bush
is.
\_ I wasn't drool monkey guy. Sorry. Didn't notice
that portion of the guy's comment.
\_ I wasn't drool monkey guy. Sorry.
\_ You've got it backwards. Bush rubberstamps bills from
congress.
\_ He is only doing two things well: keep on the job in Iraq, and
cut taxes/keep them low. He's dropping the ball on his
nominations, cutting spending, vetoing anything (George Will's
excellent example was McCain-Feingold), controlling the US
border, etc.
\_ There is a limit to how low it can go, since both Democrats and
Republicans contain a core of true believers who will always support
their leader, unless he starts biting off the heads of puppies
on live tv, because the "other guy" would always be so much worse.
"Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor but Kerry would be
spending twice as much, etc."
\_ Our guy only bites off puppy heads! The other guy would be
clubing baby seal!
clubing baby seals!
\_ Nixon bottomed out at 27%.
\_ Kinda amazing, isn't it? It was pretty much obvious he'd
abused the government to allay his own fears and 27% of the
US was pretty okay with that. But then again, Reagan sold
arms to the "enemy" and was still hugely popular. Ah, Amurica!
arms to the "enemy" and was still hugely popular. Ah,
Amurica!
\_ Komrade, it is speeled AmeriKKKa. |
| 2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40005 Activity:nil |
10/6 Bush: "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally
the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments
in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from
Spain to Indonesia." Replace a few words and you get the original
Bush/neocon plan for spreading democracy in the Middle East. Neat trick!
\_ Have you ever heard of the psychological term "projection"?
90% of what comes out of that guys mouth is explained by it.
\_ He and his gang of cronies may be a bunch of lying, incompetent
fuckwits, but you need to seriously consider looking up the term
"empire". Or maybe that's one of your few words... -John |
| 2005/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39996 Activity:low |
10/6 "Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in
voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops
may use against terrorism suspects ..."
http://csua.org/u/dn2 (Wash Post)
\- anybody know the list of senators voting against defining the
limits? i see powell spoke up too.
\_ http://csua.org/u/dn4 [senate.gov]
\_ how about just abide by Geneva Convention and allow International
Redcross inspect the suspects? we don't need new law here.
\_ Then why is the White House opposing it?
\_ because White House want to use 'all means necessary'
to extract information from those so called 'terrorist.'
\_ ^want^needs^
\_ want, not need. everyone can say they 'need' the
information. And if you put things to perspective,
Nazi Germany was a much more real threat to US
security then than so-called terrorist to US today.
\_ You misunderstand. I'm saying that the CinC
must have the option of using any and all
means, including torture, first strike, &c,
that he deems are necessary to defend the
republic.
\_ All government bodies object to restraint on their power.
\_ The geneva convention doesn't apply to non-state actors
who refuse to abide by its rules. It also doesn't apply
to the type of conflict we are involved in.
NOTE: There may be other reasons to avoid torture (ie. it
is not effective).
\_ The Geneva Convention very explicitly applies to anyone
whose status is unknown. -tom
\_ Tom is correct on this, the anon parrot quoting White House
talking points is wrong. -ausman
\_ The fun part is that nearly everyone detained by the military
in Iraq is by definition an "unlawful combatant." Heck, if
the military were able to operate legally within the US,
it would be the same unless they they are wearing some form
of ID signifying them as members of an opposition armed force.
\_ Such form of ID would be called a uniform, as required by
the Geneva Convention in order for someone to be covered.
\_ Once again, you are wrong.
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons,
having committed a belligerent act and having
fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Article 4,
such persons shall enjoy the protection of the
present Convention until such time as their
status has been determined by a competent
tribunal." (Geneva Convention Article 5). -tom
\_ It is you who are wrong. Given that you
agree that Covention 3 governs, start w/
Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 states that the Convention
Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 which states that the
Convention
"shall apply to all cases of declared war
or of any other armed conflight which may
arise between to or more of the High Contr-
acting Parties"
Clearly this provision does not apply to
terrorist who are not "High Contracting
Parties." Unless you can show me where
AQ, &c. signed on to the convention.
Perhaps you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2
cl 3:
"although one of the Powers in the conflict
may not be a party to the present Convention,
the Powers who are parties thereto shall
remain bound by it in there mutual relations."
Clearly this provision does not apply to terrorist
who are not "High Contracting Parties." Perhaps
you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2 cl 3:
"although one of the Powers in the conflict may
not be a party to the present Convention, the
Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in there mutual relations."
This contemplates organized state action, not
decentralized terrorist action. But even
assuming that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause,
and that we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we
find that
(1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part
of the armed forces of a Party in conflict
b/c they aren't part of the armed forces
of any country.
disorganized terrorist action. But even assuming
that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause, and that
we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we find that
(1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part of
the armed forces of a Party in conflict b/c
they aren't part of any armed forces.
(2) does not apply b/c at least requirment (b)
is not met
(3) does not apply b/c they are not members of
the regular armed forces
(4) does not apply b/c they do not accompany
armed force in any manner of speaking
(5) does not apply b/c the Party in conflict
has no crews, masters, pilots, &c.
(6) does not apply b/c they do not respect
the laws and customs of war
Having dispensed w/ that, lets us look to B,
Having dispensed w/ that, let us look to B,
where we find that this provison doesn't apply
either.
There are two major problems w/ the solace
you find in Art 5, first there should be some
doubt of which there is none (see above).
Second, the protection only lasts until a
competent tribunal - such as a US military
tribunal - makes a determination re Art 4
status. Once the tribunal makes a determin-
ation that the person does not fall w/in
Art 4, the protection afforded by the conv-
ention ends.
NOTE: This does not imply that I believe
that torture should be used, only
that there is no legal barrier to
its use against non-citizen non-
state enemy combatants.
that my understanding is that
there is no legal barrier to its
use against non-citizen enemy
its use against non-citizen enemy
combatants not formally associated
with any state and not held w/in
the jurisdiction of a US dist ct
(if the person is w/in the jx of
a US dist ct habeas and 8th amend.
relief may be available - hamdi
does not answer that question re
non-citizens).
\_ So someone who is a Pakistani
or Iraqi citizen, who is
detained...
with any state.
(it is an open question whether
habeas relief is available in
such a case).
a US dist ct habeas relief maybe
available - hamdi does not answer
that question re non-citizens).
\_ So someone who is a Pakistani or Iraqi
citizen, who is detained
\_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.
Is the Geneva Convention legally
binding under U.S. law anyway?
I.e. supposing that it could be
shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
directly responsible for an order
that was in clear violation, is
there any actual legal way to
convict him of some crime?
I would guess that for people in
uniform this would be covered in
the UCMJ, but what about civilians?
\_ The Covention is not self
executing (it cannot be
executing (ie cannot be
enforced directly in US
cts). Part 6, Art 129
executing. Part 6, Art 129
states that
"[t]he High Contracting Parties
undertake to enact any legi-
slation necessary to provide
penal sanctions for persons
committing, or ordering to
be committed"
breaches of of the Convention.
In order for Rummy to be puni-
shed, he would have to be con-
victed under any applicable
fed law executed to enforce
the Convention. This is assu-
ming that Bush would not use
his pardon pwr under US Const
Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
victed under the applicable
fed law. This is assuming that
Bush didn't use his pardon pwr
under Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
under US Const Art 2 Sec 2 cl
1.
The preferable method to deal
with something like this would
be to impeach him pursuant to
US Const Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil
officer") b/c the Pres. pardon
pwr does not apply to impeach-
ment ("except in cases of
impeachment").
ment.
One completely useless alt. is
to pursue an action in the ICJ.
\_ "to enact any legislation
necessary..." Right, but
does such legislation exist
\_ "to enact any legislation necessary..."
Right, but does such legislation exist
on the U.S. lawbooks?
\_ I believe (but am not
100% certain) that fed
laws re torture, &c.
exist that cover these
violations - note that
new laws specific to
the Convention may not
be needed if adequate
legislation already
exists.
either. Perhaps you find solace in Art 5 cl 2
"should any doubt arise as to whether persons
having committed a belligerent act and having
fallen into the hands of the enemy belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Art 4,
such persons shall enjoy the protections of
the present Convention"
Note that this is conditioned on the status of
such persons being "determined by a competent
tribunal." Even if you can prove that there is
some doubt, there is no reason to 2d guess the
determination of a US military tribunal re
whether someone falls w/in Art 4.
with any state.
\_ Ok, so I have a stupid question. Is the
Geneva Convention legally binding under
U.S. law anyway? I.e. supposing that
it could be shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
directly responsible for an order that
was in clear violation, is there any actual
legal way to convict him of some crime?
I would guess that for people in uniform
this would be covered in the UCMJ, but
what about civilians?
In order for Rummy to be pun-
ished, he would have to be
convicted under the applicable
fed law.
Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil officer")
b/c the Pres. pardon pwr does
not apply to impeachment.
ment.
violations.
\_ did they regulate that interrogators should only ask suspects
nicely, using words like 'Please' and 'thank you', and house them
only in 5-star hotel equivalent living conditions?
\_ No, but they did declare the squallor of your apartment a
violation of the Geneva Convention. |
| 2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39960 Activity:nil |
10/3 http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899 National Review contributor and former Dubya speechwriter: "I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. ... In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met ..." \_ When did Justice Kennedy pee on this guy? - danh \_ And that quote is the scariest part -- it should scare both conservatives and liberals ... We can disagree on whether or not Bush's policies are good or bad for the nation but who here thinks Bush is "brilliant"? I would agree that Karl Rove is brilliant, but Bush? \_ He could be brilliantly evil pretending to be dumb because, apparently, many Americans equate being dumb to being a good old regular honest guy. "Wow, he's a dumb ass cowboy from Texas! I'm a dumb ass cowboy from Texas! He's just like one of us. He must be down-to-earth honest! I'm voting for him in November." Either that or he's just plain dumb and it serves him the same purpose. \_ Bush is not dumb, but he's a mile away from brilliant. \_ Only a mile? I think you give him too much credit. \_ Bush surrounds himself with good people like Rove. That's what's good about Bush. \_ Only a mile? I think you give him too much credit. \_ speaking of brilliant, Jimmy Carter was very intelligent president and look what he did. \_ What did he do? \_ Why can't we have both brilliant and charismatic? \- you can but you also get bimbos for free. \_ Thomas Jefferson would be the one and only president who qualified under that standard. \_ Clinton was both brilliant and charismatic. |
| 2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39959 Activity:nil |
10/3 Freepers HATE on Miers. I think she may have my full support!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495585/posts
\_ So the man hated by the left, and slowly abandonned by the center
finally loses the support of the far right. It almost makes you
fell sorry for the stupid little fuck.
\_ I'd feel sorry for him if I wasn't living in the country
he's running.
he's running^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfucking up. |
| 2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39950 Activity:nil |
10/3 Harriet Miers - what a disgrace when you have candidates such as
Janice Rogers Brown or Owen. Souter all over again. -jblack
\_ The Bush administration is mostly about cronyism. --PeterM
\_ Any other historical examples of a president nominating a judge
based entirely on that judge's loyalty to the president?
\_ I guess I'm a little behind on all this. I thought we were
supposed to hate Brown and Owen? And isn't this someone Harry Reid
wanted? --confused
\_ Define "we". OP is probably a conservative. And I agree with
him. -emarkp
\_ Now I'm *really* confused. --*really* confused
\_ There were known judges who rule on the Constitution the
way conservatives think it should be done. Bush wimped out
and didn't nominate them, favoring a woman who has no
judicial record. This given the fact that Bush has
majorities in the Senate and House and conservatives have
won the last several election cycles. If he can't nominate
a known conservative (say, like Scalia), then when can one
be nominated? Especially given the fact that Ginsberg was
chief counsel on the ACLU when she was confirmed. -emarkp
\_ Maybe even BushCo worries about turning this country
into a polluted banana republic theocracy.
\_ Non-sequitur. If Ginsburg can sit on the bench, Bush
should be able to nominate someone as conservative as
she is liberal. -emarkp
\_ Counter-non-sequitor. It amazes me that Clarence
Thomas sits on the Supreme Court.
\_ Thomas is Black. Ginsburg is a woman. What
does competence or philosophy have to do with
their presence on the Supreme Court?
\_ Glad to hear it. Bush should have nominated
another justice like Thomas or Scalia.
\_ Republicans control basically every branch of
government, so why isn't Bush nominating a
frothing reactionary like Thomas or Scalia?
\_ Because he is doing very poorly in the polls
and does not want to pick another visible
fight. See, polls do matter, no matter how
some people want you to believe they do not. |
| 2005/9/30-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39932 Activity:nil |
9/29 http://csua.org/u/dki John Roberts sworn in to the Supreme Court. Now Bush gets to nominate another ultra-conservative leave-it-to-beaver style nominee. Yay for us. -mrauser \- considering the number of Rs who voted for RBGINESBERG, i think it's hard to oppose the nomination of ROLBERTS CJ. \_ I have yet to see any concrete reasons for opposing the nomination of Roberts to the USSC. cf. Earl Warren who oversaw the japanese internment. (I'm assuming that you weren't opposed to the Warren ct). \- earl warren was also a stripper. \_ huh? \- You're so naive. \_ Mr. Beeblebrox, sir, you're so weird you should be in movies. \_ I saw nothing wrong with the guy. He is decent, conservative and obviously brilliant. He is about the best you can hope for in a Republican. -ausman |
| 2005/9/29-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39929 Activity:nil |
9/29 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29cnd-court.html Libby allows Judith Miller to testify, reporter released after 3-month jail stint, to appear before grand jury tomorrow \_ doh, she received a full release last year! More Jayson Blair news from the nytimes. \_ Guess it took 3 months in jail before Libby could tell her, hey, I really said you could talk, and that was a year ago! \_ I guess those conjugal visits from Bolton scared her straight. \_ DeLay indicted, now you will see Libby and Rove. A good week for\ the reality based community. \_ DeLay indicted, now you will see Libby and Rove. A good week for the reality based community. \_ Did dubya said something like whoever leaked the info shall resign from the post. I am waiting for Dick Cheney's resignation... |
| 2005/9/28 [Transportation/Airplane, Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39916 Activity:nil |
9/28 oh my, Pres. Bush while flying over oil Rigs..
"It's like Atlantis down there..." |
| 2005/9/28-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39914 Activity:nil |
9/28 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-27-fishback-abuse_x.htm "Army Capt. Ian Fishback said he tried for more than a year to get his commanding officers to pay attention to reports of widespread abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops. But it was only after Fishback, 26, a West Point graduate, spoke to Human Rights Watch and several members of Congress that military investigators began to listen ... Fishback said his interest in reporting the abuses was sparked by congressional testimony ... Rumsfeld said that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan follow rules in the Geneva Conventions barring prisoner abuse ..." \_ Yeah, we should use harsh language instead. It works great against IEDs, hijacked airplanes, and suicide bombers. \_ Prisoner abuse has worked against IEDs, hijacked airplanes, and suicide bombers? Please elaborate. Your insanity will be pleasant to read. \_ works just about as well as your ability to detect sarcasm. \_ So, what, you were using some kind of double-sarcasm? You meant that the sarcastic suggestion that we should use harsh language in some way pointed out the ineffective nature of prisoner abuse? This is positively Byzantine! |
| 2005/9/28-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39913 Activity:nil |
9/28 http://csua.org/u/djq (andrewsullivan.com) Re CPT Fishback "[Rumsfeld said:] 'Either break him or destroy him, and do it quickly.' ... The scapegoating of retarded underlings like Lynndie England is an attempt to deflect real responsibility for the new pro-torture policies that go all the way to the White House." |
| 2005/9/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39897 Activity:nil |
9/27 Rumsfeld: Mr. President, yesterday 3 Brazilian soldiers
were killed.
Pres: That's terrible. [ long pause ] Exactly how
many is a brazillion? |
| 2005/9/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Ilyas] UID:39888 Activity:low |
9/27 Where is ilyas? Motd's been quiet lately without his drivels. Good.
\_ He has an email address. Mail him if you want to know. Motd would
be a lot better without anonymous trolls. -emarkp
\_ You seem to be annoyed at anon trolls. Good. FUCK YOU. -anon
\_ ilyas declared the motd beneath him and left in a huff.
\_ When exactly?
\_ Did you see the TASER DUEL thread? It upset him deeply.
I think he's still biting his pillow somewhere.
\- It was a GUN DUEL. But John did not agree. There were no
takers for the TASERS.
\_ No, it has nothing to do with the TASER DUEL thread.
It's more like he asserted something stupid and is
too embarrased to admit anything so he aaron'ed himself.
FYI: Aaron was a pro Bush War zealot who wrote prolific
arguments for the war in 2003. A year later in the midst
of all the anti-war movements he decided to nuked the
entire wall archive, and with it, evidence of his
pro Bush War rhetorics. Aaron has not logged in since
the incident.
\_ ilyas's reasons for leaving weren't quite as obvious as
aaron's. As the kchang link shows below, ilyas's last
motd thread was about pinning blame for the Katrina
response on state and local government. After John told
him he could be less of a "sanctimonious fuckwit", ilyas
re-iterated his point, and then said, "Anyways, I think
I am done with the motd. It's finally turned into wall."
(John replied to this by clarifying that ilyas was
painting an incomplete picture by blaming only state/
local government, when all levels of government were at
fault.)
I also agree that the GUN DUEL fake post apparently
occurred after ilyas declared his intention to leave
motd, but perhaps cemented things.
\- Smells like ... VICTORY.
\_ I'm surprised he didn't do that earlier to be honest.
The problem with the motd is its resident population
of idiots, weirdos, and generally unpleasant humans.
Who make fake signed posts and form little fan/hate
clubs. Unlike other public forums the motd prevents
squishing these prokaryotes.
\_ Why would you? Crazy people are funny. -John
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=39490
\_ It's amazing that CSUA motd has become so big that
there's an entire external website dedicated to
archiving its contents. My company's motd is just a
warning message saying that you will go to jail if
you steal company secrets.
\_ It's clear to me that ilyas generates trolls, and talking about
ilyas generates even more trolls.
\_ Like this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>> NOTICE TO ALL USERS <<<
>>> <<<
>>> This system is the property of YerMom, Inc. It is for <<<
>>> authorized use only. Users (authorized or unauthorized) <<<
>>> have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy. <<<
>>> <<<
>>> Any or all uses of this system and all files on this <<<
>>> system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, <<<
>>> audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized site, <<<
>>> operations and law enforcement personnel, as well as <<<
>>> authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic <<<
>>> and foreign. By using this system, the user consents <<<
>>> to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying, <<<
>>> auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion <<<
>>> of authorized site or operations personnel. <<<
>>> <<<
>>> Unauthorized or improper use of this system may result <<<
>>> in administrative disciplinary action and civil and/or <<<
>>> criminal penalties. By continuing to use this system <<<
>>> you indicate your awareness of and consent to these <<<
>>> terms and conditions of use. <<<
>>> <<<
>>> LOG OFF IMMEDIATELY if you do not agree to the <<<
>>> conditions stated in this warning. <<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
\_ And how may trolls are generated talking about talking about ilyas
generating even more trolls
\_ And how may trolls are generated talking about talking about
ilyas generating even more trolls
\_ ilyas has generated a new category of troll, the meta-troll |
| 2005/9/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39887 Activity:moderate |
9/27 What do failed and humiliated politicians do? Do they sit at home
and eat papas y drink beers and watch TV all day? Is that what
Gray David and Al Gore are doing now? It's been a while since
I've heard from these two losers. I wonder if they go through
therapy or something. -bored and curious troll
\_ Don't they go on the paid-speech circuit?
\_ Al Gore saves people out of hurricane damaged areas on his own
dime.
\_ Yeah but how much coverage did he get on the media? Loser.
\_ Erm, his withheld his name from the project so it wouldn't
turn into a political football. he's a better man than all
of us.
\_ the MOTD needs to be Closed Captioned for the Humor
Impaired.
\_ No, MOTD "humorists" need to learn how to be "funny"
\_ You need to be able to detect sarcasm, whether or
not it's funny.
\_ Well it's not really fair, he can't grab firefighters away
from their pamphletting jobs to walk around for the cameras
so it looks like he's doing something useful.
\_ Al Gore has been giving speeches at the Commonwealth Club and
the like. He is well loved by the DailyKos crowd. I have not
heard one whit from Grey Davis. Let's hope he is fly fishing
somewhere.
\_ ALGOR taught some classes at UCLA and he serves on Apple's
Board of Directors. Not sure what Gray is doing - probably
enjoying all the money he got from the Enron.
\_ I think Gray Davis is practicing law here in LA.
\- i think many become influence peddlers of some kind ...
either as registered lobbists or as law firm partners.
i think some teach briefly at places like KSG but i doubt
those are long term careers. |
| 2005/9/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39872 Activity:moderate |
9/26 So, Katrina, Rita, what is the verdict? I remember someone here
on soda saying that federal government shouldn't get involved in
hurrican relief. I would like to hear your opinion on Bush's
vast mobilization of federal resources *BEFORE* the Rita hits.
Do you still believe that federal government should be hands off and
let the state and local officials do their thing? and why.
\_ I'm tired of this thread. Why don't you email jblack directly?
And why are you obsessed with proving that you're right and
they're wrong? A real conservative sticks to his guns and
never flip-flops his position. In another word, a real
conservative never admits anything wrong.
\_ Apparently niether do real liberals. That's why we call then
"far"-left/right. (Or extremists)
"far"-left/right. (Or extremists) -jrleek
\_ Hello, Mr. Conservative.
\_ No, a real liberal flip-flops (changes his position) all
the time to gain the most advantageous views.
\_ A real liberal is reasonable to changing his mind
in the face of new evidence, but I don't call that
flip-flopping, I call it intelligence.
\_ Go Kerry the Master of Flip-Flopping!
\_ but every time a new opinion appears?
\_ Are you stupid or just stupid?
\_ Intelligent flipping.
\_ Intelligent flipping is a baseless myth. It's really
just the evolution of an opinion.
\_ I am still waiting for answers. I am not trying to embarass
anyone, just curious on what is other point of view. -op
\_ Complete government fuck-up all around, brought out the worst in
"normal" people, those responsible should be sacked, shot and
shot again, is that what you were looking for? -John
\_ Rita and Katrina prove one thing: the government is inefficient.
Throwing more money at the government is not going to solve
the problem. Look at the late 1800s. The fire department was
privatized and they only had to put out fires for paying
customers, and the end result was less idling firemen playing
cards and more PROFITS. Let me ask you this. Today, except for
the USPS which is not even funded by tax payers, which government
agencies profit?
\_ ...and lots of burned down cities, don't forget that.
\_ Incomplete argument--burned down cities = economic output
dip = lower economic performance = impact on pocketbook of
those hiring private fire depts. = no more $$ to hire private
fire depts. = their houses burned down. So does this mean
that funding a fire department is an example of Keynesian
economics? -John
\_ What happens while your neighbor's house is on fire and
they aren't home? Do you call your fire department (and
foot the bill)? Call around to try to determine which
fire department your neighbor has? What happens when a
fire spreads from one building to another, such as from
a "paid up" warehouse to the apartment complex full of
poor families (likely not all paid up)? -meyers
\_ I think you sort of missed my point, meyers. -John
\_ (tongue in cheek since this is all silly) Presumably the
apartment complex or home owner's association would
charge a fire-fighting fee so you and your neighbor
would be on the same fire figther's network. Then of
course there is the problem of who to call when you
see the apartment or house in the next neighborhood
on fire so we should really all band together to cut
costs and have a city wide fighter fighting company and
just charge a fee for it to reduce costs but of course
then another city upwind might be on fire and your
city directly borders theirs so really we should just
have a county wide fire department to better spread the
cost and since we all need it equally, hey let's just
have a 1/2 cent tax on all sales to fund it since an
individual share is to hard to calculate.
\_ Sounds like a tax to me. -John |
| 2005/9/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39867 Activity:nil |
9/25 Armed dolphins let loose by Katrina (not a joke)
http://csua.org/u/di5 (UK Observer)
\_ "Oh-oh. Sharks! The assassins of the sea! Oooh. You're not sharks.
You're dolphins. The clowns of the sea."
\_ Alcohol and night swimming. Is there a better combination?
\_ Snorky ... talk ... man ... |
| 2005/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39848 Activity:moderate |
9/24 What is the process for having a President declared mentally
incompetent and removed from office?
http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/0902.shtml
\_ Haven't you learned anything? You can only be removed from
office if you got a blow job from an intern. And even that
isn't a sure bet.
\_ Warning warning ultra left radical liberal rant alert!
After watching this trash I need to cleanse myself by
watching 5 hours of the O'Reilley show.
\_ http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426
Bush has apparently fallen off the wagon.
\_ And after this news was reported, sales of Jim Beam Bourbon
Whiskey shot up by as much as 200%
\_ You start by eradicating 51% of the mentally incompetent voters.
\_ You mean eradicate all registered democrats? great idea.
\_ You found it! It's the smoking gun! This fact filled article
will surely be his downfall! Congratulations! This it it!
\_ The "procedure" is given in Sec 4 of the 25 amd:
"Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers
of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress
may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall
immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting
President."
Ask yourself, would you prefer Pres. Cheney to Pres. Bush?
\_ "Poor guy, he blacked out and hit the ground and he was out for
four seconds. Fortunately, those were the same four seconds that
Dick Cheney was conscious yesterday." --David Letterman
\_ I bet half the people here don't even know who the Senate Pro
Tempore is.
\_ Actually, I would. Cheney at least appears to be competent.
\_ The man couldn't even cover up or spin his former company
getting no-bid defense contracts. How competent can he be? |
| 2005/9/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39846 Activity:nil |
9/23 Huh, I just heard on Coast-to-Coast AM that hurricane Katrina was
caused by the Japanese Mafia. Who woulda thought?
\_ weatherwars.info. Totally awesome. |
| 2005/9/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:39842 Activity:low |
9/23 German flasher flashed at an off-duty female police. Germany RULES!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050923/od_nm/germany_flasher_dc
\_ In other countries, crazy lunatics who pose a threat to society
are thrown in jail. In this country, they're rewarded with
\_ In other countries, left-wing nuts who pose a threat to society
are thrown in jail. During the dot-coms, they're rewarded with
nuclear launch codes and the most powerful military in the world.
Thank goodness they lost 2 elections in a row. GOD BLESS!!!
\_ You're mistaken. Bush thought he could get intern hummers out
of it, then Cheney said he'd only qualify if he had a second
term. Now Bush pissed because all of the interns are males with
two-day stubble. He hates stubble. |
| 2005/9/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39832 Activity:nil |
9/22 National Hurricane Center's image of Rita's "wind distribution":
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at3+shtml/023809.shtml?swath?large
\_ Damn, Florida's getting fucked.
\_ Florida??? |
| 2005/9/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39822 Activity:nil |
9/22 More details on the Crawford Ranch:
http://eyeball.sabotage.org/prez-eyeball.htm
\_ BBC Map shows the hurricane is going directly to Crawford TX:
link:tinyurl.com/ah5nv |
| 2005/9/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39799 Activity:nil |
9/21 Man, this is just fucked. Amateur porn site offering free access to
soldiers in exchange for photos of "fresh kills."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/09/21/ntfu/index.html
\_ Why is it fucked up? At least in Vietnam the soldiers had plenty
of poon tang to satisfy their urges. In Iraq the soldiers feel
bored and depressed. They need their poon tang.
\_ Obviously you've never served.
\_ Oh, they are meeting lots of local beauties according to my
family that was there. The problem is that sometimes these
girls have dads/brothers who are part of the insurgency. Is
it worth getting killed for some poon tang?
\_ You don't see anything fucked up about the proximity of graphic
shots of a person's head destroyed by a 50 caliber machine gun
and ads for a mother-daughter sex movie? Ooooookaaaaay...
\_ Yeah it's fucked up. It should be brother-sister sex movie.
\_ Maybe DoD could ship over some eager young republican girlies
as comfort women. -John
\_ Finally a way for the Bush twins to serve their country,
and I'll bet they would excel at the task.
\_ Go for the Bushes' bushes!
\_ Isn't it hard to get booze & coke down there? -John |
| 2005/9/21-23 [Recreation/Travel/Nola, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39794 Activity:nil |
9/21 They still refuse to leave New Orleans
http://csua.org/u/dgh
"Only one person showed up at the convention center early Wednesday to
catch a bus out" |
| 2005/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39788 Activity:high |
9/21 UNLEASH THE CHIANG
http://tinyurl.com/al8c3
\_ That's CHANG, without the I. There is a ***big*** difference you
fucking ignorant shit.
\_ Of course there's a difference. danh has a sense of humour and
you don't.
\_ I intentionally spelled it Chiang. Apparently Jeb's dad
used to chant 'UNLEASH CHIANG' during horseshoe competitions,
it's sort of a family in joke, 'unleash chang' was the slogan
of people who wanted the US to back Chiang Kai-Shek's nationalists
to invade the chinese mainland and drive out the communists.
\_ you are the ignorant shit.... |
| 2005/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39779 Activity:moderate |
9/20 http://tinyurl.com/bk4or (Yahoo news) Diversity (women, blacks, etc) changes the way justices see the world. Please don't delete this jblack. I already know what you think \_ never have deleted a thread, thanks. \_ I, on the other hand, have. Do I get freeper cookies? \_ I have never deleted a thread. |
| 2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39778 Activity:nil |
9/20 Able Danger, if true, is the biggest story of the year.
Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist
More collective ass covering by Washington elite....
http://csua.org/u/dg7 -jblack
\_ OF COURSE! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND! CLINTON PROBABLY WAS
CRANK CALLING NORAD ON SEP 11 AS WELL!!1
\_ I agree insofar as "why bury it if it's that harmless/irrelevant/
in the past". Weird. Anyway, Karl Rove (a political strategist)
supervising Katrina reconstruction is the biggest story of the
year. -moderate/liberal
\_ Yeah, Katrina is SO yesterday. But Able Danger will pale next to
rumors that that Hillary likes the occasional dirty Sanchez.
\_ Why didn't Bush do anything about the Able Danger information?
I have actually decided that the 9/11 Commission was probably
mostly a coverup. The Democrats covered Clinton's ass and the
GOP covered Bush's and neither side wanted to rock the boat. -ausman
\_ Did you read the 911 comission report? I think there was the
potential for plenty of boat rocking in the report, but that
few people read it, and most people don't have the attention
span to get worked up about it. I did read the 911CR, and I
certainly felt there was plenty of blame placed on both Bush
and Clinton there--people really just don't care or notice.
\_ If it's a flash of a tit, people notice!
\_ I read it selectively. Chapter 8 "The System Was
Bliking Red" is pretty damning, I have to admit. -ausman |
| 2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39761 Activity:low |
`9/20 Dubya is incompetent not racist
http://csua.org/u/dfp (Wash Post columnist)
\_ Maybe he is not, but that doesn't change the fact that his
party leads racists. "...There was more than a little truth to
this at one time. The GOP, after all, became a safe haven for
Southern bigots who fled the Democratic Party in the civil rights
era."
\_ I'd also go with: "Dubya's incompetence fucked poor blacks.
He let them down." (my own words)
\_ when push comes to shove, there's probably a lot more racists
in america then people are willing to admit
\_ "than", not "then", you stupid immigrant!
\_ Fun story on NPR where they went with Astrodome refugees
offered 6 months free housing in Houston. Most rejected
one spot because there were too many Mexicans. They wanted
someplace where they felt "more comfortable."
http://thislife.org
\_ Are the ones rejecting the spot white?
\_ Nope.
\_ The president who freed the slaves was a Republican. The first
African American Secretary of State is a Republican. The second
African American Secretary of State is a Republican.
\_ And more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than
Democrats.
\_ These two comments are so abysmally stupid it makes me want
to cry.
\_ Care to elaborate?
\_ When did you stop beating your wife?
\_ I agree with that. Bush/Republicans don't really care about your
skin color as long as you're rich and/or powerful, preferably
both. If it happens to be that the poor people aren't white, then
it just looks like racism when he screws them over.
\_ That's just plain stupid. Bush/Republicans /do/ care about you
irrespective of color/income. From the article: "in his first
presidential campaign, I traveled with him and tried, as he might
say, to look into his heart. Conveniently enough, he sometimes
wears it on his sleeve -- never more so, as I discovered, than
when he talks about poor kids and racial and ethnic minorities.
His feelings for them -- especially for poor kids -- are
genuine." Of course, I'm no longer a Republican so I guess
you're not talking about me, right? -emarkp
\_ When did you shift and why?
\_ When did you shit and why?
\_ Bush/Republicans believe the best way to help the poor is
by making the rich richer. This will grow the economy and
give everyone a job and then everyone will be happy. They
screw the poor over not because they don't like the poor
but because this doesn't work.
\_ Sure it worked. It worked from the glorious days of
Reaganomics when the super tax cut for the super rich
shifted our economy into 6th gear and saw the housing
and economic boom we have never seen since the 50s and
ultimately caused the demise of the evil Soviet
Union. Why do you hate Reagan?
\_ "Yoda, why you gotta be a playa hatuh?"
\_ We'll see how an economy built on suburban sprawl
and financed by equity cash-out loans deals with the
end of the era of cheap energy.
\_ Reagan didn't cause the suburban sprawl and the
rising cost of energy. Why do you hate the man?
\_ Recently I reregistered as "no party affiliation" because
the party system is as broken as unions. Basically the R's
as a group are selling out the country instead of solving
problems. Then again, so are the D's. -emarkp
\_ Join the Green Party. We recycle, buy hybrids, and
try to bike as often as we can. I just got a scooter
last year. It's really cool.
\_ you know scooter pollutes more than a car, right?
\_ The main problem I have with Greens is that they tend
to be very myopic and almost obsessively focused on
a dangerously narrow set of issues. While I count
myself as an environmentalist, I think there's a much
bigger picture to be considered that doesn't jibe
very well with the narrow Green body politic. -mice
\_ I agree with some of the goals of the Greens, but I
think too many are just nuts. -emarkp
\_ I used to be a Democrat and now I feel exactly the same
way you do. I hate both R and D. But there is nothing
else left.
\_ If all the decent rational people leave the two major
parties, only winguts are left to vote in both
major party primaries. It's self-perpetuating.
It's important to pick a party and vote in its
primary *especially* if you hate where the parties
are going and want to see them go in different
directions.
\_ My goal of leaving the party was to remove a bias
based on a letter. I want to work harder on focusing
on what people say and do rather than a letter next to
their names. -emarkp |
| 2005/9/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39758 Activity:nil |
9/19 Bush disapproval at record high of 58%, while 67% disapprove of his
handling of Iraq.
For the first time, more Americans say that the labels "honest and
trustworthy" and "a strong and decisive leader" do NOT apply to Dubya.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-09-19-poll.htm
\_ 59% now say Iraq War a mistake. I wonder where all the warmongers
on the motd went. -ausman
\_ I think Aaron's in Bellvue. -tom
\_ jblack is still trying to convince us ignorant liberals
that his view point is correct and we're stupid and wrong
by pointing out facts and figures from well respected
web sites like Free Republic, Fox News, taemag, etc.
Emarkp on the other hand is a different story. To recap,
towards the end of 2004 emarkp point out why the Iraq War
has made US and the world safer, that it was the right
decision, and that we should all support our brave and
wise commander in chief. Lately though he has been pretty
quiet, either because he is still waiting for the shining
moment that will prove Bush was right all along, or he
simply doesn't like interacting with people who have very
different perspectives than he does.
\_ False dichotomy. -emarkp
\_ "Just your best guess, do you think George W. Bush has taken steps
to help victims of Hurricane Katrina mostly because he sincerely
cares about the victims, or mostly for political reasons?"
56% say ...
\_ you know what, though, he still gets what he wants. And i am not
sure he really cares about the polls now that he is on his
second term.
\_ yeah, if the senate or the house goes Demo majority in '06, then
conservatives will have someone to blame again! |
| 2005/9/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39753 Activity:nil |
9/19 Flamebait:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/09/19/tomo/story.jpg
\_ I don't know, I think better flamebait would be, "Tom Tommorow
is so funny! Check this out!"
\_ That was actually pretty funny compared to previous ones.
\_ Bush disapproval rating at record high 58%
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/bush.poll/index.html |
| 2005/9/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39730 Activity:nil |
9/17 NO congressman misuses rescue resources:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1123495&page=1
\_ Look, Jefferson is Democrat and black. This is a story for
freerepublic, not motd.
\_ Mmmm.. fuck you, troll.
\_ Why does it matter which party he belongs to?
\_ Or the color of his skin?
\_ Because anyone who criticizes anyone other than white
Republicans on the motd is ridiculed and/or harrassed.
\_ Yeah, I see lots of ridicule and harassment in
this thread. -tom
\_ Right, and because it didn't happen in *this thread*
that means it's never happened and pp is a moron.
\_ Oh, I wouldn't say ridiculed and harrassed. We just
have no interest in discussing the foibles of the good
guys. We'd have pages of discussion if Jefferson were
a Republican.
\_ Horse shit. If some Republican no one had ever
heard of did something marginally unethical,
it wouldn't even be posted to the MOTD. If it
was Delay or Santorum, that's a different thing. -tom
\_ Horse shit yourself. If this was a Republican,
your panties would be in a bunch calling for his
resignation and you know it.
\_ Ask UC administration why the color of someone's skin matters. |
| 2005/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39721 Activity:nil |
9/15 WTF? Why is Karl Rove in charge of the reconstruction effort?
http://tinyurl.com/9cfx2 (washingtonpost.com)
\_ Because about 15 minutes after the levees broke, this became a
politcal issue. And Rove is a political master. Oh, and screw
Biloxi and other cities that have been wiped out--they don't have
enough black people or media coverage. The national parties are
worthless and the media are complicit.
\_ Part of it is to soften his image, most of it is to redistribute
patronage. There is a LOT of money to be handed out and many of
the suggestions put forth by Bush's speech are pro-business,
less social engineering. New Orleans is the blank canvas which
the economic conservatives will be allowed to paint upon.
\_ OH MY FUCKING GOD. Wasn't Iraq supposed to be the blank
canvas too?! Do it the conservative way, fine, because there
doesn't seem to be any way to prevent it, but at least do
it competently.
\_ Just give lots of $$$ to Halliburton and forget about it!
\_ This will be a lot better. No insurgents, better
accountants to hide things, and they own the local
government. |
| 2005/9/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39698 Activity:kinda low |
9/15 Reuter's Dan Rather moment? -jblack
Reuters Photo Is A Fraud? matches neither Bush's or Condi's
handwriting. Reuter's admits to photoshoping.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485300/posts?page=1,50
\_ The fact is, according to Reuters -- and this has not
been widely reported -- President Bush did indeed take a
bathroom break after passing the note to Rice.
http://csua.org/u/dee
\_ I don't get it. Why is it a big deal that someone had to use the
bathroom in a long meeting and wanted his subordinate to break the
meeting for some reasonable period of time so everyone could take
care of basic human functions? Why would such a note make someone
look silly as someone says below? Why would Reuters waste precious
bits showing us such a note on a *news* wire? Where's the news?
It must be that nothing important is going on in the world... oh
wait.
\_ even the most powerful man in the world needs to pass a note for
a bathroom break!
\_ For the same reason they show Ashcroft with the seminude statue
of Justice behind him, because it is humorous. Ye gods! Does
Katrina mean the end of irony and humor AGAIN ala September 11?
\_ As usual, the freeper comments are a bit over the top.
http://csua.org/u/de9
\_ You are mis-using "photoshoping", which implies that the photo was
faked up. Photoshop was used to adjust the exposure / white
balance so that the words could clearly be seen.
\_ Great freeper story
\_ "Great" as in "totally wrong"? Or "Great" as in "Showing them
for the small minds they are"?
\_ The latter. It just shows you that any evidence is
immediately suspect by freepers if it doesn't show their
dear leaders in the best light possible.
\_ I noticed it was sharpened/contrast-enhanced or whatever but I doubt
it's a fake. It is possible though that the top of the note was
written by Condi and Bush is replying, which would make Bush look
less silly.
\_ Possible, yes. Likely, no.
\_ indeed, isn't bush silly enough as it is?
\_ I didn't see why it was newsworthy at all. But I can't see a
problem with adjusting the contrast etc. of a photo. -emarkp
\_ not newsworthy. tabloid-worthy though!
\_ This is like Tucker Carlson accusing John Stewart's comedy
show of being "partisan hackery".
\_ Fake handwriting? If you're talking about the upper part of the
note, the capital "M" of "May" and the "th" of "think" along with
the Reuters story are enough to convince me it's not faked.
Both forms of capital "I" are also in the first URL.
http://www.sheilalowe.com/images/gwbush.gif ('99 GW Bush memo)
http://csua.org/u/ded (Reuters close-up)
\_ What is facinating is the mishmash of upper and lower case
letters along with the random cursive letters. The note lacks
a Rovian consistancy that one expects from this president.
\_ I go with the earlier freeper explanation of "he really had
to go"
\_ It'd be cool if the doctored photo was a freeper plant
to make the liberal evil media look mean. -John |
| 2005/9/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39684 Activity:low |
9/14 Bush may need a bathroom break? Is this possible? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050914/ids_photos_ts/r404176213.jpg http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050914/ids_photos_ts/r2587077477.jpg \_ This needs to be posted on freerepublic. Now now now. \_ Okay, I found one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484660/posts \_ Oh, I just assumed he went around with a urine bag in his pants. \_ No, Condi carries it for him, duh! \_ and drinks the contents to give herself strength. \_ that's just damn weird \_ Here he is winking at the Chinese premier. Wtf? http://tinyurl.com/8ffma \_ Damn, we elected this guy to represent the greatest nation on earth? \_ We as in 51% of the pure bred white-trash Americans. \_ Only 64% voted so 33% of white-trash Americans. \_ The world's most powerful man is requesting for a bathroom break?? \_ As much as I like to see silly Bush stuff -- This is just reality for being the President. Every move is watched, anytime you need to do something or go somewhere there are logistics involved. \_ Somehow it's disturbing that the SoS is being asked to fetch a chamber pot. You'd think there'd be a protocol officer around. \_ That would look good on a resume "potty protocol officer for President" |
| 2005/9/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39681 Activity:nil |
9/14 Q: Pres. Bush, what is your opinion of Roe v. Wade?
A: I don't care how people got out of New Orleans.
\_ Damn, I was just about to post that. |
| 2005/9/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39670 Activity:nil |
9/14 Tom Delay: There's simply no fat left to cut in federal budget.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050914-120153-3878r.htm
\_ Isn't this the guy who's pretty clearly been taking bribes?
\_ Apparently he's decided to go into comedy. " Asked if that
meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr.
DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority
we've pared it down pretty good.""
\_ Yes, I'm sure his campaign donors are being rewarded
as "efficiently" as possible. |
| 2005/9/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39668 Activity:nil |
9/14 "The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from
$100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization
of despair."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers |
| 2005/9/14-17 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39667 Activity:nil |
9/14 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050913/od_nm/life_manure_dc Using shit as a source of renewable energy \_ Equipment that burns gas made from manure? Why not just burn the manure directly? It has been done in the wild for centuries. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers |
| 2005/9/13 [Science/Disaster, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Travel/Nola] UID:39662 Activity:nil |
9/13 New Orleans: A Green Genocide
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19418
\_ This is posted by jblack |
| 2005/9/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39660 Activity:nil |
9/13 Finger pointing/FEMA thread below reminds me of the following line from
Plan 9 From Outer Space:
LT HARPER: "Your guess is as good as mine, Larry. But one thing's sure.
Inspector Clay is dead...murdered...and somebody's responsible!"
\_ I don't think there's any evidence of competence in any of the
governmental parties involved. But I am also not comfortable
due to the lack of evidence to say that any one governmental party
is less competent than any other. I suspect any such claim at
this point would be ideological rather than factual.
\_ I think it's safe to say that all parties in all sectors south
of the Mason/Dixon line are less than competent. I used to
feel bad about this "predjudice", but the older I get, the more
evidence I see of it. This clusterfuck would not have happened
in Boston or Seattle not becuase there's a FEMA conspiracy
to fuck New Orleans, but because the police and other emergency
service workers in those places see themselves as public servants
and not as the biggest gang in the jungle. Ask yourself why
the NYPD didn't act like the NOPD on 9/11. Because of the
leadership of New York? Maybe a little, but mostly because
northern culture is simply, objectively better. Every single
NYPD cop had to make a personal choice to put their city before
their own life, and every single NOPD cop had to make a choice
to turn into a fucking barbarian the day order started to
collapse. The fucking southern trash are right that the schism
in American culture is about values, they just got it wrong who
has the values.
\_ 9/11 NYC was a much different event than Katrina/NO. Using
the response of *some* NOPD in a wide spread disaster as a
sign of all southerners being trash vs. NYC in a devastating
but physically localised disaster as a sign of the superiority
of northerns is, at best, simply inappropriate. You really
think people in NYC are going to "come together and help their
fellow man" when the shit hits the fan on a wide scale? Most
of them watched it on TV from home the same as the rest of us.
When you start tossing phrases like "southern trash" around
as generally applicable to a hundred million people, you only
diminish the rest of your points. Same thing with phrases
like "every single NOPD cop had to make a choice to turn into
a fucking barbarian". So every single NOPD cop was looting,
raping, and murdering people? I think not and no reasonable
person is claiming that anywhere. I know people who were
there at the superdome as first responders with food, water,
medicine, etc. It wasn't the NOPD shooting at them. It
wasn't NOPD raping children and shooting random innocents.
It was "their fellow man". The same "fellow man" you'd find
in any wide spread disaster because that's what some people
really are when there's no legal structure to hold them back.
\_ This is cool. -John
\_ I wouldn't judge the entire South by New Orleans. For
instance, Florida seems to be able to handle these
calamities. The truth is that Louisiana is an extremely
poor state and that the people living in and running New
Orleans in particular are corrupt and incompetent. I know
someone who lived nearby on the Mississippi coast whose
house was flooded and the situation there never deteriorated
like it did in New Orleans. Of course, those were mostly
law-abiding white folks with at least enough money to
get the hell out of there - but even the people who
stayed came together as a community to help each other.
New Orleans is many times larger than those towns, much
poorer, and the people are far less educated. Even so, the
people who stayed do not represent the entire city. Most
people got the hell out of there. The poor, elderly, and
criminally-minded are what remained.
\_ I don't think any reasonable person is heaving blame exclusively
at any one person - the fact is that the whole system failed.
My hope is that this failure will lead to a larger conversation
about how to make government work better and more efficiently -
but my fear is that politics as usual will guarantee lots of
expensive pork for the few, lots of opportunistic politics,
and very little change for the better. It's also quite alarming
that in the four years after 9/11, the government (at all levels)
seems to have become *less* competent at handling disaster and
catastrophe. Contrast the four years after 9/11, the amount
of money spent, and what was accomplished, with the four years
after Pearl Harbor.
\_ Look at the finger pointing discussion. There was clearly
a desire to exonerate the LA governor and place the blame
at FEMA's feet.
\_ I think all levels of the government, both federal and state,
failed. Like I said, I don't see any sign of competence
anywhere. But the finger pointing discussion below is a
clear example of an attempt to exonerate the LA governor and
to place the blame at the feet of FEMA.
\_ Yeah, but it's the motd. I said *reasonable people*. ;)
I also believe that the failure is systemic, a failure of
the current approach to government at state and federal
levels - but that's a discussion for another time.
\_ You know, there is a difference between the culpability of
state and local authorities and FEMA, because FEMA has
*no other reason for existence* other than disaster
planning and recovery. The governor of Louisiana
was not elected on the basis of her ability to
prepare for and recover from disasters, while everyone
involved with FEMA *should* be in their positions
because of their abilities in this specific area. -tom
\- by making the "clusterfuck" sound really bad, the
region will get a lot of fast tracked money.
spreading around "10,000 dead" is probably worth
a couple of billion. that moron brownie will cost
teh federal govt a couple of more billion. it's
too bad he didnt commit suicide like the JAL supervisor
after a JAL crash. of course given a lot of this will
flow to halliburton, it's not like some of the executive
branch people will care ... $2000 for a displaced
person, $200,000 to Halliburton Carpet Cleaning Service. |
| 2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39659 Activity:nil |
9/13 Funny finger pointing.
"The updated Louisiana death toll came as Gov. Kathleen Blanco lashed
out at the federal government, accusing it of moving too slowly in
recovering the bodies. ...... FEMA spokesman David Passey said he did
not understand what the governor was talking about because, he said,
the state asked to take over body recovery last week."
http://csua.org/u/ddj (Yahoo! News)
Blanco must be suffering memory loss from the flooding.
\_ http://csua.org/u/ddk (AP)
"Federal Emergency Management Agency has slowed down the process by
failing to sign a contract with the company hired to handle the
removal of the bodies, Houston-based Kenyon International Emergency
Services. ...
Blanco said the state would sign a contract with Kenyon, even
though the body recovery is the responsibility of FEMA, because
'I could not bear to wait any longer.'"
\_ Of course, this article does not answer the FEMA claim that
"the state asked to take over body recovery *last week*
[emphasis added]".
\_ state asked, but FEMA didn't respond
\_ Reference please.
\_ FEMA originally hired Kenyon based on a verbal
agreement, and Kenyon started work. FEMA couldn't work
out an acceptable contract. Kenyon threatened to pull
out since they were doing free work until they had a
signed contract.
State stepped in and signed. State will pay Kenyon,
and ask federal for reimbursement later. Look up "body
recovery" on http://news.yahoo.com.
\_ That's essentially what the AP article above said.
Missing is any reference to the state asking to
take over body recovery last week. Note that the
AP article is dated *today*, missing is what exchange
took place between FEMA and the state *last week*.
So I have to repeat my request for a reference to
substantiate your claim that "state asked, but
FEMA didn't respond". Note also that your claim
is contrary to claim by presumably another poster
below. So did the state ask? Did FEMA say no?
Did FEMA not respond? And of course, references for
your claims, please.
\_ I didn't claim that, I'm someone else.
it's consistent with order of events below.
Basically, the point is that FEMA guy did
not dispute key statements from Blanco. By
not disputing them, FEMA guy implies that
Blanco's claims are true. What FEMA guy actually
does it make distracting comments that add
FUD -- but once again, do not contradict Blanco's
claims.
Did you go to http://news.yahoo.com and do what I asked
though?
\_ Mea culpa. With all of us posting anonymously,
it's hard to keep track of who made what claim.
Unfortunately, all I have now is one claim
by a FEMA guy, and contrary claims by anon
MOTD posters to the contrary. As lacking in
crediblity a FEMA guy may be, I think the anon
MOTD posters are even more lacking. In case
of searching for references on yahoo, it is
hardly my place to find evidence for you to
prove your point.
\_ It's the VERY FIRST LINK if you do what
I ask.
\_ Then it's surely not difficult for you
to post a reference.
\_ then it's surely not difficult for
you to go to http://news.yahoo.com, type
in "body recovery", and click on the
first link
\_ At this point I must conclude that
your link must not say what you
claim it does if you are so shy
about posting it. I repeat that
it is hardly my place to dig up
evidence for you to prove your
point.
\_ at this point I conclude that
you are too fearful of being
wrong or of reading
countervailing facts that you
don't want to follow the steps
I outlined
\_ (1) FEMA slow
(2) State asks for responsibility "last week"
(3) FEMA says our responsibility
(4) State says fine
(5) FEMA slow
(6) State signs contract anyway
\_ Great. Please show reference for points 3 and 4.
\_ Great. Please show reference that says it didn't
happen this way. Note what FEMA guy said does not
dispute this sequence of events.
\_ Well, there is one assertion by FEMA that the state
asked for body recovery responsibilities with the
additional statement that "the collection of bodies
is not normally a FEMA responsibility", and there
is one assertion by you that FEMA denied that
request. FEMA guy may lack credibility, but surely
an anonymous poster on MOTD is even more lacking.
\_ an anonymous poster like yourself?
\_ Fair enough. However, I am not anonymously
countering a statement by an identified source.
My anonymous word may not be worth more than
other anonymous words on MOTD, but they're
surely worth less than the non-anonymous FEMA
guy. But so are other sources based on MOTD
opinion, insofar as none of us are on the
scene and privy to internal government
communication.
\_ hey dude, merge better.
anyways, the FEMA guy saying it's "not normally
a FEMA responsibility" just adds FUD, because
FEMA actually initiated with the verbal agreement
with Kenyon. As such, they would be expected
to follow through on the written contract, which
they tried to, but failed to negotiate.
In any case, what FEMA guy said does not
contradict Blanco's claims -- he's just adding
FUD.
\_ Still, all we have is one FEMA guy claiming
one thing, and you claiming that FEMA denied
the state's request. Who are we to trust?
Surely you must have gotten FEMA's denial from
a source. Care to share that source with us?
Or is it privileged communication from an
insider? Or were you there at FEMA's denial
and witnessed the event? I am at a loss how
else you could have known.
\_ whoever said "denied"?
and, merge better please.
\_ Quoting from above, "(2) State asks for
responsibility "last week"[,] (3) FEMA
says our responsibility". I summarized
point 3 by saying FEMA denied the state's
claim. So the question remains. How
did the MOTD poster know about (3)? From
a published source? From a privileged
source? Or did he witness it personally?
\_ != "denied"
\_ OK. That hardly changes anything.
So how did the poster know about
(3)? Published source, privileged
communication, or personal witness?
I should write though, that (3) is
better phrased as "FEMA already had
a verbal agreement, so it seems what
happened is that state was waiting
for FEMA to finalize the written
contract"
\_ Well, you should have, since this
is a substantively different claim
than (3) above. Your new claim
completely avoids your early point
that FEMA claimed responsiblity.
And how does your new claim address
FEMA's claim that the state asked
to take over body recovery?
\_ I never disputed the claim
that state asked FEMA to take
over body recovery.
See step (2) above.
I can agree that reasonable
observers could say my original
(3) and my revised (3) are
substantively different.
\_ So you agree with the FEMA
spokesman after all? Great.
\_ I agree with the statement
that Blanco asked for
responsibility.
The new (3) disputes the
idea that Blanco had
"memory loss", but
instead portrays what
the FEMA guy said as
distracting FUD.
\_ I don't think there's
evidence proving either
FEMA incompetence or
just confusion over the
handover of
responsibility. And I
would hate to defend
either FEMA or LA
without evidence.
BTW, thanks. This has been
a very honest exchange.
\_ Never again will I
oversimplify something
that shouldn't be.
I'll probably break that
promise later ... |
| 2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39655 Activity:nil |
9/13 Non-partisan Congressional Research Service says that Blanco took all
steps in a timely manner to secure federal assistance.
http://www2.dccc.org/docs/conyersgaokatrina.pdf
\_ From the last paragraph titled "Conclusions", "it would appear
that the Governor did take the stgeps necessary to request
emergency and major disaster declarations... In response to the
Governor's requests, it appears that the President did take the
steps necessary to trigger the availability of Stafford Act
emergency and disaster assistance...". Your summary, while
correct, appears incomplete and misleading. Nice try though.
\_ There's been various assertions in the media that she didn't
respond in a timely manner - hence the link. Nice try, though.
\_ Just as there have been various assertions here and in the
media that Dubya didn't. You're still being misleading by
just mentioning the one and ignoring the other.
\_ Uh, no. The reflection on Dubya is 1) that he nominated
incompetent cronies to head the responsible agencies, and
to a much lesser extent, 2) when those agencies were
floundering, rather than prod them to quicker action, he
went to McCain's birthday party. |
| 2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39654 Activity:nil |
9/13 go bush!
http://community.webshots.com/photo/414846943/415162080JEfWnC
http://community.webshots.com/photo/414846943/415161998ZseeBi
http://community.webshots.com/photo/414846943/414762120hUjBZU
http://community.webshots.com/photo/414846943/414903120yxipYR
http://community.webshots.com/photo/418168700/418168700JOWorQ
\_ Your point?
\_ Yup, go for her bush!
\_ Probably waxed.
\_ Q: What are bushless bushes?
A: Jenna and Barbara, waxed. |
| 2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39650 Activity:low |
9/13 "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all
levels of government, and to the extent the federal government didn't
fully do its job right, I take responsibility" -Dubya
\_ It finally took him how many years to own up to his problems?
\_ Hell has frozen over.
\_ Read carefully what Dubya said. All he said was "I am not saying
I did anything wrong myself. But insofar as I am the executive
head of the federal government, and the federal government
screwed up, I will accept blame for that." OTOH, the non-
partisan Congressional Research Service report said Dubya did
all he was supposed to do, so maybe he's not to blame. Yeah, OK.
\_ I agree with guy who said "Hell hath frozen over"
\_ I agree with guy who said "Hell has frozen over"
\_ Bush is becoming a very very bad conservative. As one, you
should never, ever admit a mistake.
\- i hardly think this is a "conversion on the road to biloxi"
i think this is rove, not jebus.
\_ Actually, in this political climate, nobody should admit
mistakes, since their partisan enemies will attack them for
anything.
\_ "The people who don't want to play the blame game are
to blame" |
| 2005/9/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39645 Activity:moderate |
9/12 "The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael
Brown, has resigned, two administration sources told CNN today."
\_ Overheard in an elevator conversation between a white woman
and a black woman in Los Angeles just 15 minutes ago:
"Did you hear? The head of FEMA resigned"
"Huh?"
"FEMA ... you know Michael Brown?"
"?"
"That guy fuckin' killed those people"
"... Are you going to drop off that paperwork later?"
"... Yeah ..."
\_ Which begs the question: which woman said what?
\_ Actually it *raises* the question you illiterate schmuck.
\_ interesting report. so let me see guess how this plays out
in your head. "black woman didn't know about FEMA. but her
people are DYING! in fact, FEMA is KILLING THEM! why doens't
she care? it's HER people. she's BLACK. those people dying are
black! I'm asian. do they have no empathy?" i hope someone
sends me a note when you die, so i can come piss on your grave. |
| 2005/9/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39642 Activity:nil |
9/12 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1103581,00.html "... aides and outside allies concede, is what many of them see as the President's increasing isolation. Bush's bubble has grown more hermetic in the second term, they say, with fewer people willing or able to bring him bad news--or tell him when he's wrong. Bush has never been adroit about this. ... The result is a kind of echo chamber in which good news can prevail over bad--even when there is a surfeit of evidence to the contrary." \_ There appears to be an eery similarity to the US and Russia right now ... Remember that sub that got stuck and the wife of one of the sailors inquired if they would be ok and the response was "This is Russia. Pray!" ... And only until she blew the story in the media did they get saved ... See any parallels? \_ Oh yeah, that's the same thing alright. Esp with the SUBSAFE progarm and the DSRV the Navy has. \_ Doomed people until the media forces the government to get off their collective asses? \_ ilyas to thread. \_ "You're doing a heck of a job, Georgie!" |
| 2005/9/12-14 [Science/Disaster, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39639 Activity:nil |
9/12 Maybe the Federal response wasn't as slow as we think:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm
\_ I don't trust the fact-checking ability of someone who writes that
Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002.
\_ Plus the levees broke on Monday, not Tuesday.
\_ "We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like
you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and
waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree
while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort
were studying engineering."
Yeah, I'm sure this "journalist" isn't trolling. -tom
\_ Man I wish there was some technology that allow us to fly in
supplies and troops into places with no airstrips. I've seen
things like that on some SciFi TV shows like MASH.
\_ :-)
\_ And why couldn't they find any choppers, I wonder?
\_ bush had em loaned out to his buddies? |
| 2005/9/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39638 Activity:nil |
9/12 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/site/newsweek "Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty. After five years in office, he is surrounded largely by people who agree with him. ... When Hurricane Katrina struck, it appears there was no one to tell President Bush the plain truth: that the state and local governments had been overwhelmed, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was not up to the job and that the military, the only institution with the resources to cope, couldn't act without a declaration from the president overriding all other authority." \_ link:tinyurl.com/cly9r [nyt] . Yes, but in addition to that: "But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established... 'Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?' asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential." \_ He didn't have to do anything pre-emptively. They put in the request for federal help BEFORE the storm hit. \_ LA requested federal help, but the governor did not relinquish control over the National Guard (and still hasn't, last I checked), which Bush & co. believed "would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established". If you read carefully, it would have been clear that the "pre-emptively" referred to taking control of the National Guard. \_ Politics are more important than anything! \_ Apparently, since Blanco *still* would not relinquish of the National Guard! \_ And yet Bush & Co. didn't have the imagination to federalize them without her permission ala the Kennedys. All of that excutive power of the President and he can't figure out how to use it. \_ Yah. I hate Bush but he should be declared King! |
| 2005/9/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39634 Activity:kinda low |
o9/12 Tom Delay to evacuee kids: "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind
of fun?"
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/3346041
\_ That's nice troll. Why don't I start posting some of race-baiting
hate-filled comments Demos spout all the time that don't get
reported? Why don't I quote it out of context as well.
\_ What, like that John McCain has a black baby? Oh, wait, that
was Republican race-baiting.
\_ Indeed, why don't you?
\_ What's wrong with what he said ... I'm sure to a lot of kids that's
true, their perspective is vastly different. The kids after WW2
loved playing in the ruins, for example.
\_ And it only cost them the occasional father.
\_ There usually is a disconnect there that we don't have.
\_ I thought that's the right way to lessen kids' pain. For example,
when my 1-yr old son trips and falls on the ground, if I rushed to
him and comforted him and said things like "Does it hurt? Are you
alright?" he would start crying. So now I changed to putting up a
smile and say things like "Yeah, cool." Then he won't cry and he'll
get up by himself and go on. |
| 2005/9/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39622 Activity:nil |
9/10 http://tinyurl.com/c4xq2 Bush debates with Bush |
| 2005/9/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Science/Space] UID:39621 Activity:kinda low |
9/10 Military pilots reprimanded for saving lives:
http://csua.org/u/dc8 (New York Times)
\_ This story is fishy on two parts. Their motto
belongs to Air Force Pararescue Jumpers, not Navy
unit. And for those that have never served, their
CO is technically correct. Orders above all else. For you
"compassionate" civilians who dont understand black and white.
\_ Err, the pilots weren't reprimanded. They were mildly scolded by
by their CO for not fulfilling their primary mission. Only very
late in the day did they seek out permission (which was granted)
to abandon their primary mission.
\_ "Kennel duty". Sure. -John |
| 2005/9/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39618 Activity:nil |
9/10 In the face of the Katrina disaster, Bush pulls out the big gun
that worked really well in the past-- evoking memories of 911.
In another news his rating to go up, news at 11.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4233266.stm
\_ The Uprise Against Establishment movement will now fail. You
lazy fuckers need to learn from the 60s and 70s. 68 especially.
Overthrow Bush for a brighter tomorrow!!! |
| 2005/9/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39616 Activity:nil 50%like:39405 |
9/10 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050910/pl_nm/contracts_dc Halliburton and many other Bushco's to rebuild New Orleans. Yay! |
| 2005/9/10-12 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39613 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
9/9 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4218536.stm Read the last comment by Paul, Atlanta, USA. Hey Justin Black, is that your best friend from high school? \_ Do you mean Zachery? \_ They took Paul out. BBC censors!!! It was written in the purest jblack style, with that "It's the poor people's fault because they're stupid and lazy and they deserve to die" tone. That, followed by something to the effect of "Go Bush!" |
| 2005/9/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39612 Activity:nil |
9/9 I don't understand... I thought Bush was padding Michael Brown's
back & told him he did a good job, now he is sacking him so the blame
won't reach to the President? |
| 2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39611 Activity:nil |
9/9 Bush is going to lead the Katrina inquiry. I'm sure that's going to
turn out to be fair and balanced. Bring it on, mission accomplished,
and God Bless. |
| 2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39605 Activity:nil |
9/9 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4228940.stm Yes! YES! Uncensored criticism to Bush and his cronies to be aired on US broadcast network. People, wake up, IT IS TIME to speak out, to protest and to fix the fabrics of our corrupt society. It is time to learn the truth, for it is truth that will liberate yourself from the shackles of the current policies and power structure. Come out with me. Come join Cindy Sheehan. Come join all the other brave citizen soldiers of truth and freedom who are about to create the biggest protest America has every seen. Come on yall big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again, he's got himself in a terrible jam, way down yonder in Iraq. So put down your books and protest. Light up your incense. Good sense, innocence, cripplin' and kind. Who cares what games we choose? Bushco has little to win, but nothing to lose. Beatniks and politics, nothing is new. A yardstick for lunatics, one point of view. Join me for harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding, no more falsehoods or derisions, golden living dreams of visions. Come join me. Come join the revelation. \_ Nice troll, but it could use some editing. \_ Why do you hate America? \_ "He also claimed the US was not set up "to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off". How do they let this kind of crazy radical talk end up on the air? If I had my way, you'd all be shot! |
| 2005/9/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39602 Activity:nil |
9/9 Bush batting average calls for new coaches (think 0.333 is good?):
http://tinyurl.com/a6a39 |
| 12/24 |