|
12/25 |
2006/5/17-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43080 Activity:nil |
5/16 Some interesting numbers at the end http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_051606.htm See: what's your religion, are you liberal/conservative/moderate \_ Wait, if the early 80s was strongly Dem, why the fuck did Reagan win? Reagan is a charming guy but his policies totally suck. And look at Q909, "what was the last grade of school you completed" 21% attended some college and 21% attended grad school, and 10% attended post-graduate. How can you have as many grad school as college when the % of people going to grad school is much less than college? And 21+21+10 or 52% of the people who did the poll have college degrees or higher. This is totally not representative of our redneck Jesus loving Americans that mostly voted for rednecks like themselves. The survey methodology is flawed. |
2006/5/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43067 Activity:nil |
5/15 Bush Administration has been spying on reporters phone calls: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html |
2006/5/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43066 Activity:nil |
5/15 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPu19jOcJF4 (from http://drudgereport.com) CNN confused that Dubya had already started his immigration speech and switches to his feed, when in fact Dubya was only rehearsing. Or, the official story that an NBC guy told Dubya to start and someone else told him to stop. \_ What gets me about the whole address -- has Bush never been to Socal? \_ what about it? |
2006/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43065 Activity:nil |
5/15 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html "The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters phone records in leak investigations." \_ No seeking needed anymore, just a quick NSA database query ... Does anyone honestly not believe the final destination for all these programs is a police state the PTB in communist East Germany could be proud of? \_ National security letters were only supposed to be used for terror suspects and spies. The FBI does not need to consult a judge to obtain an NSL. With the Patriot Act, NSLs may be issued for anyone, not just terror suspects and spies. With the Patriot Act, NSLs may be issued by FBI field offices, not just FBI senior officials. What can be obtained from an NSL? Issued primarily to businesses (like phone companies, ISPs, and e-commerce sites) and government entities (like libraries), the entity is compelled to provide phone records, financial data, Internet access history, etc., although wiretaps are not included. The entity is also forbidden from disclosing the fact that you have been probed. So, if there were an investigation into the leak on CIA secret prisons in Europe, an FBI field office could issue an NSL to SBC to provide phone records on who the NY Times and Washington Post reporters have been talking to. There is no explicit restriction on what the data can be used for, once obtained. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent U.S. citizens once an investigation closed, permitting entry into a permanent database. \_ My point was that with the new NSA domestic "keep track of every call ever made" spying database, the extra step of going to the phone company is no longer necessary. -pp \_ I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding info. fyi, the total-information-awareness phone record dumps were not via NSL or FISA -- it was just the NSA asking "nicely". \_ Yes they are all different mechanism, but there is no denying that everything is moving towards more surveillance and less court oversight. |
2006/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43064 Activity:nil |
5/15 http://www.nysun.com/article/32727 "The story is a complete fabrication," the spokesman for Mr. Rove, Mark Corallo, told The New York Sun. "It is both malicious and disgraceful." [Rove reportedly served with an indictment] http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml |
2006/5/15-18 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43059 Activity:nil |
5/15 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/15/britain.chavez Chavez says "capitalism is extreme individualism, which is using up the world's non-renewable energy reserves at an alarming pace... the fact that 90 percent of vehicles carry no more than one person is a stupid thing... Our planet will not put up with this... We're all in peril... Bush has committed genocide and should be imprisoned by an international criminal court." Many people in Berkeley, including me, agree with everything this dillusional crook has said up to this point, which is quite disturbing. Are we considered unpatriotic liberals who should be put into secret jails? \_ Almost everyone in Berkeley is a communist. Just look at their hippie shirts, tie die VW, bicycles, and stinking BO from a feeble attempt to save water and the environment. \_ Look up genocide, and yeah, individualism = bad. -John \_ "A broken clock is right twice a day" \_ Messenger != the message. No politician in their right mind and in a position of power in the US can get away with saying stuff like that, no matter if it's true or not. He also said that the twin towers used more energy than "some African nations" which is an interesting statement, and might be true. Anyone know? As for Bush being the "worst genocider" or whatever, that's clearly not true (Darfur?), although he's definitely in the top 3. \_ Definitely in the top 3? Wow. Do they even teach grade-school level history any more? Clearly critical thinking skills are out the window. You might be confused -- "genocide" != "politics I don't agree with". \_ Well the entire Venezuela consumes more energy than the twin towers, so we should send suicide hijackers to demolish it. \_ How has Bush committed genocide? Or do you just not know what the work means? \_ Well killing thousands of people definitely helps, although technically it's not genocide since Bush doesn't give a shit what race/ethniticity they are, they are parked on his shit what race/ethnicity they are, they are parked on his oil. \_ Uhm, I think the dictionary definition part of genocide has more to do with it being "not genocide". \_ Then why did he/you say it is genocide? It isn't. \_ Genocide's hard to prove in this case, but watch The Dimming Sun and, taking into account the US's refusal to sign Kyoto, say we won't end up being responsible for a lot of death and destruction. \_ There are no true enviromentalists. They are all hypocrites. The fact is you want to breed. And breed you will. Until you dig a hole in the ground and off yourself (no coffin allowed!) then you can't be a true enviromentalist. No recycling drives, hybrid cars and other delusional, half-hearted attempts will change this. The only way to 'save the earth' is to eliminate humanity. \_ You conclusion is, to put it mildly, pretty fucking stupid. Work your troll skillz, young grasshopper. \_ How is it stupid? How is it wrong? \_ Unless you're living this life, your words are hollow. Kibbitzing on how people you don't like should live the lives you don't like is lame. |
2006/5/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43044 Activity:nil |
5/13 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042806Y.shtml http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1622082/posts "Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources." \_ I like how the entire Republican party has been taking Bush's lead on the whole "never admit when you've done something wrong" thing, starting w/ the Dukester loudly proclaiming his innocence and heaping scorn on the partisan politics of those who would accuse him ...until the evidence was finally overwhelming. \_ Joshua Bolten, a white Jayson Blair? http://villagevoice.com/news/0508,murphy,61336,6.html \_ Because what was important about Blair was he was black. You know how it is, let those black folks think they are the same as whites and they will just stab you in the back. What The Fuck? \_ Um, isn't this about Jason Leopold, not Joshua Bolten? |
2006/5/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43036 Activity:nil |
5/12 Wash Post and ABC News conduct overnight poll showing 66% of those polled wouldn't mind if the NSA had a record of phone numbers they had called. 63% also say they feel it's acceptable (41% strongly so) for the NSA to collect phone records of tens of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. http://csua.org/u/fu4 (Wash Post) \_ In other news, Americans are idiots. -tom \_ :) \_ You know, I don't mind the fact that the database has been collected. I think it is a minimally invasive way to get intel on associates of suspected terrorists. What bothers me is the high-handed unaccountable way Bush did it. He didn't go for any judicial review, warrants, nothing. Not feeling yourself bound by convention, not believing anything limits your power, those are characteristics of a tyrant. --PeterM \_ In other news, only 29% still support the Chimposter: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512/pl_nm/bush_poll_dc_1 \_ sloppy reporting from Reuters et al. Good+Excellent vs. Fair+Poor is not the same as Approve vs. Disapprove. \_ http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008453.php 53 Percent believe that the NSA has gone too far. |
2006/5/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43032 Activity:nil |
5/11 http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000905.html Bush vs. Nixon. |
2006/5/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43022 Activity:nil |
5/11 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511/ap_on_go_co/murtha_interview_1 Murtha predicts U.S. troops will be brought home by end-2007, and also predicts there will be a "tidal wave" in November with Dems gaining 40-50 House seats, unless Dubya brings back more than half the troops before then. |
2006/5/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43017 Activity:nil |
5/11 http://csua.org/u/fti (wsj.com) Star conservative judge J. Michael Luttig gives up lifetime federal appeals court seat to become General Counsel for Boeing, partly because of disillusionment by the encroachment of politics on the judiciary sources say How to resign without ruining your career prospects: link:csua.org/u/ftn (timesdispatch.com) "[by phone] I've been on the court 15 years. It's a long time. This opportunity came up, as I said in my letter to the president, by serendipity and I thought about it a long time with my wife and we just decided that it was time for a change. [via letter] I want to express my heartfelt thanks to your father ..." \_ Maybe it's just true? |
2006/5/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43016 Activity:nil |
5/10 NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls http://csua.org/u/ftd (Yahoo! News) \_ Need the phone records for a terror suspect? No need to present evidence to the phone company to get 'em -- you already got it! The last thing we need is a mushroom cloud over a major American city. \_ What, you're willing to trade any freedom, tolerate any oppression, just so that someone can't nuke a US city? Guess what: they'll still be able to nuke the city, but politicos will be able to use the information for personal purposes. Just look at the antics of the FBI under Hoover. \_ I like how Al Franken put it this morning: "What President Bush doesn't realize is that the next guy in office might not be as trustworthy as him ..." \_ he's right. it's gonna be Hillary.. we are all screwed \_ Man, berkeley's standards seem to get lower every year. \_ Seriously, pp doesn't even remember history from 8 years ago. \_ obTrollbait. \_ http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/105237.shtml?s=ic Carl Limbacher of http://newsmax.com says, "USA Today NSA Scoop Not News". Now tell me what's wrong with this article. \_ OMG!!!11! it's all CLINTON'S FAULT!!! WHY DIDN"T I THINK OF THAT? Fuck off and die. \_ I'm replying to myself, but key problems with the article are: (1) The Clinton-era program had FISA approval and focused on international surveillance (2) The program under dispute is ALL domestic. (3) Qwest asked for a FISA review before turning over records, but the NSA didn't want to ask FISA. (4) Dubya is trying very hard not to let this undergo judicial scrutiny, perhaps not until a Democrat takes power, to decide the issue of whether the "unitary executive" theory enables Dubya to break laws as commander-in-chief in a time of war ("interpret differently via signing statement") \- have you read the standard article on signing statements? http://csua.org/u/ftr i had not really heard of them until last year. these seem crazy to me ... consdered in light of say CLINTON v CITY OF NEW YORK. --psb \_ yep. the interesting aspect to me is the different ways they've been keeping it from judicial review. \- the new view of limited govt: no judicial review. \_ We'll just limit the government part that keeps the other government part from becoming unlimited. |
2006/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43005 Activity:nil |
5/10 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629936/posts Freepers respect power. Dubya has lost substantial amounts of it. \_ Bush is a "moderate" according to freepers. |
2006/5/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43003 Activity:nil |
5/10 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12721154 Bush: Brother Jeb would be 'great president' \_ If you can't keep the White House in order, might as well keep it in the family. \_ Didn't he say something similar about Porter Goss? Michael Chertoff? Tom Ridge? Harriet Miers? |
2006/5/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42992 Activity:nil |
5/9 Froomkin admits error in saying Hayden was wrong about 4th Amendment http://csua.org/u/frw (Wash Post) He should have taken the motd approach: Say probable cause applies to warrants, and you can search without a warrant as long as it's reasonable: like when cops do a pat-down without a warrant, or when Dubya says so. \_ "So I guess it's conceivable that Hayden's view is not an out-and-out misinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment. But at the very least, it's certainly an activist way of looking at things." Calling this admitting error is not an out-and-out misinterpretation of it, but it's certainly a wishful way of looking at it. \_ my main beef was that Froomkin didn't get it right the first time. instead he follows with a clarification and loses impact. i do acknowledge Froomkin didn't exactly fess up to a mistake. \- boy initially i thought you were talking about the law prof [who works with EFF] MICHAEL FROOMKIN and it would have been kinda interesting to see him back down. oh it looks like that columnist maybe the BROTHER of MFROOMKIN. |
2006/5/7-10 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42968 Activity:nil |
5/7 NIA Deputy Director General Michael Hayden: No probable cause mentioned in the 4th Amendment. Easily refuted. http://monkeydyne.com/lj/probable_cause.mov \_ Probable cause applies to warrants. You can search without a warrant, as long as it's reasonable, like when a police officer pats you down for weapons if he or she has a reasonable suspicion you might endanger them, orwhen Dubya says so. reasonable suspicion you might endanger them, or when Dubya says so. \_ ...also called probable cause. \_ do your homework: http://csua.org/u/fr5 (flexyourrights.org) \_ do your homework http://csua.org/u/fr5 (flexyourrights.org) http://csua.org/u/fr6 (findlaw.com) "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. (a) Though the police must whenever practicable secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. ..." This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a 'stop' and a 'frisk' amount to a mere 'minor inconvenience and petty indignity,' which can properly be imposed upon the [392 U.S. 1, 11] citizen in the interest of effective law enforcement on the basis of a police officer's suspicion." Can't blame you for not knowing, though, since it took a Supreme Court challenge to resolve this ... in '68. \_ "5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed." Please to be pointing out where this applies to wiretaps. \_ "when Dubya says so" so, do you acknowledge you were wrong about "also called probable cause"? \_ Am more inclined to quibble endlessly with you about whether said "probable cause" in this case is the suspicious behavior of suspects, but suspect that we're of more similar than dissimilar mind. \_ eh, I've been kind of doing a Colbert thing, so you're right about that part. |
2006/5/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42967 Activity:nil |
5/7 AN APOLOGY FROM A BUSH VOTER By Doug McIntyre - Host, McIntyre in the Morning Talk Radio 790 KABC There's nothing harder in public life than admitting you're wrong. By the way, admitting you're wrong can be even tougher in private life. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it's out there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it. So, I'm saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also believe a case can be made that he's the worst President, period. http://csua.org/u/fqr If the Right Wing talk radio blowhards have turned against him, is impeachment really that far feched a possibility? \_ You obviously have been paying attention politics only as far as Clinton. The constituents of talk show hosts (left or right) are not the same as the members of Congress. Things move slower. |
2006/5/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42952 Activity:nil |
5/5 Bush-appointed CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigns (instead of taking the usual "more time with the family" retirement/job switch) \_ queueing jblack and conservatives on motd to support your people. Waiting for you guys to state something to the effect that Bush's problems are attributed to Clinton and liberalism. \_ Maybe there was something to those new Watergate rumors. \- E_DEADGIRLLIVEBOY \_ uh, really? \_ Is it the hookers or just the bribery? Bush sure can pick 'em. \_ ob anal rapists \_ amazing all of the publicity Mary Mapes (some erudition for you - appointed by Berger with ties to Plame) has received. Vitiates sedition labels Dems receive. |
12/25 |
2006/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42950 Activity:nil |
5/5 Surprise, the establishment's propaganda IS effective http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-04-16-1.html |
2006/5/3 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42924 Activity:nil |
5/3 What GWB has to say about today's trial: "Our cause is right, and the outcome is certain: Justice will be served. Evil will not have the final say. This great Nation will prevail." -GWB |
2006/5/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42902 Activity:nil |
5/2 http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/02/hurricane.plan.ap Nagin to ship off and hand off problems to other people should Katrina happens again. |
2006/5/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42870 Activity:nil |
5/1 Colbert lambasts Bush on CSpan. FTW http://tinyurl.com/qkchv 1 of 3 http://tinyurl.com/ercd8 2 of 3 http://tinyurl.com/s7kyz 3 of 3 --michener \_ Very nice. Very funny. Thanks. BTW how do I capture the video as WMV or MPG? \_ Net Transport \_ Firefox VideoDownloader, don't know how well it works, someone just pointed me to it: <DEAD>addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2390<DEAD> -dans \_ http://www.keepvid.com |
2006/4/26-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42844 Activity:nil |
4/26 The US has one of the lowest rates of inter-generational mobility (rags to riches) in the industrialized world. http://csua.org/u/fmw (yahoo news) \_ This is great news for George W. Bush and his friends. \_ FUCK BU$H FUCK AMERIKKKA FUCK KKKORPORAPETION$$$ |
2006/4/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42836 Activity:nil |
4/26 Seven years ago today, Bush Sr. said: "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life,\ I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray\ the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in\ my view, the most insidious of traitors."\ -- former President George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999 \_ Worse even than atheists? |
2006/4/21-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42794 Activity:nil |
4/21 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7955 After watching this, wouldn't you support tactical nukes on Iranian nuclear sites, too? \_ Um, even if his "if" weren't such a friggin huge one, and (another big one) if there were such a thing as a "tactical nuke," no. \_ It's funny and scary at the same time. She is SOOOO way off the mark! |
2006/4/21-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:42792 Activity:nil |
4/21 That's some pretty awesome fox polling there... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008661.php \_ Aww. They didn't have "Religion/Christian Morals" as an option in the list of reasons to disapprove of the President. |
2006/4/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42781 Activity:nil |
4/18 Pres. Bush: "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense." \_ DUBYA! DUBYA! DUBYA is the STANDARD!!! political troll \_ http://pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm \_ http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com |
2006/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42738 Activity:nil |
4/12 The Revolt Against Rumsfeld, The officer corps is getting restless: http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/?nav=ais |
2006/4/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:42720 Activity:nil |
4/6 Aww.. Trent Lott is tired of the Pork Busters, poor guy just really likes bacon! http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/04/lott-says-hes-damn-tired-of.html http://truthlaidbear.com/porkbusters/index.php |
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42707 Activity:high |
4/6 http://nysun.com/timesleak.php Original New York Sun story on Bush involvement in leak. Basically, according to Libby's grand jury testimony: (1) The NIE (the official joint judgment of all the intelligence agencies) disputed Joe Wilson's criticisms about Iraq uranium (2) Bush told Cheney to get the NIE information out. (3) Cheney told Libby this. (4) Libby asked Cheney's lawyer, David Addington. The lawyer said Bush's permission to disclose "amounted to a declassification of the document" (5) Libby told Judy Miller, et al. Therefore, Libby never leaked classified information, because what he said became unclassified the moment Bush said to get it out. \_ But then later they claimed it was still classified, and they hadn't bothered to tell anyone else that they had declassified it. \_ I'm relieved, for a moment I thought that both Bush and Cheney had committed treason! Now I know better ... The [Vice] President has the authority to give aid and comfort to our enemies legally, since if they do it, it can't be illegal! \_ For those interested, backup on point 4 from 2003 -op \_ For those interested, backup on point 4 http://hnn.us/articles/1753.html For completeness, an article questioning the declassification powers of Dick Cheney -op http://csua.org/u/fgb (fas.org) \_ "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know Who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. "I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth," the president continued. Leaks of classified information are bad things." -Dubya 2/2004 Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth," the president continued. Leaks of classified information are bad things." -Dubya 2/2004 I guess it all means what is is, right? He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." \_ See "became unclassified the moment Bush said to get it out". \_ Some pigs are more equal than other pigs. \_ I should also note that the NIE was wrong about the vigorous attempt to obtain uranium (recall that the Duelfer report said that Saddam was trying his best to keep his programs dormant so he could escape sanctions, after which he would resuscitate the WMD programs as soon as people stopped looking), and Wilson's findings about the Niger forgeries were right, but didn't make it into the NIE for reasons I would say are due to a spectactular combination of incompetence and intent to get Saddam. Cf. the delay of the investigation into the political use of Iraq intelligence that was promised after the '04 election. -op |
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42705 Activity:nil |
4/6 Man tells Dubya he has never been more ashamed of the leadership of his country at North Carolina town hall http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060406/480/ncgh11404061755 (Notice the audience reaction) \_ What about the reaction are we supposed to notice? \_ doesn't it look a bit like Jerry Springer? |
2006/4/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42689 Activity:low 70%like:42683 |
4/4 The new South Park episode (S10E2) is pretty cool. They portrayed http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3670346 (sltrib.com) Son of Arizona Senate president (Republican) accepts plea agreement that may net little jail time. Charged with assault and kidnapping of eighteen 11- to 14-year-old boys -- by forcibly inserting broomsticks, mop handles, a flashlight, and a cane into their clothed anal crevices (the victims were wearing underwear, swimtrunks, or pants at the time) at summer camp. "The 18 boys were chosen to attend the weeklong student government leadership skills camp in Prescott because they were among the state's top student leaders." \_ I for one welcome our new Republican pedophile overlords! \_ 'The letter said Bennett was an honor student and active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who plans to go on a mission in September. "A felony conviction for assault will make his desire to complete his mission impossible," they wrote.' Oh noes! This felony conviction for fucking up 11 to 14-year-old boys could get in the way of this young man's desires? For shame! \_ Well you know, boys will be boys. \_ Scumbag lawyers. I'm pretty sure that kid won't be gonig on a mission. Indeed, that kind of thing may lead to excommunication. And that's a good thing. -emarkp \_ I don't think the "lawyers" deserve the most blame. It is most likely the Dubya-appointed GOP Arizona district attorney doing a favor for the GOP Arizona Senate president. \_ when did the POTUS appoint the DA of Arizona? \_ I believe that may have been a supremely feeble attempt at humour. \_ and so he'll join the ranks of those dirty atheists! \_ Okay, specifically, I think it's the Dubya-appointed GOP Arizona district attorney doing a favor for the GOP Arizona Senate president http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/USAttorney.html I would also say the elected GOP Yavaipai County Attorney also deserves more blame than the "lawyers". and the elected GOP Yavaipai County Attorney http://www.co.yavapai.az.us/departments/Aty/AtyHome.asp http://csua.org/u/ffw (azcentral.com) [corrected] \_ Forgiveness: Good enough for Jesus, not good enough for LDS. \_ You don't seem to understand. Forgiveness entirely possible. But saying "oops, I'm sorry, can I go on a mission now" doesn't cut it. Note that Jesus didn't forgive the woman taken in adultery. -emarkp \_ Is excommunication revokable? \_ Yes. -emarkp \_ Whoah, whoah whoah. Umm the story I read had no "sodomizing" involved, merely bumping the rear ends of fully CLOTHED victims, more the kind of stupid hazing shit young boys will do than anything else. Has the story changed? \_ I have read that every single Japanese schoolboy is obsessed with shoving his fingers up his male classmate's ass. I have seen video games about this. \_ That's right. Jamming a lot of people in a little area make them gay. That's why you see more gay people in big cities than say, rural Tennessee or South Carolina. \_ So if the kids had had big butts, this wouldn't make them gay? I'm confused now. \_ That's called Kancho. \_ Answering my own post: yes the story has changed ... this story is different from the version I read. \_ Thanks, I have updated the post. -op |
2006/4/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Music] UID:42667 Activity:nil |
4/4 "Bush was Right" music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o762HKxYMeA&eurl= \_ Seven outright falsehoods, and two misattributions. But, hey, sing it loud enough and it _must_ be true. \_ I like how the guitar goes "nah-nah-nah-n-nah nah!" |
2006/4/4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42655 Activity:nil |
4/4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4866964.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4773160.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4358830.stm The Culture of Corruption making headlines. Any more on the list? |
2006/4/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42634 Activity:nil 75%like:42632 |
4/3 Any idea why soda's SSH has been flaky the past few days? http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html -jblack http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html -jblack |
2006/4/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:42627 Activity:nil |
4/3 Mexican wealthy play American taxpayers for suckers http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html \_ If only we'd annexed Mexico back after the Mexican-American War. \_ we'll be greeted with rose petals and open arms the illegal immigrant is the WMD today \_ You lead the way, pinche cabron Walker. |
2006/4/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42618 Activity:nil |
4/2 "The Bush administration's desire to turn more and more government responsibility over to houses of worship along with lots of tax dollars appears to be insatiable," Jeremy Leaming, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190243,00.html |
2006/4/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:42617 Activity:kinda low |
4/2 I guess Russians are exporting those babys everywhere: \_ sic http://tinyurl.com/o99gq \_ I suspect American has something similar and it's been super secret about it. Further, I don't think it's necessary to use such weapon on an oil tanker... \_ The target of such a weapon would be a US aircraft carrier, battleship, cruiser, or other high value, high PR target. The US doesn't need their own version. What little fleet the Iranians have is no real threat without this. The US needs a defense against such a weapon. Imagine both the military and PR value of sinking a carrier or battleship? The British lost a destroyer to the Argentines and it was a huge deal. \_ There's no mention of this being a hardened weapon. Unless they have ECCM better than our ECM, these are virtually a non- issue. \_ original Russian version has no guidance whatsoever. I don't know what version does Iranian have. --OP \_ We have no idea if it is or isn't. It could be completely mechanical in which case ECM is useless. If you were designing a torpedo to kill large well defended American Navy vessels would you leave it open to easy ECM death? \_ Of course not, but I'm not the people who built this torpedo. It sounds like they were told to emphasize the speed, which leads me to think that they may have neglected other parts. \_ Exactly. Speed without accuracy using high tech guidance system means nothing. The early Migs flew higher and faster than the Phantom F4s but the F4s had much better guidance system. For every 10 Migs down there were only 1 F4 down. \_ They may have emphasized speed because that was the only special thing about it. Nothing says it can't still be accurate. In WW2 purely mechanical, unguided torps hit often enough to be useful. It may be shielded. It may be wire guided. Since everything we do know comes from Iranian PR, we really don't know anything except what they claim. Fighting against the US with high tech is usually a bad idea for most countries since they really can't out tech the US sufficiently in enough fields to matter so the smart thing would be to go the low-tech high- powered high-reliability route. Speculating is still fun though. As far as the mig vs phantom thing goes, the American pilots were *very* experienced and in Vietnam the numbers only turned haevily in favor of the US after we upgraded the fighter fleet and started putting cannons and other close combat weapons on them in addition to the flakey missile systems. \_ There exist missiles that home in on the wake from a ship. \_ This guy thinks they are dangerous: http://tinyurl.com/n4fw2 \_ Ummm.. I don't know about the torpedo, but that dude is obviously a fruitcake. \_ Will he fit in a torpedo tube? |
2006/4/2-4 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42620 Activity:low |
4/2 You see 1/2 million blacks protest. You see 1/2 million latinos protest. How come you don't see 1/2 million whites protest? \_ For starter it's easier to find jobless blacks and latinos than whites. That's why you'll never see the Million Jew March. \_ Or maybe that's because there are a *lot* more of almost every other race than Jews in this country? Of course you would know the reason for that is ZOG wants to limit the number of people They need to share power with so Jews breed when ZOG tells them to and who with. \_ Ey, watch it, shush. You're telling them all the secret stuff! -john@zog.net \_ What are they going to protest? "Oh no, I'm not oppressed and priviliged!" Protests are for people who are or have been oppressed, like the latinos and the blacks. It's the same reason why you won't see 1/2 million chinese take the streets and protest.(Well, at least not in America.) \_ That mean old congress is going to take away their medicare benefits and they will have to learn to use the internet to order petmeds from canada in order to stay alive. \_ whites can protest in the form of union labor strikes. though, that tends to be a heterogenous mix of races. \_ We'll call it "the Million Goth March!" \_ Most white-dominated countries, including the U.S., had well over 500K people protesting before Bush and the PNAC crew railroaded us into Operation Clusterfuck. -tom \_ You're wrong. American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. \_ Yeah, you said it: "commitment to moral principle". Somehow building a mountain of lies doesn't quite fit that, does it? \_ Stop it! You're making jblack mad. Now he's going to double his effort posting even more freeper URLs. \_ The Promise Keepers protest sure seemed pretty white to me. |
2006/3/31 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42573 Activity:high 50%like:42576 |
3/31 Odd questions about Carroll's release: http://csua.org/u/fdz (From Washington Post, with citations from NY Times) \_ Wow, a dupe only 2 posts above the original! |
2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42566 Activity:nil |
3/30 http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/03/index.html#009646 Tewwowist killer Hillary rakes in big bucks fundraising in Bush country |
2006/3/30-31 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42551 Activity:nil 75%like:42538 |
3/29 Woman gets a ticket for having a W BUSH bumper sticker: http://csua.org/u/fdg (Atlanta Journal) (Reg required) \_ To be clear, she got a ticket for having a bumper sticker that read, "I'm tired of this BUSHSHIT." \_ BUSHIT |
2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Travel] UID:42541 Activity:nil |
3/29 http://www.skylofts.com/html/news.html Los Angeles to have its own Times Square |
2006/3/30 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42538 Activity:nil 75%like:42551 |
3/29 Woman gets a ticket for having a W BUSH bumper sticker: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0328metsticker.html |
2006/3/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Media] UID:42456 Activity:moderate |
3/27 Can someone post a link to the text of the Wall Street Journal's review of "V For Vendetta"? Obviously I am not a WSJ Online subscriber. Thank you. \_ please delete after you are done. : \_ Why did someone delete the review? Thanks for posting it. -!op \_ Because it was stupid to post the content rather than a link in the motd. \_ It's not deleted, it's behind the paywall. \_ I mean someone posted it to the motd then it was gone from the motd a few mins later. Nevermind, I got to read it. I hop the op did, too. Thanks to whoever posted it. \_ stubborn and stupid person try 2: --- FILM REVIEW By JOE MORGENSTERN V for Violent, Vapid: Sci-Fi 'Vendetta' Celebrates Love, Liberty -- and Terrorism In "V For Vendetta," an action fantasy set in London in 2020, the masked hero calls himself V, models himself on the 17th-century political bomber Guy Fawkes, and says that words will always retain their power. He certainly uses them with verve -- especially v-words, as in his devotion to "vindicating the vigilant and the virtuous." Eventually this literary veneer devolves into vexatious volleys of cultural ventriloquism, or, if you will, a vichyssoise of vapid verbiage. But images have power, too, and several sequences in this film are powerful indeed, as in the apocalyptic fulfillment of the Gunpowder Plot, Fawkes's failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament. "V for Vendetta" is a veritable gallery of forceful images, and provocative notions, recycled from such sources as "The Phantom of the Opera," "The Mark of Zorro," "1984" and "A Clockwork In "V For Vendetta," an action fantasy set in London in 2020, the masked hero calls himself V, models himself on the 17th-century political bomber Guy Fawkes, and says that words will always retain their power. He certainly uses them with verve -- especially v-words, as in his devotion to "vindicating the vigilant and the virtuous." Eventually this literary veneer devolves into vexatious volleys of cultural ventriloquism, or, if you will, a vichyssoise of vapid verbiage. But images have power, too, and several sequences in this film are powerful indeed, as in the apocalyptic fulfillment of the Gunpowder Plot, Fawkes's failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament. "V for Vendetta" is a veritable gallery of forceful images, and provocative notions, recycled from such sources as "The Phantom of the Opera," "The Mark of Zorro," "1984" and "A Clockwork Orange." It's also a sententious piece of pop pap that celebrates terrorism as a necessary evil, and peddles anarchy in a user-friendly package. [Hugo Weaving] The film was written by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski, the brothers who created "The Matrix" trilogy; they based their screenplay on the comic book series of the same name by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. (The first-time director, James McTeigue, was assistant director on all three "Matrix" productions.) For a while "V for Vendetta" draws expertly, and extravagantly, on the primal power of its pulp antecedent. The fancy language, the mysterious protagonist, the pervasive sense of evil in an England tyrannized by steely fascists and religious crackpots, it all promises to be great fun. And so it is when the epigrammatic swashbuckler V, who's played by Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in "The Matrix") crosses paths with Natalie Portman's Evey, a frightened little mouse who doesn't know what to make of him -- "Are you like a crazy person?" she asks -- or when V, like some latter-day Vaughan Williams with a vicious streak, conducts his own explosive London symphony from a rooftop. (The film is also being shown in IMAX. I haven't seen it in that format, but I'll bet it terrorism as a necessary evil, and peddles anarchy in a user-friendly package. [Hugo Weaving] The film was written by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski, the brothers who created "The Matrix" trilogy; they based their screenplay on the comic book series of the same name by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. (The first-time director, James McTeigue, was assistant director on all three "Matrix" productions.) For a while "V for Vendetta" draws expertly, and extravagantly, on the primal power of its pulp antecedent. The fancy language, the mysterious protagonist, the pervasive sense of evil in an England tyrannized by steely fascists and religious crackpots, it all promises to be great fun. And so it is when the epigrammatic swashbuckler V, who's played by Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in "The Matrix") crosses paths with Natalie Portman's Evey, a frightened little mouse who doesn't know what to make of him -- "Are you like a crazy person?" she asks -- or when V, like some latter-day Vaughan Williams with a vicious streak, conducts his own explosive London symphony from a rooftop. (The film is also being shown in IMAX. I haven't seen it in that format, but I'll bet it looks impressive.) At its entertaining best, "V for Vendetta" has the courage of its borrowings, and conviction in its posturings. (What's not entertaining is the smarmy tone of its potshots at an America in the throes, we are told, of a civil war. "Here was a country that had everything," a TV voice intones at one point, "and 20 years later it's the world's biggest leper colony.") Some details of the musty English dystopia may seem familiar to moviegoers old enough to remember Terry Gilliam's "Brazil." Still, the movie is pitched shrewdly to young audiences, what with its heroine, Evey, in constant jeopardy, and a hero who turns out to be tortured, horribly mutilated -- Darth Vader with a smirky if not quite smiley face -- and conflicted in the bargain, since his ostensibly principled terrorism is tainted with a mad lust for revenge. ("Do you really think blowing up Parliament will make this a better place?" Evey asks him earnestly. The answer is yes, he does.) [V] Evey (played by Natalie Portman) is held prisoner in 'V For Vendetta.' Yet the film is beset by incoherence and implausibilities that are perplexing, given the close relationship between the Wachowskis and the director, Mr. McTeigue -- this is not one of those familiar cases, it's safe to say, where the writers lost control of their material when it went into production. Evey's background clearly makes her ripe for radicalizing, but it's never clear who she's become, or what she's up to. At work as a secretary for a TV network that resembles the BBC, she's middle-class. Away from work she could pass for a Dickensian shop girl. An older, rebellious man who works at the network stars in At its entertaining best, "V for Vendetta" has the courage of its borrowings, and conviction in its posturings. (What's not entertaining is the smarmy tone of its potshots at an America in the throes, we are told, of a civil war. "Here was a country that had everything," a TV voice intones at one point, "and 20 years later it's the world's biggest leper colony.") Some details of the musty English dystopia may seem familiar to moviegoers old enough to remember Terry Gilliam's "Brazil." Still, the movie is pitched shrewdly to young audiences, what with its heroine, Evey, in constant jeopardy, and a hero who turns out to be tortured, horribly mutilated -- Darth Vader with a smirky if not quite smiley face -- and conflicted in the bargain, since his ostensibly principled terrorism is tainted with a mad lust for revenge. ("Do you really think blowing up Parliament will make this a better place?" Evey asks him earnestly. The answer is yes, he does.) [V] Evey (played by Natalie Portman) is held prisoner in 'V For Vendetta.' Yet the film is beset by incoherence and implausibilities that are perplexing, given the close relationship between the Wachowskis and the director, Mr. McTeigue -- this is not one of those familiar cases, it's safe to say, where the writers lost control of their material when it went into production. Evey's background clearly makes her ripe for radicalizing, but it's never clear who she's become, or what she's up to. At work as a secretary for a TV network that resembles the BBC, she's middle-class. Away from work she could pass for a Dickensian shop girl. An older, rebellious man who works at the network stars in a broadly comic TV show that electrifies the nation by making a mockery of England's dictator, yet he's confident he won't be fired -- an inexplicable misjudgment on his part for what was obviously seditious conduct. V, the only character with sufficient magnetism to hold the narrative together, drops out for an extended period while Evey endures a hellish imprisonment that's contrived in more ways than one, and in the end awfully silly. Natalie Portman, as skillful as she is attractive, does have her moments -- it's affecting to see her hair being shaved, like Joan of Arc -- but wide-eyed Evey whimpers endlessly, and tediously, on her way to becoming a fearless woman who's able to love. And speaking of love, things go blooey instead of gooey whenever heroine and hero come close enough to touch; far from being sensual, let alone erotic, the movie proves to be not much fun at all. But then fun isn't high on the agenda, crowded as it is with solemn debates about the role of terrorism in the face of tyranny. The movie's heart, a mechanical pump connected to a reservoir of adrenalin, throbs for the smash finish in which the biggest bomb goes off, and the Houses of Parliament come tumbling down, along with Big Ben, a frequent casualty in disaster movies. "V for Vendetta" wasn't meant to be a disaster movie, of course, and there's no reason to think it will be a disaster, even though its original opening date of November 5th -- Guy Fawkes Day -- had to be pushed forward after real-life terrorists attacked London last July. These days filmmakers who play with fire don't get burned, they get rich. --- \_ Why did someone delete the review? Thanks for posting it. -!op \_ It's not deleted, it's behind the paywall. \_ I mean someone posted it to the motd then it was gone from the motd a few mins later. Nevermind, I got to read it. I hop the op did, too. Thanks to whoever posted it. mockery of England's dictator, yet he's confident he won't be fired -- an inexplicable misjudgment on his part for what was obviously seditious conduct. V, the only character with sufficient magnetism to hold the narrative together, drops out for an extended period while Evey endures a hellish imprisonment that's contrived in more ways than one, and in the end awfully silly. Natalie Portman, as skillful as she is attractive, does have her moments -- it's affecting to see her hair being shaved, like Joan of Arc -- but wide-eyed Evey whimpers endlessly, and tediously, on her way to becoming a fearless woman who's able to love. And speaking of love, things go blooey instead of gooey whenever heroine and hero come close enough to touch; far from being sensual, let alone erotic, the movie proves to be not much fun at all. But then fun isn't high on the agenda, crowded as it is with solemn debates about the role of terrorism in the face of tyranny. The movie's heart, a mechanical pump connected to a reservoir of adrenalin, throbs for the smash finish in which the biggest bomb goes off, and the Houses of Parliament come tumbling down, along with Big Ben, a frequent casualty in disaster movies. "V for Vendetta" wasn't meant to be a disaster movie, of course, and there's no reason to think it will be a disaster, even though its original opening date of November 5th -- Guy Fawkes Day -- had to be pushed forward after real-life terrorists attacked London last July. These days filmmakers who play with fire don't get burned, they get rich. [ reformatted - formatd ] \_ Placed in /tmp/VforVendetta.WSJ for posterity. --erikred \_ And if you put it on HTTP it'll be archived in Berkeley MOTD forever! Yeah! \_ Btw, I found WSJ's dislike of "the [movie's] smarmy tone of its potshots at an America in the throes... of a civil war" to be laughable. What, it's okay to have a totalitarian England but it's unforgivable to imply a failed USA? \_ Agreed, but they are right when they say that the Evey character is incomprehensible. In the comic book she was a teenage prostitute, but the story clearly had its rough edges sanded off for mainstream appeal. \_ plus the movie ending took out the entire reason for her being in the comic, which was one of the most powerful parts of the story. \_ Reread the book: She was _not_ a teenage prostitute; her one foray into prositution (out of desperation) was the incident that led her to meet V. However, I do agree that her straitened situation would have been more evocative than what featured in the movie. \_ thanks for your help. - stupid and stubborn wsj scrounger |
2006/3/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42404 Activity:nil |
3/23 Americans loathe liberal media: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20060323/cm_ucac/pollmostamericanslovecoultercolumns \_ Wow... Just... wow... |
2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42392 Activity:very high |
3/22 Leaders of the muslim faith "Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left." \_ Link? \_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188903,00.html \_ No, no, CREDIBLE link. \_ quotes are always credible regardless of source \_ Au Contraire, Mon Frere! The NYT is an excellent example of a place that not only gets quotes wrong but gets the most basic story points and often the entire story wrong. Foxnews doesn't have nearly as poor a record of this as the NYT but they're still just people. However in this case I don't find the quotes out of character with other things we know. \_ I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people in this world would say that NYT is one of the most respected news organizations in the world. Only right wing political freaks would dare to discredit that. You want to say Fox News is more respected than NYT? Try passing that by the typical educated American. \_ The pp didn't say it wasn't respected. He criticized their accuracy. cf the recent Saturday- edition retraction about their identification of "the man in the hood" in Abu Ghraib. \_ This isn't an opinion poll world wide about news quality. It is a fact that the NYT has a really poor track record for several years now (that we know of). Respect and opinion has nothing to do with it. You want to say that the NYT has a great track record for fact checking? Try passing that by the typical educated American. Call me whatever names you'd like. That doesn't change the facts. When you're doing nwes and claim to be "all the news thats fits to print" you damned well better get it right, especially when you're doing hit pieces. Anything less leaves you open to valid criticism for being a propaganda organ instead of a news organisation. -pp \_ So are you simply referring to the Jayson Blair scandal? Or do you take equal issue with their blatant pimping of the Whitewater "story," their huge flubs on WMD reporting, and the whole mess they've gotten themselves in over Plamegate? Or is inaccuracy in reporting only bad when it's against conservatives? \_ At what point did you decide what my politics are? The fact is the NYT has a really shitty record re: accuracy in reporting the last several years. I could be anything from ultra liberal to arch conservative and the facts would remain unchanged. I am not a part of the facts. I merely state the publicly known. I note you haven't yet actually addressed my point which is that the NYT's accuracy is in the toilet. Thanks. \_ It's pretty obvious that if you're criticizing the NYT over Fox News, we can safely assume where your political leanings are. Fox News makes no attempt \_ No you can safely assume that I was on topic with the thread noting that the NYT has a bad track record for accuracy and that at least in this case, we have no reason not to believe the foxnews quotes were anything but genuine. Anything more is just your personal bias coloring the situation. Not everyone here has a political axe to grind. Some of us actually care about the truth and more to the point are sickened by hypocrites at places like the NYTimes. At least fox doesn't pretend to be much more than op/ed with a wink to objective news. Quite the contrary, anyone defending the integrity of the times is much more likely to be the one unable to see the truth. The NYT has no integrity. And while we're here, why would you assume that only a conservative would attack the NYT? Could it be because the NYT has shown over and over that they can't report anything like objective truth without inserting their agenda? Even if they were able to do so, they still continue to screw up like a bunch of Daily Cal quality amateurs pretending to be journalists. When it is hard to tell the difference between the op/ed page and the news pages, all is lost. \_ In case, you've forgotten, journalism has always had its roots in placing checks on government. "muckraking", "investigative journalism" are all aimed at bringing out the truth, and obviously our current president has a problem with the idea of truth and likes to bend it. And really... you dont think NYT was there covering Clinton and his scandals? \_ I'm ok with muckraking. In fact, I love muckraking. I can't stand hypocritical self righteous and *inaccurate* muckraking. If the NYT got it right I'd be their biggest supporter and renew my daily sub. \_ What grievous errors did they commit (and not correct) that you just can't forgive? I suspect "getting it right" may mean "supplying the facts I like". \_ You'd suspect wrong. They 'correct', sure, after being busted by someone else and dragging it out and doing a page 18 mini blurb hidden behind the ad for shoe deodorant. \_ You didn't answer my question. I continue suspecting... \_ Answered your question. It is the fact that they never fess up to anything until someone else busts them on it and then the correction is grudging, duh. Suspect all you want, you have yet to do anything but attack my integrity when the NYT's is a matter of public record. This is the exact issue we're been discussing but on a micro level. Instead of looking at the NYT's facts, you have decided you like the NYT's message so it's ok they're a bunch of wankers. You don't like my pointing out their flaws so I become the one with flaws. I'm sorry the NYTs has a long public track record of screwing up and only correcting or retracting after being forced into it (a la Dan and the "forged but accurate Bush papers") and you consider that ok. Where as you don't like the Fox op/ed slant on the world, therefore anything they say is automatically bad for you yet you are unable to provide an example of them screwing anything up. It is your own suspicians and bias that colors the truth and prevents you from seeing the reality of the situation. Go ahead and have another shot at my character without responding to my core point and then we can stop. I've tried to take you seriously but you refuse to respond in kind. \_ I asked you for examples. You should be able to come up with at least one. You haven't "pointed out flaws". You've made a claim. You haven't backed up that claim. \_ From Jason B. to WMD coverage to falsely identifying the Abu photo victim to the one they had a few days after that fuckup and a few others along the way. I'm not going to prove the sky is blue, I don't have to but there's 3 specific and 1 more from a few days ago I can't recall the details of. NYT = teh suk. Thanks for the chat but I'm now really truly done here. I'm going to delete this whole thing later today to save precious bits if someone else doesn't first. to hide that they are a right wing organization and are headed by one of Bush's distant relatives, if I remember correctly. NYT, and other news organizations like CNN, at least try to apply the traditional news models of being unbiased. So if you want to talk about being a "propaganda organ", you're looking in the wrong direction. As for accuracy, NYT at least tries for it, and admits wrong when its news isn't. I have never seen Fox News do that, but that's prob because Fox News gives mostly opinion pieces anyway. \_ "we cannot find security." GWB, SotU. \_ Hey, a real martyr in the Christian tradition. \_ I like how the cleric calling for the execution of the Christian, no matter if he's labelled "insane" or not, is labeled "a moderate". no matter if he's declared "insane" or not, is labeled "a moderate". What, you don't believe in OUR invisible all powerful deity? You must be insane! \_ This illustrates a point made in "The End of Faith", namely that religious moderates provide "cover" for religious extremism... even across faiths. Do you think Bush is going to say "you shouldn't use religion/holy texts to guide your courts"? Of course not. But he should. \_ Which is why we'll never win the war against islamist extremists as long as those fuckers are in the white house. This global conflict centers on the two things this administration is more incapable of speaking truthfully about than anything: religion and oil. \_ What's the truth about oil? \_ That 1) the peak in production is imminent (might be now, prob right around 2010, 2020 if we're insanely lucky) and that 2) this fact is the main driver behind our foreign policy, for example, invading Iraq. \_ I'm actually reading the book right now. It has some good points but also long rambles about ethics. |
2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42389 Activity:kinda low |
3/22 I'm writing a word association program that parses motd text and links to other words. For example, if enough people write the following on motd: Bush \_ crook \_ Nixon \_ Bush \_ katrina \_ disaster \_ incompetence then the program will "learn" and associate Bush with the words crook and katrina. It'll also loosely associate Bush with disaster. The more it learns, the more it'll understand how people on motd think. So go ahead and play the word association game. Only simple words (with nouns) are parsed. Anything more complex will be ignored. Results will be shown this summer. \_ This needs to be smart enough to draw these relationships from the regular motd posts, not these artificial one-word things. Nobody is really gonna be posting those except maybe yourself. \_ I beg to differ. Look at the responses we got from "Republican" \_ But that's an artificial troll for responses to a chosen word. Real posts would illustrate more meaningful relationships as well as offer much more data points. \_ look into Shannon's Information Theory \_ kchang \_ twink \_ points \_ excuse me I have nothing to do with this troll, why is my name here? |
2006/3/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42383 Activity:high |
3/22 George W. Bush \_ Katrina \_ Disaster \_ Enron \_ Iraq War \_ deficit \_ Lied \_ People Died \_ Clinton! \_ Monica! \_ Ken! \_ Hitler \_ Godwin \_ Quirk's exception \_ i'll george YOUR bush |
2006/3/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:42357 Activity:nil |
3/21 http://www.russforpresident.com \_ is this guy Jewish? Isn't that bad news? \_ so who is the anonymous poster? \_ Would it change anything? It's already common knowledge in Azurbijan that Bush and Cheney are both Jews. \_ "Jagshemash...I support my government's decision to sue this Jew." -Borat |
2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42334 Activity:high |
3/20 How does it make you feel that most employed sodans; expecially married ones; make out nicely thanks to the Bush tax cuts. I know that it leaves me feeling very ambivalent since I know that the system is inherently unfair to average US citizens But I also know that, since BA is so over priced, I am just squeaking by financially . Having to feel grateful to Bush for extra $$ is a strange feeling indeed. \_ I dont know what you're smoking but I dont think most of the employed sodans are quite rich enough to really benefit from the Bush tax cuts. For that we'd need to be inheriting over $10M from an estate, or have a large fraction of our income from dividends. \_ I agree. If your life is so fulfilling you'd stop using motd long time ago. There are so many other places that you can get better entertainment, information, therapy, and others things than motd. Motd is for losers like me. \_ Yeah, Bush has made me a lot of money in the last few years, and I feel kind of dirty about it too. It's not like I'd be homeless without his tax cuts, though. I'd vote for someone who would reverse them. \_ Are you kidding me? The middle class (especially upper middle class) is going to be paying the price of Bush's policies for a long time. When some other President (Democrat or Republican) has to raise taxes to pay for Bush's antics you won't feel too grateful. Bush has been very adept, too, at taking money from the blue states (e.g. SF Bay Area) and giving it to the red states (e.g. Louisiana, Texas). You are grateful for this?! \_ I think he's taken more of a passive approach to the rape of CA by Enron (e.g.). But can you blame TX for CA being so dependent on oil? \_ So dependent? Last I checked we were among the best in the nation on energy conservation. We're a big state, though. I don't blame TX for our dependence. I blame them for STEALING. \_ Though purportedly CA's getting a big chunk of the war money by way of military purchases from many small engineering concerns. by way of military purchases from many small engineering concerns. \_ Maybe, but CA still sends more off to Washington DC than comes back here. \_ I've got nothing against tax cuts but what we've got is not really a tax cut but rather tax postponement. All that money you're "saving" now? It's going to come out of your budget later, with interest. --PM \_ "I know that the system is inherently unfair to average US citizens" So when did you stop beating your wife? \_ Mr. Squeaking By Financially: can you tell us a little bit about your life? Like what kind of car you drive, how large your TV is, how old your newest home computer is, how much you pay per month for TV/internet etc? \_ SSN, Mother's Maiden Name, etc. |
2006/3/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42313 Activity:moderate |
3/18 Following his election (since he was appointed his first term), and feeling quite self-important, Bush commissions a postage stamp with his face on it, insisting it be of absolute top quality. The stamp is created, printed and distributed, and Bush is delighted. But after a few days, he begins receiving complaints that the stamp does not stick to the envelope. He summons those responsible and demands an inquiry. A committee is formed, and a few weeks later issue its conclusion: "There is nothing wrong with the quality of the stamps or the glue; the problem is that people are spitting on the wrong side." \_ Way too long for such a weak punch line. The best one I've heard in a while was, "Well now at least *someone* in the White House has combat experience". Not a gut buster, but short, to the point, your audience won't fall asleep before you get to the end, topical, and a bit mean without being so mean that everyone can't enjoy it. --motd humor nazi \_ Not to mention, dated; who licks postage stamps anymore? Plus postage stamps can't have images of live people. \_ Anyone using a small or large denomination stamp licks it. \_ Colin Powell had combat experience. \_ Didn't they run him out of the job? \_ In the related news, GWB is preparing to publish his autobiography. Those who pre-order the first 5,000 copies will receive a complementary set of crayons for free. |
2006/3/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:42290 Activity:kinda low |
3/17 Conservatives use "starve the beast" logic when they want to cut taxes, But if they really want to starve the beast, than, why raise the debt limit? http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/17/news/budget.php \_ its pretty clear they just want to cut taxes, and keep spending up (just redirect it to Bechtel/Halliburton, and other 'contributors'). This is perfectly in line with raising the debt limit. \_ That brings the per-capita federal debt to what, $30,000 per person. (note thats not per taxpayer) \_ They just used the fiscal conservative strategy to get elected, they don't actually believe it. \_ Duh, the strategy is to fuck it up so bad, that when the Dems assume power the economy will be all fucked up AND they'll have to raise taxes, which sets up the Republicans for the next election. \_ Sounds like what Clinton did to his successor. \_ You seem to be forgetting the gigantic surplus which seemed to dissapear so quickly after 9/11. \_ Yeah, you mean when the bubble popped. \_ With the tech bubble, 9/11, and post-9/11 security overhead as excuses, I can give tax cuts to my biggest political donors and run horribly executed projects both foreign and domestic, and I'm still completely covered as far as my base is concerned! Go dubya! \_ ^Clinton^Bush Sr. \_ Maybe in your reality. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Bush Sr. recession was from 7/1990 to 3/1991, so it ended way before the Clinton presidency. The Bush Jr. past recession was from 3/2001 to 11/2001, so it started right after the Clinton presidency. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html presidency. The Bush Jr. recession was from 3/2001 to 11/2001, so it started right after the Clinton presidency. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html \_ Because they're not conservatives. They're Republicans. \_ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277 Impostor : How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy |
2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42268 Activity:nil |
3/16 First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -M. Ghandi http://csua.org/u/f9q (Article by http://Talkingpoints.com editor) (NYT article on Bush impeachment) \_ Why impeachment is a bad idea: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/JoshMarshall/031606.html http://tinyurl.com/oahfm (hillnews.com) \_ Politics is local. The number of incumbents who lose elections each term is trivial. Ghandi had a much better chance with the British than the D do of retaking anything. His was a moral issue and he was on the side of right against a people who think of themselves in those terms. Ds and Rs are just politicians. There is no great moral conflict. The math is the math. Don't hold your breath. \_ The War on Iraq is not a moral conflict? Don't kid yourself. \_ "Politics is local". Iraq is far far far away. \_ In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 61 percent said the Iraq war would be a very important or the most important issue in deciding their vote for Congress. \_ 'With "impeachment on the horizon," he wrote, "maybe, just maybe, conservatives would not stay at home after all."' Uh, how does that jibe with 36% approval rating? \_ A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe Bush is "out of touch," the poll found. When asked for a one-word description of Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by "good," "idiot" and "liar." In February 2005, the most frequent reply was "honest." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060316/pl_nm/bush_politics_dc |
2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42266 Activity:moderate |
3/16 honest question: People say Bush and his gangs are "Neo-Conservative." Exactly what do they mean by that? Another question. Fiscal Disipline is usually one of supposely "conservative" value. But by looking at records of Reagan, HW Bush, and GW Bush, it is not the case at all! How does that work? \_ It's a transparent attempt to make people think of "neo-nazi" \_ Bullshit. \_ Politicians are hypocrites and liars. They give the voters what they want and lie about the consequences. \_ So astute - teach us more o' wise one. \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html \_ thanks. good link. I guess my perception about neo-cons are also fiscal conservative is completely false. On the other hand, it still doesn't explain why we support radical, dictatorship such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia :p \_ that's an easy one. SA supplies a big chunk of our oil. A military quasi-dictatorship in Pakistan is magnitudes better than the pro Western jihad Islamic fundamentalist groups taking power. \_ There are pro-West jihad Islamic fundamentalists? \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html \_ I actually met a guy like that. He was pretty weird. \_ What happened to install democracy world wide? \_ basically neocons believe in the preemptive strike \_ so are democrats who believe in preemptive strike also neocons? \_ Why can't they take this preemptive attitude and clean up city like Oakland? Arrest and execute those known fuckers and the city will be a much safer place. \_ weak weak weak troll. your troll score: F! \_ gimme a modern dem who favors preemptive and i'll tell you how neocon they are \_ lieberman is a strong supporter of GWB's Iraq policy and the principles behind it. \_ ob he's a closet republican \_ so anyone in favor of any GWB policy is really a republican despite having been in the D party since probably before you were born.... he's either with us or against us! \_ Do you know people are talking about a McCain- Lieberman ticket? \_ Do any of these people include John McCain or Joe Lieberman? I don't think I've seen either one ever indicate that he was ready to switch parties. I find that scenario to be implausible. \_ and dubya's lips continue to look for lieberman for smooching \_ I am still waiting for a preemptive strike against N.Korea... or we actually get scared for their preemptive strike doctrine? http://tinyurl.com/gj957 \_ I'd start with Berkeley. \_ NK has 10,000 artillery pieces within range of SK's capitol. Even if we could fly in and destroy all the nuke facilities 100% the retaliation strike is going to suck big time. What I find interesting is polls in SK that show young people from the post Korean War era think the US should piss off and that NK is a victim while the older folks are dreadfully afraid of NK and want the US to stick around and even increase our strength in SK. \_ I see those crazy 'NK is misunderstood paradise bullied by evil US' fuckers at protests in the bay area. \_ I remember when I was still at Berkeley in the early 90s, when 5 korean pastors came to the Bay Area to attend a conference, and I took them on a trip to Yosemite. The pastors mentioned to me they were very surprised that Americans they met here were such nice people. They say the Americans in SK were really arrogant. \_ Most Americans in SK are either military or english teachers. The english teachers are often people with no valuable skills except their ability to speak their native language. Not only that, but Korea, for one reason or another, generally pulls in the dregs of english teachers. So, yeah, most of the Americans I met in SK were jerks. -jrleek \_ jrleek, you are just JEALOUS because those "no valuable skills people who speaks their native language" get laid easily. \_ I know this is supposed to be a joke, but it made me curious. Do you think I'm Korean? -jrleek \_ I'm going to Korea to teach conversational English and I have no special training. What's the fastest way to learn Korean? Can you recommend books, audio training kits, etc.? \_ Korean is really freakin' hard, but if you send me an email, I'll help however I can. I do have some suggestions for books, I didn't really use audio kits, but I'm not even sure how you'd get my favorite. -jrleek \_ we only go after ez ones, like Iraq ... we thought it was ez |
2006/3/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:42258 Activity:kinda low |
3/15 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597017/posts Freepers respond to news regarding death threats to SCOTUS judges Ginsburg and O'Connor \_ And once again the conservatives on the motd are quiet. \_ of course they are. They're too busy reproducing more babies and home schooling their children so that they'd be exposed to the right teaching instead of libural's lefty edukashun. \_ Some of us cannot understand the motivations of the wakkos who would threaten the life of a judge, esp. a USSC justice. Only thugs and criminals would do this. BTW, I can't understand the whole thing about referring to foreign cases being bad: I mean CJ Marshall used to refer to KB/QB cases frequently. foreign cases being bad: CJ Marshall used to refer to KB/QB cases. \_ I thought Justice Kennedy was Mr Foreign Case dude? Unless that's in the Freeper page. I don't equate rational conservatives with freerepublic so I'm not reading the URL, they all live in a trailer park in the Salton Sea or some other horrible place and need somewhere to vent. rational conservatives with freerepublic so I'm not reading the URL, they all live in a trailer park in the Salton Sea or some other horrible place and need somewhere to vent. \_ O'Connor, Ginsburg and Kennedy have all written opinions where they cite to foreign decisions that are in accord on a particular issue. Against my better judgment I read the URL and it had something about citing foreign cases as on reason to kill these justices. |
2006/3/15-17 [ERROR, uid:42250, category id '18005#19.63' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42250 Activity:nil |
3/15 Democratic Congressional Lead Among Registered Voters Largest Since '82 Midterm election http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21928 Pew Research Poll puts Bush at 33% approval rating http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=271 |
2006/3/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42231 Activity:nil |
3/14 New CBS poll with Bush at 34% breaks down party affilation this way: 32% GOP 32% Dems 36% Ind So what's the new talking point? For reference, the last poll had the "controversial" breakdown of: 28% GOP 40% Dems 32% Ind \_ I believe the 32% / 32% numbers are unweighted (they asked about the same raw number of Dems and Republicans). However, all results have been weighted so that Dems represent 34% and Republicans represent 29%, for the most recent CBS poll. As for the previous CBS poll, my guess is that the 28% / 40% numbers were also the raw number of people asked, and they again weighted to ~34% Dem / ~29% GOP, but they asked the same number of Dems and Republicans for the new poll to avoid that controversy. Or perhaps to have a new controversy of "Why did you weight the GOP votes down to 29% you motherfuckers?!" \_ The "controversy" was not weighted vs. unweighted. It was stupidity vs. facts. \_ I just found the data for the older poll. The weighting for that was 37% Dem / 28% GOP. So that means they went from a split of 9% to 5% from the old poll to the current one. \_ There have always been more Democrats than Republicans. The so-called controversy was just more GOP denying of reality slapping them in the face. |
2006/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42215 Activity:nil |
3/13 Gallup Poll has Bush at 36% approval rating. Now where's the motd guy who tells us why this doesn't matter. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/13/bush.poll/index.html \_ Hey, I'm still here. And I still believe it could go to zero and wouldn't matter so why would 36% matter to me? I've explained why it doesn't matter. You've said why you think I'm wrong. I disagree. Whatever. \_ Do you believe that national policy changes only after elections? -tom \_ I think the current administration won't change a single thing based on any poll numbers. Politics is fluid and thus fantastically low poll numbers may have an effect on what Congress does but overall, no in this case I don't think the admin cares about poll numbers or will change anything based on them. When he rapes a goat on TV I'll be convinced that the followup poll numbers will mean something. Anyway, his numbers *are* low but still not dramatically lower than other modern presidents at various times during their terms. \_ Bush's lack of popularity has already changed policy; the Dubai deal goes through if his numbers are high, for example. His administration is more or less crippled right now because he's so unpopular that none of the Republicans want to get behind him. -tom \_ Dubai is pretty minor as policy issues go. If he was crippled, the troops would be on their way home right now. Dubai falls under the "fluidity of politics" concept: no one wins them all every time and this is one of them. He lost far more major things earlier when his numbers were higher. At this point I don't think he has any other major policy initiatives left that haven't either gone through or been shot down so it doesn't really matter, IMO. If this was a year into his first term, then yeah totally crippled, absolutely I would agree. But not now. \_ The point is, he can't make any major policy initiatives, because everyone is running away from him. -tom \_ I understand your point. As a general concept I don't disagree. In this case, I do because I don't think he has any initiatives left anyway. |
2006/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42179 Activity:low |
3/10 The Rove nixes the Dubai deal. Who says he doesn't care about security? http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1708847&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/10/politics/main1388791.shtml "CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports the announcement came about after the company's consultations with White House political strategist Karl Rove." \_ How about Dubai was already going to pull out, and they wanted Rove to manage the spin? I guess it could have been Rove decided that Dubai should pull out, Dubai said yes, and Rove also managed the spin. \_ How about Dubai was already going to pull out, and Rove managed the spin? I guess it could have been Rove+Bush decided Dubai should pull out, Dubai said yes, and Rove also managed the spin. \_ First it's China's Unical deal. Then, it's this. Yes, protectionist economy!!! \_ Heh, I think you've just proven beyond a doubt that you understand the terms you're trying to use. -3hp to you! |
2006/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42147 Activity:nil |
3/8 http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060303/ids_photos_wl/r1442414268.jpg Bush |
2006/3/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42146 Activity:nil |
3/8 Criticize Bush and get paid vacation. What a good deal! http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/03/08/teacher.bush.ap |
2006/3/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42142 Activity:nil |
3/8 Bush: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060303/ids_photos_wl/r1442414268.jpg \_ Shrubbery: http://wondermill.com/img/shrubbery.jpg -John |
2006/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42139 Activity:nil |
3/8 Stupid political trolls deleted. Bush=idiot. We're mostly liberal on motd anyways and we get the message already. Please take the same message to freeper and newsmax and similar trash sites. Thanks. |
2006/3/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42137 Activity:low |
3/8 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/opinion/08wed1.html Surely the chicken farmer detained in Gitmo understands his noble sacrifice in this post-9/11 world. Nothing is 100%, except our righteous determination to defend America. \_ Are there situations under which we should not defend our country? \_ Our will to defend our way of life will never flag. At times there is collateral damage, but that is the price we are willing to pay for Freedom. \_ Especially when the currency traded in is Iraqi blood... \_ I think Gregoire sells Freedom for $4. -tom \_ Freedom costs a buck 'o five. \_ I find it really sad that the Bush loyalists won't see how truly horrid this is. They're giving him power heaped on power all under the safety net of trust. He's repeatedly (and now blatantly) betrayed that trust, and they still vote to give him more unchecked power. \_ Who are these Bush loyalists? He hasn't been up for election for while. You mean Congress? \_ Yeah, I've seen people arrested to talking out against Bush. I've seen people disappear as well. I know for a fact he controls the media. And you know he's personally profitting from all this - its cuz he didn't already have enough zeros after his name. \_ Yes! And Elvis and the Greys! And the Bigfoot Army of God! They're all in on it! \_ Don't forget the Illuminati and the Knights Templar. \_ Free Michael and Cindy! |
2006/3/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:42128 Activity:low |
3/7 http://wonkette.com/politics/wonkette/our-boys-need-gossip-158687.php Interesting URL blocking for U.S. military forces based in Iraq. \_ Other articles point out that the blocking list is BS, the author just lined up a bunch of conservative sites that weren't blocked and liberal sites that were blocked. There were plenty of liberal sites that were not blocked and conservative sites that were blocked as well. \_ other articles like ...? do everyone a favor and post the URLs to http://wonkette.com too. \_ other articles like ...? \_ Sounds like they need better filtering technology. There's this company in Mountain View that gives its employees free food that can help them out. Seriously though, our soldiers should be spending more of their time NOT GETTING KILLED than reading stupid ass blogs. I am a big fan of COLBY BUZZELL. \_ In a country where pr0n is illegal, believe me, the troops NEED an uncensored Internet connection. |
2006/3/7-9 [Recreation/Food, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Food/Alcohol] UID:42126 Activity:low |
3/7 Dear balsalmic vinegar beef marinating guy. What kind of vinegar do you use? White? And what brand is good? Thanks. \_ I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess... balsamic. \_ The message above is obviously written by someone ignorant. There are many types. White distilled vinegar, rasbery balsamic vinegar, red \_ [80 col. please] wine balsamic vinegar (most common), olive vinegar, rice vinegar, so on so forth. \_ In fairness to the OP, there is such a thing as white balsamic vinegar. But you ought to use the regular dark kind. Quality it not *too* important, so just get something halfway decent. -- different balsamic marinating guy \_ Racist! \_ Balsamic vinegar of color, then. \_ Stop giving me black medicine! ... I mean ... black vinegar. |
2006/3/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:42125 Activity:nil |
3/7 Heh, funny [sic] interpretation of Bush's recent South Asia trip http://www.filibustercartoons.com http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060306.gif (direct) |
2006/3/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:42089 Activity:high |
3/3 http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/cunningham.sentence.ap Take a bribe for $2 mil for only 10 years in prison. That's still over 2X the amount I make a year as an engineer and 1.5X the amount average Harvard MBAs make. Moral of the story: it's ok to take a bribe as long as the amount is big enough, because it pays off. \_ You think being in prison, even a country club prison, for 10 years is worth it? I'll take my freedom thanks. The price for freedom is way higher than 2x your salary. \_ Seriously. this douchebag op thinks prison can't be any harder than a day away from his computer, and actually doesn't realize how he'd likely die within one week, literally, of prison life. people the likes of us on the motd don't last long in prison. \_ My old CS250 TA did a year in county lock-up. It wasn't fun, but he survived ok. He's a really sweet guy too. \_ Did you read the article? First off, it's all in gifts, it's not like they just handed him $2.4mil. Two, he probably doesn't get to keep the stuff. Three, he's old and in poor health. I don't think I'd take $2mil to die in prison. \_ He's also probably going to face a big fine as well. An earlier version of that article claimed $1.6M, but the current article on CNN doesn't say.... \_ He's also probably going to face a big fine as well. According to Yahoo News, he was ordered to pay $1.8M and return $1.85M in valuables. I'm inclined to think that this contradicts the "Moral of the story" you've asserted, OP. \_ He doesn't get to keep it. In fact, it's being auctioned off. http://www.treas.gov/auctions/customs/p030206.html He got 100 months, btw. (8y4m) In sheer dollar amounts, his is the largest set of bribes discovered in the history of the house. \_ I don't buy this crap about being the largest set of bribes. Surely the money Bush or Cheney personally gained from the Iraq war would make this seems like pocket change. \_ Perhaps they mean the largest in the sense of "the largest where there's been a conviction". \_ How much did they each make? \_ I'm glad you think rich people conspire "illegal" ways to get richer. |
2006/3/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42083 Activity:high |
3/2 Recent news articles show that income decreased for average Americans, +$1mil home sales surged by 24% from 2004 to 2005, home school trend is going up up and up, 2 newly appointed conservatives, Patriot Act nenewal, Fox News rating going up, Free Republic & National Review subscription going waaaay up, etc. It appears that conservatism is stronger than ever, despite all the distractions from Iraq, Katrina, Enron, Cheney. So I'm curious. Besides whining, what are you liberals gonna do about it? -liberal troll \_ Buying remote land and the needed supplies to get off the grid. \_ I'm not sure that all the things you cite really add up to much besides trolling. \_ Is this graph going up or down? link:csua.org/u/f4y [alexa.com] \_ I wouldn't base anything on alexa's information link:csua.org/u/f4y http://csua.org/u/f4z Fox News continues to slide. Bush at 34% approval. I could go on, but I won't. \_ YOUR own little liberal world is the internet. But you're forgetting the sales of Bible and the CB radio (internet for the Red State folks who can't afford computers), both are going way up. Face it, conservatism and hickism are growing. \_ Off your meds again today? Watch out for those black helicopters. \_ Hey! That's someone else! \_ Don't Black Helicopters pollute the air and require oil subsidies and where people who shouldn't be allowed to drive a big wheel tailgate in the right airlane get Black Helicopter Driving licencses? RAWR!! HELICOPTER CULTURE!!! RAAAWWWRRRR!!!!1!!!one FUCK YOU!11!!! \_ Nope. Sorry. Not going to bite today. I am pretty much at peace with the world. If it makes you feel any better, you can read my flying car rant from the motd archives: http://www.csua.net/~kchang/motd/?entry=38770 \_ I see you might have gotten the dosage correct today. My, my the wonders never cease.... much at peace with the world. |
2006/3/3-5 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42082 Activity:nil |
3/2 http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/02/real_estate/luxury_home_sales_soaring "... total sales of homes costing $1 million or more reached $55.9 billion, up 24 percent, compared with $45.1 billion in 2004." Yeah the Bush economy is working!!! Go George W Bush!!! |
2006/3/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42071 Activity:nil |
3/2 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_re_us/helpful_babies Altruism start as early as 18 months. \_ then stops as early as 18 years when you become a conservative like GWB. \_ Haw haw haw! \_ I'm an independent, and if I understand the conservative from an independent's perspective, they are: *pro lower tax-- "I don't want to pay tax to fund programs that I personally don't need, like welfare" *pro family value-- "Who needs the government when you can get support from your family" *pro self-reliance-- "God helps those who help themselves" *pro small government-- "If you help yourself you don't need to leech off from the government" *pro free market-- "success is measured by money and efficiency" I'm sorry my conservative friend, but none of the above values stem from altruism. That's why I'll never vote for a conservative candidate. I have similar gripes about anal ass loving liberals but we can save that for another discussion. \_ You got the previous poster wrong. GWB is NOT a conservative. Just look at how the idiot is spending money like a drunken sailor. We'll be in debt for generations thanks to GWB. GWB, is, pure and simple, a crony-rewarding dumbass frat-boy criminal who has used the power and treasure of the US to conduct personal and family vendettas, and enriched his cronies in the process. \_ In other words, unfortunately he's a typical national-level politician. \_ In other words, the people really don't want a "real" conservative government. Didn't we already find this out in the Reagan years? |
2006/3/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42061 Activity:nil |
3/1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm Brown was doing a good job all along. Next on Fox News at 11, the blame is now on the bureaucracy in the government, setup by the Clinton administration. Yes, it's the democrats' fault. God Bless. |
2006/3/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42049 Activity:moderate |
3/1 http://csua.org/u/f4e (AP via http://latimes.com) Watch Dubya participate via videoconference in FEMA briefing one day ahead of Katrina arrival. fyi, note that levy "breach" != levies being "topped" See "Nobody anticipated ..." below http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html \_ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html \_ Face it, nothing is going to change the public opinion to the left. This includes oh so boring facts "made up" by liberal biased media. The only thing that'll change the mind of the overwhelmingly conservative dominated America is when Fox News shows footage of a whitehouse intern sucking GWB's dick. \_ or news aboot da Arabs buying our ports! \_ Ok. Whether it's Bush's fault or not is not relevant to the future of America. What's relevant is that most of the Red State folks believe that the New Orleans brought the disaster onto themselves by a series of mismanagement and corruption. The New Orleans are like the grasshoppers who partied at Mardi Gras while the ants (Red State people) worked hard because they're self-reliant and have moral and family values. Guess what? These Red State hicks are praising Bush for not wasting money on these New Orleans and welfare leeches who by the way are mostly colored negros that they despise of in the first place. And by 2008, there will be more conservatives bearing more conservative babies, and more aging folks opting for conservative politics, and even more young college kids opting for conservative politics. The university is now no longer a playground for the liberals. So you see, it doesn't matter what Bush does. Regardless of all the fuckups, what is clear in the future is that you'll see more and more car bumper stickers that say "Work harder. Millions of welfare recipients depend on you!" and "<Conservative Candidate> 2008" \_ Is that why Bush is at a 34% approval rating? \_ Yes, that's what happens when you poll 2x as many Democrats as Republicans. Go look at they poll data on that one then wash the koolaid out of your mouth. \_ Clearly, you're not a member of the reality-based community. community. Gallup had him at 39 a few weeks before the latest shit hit the fan, Quinnipiac just polled him at 36...but please, go on making tired kool-aid jokes. \_ Seriously, go look at the poll data. It was almost 2x D vs R. Believe what you want. I believe in facts. Koolaid jokes are appropriate when the other person doesn't bother to research the basis of their numbers. \_ The poll was for "adults nationwide" not "registered voters", and not "likely voters". The weighted %s are 37.4D 28.4R 34.2I. You'd be hard pressed to refute these. And 37.4 != 56.8. Hell, even unweighted, 40 != 53. Your "facts" are broken. \_ Hey nice of you to actually find them. Now you can do the reading comprehension part of this where the word "almost" appeared in my statement which is another way of saying, "your numbers are so messed up it isn't even worth discussing". I also note you chose to focus on the weighted numbers but I'll give you a nickel's credit for at least mentioning the raw numbers since we have no idea how they weighted anything. Next time you post crappy poll numbers you can put a "*" next to them and provide the raw data instead of spewing random numbers that you think support your partisanship. Had you noted them in the first place instead of tossing off your cutesy one liner I wouldn't have said anything. \_ The ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans is 1.35:1. -tom \_ "registered" != "likely voters" or we'd not have a Republican controlled government. Registered voters is no more interesting than "adults nationwide". If they don't vote, their political opinions don't matter. \_ That was my first post in the thread. You've challenged the credibility of the poll based on its methodology without any evidence but hand-waving. You wanna call them crappy, fine, but it's not a winning debate tactic. What would be a valid distribution in your mind? Please show your work. \_ applying near zero brain power to this I would say that a poll of people who are likely voters in upcoming elections based on previous voting patterns that closely matches the political demographics of the total likely voter population would be a good start for a poll. i'm sorry if this is a difficult concept for you but very few polls even attempt to actually reflect what voters think or want about anything so spewing random numbers about what percentage of a skewed survey of "adults nationwide" is a stupid and useless information-free political act. the poll in question in this thread is so slanted away from anything resembling a useful poll it isn't worth posting or discussing the 'results'. And I use that word very loosely. \_ If you want a "likely voters" poll, go find one. Your claim, still unsupported, is that their methodology was bogus. You claim, also unsupported that the values are skewed. Grow up, put up, or shut up. BTW, Fox just released theirs of Registered voters. 39/54 app/dis \_ I claim that a political poll that covers anything other than voters is useless junk produced solely for PR purposes. If they don't vote, they don't matter. See above for my comments on registered voters. Not interesting. How hard is it to figure out that when I said "likely voters" I meant "people most likely to vote, thus having opinions that matter", not every asshat with a useless non-voting opinion? Spewing at me that my claims are unsupported is ridiculous since my claims are so simple, even a motder could understand them. Frankly, I don't care at all what the actual numbers would be in a real poll anyway. GWB could be at 100 or at 0 and I wouldn't care, but the methodology in that poll is weak and then to spew it on the motd as if it has value is just trollish. \_ "don't vote" != "can't vote". I'd agree with you if the president were up for election that a "likely voters" poll would be more useful. But non-voters have to live under this administration too. And they can very well become voters. To ignore their voice is stupid and undemocratic. \_ true but historically not the case. over time the number of voters as a percentage of those eligible to register+vote has been slowly dropping over the years. I agree that it would be nice if the opposite were true but it isn't the case. As far as elections and such go, I agree in general that doing a popularity poll on a second term President isn't useful but we're never that far from a mid-term or the start of the next general election cycle so I do believe that polls of likely voters carry some weight in regards to which way the country is going politically. \_ Why don't you get even more pedantic and point out that "likely voters" are self-reported, so those are meaningless too? All polls are worthless! The only useful information is what some dipwad who hasn't fashioned a survey in his life says on the MOTD! -tom \_ thanks for contributing. without you here, it just wouldn't be the same. glad to have you on board. you're the best, nay! dare i say, U r0xx0rz, tom! if you have nothing to say, say nothing. you'll look smarter. \_ He's looking smarter than you, and that ain't saying much. \_ Just coming down to his level so he can understand. Anyone who uses "dipwad" at his age.... \_ Thank you. This further illustrates the fact that AP is yet another liberal mouth blabbering about nothing but non-sense. \_ At least he assured them that they were "fully prepared" \_ well, dubya said the federal govt was fully prepared to assist state govt, but it's doubtful whether that was true too my analysis is that pre-dubya, fema was in charge. when dubya came in, he whacked fema and said the states are now in charge. he broke something and then expected someone else to fix it ... hmm, sounds like ... gimme some help here. \_ He didn't "whack" it. He "privatized" it. THE FREE MARKET FIXES EVERYTHING! Except that it doesn't. \_ now there's a novel idea. pump all the money to the government and let it do its job. Let me guess, you're a socialist? \_ people should put that enron movie in their netflix queue |
2006/2/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42009 Activity:nil |
2/25 Yeah, we could be making all this stuff up http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_8187.shtml |
2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42008 Activity:nil |
2/25 http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32829 Bush To Iraqi Militants: "Please Stop Bringing It On" \_ you're only 22 months late with that link |
2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42006 Activity:high |
2/24 Only their bumper stickers remain, like cockroaches after a nuclear holocaust. http://csua.org/u/f3a (BBC) \_ Hi! I'm a lazy English journalist who doesn't know shit about America but wants to keep getting paid to tell whacky stories about whacky Americans! There are a lot of important things that could be said by a real journalist about how fucked the Democratic party is right now, but this ain't it. Thanks for wasting my time. \_ Anytime, humorless motd guy! \_ Hey, jblack, I found a great new site for white people like you and me: http://www.natall.com \_ Hey, idiot, the above was not posted by jblack. \_ That's right, it's posted by our other conservative friend, jrleek the good Mormon. |
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41996 Activity:high |
2/24 http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf Income gap continues to widen. Check out the huge difference between median and mean incomes and net worths. Average (mean) family income dropped 2.3% from 2001-2004 after inflation adjustment. \_ So what is wrong with that? The rich got richer through Reagon's new tax cut initiatives in the 80s. Money trickled down to the poor, stimulating an economic boom never been seen in the history of US. Unfortunately the Clinton administration unfairly took credit for it all. Why do you hate rich people? Are you a communist? \_ if history is any guidance, the poor will eventually rise up and overthrow the rich. Do you want that to happen? \_ When did you stop beating your wife? \_ the political slant of motd today is: ultra socialist left. Why do you guys encourages lazy people to be even lazier? A great man once said, self-reliance, lower tax, free-market, family values, small government, and fiscal rectitude will save America. The fact of the matter is, commu-socialist programs don't work. Never has, never will. \_ unfortunately the current administration is fiscally irresponsible, corrupt, expanding government, cutting taxes for the rich mainly and taking away assistance for those who want to get an education. Clinton was the one who cut welfare and forced lazy people to \_ Yeah that was in his agenda from the get-go, he also secretly wrote the Contract With America. \_ Was that before or after he invented the blowjob? \_ congress can make a lot of noise. \_ exactly. congress can make a lot of noise. but the president gets the job done. get jobs. And he kept government spending in check: http://tinyurl.com/nuo8b The average American is self reliant and not lazy, \- in what countries are people lazy "on average"? \_ are you implying that peoples of different countries all work equally hard? yet his income has been falling. As for good ole' Christian family values, sorry, but lying, giving money to Halliburton, torturing people, and eagerness to go to war doesn't cut it. eagerness to go to war don't cut it. \_ The fact of the matter is, the average American are some of the most hardworking and self reliant people in the world, yet their income is falling. \_ Average income going down... why do you hate average people? \_ BUSHNOMICS WORKS!!!!!! I JUST REFI'D MY MCMANSION TO BUY A PORSCHE!!! FUK OFF COMMMIE!!!!!!11!!!! |
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41989 Activity:nil |
2/24 The Republicans running Congress won't take time to investigate record oil industry profits (which I think is a stupid thing to do anyhow), but they *will* investigate Citgo for offering discounted heating oil to the poor. Good to know they are fighting hard for the little guy! http://tinyurl.com/qctl8 \_ Why should Congress investigate any industry's profits? Congress isn't a brilliant investigative arm of the government. It's always just showmanship for the cameras. Or baseball hearings... sheesh. \_ "Which I think is a stupid thing to do anyhow" |
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41987 Activity:nil |
2/24 Released today -- "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277 \_ Sigh. \_ Why sigh? Anything that gets fiscal conservatives to not vote for another imposter like GWB is a good thing for the whole country, AFAIC. \_ All the guy seems to be saying according to the editorial reviewers is that GWB isn't a real conservative and doesn't act like one. We all knew that Republican != conservative for a while now. No real news here. |
2006/2/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41959 Activity:moderate |
2/22 Can anyone tell me why Bush wants to outsource the ports to a company from another country? What's the reason behind it? What is the advantage for doing so? \_ sounds more to me like that the ports are already outsourced by foreign counteries. This was a case of one foreign company selling out to a company HQ'd in a country that had a few folks unhappy \- i dont think this is really a hands on personal decision. it was a cmte decison by Committee on Foreign Investment in the US. i suppose it is possible BUSH let them know what he wanted, but i dunno if that has really been established. this is controversial because the country is arab, not foreign. foreign companies were already involved running other parts of the ports/martine infrastructure. \_ His threatened veto of any bar to it belies the "not hands on" \- well that's after the fact. that can be construed as backing the cmte rather than desiring a particular outcome. perhaps a legitmate case of defending executive privilage. \_ Yes, it's after the fact. But that, combined with them bypassing the required 45 day investigation period suggests a concerted effort that would depend on an executive branch "understanding". Yes, this is conjecture, but it runs along their standard MO. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html \_ UAE only supplied two 9/11 hijackers, so they only get ports. Saudi Arabia sent 15 hijackers, so they get Abrams tanks, F-15s, and quality time with Dubya. http://csua.org/u/f22 (whitehouse.gov) \_ Their banks also provided money to the hijackers and stopped any investigation to follow the money trail through UAE. There are a lot of conservatives like me upset about this. \_ Ok, Mr. Responsible Conservative Guy, so which GOP candidate are you planning on backing for '08? Just curious. \_ Anybody but Bush! \_ Do you mean Jeb? \_ I don't see any '08 candidates of any party worth looking at twice. -Mr. RCG \_ Reasonable, informed, people should always vote, and shold always care. Even if you're a "lesser evil" voter, shouldn't you care that they get someone who can beat the other party? Of if you really hate them, you should pick a Dem to support. Reasonable, non-partisan people ignoring party primaries is how you end up with assholes like George Bush being a major party candidate. I will forever regret not registering as a Republican in 2000 so that I could vote against that bastard twice. \_ I'm sure that would have made a difference. Anyway, I think you're missing the above person's point which is this is early 06 and the election isn't until late '08. We don't even know who is running so how could anyone have an intelligent opinion? \_ If Colin Powell could be convinced to run, I would vote for him. My 2d choice would be McCain. I voted for him in the 2000 primary. If the GOP runs some neocon nutcase and the Democrats run someone reasonable like Lieberman or Clark, I'd probably vote Democrat for the first time in my life. -gopvoter \_ You don't want someone more moderate and not in the pocket of the insurance industry like Senator Clinton? \_ I'm pretty much center of the road, so I could bring myself to vote for a moderate democrat, esp. considering that a moderate democrat prob. would not have expanded the fed gov as much as BUSHCO has. Re Sen. Clinton: I don't think I can vote for her b/c I think her whole moderate stance is a just a PR stunt and that she would go left if elected. I am also just too closed minded to think that a woman could lead troops into battle a la President Wash- ington [except perhaps Princess Leia :-)]. I know that no modern President has had to or could effect- ively do this (except maybe Ike), but it is still a factor in my voting. -gopvoter \_ Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that they both are leading identical countries, with identical armies so that the only difference is leadership, and imagine a war with Thatcher leading one side and George W. Bush leading the other. I'm not saying Clinton could be a good commander in chief, but it would be hard to be worse at that particular job than the lazy, lying ex-cheerleader AWOL know-nothing who presently has the job. \_ As much as I love Maggie, the guys on the Brit destroyer the Argentinians sunk might disagree with you. \_ I understand on a rational level that some women can perform the duties of CiC better that most of the men who have held that position. That isn't the problem for me. I still have this vision of the President as a man who, if necessary, can walk on to the battle field and defend this nation w/ his life. I just can't bring my self to see this as the proper sort of thing for a woman. \_ Looks like you'd better start pushing for a Jesse Ventura presidential bid. \_ I prefer Ahnuld, but The Body would be okay w/ me. \_ "When two tribes go to war..." \- and BUSH and CHENEY fit your vision of a CiC who can walk on to the battle field [sic] and defend this nation with his life? wow, you have quite an imagination. --motd vet for truth \_ Bush2 does not fit my vision of a proper president (I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary and would have liked the Democrats to have nominated Clark in 2004). Furthermore, I said that fitness as the CiC was one factor in my voting. Between two male candi- dates, this factor is not dispositive. It only really affects my decision to vote for a woman for the presidency. I'd rather abstain than vote for a woman candidate b/c I can't get over the feeling that women are not fit to be the CiC. \_ Aren't these guys heavy Carlyle Group investors? \_ I thought they aren't actually running the ports just leasing some terminals ... \- hola fyi ucb dept political science prof steve weber will be talking about this on the radio at 9pm on thr. \_ Polls don't matter, I read it on the motd. |
2006/2/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41944 Activity:moderate |
2/21 Haha. Dubya says he'll veto any bill which would block the UAE port deal, and says he expects people to explain why it should be blocked. The people who want it blocked says Dubya should explain why the deal should go through. The same thing happened with Social Security. Dubya said critics need to propose an alternate plan. Critics said it's up to you to come up with a good plan. Then it died. \_ If he did veto, it would be his first. \_ George Bush got his SSI stuff written into the new federal budget anyway. Doom! \_ CW is that the budget bill is DOA. \_ CW? \_ Yeah, I'd just love to hear how putting a middle-eastern company in charge of our ports is "making America safer" \_ You must not question the King! \_ racist \_ Nothing racial about it. The UAE's banks funded terrorist groups who attacked us. The company that is buying the ports is run by the UAE. Why does Bush hate America's ports? http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm \_ How do you feel about profiling airplane passengers? \_ Disregarding the State vs. Individual distinction you fail to make in this non-sequitur, profiling doesn't work. How would you feel if North Korea bought United Airlines? \_ The government of North Korea is hostile to the US. The government of UAE is an ally. The government of UAE is not. \_ Hmm... One says "We don't like you!" The other says "no, we won't help you track down the people who attacked you, nor will we change the channels they used through us." Which is more hostile? Or is that just "the cost of doing business?" aka the Saudi Arabia argument. \_ The UAE passed anti-money laundering law and imposed monitoring procedures on charities. Can it do more? Sure, but the "characteristics that make it an ideal place for legitimate business also attract militants and others with suspect motives." Is friendly relation with the US a suicide pact? I guess you want it to be. \_ You know the funny thing is, I really hate Dubya, but I just can't get that excited about this. I think it is just politicians of every stripe grandstanding as usual. \_ At one level, I agree with you. On the other hand, some elements of this budget have the potential to do real good and others have the potential to do real harm, so any political battle over this budget, no matter how petty, can have serious consequenses. \_ Where was the ourtrage when Hutchinson Wampoa (read Chicoms) took over the Panama Canal and Long Beach. |
2006/2/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41932 Activity:nil |
2/20 Just how *did* Bush win Ohio, anyway? http://csua.org/u/f14 \_ Swing voters thought if Kerry were elected there would be a better chance of mushroom clouds appearing in random American cities. \_ Not so much mushroom clouds, but more appeals to conservative voters. A good portion of the backlash is due to state scandals which have hit the Republicans hard. |
2006/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41915 Activity:low |
2/17 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4726300.stm Retirement at 85 and 50-year mortgage may be common by 2050. \_ In Japan it takes three generations to pay off a mortgage. \_ And in America, it takes one generation to pay off three mortgages. Just look at Bill gates, the Waltons, the Enron executives, and the Bush Dynasty. \_ And Soros and the Kennedy family and the Heinz family and the.... What do billionaires have to do with anything? \_ Yes, if pigs had wings, they may fly. |
2006/2/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41895 Activity:nil |
2/16 Winning the Race http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=21170 |
2006/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41885 Activity:high |
2/16 Conservatives argue for impeachment: QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern? BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy atty general in the Reagan Admin: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want . I don't need to consult any other branches . that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton.s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that . would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant. NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we.re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed. \_ Congress seems to be agreeing with the necessity of the wiretaps. What's your point? \_ Both Congress and the American public are overrun by cowards who do not believe in freedom. What's your point? \_ Welcome to a Democratic Republic. It isn't perfect but it is the best thing the planet has seen so far in governments. If enough voters cared about this they'd speak with their votes. Since most people don't vote at all much less based on issues like this, you would seem to have the minority opinion on how important this really is. \_ Fuck you, you patronizing fuckhead asshole. \_ *laugh* If you weren't such an idiot, then you wouldn't find everyone so patronizing. Pull the log from your own eye before pointing to the splinter in someone else's. ;-) \_ Fuck you. I can keep this up all day. \_ Exactly. Now you have identified your problem. \_ Stick it in your ass. \_ You're such a cutie! Muwah! \_ Come a little closer and say that, punk. Just see what happens. \_ Just about everyone agrees with the necessity of the wiretaps. It's the part about doing this without oversight that violates FISA and has people in an uproar. \_ The thing is, it's Congress' opinion that counts, not any professor. \_ Although I think it's unlikely that a GOP Congress will impeach a sitting GOP President, there are still plenty of conservative congress-people who agree with the speakers above. \_ And there are Democrats who agree that the process should continue with congressional oversight. \_ I really mean no offense, but I think you're missing why this is an issue to begin with. The wiretapping has never been the issue; the issue's been that the wiretapping was going on without oversight (specifically, Judicial, according to FISA). If I misunderstand your confusion, I look forward to your elaboration. \_ I do not understand the uproar about FISA. Let's say the Pres. does an illegal wire tap, but never uses the evid. against you in ct. How are you hurt (esp. if you never find out that your were wire tapped)? What exactly are you afraid of? \_ Well, let's say you're in the opposition party and the Pres. uses wiretapping to spy on you and set his party's political strategy. Ridiculous, you say. But if there's no oversight, there's nothing to prevent people from doing this sort of thing. Really, court is the least of your concerns. \_ Or they could end up with 500+ of your FBI files... but no one would ever do that. \_ So what? The Pres. could easily get access to these files if he really wanted it. I don't see how FISA makes this any easier/harder for the Pres. \_ FISA prevents the executive branch from violating the constitutional right against illegal search and seizure. The international calls go to domestic lines, and potentially citizens, so FISA allows taps for cases that have probable cause. What the executive branch is doing ignores probable cause and may be using tainted evidence to gain domestic wiretaps. So if someone in the 300k list of people listed as terrorists calls say Clinton's Senate office and hangs up, that's a link. No oversight so now the NSA tells the FBI says we have credible link, tap all lines in that office, we'll review the transcripts. There would be no probable cause to tap the lines without the tainted no-FISA evidence. \_ I'm specifically talking about the FBI files. The wiretap provisions of FISA do not restrict the Pres. access to FBI files. I don't follow your argument. At some point the gov needs to get a valid warrant, that means the warrant needs to be based on independent evid not on the tainted wiretap info. Say the NSA fingers a suspect and tells the FBI about it. The FBI can't get a warrant to FBI about it based on a so-called illegal wiretap. The FBI can't get a warrant to wiretap the guy w/o a showing of probable cause. This can't be based on tainted evid. The FBI will have to est. independent evid to support a showing of probable cause. This is what their warrant will be based on. The fact that they got a tip from the NSA is the same as if they got an anon tip and invest- cause. This warrant can't be based on tainted evid. The FBI will have to est. independent evid to support a showing of probable cause. The fact that they got a tip from the NSA is the same as if they got an anon tip and invest- igated. There is no taint. [ I say so-called illegal wiretap b/c I think FISA is an unconstitutional limitation on the Pres. constitutional duty to defend this nation from her enemies. ] \_ So why would you be discussing your important political policies in cleartext? Why wouldn't you be using encry- ption? I still don't understand. When I value my info enough that I don't want a 3d party intercepting it, I use encryption. If the opposition party doesn't value the information enough to take measures to prevent it disclosure, then it is their own fault if the info is disclosed. \_ We're talking about phone conversations, not email. Also, why should the resources of the US be used for political gain of one political party? \_ There are secure phone sol'n for sensitve info. Use that if you really care. If not, don't be surprised if someone overhears your conversation and uses it against you. I'm not exactly sure why you are bothered that one party might be abusing government resources for political gain. Both parties do it. Its not something that can be prevented. \_ Congress can decide to impeach on whatever they want. The Constitution is itself vauge about the terms of what constitutes a "high crime", so practically speaking as long as you have the political clout you can just trump up charges and start the impeachment process. You don't need peanut gallery commentators to argue for or against impeachment. Is GW going to be impeached during his term? Not likely unless the Dems can pull off some sort of electoral revolution during the midterm elections. Chances of GW getting impeached are probably one in a thousand if not less. \_ Just an aside, but Bubba would say, (a) under oath, he didn't lie about Monica, (b) in the public sphere, "sexual relations" didn't include oral sex, and (c) in his private life with Hillary and Chelsea, he lied like hell. Similarly, Dubya would say there's a loophole on spying on the American people (a) if one end of a call comes from outside the country, and (b) one of those individuals is suspected of al Qaeda activity (c) during a war on al Qaeda (Dubya interprets the Congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" in fighting al Qaeda as enabling his war powers against al Qaeda). |
2006/2/15 [Science/Disaster, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41873 Activity:nil |
2/15 http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060215/cm_usatoday/relianceongovernmentstallsrebuilding In the era before the Great Society and Social Security, people were independent. Now, they're dependent leeches. Proof that the nigers in New Orleans are lazy and stupid. |
2006/2/14-15 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41831 Activity:moderate |
2/13 Rather than paying hotels and other expensive social programs that people always need, why doesn't the government simply give raw materials to the Katrina victims to build their own homes? Doing so will promote self-reliance, free-market, small government, and fiscal rectitude. I'm sick and tired of giving my tax dollars to lazy bums and immigrants. \_ That is what I don't understand neither. We are dumping billions of dollars into this, can't we just divide those billions of dollars to the number of victims and ask them to relocate to somewhere else and prohibits flood zone to be developed? Each of the victims will have close to a million dollars for it, and I think that is good enough for most of them to get back on their feet! and I think that is good enough for most of them to get back on their feet! \_ Your fucking "Do everything yourself" cowboy gunho Republican ideology doesn't work well for population that is either too sick, too old, and too young. Go fuck yourself. \_ It was a troll. YHBT. Go take a pill and relax. \- how about we given them weapons and transport to conquor another country. \_ how about they give supplies and a no-bid emergency reconstruction contract to Bechtel and Halliburton, and other politically connected contractors? \_ That will bypass the labor unions, good. But then most residents don't have the skills to build a house that can survive a hurricane, let alone following all the local codes and regulations, bad. \_ Hell, I don't have the skills to build a house. \_ Why are we still building houses from scratch in NOLA? Given the scale of the rebuilding and the government funding, they should just put up pre-fab houses that are pre-approved for hurricane conditions. Pre-fab houses are cheaper and quicker to assemble, more environment friendly, and I am guessing less prone to cost inflation from corruption. \_ There's no such thing as a broken-dam safe house when you're down stream. Anyway, why would we put any houses up in an area that is just going to get wiped out again anyway? \_ Agreed. But given that we're putting up houses anyway, why not do it in an efficient manner? -pp \_ Because this isn't a command economy? \_ Of course people can build whatever they wish. But the government can have separate application processes for pre-fab and bespoke houses, and the process for pre-approved, pre-inspected, pre-negotiated, pre-fab houses can quite reasonably be simpler. \_ Are you kidding me? Your solution is *more* government 'processes'? \_ Do you get whiplash when your knee jerks that hard? \_ Think about your 'solution' realistically. \_ Oh, I do. It's clear I'm too subtle for you. \_ It's ok. I understand you don't understand. \_ Bureaucracy never solved anything. Are you Chinese by any chance? \_ Again the knee jerk. Now consider your previous question "why would we put any houses up?". Perhaps my solution is one that yields a favorable outcome whether it achieves its stated goal or not. \_ My last comment was "why would we". Anyway, to your question: because a solution that doesn't achieve its stated goal is a failure? How about restating your goal to be, "create more government jobs and raise taxes"? Then your solution and outcome would match. |
2006/2/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41821 Activity:low |
2/13 Trailers for Katrina survivors going to waste. Our gov't dollars at work! http://csua.org/u/eyt \_ Are these the $60k a pop "trailers o' hope"? \_ More like $40k a pop. \_ A family member in Mississippi got one of these FEMA trailers. Their house is now in good enough condition to live in and yet the trailer still sits in the yard. No one has asked about picking it up or reassigning it and it's not clear what will happen to it. What a waste. \_ Hey, free trailer! -John \_ Yes, thousands of empty trailers while people sleep in the streets. This is sort of the opposite problem of Soviet Russia. \_ Mr. President, we must not allow...a trailer gap! -John |
2006/2/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41785 Activity:nil |
2/9 http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/fema.brown.ap In letter from lawyer of ex-FEMA chief Michael Brown to Harriet Miers, Brown asks Dubya to scratch his back and he'll scratch his ... "Unless there is specific direction otherwise from the president, including an assurance the president will provide a legal defense to Mr. Brown if he refuses to testify as to these matters, Mr. Brown will testify if asked about particular communications" \_ Huh? How the hell did you read quid pro quo from that article? All the article is reporting is that Brown's lawyer notified the White House that he will advise his clien to testify before Congress unless he hears otherwise from his ex-boss. He isn't exactly being hauled into Congress to be indicted. If he is ordered by the POTUS to refuse to testify he'd of course be in violation of the Congressional subpoena, and of course his counsel would demand legal immunity from the subpoena. Heck, this isn't really even that newsworthy. \_ "if you don't give me a legal defense to not testify, all heck may break loose when I testify on friday and it's not my fault because you didn't say anything. if you give me a legal defense to not disclose, then I won't, and good on you and me both." "how the hell" indeed. \_ Uhm, duh? It sure as hell couldn't be, "Now that I'm no longer an employee and I'm being called to tell people stuff that you, my former employer, may not want the public to know, you have the choice of letting me go say all that stuff or you can pay for my defense because I'm sure as hell not paying out of my pocket to cover your ass", could it? But a conspiracy is much more interesting than self interest and common sense. Motd, carry on. \_ yes, the self-interest is "don't blame me, I'm giving you fair warning right now", which is also a common sense interpretation. |
2006/2/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41782 Activity:moderate |
2/9 Pres. Bush reveals details of terrorist plot to run planes into US Bank Tower in LA, foiled in... 2002: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/terror/main1300711.shtml "[T]the White House would not say whether the 2002 plot was thwarted as a result of the spying program." '"The plot was foiled in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative," Mr. Bush said' ...the hell is he bothering to talk about this now? \_ Oh my god! West Coast is saved thanks to George Bush! He protects us from terrorists and 911 and all the evil guys who hate freedom. I'm definitely voting Republican again. ...the hell is he bothering to talk about this now? \_ Cause they only just got around to making up all the evidence. \_ His whole argument for the wiretapping is "trust me." He's manufacturing "trust". "I", meaning a SE Asian nation, "am keeping you safe from the big bad bombers." http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TERROR_PLOT_MAYOR?SITE=JRC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-09-15-09-55 http://tinyurl.com/badpc (customwire.ap.org) P.R., Pure and simple. \_ The peasants were starting to revolt \_ "In his remarks, Mr. Bush inadvertently referred to the [US Bank Tower] as 'Liberty Tower.'" hahahah \_ That means his wife was once a Liberty-ian. I thought they were against huge governments. \_ The US Bank Tower used to be called the Library Tower. \_ Does this make his wife an ex-Liberty-arian? \_ A news reader on KCBS radio made the same mistake last night. \_ why now? well for political reasons, obviously, for one. he's a politician. they're all the same. on the security side, you generally wouldn't talk about something like that right away because you'd want to have a chance to turn those people to get their buddies. if you announce to the world you caught someone, their buddies immediately know, too, so your intel asset value just dropped to zero. k? \_ The timing is still bizarre: too untimely to be useful, politically. \_ very important GOPers have been saying the wiretapping program has problems -- the subcommittee head overseeing the NSA even recommended a full review. oh look, al qaeda is coming after L.A., and Dubya stopped it! John Q. Citizen: "It must be because of the Tewwowist Surveillance Program!" \_ Even though he was very careful not to say so.... \_ Dubya is a fucking moron. He has a very low bar when it comes to scoring political points. \_ And where did they find the details? Next to WMD in Iraq? |
2006/2/8-10 [Science/Space, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41759 Activity:nil |
2/8 This is INSANELY funny. Or, it would be if it weren't so prevalent a pattern in Bushco http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007628.php |
2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41758 Activity:nil |
2/7 http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060207/cm_usatoday/corettascottkingbushforeverlinkedbysymbolism Bush and King linked forever. Forget Katrina, Bush DOES care about the blacks. \_ You're either being incomprehensibly sarcastic or amazingly tonedeaf \_ c'mon, op is just trolling, that's all there is to it. anyway, the column title is "Coretta Scott King, Bush forever linked by symbolism", and he writes, "And while others might not want to give the president credit for this gesture, I will, because I believe there are times when the symbolism of a person's actions ought to be taken seriously." His previous column was http://tinyurl.com/8jzsz which was kind of stupid. \_ Is it so fucking hard to link back to the original USAToday article instead of pretending that it actually comes from Yahoo News? \_ He probably just read it on yahoo, but I would suggest that it should be common courtesy to mention which site the tinyurl link points to. |
2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41742 Activity:nil |
2/7 http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm Is this really what you apologists think is acceptable? \_ At this point, I think not having the backing of the White House when running for reelection (even as a Republican) is going to be a win in many areas. |
2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41728 Activity:nil |
2/6 Uh, so why is Gonzales not testifying under oath? \_ Because congressional Republicans have decided that castrating themselves at the altar of Bush is a fine way to run a country. \_ It's a crime to lie to Congress whether you're under oath or not. But not putting him under oath means no symbolic photo of him raising his right hand. Propaganda war is everything. \_ U.S. Code, Statements http://tinyurl.com/7p7q6 U.S. Code, Perjury http://tinyurl.com/9shkt (both http://cornell.edu) Okay, I am not a lawyer, someone pls figure out the diff. "I think what we did was legal." (but you actually think it wasn't) It turns out to be legal, but proof is found showing you didn't actually think it was legal (you knowingly lied about what you thought). Perjury: Yes. Materially false/fictitious/fraudulent/misrep statement: No. Gonzales was not sworn in, so cannot be found guilty of perjury, but can be for false statements. I am not a lawyer. -op |
2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41719 Activity:kinda low |
2/6 George Bush lies^H^H^H^H misstates the truth again: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. -Dubya 4/20/05 \_ I think he just misunderestimated the truth. \_ At that time it was a top secret operation. Lying in to protect a state secret is legal, I'm pretty sure. \_ It was an _illegal_ top secret operation. Lying to protect an illegal act was what forced Nixon to resign. \_ It was _illegal_? Who says? \_ Arlen Specter. \_ Congressional Research Service. Congress is finally getting off their ass and starting oversight hearings, but they've started them by NOT SWEARING IN THE AG... \_ Starting hearings != determined was illegal. Sorry. \_ mebbe he was only talking about domestic-to-domestic wiretapping \_ Everyday I wonder how George Bush can consider himself a Christian. \_ Everyday I wonder how George Bush considers himself a Christian. \_ I don't think the Bible discusses wire taps. Was that in the Book Of NSA? |
2006/2/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41709 Activity:nil |
2/4 Dubya bloopers http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Funniest_Video_of_the_Year_1.wmv http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Funniest_Video_o.mov (same thing) \_ No way! Bush messing up in a bunch of speeches! I'm glad I saw this. I'm not voting for that idiot in 2008. \_ We're misunderestimating the average voter |
2006/2/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41697 Activity:nil |
2/3 Hasn't Rumsfeld proved himself to be incompetent? Or else a liar. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18028837-38198,00.html Iraq costs > $440 bln White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey was pushed out of his job when he suggested in September 2002 that the Iraq war could cost as much as $265billion. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put the figure at about $66 billion, but told Congress that no one could be sure. "It's not knowable what a war or conflict like that is going to cost. You don't know if it's going to last two days or two weeks or two months. It's certainly not going to last two years, but it's going to cost money," Mr Rumsfeld said six months before the invasion in March 2003. \_ A year or so ago Rumsfeld's competence was questioned and he \_ A year or so ago Rumsfield's competance was questioned and he responded saying "he's too old to care anymore, he's tried to quit the job a few times but Bush won't let him". I thought this was pretty funny but scary at the same time. \_ mebbe he was just thinking of "major combat operations" \_ hahah, hasn't time proven that Bush and company will say anything to get people to follow their lead. I mean, come on, why in the world would our US president ever lie? He's an outstanding president with outstanding morals..... \_ Well he has to be in order to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. |
2006/2/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41684 Activity:moderate |
2/3 Rumsfeld self-Godwins. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_chavez \_ Your abuse of the term "Godwin" isn't funny. \_ Not abuse at all. He compared Chavez to Hitler. Classic self Godwin. \_ You misunderstand Godwin. \_ Kids these days.... \_ <DEAD>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law<DEAD> \_ And from this point forward, there is no use debating with Rumsfeld about Chavez' legitimacy. Yeah, that's a Godwin. \_ And you clearly are still misunderstanding Godwin. \_ Since nothing in the wikipedia article would seem to contraindicate the application of Godwin to Rumsfeld's comparison, what the hell is your problem? Does Godwin only apply in your mind if Rummy had brought it up on Usenet? \_ I don't care who's the president of Venezuela, as long as they produce more Alicia Machados. \_ Where did these people learn how to write? "He has accused President Bush of backing efforts to overthrow his leftist government, and specifically has charged that the United States supported a short-lived coup in 2002, fomented a devastating strike in 2004 and expelled some American missionaries from Venezuela for alleged links to the CIA." Watch the subject shift. \_ Whew, and I thought you were going to slam them for something serious. A mere subject shift in modern journalism which in a paragraph that is otherwise mostly correct isn't all that bad. (Drat, tried to get a subject shift in there but I couldn't fit one in. I'll have to stick with a wide spread between subject and object). \_ wow, that's pretty bad. subject changed from Bush / U.S. doing it to Chavez doing it at "expelled". \_ wow, that's pretty bad, though I haven't seen one in a while. subject changed from Bush / U.S. doing it to Chavez doing it at "expelled". |
2006/2/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41683 Activity:nil |
2/3 Watch Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, also up for Best Docmentary. Out on DVD / Netflix a couple weeks ago. \- it is worth seeing just for the "are you on crack" scene. \_ Why do you hate America? \_ When did you stop beating your wife? \_ Haliburton! \- it is worth seeing just for the "are you on crack" scene. |
2006/2/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41680 Activity:nil |
2/2 Democratic plot to embarrass honest and humble Dubya NASA appointee exposed: http://tinyurl.com/9wb8b (Wash Post) \_ WTF? How is FBI-led watchdog agency a democratic plot??? Please go back to Kansas and go tend to ur cows. |
2006/2/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:41681 Activity:nil |
2/2 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1573959&page=2 $1.3 BILLION dollars to buy FIVE Joint Strike Fighters. You've got to be shitting me right? \_ The Generals are always fighting the last war. \_ That's not that much for a new plane. It's probably 3000 engineers working for 5 years or more to design and build that. If you want to be shocked look at the submarine - $2.5 billion and its not a new design, AFAIK. BTW, I just checked and the JSFs will cost about $50 million each when built in quantity. \_ Plus the fact that they will be sold to "allies" once production gets up to full speed. \_ Cheap. If they're even half as good as the hype they're worth it. The best war is the one you don't have to fight because the other guy doesn't bother showing up. A sub for $2.5B isn't so bad either. That's what? 2 days in Iraq? What's a carrier cost these days? Add that to the cost of the air craft on board, the support fleet of subs, DDs, CAs, etc, and see how much a fleet costs. Policing the world isn't cheap. Buying top notch planes is dirt cheap for what they do. is dirt cheap for what they do. |
2006/2/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41664 Activity:low |
2/2 Misstatement of the Union: The President burnishes the State of the Union through selective facts and strategic omissions. http://www.factcheck.org/article376.html \_ This is the third http://Factcheck.org update I've received in a week. The others are: "A DNC TV ad accuses Bush of breaking his word, but it strains some facts in the process." http://factcheck.org/article373.html "A liberal group re-names itself and launches a $1-million ad campaign making dubious claims." http://factcheck.org/article372.html \_ Please, stay on topic. People are spamming the motd with partisan pro-Republican bs about the SOTU, so here's a non- partisan evaluation of it. \_ And people are never spamming motd with partisan anti- Republican bs? \_ Irrelevant. Topic is SOTU. Come back when you have some- thing to say about it. \_ Irrelevant. It's motd. People post whatever, wherever, they wish. \_ True, but as a reader, I believe the first guy and think the second is wasting air. Other readers by definition may think differently. -someone else |
2006/2/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41651 Activity:nil |
2/1 "This was one of the most important speeches of President Bush's term in office, and was very good. I was very glad to see him address Iraq and the heavy attack of Democrats. Great job of calling for bipartisanship, as the democrats try to drag the administration through the mud. Do they not realize how it makes America look?" Jeff (Arnold, MD) \_ Who keeps posting the trolls? \_ Doesn't Bush realize how he makes America look? |
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41648 Activity:nil |
2/1 "I was so pleased that President Bush pushed partisan politics in Washington to the front of his agenda and addressed the issue at the beginning of his speech. Before we begin to discuss foreign policy and spreading democracy, the bickering on Capitol Hill needs to end. With an audience full of captive Democrats, hopefully some of them took the president's words to heart." Kristin (Miami Lakes, FL) |
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41646 Activity:nil |
2/1 "As an Independent, I have to say Mr. Bush did a very good job addressing my questions. I was disappointed by the Democratic stances and feel they are out of touch with mainstream America. Democrats seem to want to damage this president, even if it damages the rest of the country." Kim |
2006/2/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41642 Activity:nil |
2/1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_competitiveness With 2/3 dollar going to companies that do research, I will ask again. What are some research stocks that would rise as a result of Bush's new initiatives? Again, I don't give a damn about good/bad Bush's policies, I just care about how this affects me as an investor. Thanks. \_ buy XOM, BP, CVX. The oil companies will all have to figure out how to make money if petroleum consumption decreases. \_ If you want to make money keep holding the oil companies. As supplies dwindle, profits will go through the roof. A much better investment than alternate energy research. Try: SU, CNQ. \_ CVX and COP are still very cheap. Other oil stocks I own like PBR, SU, OXY have appreciated a lot already, but may be buys on dips. SU is alternative fuel (canadian oil sands). PBR is brazilian company with expertise on deep sea drilling, and has been aggressively and successfully adding to its reserves, but it is a little overpriced currently. DESC is an alternative energy stock. I rode it from 3 to 7 in like 3 months by pure luck, and it is now 10 plus. The game may be a little late now, but who knows. |
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41641 Activity:nil |
2/1 "Thank you, Mr. President, for standing firm and resolute through all that's been thrown at you from natural disasters, to the worst tragedy our country has ever seen with 9/11, to fighting terrorism here and abroad, and through all the constant mean-spirited antics from the Democrats. One would think that by now the Democrats would start to realize that in order for our country to move ahead to get things done they need to step up to the plate. This is about America. Let's get to work. Great speech!" Kathy (Maine) \_ Is this before or after we try Bush for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity? \_ Kathy is a true patriot. Kathy should be the next president. |
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41639 Activity:nil |
2/1 "I can't believe the grade school behavior exhibited by the Democrats during the address this evening. Maybe they met in the playground beforehand to agree that they wouldn't be supporting the president by their stoicism. The Democrats seem to have forgotten that they were VOTED into the seats they were so firmly planted in with their smug, rueful smiles. Run for the presidency if you think you can do it better. The only message sent was that the Democrats wouldn't back the president in the most relaxed forum. How will they respond under pressure or disaster? It's about egos and posturing, not about listening and showing your voting citizens that you can rally around the leader for the good of the whole." Judy (Winona, MN) |
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41635 Activity:low |
2/1 http://csua.org/u/ev6 (LA Times) "experts point out that the U.S. gets ... about 10% -- of its oil imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from Canada and Mexico -- and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them." http://csua.org/u/ep1 (doe.gov) Nov 2005 crude oil imports (barrels/day) published Jan 23, 2006 - Percentage of total crude oil imports into U.S. - Middle East ~ 22% (Saudi Arabia + Iraq + Kuwait) Canada+Mexico ~ 35% Nigeria+Venezuela ~ 22% Other countries contribute a maximum of ~ 7% each. These are ~ approximations because only the top 15 countries are listed (imports from other countries are assumed negligible). \_ Do you seriously think.... that if the Middle East stopped exporting oil.... that our prices would not increase? \_ it's a global market anyway. \_ So which one is correct? 10% or 22%? \_ Maybe it's 22% of the imports, 10% of all oil. \_ Then the article should read "about 10% -- of its oil from the Middle East" instead of "about 10% -- of its oil imports from the Middle East". \_ I think you're expecting too much from the newspapers. You're lucky if you get information that's correct to the first order, and there's almost no chance they will get anything subtle right. \_ Agreed. Newspapers are ok at the "what," not so great at "how," and absolutely dismal at "why." I imagine historians have to pretty much discount any newspaper account of an event as misinformation. The only thing you can say is that they're a damn sight better than television news, which is dismal at pretty much everything. \_ I remind myself that these journalists probably couldn't even handle high school calculus. Then I am not so annoyed or surprised by the quality of their analysis. |
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41632 Activity:nil |
2/1 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/387392p-328749c.html "Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy." Can anyone say "18 1/2 minutes" \_ Please explain? |
2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41627 Activity:nil |
1/31 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183363,00.html Who says Bush is not popular? \_ I have this odd vision of FoxBots adding positive or negative weight to comments based on keyword combinations and then only publishing when the end product returns zero. |
2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41624 Activity:nil |
1/31 All Bush job growth due to government spending http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060126 \_ First line: "Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005." Yeah, that number is kind of pulled out of someone's ass. \_ URL that contradicts that line? You didn't even read the rest of it, did you? It's mostly from the whitehouse and defense department's own jobs numbers. \_ It's a projection. It's not a real number. \_ Bush upped the ante on this number last night. He called it $880B. \_ Not according to the Congressional Budget Office. 2001 Revenue = $1991.4B 2004 Revenue = $1880.3B 2005 Revenue = $2153.9B http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf We can hope the rest of his data is more accurate. \_ I assume the article claims $870B in lost "potential" revenues. That is, the projected minus the actual. Ignoring of course any effect the cuts had (or didn't have) in spurring the economy. \_ Is that your bias speaking? The quote is very specific. "Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue..." Even if the author did mean "potential" earning, he is being extremely deceptive. Again, one can only wonder at the quality of his other "research". \_ That's a prime example of well-documented research. |
2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41619 Activity:kinda low |
1/31 Can someone please explain to a dumb oblivious foreigner like me the 411 on why Alito is bad for the nation? -dumb foreigner \_ Most importantly, because he doesn't seem to believe it's his role to provide an actual check on executive (i.e. presidential) power. \_ Because he's a solid conservative vote replacing a swing voter in a lifetime appointment post. Ideally the court would be 9 swing voters, but having it be a majority party-line-voters without any swings is bad for the nation. \_ So does this mean you were also against the nominations of Ginsburg or Breyer since they were also not swing-voters? \_ He doesn't believe in women's reproductive rights; he has expressed racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the rights' of individuals (vs. the govt). racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the rights' of individuals (vs. the govt). \_ Note how the above posts say nothing about the constitution. \_ Note how the above post begs the question: if individual rights and the balance of powers have nothing to do with the constitution, then what does? \_ 1) It's "raises" the question. 2) Interpreting the constitution according to how it is written (and prior rulings) strikes down laws that the legislative and executive branches enact if they violate the constitution. That's not a check? \_ He has lied to congress in the past under oath in order to get a federal judgeship, and has admitted he did it because otherwise he would not have gotten confirmed. Does that sound like someone fit to be the highest judge in the nation? \_ Cite? \_ he said in a job app that he interprets the Constitution to mean a right to abortion isn't covered. when questioned about this, he said, that was his personal opinion, but not his legal interpretation of the Constitution. no, it was his opinion AND his legal interpretation -- it's clear as day in his job app. he lies in your face. someone who lies in your face should not be a supreme court justice. \_ (not pp) an E'ist article mentioned something about him putting all his money in a Vanguard fund and stating that he would declare it if he were ever confronted with a case involving Vanguard, but forgetting to do so (then informing after the fact.) According to the article, there was no effect on the case. -John \_ Did it say which case? There was at least one case where his decision was vacated. \_ http://www.factcheck.org/article367.html Monga v. Offenberg: Alito was part of a unanimous 3-judge rule in favor of Vanguard. Alito also requested the case be reheard by a new panel, who also ruled in favor of Vanguard unanimously. At that time, Alito owned several hundred K of Vanguard funds, but he said the funds were not an issue in the case and no conflict of interest. Johnston v. Smith Barney: Smith Barney was Alito's stock brokerage, but he had no financial interest in Smith Barney. Sister's law firm: no one really knows, and there's no record. \_ Of Alito, a Democratic staffer said, "It became clear to us early on that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes, but we think the guy is a man of honor." http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt] \_ If the above stories are what pp is talking about, this is about the most disingenuous statment I've read so far this year. We need some sort of motd award for this kind of thing. \_ He said under federal oath "I will not do x." When the chance to do x happened, he did x. It doesn't matter if it was a cut and dry case. He presided on the case, after saying, once again UNDER OATH, that he wouldn't ever preside on a case concerning Vanguard. \_ Keep working on those Vanguard issues. Privately, Democrats are blaming the emphasis on Vanguard and other canards for their poor showing in Alito's nomination. http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt] |
2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41610 Activity:moderate |
1/27 Justice Stevens is 86. Oh Fuck. \_ Don't worry, once #$%^ hits the fan, people will start voting Democratic again. Right now, people are just complacent. \_ Ah yes, the D party isn't corrupt and incompetent like the R party. And only the D party cares about the environment, welfare, healthcare, minorities, and things that matter to the people. D=good, R=bad, and spread the word. I got your message. Thanks. \_ Shit hits the fan everyday. We're not living in special times. Yesterday is like today is like tomorrow. \_ Yeah it sucks. He has to hang in there and we can't have another whacko Repub Prez next term. If he resigns or dies it's going to be an unpleasant 25-30 years. For the President it's good news, just as we are facing the end of the empire, financial collapse and a severe energy crisis the Supreme court will be all set to give him all the power he wants. \- justice stevens is suppose to be in pretty good health. he's become by favorite justice. i think nobody talks about hime being a super genius or anything but i think from his long tenure he brings a lot of wisdom to his practical decisions. \_ People who agree with us a lot are always wise. BTW, how did Stevens vote on Kelo? \- you know STEVENS wrote the KELO opinion, right? you know also he after the fact said that he thought new london was likely doing the wrong thing as a matter of legislative policy in this case but they did have the right to do so in this case based on his reading of established practice [this was in a speech after the opinion came down]. similarly STEVENS ruled congress had the power to overrule state pro-marijuana laws eventhough he personally though maybe they should stay out of regulating this at the national level. --#1 STEVENS FAN \_ I'm quite aware of who STEVENS is and what STEVENS has done. It was a RHETORICAL question. One should know that RHETORICAL questions, even about STEVENS are not intended to be EXPLICITLY answered, even if STEVENS or KELO are the topic. STEVENS wrote a legal OPINION that the government has the right to FUCK people out of their property and GIVE it to some random fuck PRIVATE developer to build GOLF courses on. Are you or STEVENS big fans of GOLF? That was also a RHETORICAL question. -- fuck STEVENS and his FANS \_ USSC ruled it constitutional. The local government made the law. Seriously, bitching about the decision is stupid. If you want to change it, talk to your representative. It will take legislation to change it. \_ Hmm, what did the USSC say about slavery? The Constitution as originally written was ok with it, so it must be ok!! Yay! Saying that because the USSC ruled in a particular way makes it right is what is stupid. Blind allegiance to some politically appointed body is stupid. Think for yourself. \_ Suck it. You're complaining about Stevens doing his JOB. I didn't say the SC ruling makes it "right". In fact, Stevens made exactly that point. So just fuck off. \_ By your 'logic' we should still have slavery and a bunch of other nastiness and no right to abortion. "So just fuck off"? If you can't back your words with reason and login, then go back to the play ground. The 6th graders are waiting for you. \_ You don't read too good, do ya? The SC gives their reading of the law. Stevens said he didn't like what they were doing, but the law as it stands makes it constitutional. That doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be changed. You'd have a hard time stretching Kelo to compare to slavery. In fact, if you want to compare Kelo to Dred Scott, it took legislation to correct the legally right/morally wrong decision. And before you whine that it wasn't "legally right", take it up with the founders who defined the SC. \_ Thanks for the basic civics lesson. Care to explain how the SC found the "right" to abortion in the C? You can't. And when it gets overturned who is going to bitch loudest about it? The SC makes up tons of shit based on nothing. Nothing required them to go with Kelo as they and in fact IMNSOH their reading of the law re: Kelo was flat out idiotic. They made a wrong call on Kelo. A later court is likely to do a 100% about face on this dog of a ruling. It has certainly happened before. Why would that be if Constitutional interpretation were as black and white as you make it out to be? It isn't black and white and your falling back on "Well the SC said so, so it must be a good ruling" is just silly. At least if it was a unanimous ruling you might have a leg to stand on with a point like that. The SC ruled for Bush in 2000. Was that a good ruling? It was 7:2 and 5:4 on two different issues both in Bush's favor. All Hail The Absolute Wisdom Of The Supreme Court! Yay! \_ Hint: There's a reason I brought up SCOTT. I never said KELO was "good". \_ Christ.. You people and Kelo.. Get the fuck over it. Federalists should be happy. They granted local government the permission to make their own choices about use of ED. If you don't like what your local gov is doing, change it. Personally, I don't like Kelo because ED should yield a public commodity. Being able to use it to help a private interest secure land makes it just an easy way to lock in an artificially low market rate. But I suspect your argument boils down to "gubmint wants to take mah land.." \_ Who said I was a Federalist? I think it sucks that any two bit bribable mayor or local council can force people from their land and give it to some private developer. What is so wrong about being opposed to that? Your "suspicians" are cheap personal smear at best and not useful to a discussion on Kelo, the SC or anything else. If you want to know what my points boil down to, you can read them and ask for clarification without being an ass about it. \_ "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" \_ Property rights are important, but why are property rights and gun ownership rights the only ones worth defending? Alito will likely take them *all* away if the executive wants it. |
2006/1/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41582 Activity:moderate |
1/28 Ask a Republican! http://csua.org/u/etk (mac.com) \_ I don't get it. Who is this guy? (The Bio doesn't really clear it up) \_ wow, dense aren't you. He's a comic, and pretty damn funny \_ Yeah, I guess I am. So why does he have bits that specify specific years and make it look like he really was some sort of elected republican? \_ He's a comedian who impersonates a republican elected official answering questions in the manner of a stereotypical republican. It's satire. -!pp \_ hilarious. thx. \_ uh, if you say so. Colbert Report is the same basic idea but actually funny sometimes \_ when you get too far out there, the unfunny that agrees with your core beliefes becomes funny. humor is relative. relatives are humor. :-) |
2006/1/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41581 Activity:kinda low |
1/28 "Actions Fail to Match Words in New Orleans -- Four months from the next hurricane season, the Bush administration's promise to rebuild the Gulf Coast remains largely unfulfilled." http://tinyurl.com/aro3r (Wash Post) \_ Unfortunately, the politics make it impossible to have a real discussion on whether it is a good idea to rebuild New Orleans. \_ Why can't Dubya just say, "We love blacks, but we're not sure about rebuilding below sea level. To show that I love blacks, I will ..." \_ Err... Politics? \_ What is there to rebuild? The place is still below sea level, the people who left have no reason to come back. I don't see a point in *paying* them to come back. NO will be smaller than it was. If there is a real reason for it to grow, it will. We don't pay people to move out to all those little towns in the midwest that have been dying for decades or build them free stuff. \_ We also didn't destroy those towns through blatant government incompetence. \_ Who summoned the hurricane? Is it always the government's fault when something bad happens? Do citizens have no responsibility for themselves? I don't want to live in a Mommy State. When Mommy takes care of your needs She also gets to tell you what to do. \_ Control Weather is a 7th Level spell, no? Maybe the government is responsible. \_ Some bald dude with sunglasses just explained to me a couple days ago how rogue elements of the former KGB and the Yakuza are controlling the weather using technology developed by Nikola Tesla which causes weather patterns to be square instead of round, and which caused Katrina. He said that the U.S. Government knows about it, but is powerless to stop it. \_ Whoa! You met Picard on one of his time travel episodes? Did you get any trinkets or his autograph? That's so cool! \_ Only Jerry Falwell has memorized the runes. Or is it Pat Robertson? One of those two can steer hurricanes, I mix them up. |
2006/1/28-29 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41578 Activity:high |
1/27 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html "The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out ... was particularly incensed that the directives ... had come through informal telephone conversations ... leaving no significant trails of documents. ... relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be 'dire consequences' if such statements continued ... 'The inference was that Hansen was disloyal.' ... many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone." "If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy." -GW Bush (Sep 2, 2004) \_ oooh spoooookeeeey.... "informal telephone conversations" .... ... "no signnificant trails of documents" .... "relayed the warning .... would be 'dire consequences'" .... "inference was that ... was disloyal" .... "and then only if a [agent representing the administration] is present" ....... So has the NYT sunk to new journalistic lows or was it always this bad? Wasn't there once a time when reporters actually went out and *investigated* allegations instead of writing single sourced propaganda like this? I guess doing actual fact checking is *work*. Maybe this is going on, maybe it isn't but we don't know from sensationalist junk like this. Might as well read the Daily Cal. Same quality and it's free. \_ What you are saying is completely false. \_ Uhm, yeah, you have totally convinced me with that well supported statement. If you have nothing to say, which you don't, say nothing. In the mean time, I'm going to go find a Daily Cal so I can read something well researched instead of the crap the NYT is spewing out. \_ Most of your "points" are complete hokum. \_ Most of your "points" are complete hokum. \_ If you actually had a point or something to say, you would have said so by now. You're still hovering around the "i no u r but wut am i?!" level. The Daily Cal quite most excellent even though it was last week's Tuesday edition. Very timely! I look forward to reading tomorrow's on Friday. \_ What you are saying is completely false. \_ Holy time travel, Batman. Here's a Wapo story from 1/2005 about it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19162-2005Jan18.html Does he like pop up once a year to talk about how he's been pressured not to talk? Any bets on his story on 1/2007? \_ Anyone who ranks lower would be hesitant to come out for fear of losing their livelihood. \_ Absolutely. Come January next year, I'm sure we'll once again hear about how he was pressured to keep silent. |
2006/1/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41570 Activity:nil |
1/27 http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/economy/gdp/index.htm "Far less growth than forecasts in the fourth quarter, as economy manages only 1.1% annual rate gain." U.S. GDP growth (from preceding period) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2002 2.7 2.2 2.4 0.2 2003 1.7 3.7 7.2 3.6 2004 4.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2005 3.8 3.3 4.1 1.1 "The preliminary estimate of fourth quarter 2005 GDP is inconsistent with the underlying strength of the U.S. economy ... I would not read too much into today's numbers. They are somewhat anomalous, reflecting some special factors." -Treas Sec John Snow (Jan 27, 2006) (durable goods +9.3% Q3, -17.5% Q4 -- summer auto incentives) "However, investors seemed to welcome the seemingly negative report ... Investors may be betting that slower economic growth will mean the Fed can stop raising interest rates soon." |
2006/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41567 Activity:moderate |
1/27 Dubya's State of the Union is on Tuesday! For those following Iran, here is a chronology of the most recent events: - Iran breaks seals, announces resumption of enrichment research - West condemns Iran, support move to Security Council - Iran condemns West, threatens full-scale enrichment upon referral - Russia/China upset, but don't support move to Security Council - Russia highlights enrichment in Russia - ... Days tick away to IAEA board meeting ... - Iran says Russian enrichment plan "positive" Yesterday-Today: - West (including U.S.) fully endorses Russian enrichment plan - Iran says of Russian plan "capacity of the program not sufficient ... can be revised to be more complete" - Iran allows IAEA visits to Lavizan military site Thursday Dubya follies: "The Iranians have said, 'We want a weapon.'" -Dubya "... in the afternoon, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, acknowledged that Mr. Bush had misspoken." \_ This last line can't be true. They *never* admit they're wrong. |
2006/1/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:41565 Activity:nil |
1/27 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=1548547 "The Department of Commerce report showed that the nation's economy grew at an anemic 1.1 percent -- the worst performance in three years." U.S. GDP growth (from preceding period) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2002 2.7 2.2 2.4 0.2 2003 1.7 3.7 7.2 3.6 2004 4.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2005 3.8 3.3 4.1 1.1 |
2006/1/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41556 Activity:nil |
1/26 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11021093 Gen. Hayden does not appear to understand "probable cause" is key feature of 4th Amendment. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the measure is probable cause, I believe. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure. ... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... the legal standard is probable cause. HAYDEN: Just to be very clear, and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. FYI, "probable cause" applies to warrants. You can search without a warrant, only in very specific cases, like when a police officer pats you down for weapons because he or she has a reasonable suspicion that you might endanger him or her, or when Dubya says so. \_ The Gen. and the UM may be talking about two different parts of the 4th amend. Note that the 4th amend. provides protection against unreasonable searches if the search is conducted using a deficient warrant (See Mapp, 367 US 643; Leon 468 US 897). The deficient warrant, in most cases, was issued upon a showing of probable cause. UM is focusing on the std for the warrant, Gen. Hayden is focusing on the type of search. Re warrantless searches, the Terry stop rationale has been applied in many contexts including dog sniffs of lugguage, &c. The questions to ask (afaik) are: (1) did you get a warrant? - if no, then the evid. obtained pursuant to the search may not be used against the accused. (2) did you make a sufficient showing of probable cause when you got your warrant? - if no then the evid. obtained can't be used. (3) Even if you got a valid warrant, did the warrant you used cover what was searched or seized? - if no, then the search was unreasonable and the evid. can't be used (4) Even if the warrant covered what was searched or seized, was the warrant too broad? - if yes, then some of the evid. may be excluded [ I'm not 100% sure about this one, I haven't taken crim pro yet ] |
2006/1/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41554 Activity:nil |
1/26 http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007536.php President of photo-shoot company (that does business almost exclusively with Republicans) identifies and deletes photo of Dubya and Abramoff from catalogs, citing it as a "business decision", within the last month. (nothing illegal about that; and she did contribute $6K to Dubya/the GOP, so she not only is preventing her business from failing but also wants to do it) \_ Not sure why she bothered. Almost every politico type ends up in a *lot* of pictures with various scummy people they later wish hadn't been taken. |
2006/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41532 Activity:nil |
1/26 Senator Train Wreck Coburn set to stir up the Senate http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/TimChapman/2006/01/26/183818.html Gingrich / Coburn in 2008! |
2006/1/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41511 Activity:nil |
1/24 Culture of life! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_he_me/epa_human_testing |
2006/1/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41505 Activity:high |
1/24 [ Preserved b/c this thread is still active ] Domestic eavesdropping opponents have been using the misquote from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". http://csua.org/u/er9 [nyt] Now, this is a misquote, and the difference between the quote and the misquote is substantial and relevant to the debate. However, I don't recall any popular media calling the protestors on the misquote. Why is this? Does the press not know the quote is wrong? Do they simply not care? \_ Isn't this entire thread an attempt to ignore the larger issue? \_ What I wanna know is, did "those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither" motd guy participate in the rally, or it just some place like http://democraticunderground.com that's spreading the misquote? (anyway, http://CNN.com says it's a "paraphrase") \_ Good for CNN. "Paraphrase" is unfair to the substantial difference between the quote and the misquote, but that's still better than NYT and CBS, who just ignored the error altogether. \_ the substantiveness of the difference between the paraphrase and the exact quote is debatable as well \_ only if people who can't comprehend english are debating. \_ not in my view \_ Is f(g(x)) ~= f(x)? Only for very few f() and g(). \_ you're entitled to your view even if it makes no sense. welcome to america. \_ but it does make sense, so ... \_ http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm (what Mr. Franklin actually said, and his mouth moves too) \_ http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605 Actually is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety." That still seems pretty close to me. \_ IOW, the quote is silent on whether it's ok to give up liberty for non-temporary safety. (And indeed much of government is a trade-off between liberty and safety.) Now, did Bush buy temporary or non-temporary safety with the eavesdropping? Hence my claim that the difference is relevant to the debate. \_ Also, the quote is silent on whether we should enact Daylight Saving Time, abandon the gold standard, or legalize gay marriage. However, while it would be a stretch to say that the quote proposed any of the latter, it's a reasonable extrapolation to say that the quote discourages sacrificing liberty for any kind of safety, especially in light of a lack of any further written material by Franklin in opposition. More to the point, however, what he's really saying is that cowardly people who would compromise with tyrants should be done away with. Or, in common parlance, snitches gots to be capped. \_ This is a childish distraction, not a real point. He is clearly talking about liberty and security, not any of the red herrings you bring up. You *may* be correct when you say he was really talking about the larger issue of compromising with tyrants (although I personally doubt it, it isn't an unreasonable interpretation), but the rest of your post about unrelated issues is useless. Misquoting the man to make some political point shows a great deal of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Which of those is worse is left to the reader to decide. \_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserves \_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserve neither" equivalent to "People who trade dignity for a long-term relationship deserves neither"? Both statements long-term relationship deserve neither"? Both statements may be true, but are they equivalent? You do understand 2 true statements may still not be the same. \_ My bringing up the admittedly ridiculous examples I did was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of drawing conclusions from omissions in the man's words. As the quote says that giving up liberty for temporary safety is not to be done, and since Franklin never followed that up with a caveat or exception, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that he would have had a similar distaste for giving up liberty for non-temporary safety. \_ No. Giving up liberty for non-temporary safety is called government. \_ You're assuming that the liberties that you purport to have given up in exchange for safety were actually in your possession to begin with. \_ Ref state of nature, Locke, and the social contract. \_ If he never followed up with any further statements on the subject we can only conclude he had nothing more to say on the matter. Anything else is jumping to unfounded conclusions. By your reasoning, the opposite of your assumption could also be said and it would be an equally unfounded conjecture. \_ *shrug* Invent a time machine or consult a medium and ask him yourself, then. \_ Well, you are the one trying to impute extra meaning to Franklin's quote. We're saying he said what he said, and reading anything more into it would be unjustified. If you go back, this subthread started with "IOW, the quote is silent on...". more into it would be unjustified. Looking back, this subthread started with "IOW, the quote is silent on..." \_ ? I'm saying we can't know. I'm not making any assumptions about what he meant. We'll never know unless there's some other written document somewhere clarifying. Why do you think I'd need a time machine for anything? \_ Is "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly payment of $5k for a year deserve neither" equivalent to "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve neither"? payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve neither"? \_ Your analogy assumes the quantification of the unquantifiable. Or, as WSB put it, "There are no honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative merchandise... for quantitative merchandise." \_ Which part is unquantifiable? This PP's analogy uses only quantifiables so you must mean the phrase "temporary" from Franklin's quote is unquantifiable? Or you mean "essential"? Please explain. \_ Comparing two quantities ($100K and $60K) is easily done. Comparing two qualities (liberty and safety) is not. \_ Hmm, ok, then you disagree with Franklin? \_ How about comparing 'safety' and 'little temporary safety'? \_ The original quote also says "essential liberty." One may argue that essential liberty includes the liberty to communicate, but that liberty does not cover CLEARTEXT communications, ie the gov. can't (1) forbid you from using public-key encryption or (2) force you give them your private key, BUT they can listen to you conversation if you do it in the clear. \_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dans \_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dan \_ Why? Communicating in cleartext is basically the same as talking in public. One must assume that as soon as the communications leaves the confines of one's own home, it is available to everyone. If you don't value the privacy of your communication to the level necessary to take precautions against eavesdropping, you have assumed the risk that the your communications will be intercepted. I'm only asking whether it is an ESSENTIAL liberty to communicate in cleartext. I can accept that it a nice to have liberty, but I cannot accept that it is essential. \_ Only recently has it been possible for ordinary people to encrypt phone conversations. Are you saying that the government had the ability to tap phone conversations for the last 100 years without a warrant? Why would the courts disagreee with that? \_ Many different ciphers/codes have existed as long as phones have been around. Arguably OTP has also existed since at least WW2. If you value your privacy enough you should use the state of the art cipher system for the era in which you are living. Yes it slow, yes it is inefficient and hampers communication, but that is the price of secure communication. It is not just the government that has had the ability to tap and record phone conversations for decades. Private industry has this ability as well. I am not arguing for an interpretation of search under the 4th amend. I am arguing that cleartext communication is not an essential liberty as used by Franklin. long as phones have been around. It is not easy to have a two way conversation but it is doable. If you value your security that much, then the inconvenience is worth it. NOTE: I am not arguing for an interpretation of search under the 4th amend. I am arguing that cleartext communication is not an essential liberty w/in Franklin's use of that term. In addition, my assertion also applies to all forms of communication, including letters. I think that the term essential in this context would not cover the liberty to mail letter w/o them being subject to review by the post office. It is not an ESSENTIAL liberty that one have the ability to send letters in the clear. \_ This quote is more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs to support things like right-to-own-machine-guns. If the media doesn't point out the exact quote when it's used by Charlton Heston, is it an artifact of the right-wing media? -tom \_ URL with Charlton Heston or nutjob, media, and the quote please. \_ not quite all your parameters, but close: -!tom http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/notablequotes.htm yes, I know it's not a misquote here's Mr. Heston, and he doesn't misquote too http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_close.asp \_ http://www.twelvearyannations.com/id28.htm (Aryan Nations World Headquarters) -tom \_ Well, Aryan Nations isn't "libertarian nutjobs" or Charleston Heston, and a self-promotional web site isn't a popular media report. Otherwise you're dead on. \_ You're a moron in several different ways, but primarily because it's not the newspaper's job to correct the people it's quoting, except when it's editorializing. When it's just a news story, you report what was said, you don't say "Charleton Heston said that those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither, but the actual Benjamin Franklin quote is 'those who would give up essential liberty for safety...'". That's simply not the job of a reporter. And if you want to split hairs between the Aryan Nation and libertarian nutjobs (I really don't think the difference is significant), you can find similar misquotes at http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1554499/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b6b6d66946.htm and plenty of others. -tom \_ Your claim was specific. You said "This quote is more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs...". Despite your rude bluster, you still have not substantiated your claim. 2 tries, and you still haven't found "libertarian nutjobs" who use "this quote". You also claimed Charlton Heston misquoted Franklin. Again, a specific claim, and you have not backed that one up either. OBTW, CNN said the protestors "paraphrased" Franklin. \_ Uh, so freerepublic doesn't count as libertarian nutjobs? -tom \_ Absolutely not. Nutjobs? Yes. Libertarian? No, no, no, no, no! The freepers are a bunch of uneducated loud mouthed morons that all clear thinking people across the political spectrum wish would go away, but they are definitely not libertarians. Please get the bare basics right before posting. \_ Geeze, you really are nitpicking. OK, how about <http://http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le960801.html (The Libertarian Enterprise) <http://http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/sept28/price.html (Liberty For All) <http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47823,00.html (Radley Balko, Cato Institute) Give it up, already. -tom \_ That was my first post in this thread. My nit isn't your quoting, per se, it is your gross misclassification of the freepers which makes me think you've either never read what they have to say and are just repeating what you've been told or worse, you have read the freeper junk and can't see they aren't libertarians at all and thus have no idea what a libertarian is. I really don't care what libertarians might have misquoted Franklin. Not my game. \_ But Tom, where is "this quote" in any of your links? You specifically said "this quote". \_ Search for "liberty for safety." -tom \_ You specified a particular quote. Also, while the freepers are certainly nutjobs, not even they'd tell you they are libertarians. Strike 3. \_ 0 for 3 isn't bad. it could've been worse. \_ I don't know, he keeps trying. Seems to be going for a solid 0 for 10. \_ again, i think the real issue is not rather one should allow domestic eardropping or not. The real issue is that as it is right now, no one really knows the scope of domestic spying, no check and balance is in place. So, in case of wrongfully accused or that such program has being targeted for political purposes, no one can turn the case over. It is all depend upon Bush Co to decide who is 'terrorist' or not. Bush can easily use this mechanism to spy on Democrat Party Committee. This is just like \_ IC! DEMOCRAT__*IC*_ PARTY! You scoundrel! You petty traitor! You villain! *IC*! Why are you and Karl Rove always torturing us with your vicious little RepubiKKKan smears on the motd and your official publications?! *IC*! \_ Sounds like it's time to up the dosage *again*, man. Or cut back..waaaaaay back on the caffeine. Watergate except it is now legal to do so. \_ This may be a case of it has always been legal to do so, not it is now legal to do so. The situation is different from Watergate b/c the wiretaps in Watergate were conducted for purely domestic purposes. Here the wiretaps are ostensibly conducted for foreign affairs purposes. The distinction may become impt, b/c the Pres. has far more power to act in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs. \_ regardless, there should be a check-n-balance mechanism in place. \_ Arguably the const. disagrees with you. The BoR may not apply to executive power during a time of war, when hostiles have been operating on American soil. \_ So any President, on nothing more than their own whim, can claim anyone is doing something related to a "foreign" power, without any evidence whatsover, and declare all Constitutional rights for that person invalid? And no court or legislature has any recourse? Is that your contention? \_ There are limits to the executive power, BUT those limits arguably only exist either (1) during peacetime or (2) during wartime when enemy forces are not operating on US soil. This is clearly not peace time and this is a wartime scenario where the enemy is engaged in operations on US soil, therefore the BoR may not apply. \_ What events will signify the end of the war? We defeated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq and have a puppet government in Afghanistan... Aren't we on a never ending quest to save my girlfriend now? I mean, when will the "War on Terror" end, and if it isn't ending anytime soon, doesn't that mean the President will have expanded powers for decades? \_ I find it interesting that the balance of government branches issue is so important yet does anyone here not understand that the President has always had the ultimate power since the mid 1900s? Without anyone else's say so they can start a nuclear war. Is that ok? If so, then why don't we trust the office holder with lesser responsibilities than all human life on the planet? I'm not arguing for/against, I just find the reasoning that "super power over life and death with no checks" is ok while "omg, they're going to listen to me talk sexy to my gf!!!" is not. \_ Just because the President was given one important power due to military neccesity doesn't mean that he has unlimited power to do anything. \_ Actually the Pres. does have unlimited power to do anything he wants in wartime IF habeas is suspended. [ I know that habeas hasn't been suspended, BUT if it were, the Pres. would have the power to do anything he deems necessary in order to protect the republic. ] \_ The conditions that signify the end of the war are clear in my post. The Pres. authority to violate the BoR will end when there are no longer any foreign hostiles engaged in operations on US soil. Perhaps this will take decades, perhaps it will take longer. I do not know, but I feel that AQ et. al. pose such a threat to civilization, that any and all means must be used to vanquish them. Re "saving my gf": I disagree, despite the lack of domestic terrorism since 9/11, there is no proof that AQ et. al. are no longer carrying out long term operations w/in the US. Until such proof is avail. the emergency exists. Such proof can be made available by the worldwide destruction of militant islam; thus we do not have to rely on an assertion of proof via the executive branch. \_ More people in the United States have been struck by lightning than died in domestic terrorist attacks in the last decade. I think you severely overreacting to a very minor threat and giving up our liberties because of a very minor problem. Your paranoia and fearfulness over a tiny problem are not worth tearing up the Constitution. minor threat and are giving up our liberties because of your paranoia and media generated hype and fearfulness. \_ If you receive anal pleasure 100 times in a year, it's no big deal. If you receive it 20 times in a morning, you might have problems. |
2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41491 Activity:nil |
1/23 Really, people... Is it incompetence or embezzlement? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/international/middleeast/24reconstruct.html |
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41486 Activity:moderate |
1/23 http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007276.php http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012770.php Who to believe? Can you start tapping and then have 72 hours to get retroactive FISA approval (URL 1), or does the attorney general need probable cause before even beginning to tap (URL 2)? Note Gen. Hayden today went with URL 2. \_ But they wouldn't have even done #1 \_ URL 2 says you can't do #1 without the attorney general establishing probable cause first. \_ URL 2 is disingenuous.. "We don't actually know how to fill out a warrant application, so we shouldn't have to" is a _stupid_ argument. \_ The core of the argument is that Gen. Hayden went outside of FISA to do "reasonable basis" wiretaps (calls going to / coming from suspected Al Qaeda members / affiliates), whereas FISA required "probable cause" (we have a credible source or evidence obtained through other legal means that person x has committed or is committing a criminal act) required to even begin wiretapping. Note that, if you go outside FISA, you need very little other than some NSA person saying that one end of the call may be coming from an Al Qaeda member / affiliate. "reasonable basis" << "probable cause" link:tinyurl.com/bkvuf (nytimes.com) \_ Unfortunately there's that pesky little thing called the constitution. link:tinyurl.com/bkvuf (nytimes.com) \_ Then you go back to: They could do it outside of FISA becuse the resolution passed by Congress gave Dubya the power, and also through his role as "unitary executive" (a power granted by the Constitution according to Dubya's people). \_ "could". That's the claim. The congressional research service said they can't. \_ Thanks for pointing that out. Here's the URL: http://tinyurl.com/9nosv (Wash Post) \_ [ I have not yet taken Crim Pro, but from what I understand ] The USSC has held that a wiretap is a search w/in the meaning of that term under the 4th amend. Thus a warrant to wiretap cannot issue w/o a showing of probable cause. The probable cause showing must relate to the time the search is INITIATED; evidence found after the search cannot generally be used to est. probable cause. The FISA procedures allow the AG to request the warrant upto 72 hrs after the tap is started, BUT the AG must still prove that probable cause existed at the time the wiretap was initiated. Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap - the relevant USSC cases \_ People need to start saing that Dubya is usurping "probable cause" for unreasonable searches in the 4th Amendment, and this will promptly throw out Dubya's "unitary executive" and Congressional authorization arguments. Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap: The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power. If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the Pres. will probably win this under either Curtis Wright or Youngstown. Curtis Wright "one voice" in foreign affairs is probably the better argument b/c in ever case the purpose of the wiretaps were to stop terrorism by international forces, which is a foreign affairs issue. \_ Well, if it goes to the Supreme Court, then I think that's it. 4th Amendment, "probable cause", Dubya violated it, game set match. \_ I talked to my Con Law prof about this and the real problem is getting standing to bring a 4th amend. claim. Unless the AG screws up really badly, defendants will not have a factual basis to claim that their 4th amend. rights were violated. [ The ACLU has filed a suit saying that the named plaintiffs were likely to be tapped, but this is probably not enough to show actual harm necessary to get standing ] \_ You can ask your prof what they think of this with respect to the notion that you can't get plaintiffs with standing because, by nature of the program, you can't find out if your 4th amendment rights have been breached. I.e., you can have unlimited secret wiretapping because you can't find anyone who knows if they've been wiretapped. Your prof can either say "Too bad" or "Perhaps SCOTUS will recognize the Catch-22 and review the case". \- some people are concerned about the standing issue int eh case of the ACLU suit but theirs is not the only suit. a law prof whose name i do not recall but is possible from gerogetown is representing a muslim professor who allegedly said some crazy stuff and was was suspected to have phone conversations with various unsavories located in AFGANISTAN was smacked down and he should pretty clearly have standing, but he is not a very sympathetic defendent ... that might end up being a case where there would have been probably cause but the govt just didnt bother with the warrants. the BURGER court certain carved into the exclusionary rule so that trend may continue. remember the constitution says the govt cant do warrantless searches but it doesnt mandate the exclusionary rule ... the court could conceivably have said "we will sanction the fellow who obtained the tainted evidence" or the unjustly seearched party has a right to sue the law enforcement body that violated his 4th amd or 5th amd rights for money damage rather than a right to suppress the evidence. \- update: the other suit is being led by the center for constitutional rights. their clients have a pretty good case for standing but may be less sympathetic ... e.g. have made anti-american public statements etc. but their claim is also that the lawyers of these people who are american citizens were monitored. i have to go now. Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap: The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power. If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the Pres. will probably win this under either the Curtis Wright or Youngstown. |
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41483 Activity:moderate |
1/23 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html "The general said three NSA attorneys provided independent opinions that the [eavesdropping] program was legal." \_ Major shock: the NSA thinks it's OK to wiretap without a warrant. Good enough for me! -tom \_ "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such ..." -Gen. Hayden but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless wiretapping? but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless wiretapping? \_ I think the daily show (or was it colbert report) put it best: we already had all the facts about the plans and identities of the 9/11 guys before 9/11. The problem is that they were lost in a sea of too much intel. How would collecting even more have solved that? \_ For a horizon of a few weeks, the President has essentially unlimited power during wartime, at which time he is expected to advise Congress of his actions. Bush advised the Senate Intelligence committee about the wiretaps very early on. unlimited power during wartime, but is expected to ultimately advise Congress of his actions. Bush advised the Senate Intelligence committee about the wiretaps very early on. |
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41482 Activity:nil |
1/23 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23208381.htm "President George W. Bush rejected charges his domestic eavesdropping program was illegal on Monday, while other administration officials said the war on terrorism has made the federal law on electronic surveillance outdated." So which is it? Is it against a law that the administration wants revised, or is it within the law (which would imply that the law is timely and supports the Pres.)? \_ Dubya said it's legal, from a resolution Congress passed. His people are also saying the power of the unitary executive also makes it legal. Gen. Hayden said that three NSA layers wrote independent opinions saying it was legal. \_ Uh, Dubya asked congress to include the US on the list of countries in the afghanistan resolution. congress said no. he wanted it in the patriot act. congress said no. dubya said "fuck congress". \_ So if it's legal, why are his people saying the law is outdated? \_ I think it's because of "URL 2" indicated in new post above. |
2006/1/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41468 Activity:high |
1/21 Hillary was wrong, Bush not the worst President ever. Sixth worst? http://csua.org/u/eq4 (USA Today) \_ "Except for Katrina"? Gee, except for losing a major city, bush ain't doing too bad. (Not to mention how wrong that columnist is about education or health care, but that's another story.) \_ ...the hell has the founder of USA Today got to do with anything? \_ if he really is a serious thinker, I bet several well-informed e-mails will easily push him to recategorize Dubya to the worst three. in any case, if you think about it, his precise placement of dubya as "6th worst" does 2x damage compared to just agreeing with hillary. it stimulates thought and resists categorization. \_ A fine point. Ranking him as 6th worst obfuscates the real (and obvious) issue, which is that he's a fuck-up. \_ I don't know about you, but 6th worst out of 43 is still pretty pathetic. And I don't know how you would give any credence to someone who evaluates the worst deficit ever as "reasonably well". -John \_ USA Today: it's where I go first for quality news and opinion. |
2006/1/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41451 Activity:high |
1/20 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_go_ot/republicans_rove First there was the War on Terror, and now there's a War on Unpatriotic Liberal Dissents. Go Carl Rove!!! \_ You mean Not-unpatriotic-but-pre-9/11 And Profoundly Wrong Liberals \_ "But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party . in this case, the Democrat Party . when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a mean to achieve the common goal...." It's a definite sign of insanity to not be able to see the irony in what you're saying. \_ Or even the circumstances in which you say something. When was the last time the D Party was dominant? '93? Sounds like Rove is living in the pre-pre-9/11 world. \_ What's with the persistent mispronunciation of the "Democratic" party as the "Democrat" party by Republicans in official and press statements? I see this so much it can't be coincidence. \_ No coincidence. The Rs excel at crafting the message, and it doesn't serve their purposes to given the Democrats even the appearance of the high ground. \_ I was going to say it is all an evil republican conspiracy to uhm some-er-other but I see the nut head brigade got here first. Thanks for killing my joke. \_ "I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist." Teresa Nielsen Hayden \_ Deep in the bowels of the Rovian Pit of Darkness, "What new message shall we craft that will give us the appearance of taking the high ground? Ah ha! I know! We shall always refer the minority party without their noble "ic" at the end of their name, even in official literature! Yes! Muahahaha!" Truly, this is one of the most dispicable yet subtle attacks on our civil rights we have seen up to now! What next? Will they sometimes use a lower case "D" when next they write "democrat"?! Egads! They're unstoppable! We're doooomed! \_ LOL. No, not unstoppable or even clever. Just. petty. \_ You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! Ok, the truth is no one noticed any difference or cared. Dropping the "ic" does not give or take away anything or give anyone the appearance of high ground or any other BS posted here on the topic. The whole thing is just silly. To claim it is some sort of conspiracy would be laughable if it weren't so bizarre. Can anyone explain what benefit the DemocratIC party gets from the IC or they lose when the Republicans don't use the IC? Is it like Samson's hair? \_ I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm saying it's a conscious decision. And while I agree with you that Joe Q Public isn't even going to notice it, Rove and party are still doing it. That's what makes it so petty. \_ What is this big "it" they are doing? Dropping the "ic". Christ Oh Mighty! Big Fucking Deal! Of all the things going on in the world we've wasted nearly 2 screens on "ic". Totally fucking stupid. Get over it. \_ I have. The pettiness of the GOP no longer surprises or occupies my thoughts any more than your posts. \_ You are bizarre. You have yet to explain how having or not having "ic" helps or hurts anyone or is petty or anything else. Freak. \_ "We need to learn from our successes," he said, "and from the failures of others." Good god. What arrogance. I actually agree with many of the things he says about the democratic party. They're being reflexively contrary and really do seem petty and childish. On the other hand, I disagree with almost everything he says about the republicans. \_ If the D's could get the rules committee to let them hold an actual hearing, if they could get any legislative items on the agenda, if they were allowed in to the conference committees, you might have a point about reflexive contrarians. They are currently watching medicare be destroyed and a war slowly being lost, and the only outlet they have is to say "look what they're doing. get pissed about it. cuz we can't do shit unless you vote more of our team in." \_ Did you watch the Alito hearings? They seem to be a one-topic party, and that topic is abortion. \_ Abortion and his unitary executive theories. There are a number of republican senators who have gone back on promises to their constituents that they would not allow a sc justice through without pledging to protect roe on both roberts and alito. D's are actually concerned about it, as are a large majority of the population. They're not driving the discussion (another of their problems). They're just trying to get a word in. \_ It's the elephant in the room that the Rs don't want to talk about. \_ The murdered baby elephant!!!1!!11! \_ have you seen Tom Yum Goong? |
2006/1/19-21 [Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41446 Activity:nil |
1/19 Original documents on the govt request and the Google lawyer's response http://news.com.com/2300-1028_3-6028780-1.html You'll be proud of the latter (starts on page 5). You, too, can defend GOOG with a B.S. in Economics from Cal http://www.kvn.com/attorneys_bio.php?id=33 (as long as you graduate cum laude from Harvard law too ...) On the flip side, you can be a fully tenured professor at Cal and work for Dubya (ob John Yoo reference) http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/stark \- stark used to traffic with then had a nasty breakup with a sloda user. --your black muslim gossipmonger |
2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41438 Activity:nil |
1/19 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561226/posts "Asked whether the president 'should have the power to authorize the NSA to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the U.S.?' - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes. ... Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for blowing the NSA's cover 'traitors,' while just 27 percent agreed with media claims that the leakers were 'whistleblowers.'" \_ those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither. \_ misquote. \_ This is the year I finally break down and buy a gun. \_ Good luck if you live in SF... \_ Where I'm moving, it's practically illegal to not own a gun. The apocalypse is coming, and I'm gonna be ready. \_ Americans don't mind sacrificing the freedom of "suspected terrorists", as long as they're not one or a close friend of one. \_ "...a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found...." Try harder, young freeper_troll. |
2006/1/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41429 Activity:nil |
1/18 A real Republican sticks to his guns. The following article proves that Michael Brown is a very bad Republican by admitting mistakes: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fema_brown |
2006/1/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41424 Activity:moderate |
1/18 "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." -Hillary Clinton (Jan 18, 2006) \_ I predict to you that Hillary Clinton will foolishly run for the president and fail, setting up for another four years of GOP incompetence that will go down in history as the worst platform that has ever controlled our country. \_ I predict that she will not even come in second in the primary. \_ President Hillary Clinton. Get used to saying it, because you will be saying it for eight long years. \_ Just because someone *really* wants power *really* badly doesn't mean we should give it to them. Quite the opposite. It'll be interesting if she does run and some how gets nominated for the (D) party. She has never gone through the journalist gauntlet. Never been in a public debate of any note. Never really had to do any of the things experienced politicians normally have to go through to get into the top levels of politics. No polish. The (R) would have to find a child raping axe murderer to lose to someone so poorly prepared for a brutal Presidential bid. I'm not sure why you'd want a President who didn't earn it but whatever. \_ As opposed to Dubya? What would "we" need to do, have millionaires give Hillary an oil company, a baseball team, and a magazine to run into the ground first? -tom \_ What "we" are you talking about? If the (D) party had put up a human being instead of a self righteous "I'm owed the Presidency" plank of wood, Bush would've been crushed. They put up the proverbial axe murdering child rapist and lost. Big deal. Kerry was even worse. He only happened through Dean's "Yeaaarrrggh!" fluke, and the idea that "Even though we think he's an idiot we think he's got the creds to beat W so let's nominate this guy we don't otherwise believe in". He was the only available candidate in 04 worse than Gore was in 00. Going back a bit we can see Dole was also only running because "it was his turn" just like Gore and he got crushed and rightly so. Bush I was busted on stage looking at his watch during a debate. Clearly not interested and out of touch. Crushed. Rightly so. Attacking a former candidate or President doesn't make Hillary a better candidate or more Presidential for the future. \_ I realize that this puts me in a small minority, but I genuinely liked and believed in Kerry. \_ I'm not saying he had zero real supporters just that the typical noise at the time (on the motd and other places) was "We don't like him but we think his war record can win enough middle ground people to beat W". Very cynical and not a very good way to choose a candidate. \_ If we ever managed to uncover all of the backroom bullshit corporate and private selling out that's going on? That might be true. Will history reveal all that? Probably not. \_ Why do you hate America? \_ Why do you think any of this is somehow a new thing? You think politics was clean and money free until January 2001 when it suddenly all magically changed? Status quo. \_ BUSHCO is worse than Nixon, Hover and Grant? WOW. \_ Nixon was embarassing. Hoover probably was swamped by inexorable market forces. Grant allowed all kinds of corruption and failed to win the Reconstruction, but those racist southern bastards were probably gonna do all that shit one way or another anyway. BUSHCO has mushroomed our national debt and deficit in addition to discarding our civil rights, making "USA" synonymous with "torture", alienated most of our allies.... It'll take two generations to undo the damage BUSHCO has caused. \_ Well this is an improvement. Weren't you saying last year it would take "many" generations? So things are better now. All we need to do now is stay the course. \_ Because clearly motd consists of only two people, so naturally.... now. All we need to do now is stay the course. \_ Same phrasing. Likely the same person. And certainly coming off the same DNC talking points memo either way. \_ I never weighed in on BUSHco before. I wrote the above. I read google news and don't watch much TV, that is how my opinions are formed. If I echo DNC, then maybe the liberal media conspiracy is true, OR maybe I came to my conclusion above independently. \_ Nixon was embarrassing? Do you even remember watergate? Nixon ran roughshod over the constitution to cover the asses of his campaign staffers, &c. He directed the intelligence services to cover up these crimes. In contrast, BUSHCO has been overtly working for the defense of the REPUBLIC. Even if this effort has enriched them pers- \_ Plame? Halliburton? Misleading us about WMD? \_ I'm not PP. With that in mind: Plame: stupid but not the first time someone in government outted an agent. \_ Not the last either for BushCO (see Khan) Halliburton: what about it? Misleading: this is so beaten to death. Every western government and spy agency in the world believed it at the time. Let the horse die. onally, the primary focus has been on the safety and security of Americans. Arguably they have used poor judgment in many situations, but their motivation is not overly criminal as Nixon's was. \_ Blameworthy as Nixon was and non-criminal as this administration is, BUSHCO has done more real harm to our international image (torture, lies about WMD) and to our long-term finances than Nixon did. I stand by what I say: Nixon was embarassing, BUSHCO has done massive harm. \_ I find it curious that people seem to think the US had some sort of golden image around the world pre-Bush. The US not only had a history of but an active and intentional policy throughout the Cold War of supporting thugs, dictators and drug dealers as long as they were OUR thugs. I don't see any change for the worse in terms of how the US deals with the rest of the world. At least we now give lip service and sometimes actually do something to push better ideals than we have in the past. \_ So says you. I suspect that when we really find out the extent of the NSA wiretapping, it will turn out to be much worse than anything Nixon did. Using the NSA to spy on your political opponents, things like that... And the Valerie Plame coverup is pretty criminal as well. Not like the Watergate coverup, but pretty bad. By most stds, the Grant admin was the epitome of poor mgmt. His VP had accepted bribes (let's see some proof that Cheney has been bribed), his brother-in law was taking bribes and giving him bad advice, the Treasury Dept. was taking bribes, the Sec. of War was taking bribes, &c. You are willing to write this all off as southern bastards acting normally, but you won't write off BUSHCO as southern bastards? Sounds like a double std to me. I noticed that you didn't include Hoover. Why? Perhaps the Depression and his failure to deal w/ that were maybe just a BIT worse than ANYTHING BUSHCO has done? BTW, I completely left out any reference to the Alien and Sedition acts, which were at least as bad as the Patriot Act. \_ Are people too young to remember living under Carter? \_ Much better to flush $2-$3 trillion down the toilet instead of spending it on switching on renewables. God will provide more spending it on switching to renewables. God will provide more magic oil! \_ Apparently, yes, you're too young to remember Carter. \_ Nope, I'm not. He may not have managed things well, but he was the last President to tell the truth on energy. \_ You win this week's Motd Blue Ribbon For Understatement! Carter "may not have managed things well, but...". How old were you when that loser gave the infamous "malaise speech"? How old during that little itty bitty "Hostage Crisis" thing? How badly were you hurt from double digit inflation? You may have been alive but you don't remember. \_ Get ready for more maliase, and this time the energy crisis is a permanent one. \_ Is this the Peak Oil thing again? So if Carter "told us the truth about energy" back in 76-80, what did Reagan x2, Bush I, Clinton x2 do about it differently that saves them from your scorn yet Bush II is deserving of it? Actually, since we're here, what did Carter do about it? \_ Carter put programs in place to start moving the nation away from oil dependency, which Reagan quickly abandoned. Fortunately for Reagan, the oil bonanza that followed saved our asses. That oil bonanza is rapidly fading ... Like I said, none of the Presidents after Carter dealt with the problem or admitted to it. I blame all them for the position we are in. However, Bush's wasteful spending is using money that could be used to get us out of the situation, that's all. Hence the flushing of money down the toilet. \_ Ok, I looked this up. Carter's plan was essentially: conserve/reduce usage, burn a lot of coal, insulate homes, create a strategic oil reserve, put solar on 2.5 million homes by 1985. Today: cars burn less gas, we tried to not burn coal until more recently when cleaner burning tech could be put in place, homes and all new construction are insulated, we have a strategic oil reserve. I have no idea how many homes have solar but people can get it if they want to. Which parts of the plan got ditched? I found several sources but it was all nicely summed up here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html So, where were we? Oh yes, Peak Oil and Carter's energy policy. What about it? What did Carter do besides depress everyone and lead poorly? Check out some of the quotes in this classic: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html Jimmy, where are you now? We need you! Oh yeah, you're out there putting your stamp of approval on stolen elections in South America. \_ If the GOP hadn't gutted the Carter CAFE standards and written an exemption literally large enough to drive an SUV through, Americans would be using 1/2 the gasoline we do today. Gasoline is 1/2 of our total energy consumption so we would be using 25% less oil. This is most of our imported oil. We would be in much better shape if we hadn't catered to the oil and car interests. \_ I gave you a detailed summary of his energy plan and 2 URLs straight from Carter's speeches which you couldn't bother to post in the first place so I looked it up for you. Now you give more unreferenced noise and speculation. Put up for shut up. If you're going to defend a useless wanker like Carter, you need to prove your statements. I'm not doing any more of your research for you. [Actually, I lied. I looked up CAFE and it predated Carter] http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html So, Carter didn't even do CAFE. What did Carter do? \_ See above. He implemented stringent CAFE standards, just like I said. Do you really have this tough a problem with the English language? \_ Stringent is a relative term. Go find us the actual standard and we can then all decide how stringent they are. The concept sure as hell wasn't his and if his only claim to fame in 4 years in office was to pick highish CAFE numbers in 1978 after being in office ~2 years then we sure as hell didn't need him. Any random beaurocrat could've picked a number. \_ "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know that I'm talking about." \_ It's spin unless you include the second half of that thought. \_ The second half? \ "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard." \_ Gosh! Imagine that! When you have a government system with 2 major parties, the party out of power can't get their agenda through! Shocking! Were you equally upset about the 50 years the Democrat party ran the show while Republicans got sidelined? Sheesh, read a civics book. Hillary said a stupid thing and barely got called on it. This time. All this idiocy will come back later though. Always does. \_ Of course, but the media is "enraged" about the plantation bit, not the whining that the Democrats can't get their agenda through. \_ President Hillary Rodham Clinton. Get used to saying it because we will be saying it for eight long years. \_ Good news for Republicans ... Osama bin Laden is saying new attacks are planned for the United States. Voters will be scared and vote in more right wingers promising to take away our liberty for security! \_ The rest of the Osama tape saying essentially, "we offer you a truce to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq" which sure sounds like weakness and surrender. This is much more likely to be played as "See? We're winning, now we just need to stay the course and finish them off" than "OMG! We're going to get hit again eeeek!" But, yes, anytime Osama spews forth it is bad for the Democrat party. \_ He's always offering compromises that sound "reasonable". But of course if we meet offer #1 then immediately there will be offer #2 until offer #n which is "the whole world is a Muslim theocracy ruled by me" \_ Of course. I don't think it'll be portrayed like that by either party or anyone in the media, though. Dealing with someone like Osama just isn't an option. So the discussion will be on what it means that he said it. I'm surprised he's still alive, simply due to age, stress, and poor living conditions but that's another story. I don't think he's in a position to negotiate anything even if he was a reliable treaty partner and we actually wanted to talk with him. \_ It's "Democratic" party. Not "Democrat" party. \_ I have a term paper due in a few months. Will you spell check that for me, too? Thanks! \_ If you post it to MOTD, I'm sure we'd have a blast editing your term paper for you. \_ Holy crap! This could be really entertaining! Why not let the motd collectively write your paper? \_ Meh, I've generally found that MOTD has the collective creativity of a kumquat. We're quite creative provided we have something to start working on, though.... |
2006/1/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41423 Activity:kinda low |
1/18 Zogby: 52% of Americans agree that Bush should be impeached: http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2 \_ How does that jibe with the poll that said "americans don't care about presidential spying; they think it's making them safer" \_ urlP \_ #t \_ About as well as polls comparing "police should be able to arrest people" to "police should be able to arrest people without warrants or PC." \_ Amusing but not very interesting. Classic push polling. Yawn. \_ Please elaborate. \_ "If your spouse was cheating on you, would you be upset?" "96% of spouses said yes to this question." "Headline on motd: 96% of spouses are mad dog killers! Beware of married people!" \_ President Bush has said that he has wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge. You're barking up the wrong tree. \_ What happened was illegal and impeachable if you think Ohio was stolen in '04. As usual, cooler heads will prevail. I do admit a small shock that you honestly think his handlers would put him in front of a mic to say he had committed an impeachable offense if it was that simple and obvious. I'm not the one barking. I find the whole thing silly. His political enemies have been talking impeachment for years, they bring it up for each new 'scandal' hoping against hope this is the one that sticks. Anyway, if you think this is so horrible, what do you think of Echelon which is/was a much broader program that it is claimed scooped up data in mass quantities on everyone not specific people suspected of treasonous activities or terrorist ties? Shouldn't Echelon's creation and use have triggered the impeachment of the last few administrations? \_ was the use of ECHELON for domestic surveillance authorized by FISA? also, pp probably meant to say "President Bush has not denied that ..." \_ Complicated question. Echelon technically only monitors global non-USA communication and therefore does not require FISA authorization. However, there are unsubstantiated allegations that Echelon partner countries can monitor communications inside the US without FISA approval. This is technically correct, however there has been no proof that I know of this has ever happened. I imagine Echelon would also pick up communication between US nationals who are abroad, and I do not know if this would require FISA approval. I imagine in the deliberate instance, FISA approval is required. However, if US-to-US national communication abroad is captured as part of the general Echelon monitoring, I assume no prior FISA authorization would be obtained. \_ That is a truly amazing bit of intellectual dodging. So you're not ok with tapping the NSA tapping specific targets suspected of terrorism ties after 9/11, but you're ok with using Echelon or other systems to tap American citizens in bulk as long as the tapping is done by a foreign agency who then hands over the data to us (and we do the same so they can spy on their citizens)? Oh-tay! Let's hear it for putting one's party and political agenda ahead of common sense and civil rights. IMO, both are wrong, but Echelon is far worse and no one screamed about that. IIRC, the NYT was actually doing op-eds defending Echelon at the time. Sigh. \_ A lot of people have screamed about it. The crucial difference being that some abstract concept of listening stations, no matter how bad, does not ring the same alarm bells with Joe Schmo as "wiretaps". I've noticed a pretty strong rise in the number of people using PGP/SSL'ing web pages/whatever since the mid-1990s, that I wouldn't just ascribe to a general growth in security & privacy awareness--many whom I know do so out of principle, to "add entropy" in one colleague's words. Doesn't make much difference, but it's a start. And yes, it's wrong. -John \_ Who was screaming for impeachment? \_ Bushco was not wire tapping just people suspected of terrorism. They were wire tapping everyone. That is the crucial difference. \_ And this is different from Echelon how exactly? \_ Echelon spies on non-Americans, hence non-voters. \_ Opinion piece from John Schmidt, AAG 1994 to 1997. "President had legal authority to OK taps" http://csua.org/u/eoj indicated in more or less words that ..." \_ it's 52% think "Congress should consider" impeachment not "Bush should be impeached", but anyways ... The key marker here is IF they added the phrase, U.S. citizens "suspected of terrorist activity", which is what Dubya would say he did, and then you'd have a much different result. \_ According to phone company execs, the NSA was basically wiretapping everyone, not just suspected terrorists, and running a massive data mining operation on it. When Americans find out that it is *their* phone calls that have been tapped, they will be pissed. \_ Again: this is different from Echelon how? Americans already heard about Echelon and already assumed they were being tapped. Nothing is going to come from this or any of the previous 50 "obviously rises to impeachable levels of offense" scandals coming off the DNC fax machine. \_ We'll see. You seem to very sure of your reading of the public's attitude. After massive GOP losses in November, let's see what Congress does. When it becomes clear that the NSA was wiretapping the media, Congress, the judiciary and the Kerry campaign, it might cause an uproar. \_ I'm very sure of human nature. People are what they are. One thing the vast bulk of people never do is get overly upset about anything for more than one news cycle. People care about their food and gas bills, their rent, who is in the super bowl this year and how about that rain yesterday, it was someithng, huh? Elections are local. Incumbents almost never lose. Nothing massive is going to happen. Go have a beer and watch the superbowl with everyone else. \_ Gas bills are way up and the Abramoff scandal could have some real impact. These things are far more real than complexities concerning NSA spying. |
2006/1/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:41422 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
1/18 http://www.babybushtoys.com \_ Wow, that looks like an awful lot of work for jokes that are only "heh" level. |
2006/1/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:41416 Activity:kinda low |
1/17 The Iraq Invasion as Zork I transcript http://www.defectiveyeti.com/archives/001561.html \_ You went to the trouble to transcript that boring drivel? \_ transcribe \_ You have missed the humor and been eaten by a Grue. \_ It's not very humorous. -tom \_ It was worth a few chuckles. It wasn't the super brilliant "OMGROFLMAOWTFBBQ!!!!" that 90% of the ditto head "me too!" commenters made it out to be but it had humor value. You didn't think "IT IS NOT THAT KIND OF SEAL" was funny? \_ No. -tom \_ So what's out there that you do find funny? \_ Clearly not this. \_ Clearly. I want to know what he does find funny. \_ That was pretty funny, but it didn't need FILL SHOES. Probably lost some audience with that. \_ The truth hurts huh? \_ The weak trolls are out in force today. \_ nah, the FILL SHOES line was forced, albeit true |
2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41407 Activity:nil |
1/17 Yup, federalism is dead. http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/01/court_takes_no.html \_ Can the feds still enforce anti-pot laws in CA? Then, no, not dead. |
2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41404 Activity:kinda low |
1/17 Ray Nagin: God is angry with america, and God wants New Orleans to be black. Welcome to the Pat Robertson club. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4622038.stm http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=5994 \_ Transcript of the speach: http://csua.org/u/eno I don't see "God wants NO to be black." The "God did this" claim is stupid, as ever, but you're putting words in his mouth. \_ The Bayou Buzz link says "This city will be a majority African American city. It´s the way God wants it to be." \_ "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be." \_ Majority Aftican American != black. NO was "majority African American" before. Misquoting him as saying he wants NO to be "black" is race-baiting \_ No one said "all black" \_ By misquoting/miscontexting, this is what is \_ By misquoting/miscontexting, this is exactly what is suggested. \_ I didn't get that. \_ "majority black" vs. "black" doesn't strike you as a distinction? |
2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41401 Activity:kinda low |
1/17 Iraq, the petrodollar, and the upcoming Iranian oil bourse ... This article ties it all together neatly: http://energybulletin.net/12125.html \_ Not to diminish the article's theses, but when I watch anime with an apocalyptic backstory, they always seem to invoke this style of storytelling. Art - life - art? \_ We're running out of reasons for the Iraq invasion. Since "bringing democracy" to the Middle East means Hamas and other pro-terror hardline Islamic being to run the show, which is way worse (for the USA) than the repressive regimes we currently support -- and every other reason was just a lie or BS -- supporting the petrodollar seems like a reasonable theory. \_ Coherent yes, reasonable maybe, likely no, a contributing factor, yes. IMO the most likely explanation is, Part One, that 9/11 changed everything: We now knew terrorists would blow up a nuke in a U.S. city if they had one. \_ See, 9/11 didn't _change_ that. It might have changed it for Bushco (i.e. woke them up), but we've known that for decades. \_ It is either disingenuous or ignorant to claim that 9/11 caused the Bush administration to care about invading Iraq. See: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm (letter to the Clinton administration, dated 1/26/1998, signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, on why we should invade Iraq). After the election, the administration was clearly building up for an invasion of Iraq; 9/11 actually delayed their plans. Their statement of principles: "As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" Invading Iraq is about showing the world that we can do pretty much whatever we want, pretty much whenever we want to. -tom \_ I agree completely. Above, I was addressing the distinct point of "terrorists would blow up..." \_ Of course you knew, but how about for most Americans? How about, let's say: a possibility became a real concern after 9/11. \_ I posit that it shouldn't need to be a "real concern" for "most Americans". It's something that we pay the government to do for us. That whole "provide for the common defense" thing. It's only a "real concern" because Bush propogandized it after he FAILED his first time around. \_ ob blame Clinton for 9/11, but then we start getting off topic ... \_ ob read the 9/11 commission report, and look up project bojinka Part Two, Dubya, boy genius, did not question the reports that Saddam had WMDs. That, combined with Saddam's previous "misbehavior" -- deploying chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, invading Kuwait, trying to kill Dubya's dad and other potential unsettled scores with the U.S., killing/torturing Kurds like nobody's business, and having two sons who would continue the tradition -- all combined, led Dubya to make the call to invade Iraq. That's the most likely theory, IMO. (Then again, Dubya, master diplomat, didn't exactly get the entire world on the same page, since he based his war on "no doubt" Saddam had WMDs, and never showed damning evidence to this effect. You know he has them, you know he does -- so why doesn't the evidence you provided show this?) -moderate/liberal |
2006/1/12-17 [Consumer/CellPhone, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41359 Activity:nil |
1/12 Blogger buys Gen. Wesley Clark's phone records. http://csua.org/u/elf \_ http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-privacy05.html Wider coverage. It's pointed out that criminals could buy phone records of local cops to figure out who's snitching. Bad mo-jo. |
2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Computer/SW] UID:41323 Activity:nil |
1/10 "I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demanda debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries." -GW Bush (Jan 10, 2006) See, Dubya's speechwriters are clearly freepers. |
2006/1/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41292 Activity:nil 80%like:41288 80%like:41289 |
1/7 Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping CNN? http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002621.html \_ http://tinyurl.com/dnbqq (Alternative Press Review) Looks like the Administration may have been wire tapping lots of media critics. |
2006/1/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41291 Activity:nil |
1/7 Nonpartisan Congressional Research Group concludes that Bush wiretapping was illegal: http://csua.org/u/ejh (WashPo) |
2006/1/8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41289 Activity:nil 80%like:41288 80%like:41292 |
1/7 Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping the motd? http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002621.html |
2006/1/8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41288 Activity:nil 80%like:41289 80%like:41292 |
1/7 Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping the media? http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002621.html |
2006/1/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:41283 Activity:low |
1/7 I was looking at Mine Safety and Health Administration statisics, and it seems reality is exactly the opposite of media portrayal from the last week. http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT10.HTM table titled "Coal Mine Safety and Health". The fatal injury rate for miners has dropped from 2000 to 2004, from 0.0393 to 0.0273. All injury rate has dropped also, from 6.64 in 2000 to 5.00 in 2004. It is true that the percentage of citations and orders has dropped from 42% to 41% (from 2000 to 2004, and dipping to 38% in 2002). However, the number of coal mines has dropped from 2000 to 2004, from 2124 mines to 2008. While the number of mines has decreased, the number of miners has slightly increased from 108.1K to 108.5K. This is explained by the number of smaller mines that have closed (the number of small mines dropped from 571 in 2000 to 560 in 2004). On-site inspection hours per mine has increased from 215.7 in 2000 to 219.2 in 2004. The lower citation rate may well be because larger mines are somewhat better run and therefore slightly less prone to citations. \_ I was the only one who reported that some Clinton-era official said that mine citations were "way down", and cited the LA Times. My bad -- I can't seem to find anything at all like this now on that site or others. I will be more careful next time. Anyway, apart from my mistake, the media is reporting that citation penalty amounts are down along with criminal convictions. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3379597?source=rss -jctwu \_ According the the MSHA, penalty assessed (in $million) was 18.4 in 1995, 12.0 in 2000, and 17.0 in 2004. Bear in mind though that there were 2946 coal mines in 1995 and only 2008 in 2004. The amount penalty per mine actually went from $6.2K in 1995 to $8.5K in 2004. The number of citations per mine also went from 27.9 in 1995 to 32.2 in 2004. (I know citations != convictions, but unfortunately the MSHA site does not list convictions.) It's deceptive to look at raw numbers, which did decrease from 1995 to 2004, because the number of mines dropped from 2946 to 2008 in the same period. The claims in the article you quoted are also deceptive in the same way, since the number of mines also decreased from 2001 to 2004 (and the decrease in number of major fines is roughly similar to the decrease in the number of mines). The other charges are somewhat difficult to answer since the article does not provide enough information (re penalty payment rate, for example, the article does not say what the non-Bush payment rate is). As usual, I find the reporting to be sadly lacking and outright deceptive in this case. \_ http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002620.html \_ Accusations are cheap; show me some numbes. From the MSHA, it looks like injury rate is down, fines are up, citations are up, and on-site inspection hours are up. No one is arguing Sago is a well-run mine. It is disheartening how low their fines have been. But is that a recent thing, or have fines always been low? According to the MSHA, the $ fine per mine has gone up since 1995 (from $6.2K to $8.5K in 2004). What metric are you using to show that the industry is deteriorating or the regulatory body is doing a worse job? I've listed mine and its source. Now please show us yours. And hard numbers please; we're engineers here. \_ Nah, I don't have time to do the kind of research it would require to prove this one way or another. One thing though, did you pull out strip mines from your numbers? Strip mines are much safer than shaft mines and most of the newer mines are all strip mines. |
2006/1/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41280 Activity:nil |
1/6 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060106/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_28 New economic numbers look rosey. Bush Confident About Economy for 2006. |
12/25 |