| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/27 |
| 2007/10/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48394 Activity:nil |
10/19 Freepers get all hot and bothered over.. oh who really cares
what they are hot and bothered over. They are going to be pulled
off the government teat and they are crying like babies.
http://www.csua.org/u/js0
\_ I don't think anyone here reads the freepers. Who cares about the
freepers? They're no different than the kosians.
\_ There are certainly more similarities than differences, but on
on the whole, KOSians don't make me want to drown humanity at
birth. Reading two pages of Freeper comments is enough to make
me want to endorse eugenics. |
| 2007/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48365 Activity:nil |
10/18 It's not just the Religious Right:
http://csua.org/u/jr9 (WashPo)
\_ Why do you hate America? |
| 2007/10/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48332 Activity:moderate |
10/15 Republicans working on the "Stab In The Back Myth"
for use after our defeat in Iraq:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080
\_ More at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071015/alterman
\_ that sounds like traitor talk to me!
\_ It is funny to watch the Right in full on paranoid melt-down mode.
Just wait until after Commander-In-Chief Hillary Rodham Clinton
is inaugurated!
\_ will the hills be far enough a place to head for?
\_ Oh boy, utopia, 4-8 more years of corruption, law breaking, lies
and *-gate scandals along with the troops staying in Iraq past
2013. Can't wait. Sounds like an American success story.
\_ Fortunately, Bush can't run again, Cheney won't run, and
BushCo has made it extraordinarily unlikely that a Repub
will win, so the problem is solved!
\_ Uh yeah, like I said. Elect Clinton to get 4-8 more years
of corruption, lies, *gate and troops in Iraq past 2013.
\_ If Hillary can figure out how to get fellated in the
Oval Office, more power to her.
\_ Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
We won't get fooled again!
\_ Looks like the Sanchez speech was all part of the mythos building:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_disgruntled_general
\_ No, the article in your link is about "Sanchez was an idiot and
he's bitter so this is him moaning and griping about his failures
and blaming everyone but himself". |
| 2007/10/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48325 Activity:kinda low 66%like:48324 |
10/15 Reid sucks (yes even in NV) [restored, after someone deleted it]
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/at-home-in-neva.html
\_ Tied with Bush!
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
\_ Except one terms out. The other we're stuck with til he dies
of old age.
\_ If he's as unpopular as op implies, he'll be out at the next
election. Want to make a bet?
\_ His popularity appears to me to be linked to his leadership
position. People see the congress as ineffective, and that
goes to his leadership of it.
\_ Actually Bush is now at 24%, according to Zogby:
http://www.csua.org/u/jqu (WashPo)
But who do you believe, Fox News! which has Bush
at 35% or Zogby which has him at 24%?
\_ I bet he gets re-elected, since he won last time by
26% and he does not face re-election until 2010.
\_ Depends on who runs but betting against an incumbent, any
incumbent, in this country is always a bad bet. That says
nothing about how good our incumbents are and everything
about the process of electing people. Reid is still a
do-nothing. |
| 2007/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48303 Activity:nil 52%like:48298 |
10/13 George W Bush should get a Nobel Peace Prize for changing an
evil regime and pacifying Al Qaeda in Iraq. Clearly, the
NPP has a liberal bias. |
| 2007/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48296 Activity:nil |
10/12 I am very curious... do people in USA actually think they have the
moral high ground of accusing others for genocide?
http://csua.org/u/jpq
\_ Yes. Oh, and today is the 12th of Oct.
\_ Absolutely, and that doesn't negate our obligation to recognize
injustices to Native Americans by our predecessors at the same
time.
\_ i am still waiting.
\_ Dude, we let them gamble and they don't have to observe
state law. It's a pretty sweet deal! ;)
\_ They can even declare themselves sovereign nations.
Exactly what it means by having sovereign nations within
the US, I don't know.
\_ Exactly. As far as I can tell it means they have to
follow federal law, and that's about it.
\_ Your logic: because the US was responsible at one time in the
past for atrocities against the natives here we have no business
telling people committing genocide today to stop. Thank you for
joining us today. Maybe you'll have better bait tomorrow.
\_ my logic is that the only reason why we stopped is not because
we didn't feel it was the wrong thing to do. We stopped because
we've gotten what we wanted and these natives are no longer
have any means to fight back. ANd even today, USA never
officially label these acts "genocide," nor have American
produce any sort of remedy for such act (return some of their
land? monetary compensation?). and now we are passing a bill
labelling Turkey for doing the same thing?
\_ Same logic: you did bad stuff so you can't point out when
other people do bad stuff.
\_ The bill has no 'weight'. Symbolic only. At least in the US
most people would agree that we were pretty shitty to the
Indians. The Turkish government completely denies anything
happened at all.
\_ Sounds similar to Germans vs. Japanese regarding WWII.
\_ You're over generalizing. If anything, the Germans of
today accept MORE than their fair share of the blame
for WW2. They won't shut up about how awful they were.
Boo hoo. nationalist Japanese parties like to pretend
the barbaric excesses of the imperial army did not
happen, I'll give you that.
\_ The "weight" is that Turkey will become an enemy.
Currently, 70% of our supplies for Afghanistan and Iraq go
through Turkey's airspace. This bill has been attempted
for over a decade. Only now, when it will cut off the
supply lines to our troops are the Dems working on it.
\_ The Dems are building alliances around the world!
\_ While calling Bush terrible at diplomacy.
\_ Enjoying some crow with your Freedom Fries?
\_ Huh?
\_ Native American tribes can run casinos in CA. White trash,
n***er and Chinamen can't.
\_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20071011 |
| 2007/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48252 Activity:nil 61%like:48246 |
10/4 It all depends on what the meaning of "torture" is:
http://www.csua.org/u/jnr \_ Even the Red Cross calls it torture:
http://www.csua.org/u/jnw |
| 2007/10/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48246 Activity:low 61%like:48252 |
10/4 It all depends on what the meaning of "torture" is:
http://www.csua.org/u/jnr
\_ Even the Red Cross calls it torture: http://www.csua.org/u/jnw
\_ Even the Red Cross calls it torture:
http://www.csua.org/u/jnw |
| 2007/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48232 Activity:high |
10/3 Jimmy Carter faces down Darfur officials
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_af/darfur_9
He bravely ran away, away!
\_ Would you kindly fuck off, you cowardly piece of shit? The man
is 83 years old, and he got in a shouting match with armed men.
His companions and the Secret Service convinced him to get in the
car rather than continue the confrontation. If you're going to
post something, have the nards and decency to read it first.
\_ I did read it. He didn't "face them down" they faced him down.
Nothing really wrong with that, I'd leave too, but the headline
is wrong.
\_ Seconded. Running away would be just scrapping the whole
deal and not trying again. In the real world you can't
go on a humanitarian mission and shout your way past angry
men with big guns. That doesn't do any good for anyone.
But feel free to live in your fantasy world where everything
gets solved by swinging your big dick around and all the women
have gravity defying 36DD breasts.
\_ In my fantasy world, all the women have gravity-defying 32DD
breasts instead. -- !PP
\_ I had the same reaction as the person above, "Hey, Carter may not
be the POS I thought he was.. read.. read.. oh well".
\_ He displayed infinitely more personal courage than Bush did
after 9/11, when the Commander-In-Chief turned tail and
disappeared into a hole.
\_ If the President, any President, of any party, showed up at
ground zero just to pose for the cameras, he deserves to die.
That is the most assinine and stupid gripe you could possibly
have. It is the one thing that he clearly did right that day.
\_ Did I say he should have gone to ground zero? No, I did not.
He could have provided some leadership though, instead of
being a coward. |
| 2007/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, ERROR, uid:48230, category id '18005#4.545' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48230 Activity:high |
10/3 The Islamist Head-Fake
http://csua.org/u/jmy
\_ http://www.ibdeditorials.com/default.aspx?src=ICOMART
This site is really hilarious. It's almost as if there were a
machine in place to publish anti-liberal, pro-conservative rhetoric.
Oh, wait a minute....
\_ Bad troll! Down! Stay! Because DU and Kos and etc etc are
so different. I wonder what it is like to be so blindly certain
of how the world is but to be 50% right/wrong at all times....
Might as well flip a coin. The results are more interesting.
\_ Yay! The other side is not perfect, so batshit poisonous
behavior and hate/fear-mongering is allowed! Yay!
\_ BZZZT! Bad troll! Sit! Stay! The lesson, Young Troll, is
that stupid does not excuse stupid. And blindness of
one's own faults does not make you smart for pointing out
the faults of others. The lesson, YT, was anyone posting
obviously biased crap is wasting Precious Bits (tm) and
should stop.
\_ I agree with you that op either shouldn't have posted
or at the least should have labeled the URL, just as
anyone posting anything from any site should.
\_ I like how the President of Bolivia is called a "dictator" -- with
that logic Bush is much more of a dictator, I think their election
went smoother than ours.
\_ Oh really? Just because Carter declared it so?
\_ It is always easier when you have armed guys at every voting
booth who 'secure' the ballots after everyone has chosen the
correct candidate. Real voting is messy.
\_ I have worked the polls in San Francisco and a cop comes
by and picks up the ballot box at the end of the day. Do
you mean like that? |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48205 Activity:high |
9/27 In response to the previous threads about rubber stamp Democrats.
My point is not rather we should fund the war or not. But rahter,
if we going to fund it, fund it as part of regular budget process
instead of going through all these supplement spending bills which
doesn't have the same oversight as regular spending bill. Further,
I failed to understand why Democrat would take Bush's veto threat
about domestic spending while this guy's military spending is going
completely out of control. Democrats should just say "fund the war
via the regular spending bill, or not fund the war at all."
\_ Ask Pelosi and Reid why they continue to fund it. The American
people put them in office for a reason. They promised to end the
war and clean up government. Under their watch, the war has
actually expanded by 30k troops and corruption is rampant across
the board. Oh yay, I so can't wait to vote for that bunch again.
They've been so effective.
\_ In what way is "corruption rampant"? Is there more or less
corruption than with the Republican Congress?
\_ Hello? Earmarking the hell out of the budget? Just like
Republicans, except the Democrats promised to cleanup. So
we get corruption+hypocritics instead of 'mere' corruption.
There's a reason Congress's popularity rating as a whole is
at all time lows. No one likes a liar (Iraq funding) or
a hypocrite (earmarking corruption).
\_ give some examples of corrupt earmarking. earmarking is
not inherently corrupt.
\_ you're kidding, right? DiFi's committee granting
nobids to her husband's company? Pelosi granting
handouts to her family's companies? Murtha, well damn,
just about anything Murtha has come near. Look, be
serious. You can't point a finger at the other party
and scream 'corruption!' when your own party is doing
the same crap. Glass houses and all that. If you
spent less time prowling for Republican corruption
and turned less of a blind eye towards Democratic
party corruptions, you'd see the hypocrisy and I for
one have had enough. I will not support corrupt people
of either party even if they sometimes agree with me or
even vote the way I like most of the time.
\_ Please back up your claims.
\_ I did. I'm not going to discuss this further
with someone so clearly wearing blinders. You
would google for it yourself if you actually
cared and weren't suffering from severe self
inflicted blindness.
\_ No, you didn't. You gave allegations.
\_ Whatever. You don't want to know and
wouldn't care if I put it under your
nose. Bored now. Bye.
\_ "And I'm taking my ball and going home!"
\_ No, just bored and not looking to get
trolled today. I gave you more than
enough info to google it if you
cared to know. You don't. Story
over.
\_ Wow, fools do mock! -!pp
\_ Your contribution: zero. oktnx
\_ You do know that the current Congress has 1/10th
as many earmarks in the budget than the GOP Congress
immediately preceeding it, right?
\_ When it is zero, lemme know. "Woot! The one
party is not quite as corrupt (yet) as the other
party! Yay for such heroism in government!"
\_ Good luck on holding out for your utopian
society. Are you going to hold your breath
until you get it? Not everyone even is able
to agree on what "corruption" in government
is, so you will never find one without any.
As a previoius poster noted, sometimes there
are legitimate uses for an earmark.
\_ Name a legitimate use for an earmark. I'm
not certain you even understand what an
earmark is. An earmark is a politician
sticking something into a bill to give
money to some local cronies in their
district which usually has nothing at all
to do with the bill. The bill in question
is typically one of many "must be passed"
pieces of legislation so no one will vote
against it even though it is loaded with
pork. If the allocation of money was
legitimate it would have it's own bill.
Earmarking = corruption. Unless you
already hold office or are the recipient
of said funds.
\_ Earmarks can be legitimately used to
fund specific projects. Don't be
obtuse. -tom
\_ Name a legitimate earmark. Just one.
A specific project can and should get
a specific bill, or be part of a
larger related budget. I expect the
military budget to include funding
for specific weapons and bases. I do
not expect it to include bridges to
no where, funding for DiFi and Pelosi
family and friends, or anything not
related to the military. Either you
don't know what an earmark is or
you're being a total idiot
intentionally. Either way, no one
has posted a single earmarked item
that is legit. Given how many
billions of dollars in earmarks go
out in each budget, you should be
able to name one legitimate earmark,
if there were any. There are not.
\_ Here is $1B worth of earmarks
to improve the CA freeway system.
Are you going to claim that all of
them are unneeded?
link:www.csua.org/u/jma
\_ privatized freeway systems
are cost effective and
better utilized.
\_ Better utilized? Wtf does
that even mean?
\_ So your claim that these
earmarks are corrupt is
based on the idea that
freeways should all be
tollways??! Hoo-kay, please
sign your posts with the
moniker "Libertarian Troll"
next time, so I will know
not to waste my time
researching a reply.
\_ You're kidding right? Of course
a transportation bill has money
for transportation projects.
Why do you even bother? I don't
get it. Do you think no one
will fact check your links? I
specifically said they're
filling the budget with money
for local projects unrelated
to the bill they're attached
to. Transport money in a
transport bill is not what I
was talking about and you knew
that.
\_ The transportation bill is
one of the appropriations
bills that make up the
"budget". It is you who do
not know of what you speak.
He pointed to a "budget" bill
with "earmarks" which you
admit are "valid". You are
clearly too short for this
ride. --scotsman
\_ I was quite specific about
this. If you choose not
to read it and instead
pick and choose single
words out of context to
'feel big', then do so
but don't think you've
actually proven anything.
\_ You have repeatedly
mistaken "earmarks" for
"pork". When called on
it, you got all
defensive and claimed
that everyone else is
an idiot. To earmark
is to set aside monies
for a specific project.
Tom's phraseology is
right. Yours is wrong.
Also, you mentioned
the "Bridge to Nowhere".
I assume you meant
Stevens' $200M joke.
What bill do you think
that was to be in?
Hint: it wasn't in
Defense.
--scotsman |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48197 Activity:high |
9/26 Another win for the Constitution and another blow to the Bush Admin:
http://www.csua.org/u/jll (Yahoo News)
\_ The Bush admin is dead. Who cares? Look to the future, don't
dwell on the past. Do you have any idea what the front runners in
both parties are saying about this?
\_ unfortuantely, Bush is not dead. He is threating veto on the
spending bill if it exceed its limit. Rubber stamp Democrats
for some reason doesn't want to put Iraq war spending as part of
of the spending bill. They should just cut the war funding
completely if things are not going their way.
\_ Bush is dead. He vetos. So what? The Democrats are not
rubber stamps for the war. The reason they keep funding it
is because they want us to stay there. They should do a lot
of things but I don't put weight on what they should do, I
look at what they've actually done, which is fund the war to
every penny Bush has asked. Anyway, none of this means
anything either way since the Democrats are doing nothing
different from what Bush has been doing.
\_ what is your proposal, then? we have 70-100 Iraqi
civilians dies every day, ~4 million (out of total
of 20+ million) displaced internally and externally.
So, obviously we are not making this peaceful right
now. My ears are all yours.
\_ What was unclear? We leave Iraq. Unfortunately
our leadership in the Congress is too pathetic
and cowardly to do what we put them there to
do. Or more likely, I believe that *want* us
to stay there. They aren't putting up *any*
sort of fight against Bush, an unpopular lame
duck President. I can only conclude they want
us in Iraq. They = Democrats, if that was
unclear.
\_ If you think the Dems are pathetic and cowardly
for not "putting up *any* sort of fight
against Bush," and are thus unworthy of office,
that must mean that you think the GOP are
murderous traitors who ought to be hanged, yes?
\_ Hanged? No. We don't hang politicians for
failed policy. Out of office? Sure, of
course. That is the nature of our system.
But I don't see the Dems saying they'll do
anything substantially different if they
have the executive office and they own both
the house and senate and have done nothing.
They aren't even very good at doing nothing.
\_ Hyperbole aside, you've seen that the
GOP are criminally negligent and corrupt.
Surely even Do Nothing would be a better
polict than the current polciy of
screwing the American people over.
\_ The reason they keep funding it is because they're scared
of the punditry saying "they abandoned the troops in the
field." This is of course bullshit, and they'll need to
find their voices and spines and change that meme. But IMO
they are obliged now to cut off the funding. There is no
other way for them to end it. And until they get up the
courage to do so, more soldiers and civilians continue to
die.
\_ Whereas when the troops leave Iraq, it will instantly
become peaceful? Pass me some of what you're smoking!
\_ what is your proposal, then? we have 70-100 Iraqi
\_ some sort of "final solution?"
civilians dies every day, ~4 million (out of total
of 20+ million) displaced internally and externally.
So, obviously we are not making this peaceful right
now. My ears are all yours.
\_ Stop cut n pasting. Say something new or don't
bother posting.
\_ Oh, no, Iraqis will continue to see violence, and
that's on our heads. But our troops leaving now
or 10 years from now won't change that. I'm speaking
specifically of the US's cost in blood and treasure.
We need to attack the issue with other approaches.
It will be a long road as Bush has ignored all other
approaches, failing to lay any groundwork
diplomatcally/politically, but them's the breaks.
\_ There is no need if we TRY to spread diseases
like Cholera. The military should consider that
as a cheap and effective option.
\_ Or we could send in the CIA to spread crack.
\_ I love how casually you predict the next 10 years.
Here's another possibility. In 10 years, Al
Qaeda has taken over Iraq, used the oil revenue to
get biological and nuclear weapons, and erased a
US city. See, we can all play that game.
\_ That may be true but in 30 years they'll
be commercialized and embrace everything
Western just like Vietnam it is now.
\_ And at the cost of only one major US port
city! A good deal at twice the price!
Maybe it'll be a smaller port city like
San Francisco or Oakland....
\_ I can live with that.
\_ Lemme guess, you don't live anywhere
near SF?
\_ Since Al Qaeda is very unpopular amongst the
Iraqi people, it is hard to imagine how they
could possibly "take over" Iraq. Try to
imagine something with a greater chance of
likelyhood, like Iran taking over Iraq.
\_ That is already happening.
\_ How popular was Saddam with the Iraqi
people?
\_ Are you saying that we are funding AQ?
\_ SH was extremely popular with one tribe,
one that represented about 20% of the
Iraqi people. AQ has no such inherent
power base. The Shi'ites hate them
and the Sunni in Iraq have turned
against them.
\_ The Sunni aren't a tribe. They're
a religious branch of Islam. Saddam's
tribe was in Tikrit and the areas
immediately around Tikrit. I agree
with the rest of what you said. |
| 2007/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48173 Activity:nil |
9/24 NYTimes: our $70K discount to http://moveon.org was a "mistake" http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i1odejEActt5DtxewE1BaKMTWtNw |
| 2007/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48167 Activity:nil |
9/24 Hillary's cackle
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x7ZrYa8wgKo |
| 11/27 |
| 2007/9/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48158 Activity:nil |
9/23 Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/83652/6735
\_ YHBT |
| 2007/9/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48136 Activity:moderate |
9/20 why does Bush always say 'Democrat party'. weirdo.
\_ to denigrate his opponents, of course. -tom
\_ It is a code word to the wing-nut Right to let them know he is
\_ It is a code work to the wing-nut Right to let them know he is
one of them.
\_ He's not the first to do it. I think Dem critics have gotten tired
of "Democratic" party sounds like they're democratic.
\_ Parse error at 'party'.
\_ No, it's cause Democrat Party sounds harsh and curse like.
Lucky for me it's a great litmus test. If someone says
"Democrat Party" you know they are a partisan hack and it's not
worth reading/listening any further.
\_ I find it easy to simply use anyone who claims such a "litmus
test" as a litmus test and ignore them.
\_ This is why we can't have nice things.
\_ It sounds like "bureaucrat", "autocrat", and "rat".
\_ http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005
The Republicans have used it as an insult since McCarthy.
\_ I've only seen this come up on the motd and some very far left
web sites. It never even occured to me there was a difference or
it mattered. I certainly don't see the dramatic insult. Can
someone please explain?
\_ I don't think it 'matters' in any sense that anyone can
possibly demonstrate. What I find interesting is how much
time people waste on shit like this in political discussions,
rather than things actually relevant to our lives. -- ilyas
\_ You think that The New Yorker is very far left?
\_ Where did I say I read The New Yorker? Anyway, I still
don't see the dramatic insult. Or any insult. I wouldn't
blink if someone said "Republic Party". What's the BFD? |
| 2007/9/20-24 [Recreation/Media, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48134 Activity:nil |
9/20 Dan Rather pulls back the curtain on the whole "liberal media" thing:
http://www.csua.org/u/jk6
"Viacom, CBS and some of the senior management sacrificed supporting
independent journalism for their corporate financial interests,"
he added.
\_ Sorry Dan, those memos are obvious fakes, get over it.
\_ Why would I trust Dan Rather? He's obviously part of the
corporate media with an agenda to slander the liberal executives
at Viacom and CBS.
\_ This has nothing to do with liberal or corporate or anything
agendas. It is Dan "I Got Busted Being A Dumbshit" Rather
trying some last ditch pathetic effort to recover his self-
stained reputation before he keels over and dies a laughing-
stock. |
| 2007/9/20-22 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48127 Activity:nil |
9/20 Bush cites 'unsettling times' in housing market. Afterwards, he
urges everyone to get more education. -The Onion |
| 2007/9/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48123 Activity:nil |
9/19 So why aren't news outlets talking about the dollar being at its
weakest point since 1992? Dubya likes a weak dollar? liburals don't
know anything about economics so they don't care?
\_ Hint: "liburals" don't control the media. |
| 2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48070 Activity:low |
9/14 Another radical leftist on Bush's economic policies:
http://www.csua.org/u/jj5
"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the
weighing of long-term consequences," Greenspan writes of the Bush
administration.
Greenspan said he unsuccessfully urged the White House to veto
"out-of-control" spending bills while the Republicans controlled
Congress. Republicans "deserved" to lose control of Congress in last
year's election because they "swapped principle for power," he said.
\_ Who are you baiting? I don't recall anyone here being an ardent
proponent of high spending.
\_ There sure are (were?) a lot of pro-war pro-spending folks
posting a few years ago. Nice if they all had a change of heart.
\_ You're confusing pro-war with pro-spending. I was appalled
when Bush's first action in 2001 was to do an across the
board increase to every federal budget. I'm still anti-tax,
anti-spending. That has no relation to my opinions on the
war which is a foreign policy decision, not an economic or
political one (for me).
\_ You think the war is free?
\_ Don't strawman, of course it isn't. It also isn't a
"spending" decision as I explained.
\_ It's not a spending decision, it's just a decision
which requires spending! As much spending as all
our other decisions combined! Right!
\_ Snarky was cute in HS. If you have something
worth saying I'll gladly discuss it further with
you but if all you've got is snarky one liners in
response to my serious explanations then don't
bother. Snarky is no longer a successful debate
tactic at this stage of life.
\_ You don't have a serious point. "war is a
policy decision, not a spending one" is
tautological and meaningless. Whether to
embargo Cuba is a policy decision; whether
to go or war or not is a spending decision.
\_ Well, going to war without cutting anything
else is certainly an interesting spending
decision...
\_ Oh they cut things. Taxes for one.
\_ Well, duh... CUTTING TAXES INCREASES
REVENUES DIDN'TCHAKNOW
\_ No, it is not a "strawman" to point out that starting
wars costs money. It is kind of willfully blind to
pretend that it does not.
pretend that it does not. Would you support starting
a war that had a moderate foreign policy gain if it
cost $10T? $100T? Of course cost considers into the
decision. |
| 2007/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48058 Activity:nil |
9/14 Hey, trust cue person, how do you tell the difference between these
and Bush's constant and inane use of catchphrases and sloganeering?
Are there any differences? |
| 2007/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48049 Activity:very high |
9/12 Actual history of the Patriot Act, for those who think that GWB
had nothing to do with it:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot
"When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush
administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General
John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill --
without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to
agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make
significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that
further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to
blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately."
Yes, Congress passed it, after the usual intimidation and fearmongering
from the White House, but is it Bush's baby.
\_ Cute and all but that isn't how legislation is created or passed.
It requires a sponsor and Congress does not have to convince the
Justice Department or the AG or anyone else of anything. The
legislature makes the laws. Period. If they don't have the guts
to deal with their job, they need new jobs. "Oh no mean mr. bush
scared us so we abdicated our constitutionally granted power and
just fell over like so many pansies in the wind, boo hoo, you're
so mean mr. bush! it isn't our fault! vote for us and we'll fix
it and we'll end bush's war, too!!" riiiiight.
\_ I agree with you that Congress abdicated their responsibilty
here, but the true author of the legislation was the Justice
Department. We do need to flush most of Congress and get a new
one. Feingold, we can keep, the rest need to go.
\_ So now I know where you get all your incorrect assumptions. You read
wacko sites like http://epic.org. Apparently, you're also one of those
people who sees everything in black and white. Either GWB was the
primary person behind the Patriot Act, or he had nothing at all to
do with it.
\_ Please tell me this is intended as sarcastic. Do you seriously
think of EPIC as a wacko organization? Do you think the EFF is
a wacko organization? -dans
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ Oh man, you really got him that time! Zing!
\_ Maybe you should re-evaluate your extremist views, dans.
The June 1995 issue of WIRED magazine quoted a member of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation as saying that EPIC "made
everybody else at the table look moderate. It's the old
good-cop-bad-cop routine."
\_ In 1995 the EFF was radical. They realized there was
a damn good chance important rights were going to be
stomped on and acted quickly to fight that. That was
12+ years ago, when almost noone had any concept
of digital privacy and rights. Then there was this
whole thing called the .com revolution and now, and
while the EFF may not be mainstream it is far from
extremist.
\_ Anyone who does not support the Patriot Act is
an extremist. EFF does not support the Patriot Act.
Therefore EFF is extremist. Q.E.D.
\_ Nice strawman. |
| 2007/9/12-14 [ERROR, uid:48039, category id '18005#15.0238' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48039 Activity:kinda low |
9/12 NY Times gives http://Moveon.org a discount http://csua.org/u/ji5 (newsbusters.org) \_ This is completely standard for media advertising. No one pays the posted rates. -works in media \_ Other groups have since come out to say that they were charged the full rate or more for the same size ads. Whoopsie! \_ How dare you! It's obviously AN EVIL LIB'RUL PLOT! \_ Really? I had no idea. What's the point of the posted rate then? -op \_ You must be new to this concept of bargaining. \_ Not really, but a 60% discount is quite the bargain. \_ So without any idea of what is common practice, you're jumping on a Drudge-style bandwagon? \_ What are people complaining about it? it gave the senators tons of mileage to complain about the stupid ad for 10 minutes per questinoingoning round instead of asking the general "do you reall honestly think we are leaving iraq in the next 10 years? \- i dont think the question is "are we leaving iraq in 10 yrs" but "how many iraqis are the walking dead" ... "chronicle of a death foretold" |
| 2007/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47938 Activity:nil |
9/7 Dems support the troops! (pre-emptively dismiss the Petraeus report)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/05/346444.aspx
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/09/democrats_pre-emptively_dismiss_bush_report
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883904/posts
"... the left is doing its usual adept job of spewing treasonous
rhetoric over things that only exist in their Bush-hating
conspiracy-riddled minds." |
| 2007/9/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47913 Activity:nil |
9/6 Another loss for Bush and another win for The Constitution:
http://www.csua.org/u/jgh
\_ You *do* know that the Dems voted for it as well, right?
\_ Who sponsored it? Who shepherded it? Who's been defending it?
Who argued vehemently for its renewal? It's Bush's baby, and
its black eyes are Bush's black eyes.
\_ Who voted for it and continues to do so?
\_ Only members of Congress may sponsor a bill. So who did
sponsor it? Bush certainly didn't. What other assumptions of
yours are completely wrong?
\_ The answers are: Diane Feinstein sponsored it, shepherded it,
defended it, and argued vehemently for its renewal.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-patriot-act.htm
Yup, it sure is Bush's baby...
\_ Thanks for reminding me why I never once have voted
for Feinstein. It is hard to find a Senator more
opposed to liberty than Bush, but she sure is.
\_ Feinstein is a sell-out and a disgrace to California. -tom
\_ It's impossible for me to defend DiFi since I happen to
agree with tom on this, so I'll split the difference and
allow as how this is a black eye for both DiFi and
Bush. -pp
\_ I love Feinstein in so many different ways! -- ilyas |
| 2007/9/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47881 Activity:kinda low |
9/3 "We invaded a sovereign nation based on a lie."
http://www.csua.org/u/jfo
\_ BS. Go back to your cage Michael Moore.
\_ You're kind of reaching the bottom of the barrel when
you don't really need to, to get that kind of quote from
the web, I don't think that was the main point of the
article. I think you can find plenty of Republicans
now who would agree that we invaded Iraq for unknown
or disengenous reasons.
\_ Lie != Intelligence Failure
\_ At what point does a willful ignorance and denial of
fact cease to be the fault of the intel provider and
become the fault of the intel receiver? And then at what
point does the refusal to accept fact then become a lie?
\_ If you don't find out the intel is wrong until after
you've invaded then it isn't a lie that caused you
to go in. It was ignorance. So to answer your
question in this context: never.
\_ Okay, now what if you tell your intel people that
you only want intel that backs up your premise? At
what point does willful, active ignorance like that
become lying?
\_ There was a recent Tom Tomorrow comic where he had a dream
that everyone, from the bush admin to the press to the pundits
to the entire staff of the Weekly Standard realized they had
made a terrible mistake and dedicated their lives to living
the rest of their life in exile, obscurity, and penance. That's
exactly what I want.
\_ "My party is Good, the other party is Evil", as seen on Dailykos,
freerepublic, democratic underground, etc, etc.
\_ Oh, no, it wouldn't break my heart if everyone who voted to
authorize went into exile, etc.
\_ Like it or not, the War On Terror has been branded as
Republican thing. Good job branding there guys!
You can make a pretty strong case that all of the think
tanks and pundits and elected officials pushing the Iraq
invasion were Republican. I think pointing out that
plenty of Democrats voted to authorize invading is
a moot point. Bush would have figured out a way to invade
democrats or no democrats.
\_ BS. Go back to your cage Michael Moo yet?"
\_ did you shower between couplings aspo
\_ Not as a rule no.
\_ Does his wife have camel toe? I just found out yesterday that my
sister-in-law does.
\_ Maybe something about having two humps?
\_ So you still think invading Iraq was a good choice? |
| 2007/8/31-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:47864 Activity:kinda low |
8/31 motd armchair historians, what do you think of bush's
recent speech comparing Iraq to Vietnam?
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/2007/08/dien-bien-fool.php
\_ I think everyone who screamed "quagmire!" is just as stupid as
everyone who thinks leaving Iraq now will lead to millions of dead
like the killing fields in Cambodia. Iraq != Vietnam in that
sense. The problem with leaving is that (once again) we will have
meddled in something and put the lives of many locals on the line
who trusted us and then fucked them by leaving. Each time we do
that we lose face and credibility around the world making
diplomatic efforts much much harder since we continue to build up a
history of our word having no value. You break it, you bought it,
you gotta fix it.
\_ The problem is that it does not seem to matter if we stick around
or not; we're not capable of fixing the situation. If we leave
now rather than later, we will lose less American lives in the
inevitable violence and the Iraqis may actually have a chance of
getting things going on their own faster.
\- everytime bush deals with a (living) historian, the historian
has to school/disown/disclaim BUSHCO. YMWTGF "john dower",
"alistair horne" etc.
\_ An anonymous French politician recently agreed with you that
the only way Iraq would see peace would be if the US left
and let them slaughter each other until one side 'won' and
then we/whoever could assist them in 'diplomatically'
resolving their problems after the shooting stops. Of course
at that point you have one side butchered, but hey, that's
ok, right, since they're not Americans. Right? No. The
right thing to do is stick around for a while now that their
tribal leaders (this is a heavily tribal society unlike
Vietnam) have figured out that AlQ is bad news. Places that
were deadly a year ago are now quiet and no more dangerous
than say, Oakland, is today.
\_ And how many trillions of taxpayer dollars and how many
thousands of American lives do we need to spend until we
get to your Iraq utopia?
\_ Strawman: No one said utopia. Iraq was never a utopia.
How much blood and treasure you ask? You tell me what
you think it is worth for the nation to have yet another
failure where we specifically abandon our local allies
to yet another mass murder event. Each time we do that
we lose credibility around the world and encourage our
enemies. Especially if we left right now when it looks
like things have finally turned in our favor with new
leadership and tactics and the tribes turning our way.
Nothing is so American these days like snatching defeat
from the jaws of victory.
\_ You guys have been claiming victory is right around
the corner for about four years now. You will have
to excuse me for not buying the bullshit anymore.
Remember when Reagan left Lebanon after the
Beirut bombings? Too bad Bush is no Ronald Reagan.
\_ I think Bush is very much like Johnson. |
| 2007/8/30-9/3 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47824 Activity:nil |
8/28 Matt Taibbi interview:
"I read "Dead Souls" about forty times before I was twenty. He was
my hero. For the longest time I just wanted to... well, not to be
Nicholai Gogol, because he was an insane and miserable boot
fetishist who ended up becoming an overbearing religious bore
before starving and bleeding himself to death with leeches, but
to write like that anyway. But you should see how pathetic it is
when a modern American tries his style."
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001695.html
\_ Like many great artists, Gogol was an anti-semite. -- ilyas |
| 2007/8/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Travel/Nola] UID:47802 Activity:nil |
8/29 New Orleans is so screwed up. Why is anyone seriously talking about
rebuilding it?
http://csua.org/u/jew
\_ conservative think-tanks are so pointless. Why does anyone take
their commentary seriously?
\_ funny short url there
\_ Sheer volume. It's hard to believe that anyone could publish so
much and yet actually say so little. |
| 2007/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47690 Activity:low |
8/21 why doesn't the bush administration name the next
hurricane Hurricane Obama ?
\- What doesnt Congress rename Camp X-ray, Camp Cheney?
\- Why doesnt Congress rename Camp X-ray Camp Cheney?
\_ That's silly. Camp X-Ray already exists. I'm talking about
naming a future event. Completely different things!
\- Cape Canaveral was (temporarily) renamed Cape Kennedy. |
| 2007/8/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47670 Activity:nil |
8/20 the one or two bush administration fans left, please watch
this Dick Cheney clip from 1994:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY |
| 2007/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47607 Activity:moderate |
8/13 http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xosmq (The Economist) The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement: wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats' game to win or lose. [No doubt another partisan screed] |
| 2007/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47601 Activity:nil |
8/13 Rove Resigns :
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/13/rove.resign/index.html
\_ Having successfully destroyed America I look forward to spending
more time with my family
\_ And you won't have Karl Rove to kick around anymore.
\_ Actually all this really means is he's going back to doing what
he does: working as a polling wonk to get Republicans elected. |
| 2007/8/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47550 Activity:very high 88%like:47545 |
8/6 Karl Rove + iPhone
http://urltea.com/15ng (time.com)
\_ Perhaps the Bush administration would like to know what most people
working at Apple (inluding their top executives) really think of the
Bush administration. Even Steve Jobs told his employees to vote
Democrat during a company-wide conference.
\_ Just because Steve told them to doesn't mean they did. Voting
is still anonymous in this country.
\_ So what? Technology crosses political lines. Rush Limbaugh is
a huge apple fan boi who has been pitching apple gear for years.
\_ I could say the same thing about the flip side.
Republicans are always quick to point out that the
military is comprised primarily of Republicans and,
therefore, Republicans are entitled the protection
of the armed forces and not Democrats (e.g. Bill-O
soliciting terrorists to attack "liberal" SF and
military should not defend it). Of course, this is
entirely ludicrous because if you looked at policies
which Republicans like to promote so much, you would
actually think that Republicans hate our military.
The point I was originally trying to make was this:
Republicans like to portray Democrats (you know,
like the vast majority who work at Apple) as these
crazy, evil, godless, tree-hugging, pot-smoking,
terrorists-loving, anti-military, communist bums
who smell like garbage when, in reality, they're
just a bunch of smart and talented engineers and
entrepreneurs who believe in the free market and
love making cool products like the iPhone. Karl
Rove is using a product made by the same people
he ridicules so much.
\_ Oh. Well, I totally agree w/ that.
\_ So, can you post a link where Karl Rove makes fun of
Apple? 'Cause, I think you're just a paranoid nutcase.
\_ Sticks and stones. Paranoid nutcases believe that
if we don't attack them there (Iraq), they'll come swim
over and attack us here. I don't need to post a link.
You can google this all you want. "liberals saw the
savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
indictments and offer therapy and understanding for
our attackers." Rove doesn't directly attack
Apple and I never said he did. But he does attack
the people who comprise the majority of the company.
\_ Who says the majority of Apple employees are
Democrats?
\_ So, you think it's ok to be a paranoid nutcase
because Karl Rove is? There's an odd justification.
\_ Take Reading Comprehension 101.
\_ Nice try, I'd say you need a writing class,
but but you need coherent thought more.
Your posts jump between multiple unconnected
topics and are full of bizarre over-
generalizations. They basically make no sense.
It's just plain old raving. Sorry.
\_ You can't even point out when I said it
was okay to be a paranoid nutcase.
\_ You're right, I just kind of assumed
you thought it was ok, since you do it
so well.
\_ Exec Summary: Republicans = evil, stupid, cranky, smearing,
hypocritical baby killers. Democrats = good, kind, smart,
all-knowing, loving, generous, tolerant victims of moronic
Republican abuse. All Apple Engineers = Democrats. Did I
miss anything in your bizarre rant?
\_ Did I say any of that? Boy, you must not know how to
read. Or do you only hear what you want to hear?
\_ It's standard motd noise, yes, you did. That is the
correct executive summary. So answer me this: do
you disagree with any of those statements? Which
ones, if any?
\_ Yes, I disagree with all of them. You put words
into other people mouths. I never said Republicans
were all of those things. There are some who are
but I never made that generalization. And there
are Demorcrats who are those things. And no,
being an Apple employee doesn't make you a Dem.
But from my personal experience (I'm no Gallup
Poll but I know way more Apple employees than
you do) most of them are Dems. So once again,
you're wrong. I never said any of those things
you claim I did.
\_ Is that good thing? A boss telling his employees how to vote
is jaw-droppingly inappropriate. If that's true I'm never buying
apple again.
\_ I've heard bosses (but not the CEO) tell people how they
should or shouldn't vote frequently. I'm guessing its
pretty common.
\_ No it's not. They're adults, they're not being coerced, and,
the whole premise of Democracy is that people can think for
themselves. -dans
\_ I didn't say the couldn't, or even that there's some way
for Jobs to verfiy what they did. It's still wrong to
order people how to vote. It's an attempt at misuse of
power. Attempted murder is a crime, and so is attempted
corruption. It's fine if he says "I'm voting for Ds,
and I think everyone should." "You must vote D" is not ok.
I'm sure if he said "You must vote R" you'd see why it's a
problem.
\_ He didn't order people to vote D. An employee had a
concern about how the unstable state of the world
was negatively impacting the Apple and Silicon
Valley environment and he responded by recommending
that (s)he vote D.
\_ Well, that's different then, isn't it?
\_ Apple needs some smarter employees. The world is
always in an 'unstable state'. Or at least some
more employees who have read some history.
\_ Troll was here |
| 2007/8/6 [Computer/Companies/Apple, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47545 Activity:kinda low 88%like:47550 |
8/6 Karl Rove + iPhone
http://www.time.com/time/politics/whitehouse/photos/0,27424,1650240,00.html
\_ Perhaps the Bush administration would like to know what most people
working at Apple (inluding their top executives) really think of the
Bush administration. Even Steve Jobs told his employees to vote
Democrat during a company-wide conference.
\_ Just because Steve told them to doesn't mean they did. Voting
is still anonymous in this country. |
| 2007/8/4-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:47532 Activity:nil |
8/4 O'Hanlan and Pollack rapidly backpedal from their op-ed
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11682.html
\_ Liberal media, my ass. |
| 2007/8/3-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47523 Activity:low |
8/3 http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343 Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President \_ The Republicans support the war and the Democrats do not. That is not really news. \_ "This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies. Democrats--some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress would bring an end to the war in Iraq--expressed overwhelming displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94% giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of that issue." \_ So we agree. The Democrats are upset at Congress for not taking stronger action against the war and the Republicans are upset at Congress for taking action against the war. \_ How many are upset that the Democrats ran on a platform of cleaning up corruption in DC and not only did nothing to clean it up but went out of their way to make it worse? \_ Show me how it's worse. Then show me how the Dems made it so. \_ Because they're doing the exact same thing with earmarks but are also hypocritical liars about it. \_http://www.commonblog.com/story/2007/2/2/155119/1962 \_ What do you have against the Ethics Reform Bill? At least it is a step in the right direction. \_ Nothing except the fact they left so many holes in it they shouldn't have bothered. With control of Congress and a President who will sign it, they could have done a real reform bill but they're all so addicted to giving away other people's money to buy campaign funds they'll never do real reform. It is just a PR bill so in 2008 they can say they cleaned up DC like they promised, meanwhile having filled their pockets with your cash. \_ Bush would never sign real campaign finance reform. The GOP sucks at the teat of big money. \_ Of course he wouldn't. It was never sent to his desk, duh. Of course the GOP requires big money. Hint: so do the Dems. I find this whole "my guys are angels and your guys are devils" line of non-reasoning both amusing and somewhat sad at the same time. Try some critical reasoning skills before posting in the future. \_ Are you the same guy who said "did nothing to make it better but went out of the way to make it worse." If so, you are a hypocrite. If not, no one was talking to you. \_ There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about saying the Dems are hypocrites on the issue. I've always been very consistent on the motd: both parties suck equally. Party politics sucks. Your pet party is no better than the opposition party. Deal. \_ Nope. The GOP has been more corrupt this last six years than the Democrats have ever been. The two parties are not exactly the same and you are just a cynic with no idea or hope to improve things. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and whine. Learn to make some positive change and maybe someone will pay attention to you. \_ You're either ignorant or blind. Both parties have been corrupt, robbing the tax payers, stealing elections, and serving themselves first and foremost for far longer than anyone here has been alive. I'm not here to 'make positive change' nor am I 'sitting on the sidelines'. I reject your ridiculous and damaging two party scam system. It is not a mindless "our guy" or "your guy" choice. So tell me oh great bringer of justice and wisdom, what have you done to make positive change? \_ For one thing, I was one of the people that circulated petitions and then got endorsements from the Democrats, Republicans and Greens for a campaign finance reform initiative on the SF city ballot, one that passed by 80%+ of the vote. http://www.csua.org/u/jak More recently, I have joined Common Cause. And if you are who I am pretty sure you are, it is kind of amusing your sudden conversion to independent. Weren't you posting pro-war Freeper links not that long ago? \_ I not only have never posted freeper links, I think the freepers are just as stupid as their counterparts at dailykos. So, no. \_ This Dem is angry at the Dems for not killing the Farm Bill. I'm angry with the vetoing President and the filibustering Republicans for everything else. \_ Bush has barely vetoed or even threatened to veto much of anything compared to most Presidents. Both parties have abused the Senate rules to make almost every vote require 60 votes to pass anything. This is all pot, kettle, black. \_ Bush's own party had controlled both houses for the majority of his time in office. I have no actual numbers, but I'd bet that his veto/threat pace this session outstrips many other presidents. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-05-vetoes_N.htm There's some numbers. Fuck off with your kettles. \_ "Fuck off"? Childish. Ok, so where in this article does it say Bush vetoed or even threatened to veto more bills than any other President or even any particular President? You've added absolutely nothing to this but you have shown you're immature and not too bright. I also see you entirely ignored my point about abuse of Senate rules by both parties which is what PKB was a reference to. Have a nice evening. |
| 2007/8/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47510 Activity:moderate |
8/2 ha ha ha:
"Rove tells Bush to tell Rove not to testify"
\_ what?
\_ E_TOOSHORT
\_ E_TOOSHORT - Rove always tells Bush what to do and Bush told Rove
not to testify - ok it isn't funny if you have to explain the
humor.
\_ Following unix error conventions, this should be E_HEIGHT
\- except it is following Rap Conventions.
\_ E_YERMOM |
| 2007/8/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47502 Activity:kinda low |
8/1 If Bush had just given Obama's most recent speech
there would be riots in the streets.
\_ Yes. This is called 'politics'.
\_ Frankly, with how quickly this country is becoming a mockery of
itself there SHOULD be riots in the streets.
\_ A mockery of itself?
\_ Bush wouldn't have given that speech.
\_ Circular. We know he didn't therefore he didn't. What's your
point?
\_ What's your point?
\_ What was yours?
\_ Because Bush isn't an idiot?
\_ Arnold->Democrat, Obama->Republican.
\_ False dichotomy. Not all Republicans are strong on defense; not
all Democrats are weak on defense.
\_ Don't confuse a good stupid troll with your facts.
\_ How many wars did Bush start again? |
| 2007/7/27-8/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47442 Activity:nil |
7/27 these are really odd photos (kind of political content)
http://tinyurl.com/36dgwx
\_ MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! |
| 2007/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47438 Activity:kinda low |
7/26 Regarding the contradiction between Mueller and Gonzales. The Bush
admin's story is that there were two surveillance programs: the
#1 Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and #2 an unnamed one. Comey
was going to resign over #2. Mueller said Gonzales came to see
Ashcroft for #2. Gonzo said it was #2. Dems think Gonzo said #1
and Mueller said #2. No one could talk about #2 clearly because
of national security. See?! Perjury trap!!!11
\_ Someone should get Gonzalez a lawyer, and maybe someone who
can tell him to stop sounding like a fucking idiot. What
do they call those people?
\_ The Bush admin's story is he's only being obtuse to avoid
disseminating classified information that revealing could only
INCREASE the potential of mushroom clouds over major U.S. cities.
disseminating classified information that revealing could
only INCREASE the potential of mushroom clouds over major
U.S. cities. |
| 2007/7/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:47425 Activity:high |
7/25 He's right.
"Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into
a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly
ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the
constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the
statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.
If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into
precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be
permanently changed."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015836.php
\_ "Without going into all the specifics" is pretty damn stupid.
Isn't this guy supposed to be a smart dem?
\_ Did you just arrive from Mars or something? Have you been
ignoring the news for the last 6 years?
\_ I have been following the news extremely closely.
\_ And none of FISA, Gitmo, Geneva Convention, War Crimes
Act, Justice Department firing and ignoring subpeanoas
rings a bell? At all?
\_ Bah, the constitution got thrown out decades ago when courts
started making their own laws from whole cloth on a long list of
topics. We're already and have been for a long time nothing like
the founder's vision for how government should work.
\_ ...what exactly do you see as the purpose of the courts?
\_ Courts apply the law. In the case of SSC and USSC they are
also empowered to overturn laws that violate the State/US
constitutions. They are not to make up laws the legislature
has not passed. What do you think courts are for?
\_ Adjudicating grievances between parties; interpreting the
law as legislated by the Legislative branch and signed by
and/or executed by the Executive branch; determining the
constitutionality of those laws and the actions of the
other two branches. In the course of determining the
constitutionality of certain laws and in the interest of
not wasting taxpayer time and money with legislation that
is doomed to be deemed unconstitutional, I see no reason
why a court could not suggest an example of the sort of
legislation that would not be considered unconstitutional.
This suggestion is not, in and of itself, legislation.
\_ ob more hunting trips with mr. scalia and mr. cheney
\_ Ok so we basically agree. Now then, are you opposed to
courts legislating from the bench, even in such cases
that you agree with the outcome?
\_ Please indicate where you see the courts legislating
from the bench?
\_ You're kidding, right? The classic is Roe v Wade.
\_ Awesome wingnut logic. Roe V Wade justifies
the current administration's destruction of
checks and balances.
\_ What? I said no such thing. You're also
way over stepping assuming you know my
opinion of if abortion should be il/legal
or not simply because I think RvW was a
bad ruling based on bad law. I figured you
would get personal if I tried to discuss it
intelligently with the best known example.
I was right. Thanks for not disappointing.
\_ I am not the guy you were talking to
ealier, but I think that the problem of
judges legislating from the bench pales
in comparison to the problem of the
Executive legislating all the time
when it is not their job to do it.
But they are both problems, imho.
\_ Just because another branch may be
abusing their authority, does not
mean what the courts have been doing
for decades hasn't made a complete
mockery of our constitution. The
system is supposed to have checks and
balances. I see none anymore. I see
courts making laws. I see the exec
branch (and not just this one, kids)
making laws. "Stroke of the pen, law
of the land, cool!" Go look that
quote up. And congress is sitting on
their collective thumbs apparently
concerned about nothing important
and certainly not doing their jobs.
\_ Am rereading Roe v. Wade right now, and while
I don't agree with a lot of it, I'm still not
seeing the legislating you're referring to.
Can you be more specific about this, please?
\_ It's conservative dogma that judges are
legislating from the bench, and as such,
cannot be examined or questioned.
\_ Thanks for contributing nothing. Come
back when you'd like to have a discussion
instead of a smear fest. Thanks again.
\_ Ok, let's get right to it. What is the
basis underlying RvW? Once we agree on
that I'll go to the next step. |
| 2007/7/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47405 Activity:nil |
7/24 Hillary prefers "Progressive". Hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
Progressives ... tended to assume that opponents were motivated by
ignorance or corruption
\_ what is wrong about the above statement?
\_ "In the United States, the Progressive Era was a period of reform
which lasted from the 1890s through the 1920s."
Hell, if you're going to go that far back, why not call Giuliani
a Whig?
\_ Hillary specifically referred to Progressive as an early 20th
century movement.
\_ Would it kill you to type out the quote?
\_ "I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American
meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning
of the 20th century."
http://csua.org/u/j7m
\_ Thank you! Wow, now I'm actually excited to vote for
her.
\_ Huh? Why?
\_ Reform or bust, baby!
\_ Oho, you sneaky out-of-context quoter! From the next
line of the article:
"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who
believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms,
who believes that we are better as a society when we'
re working together and when we find ways to help
those who may not have all the advantages in life get
the tools they need to lead a more productive life for
themselves and their families. So I consider myself a
proud modern American progressive, and I think that's
the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to
bring back to American politics."
Yup, looks good to me.
\_ You sneaky out-of-context replier! Does she disclaim
any of the principles? No, she specifically included
the early 20th century and she agrees with the
principles of that movement. And my reply was to the
person criticizing my reference to the early 20th
century movement.
\_ So, the word "modern" in no way modifies the
views espoused in the early 20th century?
\_ I didn't say it "in no way modifies" anything.
\_ Soooo, if one of the principles of the
early 20th century Progressives was
that all of their opponents were corrupt or
ignorant, which they generally were, is it
reasonable that a modern Progressive, faced
with a different political climate, might
not view her opposition with such contempt?
\_ That is one of the aspects of early
Progressives which I see as relatively
the same as modern liberals (or modern
Progressives).
\_ BushCo invites oil execs to a secret
meeting to determine America's energy
policy, and you don't see corruption?
If there's contempt for a corrupt GOP,
it's hard to pretend the GOP hasn't
earned it. |
| 2007/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47361 Activity:nil |
7/20 Quick! You're Dick Cheney and you get to be "preznint" for only a few
hours while Bush has a colonoscopy. What do you do?!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_colonoscopy
\_ Kill a man on live tv and then claim executive privilege
\_ Bush, Dick, Colin -- The White House Sex Trio. |
| 2007/7/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47340 Activity:nil |
7/19 from http://talkingpointsmemo.com From Maria Bartiromo's interview of Condi Rice in the current issue of BusinessWeek: MB: Would you consider a position in business or on Wall Street? CR: I don't know what I'll do long-term. I'm a terrible long-term planner. |
| 2007/7/18-21 [Recreation/Humor, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47332 Activity:low |
7/18 How many neocons does it take to change a lightbulb?
\_ One neocon with a shotgun. Point the shotgun at a liberal and
the liberal will do whatever he/she is asked to do.
\_ these are supposed to be funny, not stupid.
\_ hint: they're never funny.
\_ Sorry crankypants. I found the "War on Darkness" one funny.
\_ I'm sure you did.
\_ None. George Bush predicts the light bulb will be fully capable of
changing itself within 3 months.
\_ None. The socket welcomes the light bulb with candy and flowers.
\_ Neocons don't bother with light bulbs. They declare a War on
Darkness and set the house on fire.
\_ Only the Almighty who gave the gift of light to all can make a
lightbulb change. Its sort of a theological perspective I have.
-gwb
\_ "i have other priorities" --dcheney
\_ Why do you hate America? |
| 2007/7/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Religion] UID:47306 Activity:moderate |
7/17 Here's some flamebait for you. Holy freakin shit:
"It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an
Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And
I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that
doesn't exist."
--GWB
\_ Ummm, so? The Declaration of Independence says the same thing.
\_ He's saying he makes decisions based only upon religious
considerations. In other words, we're in Iraq because God
told him that was the Right Thing To Do. Read up on the history
of the Crusades and you might see why this is a Very Bad Thing.
\_ The above quote said this?
\_ "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and
then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did,
and now I am determined to solve the problem in the
Middle East."
"Events aren't moved by blind change and chance" ...,
but by "the hand of a just and faithful God."
"I believe God wants me to run for president."
Yes, all actual Bush quotes.
\_ Belief in Providence was common among the Founding
Fathers.
\_ So was Diesm, which discounts religion.
\_ You do the atheists proud, my friend.
\_ Freedom isn't unambiguous. Does the Almighty advocate anarchy?
Communism? Both are freedom in some sense. Freedom from what?
Strictly from a Biblical perspective, it seems pretty clear that
Yahweh likes pious kings with many concubines (an autocratic king,
no wimpy separations of powers or Magna Cartas).
The Bible also recognizes slavery as legitimate...
\_ If the Almighty told Bush to invade Iraq, obviously he does
advocate anarchy. The fact that he talks to Bush at all means
that he is not on our side, since his advice seems to be always
wrong.
\_ Bush: Worshipping Loki since sobriety.
\_ Or else he doesn't exist and Bush imagines God talking to him.
Or else /something/ talks to him, but it turns out it's not
actually God as Bush likes to imagine it. It's the CIA
talking through a receiver in his tooth filling (or else
the Jews, but the Jews run the CIA so it's the same thing).
Or else Bush doesn't even believe it but says it for
political points to the religious constituency. Or else
Bush doesn't exist and Bush is a sniggering automaton.
\_ Sort of like the NASA automatons on the old Mission to Mars
ride? A moment of silence for the M2M ride, please. |
| 2007/7/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47295 Activity:nil |
7/13 Motd poll:
The Canadian dollar will be worth more than the US dollar:
this year:
before Bush leaves office: .
someday, but not soon:
never: |
| 2007/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47266 Activity:nil |
7/12 Bush says he doesn't want to talk about Libby anymore:
http://www.csua.org/u/j4m
\_ But for years we've been told they can't talk about it because it's
an "ongoing investigation" -- Gosh could he have something to hide? |
| 2007/7/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47265 Activity:high |
7/11 You want a felony to impeach Bush for? Here ya go:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015273.php
\_ dubya will say this is for a "proper" purpose (stemming from
executive privilege), therefore there is no felony because this
is defined for an "improper purpose". anyways you want
to impeach cheney first.
\_ You can't just say "I'm not showing up, executive privilege."
You have to honor the supeona and then say "I won't answer that
question, executive privilege." It's like refusing to even
o to court because you'll take the 5th.
\_ At this point, it is like the Gambino family: what aren't they
guilty of?
\_ Not guilty of intern sucking dick. THERE I gotcha! Har har
\_ Get real. No President is going to get impeached for that. But
you could get rich off whatever you're smoking. Of all the things
to impeach over that is the most stupid possible.
\_ Again, this is a separation of powers issue.
\_ Do you mean "everyone has to obey the law but us" kind of
seperation of powers? Or are you trying to say something else
by repeating this phrase? I assume you are the same guy who
claimed that Bush didn't have to follow the FISA laws like
everyone else, because of "seperation of powers." Seperation
of powers doesn't mean that the White House can ignore the
law of the land.
\_ No, I mean to what degree does one branch of gov't have the
power to tell another branch to do something.
\_ You don't quite know what separation of powers is, do you?
\_ that's the whole point of having different branches of
government.
\_ Thinking about this some more, I decided that I see your
point. The FISA law, in particular, was designed to only
apply to the Exectutive Branch, and while it was passed
by Congress and signed by the (then) President, it has
not survived any serious court challanges. It could even
be unconstitutional, for all we know. Though the
Administration sure hasn't been quick to try and get
it in front of the USSC, I can see where they can argue
that they think parts of it are invalid.
\_ You have made a reasonable statement about a hot button
political issue on the motd. For this gross violation
of etiquette your account shall be terminated. |
| 2007/7/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:47264 Activity:low |
7/11 Al Qaida as powerful as it was in summer 2001
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/07/report_alqaida_has_regained_st.php
\_ Funny, why do we believe our intel now?
\_ You know what's wrong with our intel? It's government run
pork program! They should have privatized CIA and NSA
long time ago. -Republican
\_ They do call the CIA "The Company".
\_ No, troll, they should have not relied solely on satellites
and not let the human side of the intelligence program
whither away to nothing. This is the fault of many
administrations going back. |
| 2007/7/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47259 Activity:moderate |
7/11 Any hope of GWB's impeachment before 2008? In America the only
case for impeachment is Watergate (and maybe Sex scandals).
Why isn't GWB having sex with interns? Is his wife actually
making him happy? Damnit.
\_ I don'tthink it can happen. It's a waste of time. concentrate
on winning the next election cycle and saving lots of evidence
to tar the legacy of gwbush when he's out of office.
if the current fuckfest isntenough to impeach him immediately.
not gonna happen
\_ What's the high crime or misdemeanor?
\_ The two that I am aware of are the violations of FISA
and the violations of the War Crimes Act. Are there others?
\_ The FISA thing is a clear struggle between the branches. War
Crimes Act violations? What the hell are you talking about?
\_ The Administration clearly violated the law with regard
to FISA and the courts called them on it. Most criminals
claim the "right" to break the law. Bush's torture
memos were known to be potentially illegal right from
the get-go. The whole Gitmo thing is illegal, which is
why the Administration wants to shut it down now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734
\_ Why do you say 'the whole Gitmo thing is illegal?'
The only thing I am aware of that was ruled illegal
in connection with Gitmo was the recent trials ruling.
It's true that this makes Gitmo a lot less useful for
the Administration, and perhaps it will cause Gitmo
to be shut down and for the inmates to move to US
soil somewhere -- but the illegality of the 'whole
thing'? -- ilyas
\_ 'the whole gitmo thing' is an incredible thought
construct where the administration plants
detainees in this imaginary fun land that they
claim with a straight face is not on US soil,
since.... it's in CUBA. How do these people
manage to function without falling over laughing?
\_ Right, the salient difference here is
between 'illegal' and 'immoral.' -- ilyas
between 'illegal' and 'immoral.'
The whole 'soil' thing does have the vibe of
a Solzhenitsyan farce. -- ilyas
\_ It is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Remember
the Bush Administration claimed the "right" to hold
people indefinitely, without charges and without a
trial. This is a violation of Geneva Convention
Article 3 (I can dig up the exact prt if you want),
which the United States is a signatory to. The whole
"enemy non-combatant" classifcation is utter bullshit
that no one but a few loons in the Bush White House
claim exists. And it will not and is not holding up
in a real court of law, even one (the USSC) that is
overwhelming packed with Republicans.
\_ Alright, but here's what will have to happen
before there's a realistic chance of impeachment.
First, the SC will have to strike down the 2006
law which was specifically passed to get around
the Geneva Convention restrictions (they may well
do this). Then you would have to make an argument
that you can try people for crimes retroactively.
THEN, the Democrats will have to make the political
calculation that it is worth raising the muck on
a wildly unpopular President on his way out
anyways (remember, 'persecution' tends to raise
approval ratings). Finally, all of this will have
to happen before Bush leaves office. Bush is not
getting impeached. -- ilyas
\_ Step 1 has already happened:
http://www.csua.org/u/j4i
They broke the law before 2006, since Gitmo
was opened in 2003. They passed the law to
retroactively try and give themselves legal
cover for a law they knew they were breaking.
But you are right, the Democrats in Congress
are unlikely to find their backbone any time
soon.
\_ I lack the legal background to evaluate
how likely a conviction is in such a case.
Is there a legal principle (or precedent)
for the situation at hand:
"Action X happens. Then law Y is passed
which makes X unquestionably legal. Then Y
is struck down."
At issue here is at the time X happened
the law for X was not settled (as witnessed
by subsequent developments). So it's
unclear you can prosecute for X until Y
was struck down. -- ilyas
\_ Impeachment isn't a legal event. It is a
political one. If the Ds had the balls
and the votes for it they could impeach
today.
\_ I have to agree with ilyas. gwbush has fucked
up the US for 5000 years, but he's not going
anywhere until his term is up.
\_ 5000 years? *laugh* I'm just curious, have you
been around long enough to vote for a non-Bush,
non-Clinton administration? Before Bush is even
out of office no one will care. They'll be
deeply focused on the 08 election. Life will
move on.
\_ I think invading Iraq, fucking it up,
continuing to fuck it up, and committing
us to occupy a giant piece of oil laden
shit in the middle east for the next
several decades is a HUGE FUCKUP.
bush has shown the world that our military
is not the unstoppable force everyone
thought it was. now every pissant guerilla
force knows how to defeat us. happy now?
\_ Why would you want an impeachment? You really want to distract the
country from the current election cycle with political hatchet BS
instead of spending that time and political effort on getting into
office? I'm sure all your friends in the Bay Area are in favor of
impeachment and don't understand why it hasn't already happened.
\_ It's important for the future of the country and for
our worldwide credibility to hold accountable those who
commit criminal behavior and war crimes while in office.
What's wrong with simple justice?
\_ Also, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and a number of others
have shown themselves worthy of disqualification (the
other bit after removal)
\_ How do you know GWB isn't having sex with interns?
\_ 1) why do you think we can keep only one thought in our heads at
a time?
2) for those who want impeachment, this is about accountability,
and being on the record that bush's behavior has been
unacceptable. A president who admits to breaking laws, lies
about war, undermines our national security for the sake of
politics deserves impeachment and removal for those acts, and
we have a duty to do so to prevent his actions from becoming
precedent.
\_ The correct way to do this is to impeach Cheney first, then Dubya. |
| 2007/7/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47241 Activity:moderate |
7/1- When our bureaucrats fuck up, they get promoted, are rewarded with the
Congressional Medal of Freedom, or have their sentences commuted.
In Communist China...they get executed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_as/china_tainted_products
\_ Yes, let's emulate the Chinese way of doing things where they ignore
tremendous levels of corruption and make an example out of someone
every so often instead of having a real legal system and cleaning
up their act in a day to day way. Woot random justice!
\_ No in China one bureaucrat who went too far got executed as
a scapegoat. Let me guess, you think the Abu Ghraib torture
scandal was just a few bad apples?
\_ You have evidence to the contrary? -not op
\_ There's a lot of evidence that the people at the bottom
of the totem pole on staff at Abu Ghraib did not just
magically wake up one morning and start torturing
detainees. Bush/Bush's advisors such as Gonzalez,
Yoo and David Addington put together a plan to make
torturing info out detainees legal, and it trickled
down from there. There is reams and reams of evidence.
dunno why people aren't raiding the white house with
pitchforks now.
\_ It is one thing for Gonzalez to publish a paper. It
requires actual proof if you want to claim that Bush, etc
were responsible and this wasn't just a case of a few
bad apples. The fact that such a small number of people
were involved compared to how many prisoners there are
strongly implies the bad apple theory.
\_ All the "proof" is classified and Bush refuses to
hand it over to Congress. Hence the need for
impeachment hearings. Where was your demand for
proof in the run-up to the Gulf War? Doesn't a
desire to start a war require some "proof" as well?
\_ how many more bad apples at the top do you want? I
have read articles about how Addington and Gonzalez
and Yoo put together legal briefs giving the
president infinite power to torture people. This
is not a secret. How many more 'bad apples' at the
freakin' top do you want? Why are the minions at
the bottom serving prison sentences and the guys
who ordered them to do it are walking free? Fuck.
\_ I'll say it slowly this time: Writing a legal
brief is not the same as having sent orders down
the line to the 2 dumb shits who abused those
guys at AG. "Fuck." Again: No one ordered them
to abuse prisoners. There is no evidence of such
a thing and no one outside the realms of dailykos
thinks so. If you wanted to argue that the two
knuckleheads actually read the Gonzalez brief and
on that basis decided it was a good idea to
abuse and humiliate some prisoners you might
have something, except both are too stupid to
read or understand VCR instructions much less a
legal brief.
\_ Many more were tortured in Afghanistan and in
extrodanary rendition cases, where the CIA turned over
people to other governments to torure them. It wasn't
just a few prisoners, it was systematic.
\_ Which is a totally different thing than what we've
been talking about. That was clearly a government
sanctioned policy. Two idiots at AG taking it upon
themselves to abuse prisoners was clearly not. The
former is about trying to get information out of
them, the latter is just abuse and not useful to
anyone. You can see the difference, yes?
\_ all evidence says these "few bad apples" are those belongs to
the white house.
\_ What evidence?
\_ You haven't read Sy Hersh's New Yorker series?
Start here:
http://www.csua.org/u/j49
\_ Not yet but I will now, thanks for the link.
\_ Ok, I read the whole thing. The only line in the
entire thing that even refers to anyone above the
local commander, Karpinski is this:
"Human Rights Watch complained to Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld that civilians in Iraq
remained in custody month after month with no
charges brought against them."
This is light years away from "Bush, etc, were aware
and directly responsible for abuses taking place at
Abu Graib. This was not just a 'few bad apples'".
Maybe you have something that actually addresses that
issue directly? Ya know... evidence of White House
knowledge and complicity?
\_ Fair enough, but this article does indicate that
\_ Fair enough, but that article does indicate that
quite a ways up the chain of command, they were
aware of abuses. Here is something that claims to
draw the connection:
http://www.csua.org/u/j4p (salon)
and another Hersh article where the connection
between the "torture memos" and Abu Gharib.
There is no doubt that Yoo and gang authorized
torture from the top. The only debate is on
whether this rule was applied in Iraq or not.
http://www.csua.org/u/j4q
\_ Nah, sorry, I don't have time to read endless
links. You had your shot. The next time this
comes up post your best link first, not four
pages of junk I read closely looking for your
point which didn't exist.
\_ "Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American
journalism has to a terrorist, frankly." -Perle
\_ Anyone Richard Perle hates cant be all bad.
\_ The policy came from the top:
http://zfacts.com/p/100.html
\_ Sorry, anything that opens calling people 'neocons' has
a clear bias and is not worth reading. I stopped on the
first line. If you have something factual that at least
pretends to be unbiased I'll happily read it. I don't
accept dailykos or freeper crap. Thanks.
\_ read this . fun stuff
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/03/060703fa_fact1
\_ You know that there is a large number of people
who call *themselves* neocons, right? Are you willing
to read the Weekly Standard?
\_ Done in an entirely different context not as a slur.
But I know you knew that, right? Post real links
from sites without such an giant axe to grind and
I'll happily read and respond to them and if they
reveal something I was unaware of I'm open to
changing my mind on this or any other topic but not
from a dailykos/freeper quality crap site. |
| 2007/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:47230 Activity:low |
7/8 Looks like the US is finally, actually, going to start turning
the corner in Iraq:
http://www.csua.org/u/j3l
\_ ummmm, your title is rather misleading.
\_ more or less misleading than when Cheney told us that? |
| 2007/7/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:47226, category id '18005#8.4175' has no name! , ] UID:47226 Activity:nil |
7/8 Beautiful blonde conservative females (like the ones in Wisconsin
and N Dakota) have the greatest preferences for smaller, face-to-
face social groups, and have, on average, the lowest political
awareness of the outside world. They are also the most genetically
selective when it comes to reproduction, that is, they tend to
mate with genes most similar to their own. [Do White Populations in
Racially Mixed Regions Become More Conservative Over Time?]
http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb07.asp
\_ Wisconsin is a famously liberal state. Haven't you ever heard
of the Democratic Farm Labor Party? |
| 2007/7/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:47224, category id '18005#8.0875' has no name! , ] UID:47224 Activity:nil |
7/8 White liberal males love Asians. The Conservative males also had
the lowest rates of physical attraction towards blacks.:
http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb07.asp |
| 2007/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47213 Activity:low |
7/7 Nearly half of Americans support impeaching Bush. More than half
support impeaching Cheney.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/arg_and_others_on_impeachment.php
\_ So? More than half believe in the law of Jesus Christ
\_ Jesus Christ is not a fringe idea, and neither is impeachment.
However, it is routinely derided as such.
\- i dunno who this dood is, and i think he goes off the rails
a bit at the end with the mob boss stuff, but this is a
good paragraph ....
http://www.lakeexpo.com/articles/2007/07/07/lake_news/02.txt
Now, George Bush and his cronies are showing America
in the worst possible light. They are illuminating
the chasm between the weak and the powerful, the
rich and the poor, the connected and the
disconnected. They are doing all they can to find a
death row cell for the American Dream and when
crunch time comes, giving none of us hope for a
commutation of that sentence.
\_ I suspect far fewer even know what impeachment means.
\_ More than 85% of Americans believe in the personification of
the Biblical Angels, too. They're still looking for a pin, though. |
| 2007/7/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47186 Activity:nil |
7/6 Damn this Bush economy!
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/06/ap3889125.html
\_ Another piddling job growth report that beat expectations... Great.
Let me know when wages grow along with productivity, and when the
savings rate is positive again. Wake me when job growth meets
population growth... Go go bushonomics
\_ Tax Cuts and the Not So Great Economy (Economist's View)
http://www.csua.org/u/j3f
\_ This has exactly crap to do with the article. And this putz
points to negative job growth and decreasing GDP after 2001 and
blames the tax cuts?! No mention of, say, other events in 2001?
-emarkp
to the
\_ Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute,
a Washington think tank, noted the participation rate has fallen
especially sharply for young people, blacks and Hispanics, groups
who are especially sensitive to the economys ups and downs.
If those missing workers were reported as unemployed, the jobless
rate would be 5% instead of 4.5%, he said in a report.
\_ Sure. A Left think tanker says "which do you believe, me or the
numbers?"
\_ Damn these tax and spend Democrats in charge of Congress and their
nearly instanteous good effect on the economy! |
| 2007/7/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47177 Activity:high 69%like:47152 |
7/4 Happy 4th of July! Support our troops! Support our president!
Why Bush commuted Libby's sentence instead of pardoning him:
http://www.csua.org/u/j2p (Economist's View)
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859825/posts
"Great news!"
\_ More obstruction of justice. -ausman |
| 2007/7/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:47154 Activity:moderate |
7/3 iTard Nation:
http://urltea.com/wdp (ostroyreport.blogspot.com)
\_ Sheesh.
\_ "I stood in line for the iPhone. Three hours. It was a fun way to
spend an afternoon with my wife, child, and a bunch of strangers."
What fun! I love standing in lines. Sometimes I go to amusement
parks and stand in line just for the camaraderie of the line, the
joy of finally being in front. Then I go stand in another line.
I only wish I had children so I could stand in lines with them like
this man.
\_ Hey, in Japan standing in lines is a family activity.
\_ In Soviet Russia, line stand in You!
\_ In Hong Kong, lines are longer but they move much faster.
\_ why is that? |
| 2007/7/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47152 Activity:nil 69%like:47177 |
7/2 Why Bush commuted Libby's sentence instead of pardoning him:
http://www.csua.org/u/j2p (Economist's View)
\_ More obstruction of justice. |
| 2007/7/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47145 Activity:moderate |
7/2 Prez commutes croney's sentence:
http://csua.org/u/j2k (sfgate.com)
\_ I gotta hand it to "Bush will not pardon Libby" guy, he turned
out to technically be correct. He should have bet me, he would
have made $20. -ausman
\- ausman advisory: this commutation is an exercise of the
pardon power. i.e. the president (or many governors)
can use the POWER OF THE PARDON to change a death sentence
to a life sentence. this is a weird version of that.
See e.g. Shcick v Reed: http://tinyurl.com/3cuec3
\_ Too bad no one took me up on my $1m bet. :-) To the advisor
above: Libby is still a convicted felon with a $250k fine, and
2 years of probation to go along with his destroyed career,
reputation, lost time, stress, and millions of dollars in legal
fees. That is hardly a 'pardon' in any normal sense of the word.
\_ Bush can (and probably will) still pardon Libby, after
he has exhausted the appeals process.
\_ Time will tell. I admit to being surprised Bush did even
this much for him but it does fit the pattern of pissing
everyone off without actually doing the right thing.
\_ Besides the above, don't be too sure Libby's career is
destroyed. It will not be the same as it was but I don't
think he's out on his ass. Millions in legal fees? Reference
please.
\_ GOP fundraisers are already covering his legal costs and
a juicy appointment with the AEI awaits him.
\_ Oh goody, that makes it all ok. Sign me up!
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859840/posts
\_ Praise jesus!
\_ You know, Bush has been hammered by people about Ramos and Compean
(two border guards currently serving a sentence for something I
don't think they're guilty of), and his response when asked for a
pardon/commutation has been that "there's a process to go through"
and he'd look at it after it went through that progress. He seems
to have skipped that process for his pal. I have to wonder why his
approval rating is above 0% at this point for anything other than
the war. -emarkp
\_ not that i have any sympathy for illegal immigrant drug dealers,
but didnt those border guards falsify their reports?
\_ apparently. what about it? should that result in their
lives being destroyed? should that be enough to grant
immunity to a known illegal alien felon to testify against
them? i dont think so. dock their pay? sure. put them
on suspension? sure. send them to some hellish HR inspired
training for a few weeks? sure. demotion? maybe. prison?
for a false report? nuh-uh.
\_ Part of the reason for the relatively stiff (though not,
as Bush claims, beyond the sentencing guidelines) penalty
against Libby was because of the abuse of office. I would
submit that law enforcement personel deserve similarly
stiff sentences for abuses of their offices as well.
\_ They got hammered to 'send a message' to the rest of
the border patrol agents. Abuse of office? Bullshit.
Happens all the time without *any* punishment at all
levels of government much less going to friggin prison.
\_ I don't know the particulars of this case. I was
speaking generally.
\_ Generally, an abuse of power, especially something
as trivial as misfiling a report not only would go
unpunished but unnoticed.
\_ No, they didn't. They were required to submit oral reports to
their supervisors. The supervisors /were present/ at the
scene after the shooting when 9 officers helped collect shell
casings. That's part of the lie that Johnny Sutton (a Bush
buddy) keeps telling. Another of the lies was the claim by
Homeland Security that they said they were "going to shoot
some mexicans", which was only exposed when an HS rep was in
front of Congress under oath for another reason. -emarkp
\_ Just in time for Indepedence Day!
\_ Why does the president have this power, again? Seems pointless.
\_ So he can pardon his predecessor of any crimes committed while
in office. And the circle-jerk goes round and round.
\_ The Founders gave the President this power so he could take
action to right wrongs even though it may be unpopular.
Ultimately this is about having a final say in thwarting mob
rule quality 'justice'. Seems pointed.
\_ There was much debate about the merits of the power even
when the Constitution was written. While it has "a point"
I don't believe the greater good is served by the president
having this power. We have a justice system and a supreme
court. That's not mob rule. Think if the power didn't exist,
what great wrong would not have been righted? Some death
sentences have been commuted but there you have to get into
the whole "should we have the death penalty" issue. Having
the executive leader arbitrarily decide who dies is stupid
and reminiscent of monarchy.
\_ The justice system is all about mob rule. That's what a
jury is. Very few cases are taken up by the USSC. I don't
see it as the executive arbitrarily determining death. We
already have the justice system for that as you said. This
is about having a final way to correct some great wrong.
I looked up Clinton's pardon list. There was a mix of
drug offenses, white collar crime and military crimes he
over turned. Most of them were so old the people had
already served their sentences so what he was really doing
was restoring their right to vote, cleaning their records,
etc so they can live normal lives. Anyway, I don't see
400 or so pardon/commutations out of the zillions convicted
to be that big a deal.
\_ Have you ever gone through the jury selection process
and actually served on a jury? Just curious. I have
a lot more faith in an average jury, than an
average gvt procecutor, say. -- ilyas
\_ I think most juries do their best to get it right
but we know that isn't always true. Thus the
President has the power to pardon as the ultimate
final check on the system. The founders didn't give
him the power to convict, only free. Reagan did just
over 400. Clinton did a few more. Bush1 did under
100. I don't know how many Bush2 has done. These
are very small numbers and I'm a-ok with them even
if some were questionable.
\_ Wait, this is the treason guy, right? -John |
| 2007/6/30-7/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47135 Activity:nil |
6/30 Democrats, not very popular:
http://www.csua.org/u/j22
\- anybody who compares the approval ratings between the
president and congress is either stupid or disingenuous.
to say "congress's rating have slid more in the last
6mos while the president's rating have gone up" might
be meaningful, but the only virtue of comments like this
"President Bush is doing terribly -- an average of 30 percent
job approval in six recent polls. Congress is doing worse --
25 percent on the average in five polls." is to signal you can
add this dood to your KILL file. that article is the journalistic
equivalent of a college paper with the thesis "the iliad
is a poem by homer about the trojan war, which was difficult."
\- see also:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/06/broderism-watch.html
\_ The only poll that matters happens in November every two years. |
| 2007/6/29-7/1 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47126 Activity:nil |
6/29 Hi I'm lazy, do my work for me. Is it true that the government's
official 9/11 report completely refrains from mentioning
WTC Building 7?
I was reading http://www.patriotsquestion911.com ,
which doesn't appear to be populated by the raving tinfoil
hat crowd. Maybe the ex military retired tinfoil hat crowd.
\_ Yes, it was all an inside job by the competent Bush administration
with the help of TEH JOOS as commanded by His High Lord Elvis and
His Right Paw Of Greatness, Bigfoot. There is no truth to the
rumors that Area 51 and the Greys were involved.
\_ I have not been able to find any information that is was
not deliberately brought down by demolition. Also, it appears
there were highly-sensitive gov't offices in that building.
Keep digging deeper and you may come to understand who
controls the political and economic power structure in this
country, parallels with the Weimar republic. |
| 2007/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47092 Activity:high |
6/27 People vote with emotions and not brains. Fear-mongering works
better than reasoning-- Why Democrats are destined to lose:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19461257/site/newsweek/page/0
\_ Because Democrats are the party of logic? Er, ok. And here I
thought they did the same fear mongering and heart string pulling
as the other party. Or maybe you meant that some third party
candidate is going to win?
\_ ...are you really going to tell me that you think the Dems have
fear-mongered anywhere near the level of Bush and the current
GOP, the party that made the "us or suitcase nukes in your city"
part of their 2004 campaign?
\_ They are no more 'pro-logic' than the other party, yes. D=R.
\_ I'm certainly not exonerating them for their petty foibles,
but comparing them to the current Admin and the GOP under
DeLay and Gingrich is utterly laughable. Let's try to
preserve a modicum of scale.
\_ It's on the same scale, just open your eyes and see
that just because you agree with something doesn't mean
they got there by logic. Both parties do it equally
and treat all the voters like a commodity.
\_ I agree with you that they are neither of them
logical. We can also agree that firecrackers and
thermonuclear devices are explosive, but you wouldn't
suggest that the damage done by the first is the
same as that done by the latter, would you?
\_ OUR LIZARDS ARE BETTER, DAMN IT! -- ilyas
\_ You're begging the question. It isn't
firecrackers vs. nukes. The two parties are the
same. That is exactly the point here. |
| 2007/6/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47075 Activity:high |
6/26 Another Bush Administration official convicted by a diabolical
prosecutor and a vengeful Congress, similar to the Libby case:
http://www.csua.org/u/j11
\_ Uhm, no. This guy was directly involved in a bribery scandal.
Libby was busted for his memory of events not matching eight
reporters memory of events which didn't match each other's
memory of events nor their own notes nor their own prior
testimony. Thanks for the opportunity to correct your grave
misunderstanding of Libby's situation, troll.
\_ If this was really true he wouldn't have been convicted. He
got caught red handed, refused to turn on his boss and expose
Cheney's treasonous crimes and so went to jail.
\- As Mr. Uhm, no suggests, Libby was a victim of the RAHM-
PELOSI-JURY-REPULICAN_JUDGE-REPUBLICAN-PROSECUTOR conspiracy.
I think it is is pretty clear George McGovern created
Patrick Fitzgerald in his mountain side laboratory and
had him spend 30 years infiltrating the REPUBLICAN
ESTABLISHMENT for a moment like this. The code word
to activate him was "Barbarella".
\_ Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the prosecutor and judge
were both Republicans or Republican appointees.
\_ You've heard of 'the appeals process', right? We have that
because the justice system is understandably flawed. By
your 'logic' we don't need an appeals process and all those
folks on death row should be executed immediately. Care to
try again?
\_ You erased the much more amusing preceding material just
post this? Minus ten points for Slytherin.
\_ It wasn't amusing at all. It was off-topic and not
even dailykos quality and frankly the same drivel that
gets posted anytime anyone here tries to have a serious
political discussion. I'm trying to discuss the facts
of the case with the other poster, this has nothing to
do with anything. It is pure noise and as such
provides no opportunity for intelligent discussion and
no, it wasn't funny the second time either.
\_ You presume to be arbiter of teh funny? Being too
thin-skinned to take your well-deserved mockery
should make you rethink using motd.
\_ Yadda yadda blah blah blah, yadda yadda. I see
there's still no reply to the real comment about
the appeals process, Libby's case details, etc.
Just whining about "my drivel got deleted, wah!"
I'll take that as either agreement or general
ignorance of what actually happened in Libby's
case, thanks.
\_ Saying "the sky is blue" doesn't really warrant
a reply. Yes, it's up for appeal. How 'bout
you try again after his appeals are rejected?
\_ So as I said, you don't know a thing about
his trial and exactly how his bogus
conviction came about. I'll say it again
even though I know you don't want to know
the truth: he was convicted because his
story didn't entirely match the stories of
8 reporters. The 8 reporters stories didn't
match each other. The 8 reporters stories
didn't even match their own earlier
testimony, nor their own written notes. It
was not possible for Libby's story to match
the differing and ever-changing stories of
8 people. Thank you for supporting real
justice and not punishing people for having
political views that differ from your own.
\_ You are utterly convinced that your
reading of the case is correct. Will
you acknowledge you have been wrong
if his appeals are denied? Somehow, I
suspect not.
if his appeals are denied?
And you really have an obnoxious delete
finger. Fuck off.
\_ Erasing other people's comments on a globally
editable MOTD just shows that you are too short for
this ride.
\_ Comments are erased on a daily basis. Get over
it.
\_ What is it with people missing the point today?
Sure, comments are erased on a daily basis,
but erasing part of a thread just so you can
post your own POV is something else entirely.
Grow up.
\_ Bzzt, sorry. Erasing someone else's post
had no effect on posting my POV. Try
again? (y/N)__? |
| 2007/6/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47071 Activity:low |
6/26 Secret: The Freemasons influenced Bush to start the Iraq War.
\_ Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
\_ You are so totally wrong. Majestic 12, the Knights Templar, the
HK Triad, FEMA and the Illuminati worked together to influence
Bush to invade Iraq as part of their scheme to use Terrorism as
smoke screen to hide their conspiracy for world domination. Its
all documented in UNATCO's files. -jcd |
| 2007/6/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47032 Activity:high |
6/21 Bush at 26% in Newsweek poll
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354100/site/newsweek
\_ That's not too bad. Compare that to Nixon's:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml
http://preview.tinyurl.com/eytw5 (cbsnews.com)
Keep in mind this is from CBS, liberal Jewish media.
\_ Thanks for invalidating anything else you have to say.
\_ I don't think he cares. Why should he?
\_ maybe because he is supposed to be a representative of the
people.
\_ He is. The people are idiots and so is he. I don't see why
people's opinions changed. What is different now? A lot of us
disapproved of him from the beginning. And, you know, didn't
vote for him. Now all these Johnny come latelys want to be
cool like us. But it's too late. We moved on to disapproving
of the mainstream primary frontrunners.
\_ Pft! I've already dismissed them all and moved on to
disapproving of the second and third tier candidates as
well as several who aren't even rumored to be interested in
running. -Johnnt C. L.
\_ He still has things he is trying to get accomplished and it
is hard to get Congress to listen to him when he is so
unpopular. Most politicians care about something called
their "legacy" as well, and every indication is that Bush
cares, too. So sorry, he probably cares. Maybe his
supporters (like you?) do not.
\_ His current goal appears to be to veto everything and keep
the investigations off his back until he can get out of
town.
\_ IANARepublican, but think about it: ~43% of Americans voted in
the last Presidential election, and W got about 50% of the
vote, so, hey, 26% is pretty good for him.
\_ You might want to check the assumptions in your math
there sonny.
\_ 50% of 43% =~21.5% < 26%. I'd say my math assumptions,
faulty as they are, are probably more accurate than
those of the POTUS.
\_ You're making the assumption that the set of W
supporters is a subset of the 2004 presidential
voters. You'll have to justify that assumption
somehow.
\_ he's also making the assumption that 100% of
the country responded to this poll. -tom
\_ You're both right, but you're missing my
(feeble) point, which is that the POTUS thinks
like this.
\_ Maybe he was when he was elected, but now that he *IS* elected
and that due to term limites, he can't be re-elected, why
should he care any more? Lame duck presidency FTL.
\_ I loved the comedy central clip where GWB 2000 'debated'
GWB 'current', especially the total reverse on intervening
in other nations and 'nation building'.
\_ Mission Accomlished!
http://www.csua.org/u/izp
\_ Congress at 14% (below HMOs at 15%)
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27946
\_ For "confidence", not "approval".
\_ For "confidence", not "approval". And from a different poll.
\_ OP didn't say "approval".
\_ The article did. Sure, blame your reading comprehension
issues on the OP
\_ I was making a point. I read the article.
\_ How is saying "apples are not oranges" a point?
\_ Isn't low confidence worse than low approval? I might not
approve of the job someone is doing, but I might still have
confidence that they will improve. Low confidence seems to
imply to me that not only does one disapprove of the job
someone is doing but also that they've lost any hope that
they will improve.
\_ Read a few polls and see how the two numbers tend to
relate. Motd will not do your homework for you.
\_ I'll take that as a yes then. So, the American people
feel more negativity towards Congress than the President
\_ Take that as a yes. Continue in obstinate ignorance.
\_ This only validates my assumption further. If it
really is a false assumption, you wouldn't have
been this much of an ass about it.
\_ Congress is always lower. You can hate the
bastards but not hate YOUR bastard. The president,
however, is all or nothing.
\_ How does that compare to Carter?
\_ The cbsnews link in the first reply will tell you. Other than
that, learn to use google.
\_ No, it does not. Other than that, have you heard of the
Socratic technique?
\_ Oop. It wasn't in that article. It was in another blog
post. Carter's lowest was 28% in '79. |
| 2007/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47000 Activity:nil |
6/17 Email records missing for 51 of 88 White House Officials with RNC
accounts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_e_mails
\_ Whooops!! |
| 2007/6/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46986 Activity:nil |
6/16 Thank God Bush's stormtroopers are protecting America from
toddlers with sippy cups:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070616/ap_on_re_us/airport_sippy_cup |
| 2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46969 Activity:kinda low |
6/15 Bush's approval rating is now 29%. Who are these people supporting
Bush and where/why do they still support him?
\_ No intern sucking dick? Approve.
Christian? Anti-abortion? Anti-faggots? Approve.
No flip-flop? Doesn't change mind? Approve.
\_ http://csua.org/u/iyj (Daily Show: Bush vs. Bush)
Represents GOOD and stands up against EVIL? Approve.
Marriage stable? Approve.
White male? Uses simple commoner vocabulary? Approve.
Supports NRA? Special Interests? Approve.
Supports free-market, corporations, and profits? Approve.
*** I am an American, and I approve George W Bush ***
\- because the most important thing in the world to them is:
save-the-fetus || i-hate-asslords || my-personal-NPV || gun-cold-dead-hands
\_ Congress' is lower. Reid is lower. Who are supporting them?
\_ Hint: Congress has many people in it. Which job of Congress
do you think people disapprove of?
\_ Is Reid lower in his own district? Almost certainly not.
\_ Well, in congress' case, it only matters what the approval
rating for your local congressman is. I can hate the guy from
New Orleans all I want, but it doesn't matter. I believe the
local rating for congressman tend to be fairly high.
\_ Are you one of those Bush supporters then? What makes you still
support him? Congress is almost always lower than the President,
over the last 50 years. And the Congressional Democrats have
quite a bit higher rating than either Bush or the Congressional
Republicans, though they have dropped quite a bit lately.
\_ The Congress has had a lower approval than the President
every time I've checked for years.
\- without geting into a longer discussion about statistics,
you probably cannot easily compare the opinion about
Reid and BUSHCO, because a *much smaller* number of people
know who Reid is. So you cant really ask "do you know
who the sen maj leader is?" if yes, then "what do you
think about reid". since the <20% of america who can
correctly answer the "filtering" question biases the
population you are sampling. and if you dont know who
Reid is [you ask ask the Reid <-> Maj Leader question
Reid is [you can ask the Reid <-> Maj Leader question
in either direction], what does your opinion matter?
in either direction], what does your opinion really mean?
now if "do you know who the maj leader of the senate is"
was the filtering questions for both "what do you think
about Reid, BUSHCO, Cheney" those numbers might be
interesting.
\_ You *can* take a look at the people who know who Reid
is and voted (D) based on his false promises to get us
out of Iraq. Since the number of actual voters vs.
potential voters in this country is so small you might
as well say that no polls are meaningful due to the
required filtering, etc. |
| 2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46964 Activity:nil |
6/15 Has the Bush Administration finally and completely lost it?
http://tikkun.org/rabbilernerarticles/neocon/document_view
\_ I believe it. We're not leaving Iraq. Anyone who believes
otherwise is naive.
\_ I know it seems like it will never happen, but we're supposed
to get a new president in 18 months. Anybody from either party
has got to be better than this gang of jackals.
\_ as an American, I would say we just leave and cut our losses.
We are not serious about solving iraq's problem anyway. We might
as well just go home and repair the damage to our arm forces in the
past couple years. And yes, I stand by my statement about we are
not serious about solving Iraqi problem. Everything we do in
Iraq since we invaded it has everything to do about our internal
politics than anything else. Otherwise, we've be forming alliances
with *ALL* Iraqi neighbors to come up with something agreeable. |
| 2007/6/12-15 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46921 Activity:nil |
6/12 Scientists find that salvage logging makes wildfires worse
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_sc/wildfire_logging |
| 2007/6/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46918 Activity:kinda low |
6/11 http://CNN.com headline: "Terror suspect wins U.S. legal battle" Ph34r!!!11 http://www.capsteps.com/sounds/doyoufear.mp3 --/ \_ Fear? Fear what? This is the system working. The only issue is it took so long to work which I consider a real problem. \_ that sounds like something a terror suspect would say ... \_ or a real american who believes in the us constitution and not just the parts that suit me. |
| 2007/6/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46908 Activity:low |
6/10 "To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to
seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President
calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for
the constitution and the country," the court panel said.
http://www.csua.org/u/iwc (URL updated with more recent version)
\_ No worries, the USSC will give the POTUS peace of mind.
\_ I guess we could arrest Tony Blair and call him 'enemy combatant'
and lock him up forever. Since the first thing we do will be
strip him of any personal belongings, there is no way he can prove
he is Tony Blair. We can then use all sort of "techniques" to
make him confess that he is a terrorist... hmm... |
| 2007/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46902 Activity:nil |
6/10 More on the Libby case from a decidedly liberal econ prof:
http://www.csua.org/u/ivx
\- i dont understand why more people dont see the "procedural aspect"
to this libby case. i mean the burden on second guessing spectators
has to be pretty high given: 1. republican prosecutor 2. libby had
best defense money could buy 3. bush appointee judge. given that
he was still found guilty, unless you somehow think he was hurt
by the "friend of the sack of shit" letters from wolfowitz,
kissinger, bolton, etc it you have to say more than "i dont like
the outcome".
by the "friend of the sack of shit" briefs from wolfowitz,
kissinger, bolton, et al you have to say more than "i dont like
the outcome". anybody who argues "do we want our tax dollars
going to incarcaerate LIBBY" should just be beaten on the spot.
i am quite happy to have my tax dollars going to this end.
i am quite happy to have my tax dollars going to this end. much
more so than small scale potheads or notorious asslords, neither
of whom i have much natural affinity for.
of which i have much natural affinity for. |
| 2007/6/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46887 Activity:nil |
6/7 Check out the top story on http://news.yahoo.com right now. What kind of "news" is that??? \_ immigration bill fails crucial vote? \_ I'm referring to the "Krumping", as reported by the Yahoo! Underground team. \_ Krump! Trends sell man \_ LibDems block critical reforms championed by President and Commander-In-Chief Bush. Don't they understand how this encourages the enemy? |
| 2007/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:46858 Activity:low |
6/5 I used to date a Republican girl. I was pretty much whipped. I
went along with whatever she had to say. She'd say things like
"GWB encourages oil refineries in the Middle East so that when
they run out of oil, we'll still have plenty left! Pretty darn
smart eh?" Whatever she said, I just listened and accepted without
any objection. Reason: the pre-marital sex was absolutely amazing,
and for sex, I turned into a Republican. Now that the relationship
is over, I feel so liberated. It's amazing how my addiction to
sex turned me into a complete moron.
\_ This is actually a pretty good reason to be a Republican. Who
are you dating now?
\_ Just bobbing your head in return for her own head bobbing
doesn't "turn your into a Republican", but it may say
something about your priorities [I mean that non-judgementally].
Usually, it's the other way around where guys go along with
fruitcake liberal girls. In fact one reason some right-wing
nutjob groups are so powerful is they spend their fridays nights
promoting their politics while liberals spend their friday nights
in hedonistic pursuits ... but of course when something like
abortion rights is seriously challenged, that may roust them.
BTW, are you sure she was really a Republican or was she just
an materialist/egoist. Did she believe in "conservative
values" like pemartitial sex is wrong etc or she just believed
in lower taxes and welfare queens should get a job. Just out
of curisority what profeession was she in? Sales?
\_ Yes she was a hardcore Republican because she was raised
that way. Let me clarify and say that she's socially
liberal but values most non-religious Republican values
like small government, self-reliant, hatred for the poor
who use welfare (she thinks they're lazy so they deserve
nothing from her), racial superiority, pre-emptive strike
on people who are "evil", self righteous, and lastly,
STUBBORN. There is no possibility that anyone could
change her opinion because they've been hardcoded since
childhood. Profession? How is this relevant to
the topic? Anyways, the more I think about this the more
pissed off I am. I will be voting non-Republican for the
first time in 8 years. I AM LIBERATED.
\_ Was she good in bed? Can I have her number?
\_ yeah, thats pretty much the definition of being 'whipped'.
\_ Since you didn't believe anything she said you weren't a Republican
or a conservative. No more so than any conservative man was
magically transformed into a liberal while dating a woman's studies
vegetarian (cough). |
| 2007/6/1-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46830 Activity:moderate |
6/1 Why does Peggy Noonan hate America?
http://urltea.com/oiv (opinionjournal.com)
\_ BECAUSE CONSERVATISM IS ALWAYS GOOD AND IF PEOPLE WHO CALL
THEMSELVES CONSERVATIVES FAIL THEN THATS BECAUSE THEY WERE
NEVER REALLY CONSERVATIVES IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!11!
\_ Nothing more than an attempt by a GOP leader to distance
herself from what has become a very unpopular presidency.
themselves from what has become a very unpopular presidency.
She loved Bush for 6 years, but now his usefulness is over.
The GOP is worried that they are going to lose in 2008, so they
are going to throw Bush under the bus, hoping that this will
improve their chances. They are desperate.
http://www.csua.org/u/itp
\_ Or maybe this whole amnesty thing really does grate on
conservatives?
\_ Here's your real answer: We all knew in 2000 that Bush was
Conservative Light but given the choices (Death before Gore) we
pulled the lever and hoped for the best. Our gut instinct was
correct but overall it was still better than Gore would have been
so we went with it. In 2004 we had even worse choices: more of
the same or Kerry, a man who made Gore look like a great option.
Sitting here in 2007, after everything, he's still a better call
than Gore or Kerry but that doesn't mean we have to be happy about
it. The amnesty bill is of course the final straw but is no
different than we would've had from Gore/Kerry. That leaves all
those people who supported Bush thinking, "Why'd I bother?" which
is why you're heading rumors about the grass roots fund raising
is why you're hearing rumors about the grass roots fund raising
taking a dive on the (R) side. Next time they run a Light(c)
candidate I'll be staying home because, "Why bother?". Sorry to
interupt. Everyone please continue with mindless all-caps posts
and baseless speculation. |
| 2007/5/30-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46799 Activity:nil |
5/29 White house implicity recognizes gay parents:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/images/20070523-4_v052307db-0034jpg-731v.html
(link fixed thanks a lot whoever messed it up). It's a pic of the
Cheneys, the baby, and the caption: "His parents are the Cheneys.
daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe"
\_ I guess they mean "whitehouse" the porn site.
\_ What does this have to do with the White House or whitehouse the
porn site (other than the fact that the pic is porn) or gay parents?
Actual link is this: |
| 2007/5/30-6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46793 Activity:nil |
5/30 And, yes, Plame was covert.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679
\_ Motd poll:
Bush will pardon Libby: .
\_ not a chance. loyalty only goes up the chain.
\- do you want to bet on this? --psb
\_ US$1 million. Payable 24 hours after GWB leaves
office.
Bush will "sacrifice" Libby: .
Bush will have Libby killed:
Libby who???: . |
| 2007/5/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46745 Activity:kinda low |
5/24 "Why is he at large? 'Cause we haven't got him, yet, Jim. That's why.
And he's hiding. And we're looking. And we will continue to look until
we bring him to justice. We've brought a lot of his buddies to justice,
but not him. That's why he's still at large."
--Bush answering a question today about why we haven't caught OBL.
\_ http://www.sitiofan.com/images/guia/beforeafter/caseyhoy2.jpeg
\_ Maybe they should put OJ on the job.
\_ Stupid questions deserve stupid answers. At least the press and
the President are on the same page now.
\_ What about the question is stupid?
\_ Perhaps he should have rephrased. "Hey dumbshit! Where is
that jackass Osama you promised to capture six years ago?"
or "Hey dumbshit! What the fuck are you doing being
president? You're looking in the wrong fucking country."
See, GWB is too stupid to recognize a rhetorical question.
\_ GWB is not stupid. He blew off a question he didn't want
to answer. He's a politician. That is what all successful
politicians do. How is that stupid?
\_ Q: Why is he at large? A: Because we haven't caught him yet.
Stupid question. Stupid answer. Especially from a press core
member who should know better than to leave a politician with
an open question like that. What about the question is not
stupid?
\_ Asking a president why he has failed to capture a person
he has promised to catch isn't stupid. I'm sure he knows
the real answer: "because we have a significant chunk
of our armed forces looking in the wrong country."
\_ It was a stupid question. If he wanted a real answer to
that question he should have known better than to make
it possible to directly answer the question without
answering the implied question. Why is this so hard
to figure out? Show me the politician who answers
implied questions that will make him look bad and I'll
show you the politician who won't make it above city
dog catcher in an election. |
| 2007/5/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46714 Activity:nil |
5/19 Bush accuses Democrats of "pure political theatre" without
even one drop of irony noted:
http://www.csua.org/u/iqm |
| 2007/5/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46709 Activity:moderate 72%like:46685 |
5/18 Freepers, um, "respond" to immigration plan
http://urltea.com/l9i (wonkette.com)
\_ Is this the move that will drop his approval ratings to sub-Nixon
numbers?
\_ You're not thinking far enough ahead. All but one of the
2008 R candidates has come out against this bill. This will
fire up the base and enable them to rant and rave about how
THEY wouldn't have sold the country down the river for them
damn Mexicans if THEY had been President. This is a parting
gift from Dubya for em.
\_ Ezra Klein has a good take
http://csua.org/u/iq0 (prospect.org)
\_ It's still above congress' approval. However, "the base" that
will leave Bush has already done so. I can't imagine it'd go
lower.
\_ With a slip of 6% in rasmussen's daily poll, i expect to
see 25% in other polls by the end of the month. 22% by
july 4?
\_ There are no Freepers on the motd. We used to have one and then we
had several fakes and now we fortunately have none.
\_ No, I think we had two. But yeah, they rarely post anymore.
\_ $freeper++. I stand corrected. :-) |
| 2007/5/19-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46697 Activity:moderate |
5/19 Bush "The Worst in History" according to Carter:
http://www.csua.org/u/iq7
\_ Not surprisingly, he's a liberal. !emarkp
\_ "I mean heck, he may even be worse than me now!" Carter added.
\_ Just about everyone I know, assholes, pious people, liberals,
conservatives, libertarians, apolitical people, political
people, think Bush is The Worst In History. Iraq is really
a gigantic fuckup of difficult to fully comprehend
proportions.
\_ You obviously don't know emarkp and his fellows.
\_ I'd be hesitant to call *any* president the worst in history.
Given Carter's ineptitude (not because he's liberal, just
because he's incompetent) he should be a little careful
throwing stones. -emarkp
\_ i don't think anyone can deal with oil embargo
like that gracefully. Further, may I ask, do you think
GW Bush incompetent?
\_ Oil embargo? The one in 73 when Carter wasn't in
office?
\_ *shrug* He followed Ford, whose defining moments were
pardoning Nixon and falling down stairs, and was followed
by Reagan, who proved that popularity has nothing to do
with being a good, let alone honest and effective, leader.
I'd say his glass house has fine foundations.
\_ Ford was actually quite athletic. Don't watch too
much SNL for your history lessons.
\_ As noted here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yun246
I didn't say he was Chevy Chase, I said it was one
of his defining moments. Read or perish.
\_ Not really. Carter's mis-handling of Iran changed the world in
ways Bush's mis-handling of Iraq can't compare to. Had Carter
shown strength instead of weakness it is possible and even quite
likely the concept of terrorism as we know it today wouldn't
even exist. If you're going to make historical claims you must
look at things from a historical perspective.
\_ Wow! Carter did NOT:
- Use torture
- Allow torture of POW's
- Imprison people without trial
- Render people to other countries for torture
- Lie to get the US into a war
- Erode our rights in the name of patriotism
- Allow rampant incompetence and corruption in his
Administration (except possibly HIMSELF if you
argue that his handling of IRAN was incompetent)
- Mishandle a war so badly that the US is failing
its objectives despite massive waste of national
treasure
- Alienate virtually the entire planet
- Allow a massive terrorist attack to occur on US
territory during his administration
- Allow the illegal outing of a CIA agent for
petty political retaliation
UM, WHY AREN'T WE IMPEACHING BUSH AGAIN? HE IS THE
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!
\_ Who are you, Charles Krauthammer? I don't think Iran was
involved in the whole Russia invades Afghanistan->We dump
billions of dollars and weapons on Afghanistan to ensnare
Russia in a War Of Pain->Russia leaves->Russia collapses->
\_ You really think Afghanistan was the root cause of the
collapse of the Soviet Union? After saying this it makes
the rest of what you say hard to take seriously.
\_ I think it helped. Wasnt main cause. Sure didnt hurt!
We forget about Afghanistan-> IT ALL COMES BACK
TD BITES US IN THE ASS-> chain of events. of maybe
Iran helped us channel a few guns to Afghanistan. How
ANY of this would have been changed if we had 'shown strength
\_ Who are you, Charles Krauthammer? I don't think Iran was involved
in the whole Russia invades Afghanistan->We dump billions of
dollars and weapons on Afghanistan to ensnare Russia in a War Of
Pain->Russia leaves->Russia collapses->We forget about Afghanistan->
IT ALL COMES BACK AND BITES US IN THE ASS-> chain of events.
ok maybe Iran helped us channel a few guns to Afghanistan.
How ANY of this would have been changed if we had 'shown strength
in Iran', I do not know. Russia would not have cared. A bunch
of dudes living in caves in Afghanistan would not have cared.
Please explain your Carter fantasy?
of dudes living in caves in Afghanistan would not have cared. Please
explain your Carter fantasy?
\_ Your historical perspective is the one that needs fixing.
\_ Thanks for adding nothing. Maybe next time you'll do
better than "you're wrong, nyah!" but I doubt it.
\_ Look further back: if the CIA hadn't instigated the overthrow
of the democratically elected President of Iran and the
reinstatement of the Shah, extremists like Khomeni would never
have gained widespread support in '79. No Khomeni, no
hostage situation, and no Islamic Revolution running a nuclear
Iran today. Sure, Carter can be blamed for funding Mujahadeen
in Afghanistan, but then you'd have to paint your Saint Ronnie
with the same brush; worse, people might remember that whole
Iran-Contra scandal, and then the hagiography really falls
apart.
\_ The CIA didn't take action in a vacuum. Leaving a pro-
Soviet/anit-US government in Iran may have been worse
than what we got. It is hard to say but I'll grant that
yes Khomeni didn't come out of no where. OTOH, his group
was just as likely to overthrow any non-Islamic government
so it may not have mattered. Reagan is not my saint
anymore than Carter is my satan. They are men. They were
Presidents. They did what they did. I examine their
actions in a historical context. I don't care beyond that.
I don't even see why you'd try to bring anyone else into
it. To defend Carter? Who cares? Boost Reagan? Who
cares? That is completely unimportant trivial political
agenda crap.
\_ The charges of Bolshevism in Iran were frankly baseless.
The UK was upset about Mossadegh nationalizing the AIOC
and convinced Eisenhower to sic the CIA on him. We fell
victim to the whole enemy-of-my-enemy mindset and worked
to reinstate the Shah. (Cf. eerie parallels with Iraq
and Chalabi). While Khomeni's group was anti-non-
Islamic govt., it's unlikely they'd have had the support
they had from ordinary Iranians if it hadn't been for
the brutal repression inflicted by the Shah, and thus
it's unlikely they could have actually overthrown a
democratically elected Iranian govt. descended from
Mossadegh and co.
\_ Terrorism existed long before Carter and will exist long
after we are all dead. It is naive and foolish to believe
after we are all dead. It is niave and foolish to believe
otherwise. Unless you are trying to say something else with
your statement "the concept of terrorism as we know it
today." Do you mean that Carter changed our conception
of terrorism?
\_ "As we know it today". Meaning that I really don't care
if some folks in whatever country get pissed off enough
to take some violent but overall minor action which has
always been going on, as opposed to becoming the new way
of lesser powers to wage war by heavily funding, arming,
training, and supporting people who have nothing better
to do full time than try to do as much damage as possible.
The key difference being that the minor separatist group
is unlikely to ever do much or go anywhere while a group
supported by a state has options and capabilites sufficient
to kill thousands and make real changes.
\_ Um, Al Qaida, 9/11, hijackers, airplanes. WTC.
\_ This is not really a new phenomenea. Just off the
\_ Yeah, exactly. Did you read the thread at all before
posting?
\_ This is not really a new phenomena. Just off the
top of my head I can think of the French supporting
the American Colonial seperatists and the English
\_ and Americans blew up a lot of british in the UK?
then supporting the Southern Confederates. Also,
\_ The SC blew up the French at home?
remember that WWI was started by a terrorist, when
\_ assassin, lone gunman, not part of a multinational
movement with national level support.
he shot Duke Ferdinand. Nations have always waged
proxy war by supporting seperatist groups inside
their rivals. You could argue that the widespread
availability of WMD has changed the equation of
assymetrical warfare, but it is pretty hard to lay
that at the feet of Carter.
\_ One of my favorite historical proxy conflicts was
Rome and Constantinople duking it out in ancient
Romania and Bulgaria. Romanians and Bulgarians are
*still* mad at each other, nearly 1200 years later.
\_ It is not hard to lay the concept of modern terrorism
at Carter's feet. Prior to Carter there were many
nationalist movements but no organised multinational
terrorists funded and supported by various nations
who had vague but large scale goals of "kill all the
people in the west" or some such like we see today.
\_ To "lay it at Carter's feet", you need to show
some underlying cause. "Because it happened
around the same time" is not enough. If
coincidence was evidence, you could say the
Beatles' breakup could be lain at Nixon's feet.
\_ "Those Liverpool cocksuckers...." -RMN
\_ The Jews and the Catholics are still mad at each
other after nearly 2000 years. |
| 2007/5/18-22 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46688 Activity:nil |
5/18 Dubya may reward Tony Blair's loyalty with World Bank post
http://tinyurl.com/29flyc (dailymail.co.uk)
\_ Predicted on the MOTD, May 16:
\_ Predicted on the MOTD:
http://csua.com/2007/05/16/#46662 |
| 2007/5/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46685 Activity:low 72%like:46709 |
5/18 Freepers, um, "respond" to immigration plan
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-messy-breakups/beloved-right+wing-message-board-demands-bush-impeachment-261439.php
\_ Is this the move that will drop his approval ratings to sub-Nixon
numbers?
\_ You're not thinking far enough ahead. All but one of the
2008 R candidates has come out against this bill. This will
fire up the base and enable them to rant and rave about how
THEY wouldn't have sold the country down the river for them
damn Mexicans if THEY had been President. This is a parting
gift from Dubya for em.
\_ Ezra Klein has a good take
http://csua.org/u/iq0 (prospect.org)
\_ It's still above congress' approval. However, "the base" that
will leave Bush has already done so. I can't imagine it'd go
lower.
\_ There are no Freepers on the motd. We used to have one and then we
had several fakes and now we fortunately have none. |
| 2007/5/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46674 Activity:nil |
5/17 Welcome to the new congress, as partisan as the old congress.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4046.html
\_ Until we have true political reform, what do you expect? |
| 2007/5/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46662 Activity:low |
5/16 Looks like Wolfowitz will resign. Who do you think Bush will
nominate as a "fuck you" replacement? Betting pool!
Douglas Feith:
Rick Santorum:
Alberto Gonzales:
Gordon Gekko:
Bernie Kerik:
\_ That would be a slap in the face to the reality-based community.
Bernie Kerik:
\-Shaha Riza ... "the circle is now complete,
am i am am the master, paul"
\_ Jenna Bush
\- make her the War Czar
\_ Don Imus
\_ John Bolton
\_ Tony Blair - he's freeish these days
\- on a serious note, the true sabotage candidate is RZOELLICK.
\_ Charles Krauthammer
\_ oh! me! me! I'll do it! |
| 2007/5/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46649 Activity:nil |
5/15 White House attempted to get Gonzalez to authorize illegal
spying program from his hospital bed:
http://www.csua.org/u/ipb
\_ You mean Ashcroft. |
| 2007/5/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46616 Activity:nil |
5/13 Say, speaking of irony, who was head of Public Policy at Chevron when
it was paying kickbacks to SADDAM under the UN Oil-for-Food program?
Way to go, Condie!
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10741.html
\_ What's so ironic about members of the Bush administration being
consistently corrupt?
\- http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43901
\_ Does it bother you at all the Pelosi is stuffing public cash
into her family's businesses? Or DiFi has been doing the same
for her husband's?
\_ Yes, yes, yes, when you have enough evidence, contact your
local Bush-appointed US Attorney who will almost certainly
leap to indict. Oh, wait, you have no evidence of wrong-
doing? Well, don't let that stop you making accusations! |
| 2007/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46612 Activity:nil 92%like:46611 |
5/13 A twist on the usual nonsense. Are you really a Republican or a
Democrat?
http://urltea.com/jnc (realclearpolitics.com)
\_ Given the plurality of our nation it makes very little sense to
associate one self as a "pure" Democrat or Republican. A smart
person is happy to give up faith and blind party loyalty to
adaptability and logic. A smart person does not associate oneself
to purely one party. A smart person is one who is independent. |
| 2007/5/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:46611 Activity:insanely high 92%like:46612 |
5/13 A twist on the usual nonsense. Are you really a Republican or a
Democrat?
http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/revive_the_republican_way_of_w.html
\_ Given the plurality of our nation it makes very little sense to
associate one self as a "pure" Democrat or Republican. A smart
person is happy to give up faith and blind party loyalty to
adaptability and logic. A smart person does not associate oneself
to purely one party. A smart person is one who is independent. |
| 2007/5/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46515 Activity:moderate |
5/2 Add "tampering with witnesses" and violating Federal law to
Gonzales' crimes. Do you really want to keep standing up for this guy?
http://www.csua.org/u/ilo
\_ "I pledge of allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America,
one nation, under the Christian God, with liberty and justice for
Republicans. Everyone else gets the shaft."
\_ "I pledge of allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of
America, one nation, under the Christian God, with liberty and
justice for Republicans. Everyone else gets the shaft."
\_ Who are you talking to?
\_ This has been an ongoing conversation on the motd. See:
http://csua.com/2007/03/12/#45944
http://csua.com/2007/03/23/#46065
Et al
\_ Yes, I know, but I haven't seen anyone on motd defending
Gonzales.
\_ "It happens all the time." "...standard enough politics
to not be worth looking into.. The Dems are playing
lame-o gotcha games with Bush..." "I guess I don't
understand why this is a story. Almost every
president fires all the attorneys and replaces them with
their own. W decides to just replace a few. Therefore W
is bad? huh?"
\_ No no no. Those are people saying that the firing of
US attorneys was okay, not people saying Gonzales
should stay. Once he came out saying "duh, I wasn't
involved" he became indefensible.
\_ He should have said, "their hiring was a political
decision, they serve at the whim of the President,
their firing was a political decision, tough". But
he was stupid and should get replaced now not
because he broke any laws or is unethical, etc, but
because he is stupid. |
| 2007/4/30-5/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46484 Activity:low |
4/30 It's nearly noon in DC. Why hasn't Bush vetoed the bill yet?
\_ They're delivering it tomorrow. 4th anniversary of "Major
combat operations in Iraq have ended" speech.
\_ 'cause he ain't woke up yet?
\_ Damn you, O'Doul's!
\_ I keep wondering what would happen if W just signed it with a
"signing statement" saying congress has no power to direct
troop assignments, and he'll assign the tropps as he sees fit to
protect american interests. |
| 2007/4/27-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46463 Activity:low |
4/27 "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars
just trying to catch one person." -Romney on Osama Bin Laden
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/26/politics/p131443D20.DTL&type=politics
Buried deep in AP story, media reaction nil. Wonder what would have
happened if a Democratic candidate had said this...
\_ Romney stands no chance anyways. Only WASP males get elected
Kennedy being the only exception, but he cheated to get that
\_ Kennedy cheated? Oh, spin us a tale, please. This has gotta be
good.
\_ This is part of the Neocon lexicon: it is okay that Bush
cheated because Kennedy did too. If you ask them to explain,
they always say that dead people voted in Illinois. If you
point out that Kennedy would have won without Illinois,
they are rendered mute.
\_ Hardly. Was watergate ok because Nixon would have won
without spying on the Dems? The claim that a gross
immoral act is unimportant if it does not affect the
outcome is so ridiculous, that I can not believe you
actually think that.
Also neocon does not mean "every person I disagree
with."
\_ Indeed. PP has his moral reasoning in a knot. The
proper point is "what was the evidence?" The Karl
Rove "There's voter fraud in them thar hills" line
that underlies the US Atty scandal is another of these
web-weavings. See also, Foster, Vince, Murder of. |
| 2007/4/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46460 Activity:nil |
4/26 Dubya finally embraces his role as Village Idiot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLYyMJ6XY6U
\_ He's a better dancer than Gore that's for sure. |
| 2007/4/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46445 Activity:kinda low |
4/24 How Nigerian scammers provided the "proof" Bush needed
to justify the war he wanted so badly:
http://www.csua.org/u/ik0
\_ Like the lawyer said at the end of Robocop 2: "Don't worry Sir, I'll
find the proof, whether it exists or not"
\_ this is the part I don't understand. Democrat could of just cut the
funding and blame Bush for *EVERYTHING* But I don't see they are
doing that right now.
\_ It's politics. The democrats are walking a fine line between the
far left anti-war folks who put them in power last fall and the
reality of knowing that if we bailed on Iraq right now or any
time soon, the current situation will look like a trip to
disneyland. And they'll get blamed for not 'staying the course'.
What's going on now is a low to low-moderate scale 'event' where
you have a few thousand folks planting bombs or doing hit n run
attacks with mortars or sometimes a suicide attack. They are not
doing enough to topple the US propped government which slowly
grows stronger each day, but no one is doing that much to really
stop them. 'Stay the course' will eventually result in a stable
(for the region) mostly democratic government but only while
we're there. It will be a very weak government for many years.
Leaving will be an anarchic bloodbath. Cutting funds will lead
directly to that bloodbath and the dems don't want to get
blamed for that.
\_ the "far left anti-war folks" AKA 60-70% of Americans
\_ Most Americans could care less what happens in Iraq, as long
as no more taxpayers dollars are spent there. |
| 2007/4/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:46410 Activity:moderate |
4/22 Blue Angle crashed, setting homes and vehicles on fire.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070422/ap_on_re_us/blue_angel_crash
Glad that it didn't crash in SF. What's the point of maintaining an
expensive team and performing these stunts in populated areas
endangering people on the ground?
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=45491
Recruitment, pride, morale, feeling of security, and tradition.
Similar to why the Red army of 1 million marching down
Red Square.
\_ Jingoism.
\_ As opposed to the full military? I'm glad you think so.
With citizens like these, who needs enemies?
\_ The mission of the Blue Angels is to serve as a recruiting tool.
Every time they put on a show, there are some people in the crowd
who think "wow, I want to be a fighter pilot". That's the point.
\_ And here I thought that the mission of the Blue Angels was a
yearly "show of force" to any punk that might be getting ideas.
\_ Is it cost-effective? How many actually join the air-force
successfully because of Blue Angel? Thanks.
\_ I don't know and am not going to hazard a guess. This is
their mission, which they're quite open about (it's right
there on their web site). I was merely answering the question,
not the implied criticism. By the way, the Blue Angels are
part of the Navy, not the Air Force.
\_ You all forgot the part where you say, "RIP" for the dead Blue
Angel and a moment of thought for the 8 people injured on the
ground before you dove in to attacking the wasteful recruiting
policies of the BUSHCO military/industrial complex/HALLIBURTON!
\_ Blue Angels started under a Democrat admin, and continued
with the full support of many Demo admins. The last Navy man
in office was Carter.
\_ We all knew that. If the Republicans started it, it would
have been called the Red Angels.
\_ Don't tell *me* that. Tell it to the we-hate-the-blue-angels
they're-such-a-waste types above. -RIP guy |
| 2007/4/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46400 Activity:nil |
4/20 2003 - Mission Accomplished
2004 - We Have Turned A Corner
2005 - Insurgency In Its Last Throes
2006 - Leaving Iraq Now Would Be A Disaster
2007 - The Direction Of The Fight Is Beginning To Shift
2008 - ???
\_ 2008 - Halliburton profit down 48%. CEO resigns.
\_ Don't bet on that one.
2009 - The war was lost under the a Democrat administration! |
| 2007/4/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46328 Activity:low |
4/17 President Bush's approval rating goes up after the school rampage.
Why? I don't understand it.
\_ Americans are conditioned to glorify violence. The more violence,
the more approval. See?
\_ Americans are more united during crisis.
\_ The President's popularity goes up in months when he manages to get
less Americans in Iraq than are killed in school shootings.
less Americans killed in Iraq than are killed in school shootings.
\_ 1 right answer out of 3 is pretty good for the motd these days. |
| 2007/4/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46289 Activity:nil |
4/13 Another Bush effort to trample our civil liberties:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/26y9nb |
| 2007/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46282 Activity:nil 66%like:46265 |
4/11 BYU students protest...Cheney?
http://urltea.com/57v (nytimes.com)
\_ You know you may have gone too far when even the people you can
count on want nothing to do with you. |
| 2007/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46281 Activity:nil |
4/12 Good vs. Evil Foos Ball:
http://www.notcot.com/archives/2007/04/good_vs_evil_fo.php
\_ I want a conservative vs. liberal foos ball. On one side
you have GWB, Cheney, Sam Walton, Kenneth Lay, etc. On the
other side, you have Saddam, Kim Jung the Second, hippies,
gays & lesbians, etc.
\_ Evil will always triump over good because good is dumb! |
| 2007/4/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46278 Activity:nil |
4/12 Free advice to the Bush Administration: Turn whatever machine you have
for passing on talking points toward getting your people to stop f-ing
up, at least for a while; there are too many fish in the shooting
bucket already:
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1115102767&hl=en (Wolfowitz, girlfriend)
\- FT call on Wolfowitz to resign. Let's hope others chime in.
\- meanwhile, back at the DoJ:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1610738,00.html
(although these guys were never the biggest fans of ALBERTO.
although i cant imagine they are going to get somebody hugely
more appealing now, unless it is a senator) |
| 2007/4/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46270 Activity:nil |
4/12 The Bush Administration's amazing propensity for "losing" important
documents:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/12/lost_documents/index.html |
| 2007/4/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46265 Activity:nil 66%like:46282 |
4/11 BYU students protest...Cheney?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/11byu.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
\_ You know you may have gone too far when even the people you can
count on want nothing to do with you. |
| 2007/4/11-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46257 Activity:nil |
4/11 Nobody wants to be the Czar:
http://www.csua.org/u/ifz
\_ that's weird, I thought all these neo-Cons would flock to the
position by now.
\_ Maybe they'd have better luck if they changed the title to Warlord.
\_ I do. How much does it pay? Can I telecommute?
\_ Everyone else has been phoning it in, so why not?
\- The press and public should just start referring to
CHENEY as the WAR CZAR.. |
| 2007/4/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46253 Activity:nil |
4/10 So when Bush dressed up in the flight suit to give his
Mission Accomplished speech, why did these guys dress up too?
http://www.csua.org/u/ify
\_ I guess they weren't "dressing up", but those are the standard
uniforms for the sailors when acting as side boys.
\_ "In the Navy .... " |
| 2007/4/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46234 Activity:nil |
4/8 http://www.slate.com/id/2163601 http://tinyurl.com/37cerl The gamble patrons make is that it's worth rewarding unqualified loyalists because they will be hidden in the bureaucracy and never become important enough to draw attention. But the Bush administration has lost this wager more times than is becoming ... \_ "...Attorney General Alberto Gonzales bad-mouthed his former employees. In so doing, Gonzales severely undercut their employment prospects and all but forced them to fight back." Unless you believe those USAs that testified have perjured themselves, this article is WAY behind the times. Ah, nevermind. The article was written 4/1. Even then, he'd have been behind the times. \_ It is hard to tell who was using who. |
| 2007/4/2-3 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46176 Activity:nil |
4/2 USSC denies cert. in Gitmo habeas appeals; lets D.C. Cir. get
first crack.
http://urltea.com/3ay (scotusblog.com) |
| 2007/4/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46170 Activity:moderate |
4/1 Senior Republican strategist loses faith on Bush after son is
ordered to deploy to Iraq:
"If the American public says they're done with something, our leaders
have to understand what they want," Dowd said. "They're saying, 'Get
out of Iraq."'
http://www.csua.org/u/icy
\_ More like, "political opportunist who follows blowing winds decides
he can make more money buttering the other side of his bread for
the next few years". The guy started as a Democrat when that's who
was in power, then switched when he saw money in being a Republican
and now sees the wind shifting the other way. I don't see what his
son has to do with it. When Rove switches parties it'll be news.
\_ When is Rove's first born deploying to Iraq?
\_ As soon as he sees Rove rapping.
\_ Does Rove even have kids? Is he or has he ever been married?
\_ He has special drawing rights on Bush's Comfort Women
[condie, harriet, karen etc] as well as 20-30 somethings
with no qulaitification except marginal reglious educations
and zealotry/loyalty.
\_ Married and divorced. One son, 20, just the right age
to sign up for his country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
\_ After Bush, if Rove discovers the equivalent of Evangelicals == Reelection
Forever, he would switch parties faster than you can say Deep Fried Dollars
\_ After Bush, if Rove discovers the equivalent of
Evangelicals == Reelection Forever, he would switch
parties faster than you can say Deep Fried Dollars
\_ And Rove switching parties would be news. |
| 2007/3/30-4/3 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46155 Activity:nil |
3/30 "Bush Fish and Wildlife Service appointee not only sends internal
government reports to industry lobbyists but also to online gaming
'virtual friend' for unbiased second opinion."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002929.php
\_ Worth reading for the WoW reference alone... |
| 2007/3/29-4/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46143 Activity:nil |
3/29 John Dean on executive privilege and the "unitary executive" theory:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070323.html |
| 2007/3/29-4/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46141 Activity:nil |
3/28 "Bush's long history of tilting Justice"
by Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in
the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He
now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
\_ This man is a hypocrite because not even once did he mention
Bill Clinton's c*ck. |
| 2007/3/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46125 Activity:nil |
3/27 http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/27/iraq.torturesuit/index.html BAHAHAHA you Liburals lost! \_ "Despite the horrifying torture allegations," wrote U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan in a 58-page opinion, "the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue a declaratory judgment against the defendants." 2/10 on the troll scale. As a layman it's clear that this case was brought to make a statement, and would be thrown out for lack of standing. I assure you the lawyers for the plaintiffs were well aware of this. And 'liburals', seriously, are you twelve? -dans |
| 2007/3/27-31 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46114 Activity:nil |
3/27 Governor of Mass has 9/11 truther webpage:
http://devalpatrick.com/issue.php?issue_id=7579012
\_ And did you hear? MoveOn had a short film calling Bush Hitler!
\_ I just read most of this, I think this is a community
website that lets anyone who has registered to post
an article, so it's not the Governor or his staff posting
this.
\_ If your beliefs can be simplified to the organizations you
belong to or associate with, then that says a lot about your
intellectual inflexibility and overall lack of.
\_ Go to http://freerepublic.com
Now please go away.
\_ Don't let facts get in the way of a good slander. |
| 2007/3/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46112 Activity:nil |
3/26 Bush's kangaroo court gets its first "conviction":
http://www.csua.org/u/ibj (SF Gate)
\_ "Under the evolving rules of the Military Commissions Act
passed by Congress in September..." i.e. after five years
we're still making it up as we go along.
"civilian criminal defense lawyer Joshua Dratel was barred
from participating because he refused to promise to adhere
to procedural rules that have yet to be defined.
Kohlmann also declined to approve a second civilian lawyer,
Rebecca Snyder, on the grounds that commission rules allow
civilians only if their representation incurs no expense to
the U.S. government. Snyder is a Pentagon employee." Awesome. |
| 2007/3/26-28 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Academia/GradSchool] UID:46097 Activity:nil |
3/26 Alberto Gonzalez just keeps on lying. Now I personally
think that NO ONE should be surprised that the bush administration
has been firing US Attorneys for politically motivated
reasons. It's just the sort of thing they would do. Yawn.
I wonder why Gonzalez gives new and exciting reasons for
it all happening every day. His masters should tell him
to quit talking to the press. |
| 2007/3/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46076 Activity:nil |
3/23 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805580/posts "a 'dramatic shift' in political party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, 50% of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, whereas 35% aligned with Republicans." Do we need to reweight polls with the updated party identification #'s? \_ Don't forget the I's, which are growing quite a bit. |
| 2007/3/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46065 Activity:kinda low |
3/23 L.A. Times leans right. Notice how the top 3/4's of the story spews so
much irrelevant chaff, focusing on how Reagan/Clinton/Dubya fired
most/all attorneys when they came to power. Only toward the end do you
get: "When you have a transition between presidents - especially
presidents of different parties - a U.S. attorney anticipates that you
will be replaced ... the unwritten, No. 1 rule ... is that once you
become a U.S. attorney you have to leave politics at the door."
http://tinyurl.com/2na94k (latimes.com)
The perversion of truth -- especially the willful, disingenuousness
attitude that permeates the Republican Party today -- disgusts me.
\_ I think most politicians are like that. Except guys like Nader
who cannot get elected.
\_ Seriously, do you really believe one party is all beauty and nice
and the other the sole benefactor of all evil? They are the same.
The Democratic party is absolutely in no way shape or form ethically
or morally superior to the Republicans. You have one party with two
names. And btw, how dare the LAT actually tell it's readers that
all USAGs expect to be replaced? Let's not tell anyone anything
that might soften the political damage to the evil Bush even if it
is the truth and relevant to the story.
\_ Answering your first two lines: No. I think both parties are
guilty of stupidity and petty politics designed to keep them-
selves in power; this is the nature of our current political
system. That said, the Bush Admin has done so in a much more
blatant and egregious manner. I expect corruption, but I would
prefer some decorum and a modicum of circumspection along the
way. The current firings are simply insulting. -!op
\_ You have Democratics currently in office in positions of
great power, even holding Chair positions who were caught red
handed in bribery scandals, in land scams, in having $90k in
cash stuffed in their fridge, using the IRS to punish
political enemies, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Don't come on here
and try to tell me the Bush Admin is more blatant and
egreious about anything. I don't find bribery, theft, fraud,
and fridge stuffing to be less corrupt or more circumspec or
providing more decorum than what the Bush admin has done with
the USAG firings. In comparison the USAG thing is trivial BS
and I find it ridiculous and insulting anyone cares *at all*
about this compared with everything else going on in *both*
parties. Do any of the things I mentioned about the Dems
upset you at all? Or would they only be worth mentioning if
they were Republicans? And hey, how about stuffing that Iraq
funding bill with Democratic pork? That's cool, too, huh?
Take off the blinders.
\_ What part of "both parties of are guilty of stupidity and
petty politics" and "I expect corruption" didn't you get?
Jail anyone, Dem, GOP, or Ind. who's engaged in corruption,
bribery, or abuse of power. How can your outrage over
Dem corruption not spill over into the arena of egregious
abuse of the US Atty system to punish political enemies?
Before pointing out the mote in my eye, howzabout dealing
with the beam in your own?
\_ The part where you find firing a few USAG worse than
stuffing $90k in your fridge *and* *still* *keeping*
*your* *seat*. I'd like to see a URL that says why
they were fired and not from a NYT op/ed piece. Show
me a reliable source that says they were fired for not
punishing political enemies. You continue to weigh
(R) ethical violations much heavier than (D) ethical
violations even when the actual events don't match up
like that. Example: Which is worse ethically? Canning
a few prosecutors who server at your whim and aren't on
the same political page (and understood the deal when
they accepted the job) or stuffing bribe money in your
fridge as an elected representative of the American
people at the highest levels of government? Go ahead
and say the fridge stuffing isn't as bad and we can stop
right there. The firing is just hard ball politics and
although unfortunate for the guys sacked, TS. It's a
political event. The fridge stuffing is a felony. How
is that investigation going, huh? It's not. The guy
will be in office until he retires 'honorably'. *That*
is truly sickening.
\_ For the love of G_d, get this: They're both bad.
\_ of what now?
\_ "God". for some level of
orthodoxy among jews, to
write the name of god on
anything that might be erased,
destroyed, damaged, etc, is
profane.
\_ But God is not the name of
god.
\_ ...than to open it and
remove all doubt.
\_ KNEEL BEFORE YAHWEH
\_ For the love of YAHWEH, get this: They're both bad.
I appreciate that you're frustrated that the fridge
investigation has faltered (and yes, it should be
investigated fully), but it's not being held up
just because Congress is investigating Presidential
abuse of power (i.e., firing USAtys for not pursuing
political opponents). If fridge-stuffer is guilty of
accepting bribes, jail his ass. If AG fired the US
Atys because they wouldn't persecute the opposition,
can his ass. Also, didn't the FBI say they had
Jefferson on video taking a bribe? Then they should
arrest him for it! Right now, there appears to be
more evidence of dickery in the White House than in
Jefferson's fridge!
\_ I guess I don't understand why this is a story. Almost every
president fires all the attorneys and replaces them with their own.
W decides to just replace a few. Therefore W is bad? huh?
\_ He decided to replace a few on the basis that they weren't using
their power to hound and harrass the political opposition. An
across-the-board replace wouldn't have raised eyebrows;
demanding loyalty oaths to The Leader is another thing entirely.
\_ Why do you think they normally fire them all? To get loyal
ones. Duh. I see no difference.
\- a company can close a plant and open one a town over.
but they still cant fire all the black people.
you are allowed to hire who you want. you can
fire them for incompetence or if they are not
"getting with the program" but the program cannot
be political prosecutions. a second issue is the
be partisan prosecutions. a second issue is the
"cover up". at this point there is probably nobody
guilty of a legal crime in the executive branch, but
certainly people can be tried in the court of
public opinion for being mendacious, unprincipled
sacks of shit. it is reasonable to hypotheteize
"ALBERTO has made the DOJ a wing of the white
house" ... i think people are free to hold that
against BUSHCO just like they are free to hold
CLINTON being a serial adulterer against him.
much of this turns on the relatively simple distinction
between political and partisan. the doj can have
poltical priorities like going after sodomites and
drug fiends instead of antitrust, but it cannot be
a partisan enforcer like a party whip of chairman who
withhold appointments or $$$ from you. this is not
an especially subtle argument.
\_ I guess you're welcome to hold it against him if you
like. Seems pointless to me, there are pleanty of
actual things he's done wrong to hold against him.
Your "firing the black people" analogy is obviously a
completely false analogy. But, still. You think it's
morally superior to fire everybody, then only rehire
white people? I would argue the opposite. If you only
want to get rid of a few people, don't make everyone go
through the unemployment ringer.
\- you cant hire "only white people". yes, i commented
early on it is odd congress is fixating on this
when there is katerina incompetence, iraq
incompetence, not catching osama, the plutocrati-
zation of society etc. at least w.r.t. to the
iraq war, congress feels they have "clean hands"
here. and of course the dems are in agenda control.
you're also caught in the "93 > 8" mentality.
\_ No crap. You also can't only fire black people.
That's why this is a false analogy, as I noted.
Also: So, 93 < 8? Must be that "new math." :)
\_ Obtuse little fucker.
\_ I don't think it's morally superior. It think it's
Better Form. It implies an understanding that the
appearance of propriety, while not sufficient in
and of itself, is necessary.
\_ Another way to say this is "The first is easier
to prove." I can't argue with that, I just don't
see any moral difference.
\_ Out of curiousity, so you see a moral diff
between this and, oh, using postage to send
mail out as Socks the Cat?
\_ Had to look that one up. Yes, there's a
difference. I can't see anything wrong at
all with using postage to send out mail as
"Socks the Cat."
\_ Okay, then what about the christmas card
list "scandal". That warranted 140 hours
of testimony UNDER OATH to determine that
nothing improper happened. Is there a
moral difference between that possible
impropriety and this?
\_ Seesh, are you just going down a list
a dem talking points, trying to prove
I'm some rep stooge? I can't even
find this story, just dem blogs
whining about it. I never said the
lame-o Rep attempts to get Clinton
were ok, so get off it.
\_ Are you saying, though, that the
firing of the USAs was proper, and
therefore should not be looked
into? That's what you seem to be
saying with "I guess I don't
understand why this is a story."
I think you may be too short for
this discussion.
\_ Sheesh, sorry I'm too young for
you. Somehow pulling out old D
talking points I don't recall
that then saying I'm too "short
for this discussion" seems
amazingly lame though. I'm done.
\_ I'm saying the firing was
standard enough politics to not be worth looking into. I don't like
hardball politics to begin with, so I'm not going to say firings were
'proper,' but they aren't unusual. The Dems are playing lame-o gotcha
games with Bush, just like the Rs did with Clinton. Niether case was
worth the time and money.
\- do you know what united states attorneys do?
\_ So do you prefer the last 6 years of 0 oversight out of congress?
What you call "gotcha games" is what most people call "Congress's
job".
\_ They were unusual _because_ they were firings singling out very
specific individuals on the basis of "performance issues" after all
8 received good evaluations. The LCD here is suspect. And then
they're unusual in that the AG lied in his testimony on the subject.
\_ We've come full circle, just read from the top for replies to
these posts.
\_ I think that the difference in morality
between two different acts of corruption is
a complicated matter of ethics that has been
wrestled with for thousands of years.
\_ Let's see if the American people agree with you or not. I think
the Democrats obviously think they have a winner here or they
would not be pushing so hard. |
| 2007/3/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46062 Activity:nil |
3/22 Pew Research: Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007
POLITICAL LANDSCAPE MORE FAVORABLE TO DEMOCRATS
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pew23mar23,1,7389496.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf |
| 2007/3/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46040 Activity:low |
3/21 Once again Dems are pussies. Gore first got the Senate to waive the 48
hour rule (receiving written copy of testimony 48 hrs before hearing)
for a 24 hour rule. Then he failed to submit his testimony until this
morning, a few hours before the hearing. Oh, and then the Dems got it
hours before the Repubs.
http://csua.org/u/ia3 (cnsnews.com)
\_ At a time when the President is vowing to fight congressional
subpoenas up to the ussc, it's funny that you hold this up as
"news".
\_ Wow, if only I had a forum for my slanted view of the world; wait,
that's what the Internet is for! And if I call it News, it must be
so!
\_ So are you saying that Gore *did* submit his testimony before
this morning? -op
\_ I'm saying that a gossipy slagfest is not a news source.
\_ So is senate.gov good enough for you? http://csua.org/u/ia4
\_ What you mean is, is Senator Inhofe's blog good enough for
me? And even more to the point, is a staffer on Inhofe's
blog good enough for me? And the answer is, not without
further corroboration. But WAIT! It gets better: Marc
Morano, the source in question, was "previously known as
Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and
producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
Please, if you're going to post stooges, at least include
Larry, Moe, and Curly.
\_ I'm fascinated by the refusal to accept reporting of fact
simpy because of the name Limbaugh. I can understand your
not accepting his analysis perhaps, but the basic facts?
-emarkp
\_ Much like we trusted the Bush Administration's report
on the "fact" that Saddam had WMD? I can't fault this
guy for not accepting some politico's "facts". --PeterM
\_ Wow, this is such a red herring.
\_ You do know the difference between an intelligence
report and reporting a fact that has occurred in
front of witnesses and will be a part of the senate
record, right? -emarkp
\_ There's reporting of fact and there's stirring shit
up. If the source is a known shit-stirrer, anything
the source reports is automatically suspect, esp. if
it is, on its face, true, because there's plenty of
reason to believe that it's only being reported to
stir up more shit. If I report that the sky is
blue, that's true; if I report that the sky is blue
despite claims that Global Warming is going to
result in smog smog smog, that is also true, but
it's presented in a way that makes GW seem like a
myth. Your professional shit-stirrers, like Mark
Morano, do this for a living, and sifting nuggets of
truth from the shit that they're stirring up is
about as reqarding as actually sifting through
feces for gold.
\_ http://csua.org/u/ia6
LA Times quotes Joe Barton as saying the they
didn't receive his written testimony more than 2
hours before the hearing. Is that a lefty source
enough for you? -emarkp
\_ "lefty enough" is the level of immaturity that
I expect from shit-stirrers, emarkp, not you.
\_ When a dog craps on the floor, you rub his
nose in it. Same for these nutjobs. -emarkp
\_ The only nutjobs I see here are the ones
that think a slagfest from a propaganda
hack constitutes a real news source.
\_ Oh, so a senator's office stating
what's happening in the Senate TODAY
is a nutjob? Go back to your hole
anonymous nutjob. -emarkp
\_ If you're trying to defend someone
from being called a nutjob, Inhofe
is just about the most difficult
defendant.
\_ So you don't like his politics
so he's a nutjob and what his
boy reported on his Senate
blog is suspect? Tin foil and
blinders. Better than plastic.
I'm going to be rich.
\_ Read who posted the account. It's
Mark Morano, a hack. That Inhofe
is letting him use his blog is
simply shameful. --erikred
\- how could you be unaware
inhofe is shameless.
\_ The irony of my shame in
needing to be reminded of
this is not lost on me,
Partha. --erikred
\_ LA Times leans right, now, when it used to
be a neutral reporter of facts, which is
why I cancelled my subscription last year.
\_ Haha. I don't know about now, but 8 years
ago the LA Times could out do the Cron on
lefty bias. I assume what you mean is,
"The LA times used to agree with me."
\_ Perhaps this is a confusion of Pro-
Israel (as LAT seems to be) with either
the right or the left.
\_ Unless reported by dailykos, http://moveon.org, or some other
neutral and unbiased site, it doesn't count. Having to
respond to factual statements is annoying. It is much
easier to just say 'neener! it never happened because
your source is biased! nyah!'
\_ Desperate attempt to change the subject. Won't work, America
has woken up to Roveian tactics and is mostly immune right now. |
| 2007/3/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46038 Activity:nil |
3/20 Tom DeLay, moral center of the Republican Party:
http://www.csua.org/u/ia2 |
| 2007/3/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46033 Activity:low |
3/20 I hope if I ever get into legal trouble, I can require that
I NOT be questioned under oath and that NO transcripts
of what I say are taken! Go Team Bush!
\_ Why does everything have to be political?
\_ What do you mean by that? How is GW Bush's
administration officials requiring that they meet
privately, not be put under oath, and no transcript
recorded before they will talk to Congress 'political'?
I guess I got trolled. Good job.
\_ Why do liburals use sarcasm much more than conservatives?
Does it make you smarter?
\_ on the MOTD, conservative trollers use sarcasm way more than
liberals. -tom
\_ Are all conservatives trolls? Are all liberals smart, well
spoken, and informed?
\_ No, and no. -tom
\_ An example of non-troll conservative and stupid
liberal, please.
\_ anonymous coward and anonymous coward. -tom
\_ Quack!
\_ Sarcasm is nicer than calling everyone faggots
and terror lovers.
\_ When did Coulter get a soda account? When she does, you
can chat with her about it. No one here called anyone
any such things. Sarcasm like yours is no more intelligent
or useful than school yard chanting.
\_ Fine. I will take boring pills. I displeases me
mightily the the GW Bush administration basically
wears tshirts that say 'LOL IM GONNA LIE TO YOU
WHEN I TESTIFY LOL'. HAPPY?
\_ You've heard of that whole separation of powers
thing, yes? They don't have to testify at all
at any time under any circumstances. If there
was a felony committed then it would be in a legal
court, not a political one. Am I happy? Yes. My
happiness has nothing to do either way with the
motd, though. Thanks for asking.
\_ So you think congress can't subpoena the executive
branch? You think executive privilege gives the
WH and its staffers carte blanche vis a vis
subpoena? Read up on Nixon.
\_ No. No. Know it, thanks. The entire episode
is just bizarre. The President has the power,
the right, and the authority to dismiss civil
servants in the Executive at his whim. If the
admin wasn't full of such spineless wimps,
they'd not only be fighting this but making
political points on it.
\_ But firing the attorneys in order to
obstruct justice is illegal. You can't
interfere in law enforcement, even if you
are the executive branch. Didn't Nixon
get in trouble for something similar?
\- "saturday night massacre" ... also
starring ROBERT BORK.
\_ 'the white house' denies having any hand
in firing the attorneys. too bad they're
about to appear to be big fat liars.
\_ So you don't see any matter to this odor
of Obstruction of Justice around the whole
game? Yes, they have right to change their
staff. But they went a step further. They
used a litmus test (loyal Bushies). They
lied about their reasons for dismissal.
And the correspondence over discussions of
their firings are lining up quite shockingly
with indictments and new investigations of
Cunningham, Hunter, Lewis, Foggo, et al.
And most recently, possible links between
Cunningham, Wilkes, and Cheney. The AG is
not (supposed to be) the President's tool.
\_ ^require^offer |
| 2007/3/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46004 Activity:moderate |
3/16 So who do you believe, Plame and the CIA or Novak and Cheney?
Let's put to rest the canard that Plame was not undercover when
Novak published her identity:
http://www.csua.org/u/i9g
\_ I automatically begin to ignore any admin official who points out
'plame was in the society papers' and 'everyone knew what she
looks like'. The point of Plame's 'cover' was that she out
and about and managing business entities in other countries
that needed a figurehead for a CIA front business. The CIA
spends years building up this business to provide cover for
their other activities. If you blow away the cover of the
people running it, all of that years of effort is down the
drain, and any foreign nationals involved with it are probably
on a hit list somewhere now. Thanks Cheney. If he had
just calmed down and realized no one analyzes NYTimes editorials
as much as he does, none of this would have happened.
\_ Trust No One. -fmulder
\_ Of course, this link only shows that she claims she was covert.
\- can you imagine if the dems had outed her and started claiming
"she wasnt really covert". you all know the repply would be
"oh the treasonous dems now are supposed to decide who is
covert and who isnt? see we told you they were soft on defense
and wont support out intelligence profressionals dedicating
their lives for the country. the democrats are going to get
your children killed in this age of brown terror."
\_ http://tinyurl.com/369ert (crooksandliars.com)
Clear logic on why she was covert
\_ Of course that clear logic points right back to her own
statements.
\_ And the CIA's statements. Whose job it is to know this
stuff. |
| 2007/3/15-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45985 Activity:nil |
3/15 What will Dubya do? Leahy has subpoenaed the fired U.S. attorneys, and
they will probably provide sworn testimony. Months earlier Dubya's
ppl told them he'd help them "land on their feet" if they didn't fight
their firing. You probably have some attorneys who already have found
new jobs w/o Dubya's help, and some still looking. You really just
want to prevent any of these guys from testifying at all. One approach
that was tried was to ask for them to come in voluntarily, providing
non-sworn testimony, but this was obvious and flaccid.
... The default approach would be to just let it happen, then spin it
to death.
\- does anybody want to bet on ALBERTO RESIGN?
\_ already are - tradesports shows 55% for March resignation
\- i meant on sloda.
\_ How does this tradesports thing work? Can I make cash moneys
by becoming famous and then betting on myself to do things?
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=45235
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/i9h (LA Times)
"no leading Republican in Congress has stepped forward to defend
Gonzales"
Torquemada is toast. |
| 2007/3/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45963 Activity:kinda low |
3/14 torture: eh
extraordinary rendition: whatever
illegal wiretapping: yawn
crazy executive signing statements saying 'i dont have to
follow your laws, Congress, piss off': no one cares
HR problems in the Justice Department: THIS WILL NOT STAND
\_ There is one huge differance. There is a democratic congress
and senate willing to actually investigate the issue. That
makes it a lot harder for the administration to wave their arms
about and say "there is nothing to see here".
\- i suspect the OP isnt mystified about the outcome
but is making a comment about priorities. we understand
why monica lewinsky looms larger than say the rwandan
genocide, but it's worth reflecting on that.
\- i actually had a pretty similar reaction to what the OP is
saying. over dinner maybe a week and a half ago when somebody
was gleeful about this being another "front" for BUSHCO to
deal with, I was wondering "well this might also crowd out
the actual really horrible stuff with wide, wide impact ...
like say the iraqi contracting scandals and shutting down any
auditing ... which has cost billions." now i guess i'm glad
i didnt say that. although another way to look at it might be
anything to keep the heat on to make bombing iran less likely.
btw, let's add to the list above: hurricane katerina, osama got
away, taliban is back, and above anything else, there may be
500,000 iraqis who are "dead men walking". re: comment below ...
nobody is trivializing it, but it is smaller than "the loss of
american credibility for a generation". i'd love it if it caused
ALBERTO to get canned, and then we can start scrutinizing
cheney again ... in a sense we've taken our eye off the bald-
headed satan.
\_ Your attempt to trivialize political corruption has been found
wanting. |
| 2007/3/13-15 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45961 Activity:nil |
3/13 More on the BUSHCO US attorney fiasco:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/b76k6 (boston.com) |
| 2007/3/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45944 Activity:high |
3/12 Alberto Gonzales and Pete Domenici, buh-bye
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012983.php
\_ Hi there. So I guess every administration fires
\_ It's not just the firing, it's the (ab)use of the Patriot Act
to replace the fired attorneys with Bush-cronies without
Senate approval. But of course, no one in our government
ever abuses the Patriot Act!
\_ Why isn't the attorney general's office busy rooting out
corporate crime, fraud, criminal conspiracies, government
contractor fraud? Are they really that petty that they would
devote a lot of time over firing a few federal prosecutors
who weren't sufficiently anti-Democrat? Maybe this is better
than Ashcroft's obsession with prosecuting porn, but I'm not
sure. I like how they originally thought for a brief amount
of time that they should fire EVERY SINGLE federal prosecutor
and replace them with Bush friendly appointees. See that
last line again. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Funny stuff.
\_ It's not just the firing, it's the (ab)use of the Patriot Act
to replace the fired attorneys with Bush-cronies without
Senate approval. But of course, no one in our government
ever abuses the Patriot Act!
\_ Why not post a news article instead of some wonk's blog?
\_ If you don't know who Josh Micah Marshall is, just say so.
If you don't like his blog, read him in The Hill.
\_ HERE. HAPPY?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yo9knb (news.yahoo.com)
\_ I'm not the op, but what's wrong with posting a link to a blog?
It's also worth noting that TPM isn't just some random blog, it
has a readership that rivals some newspapers. TPM is clearly a
liberal source, but, last I checked, having a variety of
viewpoints strengthens debate. Why not post a link to a
conservative source on the story? I took a look on little
green footballs but he doesn't appear to have a post about this.
-dans
\_ I actually just found the blog post hard to read. He assumes
you've read his previous stuff. That doesn't mean I want a
rightie blog.
\_ That's an interesting point. -dans
\_ Oh look, dans thinks something is interesting!
The motd isn't about what you think is interesting. -tom
\_ Yes, it's about tom being an asshole with NPD.
Well, that or people impersonating tom being an
asshole with NPD, which is equally amusing. -dans
\_ Sorry to interupt, but what's NPD?
\_ Narcissistic Personality Disorder -dans
\_ Narcissistic Personality Dansorder -dans
\_ It is pretty funny to watch you two
arguing over who is the biggest jerk...
\_ I serve at the pleasure of the motd.
Also, I am recovering from NPD, which
is why I am able to admit I have it
unlike Tom and also why I would like to
help him. Tom, the first step is
admitting you have a problem.
-dans
\_ dans, I want you to stop talking
about me in the motd immediately.
-tom
\_ I can't believe tom actually wrote
this since it was tom (or someone
who signed as tom) who stepped in
to this thread slamming dans in
the first place only a few lines
up. That would be shockingly
hypocritical.
\_ I'm reasonably certain it was
somebody who signed as tom on
the first one. One usally have
to eviscerate tom's points
before he resorts to insulting
you. Though being shockingly
hypocritical is totally in
character for tom since, in his
head, it all makes sense. -dans
you. -dans
\_ Here is a link to a Washington Post article:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/34647w (washingtonpost.com)
Re the subject matter - what is the big deal here? BUSHCO fired
some attorneys for political reasons? So what? It happens all
the time.
\_ It absolutely does not "happen all the time". This is a big
deal because it's unprecedented. And for the executive to
fire DoJ prosecuters at the whim of legislators is possibly
a separation of powers issue. Gonzales is holding a 2pm ET
presser. Let's see if he resigns.
\_ It does happen all the time:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ywyvym (nytimes.com)
The Times notes that on 24 March 1993 AG Reno demanded
the resignation of all US Attorneys for an arguably
political reason - to stop the on-going investigation
of Dan Rostenkowski.
\_ These are not just attorneys; they're US Attorneys,
responsible for deciding what gets investigated and
prosecuted in their regions. The accusation is that they were
fired because they refused to open potentially politically
damaging investigations of Dems for corruption just prior to
the '06 elections. If they're being fired because of
incompetence or failure to do their jobs, that's one thing;
if they're being punished for not caving in to political
pressure to open spurious investigations for political gain,
that's something else entirely.
\_ How else was Karl Rove going to create his
Thousand Year^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPermanent Republican
Majority?
\_ Old jungle saying: to the victor go the spoils. BUSHCO
won the 04 election, they can decide how they want to
run the DOJ. If that means they want to get rid of US
attorneys they don't like, that is w/in their executive
discretion.
I agree that BUSHCO acted in a potentially stupid and
short-sighted manner and have set a very bad precedent
for future administrations, but there isn't anything
"wrong" w/ what they have done; it was completely w/in
their discretion to act like a bunch of idiots.
NOTE: I agree that if the new appointments are done w/o
senate approval and by abusing the Patriot act, then
the appointments are VERY suspect and maybe illegal,
but I cannot agree that they dismissals rise to that
level.
\_ The rolling resignations say otherwise. Gonzales
TESTIFIED UNDER OATH about this matter. He lied.
That's what us jungle folk call "perjury".
\_ So what? Try him for perjury. That still doesn't
make the dismissals wrong. Appointing cronies
w/o senate approval, I think, crosses the line.
\_ If the dismissals had been across the board or
hadn't labeled the failure to prosecute Dems as
incompetence and dereliction of duty, they would
not have occasioned as much attention.
\_ Wow, just wow. So subverting the justice system
for political gain is just hunky dory? This thread
is just crying out for a Godwin...
\_ Justice is not subverted simply b/c one set of
prosecutors is replaced w/ another. Justice can't
be subverted so long as the judiciary remains
independent of the executive.
The real issue here is merely whether BUSHCO
acted w/in its discretion in dismissing attorneys
who worked for it. They did, regardless of the
motivations for doing so. Let's say that Pres.
ALGOR fired a bunch of US attorneys for failing
to start politically motivated investigations
against big oil, would it even be a "scandal"?
Probably not.
BUSHCO, like every other administration, is
also free to appoint whoever they want as
replacement attorneys provided that they do
not bypass the approval process. Bypassing
the approval process is arguably subvertion
of justice.
\_ It may not be subverting justice, but it is
certainly going to look bad politically, that
BushCo fired justice dept attorneys, to try
and cover up for Abramoff and DeLay.
\_ That I can agree w/. It looks *really*
stupid, but if BUSHCO wants to act like
a bunch of idiots, that is w/in their
discretion (and not really out of char-
acter). Its too bad there is no national
recall election.
\_ My reference to the Thousand Year Reich was
not Hitleresque enough for you?
\- you may enjoy:
http://www.cafepress.com/ipa_politics.14487589 |
| 2007/3/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45935 Activity:kinda low |
3/12 What do you all think of the people protesting outisde Pelosi's home?
Go Team! or Abusive Invasion of privacy? or something else?
\_ are they protesting the person, or a role of their office. IMO,
if it is the latter, Pelosi's home is an inappropriate place for
a protest.
\_ I believe they are protesting her lack of immediate substantive
action to pull American troops out of Iraq full scale.
\_ there's probly thousands of random citizans doing as much
or less 'substanstive action' so unless they want to protest
at those peoples' homes too, it is still wrong. If they're
protesting her lack of action in her political office, then
the Office is the proper protest site.
\_ So you don't think Crawford was the right place either?
\_ Even though I agree with their cause, I think they are being
counter-productive jerks.
\_ Do you think they were counter productive jerks when they were
in Crawford outside Bush's ranch?
\_ Not really. I think Bush throwing away decades of
my great country's army, money, good will and moral
authority down a giant rat hole for reasons I STILL
CANT FIGURE OUT is a big enough deal that I think Bush
can put up with a bunch of annoying people camped a mile
from his door.
\_ But you're ok with the same folks doing the same thing for
a while outside Pelosi's home?
\_ If they camp out in front of his door and demand to speak to
him as he walks to his car, then yes, I think they're
counter-productive jerks.
well-intentioned counter-productive jerks.
\_ Thanks. That's fair. |
| 2007/3/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45927 Activity:kinda low |
3/10 "Poll: Character trumps policy for voters"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll2008_traits
S Voter: "H Clinton has a bitchy character"
S Voter: "Edwards is a libural"
S Voter: "Obama is a negro"
\_ I find this funny when leading R candidates are Gingrich and
Giuliani
\_ I'm all for Gingrich winning the R nomination, because he
will LOSE.
\_ Gingrinch cheated on his wife, married his lover and is still
with her. Giuliani moved out, and started dating someone else
during the divorce. Is there something else you were talking
about besides their failed marriages? I'm unaware of other
character issues such as $90k in their fridges, stealing
national security documents, having fabulous 'good luck' in
the markets, or lying about their past.
\_ These other issues you mention relate to the D candidates
how? Gingrich divorced his second wife while she was in
the hospital for cancer treatments. He was pulled from the
speakership by his own party while dogged by multiple ethics
charges. Giuliani announced his separation from his second
wife in a press conference before telling her. He's widely
seen as a petulant tantrum thrower in his political life.
And who can forget Bernie Kerik? |
| 2007/3/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45926 Activity:nil |
3/10 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_bi_ge/economy News liburals can't handle: Unemployment rate dips to 4.5 percent and paychecks got fatter. Tax cuts, privitization, and trickle down economy works afterall. \_ As long as they are combined with massive deficit spending. |
| 2007/3/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45905 Activity:low |
3/7 Bush will pardon Libby and am happy to take any bet to the
contrary, since I can just arb it on Tradesports. -ausman
\_ Loyalty is a one way street in that world. He won't do it.
\_ No money down, but I'll take that as a gentleman's bet.
Bush won't pardon Libby. -aspo
\_ Why wouldn't he though? I think he will. Those who don't
already hate him won't care if he does it.
\- any bets the VP will "discover" he can issue pardons too?
anyway, unless the issue is moot for some reason, i will
also bet he gets a "and turn the lights out" pardon, although
if a "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenario is legal,
that is a possibility. --psb
\_ Just not seeing it. Not today, not at light's out. Bush
doesn't care about some dumb jerk like 'Scooter'. Why
would he pardon him?
\_ what?
\_ E,MFDYSI?
\_ sorry i'm not familiar with "and turn the lights out"
pardons or "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenarios
\- lights out pardon: last minute before leaving
office [presidents pardon many people all the
time, but you typically only hear about con-
troversial last minute ones]. this isnt a std
term, it is my term]. clinton's patty hearst
and marc rich pardons are "lights out" pardons.
[the marc rich pardon was one of the worst
things clinton did. other interesting pardons:
reagun:steinbrenner, raygan:deep throat,
nixon: jimmy hoffa]
pardon in my pocket scenario: i am not sure if
a pardon must be announced. it is clear that
a president can give a pardon before you have
been found guilty even [most famously ford's
nixon pardon]. so the question is can he quietly
slip somebody a pardon they can carry around
like an immunity idol or joseph conrad's
secret agent ... and only whip it out if
needed, or never at all. YMWTGF(trust johnson
pecker). |
| 2007/3/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45886 Activity:high |
3/6 "Scooter" Libby: Guilty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial
\_ Bush will pardon him.
\_ Want to make a bet?
\_ Tradesports has "pardon Libby" trading at only 20%, so you
might be right...
\_ Probably, but not until after the Nov 2008 elections.
\_ I don't think he'll do it at all.
\_ No pardon, but: "You'll be the next Ollie North!"
\- I am not going to bet on it since it might be my cynicism
speaking but i think Bush will pardon him if it is not
a moot issue before he leaves office. --psb
\- somewhat ironically: Scooter Libby was one of
pigdog Marc Rich's lawyers. at 5:1, i'd take the
libby gets a pardon bet, assuming it is not a
moot question by the time the 2008 election is over. |
| 2007/3/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45859 Activity:moderate |
3/2 Returning Honor and Dignity to The White House:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070302/pl_nm/bush_veterans_dc_5
\_ but.. but... privatization fixes everything! invisible hand!
invisible hand!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gan3z (cnn.com)
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/months-before-media-reports-memo.html
\_ Goddamn unions...
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33462&ref=rellink
\_ I will not be mocked. --The Invisible Hand |
| 2007/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45839 Activity:moderate |
2/28 The Iraq War: a bargain at double the price:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xf3kw
\_ You can stop reading at "Dominated by Social Security and health
care, the federal budget..."
Over 50% of the federal budget is now military. -tom
\- if you are accruing liabilities, then you arent really capped
at 100% so it is better to talk number of dollars than
percentages. so he is right the total cost of servicing
things like the social security obligations and medicare
obligations are larger than the military. the numbers vary
based on assumtions and how many years out to but for medicare
and soc security you start seeing numbers like 45-75 trillion
dollars. so the entitlement number seem smaller because we're
not actually paying them but putting in IOUs. we cant pay
the military with IOUs, let alone haliburton. but i'm not
defending this dood's accounting of course. "how many billion
dollars would you be willing to burn to reclaim the loss
of american credibility" etc. it's of course equally bogus
of american credibility" etc. if's of course equally bogus
on only focus on econ costs.
of american credibility" etc. it's of course bogus to only
focus on econ costs.
\_ You need to consider the net present value of all this
spending. And we are certainly paying Halliburton with
IOUs, they are called treasury bonds.
\_ re: NPV ... yes obviously ... that's what is being done.
give me a little credit [no pun intended]. there are a
lot of other actuarial and economic assumptions in there
as well ... that's the tricky part, not mechnically coming
up with the NPV ... that's just arithmetic.
re: halliburton ... no, we are PAYING halliburton with
cash. we are FINANCING it with borrowing. when you buy a
house, you are not paying the seller with a mortgage.--psb
\- see e.g.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200504280951.asp
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070211/news_lz1e11riedl.html
[see in particular the 3rd paragraph in the SD UT article]
\_ i thought of a good analogy: say you are going to
MIT and paying for it though student loans. the mit
tuition is $33k/yr now. now say your are paying
$1000/mo on rent and $1000/mo on food and entertainment.
$1000/mo rent and $1000/mo for food and entertainment.
It is not accurate to say "50% of my expenses is rent".
Really you are accruing close to $3k/mo in liabilities.
So yes, it is fair to say "your budget is dominated by
tuition expenses" ... even if you are only say paying
$100/mo toward your student loans. --psb
It really is not accurate to say "50% of my expenses is
rent". Really you are accruing close to $3k/mo in
liabilities. So yes, it is fair to say "your budget is
dominated by tuition expenses" ... even if you are only
say paying $100/mo toward your student loans. --psb
\_ The future liabilities of our military posture
surely outpace those of social security, though
they may be more difficult to project. -tom
\_ medicare liability is more than 2x soc sec
obligations. it's hard to take your judgement
obligation. it's hard to take your judgement
calls seriously when you seem to miss a basic
fact like that. you can look for
google(kansas city federal reserve bank, social
security, medicare) for a research report on this
from 2006. that bartlett fellow has written a
bunch on this too. there is also an excellent
article in the nyrb ... i think i mentioned that
earlier in the motd or wall archive.
\_ PSB > TOM
http://tinyurl.com/yrtors (60 Minutes) |
| 2007/2/27-3/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45835 Activity:nil 76%like:45830 |
2/27 Compare Gore's hypocrisy to Bush's reality:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2exgv9 (plentymag.com)
\_ The difference here, you see, is that Bush is evil.
\_ No, the difference is that Bush reneged on promises.
Note the house was being built leading up to the 2000
elections, back when he said he would cut carbon emissions.
That's great that the ranch house uses green techniques,
but his record betrays the house's campaign stunt nature.
\_ Which still means that Bush's house is far more green than
Gore's.
\_ Wow, so you have one piece of data that supports your
argument that conservatives R00L, liburals DR00L! It must
be true! AWESOME. -dans
\_ You tree huggers have to realize that your celebrity allies
fly around in private jets, drive exclusive limos to awards
shows, all the while proclaiming tooting the same message.
\_ Point of information as you spew bile: alg0r flies Coach.
\_ I'm sure he flew coach to and from Nam as the only
military photographer with his own bodyguard. |
| 2007/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45830 Activity:kinda low 76%like:45835 |
2/27 Compare Gore's hypocrisy to Bush's reality:
http://www.plentymag.com/thecurrent/2007/02/whats_red_white_blueand_green.php
\_ The difference here, you see, is that Bush is evil.
\_ No, the difference is that Bush reneged on promises.
Note the house was being built leading up to the 2000
elections, back when he said he would cut carbon emissions.
That's great that the ranch house uses green techniques,
but his record betrays the house's campaign stunt nature.
\_ Which still means that Bush's house is far more green than
Gore's. |
| 2007/2/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45767 Activity:nil |
2/17 In the spirit of President's Day:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0717-19.htm
http://consortiumnews.com/2002/112902a.html
\- The House and the Senate were both about 56% Dem in '72. --psb |
| 2007/2/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45763 Activity:high |
2/17 Nixon
\_ Former President of USA
\_ Like Chinese food
\_ Quaker
\_ Only President everyone is absolutely certain was 100 percent
faithful to his wife.
\_ How so?
\_ Republican
\_ Culture of Corruption
\_ No different than the Democrats.
\_ Crook
\_ No one today would even blink at what he did then.
\_ Out of touch with reality
\_ GWB
\_ Better than Bush |
| 2007/2/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45713 Activity:nil |
2/12 Top Gear in Republican America. Disturbingly funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajWS8gCJOac
\_ I like Top Gear, but this is lame.
\_ How so?
\_ It just was. That said if you download the entire episode
(Season 9, episode 3, look on bittorrent) there are some
pretty amazingly funny bits. |
| 2007/2/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45663 Activity:nil |
2/5 Hillary: All your profits are belong to us!
http://csua.org/u/hzu |
| 2007/2/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:45661 Activity:kinda low |
2/5 Fuck Bush, R congress, Microsoft, Redhat <=AS2.1, et. al.. The
DST change is going to make my life hell.
\_ I actually like it. I think it is overdue. I want evening
daylight, not daylight at 5:00am.
\_ What are you talking about?
\_ IYHTAYDW
\_ If You Have To Ask You Don't... Whoah?
\_ Time zone change? Did you mean the start and end of Daylight
Savings time instead?
\_ Yes. To your OS, there is no difference between the two.
\_ The change of law that has moved the dates to start DST.
\_ I thought M$ has downloads to update Windozes for this.
\_ What about all the money/resources wasted to make new
'gadgets' that are aware of this stupid new DST? Have to
replace your damned alarm clock for crying out loud!
\_ Nah.. That's not "waste"! That's "reducing inventory"!
\_ Hello ignorant person. This is hardly the first time DST has
been changed. In about 8 seconds of searching you'll find the
history of day light savings and see just how far back and how
many times this has happened. I suggest searching for "History
of day light savings". BTW, when you blame Bush and R's for
every trivial thing you sound like Chicken Little. No one wants
to hear the real complaints when you moan and cry and finger
point about everything from DST changes to the ocean not being
quite the right shade of pink in the mornings.
\_ Wow, someone's hyperbole detector is on the fritz. Fuck off,
little man. |
| 2007/1/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45584 Activity:nil |
1/24 Gonzales thinks you have no RIGHT to habeas relief:
http://tinyurl.com/39moz4 (sfgate.com)
And why does Arlen Specter hate America? |
| 2007/1/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:45540 Activity:nil |
1/11 21,500 more troops, yay!!! Let's kill all the bad people!
\_ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16576547
Pentagon wants 92,000 more. "Failure is not an option."
\_ Where are they gonna got 92,000 more when recruitment is down?
\_ hmm, I recall that we have roughly 20,000 casualties (3000 dead, rest
of them wounded). If anything, this "surge" is nothing but
replenishment for the casualties, no?
\_ for once, I actually *AGREE* with Bush that we need a "surge."
however, I really think we should use this "surge" in Afghanistan
instead of Iraq. These 20k soldiers would probably made a big
differences in Afghanistan. |
| 2006/12/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45513 Activity:nil |
12/29 http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/29/villainsandheroes.appoll.ap/index.html Bush is hero and villain of the year. |
| 2006/12/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45506 Activity:moderate |
12/28 John Edwards runs again for the presidency. Let's see, the Dems
could pick a liberal hippy that has 0% of getting any vote in
the south, an outspoken female bitch that has no chance of getting
elected, and a black man whos last name is one letter away from
being Osama. Dems in 2008... what a joke.
\_ "Dam negro's name is Obama. That ryhmes with Osama, and his middle
name is Hussein. Dam negro is a terrorist in disguise, let's
hang him boys!" -average white Southerner
\_ And, hey, his middle name is Hussein! Think about it, people..
Think about it.
\_ It is unclear to me that people who would not vote for Obama because
he is black/his name sounds muslim would vote for any other
Democractic candidate anyway.
\_ A lot of people are not ready for a black/female president
who might still vote Democrat. It doesn't mean they hate
blacks/women.
\_ Wait, aren't you the same guy that said Dems had no chance in 2006?
\_ I must've missed the 2006 Presidential election.
\_ Wow, aren't we shallow! "hippy" "bitch" and "black man almost
named 'Osama'". You might be right on all points, but let me
ask you this: would any of them be a better president than
Bush?
\_ whether or not they would be a better president is immaterial.
The quesion is which is more likely to get elected.
\_ I already conceded you might be right about their
inelectability, given this country's bigotry and sexism.
Now, setting aside the question of electability, which
would be the better president?
\_ I'm not the op but here is my answer which probably
resonates with many readers out there:
In theory, ANY three candidate will do better than
GWB. IMHO GWB is not *my* president, he is the president
of the blind masses who voted for him and who are still
supporting him. And stop calling him "The president"
as the fucktard deserves as much respect as Nixon.
In reality though none of the three other candidates
will win. America is made up blind mass who do not
understand or care about policies. To them, as long
as its leader is strong, unwaivering, and/or good looking
or simply with whom they can relate to personally, then
that is the leader they will elect. This is the exact
reason why Bush and Reagan won despite the fact that
they're both fucktards.
The blind mass does not want smart and nerdy Kerry
+ Al Bore. Instead the blind mass want fantasies
where the leader is as strong and as likeable as
Clint Eastwood, and want to be told that their world
has become better because of them. If you Dems do not
understand this, you Dems will never win the hearts
of the blind mass. -former Dem
\_ Bitter, much?
\_ Better for...? The American people? The world? The
western world? At what? Domestic policy? Foreign?
Least corrupt (they're all corrupt)? Strengthing freedoms
at home? Abroad? Better economic policy? Better?
\_ It doesn't matter if my dog would be a better president than
Bush. Bush isn't running in 08. They don't have to beat Bush
in an election.
\_ The spectre of Bush will haunt the Republican Party for a
while. Who will the GOP nominate? Rice? Tancredo? Gingrich?
Are any of these people electable?
\_ Guiliani has the charm of Reagan.
\_ That's a different issue and I disagree with your opinion.
Voters tend to fall into two categories: the party line
types who vote for the R/D who are unlikely to either stay
home or vote non-R/D no matter what, and the more moderate
center who vote for the candidate they like in a personal
way. Bush is nothing but history for the 08 ballot box.
Rice is no more electable than Hillary. Neither has
engaged in a real campaign or a real debate. Gingrich
would have the support of a huge number of people but has
been on the side lines (mostly) for a long time. His
'crimes' were that he left his wife and married another
woman to whom he is still married. Tancredo? No.
Rudy? Has more political experience than a Hillary but
like Obama, Hillary, and McCain is just a media hyped
creation with limited support. My total guess based on
absolutely nothing (motd style) is that we'll see some
currently unknown dark horse come from the R side to win
the R nomination while one of the D's media hyped creatures
emerges with the D nomination but is badly battered by the
nomination process. I think this will be a hard fought
election season the likes of which the country has never
seen.
\_ How many people do you think went into the "non-R" camp
over the last 2 years?
\_ From the core "always vote R"? None. That's the
point. From the center, at current, any number
you'd like to name. But "at current" is not
important for the 08 election. What people think
and feel about the names on the ballot after the
campaign and a few debates is what matters, not
right now. I make no prediction about who or even
which party will actually win the 08 election. It
is far far far far (I feel like I'm writing a Star
Wars opener) far far too early for that right now.
\_ Bush did horribly on the debate yet he won.
Maybe you care about debates. Most
Americans do not.
\_ I disagree. The hype at the time was what a
fantastic uber debater Gore was and how smart
he was and how he was going to mop the floor
with W. He didn't live up to the hype so he
(Gore) didn't get what he should have from it.
If debates were unimportant to most Americans
then it wouldn't have been watched by a zillion
people and talked about everywhere the next
day. |
| 2006/12/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45426 Activity:nil |
12/11 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235767,00.html Fox News commentator blasts Bush. "Denial is the first stage in dealing with death. The president still has to get through anger, bargaining, and depression before he reaches acceptance." |
| 2006/12/1-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45405 Activity:nil |
12/1 http://www.cagle.com/news/BushCivilWar/main.asp Cartoons on Iraq's [impending] Civil War \_ http://www.cagle.com/news/BushCivilWar/images/plante.jpg \_ http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-11-26-1.html \_ "For instance, in Connecticut, the voters rejected the extremist wing of the Democratic Party (otherwise known as "The Democratic Party") by reelecting Joseph Lieberman, the most notable (but not the only) Democrat who has the brains to understand that the War on Terror is vital to our national security." In other words, if you've OSC's rants before, there's nothing new here. I take that back: there's even more venom and invective. |
| 11/27 |