| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2008/9/30-10/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51333 Activity:nil |
9/30 73% of Americans now officially deranged:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qybuz
\_ Insert rant from "polls don't matter" guy here.
\_ It blows me away that 64% or Republicans are still for this guy.
I mean what does it take?
\_ Republicans have one thing Democrats will never have:
LOYALTY. That's why Democrats always lose.
\_ You misspelled "stupidity."
\_ 2000 and 2004 proved that stupidity wins. Don't
underestimate the power of stupidity. Don't
repeat the same mistakes in 2008!!!
\_ Stop trolling kchang. |
| 2008/9/25-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:51297 Activity:low |
9/25 have you called/e-mailed your congresscritter today?
remember: barney frank is a slimebucket
\_ And George Bush is a War Hero: Mission Accomplished! Do you still
call them Freedom Fries, I am kind of curious.
\_ And George Bush is a War Hero, so of course none of this is
his fault. |
| 2008/9/25-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51295 Activity:low |
9/25 Yah, we saw this coming, but congresscritters prevented Fannie/Freddie
from being fixed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs
\_ Mission Accomplished!
\_ And the Bush Admin vetoed the fix congress sent them.
\_ URL?
\_ It was on the motd last week, but here it is again:
http://csua.org/u/mdd
\_ That's not what the article says. The bill passed the
house but not the Senate, hence it was never vetoed.
I posted another article that claims Bush backed the
Bill. I doubt it, but McCain apparently sponsored it.
It never made it out of committee in the Senate, the
committee is/was chaired by a Dem.
\_ No, the Senate was controlled by the GOP in 2005. When
you control the Senate, your party chairs all the
committees. That is how the Senate works.
\_ Why are you so obsessed with F&F? It is the unregulated CDS that have
caused the financial meltdown.
\_ Why are you so obsessed with F&F? It is the unregulated CDS
that have caused the financial meltdown. |
| 2008/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51276 Activity:nil |
9/24 "Laura Bush: Palin lacks foreign policy experience"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/palin_laura_bush |
| 11/22 |
| 2008/9/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51260 Activity:nil |
9/22 why does the onion ALWAYS KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
\_ I think the CIA must be tipping them off or something.
\_ Old joke: how do we know the CIA didn't kill Kennedy?
Answer: He's dead, isn't he? |
| 2008/9/22-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51255 Activity:nil |
9/22 If you would like to call your senator or representative about the
$700B bailout (the one where Congress would give Hank Paulson sole
discretion on what to spend it on), but are not sure what to say:
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=62163
(I left messages over the weekend with Mike Honda, Boxer, and
Feinstein. I also said that bank transparency needs to happen
SIMULTANEOUSLY with any money disbursement. How in the hell do you
have any negotiating power when you give the money first and negotiate
later on reform measures?)
\_ Look how well it worked in Iraq!
\_ also see: -op
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080922006376/en |
| 2008/9/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51222 Activity:nil |
9/18 Bush says socialism is good:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122173203401851965.html
\_ Oh, so Bush has been a Democrat all along, and so the current
mess is due to Democrats. Awesome doublethink!
\_ Which is why so many people have left the R party. |
| 2008/9/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51198 Activity:low |
9/16 (Brought up with update)
Interesting old NYTimes article. It seems Bush tried to overhaul
Fannie and Freddie regulation 5 years ago, but was blocked by Dems.
http://csua.org/u/mdc
\_ Thanks, this renewed my faith in McCain
\_ How was it blocked by Dems if the GOP had a majority of both
houses of Congress?
\_ Newer NYTimes article. The house DID pass a reform bill 3 years
ago (with bipartisan support) but it died in the Senate after
Greenspan and the Bush administration opposed it, according to
the former Republican congressman who had pushed for it.
http://csua.org/u/mdd
\_ McCain apparently sponsored the this Bill in the Senate, but
it never made it out of committee. http://csua.org/u/me8
\_ Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said: "I'm always for less
regulation" and referred to himself as "fundamentally, a
deregulator."
\_ So what? So am I, but Freddie and Fannie were a
terrible implementation of priviatization and
deregulation. What kind of idiot says to businessmen
"Ok, I'll take all the risk, and you can have all the
profits. We'll have congress watch you." That's
just flat out retarded.
\_ So far, I have never seen a politician come out and
say "I am in favor of bad government" but it is amazing
to watch the GOP go from "government is bad" to
"nationalize everything" in two weeks.
\_ As a free market person I am disappointed in the
actions of the GOP. I don't much care for the
GOP, but WTF are they thinking? My take:
1) Preserve stock equity for their cronies
2) Pander to the public ahead of the election
No honest Republican or fiscal conservative wants
any part of this crap plan they are wasting taxpayer
money on. In fact, who *does* want it other than
Wall Street? Why should the gov't bail out Wall
Street? The gov't is broke. Wall Street has been
raking in massive profits. The US banking system
will be just fine. Reprice the debt, declare a
loss, and move on. Good ideas will still find
capital. There's a lot of money flowing in the
markets around the world.
\_ The entire world is a free market. If the
US government is incompetent, good people
with good ideas will simply move their ideas
to countries where it is profitable for them.
If the US government is unfit to compete, then
it deserves to die. -free market person
\_ The problem is that so much of our economy is
based on nothing -- just moving numbers around
computer systems. Financial markets are supposed
to support real markets, not the other way around.
\_ Nationalization of Freddie and Fannie is a good thing. It should
never been privatized. |
| 2008/9/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51196 Activity:kinda low |
9/16 I'm confused on this one. Obama's campaign denies that he pressed
Iraqi's to delay security agreement by confirming it. Huh?
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
\_ Isn't this what Nixon did?
\_ I'm not sure of the history on that one. -op
\_ Ah, I've heard this charge before. As far as I know it's just
speculation, and there is no proof. Besides, is Nixon really
the role model you want for the next president?
\_ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080900-01.htm
Reagan did the same thing with Iran when they were holding
American hostages. At least Obama is negotiating with aj
nominal ally.
\_ Errr... kinda? This should sink Obama's hopes for
presidency, as it would have for Nixon. I would
hope no one here would think this is OK. |
| 2008/9/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51188 Activity:nil |
9/16 "In Ike's wake, holdouts complicate rescues"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080915/ts_csm/aike
I thought some officials has said that whoever refused to evacuate
before the storm hit wouldn't be rescued afterwards. Why are we
spending the time and resources to rescue them now?
\_ I took them to have meant that no one would be rescued during
the hurricane, a promise which was pretty much kept. It'd
be unconscionable not to help people now. |
| 2008/9/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51170 Activity:low |
9/15 What happened to the Asian Dude in the Enron movie who loved
strippers and bailed from Enron right before it all went to hell?
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Pai
http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/2008/08/column_the_stor.html
\_ Nothing bad ever happened to him. Moral of the story: get in
fast, get out fast, and you're trouble free. This is true
with everything, like real estate boom/bust, dot com boom/bust,
etc. Your free market REWARDS people who are smart!
\_ I like the note how he hooked up with a stripper, was "forced"
to sell his enron stake for the divorce settlement, to get out
before the bust.
\_ Better to be lucky thank good, sometimes.
\_ Better to be lucky than good sometimes.
\_ either lucky or incredibly smart. He wound up marrying the
stripper post-divorce, and kept most of his fortune.
win-win!
\_ Did he really marry a stripper? URL please.
\_ its in the wikipedia link at the start of this thread. |
| 2008/9/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51156 Activity:nil |
9/13 Gibson got the Bush Doctrine wrong. Krauthammer should know, since he
coined the phrase.
http://tinyurl.com/5yzcgd [wapo]
\_ Bush Doctrine means what Gibson said it means, if you know anything
about policy you'd know that. But you know what, even if it was
an ambigious term, after Gibson explained exactly what he meant by
The Bush Docterine Palin obviously still had no idea what he was
talking about and kept rambling along mouthing empty platitudes.
Please try again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_Doctrine&oldid=228969706
(Once you get past the 100's of edits of the past two days as
people try to cover up Palin's confusion, it is pretty clear
what the Bush Doctrine meant 2 months ago. Once again McCain
chooses truthiness over truth.)
\_ Why do you choose that particular edit, when the only diff
between that and the one later is that on 7.31 someone used
'nukular'? That edit also says "Al Qaeda was from its inception
a CIA-funded terrorist group" which is patently false.
\_ I chose it as one of the first before sept 12th. Choose
another edit before then and you'll see the same thing.
What the Bush Doctrine meant was not under debate until
after Palin flubbed an interview question even after
Gibson (fairly) clarified his question after her obvious
confusion. |
| 2008/9/12-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51149 Activity:nil |
9/12 http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php a well thought out comment about the Palin interview. \- that is a good "adult" discussion of matters. thanks for the link. \- That is a good "adult" discussion of matters. thanks for the link. SPALIN is a good exaple of what i call "reptillian intelligence". |
| 2008/9/10-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51128 Activity:nil |
9/10 I don't really care about what the rest of the world thinks when they
don't even believe what happened on 9/11.
http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?articleId=32140442&channelId=2951
\_ Yeah! We all know it was Iraq!
\_ I am pretty sure a majority of Republicans still believe that.
\_ Yes but you're an idiot.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/yp552s
"A Harris poll taken two weeks before the 2004
presidential election found that a majority of
Bush's supporters believed that Iraq was behind the
9/11 attacks"
Who are the idiots? |
| 2008/9/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51103 Activity:low |
9/8 Stay classy, college republicans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_el_pr/college_republicans_obama
\_ Uh, by kicking that jerk out they are.
\_ Damage control is not class. |
| 2008/9/7-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51088 Activity:nil |
9/7 U.S. taxpayer put on hook for junk stuffed in FNM/FRE/FHLBs.
Cost likely to exceed $500B over next couple years: "In the end, the
ultimate cost to the taxpayer will depend on the business results of
the GSEs going forward" - Hank Paulson
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122079276849707821.html
\_ Thanks Republicans! Deregulation sure had worked out great!
\_ Thanks Republicans! The deregulation thing is working out really
well.
\_ Get ready for FOUR MORE YEAR.
\_ Wrong. There's been a dedicated regulator created just for these guys
since early 90s, and it has always done a terrible job. Fannie, et al have
great lobbyists. Repubs have been fighting to cut them loose and
completely privatize, while Dems defend them because they help
subsidize loans to lower income people.
\_ The article says Treasury will put up up to $200B. Where does it say $500B?
\_ Wrong. There's been a dedicated regulator created just for these
guys since early 90s, and it has always done a terrible job.
Fannie, et al have great lobbyists. Repubs have been fighting to
cut them loose and completely privatize, while Dems defend them
because they help subsidize loans to lower income people.
\_ But but Bush sucks!
\_ An interesting way to put it; another way might be to say that
the Dems are supporting the dream of home ownership, while
the GOP want to cripple the govt. by privatizing any
successful programs.
\_ Didn't Bush just nationalize them? It is true that F&F have
given generously to both parties over the years, but the GOP
could have easily killed them when they controlled both house
of Congress and the White House, but they didn't. Instead they
let the IBs run wild with SIVs and GSEs and derivatives and
ignore their capital requirements.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5w38tk (FNM gives to whoever is in)
\_ The article says Treasury will put up up to $200B. Where does it
say $500B? |
| 2008/8/28-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:50993 Activity:nil |
8/28 Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address from 1978. Quite amazing, I'd never
read it.
http://csua.org/u/m82
\_ do you agree with it, or is it an interesting curiosity to you?
(it appears to support gw bush!)
"a decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end"
"people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more
valuable one"
"socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction"
"politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly
gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold
Vietnam now looms"
"It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance
be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of
unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired
self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism."
\_ Only if you read it selectivly and with blinders on. And now I
see from a Google search that seems to be a favorite talking
point on the right wing blogs these days.
\_ Actually I wasn't selective. If I'm blind, what did I miss?
\_ Bush is courageous? Didn't he turn tail and hide on 9/11?
\_ I can list about 500 reasons why Bush should be stuck on his
own prison planet. I don't use just one metric.
\_ Suggest you learn about his book 200 Years Together - might
reveal some insights on WWII, the power structure in this
country, and why you don't hear much about him these days. |
| 2008/8/28-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50989 Activity:nil |
8/28 More Zombie: DNC giant puppet parade!
http://csua.org/u/m7o
\_ If you were a POW, you wouldn't be worried about silly parades!
\_ you know, anyone who really thinks zombietime is interesting could
go see his schtick themselves.
\_ Sure, I could go hang around all day to watch some protestors,
but I have better things to do. This takes 5 min. in my compy
office and is free.
\_ I'm saying you don't need to post it to MOTD.
\_ Ok fine, but come on, giant puppet parade. That bears
posting no matter who took the pictures. |
| 2008/8/27-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50987 Activity:kinda low |
8/27 Rising tide has not been lifting all boats:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/about-that-bush-boom
\_ dems, always wanting a handout from highly productive republicans
</sarcasm>
\_ Look at all the whining people in the comments. "Master's degrees
from esteemed universities mean little ... journalism" LAUGH.
This article is stupid though: the data shows improvement from 2006
to 2007 yet Krugman is talking about fantasyland 2000 numbers.
\_ "These increases in earnings follow three years of annual
decline in real earnings for both men and women."
\_ Economics aren't important when you're a POW!
\_ and? do you think the 2000 economy was long term viable
and bush came in and screwed it up?
\_ Yes, I think Bush and the Republicans have been terrible
stewarts of the economy, don't you? The situation in 2000
was no where near as bad as what we have today.
\_ Which actions or nonactions can you put your finger on?
The NASDAQ crash was in March 2000.
DJIA crashed after 9/11/2001.
Why was 2000 so much better than today?
\_ Oh come on. How about a little problem like doubling
the national debt? Blowing $1T on a pointless war?
Giving a huge tax cut to his rich cronies, who of
course invested it (mostly overseas) instead of to
the middle class, who actually would have spent it,
boosting the economy. Adding a budget busting
drug benefit to Medicare, right when we could least
afford it. Should I go on?
\_ Yes but Democrats also voted for that pointless
war and continued to fund it. (do you really
think the war was utterly pointless?)
Medicare drugs? McCain voted against it. Democrats
passed it.
My point, which I'm tired of having to bring up
repeatedly, is that you keep fingering Republicans
for things that both Republicans and Democrats did.
And yet you aren't independent.
It's partisan stupidity.
\_ A majority of Democrats voted against the war,
and also against the Bush tax cuts. You seriously
believe that Iraq isn't "Bush's War"? You are
delusional. All this happened with a GOP President
and a GOP Congress, so yes, they are the ones
responsible. I forgot another one: the whole
housing bubble/meltdown, which Bush encouraged
and failed to do anything about, when he should
have been regulating the IBs. No, I am not
independent. I used to be, but Bush convinced me
to join the Democratic Party.
\_ Bush should have regulated IBs? Don't you think
Congress has some responsibility there? What
exactly should they do? A whole lot of people
bought houses who shouldn't have. That's the
people's fault, just like the dot bomb.
What about the Greenspan and the Fed? Greenspan
was appointed by both R's and D's. Greenspan
admitted that the housing bubble was
engendered by the decline in real long-term
interest rates"
Why do you ignore what happened in 2000/2001?
Where do you think the blame lay there? Bush
again? We have had a Democrat Congress since
2006 and they have done pretty much nothing
different. Furthermore there were no Democrat
initiatives addressing the housing bubble.
\_ 2000/1 is mostly the responsibility of
Bill Clinton. It is the Executive branches
responsibility to control the money supply,
all those fools would not have bought houses
if the Fed and the Treasury Dept had not
been asleep at the switch when the IBs
created all the unregulated money. It would
have been easy for them to turn off the tap,
they just believed that the "invsible hand"
would sort it out. The Democrats have had
how many bills blocked or vetoed since 2006?
The GOP had six years of total power and
they fucked it up. Why are you making
excuses for them? Greenspan is a Randoid
from way back, in no way shape or form
is he a Democrat, nor believe in any kind
of liberal policy framework.
\_ Laugh! Clinton appointed him too.
You tell me how many relevant bills were
blocked or vetoed. Bush only has 12
vetoes so those should be easy for you.
I'm not making
excuses for the R's. IMO the real
problems are ignored by both parties
and people like you. (e.g the Fed)
Obama talks about change but he is not
effectively different from any mainstream
republicrat.
\_ I am not going to try and explain the
very complicated topic of bank
regulation here, but suffice to say
that the Executive alone, via the
FDIC and the OCC has a huge influence
on the money supply. Clinton was pretty
much a moderate, true, but he was still
a much, much better stewart of the
economy than Bush. Obama will reverse
the worst Bush tax cuts and also end
the Iraq War, if nothing else, that
will improve our fiscal deficit. He
is also talking about a middle class
tax cut and infrastructure spending,
which shold help the economy more. No,
you won't get a revolution from either
party in America, people are too
complacent here to want that. And
surely you know the rest of the
Greenspan quote you pulled from
wikipedia, where he stated that asset
markets put credit control out of the
Fed's hands.
\_ Which is obviously false. Greenspan
of course wants to duck
responsibility.
I like the Bush tax cuts. I just
hate the Bush/Congressional
spending.
The Iraq War is going to end up
about the same, Obama or not.
I don't want more gov't spending,
I want less. Middle class tax cut?
Maybe if you redefine middle class.
\_ Every family maing under $150k/yr
That isn't middle class to you? |
| 2008/8/26-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50975 Activity:nil |
8/26 I've been wondering about the Georgian side of the story, here it is
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6bn2co
Very interesting.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Obama for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
McCain for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Bush for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Putin for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Rice for the whole thing.
\_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
Gorbachev for the whole thing.
{Obama,McCain,Bush,Putin,Rice,Gorby} for the whole thing.
\_ No, if I could summerize in 80 characters, it would not be very
interesting. I will say this explanation makes much more sense
than the reported one, although I would need futher confirmation
to totally believe it. It does have much less "WTF?".
\_ This is the part I don't understand. It is Georgia started the
whole thing, knowning fully well that Russian is going to step in.
Now, they are crying foul?
\_ So, you didn't read the article? |
| 2008/8/22-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50941 Activity:nil |
8/22 Non-MSM article on the conflict in Georgia. Other than Bush
ordering the invasion of Somalia (what?) -- I found it interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/5ag5jn
\_ Bush did order the invasion of Somalia - the first Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Restore_Hope
\_ I didn't get very far because it starts off with a couple of
baseless assumptions. Whenever one of the US allies does something
stupid, I always hear how the US govt. "had to have known." BS.
They're our allies, not our territories. It's just like the
accusation that the Carter administration "had to have known" about
Chun Doo-hyun's plans about the Gwangju Massacre.
http://csua.org/u/m5s Sorry no, histroical documnents show
pretty conclusively he didn't have a dang clue, and I doubt Bush
did either. People can do stupid things just fine w/o Bush.
\_ Condoleezza Rice was in Georgia 3 weeks before everything started!
You think that's a coincidence?
\_ Condoleezza Rice was in Georgia 3 weeks before everything
started! You think that's a coincidence?
\_ The Georgie Russia war + Rice thing is hilarious since Rice
has a PHD in international relations, specifically former
USSR + foreign relations. Maybe Stanford could give her a
slight tuition refund since she obvs didnt learn a
goddamn thing
\_ Dan Rather was in Dallas when JFK was shot, obviously Dan
Rather shot JFK!
\_ Dan Rather isn't the secretary of state -- mega duhs
\_ Correlation is not causation -- giga duhs
\_ Let me check if the Sec. of state was in Dallas...
\_ Also, it doesn't have to be a coincidence for her to be
ignorant. Hawks in Georgia may have argued something like:
"Rice was just here! We can't tell them, but obviously the
US will back us up if things go south!"
\_ Dan Rather was in Washington when Watergate happened. Dan
Rather was in Vietnam when we lost the war. I am starting
to see a pattern here... |
| 2008/8/16-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50885 Activity:moderate |
8/16 Hilarious. Barack catches himself saying Clarence Thomas was not
exprienced enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfblJvKXiP0
\_ you know Justice Thomas hasnt said a word in court for 2.5 years?
\_ Do you now he has written some of the best dissents?
\_ Do you think Obama is experienced enough?
\_ Yes. Do you think Clarence Thomas is experienced enough?
Would you a Diet Coke while you think about that?
\_ Then where does Barack of 143 days get off saying Thomas
isn't experienced enough?
\_ What does Obama's time in office have to do with
Thomas's experience?
\_ That he's unqualified to rate someone else as
inexperienced.
\_ So someone has to have worked longer than in their
field than someone else in another field in order
to say that person is not experienced enough?
Have you never supervised someone older than
yourself?
\_ yes
\_ The drugs must be tasty in your neck of the
ward.
\_ So what? These days almost all cases are decided on the briefs.
In my experience, oral argument is often a waste of time and
rarely matters (esp. at the appellate level).
\_ not asking any questions at all for 2.5 years is kind of
weird
\_ This may simply be a difference of opinion, but I find that
the justices seem more influenced by the Q&A these days
than the actual briefs.
\_ Almost as funny as Bush complaining about Russia invading Georgia
on phony, trumped-up charges, in violation of International Law.
\_ that is a pathetic response
\_ So it is okay that Bush is a hypocrite but not that Obama is?
Why do you hold Obama to a higher standard?
\_ Who said it's okay? Jesus Christ you buffoon.
But since we're on this topic, democratic Georgia is
different from Saddam's Iraq with its history of
aggression. The US actually did present its trumped-up
case to the UN etc. and gave Saddam alternatives. Russia
pretty much just rolled tanks in. We are also not annexing
pieces of Iraq to the US. |
| 2008/8/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50877 Activity:nil |
8/15 The Republican Campaign of Hate has just begun:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6bqc2t
\_ What further proof is needed that free speech is alive and well in
America when hate-filled garbage can get printed?
\_ Corsi isn't Republican:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57812
"Why I am not a Republican"
\_ Uh-huh.
\_ Right.
\_ "just begun" ?
\_ And the "liberal media" plays right along:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5kjpju |
| 2008/8/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50861 Activity:nil |
8/13 So are the Bush-loving GOPers:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5hpybb
\_ You have some evidence that the shooter likes Bush or is GOP?
\_ You have some evidence that the shooter liked Bush or was GOP?
\_ "Gwatney owned three Little Rock area car dealerships and the search
of Johnson's home turned up two sets of keys for vehicles from
Gwatney car lots."
You dumbass, he was just a twistoid.
http://www.kmph.com/Global/story.asp?S=8841748&nav=menu612_2_2
\_ Actually a Democratic donor:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6om3cj
Look he gave money to Bill Clinton! Can we add him to the Clinton
Death List? |
| 2008/8/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50849 Activity:nil |
8/11 Timeline: Condi visited Georgia one month before its invasion of
S. Ossetia. Russia also gave warning of potential of large scale
military conflict four days before invasion.
http://tinyurl.com/5s4u2y (abc.net.au) |
| 2008/8/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50847 Activity:nil |
8/11 Analysis: roots of conflict between Georgia and Russia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4498709.ece
\_ This is an excellent insight. Thank you.
\_ this is pretty straightforward actually:
- s. ossetia is de facto independent and allied with Russia
- georgia takes s. ossetia by force, pokes Russian Bear in eye
- Russia steamrollers georgia, makes them pay
- Dubya yammers helplessly
\_ You forgot: US foreign policy encourages Georgia to think we've
got their back, infuriating Russia and encouraging Georgia to
take unnecessary risks.
\_ Sounds like its Taiwan policy. (This is unrelated to which
side of the Straight is right and which side is wrong.)
\_ Yes and no. We paid attention whenever Taiwan's president
went too far and defused any potential crisis before things
got out of hand.
\_ You would think that the Georgian president got the memo
titled "Subject: Don't invade S. Ossetia!" Unless the U.S.
foreign policy team wasn't very clear about that ...
Me: Condi? Fucking things up AGAIN? What? Did you think
yer buddy GEORGE was going to catch this? Didn't you do your
dissertation on the Soviet Union and satellite states?
\_ More likely, Condi gave Georgia the green light, just like
Bush I gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade
Kuwait. Bushco is trying to stir things up here to give
McCain a chance. I wonder what Act II is going to be.
\_ I think your tinfoil hat is a little too tight.
\_ After Kissinger's secret meetings with the North
Vietnamese and Reagan's Iran-Contra stuff, I really
don't think so. There is historical precedent.
\_ Condi's green light to Georgia:
Please go ahead and take over S. Ossetia. We support
your efforts to get bent over and assfucked by Russia. |
| 2008/8/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50834 Activity:nil |
8/10 GWB is talking to Bob Costas right now. He's been surprisingly
competent.
\_ Maybe he is back on the wagon.
\_ Wagon of Mass Destruction?
\_ s/competent/articulate/ perhaps?
\_ You know, Bush is really good at being an Olympic cheerleader.
I hate this guy, but I have to admit he looks great on TV, seems
happy and relaxed and is enjoying himself there. Too bad he can't
spend the rest of his term at it. |
| 2008/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:50817 Activity:high |
8/8 Edwards admits affair, doesn't admit for being incredible
stupid dumbass who apparently thought having an affair and having
his life withstand the scrutiny of being a viablepres. candidate
were sustainable
\_ He's a Democrat. This is expected. No big deal. Suck dick,
fuck pussy, whatever. Just don't do anything stupid like
invading a country and getting ourselves into deep shit.
Look you fucking Conservatives. Adultery is a sustainable
business. Invading countries in the Holy Name of Freedom
is NOT a sustainable business. Ok?
\_ Liberals invaded Vietnam and Korea. Actually, liberals invaded
Iraq too, in the Senate anyway. Atheist liberals ran the USSR.
Look at the subways and efficient apartment buildings they built.
Iraq was a fucked up country already. I don't like that I had
to spend my tax dollars fixing their problems but in the long
run they will probably be better off. I dunno about us being
better off though. Also, Bush != "Conservatives". Bush is
not a classical conservative.
\_ "Liberals" invaded Vietnam and North Korea? Wtf are you
talking about? If you mean that Democrats got us involved in
those two conflicts, you seriously need to read a book some
time. The people who ran the Soviet Union are not the same
as the Clintons. Get out of the 50s. Wake up. -!pp
\_ Harry Truman.
\_ What, are you channeling Batman from the video below?
You're not making any sense. What are you trying to
say?
\_ "...liberals invaded Iraq too..." It's almost like
they're proud of being ignorant.
\_ Harry Truman was President when Vietnam started.
He was a Democrat.
\_ And? When did this supposed invasion occur?
\_ Well, I might argue it was when the first
American soldiers entered S. Vietnam. Or
could be during LBJ's term with passing of
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The start
and escalation of the conflict happened
with Democrats in office. They could have
just sent all Americans home but instead
sent troops. Sending troops is an invasion.
\_ In earnest after Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,
but before then even. Troops were pulled
out under a Republican, of course.
\_ Send combat troops to aid friendly
govt. != invade. Running away !=
pulling troops.
\_ Ask the Vietnamese if they consider
it an invasion.
\_ North or South?
\_ Either/or. Fully 80% of Vietnamese,
whether in the North or South,
considered the US an unwanted
aggressor. It's one reason we
left. No one wanted us there
except a minority of elites.
\_ Truman? Are you proud of being ignorant? The
puppet state was set up by Eisenhower.
\_ Are you proud of being a douchebag?
Truman started it. (D) Kennedy was the first
to send combat troops. (D)
\_ You keep saying that "Truman started it" but
you are unable to explain what you mean by
"it." The nation of Vietnam? It has existed
for at least 1000 years. Try again, in
English this time.
\_ Duh, US military involvement in Vietnam.
Do you have a cognitive impediment?
The point was, Democrats got us involved
in the Vietnam War (and Korea). Why not
explicitly say whatever it is you think
refutes this instead of dancing around
with your head in your ass?
(the puppet government is irrelevant)
\_ Christ, if you're going to go down
this route, why not just say that
Wilson started it when he wouldn't
hear out Ho Chi Minh's proposal for
Viet independence after the signing
of the Treaty of Versailles?
\_ Because Kennedy and LBJ are the
ones who actually started US
combat operations in Vietnam.
Keep dancing.
\_ I can't wipe out a lifetime of
ignorance in a few paragraphs, sorry.
From the Vietnamese eyes, the
Vietnamese war of independence started
in 1885. The first direct US involve-
ment in Vietnam was during WWII, so you
might as well blame FDR. The actual
Civil War between north and south
started during Eisenhower and JFK sent
sent first US combat troops Trying to pin
US involvement in Vietname on Truman
is just bizarre.
sent first US combat troops. Trying to
pin US involvement in Vietname on
pin US involvement in Vietnam on
Truman is just bizarre.
\_ Truman was President first and
the US was already involved
militarily by the time Eisenhower
was elected. However, you can blame
FDR, too, if you want.
\_ Google MAAG
Besides, we sure were lucky D's were
elected and stopped the conflict before it
got out of hand!
\_ So your claim is that the US/Vietnam conflict
started while Vietnam was still a French
colony under French control? How did you do
in your history classes? Get any A's?
colony under French control?
\_ No, my claim is that US military
involvement started then.
\_ You're wrong.
\_ Am I? Whew. Thank you for, um, your convincing
argument backed up with facts.
\_ My point exactly! Have a cigar. And a dick.
\_ No thanks, you're a big enough dick for
the both of us.
\_ Shit, good thing the Democrats didn't nominate him.
\_ What happened to 'mccain has affair, nytimes reports on it,
mccain served in vietnam so no one follows up' |
| 2008/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50816 Activity:nil |
8/8 Russia invades Georgia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4486208.ece
\_ Welcome back Soviets, we missed you.
\_ They picked the luckiest day to invade!
\_ Anyone have any idea what's really going on here? Georgia wants
to join Nato and be west aligned, so Russia has been supporting
some rebel/seperatist groups? These groups are Russian citizens
or what? I don't really get that part. Georgia just made a major
offensive against a seperatist group and crushed them, so Russia
is rolling in the tanks?
\_ There's a population of ethnic Russians in that region of Georgia
who want to break away and join Russia. Mind you, given Russia's
opposition to Kosovar independence and Chechnyan separatists,
the irony is appalling.
\_ Just curious, was that population of ethnic Russians shipped
there by the soviets? They did that with some areas.
\_ Turns out (on closer viewing) that the separatists are a
different ethnic population from Russia and Georgia. As
usual, the BBC has an excellent primer on the region:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3261059.stm |
| 2008/8/6-10 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50800 Activity:nil |
8/6 Pro-US rallies greet Bush in Seoul.
http://csua.org/u/m12 (Blog w/ pics & vid and link to Rueters)
Actually, when I was a missionary in SK, Bush made a visit
(Feb 2002). An odd fellow in the neighborhood brought us a cake
to give to Bush. I guess because we were the closest Americans he
knew. It said (in Korean) "Welcome Bush". Anyway, we told him we
couldn't give it to Bush, so he told us to eat it. We did. -jrleek
\_ Good to hear that Bush has done a good job of improving our
image overseas.
\_ You ate it? Wow, you are VERY brave. I would have assumed
it was poisoned.
\_ A) This was 2002. B) We knew the guy, he was harmless, just a bit
kooky. -jrleek
\_ We forced them to import our beef again, and they still like us?
It's not clear from the article what Bush did recently that more
than offset the negative feeling from the beef issue.
\_ My understanding is that the protests were less about beef,
and more about the current SK prez, Lee Myung Bak. The beef was
just sort of a handy flashpoint. -jrleek
Addendum: It was good flashpoint largely because Lee Myung Bak
was being so high-handed about it and had terrible PR.
\_ Can someone explain why beef import is such a touchy issue in Korea?
-clueless
\_ Again, my impression is that it wasn't that the beef was such a
huge deal, it's that Lee Myung Pak is pissing everyone off. He
seems to think he's Park Chung-hee (The 1st military dictator.)
My understanding is that it went something like this:
Lee: We're importing beef again.
A few protestors: Hey!
Lee: Stupid poor people, always protesting.
Everyone else: WTF? Rawr!
\_ I talked to my wife about this after I got home. I had forgotten
but Lee Myung Bak is/was a member of a VERY large church in Seoul.
My wife guessed that a large chunk of the pro-US group was from that
church and 'allied' churches. -jrleek |
| 2008/8/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50789 Activity:nil 71%like:50835 |
8/5 Pulitzer prize winning journalist breaks the lid on the illegal
techniques the White House used to decieve the nation into supporting
the Iraq War:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308
\_ Obviously he is making this all up. You anti-semite!
\_ No evidence. Let's start an impeachment based on some guy's book!
\_ Oh, you have already read it? Where did you get the advance
copy? I thought it wasn't in the bookstores until tomorrow.
\_ I don't need to read it to know that. Someone else will
waste their time, read it, and summarize (like this
article you posted).
I'll read a 415 page work of art. Not a political
article/masturbation session blown up to 415 pages.
\_ I'm sure that someone will summarize and say that the
claims have veracity and Bush is a criminal. Someone
else will summarize and say that the author is full of
it. I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict
that you'll believe the second guy. -tom
\_ The book itself is obviously not evidence. If there
is veracity, we can go to the actual source of the
veracity. This book is irrelevant.
\_ You don't need to read it to know that there is no
evidence in it? How do you know that?
\_ If he has real evidence, publish it in a paper, not a
book for profit. |
| 2008/7/31-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50745 Activity:nil |
7/31 US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed
<DEAD>preview.tinyurl.com/6r3epf<DEAD> (Yahoo News, AP story)
Welcome to contempt, Miers.
\_ Welcome to PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
\_ Another loss for Bush and another win for America. |
| 2008/7/30-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50741 Activity:high |
7/31 Tell me again how City IS workers are all overpaid:
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/sfpay2008/?appSession=45817914602221
\_ There are MANY governments in the US, from Alaska to Tenessee.
It is like a FREE MARKET for government loving employees. They
can go to any government branch they want, no one is FORCING them
to go to SF government. Free market is at force, and therefore
the pay is justified.
\_ You do realize this is their pay only through 6/13/08, which
means half a year's pay? Right? So 8,700 employees have been
paid at least $50K for half a year's work so far. Incredible.
(FWIW, there are 28K employees total so 1/3 make > $100K.)
\_ Where do you get the 28k employees?
\_ I STFW like you should do.
\_ City AND county?
\_ Same thing in SF:
http://tinyurl.com/6246nh
\_ you're reading it wrong; look at some of the examples, most
have "other pay" which is not part of their salary. The
salaries are quite low for IT people.
\_ No, I am not reading it wrong. Some of them do have "other
pay". Some do not. "Other pay" is still pay and for most
of them it's not that significant (less than 5% of
compensation).
\_ Do you know that they get it every year? Do you know
what's included? No. You're looking at a number that's
provided without details, and assuming it means what you
want it to mean.
\_ All you need to know is that:
1) Not every salary includes it.
2) Of the ones that do, it tends to be a very small
amount - so small as to not matter.
\_ So, what do you think the base pay should be for
the highest-paid IT guy in an organization of
10K+ people? How about the second highest-paid?
\_ I dunno. Strawman. We're talking about
8700 people, not the top 1 or 2.
\_ So? What do you think the 8700th
best-paid person should make in an
organization you don't even know the
size of?
\_ I do know the size. 28K people. And
you are a waste of time, because you
apparently cannot read (see above
where I stated the size).
\_ No, I did not realize this, thanks for straigtening me out.
I was astonished at how underpaid they were, now it looks
about the same as the private sector, which does seem kind
of high, given the bennies and job security they get.
\_ The same as the private sector? Maybe at the high end of
the private sector plus they are eligible for overtime. Check
out these median SF salaries for comparison:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/City=San_Francisco/Salary
\_ Most are not eligible for overtime, and the SF city
numbers posted above are not the median numbers, they're
the highest-paid staffers. The least expensive one on
the list is a senior IS business analyst; $100K is a
completely reasonable salary for that title.
\_ You do realize the list keeps going, right? So it's
not just the highest paid. It's everyone. The
highest paid person in SF made $264K for 6 months
of work. The second highest (a nurse) made $200K
including $128K of overtime. Of the 1000 highest paid
employees, there were only 4 IS employees. This
isn't just about IS. It's about 9000 people making
100K per year working for the city. We all know
that city employees work harder than anyone and only
the best and the brightest work for the city of SF.
It's reflected in the quality of the services provided.
Why you would defend this bloated piece of shit
organization is beyond me. Got a relative working
for the city?
\_ "In the first half of the 2008 calendar
year, the City and County of San Francisco
has more than 8,700 employees who have been
paid at least $50,000 (through June 13)."
You're misunderstanding the data; these are just
the 8700 top who've earned more than $50K so far
this year.
\_ Go to the link, you fuck. You can get the
salaries for the entire city. 8700 are just
the people who make over $100K.
\_ You are wrong, as usual and typically too
arrogant to admit it. Go to the link, pull
the drop down that says "See ALL" and hit
search. How many entries do you see? 8730.
There are far more city employees than that.
\_ Okay, you are correct that the bottom
2/3 are not listed, but what is your point?
What did I misunderstand? Nothing. I stated
in my very first paragraph that it was 1/3
of the city employees who make more than
$100K and in my last sentence above that
"8700 are just the people who make over
$100K". Tell me something I don't know.
\_ The point is you have provided no data
which suggest that SF city employees
are paid over the median or average.
\_ Look at the salaries and the
job titles. Compare to industry.
Rinse. Repeat.
\_ Yeah, I did, and it looks
pretty low.
\_ You are on crack. You think a
nurse making $200K in 6 months
is "pretty low"?
\_ You think a CEO making
$10 million in 6 months for
bankrupting his company is
"pretty low"? It's all
relative.
\_ No, I don't think that's
"pretty low". Regardless,
nursing wages are well
understood and $400K
is a lot for a nurse.
\_ The nurse makes $130k in
regular salary, as you know.
\_ Which, as you know,
is a lie to hide her
actual salary. Government
employees use that trick
a lot - especially
police and firemen.
I think her W-2 is
far more interesting
than her paper wage.
\_ Bullshit. You have no
idea what you are
talking about.
\_ Uh huh. Which is
why the facts
support me and
you have none
to support you.
\_ That quote is from the link. And you still
haven't answered how much you think
the 8700th-highest-paid city worker should
make.
\_ It's a stupid question not deserving
of an answer. The point here is that
the city pays the same as - or higher
than - industry for most jobs, which
is in direct contrast to the "poor
underpaid government employee" schtick
some SOBs on motd believe. The city
pays plenty of its employees higher than
the median salary. Maybe even all of them,
but we can't be sure of that because
we don't know what positions the
bottom 2/3 hold. Why does the city
employ 28K people anyway? Caltax says
that is 1.5x as many per capita as
Santa Clara, San Diego, or LA.
\_ you've provided no data which show
that the median city staffing salary
is higher than the median private
salary for comparable jobs.
\_ I don't have to show that. I
just have to show that 1/3 of
positions in the city pay higher
than the median in order to
prove that city employees can be
paid plenty well and hence are
hardly underpaid as a whole.
\_ If less than 1/3 make more than
the median you need to retake
your statistics classes.
\_ do you even understand what
a median is? If less than 50%
of city employees are paid
above the median, the class
"city employees" is underpaid.
And the average will be even
lower than the median, because
cities don't have CEOs pulling
down seven figures for running
their companies into bankruptcy.
\_ We can't compute the median
without more data. However,
there's a good bet that most of
the lowest paid workers are
not in job classifications
that matter. My argument
is not "the median city
employee makes more than
the median private sector
employee" (which might still be
true). My argument is that
city workers are often paid
plenty well - at least market
rate if not more.
\_ City workers are often
paid poorly, well under
market rate. Nice impasse,
eh? You could resolve it
by looking at median and
average earnings, but you
have no interest in doing
that. -tom
\_ I'll look at them if
you can find them.
However, the data we
do have contradicts
your statement.
\_ It does no such thing.
-tom
\_ Sure it does. The
jobs we can see are
paid as well as or
more than comparable
jobs in industry.
\_ Which says
nothing at all
about the median
or average, or
even about
people with
comparable
experience and
skill.
-tom
\_ We don't need
median or
average to
show that
they are not
"paid poorly".
All we need
are the
salaries,
which are not
"poor".
\_ The City is a unified City and County,
so it requires additional staffing. But
I agree that the number of employees
still seems to high.
\_ Not much more staffing, since there
are no other cities in the County
to manage and oversee.
\_ MUNI >> public transit in
LA/Santa Clara/San Diego, per
capita. -tom
\_ If true then that's SF's
own fault for having such an
expensive infrastructure
given the populace it serves.
\_ SF is providing more
services, therefore it
has more staff. I
hope you don't view
Santa Clara as the
greatest example of
city services. -tom
\_ Why is it providing
more services than
it needs to?
\_ It's not. -tom
\_ Apparently it is if
Santa Clara is
getting by just
fine with less.
\_ You're an idiot.
I'm done here.
-tom
\_ That's good
because you've
contributed
nothing of
value to the
discussion
except to
reiterate
your steadfast
belief that
government
workers are
poorly paid
even in the
face of facts
which show 1/3
make more
than the
median
attorney
salary.
\_ you're
an idiot.
\_ Clever
\_ That is what the residents
want, you know that, right?
\_ I'm not sure this is
true. If you give
the people want they
want they will spend
you to a multi-trillion
dollar deficit. If
SF is solvent then
no issues, I guess.
However, I read SF
is facing a $250M
deficit next year.
true. If you give the
people what they want
they will spend you to a
multi-trillion dollar
deficit. If SF is solvent
then no issues, I guess.
However, I read SF is
facing a $250M deficit
next year.
I live here and I can _/
assure you that this
is true. The voters
routinely vote for
increased taxes for
increased services.
The widely reported
$250M gap is being
closed by (gasp!)
rainy day funds,
which The City put
away during better
times and by a
hiring freeze. And
while $250M might
sound like a lot,
it is less than 4%
of the total budget.
What is the State of
CAs deficit this year?
How about Bush's?
\_ Actually, I haven't heard that the deficit
was covered. I did read that the Rainy Day
Fund is $122M, so it's not enough by itself.
And then what? Bush is a moron and a red
herring, but sure, other government sucks,
too. I won't argue that.
\_ So the City is doing better than the
the State and the Federal government
in this time of recession. I think we
can agree this is a testament to the
superior quality of SF City government.
Not sure why you think the Federal
deficit is a red herring, aren't we
talking about government fiscal
management here? How many companies
are running in the red right now? Check
out GMs deficit.
\_ If you want to argue that the Feds are
bigger fuckups than SF feel free. I
agree. However, that doesn't exonerate
SF.
Of course, you realize your argument is directly
at odds with your free market advocacy; if
the city jobs really are better-paying and easier,
they will naturally attract the best people.
\_ Markets are not efficient. I don't think
most people realize how much money is to be
made at the city. That's the point of
publicizing the salaries.
\_ You don't understand what you are looking at.
Those are the highest paid 8700 out of a work
force of over 27k. So over 2/3 make less than
$100k.
\_ I understand completely and you are restating
what I said. Is English your first language?
Your ignorance of SF City services is
showing. Don't you live in LA or something?
How many times have you even used a SF city service?
Most of them work good or even great, like the
public parks and libraries.
\_ The city couldn't even fire a guy who they
thought was a wacko and then he locked them
out of their own systems. Sounds like things
are going swimmingly.
\_ well he's still cooling his heels in jail.
i doubt he'll have a job for much longer. |
| 2008/7/30-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50728 Activity:nil |
7/29 Torture is Un-American (or another whacko with BDS)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5l28vn |
| 2008/7/29-8/3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50718 Activity:low |
7/29 Place your bets:
Sen. Stevens of Alaska faces criminal charges
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6yrtp2 (Yahoo News)
\_ I knew we should have gotten rid of that dick weed when he
offered. -R
\_ People like that is why I left the party. -I
\_ huh, people like BUSH-II CHENEY ADDINGTON ROVE is
why i left the party. a little 100k graft never hurt
anyone.
\_ Disloyalty is evil -Reagan
\_ Is our children learning? |
| 2008/7/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:50702 Activity:nil |
7/28 Merrill Lynch forecasts +1.8% GDP growth in Q2, dropping to a -2.5%
contraction in 2008 Q4 and 2009 Q1.
http://tinyurl.com/65bmm8 (bloomberg.com)
\_ This would be a big drop, if true. ECRI is not showing evidence
of that kind of drop in their leading indicators, at least not yet.
\_ The White House predicts considerably better performance than that:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6j86v4 (Yahoo News) |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50670 Activity:nil |
7/23 Bob Novak: [bodily orifice]:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5nyb6s (CBS News)
\_ Another Compassionate Conservative. Bush will probably pardon
him, too.
\_ This really is the model, isn't it? "I didn't see him!
I wasn't running away, really! And why are you blocking
my car with your bike? I haven't done anything wrong!" |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50658 Activity:nil |
7/23 When did the National Enquirer start reporting stories that are true?
\_ Oh even the Weekly World News included the odd true story. (In
the WWW news' case, usually as a 1 paragraph blurb.)
\_ Quite a while actually. They even win real awards every now
and then. Of course they also do tons of crap as well.
\_ You mean the "SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE
CHILD!" story? Or the "BUSH BOOZE CRISES" one?
\_ i hope its not true. you have to pretty incredibly awe
inspiring worthy of study and fodder for comedy show jokes
for the next 10 years to have an affair when you are a
mainstream presidential candidate. they always get caught. |
| 2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50647 Activity:moderate |
7/21 Wouldn't we be better off having an "executive council" of a few people
(e.g. 3) instead of one single elected leader? It would look more
democratic. They could hold terms of 6 yrs each, staggered with
an election every 2 yrs. Majority rule. Plus, watching them bicker with
each other would be fun. Also we'd eliminate the useless VP role.
It works for the Supreme Court, right? We don't have one single Supreme
Judge.
\_ We could have a Politburo, elected by elected representatives of
communes.
\_ We have three branches of government instead of one single
elected leader.
\_ We have one single elected executive, I mean. Besides, the other
branches don't get nearly as much scrutiny as the POTUS. POTUS
is responsible for appointing SCOTUS and all this stuff
that people complain about with Bush.
\_ POTUS focuses a lot of scrutiny by being the sole Executive.
POTUS _nominates_ SCOTUS Justices, but Congress approves or
denies; similarly, Congress proposes legislation which POTUS
approves or denies. The current system of checks and balances
works, if the players are willing to fulfill their roles.
\_ Ok how about: put leader 1 in charge of Air Force, leader
2 in charge of Army, leader 3 gets the Navy. They
can roll dice each week for who gets supreme command.
Ok, just kidding... someone else come up with a motd
subject damnit.
\_ The Triumvarate never worked very well for Rome.
\_ That's not strictly true. It just didn't work out in the long
run.
\_ Neither did Rome. So what? This isn't an argument.
\_ ... dum conderet urbem
inferretque deos Latio; genus unde
Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae.
...
en huius, nate, auspiciis illa incluta Roma
imperium terris, animos aequabit Olympo,
septemque una sibi muro circumdabit arces,
felix prole uirum
...
tum pater Anchises lacrimis ingressus obortis:
'o gnate, ingentem luctum ne quaere tuorum;
ostendent terris hunc tantum fata nec ultra
esse sinent. nimium uobis Romana propago
uisa potens, superi, propria haec si dona fuissent.
quantos ille uirum magnam Mauortis ad urbem
campus aget gemitus
...
\_ [latin deleted]
\_ I'm adding a translation I found on the internet.
... until he founded a city and brought his gods to Latium:
from that the Latin people came, the lords of Alba Longa,
the walls of noble Rome.
...
Behold, my son, under his command glorious Rome will match
earth's power and heaven's will, and encircle seven hills
with a single wall, happy in her race of men.
...
O, do not ask about your people's great sorrow, my son.
The fates will only show him to the world, not allow him to
stay longer. The Roman people would seem too powerful to
you gods, if this gift were lasting.
\_ Ille ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus auena
carmen, et egressus silvis uicina coegi
ut quamuis auido parerent arua colono
gratum opus agricolis, at nunc horrentia Martis
\_ The Triumvarate "worked" for Rome in a variety of ways
until it didn't. The original statement lacks any rigor.
\_ Since both times it was tried, it led to a civil war,
no further evidence is needed. Unless you think a
civil war every few decades is a good way to run
your government.
\- one of the "Big Questions" in Roman scholarship is
"was the Roman Revolution inevitable" [or more of
a contingent outcome]. RSYME is "the standard"
and one of the important rebuttals/reconsiderations
is by EGRUEN (UCB Dept History...one of the finest
lecturers at Berkeley). Anyway, the "it led to civil
war" is a little glib, like say "the assassination
of Archduke Ferdinand led to WW1".
\_ Worked for Thomas Jefferson.
\- the more appropriate roman analogy would be to the practice of
dual consuls. and there were two Triumvirates ... the
first was an alliance, not a formal structure of govt. and
groups of 3 can be quite unstable because it is open 2:1, so
that may make one "the decider". anyway, it is silly to go on.
\_ Why is that more unstable? With 1, that one is the decider.
\_ See Julius Caesar Act IV, Scene 1
\_ Brain for world emperor:
_ _
/~\\ //~\
| \\ // |
[ || || ]
) Y || || Y (
| \_|l,------.l|_/ |
| >' `< |
\ (/~`--____--'~\) / _____________________________________
`-_>-__________-<_-' / \
/(_#(__)#_)\ / By right of superior intelligence, \
\___/__\___/ ____/ |
/__`--'__\ \___ I am best suited to guide the destiny |
/\(__,>-~~ __) \ |
/\//\\( `--~~ ) \ of this planet. |
'\/ <^\ /^> \ /
_\ >-__-< /_ `------------------------------------'
(___\ /___) |
| 2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50644 Activity:high |
7/21 Look at all these corrupt Democrats. But how can this be? Democrats
are supposed to be noble and good. And getting the Green party off
the ballot sounds... undemocratic.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08193/896353-454.stm
\_ They are all HITLER
\_ Corruption seems to be endemic to the human experience,
unfortunately. I don't believe anyone (here) has claimed that
Democrats are all noble and good. Is that a Straw Man you are
furiously bashing?
\_ And yet, strangely, they still won't be the party that sold out the
government to Halliburton, Worldcom, and Enron.
\_ What exactly does "sold out the government" mean?
\_ Started a ruinous war to further profits for.
\_ Yet, strangely, Democrats voted to authorize that war.
An inscrutable contradiction!
Could it be that Democrats also profit from Corporate
America, Inc.?
But that's silly. Corporations are evil and Democrats
are axiomatically good.
\_ And yet, strangely, they're collaborators, not
instigators. Their culpability is still less than that
of the GOP, war-profiteering-wise.
\_ Strangely, I think you need to justify that.
\_ And stranger still, I think the charges need to
be justified first.
\_ A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the
war, but you already knew that. Don't the facts get
in the way of your supposed rhetorical point.
\_ A majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for it.
Enough in the house to pass the resolution. They
are Democrats. A few Republicans also voted against
it, so what?
\_ An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted
for the resolution and an overwhelming majority
of Democrats voted against it, even when it
took quite a bit of moral and intellectual
courage to do so. The resolution would have
passed without any Democratic support whatsover,
since the GOP was in the majority. Why are you
so hellbent on re-writing history? Are you a
GOP partisan? Ashamed of your earlier war support?
I remember when Bush supporters were smashing
courage to do so. Why are you so hellbent
on re-writing history? Are you a GOP
partisan? Ashamed of your earlier war support?
I remember when war supporters were smashing
shop windows and beating opponents of the war,
where was your outrage then?
\_ I am still wondering why the Democrats didn't try to
impeach Bush. God, they have no balls at all.
Repubs impeach a guy for oral sex while Democrats win
control of Congress and proceed to mostly whine
about a supposed war criminal.
\_ I don't seem them whining about war crimes. Who
does that? Not the mainstream ones, anyway. You
get guys like Paul, Gravel, + Kucinich but nobody
votes for those guys. People vote for the status quo.
\_ You mean they are complicit and aren't opposed to
the war? That makes it better for them? I was
giving them some credit. People voted Dems
into office because they were unhappy with
the Repub leadership and the Dems turned
around and did absolutely nothing. And now
morons believe Obama is gonna change that?
\_ Better to do nothing than to do something
stupid. Stupid.
\_ They did do the stupid thing themselves.
They authorized the war, continue to
fund it, and Obama says he'll keep troops
there indefinitely. Yay.
Politics is all about complaining about
whatever bad thing exists. Like gas prices.
Look at the price of gas! Vote for me!
What am I gonna do about it? Who cares,
vote for me. War? War is bad right? Vote
for me!
\_ More lies. Obama said he will bring
the troops home. Do you get your
playbook from Rove?
the troops home.
\_ That's why the Dems will never get
anything done. They don't want to make
bad decisions. That never stopped the
Republicans, who beat the Dems like a drum.
Good leaders aren't afraid to stick
their necks out. They worry about being
proven right later. I'm not saying bad
decisions are a good thing, but I'd say
no decisions at all is worse. We don't
need a government if we're not going to
take any actions. Just refund the tax
dollars to the citizens then. I think a
token rumbling about impeaching Bush
would have been a good thing, even if
they didn't actually go through with it.
Instead, they approve everything Bush wants.
\_ Kucinich has repeatedly tried to get
articles of impeachment to the House
floor, but cannot get the votes. This is
the way a Democracy works. There are
other ways to win in politics, other
than beating your opponent like a drum.
That is the Rove playbook. Did FDR ever
beat anyone like a drum? No one would
dispute that he got a lot done.
\_ "Did FDR ever beat anyone like a drum?
YES! Geez, don't you know any history?
\_ Where and when? Maybe you define
beating like a drum differently
than me, but mostly FDR was a good
consensus builder, not a 50% + 1
kind of divisive leader like the
Bush/Rove/Cheney gang.
\_ They tried, over and over again, to get a time-
table for withdrawal passed, and you know what
the GOP did? Filibustered. That's right, the
party that threatened the "nukular" option if
the Dems filibustered turned around and fili-
bustered. Couple that with Bush's veto-frenzy,
and the charge that the Dems did nothing
quickly becomes: the GOP cock-blocked every
way they could. But hey, go ahead and blame the
Dems for the GOP's fuckups. |
| 2008/7/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50635 Activity:nil |
7/19 Now less popular than Nixon:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1094001.html
\_ Incorrect, this is only true among CA voters. Bush is still
a hero to 28% of the Americans, or less than 1/2 of the
loyal conservative. Keep in mind, he still hasn't had sex
with an intern, therefore, he is a GOOD MAN. |
| 2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:50595 Activity:nil |
7/16 Yes let's start making interest rate super low and make it super easy
to get loans so that every American can own a home! Go for it
Greenspan, and keep it up Bernanke. "We're creating...an ownership
society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able
to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house,
welcome to my piece of property," Bush said in October 2004.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/klein
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/what_ownership_society.php
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E6DE153FF933A15751C1A9659C8B63
Please don't f***ing paste your f***ing CATO links here, thank you.
\_ All of that started in 1996.
\_ It is all Bill Clinton's fault.
\_ related to the carbon emission thread above. This is the perfect
time for US to curb consumer behaviors. we can now impose
heavy taxes on housing that has sq.feet per person larger than a
a preset limit, *AND* we can impose rules on developers that mediem
house size to a fixed sq feet. China has similiar regulation
already in place to curb large houses. Time for US to do something
similiar. |
| 2008/7/15-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50579 Activity:nil |
7/15 How the government cooks economic statistics (great article by
Kevin Phillips)
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082023
\- YMWTGF(cambridge forum kevin philips) |
| 2008/7/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50547 Activity:nil 72%like:50545 |
7/12 You stay classy lefties
http://preview.tinyurl.com/66bphh [ap.google]
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/12/9943/75678/728/550496
\_ You pick out one obscure blogger that gets, what, one hundred
hits a day, as representing "lefties?" I am sure Herr Coulter
says more disgusting things daily and millions follow her every
word.
\_ I pointed to the AP.
\_ What about that AP story is offensive to you? |
| 2008/7/12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50545 Activity:nil 72%like:50547 |
7/12 You stay classy lefties
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/12/9943/75678/728/550496
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlLqJdEpQFE1IsewIi1OAFbFHN1AD91SA36O0 |
| 2008/7/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50544 Activity:nil |
7/11 Berkeley's own Brad DeLong on the Fannie Mae bailout:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/07/every-time-i-tr.html
Most amusing moment: Grover Norquist blames Nancy Pelosi
for high gasoline prices.
\_ I blame Al Gore. |
| 2008/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50543 Activity:nil |
7/11 Grover Norquist blames Nancy Pelosi for high oil prices:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/07/every-time-i-tr.html |
| 2008/7/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50495 Activity:low |
7/8 Congress approval in single digits for first time ever
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5d496t
\_ The Democrats in Congress are considerably higher, though
still quite low, at 21%:
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
\_ The trick is, the Republicans are also 21% favorable.
"Congress" is too amorphous a body to have a meaningful
approval rating. -tom
\_ Also meaningless because generally people like their guy.
And since you can only vote for your guy overal approval
rating is really just a indicator of how fucked up people
think the country/economy is getting.
\_ But the comparison to previous congresses is valid.
\_ The way this congress handled issues like war spending, Farm Bill,
and the upcoming FISA bill make me want to vote out pretty much
every incumbent senator and congressman out of office regardless
of party affiliation, starting with Nancy Pelosi. This congress
has not attempted to resolve any issues that they were elected
to work on, and for the last 12 months they had been for the
most part engaging in election year politics and pandering to voters.
most part engaging in election year politics and pandering to
voters.
\_ Totally agree. Didn't we elect them to remove the rubber-stamp
practices? I don't get why Pelosi doesn't stand up to Bush
the way she did when first elected, telling the President he
needed to calm down. Since then, every confrontation the
democrats have caved. Almost all the slightly controvertial
legislation they have passed has been vetoed, why does Bush
have any credibility or sway with them anymore? Its getting
pretty annoying that the republicans vote in a complete block
but the democrats can't come to a cohesive position... ever.
\- i'm willing to wait and see what kind of hearings we get
about cheney and the other liars and theives and tortures
after the election. i can see being risk averse if it looks
like you will cruise to victory.
\_ Not exactly:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5n4kc2 [yahoo news] |
| 2008/7/4-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50473 Activity:nil 71%like:50472 |
7/4 Wow, even the NYTimes is noticing Obama's 'refinements'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html |
| 2008/7/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50472 Activity:nil 71%like:50473 |
7/4 Wow, even the NYTimes is noticing Obama's PLEASE USE ANOTHER TERM OK
THX BYE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html |
| 2008/6/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50403 Activity:nil |
6/27 In a blistering condemnation of President Bush's willingness to go to
the wall for corporations he relies on to spy on Americans, MSNBC host
Keith Olbermann says the president's message in his State of the Union
address calling for immunity of telecommunications companies is a
"textbook example of fascism."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann_rails_against_Bush_fascist_telecom_0201.html
Obama votes for FISA bill with immunity of telcoms.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/politics/politico/main4212811.shtml
Yesterday, Olbermann says:
"Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject
of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA
compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own
party . . . But first, it's time to bring in our own Jonathan Alter,
also, of course, senior editor of "Newsweek" magazine."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html |
| 2008/6/27-7/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50392 Activity:nil |
6/27 Wow, 23 percent approval rating. Is this a record low?
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
\_ 77% of America has BDS. |
| 2008/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50355 Activity:moderate 92%like:50333 |
6/23 Passing out "homemade" signs at Obama rally
http://preview.tinyurl.com/67xltd [theunfocused.blogspot.com]
\_ this is about the level of me seeing a pro mccain poster on
the bulletin board at work. big whoop-dee-do. stop
blogging about your toast being burnt.
\_ Wow, look at all that FURIOUS ANGER in the comments. This is
awesome.
\_ The always vitrolic and bile-filled Right actually has something
to be upset about for once. I wonder if their heads are going
to explode in November when O actually wins.
\_ What do they have to be upset about again? That they were
given a free reign to do anything they wanted for 5-6 years
and ended up destroying the economy and America's reputation?
\_ They are losing control of the government.
\_ You mean they are unable to control the BEAST!!!
Big government BAD BAD BAD! Starve it! Go Reagan!
\_ It's all Bill Clinton's fault!
\_ When Bill was POTUS we had a Republican Congress.
\_ Yes because the economy and America's reputation were
perfect before W. Hint: deficits and bubbles were
existing problems. And don't liberals love gas prices
being high?
\_ The argument that the absurdities of the W-Admin
should be forgiven because no one's perfect fails on
its face. In the history of !perfect, no POTUS has
done more to screw us up.
\_ Carter.
\_ Even Carter didn't leave our military and our
economy in a mess on the scale of W.
\_ Carter only had four years, W got eight.
\_ Are you kidding? Carter's military failed to
get a bunch of helicopters across the desert.
Carter's economy introduced the phrase
"double digit inflation" and "odd-even gas
days" to the American public. *AND* he
managed to fuck up the country in only 4
years. Were you even alive during Carter's
term? Do you remember any of it? I do.
We've been over this before. As bad as Bush
has messed up any number of things, Carter
was worse. I could go on and on with Carter's
failures but there's no point. If he was a
(R) you'd think he was Satan. If Bush was a
(D) you'd be making excuses for him. Go read
Carter's Malaise Speech. That sums it up
nicely.
\_ You're comparing Carter's inability to
rescue the hostages to our humiliation at
the hands of insurgents with IEDs? The
resurgent Taliban? Year after year of
quagmire? D or R doesn't matter to me
nearly as much as the squandering of
surplus of budget _and_ international
support by the Bush Admin.
\_ I'm comparing Carter's entire concept of
diplomacy and military gutting policies
to nothing. The failure stands tall and
proud on the absolute scale without
requiring any comparison. How much
international support do you think we
had after the fucked up rescue? After
The President Of The United States Of
America gave the fucking "Malaise
Speech"? Really, I seriously suspect
like our other poster here that you
either weren't alive or aren't old enough
to remember the nightmare and very dark
days for the Carter era in this country.
I don't think you're stupid or anything
like that, I believe you're simply
uneducated on the topic. Go look up that
speech and we'll talk after.
\_ you know, you're right, i was not a
thinking human during the carter years,
but im going to go out on a short limb here
and state that the Bush Administration has
screwed up America 100x worse than Carter
could have dreamed. Do you realize how
much of a gigantic clusterfuck Iraq is?
fuck. i don't swear that much but just
thinking of bush right now makes my heartbeat
go up.
thinking of bush right now makes my heart-
beat go up.
\_ You weren't there and the media would
never remind you. I'm sorry but really
you have no clue how bad it was in *this*
country during Carter's era. Since you
seem so intense about Iraq, I'd rather
the cluster fuck be in another country
than in this country.
\- BUSHCO is a vastly bigger fuckup than
PEANUT. and unless you are a die hard
israel supporter, carter is a good
"ex-president". what are the odds
BUSHCO will grow up and be respected
for his service, sacrifice, maturity
of thought etc.
\_ After he's out of office I really don't
care what he does. I barely care now.
I'm not a die hard anything but I do
believe it is stupid to support the
theocrats and thugs in the area over
the only democracy that has women's
right and doesn't execute homosexuals.
\- let's review: you dont have strong
feeling about the US being a
democracy that tortures people,
is becoming a plutocracy, and
appoints judges hostile to
women's/gay rights ["I barely care
now"], but you are significantly
concerned about women's and gay
rights in the middle east. why is
it hard to take you seriously?
YBHBCA:S. --psb |
| 2008/6/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50305 Activity:nil |
6/19 High gasoline prices accelerating return to the cities:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4gdqop (SF Gate)
\_ http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/fallows
Reading SF Gate + Atlantic is like reading Kunstler's rants.
CITY GOOD SUBURB BAD! Fucking hippies. Pasadena rules!!!
\_ This article is amusing, but unlikely. Why would China want to
collapse the American economy? This would be like a crack dealer
shooting his best customer. |
| 2008/6/19-20 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50297 Activity:nil 75%like:50317 |
6/19 Dumbest liberal evar!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d53lspwDeI |
| 2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:50278 Activity:nil |
6/16 Pin for sale at Texas GOP state convention
"If Obama is President... will we still call it the White House?"
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/gop-state-convention-in-texas-if-obama.html |
| 2008/6/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50200 Activity:nil |
6/9 aazif mandi is my hero.
\_ Do you people get all your news from The Daily Show?
\_ Statistically, no: http://preview.tinyurl.com/4nkuwn |
| 2008/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50181 Activity:high |
6/6 Pure comedy as freepers react to Obama's fist bump with his wife:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9657.html
"History has shown repeatedly, when Whites set up new countries and
then give the control to the blacks, or any non-White race, it will
soon collapse into another third world catastrophe."
"THE NEXT THING WILL BE A BACKWARD BASEBALL HAT WITH USA FACING TO THE
REAR. WILL THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER SOON BE A RAP SONG."
"You got to be kidding, The fist “bumpâ€Â, .America “WAK\
E UPâ€Â, You are
getting your first taste of what it is going to be like electing Barack
HUSSEIN Obama for president. Next you are going to see southern fried
chicken, black-eyed peas, corn bread, and watermelon as your daily
meal. Let’s not forget what Obama’s middle name is, funny thing, he
never wants to use his middle name on his campaign."
\_ Compare any day with the HufPo nutters. yawn.
\_ Or DailyKos, or Democraticunderground, etc, etc. Since there are
no freepers on the motd, I wonder who the OP is trying to troll. |
| 2008/6/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50178 Activity:low |
6/6 Suprise! John Bolton doesn't think much of Obama!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story
\_ Oh, John Bolton, is there any situation you can't stick your foot
in your mouth over?
\_ Evil John Bolton puts US before UN! Rat Bastard!
\_ Bolton's a bundle of neuroses and anger management issues
looking for an outlet; you don't hire a man like that for
his patriotism, you hire him so you can aim him at people
you don't like, then watch him spew.
\_ Can we give him a CSUA account?
\_ Now you're catching on. Look for him on the freep
boards, too. |
| 2008/6/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50168 Activity:nil |
6/6 http://www.google.com/news?q="fist+bump" - danh \_ Gag. And 1000 reporters jizz in their pants. \_ Heil! \_ Behind the times: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JUUIBJme-bg (Bud commercial) \_ http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060007 It wasn't a fist bump it was a "terrorist fist jab"! Go Fox! |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50129 Activity:nil |
6/2 http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nezv8 Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions." Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president. During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk: "Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal." "There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!" A White House spokesman had no comment. |
| 2008/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50088 Activity:nil |
5/29 Look at that. McClellan's hit piece is published by Soros
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection
\_ Go to Barnes and Noble. Notice the shelves of really not very interesting
conservative tomes from agit prop national right wing figures. I'll
list a few later if you want. Notice they're almost all published
by the Newsmax guys. I just can't imagine anyone buying that stuff,
at least the McClellan books sounds a little exciting. emarkp
have you finished your copy of the Stossel book yet?
\_ You make my brane hurt. The man spit up lies for BushCo for years
then decided to make some money while clearing his conscience.
What part of what he has to say about BushCo surprises you?
\_ Oh, you're a string theorist?
\_ Un, fish?
\_ "brane"
\_ Oh, right! Thanks!
\_ That dirty dirty hippie! |
| 2008/5/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50070 Activity:high |
5/28 Former White House press sect comes out with book bashing
his old boss. I feel like we're trapped in an alternate
universe where I read the newspaper and think immediately
'well OF COURSE I THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW THIS STUFF' when
I read the newspaper and that The Onion should give up, since
their writers will never be able to keep up with the tragic
humor masters of the Bush administration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/28/national/w051712D44.DTL
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6h9yup
\_ Uhm... "fired staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
\_ Uhm... "fired Bush staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
any administration. Is this your first election cycle in this
country?
\_ Yeah, let's talk about something more important, like WHY
DOESN'T THAT MARXIST OBAMA WEAR A FLAG PIN?
\_ Nice strawman.
Bush bashing is such old hat now isn't it? I mean, how
\_ doesn't get old. consequences of trying to pave Iraq
with no viable plan will be with us for decades.
old money bluebloods in CT still whine about the
New Deal, and that was a long time ago. Iraq isn't
even last week. Iraq is The Now(tm).
\_ Well, Al Qaeda has a part to play in this doesn't it?
If it didn't do 9/11 and fight us in Afghanistan and
Iraq then a lot fewer innocents would have died.
If Saddam wasn't a brutal strongman then we'd have no
excuse to go in there. Who is responsible for the
terrorism in Iraq? It's not the USA that is blowing up
street markets. Iraq is pretty effed up but it was
already effed up.
\_ AQ wasn't in Iraq pre-US Invasion. AQ and SH were
not BFF. We should have stopped with Afghanistan.
We should have brought other pressures against
SH. There were no WMD. There was no link to AQ.
Stop perpetuating lies told by chickenhawks to
sell a war to demonstrate that the Powell
Doctrine was bunk.
\_ I know there was no link to AQ, but there is now
right? So what about that? Should we ignore AQ?
AQ is there now and causing deaths.
\_ AQI is nowhere near as powerful or popular
as the AQ was when the Taliban ruled Afg.
We should leave the internal affair of
cleaning up AQI to the Iraqis.
much more dead can that horse get? Me, I consider myself
an independent voter because the reality is that both major
parties are full of posturing blowhards. If you really care
about change then you should push for instant runoff voting
and support real change from status quo American politics.
Not Obama populist speechmaking change, actual structural
change. Americans are too complacent. We often complain about
the choices but then go ahead and vote for one of them anyway
instead of making a concerted effort to bring someone else in.
I actually think a random selection of people would be better
Congresspersons than district-based elected reps from
political parties. Proportional representation would be
pretty good but political parties in general are somewhat
broken. You could have a bunch of people randomly selected
from an opt-in pool and then have voters approve some number
of those. The usual road to political campaign promotes
corruption and actor-style figurehead polticians.
change. Americans are too complacent.
\_ You really think a Democratic President is going to
be exactly like a Republican one? You expect more
unprovoked wars and massive transfers of wealth from
future taxpayers to well-connected defence contractors?
I don't. If you support real change, you should join
Common Cause and push for campaign finance reform. I did.
\_ You really think a new Republican President is going to
be exactly like Bush?
Bush couldn't do what he has done without the support
of Democrats in Congress. Do you really think Democrats
\_ I believe Bush and his advisors were able to
brilliantly out maneuver and bully Congress into
funding their Iraq plan. Also in another thread
we can all rant about Bush not following laws,
interpreting laws only in the way his lawyers
say they should be interpretted, just simply not
following laws he didnt like because hey its
war time, and then we can get into torture and
how Bush has thrown away decades of world good
will by showing how the US just doesn't care about
the Geneva conventions.
\_ Laugh. How did they bully Congress? If Bush is
not following laws, why don't they impeach him?
\_ I DO NOT KNOW!
\_ They didn't have the votes.
What laws? What world good will exactly? The
\_ look up 'signing statements'
\_ what material effect has this had?
good will was already pretty suspect in most
Arab countries; we have been strongly supporting
Israel for a long ass time and fucking around
protecting or deposing various third world
regimes. The Guantanamo dudes were mainly from the
Afghanistan thing which everybody seems to think
was a fine and jolly war.
\_ American popularity has plummeted worldwide,
not just in the Middle East.
\_ Well, it doesn't seem to matter anywhere but
in the middle east. I don't think this is
a long term thing. Muslims aren't very happy
about Europe either, and China already had
tension for obvious reasons. I don't see any
real long term difference.
\_ The majority of the Guantanamites were sold to
us by our allies in Pakistan. The Bush Admin
encouraged a sloppy attitude toward accepting
these guys without research or due process.
This same Admin then took a laissez-faire
approach to torturing those same people,
most of whom have now been released as not
having been terrorists to begin with.
are corruption-free? Do you think liberals are good
and conservatives are evil?
Democratic presidents took the USA into WW1, WW2, Korea
Vietnam, and Kosovo.
\_ WW1 = won
WW2 = won
Korea = stalemate
Vietnam = lost
Kosovo = won
I think the batting average of a Dem >>> Rep
\_ That's nice, pinhead.
\_ somalia = lost
grenada = won
nicaragua = won
\_ Somalia: poor planning, no war.
Grenada: The entire USMC vs. a minor band of
guerillas; if we'd "lost," there would have
been hell to pay.
\_ Panama '89 = won
Democrats are just as cosy with corporate America as
Republicans.
Campaign finance reform is mostly meaningless.
\_ Bush definitely could not have done what he did
without the support of the GOP. If the Dems are
collaborators, then GOP are Nazis. I'll take the
former over the latter any day.
\_ Really. Why? Bush couldn't do what he did without
the complacence of the American people. Anyway
Iraq isn't fundamentally very different from those
\_ So, since we didn't storm the White House or
impeach them, we're to blame for his bad
behavior? This is like someone killing people
then blaming the police for not catching him.
\_ Well, yes, because we elected him twice.
I blame the American people and Congress.
What do you want from me? We have only
two stinking parties and they are both
bad in various ways. Last time I voted
for Kerry, but I didn't even like Kerry.
This time I will vote for McCain. What
exactly do you want to impeach Bush on?
\_ Lying. Suppressing intel that didn't
favor his plans. Destroying e-mail.
Outing a CIA operative. What do I
want from you? A realization that no
matter who gets elected, they are
not going to be as fundamentally
bad as the President and Veep; a
statement to the effect that no
matter what anyone else didn't do
stop them, they were responsible
for the evil that they did. I
want you to hold the Bush Admin
responsible for its actions, and I
want you to do so without qualifying
it with excuses or references to the
Dems' behavior.
\_ No, I can't hold ONLY Bush
and Veep responsible because they
did not have the power to do their
thing alone. Congress was complicit,
CIA members were complicit, Britain
went to war and we did not force
it to do that. There was evidence
that SH wanted WMD even if he did
not have them, and there was an
insufficient trail for the WMD
that he was supposed to have had.
It's not useful to fixate only on
Bush and ignore the big picture.
How much was evil and how much was
incompetence I do not know. SH did
sponsor Palestinian terrorism to
some extent.
\_ I want a drug pony, indict me.
The POTUS was in a position to
know that the intel he was
receiving was shaky at best.
He still passed it on like it
was a "slam dunk." I buy that
Congress didn't stop POTUS,
and that some in the CIA wanted
to please the prez. The least
you can do is admit that the
Prez. set the tone and ignored
anything that contradicted.
This inability to accept *any*
blame w/o blaming someone else
at the same time is the key
character flaw of this Admin
and its apologists.
\_ Yes, obviously POTUS wanted war,
and dismissed indications
that were contrary to his aim,
and pumped the dubious stuff and
misportrayed the state of intel.
This was wrong etc. But then it's
not like there was hard evidence
against the WMD thing. We do know
SH had a WMD program of sorts and
it's possible we'd have ended up
in Iraq by now anyway for one
reason or another.
But yes, I do blame the prez for
the war. But I don't transfer this
blame to the entire Republican
Party; or at least not really more
than the D Party. Americans elected
W after the WMD fiasco was known.
At that point I am less concerned
about Mr. Bush personally.
other wars in principle. Saddam was a bad guy
and we're fighting for freedom. What's the
\_ the reasons we invaded Iraq change every
day. i don't think this is like past wars,
at all.
\_ It's exactly like past wars. The US was
not threatened in any war except WW2, and
that case was after the US already made
offensive moves against Japan.
The difference is that Bush was more
clumsy and hamhanded about it with the
lame justifications. He wasn't able to
make adequate speeches to inspire the
rabble (but it was still enough).
\_ We got involved in the Korean and
Vietnam war to show our muscle and
annoy the local power in that part of
the world, China. So we invaded Iraq
to annoy Iran? Piss off Syria? Huh
I guess you're right the Iraq war
is like every other war!
\_ So your argument is that just because
others talked us into illegal actions
we should let this bungler off the hook
just because he was so bad at it?
What the hell kind of behavior are we
rewarding here?
\_ No that's not my argument. (?)
difference? We killed lots and lots of civilians
in those other wars too. What's your big problem?
Did defense contractors not profit in the past?
Let's say we didn't go into Iraq. We'd still be
in Afghanistan, right? We'd still maintain the
overwhelming power of the US military. We'd still
have dot com bubbles and housing bubbles. The D's
aren't putting forth anything really different.
Guys like Nader and Ron Paul do put forth stuff
that is different. In 2000 Gore and Bush sounded
very alike and spent the debates mostly agreeing
with each other.
\_ Clinton significanly cut the military budget
and used that money to balance the fed budget.
This is not a small thing. A more liberal
Democrat might actually get something
significant done, like national health care.
WWII was different in that we actually
attacked the people who bombed us. I will
grant you Vietnam.
\_ Of course the Republican strategy to
Vietnam would have been so much less
aggressive.
\_ Re: national health care
Be careful what you wish for.
\_ No, Democrats aren't just as cozy with corporate
America as the Republicans, or they wouldn't support
things like Unions. Corporate America hates unions.
But they are cozy with certain sorts of corporations,
ones that do things like educate, build mass transit,
entertain and litigate (okay, not so great perhaps).
I prefer all of these to bombing civilians for
profit.
I am kind of nutty that way.
\_ You are pretty nutty to believe that Republicans
literally bomb civilians for profit, and that
they don't educate or do anything other than
rape babies. Seriously, take a breath and think
about it. Corporations give huge amounts of
money to Dem campaigns. Dems have huge investment
stakes and other ties large corporations. HRC
served on the board of Wal-Mart. But no,
Republicans bomb civilians for profit. Yay.
\_ Yes, I am very familliar with which special
\_ Yes, I am very familiar with which special
interest groups give to which candidates.
Obviously, you are not. Who does Boeing,
Halliburton, Bechtel and the other war
profiteers donate to? Do you even know?
Most big corporations hedge their bets a
little, but Big Oil and the Military Industrial
Complex overwhelmingly lean GOP. Can you guess
why? Wal-Mart arguably does some things that
are in the public interest (I know, so does
Big Oil...)
\_ Show me the data. And show me where the
money is going in the current election.
Democrats seem to be getting a lot of funds
from defense industry employees now:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=D
Democrats have had power in this country
before and have power in Congress now.
Where's the beef? Where's the utopian
legislation that will lead us to the
promised land? Democrats authorized Bush
to invade Iraq. Democrats do Bad Things
sometimes. National defense is not a
Republican invention and none of the
frontrunning candidates are going to
cut our military meaningfully after 2008.
The only one with that platform was Paul
(a Republican).
\_ and Kucinich, Gravel, Frank Moore.
\_ what about Nader? Point being that
these guys are essentially not in
the Democratic Party.
What's Obama gonna do?
\_ Look at the last eight years. But yes,
everyone can see which way the wind blows
now. A majority of Democrats in Congress
voted against the bill to give Bush the
authority to invade Iraq, no amount of
spin can change that. I think you are
wrong about Obama and defense spending.
Clinton cut it by 1/3 from Reagan. Obama
will do the same. There is no promised
land, but leadership matters and some of
it is clearly better.
\_ Obama would inherit Iraq. He's not
going to be able to cut the military
by 1/3 in a first term, you are nuts.
Clinton did not inherit any wars.
The president doesn't even have that
power, he needs Congress to do it.
As you said, companies try to go where
the wind is blowing and the wind was
blowing for GOP in the last 8 yrs.
\_ Repeatedly questioning my sanity
does not make your arguments any
more pursuasive. I have been shown
to be 100% right about Bush, even
when my position was the extreme
minority. You have not apparently
learned anything at all. Simply
ending the war in Iraq will cut
the military budget by 1/3. I
expect Obama to do thatin the first
expect Obama to do that in the first
two years of his term.
\_ Your position was never in the
extreme minority; that proves
you have a fantasyland inside
your head. What am I supposed
to learn? I didn't vote for
Bush, nor do I like him. I am
just being pragmatic. The
Democrats are not better and
are worse in other ways. The
war in Iraq will play out
similarly with any of the
candidates. Obama will "end"
the war but we will still have
troops there. We already ended
it a long time ago; mission
accomplished etc.
\_ Bush popularity rating was
91% at one point. Either you
have a strange definition
of extreme minority or a very
selective memory.
\_ His rating was never 91%.
Maybe among Republicans.
\_ Oct '01 according to
some polls. Check:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
Riding high after 9/11
'01? Bush hadn't done shit by then. _/
But ok I stand corrected. What were
you saying about him in Oct 01 that
you were so right about? In Oct 01
we were inundated with patriotism.
\_ Apologies: stat was posted by
motd fact-checker, not pp. Pls
continue.
\_ Somebody sure made money from all those bombs
dropped on Iraq. They don't build those
things for free, you know.
\_ You think no Democrats profited from that?
Hell, maybe you have a mutual fund with
defense industry stock and you profited
yourself. I probably profited. Democrats
profited from napalming Vietnamese villages.
This is not a fruitful line of discussion.
\_ "...You are pretty nutty to believe that
Republicans literally bomb civilians
for profit..." Yes, I would imagine
you find it unfruitful.
\_ Yes?
\_ Hardly a strawman: Obama was called a Marxist on the motd
and the flag pin question was in the PA debate.
\_ Wow, that's real serious important discussion there.
\_ Exactly my point. The media has spent more time
on Obama's non-existent flag pin then on health care.
\_ What? No, this is false.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/69jcj3
Okay, they have pretty much the same
amount of entries here. Do you have any
evidence to back up your claim that the media
has spent more time on health care?
\_ If only McClellan had said something about books like this...oh.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html
\_ You know what? I think if Gore the Democrat had been elected,
the new Gore Administration would not have been full of
hubris filled neocon toadies. I do not think they would have
invaded Iraq under false pretenses. We can debate this all day,
but I firmly believe this. I do not think the world would
appear to be headed towards a gigantic United States led
clusterfuck if a Democractic, Gore led administration were
in power right now. I believe there are significant differences
between the current Republican Bush administration, and my
fantasy Gore Democractic administration. I believe an Obama
or Hillary (ahem) administration would not blindly invade Iran
right now. I haven't heard Obama or Hillary (ahem) casually
mention that we should prepare to be in Iraq for the next 1000
years.
\_ While this is most certainly true, I think this has more to
do with BUSHCO than it has to do with the GOP. I doubt Pres.
McCain would have blindly invaded Iraq, &c.
\_ It was hardly blindly. It was very deliberate.
\_ yes, in fact it had been suggested by the whole host of
GOP chicken hawks as far back as 1997. See the PNAC. -tom
\_ Which is exactly why a McCain administration will
invade Iran, if they can figure out how to talk
Congress into it.
\_ It depends on which McCain we get after the election. |
| 2008/5/28-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50065 Activity:nil |
5/28 http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11412562 The amusing bit is at the end, where McCain voted against this, and Obama voted for. Extra amusing is how someone deleted this without comment. (Bush vetoed this bill also). -- ilyas \_ Change! |
| 2008/5/26-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50053 Activity:nil |
5/25 Even the AP is has noticed the Obama is just making up his policy
as he goes along.
http://csua.org/u/lnn
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ A stunning argument! The opposition can make no response!
\_ Masturbation's a one-player game.
\_ Oh, you may carry on with it then, but please stop
jizzing all over the motd.
\_ Freeper: the sound of one hand fapping.
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021273/posts
\_ The Hugo Chavez one is kinda 'meh' since he could be saying that
Chavez's power increased due to Bush's negligence.
I think it's pretty obvious he hasn't thought through his
position on things like FARC tho'. |
| 2008/5/25 [Health, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50050 Activity:nil 74%like:50052 |
5/25 Obama's gaffes are really starting to pile up.
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3208/2
He's made another one recently claiming that Bush was responsible
for getting Chavez elected. Oops, Chavez was elected in '98.
That link is a little silly, it suggests Obama is on drugs, I
just posted it for the accurate list of mistakes it starts out with. |
| 2008/5/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Travel/Nola] UID:50029 Activity:nil 88%like:50031 |
5/22 Time to abandon New Orleans http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hC6vp5pFdl3BKR15CDnn0-czcFogD90QHBPO0 |
| 2008/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50015 Activity:nil |
5/20 Here's my recollection of the final candidates in presidential
elections of which I have memory:
1980: Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan
1992: George Bush vs. Bill Clinton
2000: George W. Bush vs. Al Gore
2004: George W. Bush vs. John Kerry
2008: Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama (With the media coverage, it
sure feels that way.)
\_ Do a lot of drugs such that you missed so many?
\_ I don't always remember the losing candidate. Besides, I wasn't
in this country until 1989 when I was 19. Oh, I just recalled
one more losing candidate called "Dukakis" or something, but I
forgot which year it was. Maybe 1996? BTW Ross Perot doesn't
count.
\_ So, basically, your recollection is worthless. We should
pay attention to you why?
\_ No reason. BTW I could've filled in the gaps by STFW, but
that wouldn't be from memory.
\_ You don't remember Bob Dole? I guess he was pretty forgettable.
\_ You don't remember Bob Dole? I guess he was pretty
forgettable. |
| 2008/5/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49999 Activity:nil |
5/19 What a dumb ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs
\- meritocracy in action! also:
\- meritocracy in acton! also:
http://tinyurl.com/6xt6cj
\_ What does Acton have to do with this? |
| 2008/5/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49994 Activity:nil |
5/18 John Yoo fans:
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/features/john-yoo-0608
"Protesters in Guantánamo orange have disrupted his class and dogged
him in public forums. I talked to another Berkeley law professor who
refuses to attend faculty meetings with him. “Until he atones,†he
said, “I don't want to be in the same room with him.†But Yoo shrugs
it all off. He likes living among liberals, he says. "Liberals from
the sixties do a great job of creating all the comforts of life --
gourmet food, specialty jams, the best environmentally conscious
waters." - danh
\_ I'm waiting for Coultier, Limbaugh and Savage to declare him
a hero. |
| 2008/5/17-23 [Transportation/Car, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49987 Activity:nil |
5/17 Bush suspends oil reserve deliveries to soften the gas price.
Good idea (lowering price) or bad idea (less gas in the reserves)?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24672293
\_ Don't you mean "Bush agrees with Congress to suspend oil reserve
deliveries after they threaten veto?"
\_ Veto doesn't mean what you think it means.
\_ Bad because such a tiny amount of oil won't make a dent to the oil
or gas price. Good for the politicians who initiated it though, as
election is coming up. If oil or gas prices doesn't drop, such
initiative won't hurt them. But if prices does drop for whatever
other reason, they can say "See, we made the price drop." |
| 2008/5/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49973 Activity:nil |
5/16 Congress passes huge pork bill.
http://tinyurl.com/4wwys7
http://tinyurl.com/44fywg
\_ Hello NATIONAL REVIEW crap!
\_ Is it wrong?
\_ No. NationalReview is right. Very RIGHT. Righteous.
Right wing. Right.
\_ Is this an interesting line of discussion to you?
Partisan line-drawing and team-based politics?
Left, right: it's all bullshit. Both left and right
wing politicians do stupid and corrupt things. The
rational individual will evaluate criticism impartially.
\_ The rational individual learns that some sources
are untrustworthy propaganda. While there may be
a story here, I'm not going to pay much attention
to the National Review's framing because I know they
are mendacious idealouges. (That being said I
am anti-farm subsidy, but there are plenty of sane
op eds out there declaiming the current bill.)
\_ Context seems to mean that you are saying
that there are lots of sane op-eds out there
supporting this bill. URL please? (if so)
\_ Untrustworthy propaganda? It's an op-ed. It is
not even a source. Find me a better op-ed then.
You talk as if you have no brain and can't
judge an argument on its own merits. Where's the
outcry from a mainstream source?
\_ If it's an op-ed, then label it as such. Posting
a bunch of shortened urls with a label that
appears to be about news is misleading. -10 pts.
\_ It is now. Any fact given in NRO immediately becomes untrue
by virtue of being printed there.
\_ Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. |
| 2008/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49948 Activity:moderate |
5/15 Amateur motd directors, what do you think of the East Bay Express's
article on why UCB should fire John Woo for just being an all around
terrible director:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=727134
\_ I was unaware of the purpose of john woo's old office in
the administration. now i know!
\- ths is an interesting and hard problems. much, much discussion
at brad delong WOB site.
\_ Anyone who says stuff we don't like should be destroyed! Free
speech is only for people who agree with us!
\_ This might be a little deeper than that. Read the article
then come back. It's not that he says things that are
unpopular, but he might have either just made up
law out of his ass, or committed a crime, or perhaps
he was just following the instructions of someone else.
I don't think this is a free speech issue.
\_ Do you think that mob boss who orders a hit is protected
by a "free speech" defence?
\_ No, I do not.
\_ I think that he has tenure and should not be fired until he is
convicted of a felony. I believe he committed one, but we should
wait until the legal system has decided that or not. What if
Bush pardons him though, which looks more and more likely?
\_ I keep hearing that Bush is going to pardon all these people,
but I haven't seen him actually do it.
\_ These pardons usually come in a Presidents last week
in office.
\- "i have a pardon in my pocket" jyoo@autodafe.berkeley.edu |
| 2008/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49946 Activity:nil |
5/15 Sign the angry renter petition! No bailouts!
http://angryrenter.com
\_ Angry renter? How about the 99% of mortgage holders who pay their
bills *and* the taxes that would fund a bailout?
\_ Actually a product of a billionaire and a politician:
http://www.csua.org/u/lk4 |
| 2008/5/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:49932 Activity:nil |
5/12 Another big disaster in Asia in a week:
"Death toll in China earthquake up to nearly 9,000"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake
\_ my work place is full of mainlanders trying to get funding
to help their fellow mainlanders. however, they're also the
people who are insulted at FREE TIBET and LEAVE TAIWAN ALONE
slogans and we've had heated arguments on this. why should i
help people who just want to fuck your homeland?
\_ It's nobody's business but China's, but hand over your donations.
\_ Very few American knows that China donated 5 million US$
for the Katrina disaster (that's from the government alone)
because it was rarely, if at all, reported in the media.
But I guess most Americans consider New Orleans an hostile
alien regime that should be wiped out anyway.
\_ I'm pretty much as anti-PRC as a person can get, but getting
the Premier out to the disaster sites and having him shouting
to survivors to hang in there is poignant. Go, PLA, go!
\_ It's funny how accidental deaths are only a concern to
governments when they happen in a large enough spurt
that there is intense media coverage. |
| 2008/5/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49888 Activity:low 61%like:49921 |
5/5 10000 dead from one storm:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080505/ap_on_re_eu/myanmar_cyclone_aid
"The United States said the junta had so far refused to allow an
American disaster team in to assess damage to follow up on an
emergency U.S. contribution of $250,000."
\_ 22000 now.
\_ Is Myanmar denying international aid in order to strengthen its
control?
Junta to outside: No we don't want your aid. Go away.
Junta to citizens: We've been asking for international aid but
nobody came! See? The West is evil.
\_ Citizens to Junta: We're dying of dysentary and malaria. We
don't care how evil they are, please let them
in.
\_ That is only if the citizens know the fact that the aid is
not missing, but is being refused. |
| 2008/5/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49886 Activity:low |
5/5 "Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080505/ap_on_he_me/pandemic_rationing_care
\_ I vote for football players, then politicians, then lawyers
\_ Very old people, people with chronic conditions, people who
have other problems making them likely to die. Thing is,
amongst the rest, who gets allowed to die? Males?
\_ The obvious answer is the ALPHA MALE. One Alpha breeds
with all the females.
\_ You Mormon!
\_ Welcome to triage.
\_ In a real pandemic everyone is going to die. The doctors won't have
a cure right away, if ever, and no one is going to run around asking
victims to see their driver's license, prior medical, financial and
educational history before treatment. This is just silly stuff. |
| 2008/5/5-9 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49881 Activity:nil |
5/5 Comrade! "Reasonable Profits Board"
http://www.timesleader.com/news/20080429_29-KANJO_ART.html
\_ I think the US did this before, but I don't remember the circumstances.
\_ they were talkin windfall profits back in the 80's too. question is
\_ I think the US did this before, but I don't remember the
circumstances.
\_ they were talking windfall profits back in the 80's too.
question is
if you let the market ration the consumption back to the supply,
the prices necessarily go up. a lot. Who gets the money from that?
The people in control of the supply. |
| 2008/4/24-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49825 Activity:nil |
4/24 Lefty gives the beat down on girl in wheelchair, cause he hates Bush so
much.
http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/232115.asp
\_ left wing nuts are more violent than right wing nuts.
\_ yeah, just ask those kids in Oklahoma City...oh wait
\_ Or Waco
\_ remember it was the national *Socialist* party
\- gee you forgot about the DPRK and Deutsche
Demokratische Republik.
\_ "Are you kidding me? This guy actually punched a wheelchair bound,
helpless girl to express his rage at Bush. My outrage meter is
pegged out, along with my disgust meter"
So, what we have hear is an opinion piece based on a NYPost story.
In other "news," this guy I know totally saw Condoleeza Rice set
a hobo on fire the other day. |
| 2008/4/24-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49822 Activity:nil |
4/24 Run on rice hits American stores:
http://www.csua.org/u/lca (LA Times)
\_ went to costco this weekend (4/27) and wow, they were cleared out,
of the two pallets of space for rice, they were empty except for one
lonely bag. -ERic |
| 2008/4/22-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49798 Activity:nil |
4/21 President Bush now has highest disapproval rating in the history of
Gallup poll. Previous record holder was Harry Truman in the depths
of the Korean War. Numbers are 28% approval, 69% disapproval.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-21-bushrating_N.htm
\_ Still 66% approval rating amongst Republicans baby!
If Democrats and Independents had the same loyalty as Republicans,
they'd rule by now.
\_ BDS
\_ eh?
\_ Mission Accomplished!
\_ Why are we still talking about Bush? He is irrelevant now.
He can't lower taxes further. He can't start another war.
\_ actually i think he could!
He can't save the housing market. He can't lower fuel prices.
His credibility is low and no one's really listening to him.
He can still veto but wrt new actions/initiatives, he's pretty
useless.
\_ The crapitude of W Bush is still relevant because he is the
winner of the last two elections and now we have another
election. It's worth thinking about how and why he got
elected. Twice. He also happens to still be the president.
\_ He is a great stick to beat the GOP with, especially since
a majority of Republicans still think he is doing a great job.
\_ Causality. Is he still getting 66% approval from R
because he's doing a great job? Or is he getting 66%
approval from R because the R party is great and loyal?
It's more of the latter. As Ronald Reagan the
God of the R said one, thou shall never speak ill of
thy friend, family, and affiliates.
\_ He can also start a war with Iran, which he seems hellbent on
doing. |
| 2008/4/21-30 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49786 Activity:nil |
4/19 Bush interrogation program was being used before Yoo memo
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-horton21apr21,0,1892568.story
\_ He and Libby will both get a pardon. |
| 2008/4/20-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49784 Activity:nil |
4/19 Gitmo interrogators inspired by 24 and Jack Bauer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/19/humanrights.interrogationtechniques |
| 2008/4/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49778 Activity:nil |
4/17 What do you think, will Bush drop below even Nixon? What if
the recession turns out to be a real downturn?
http://www.csua.org/u/l9v (Gallup)
\_ What I care more is, is there any correlation between
approval ratings and say, stock prices?
\_ yes.
\_ BDS? It doesn't matter. What I care about is the future of the
country: our security, economy, and general living conditions of
the citizens. I don't care which party can achieve this, although
I suspect neither cares about anything but attaining and keeping
power. A focus on the trivial such as Bush's current poll numbers
or approval ratings vs. stock prices is not helpful.
\_ You are correct no doubt: the 23 percent of Americans who rate
Bush as the worst President ever are deranged, while the 1% who
rate Bush as the Best Ever are all Patriotic right thinking
Americans. Only by confronting and examining our mistakes can we
hope to learn from them, I think. But perhaps it is still too
early to do a post-mortem on the Bush Administration.
\_ Yawn. You totally miss the point. It does not matter at all
what anyone thinks of Bush right now. The moment you start
talking about polls and ratings you're off track on what
matter. I agree about studying history and not repeating
mistakes and such but you can't study it while you're living
it. Instead, we should be examining the candidates we have
and asking *them* the tough questions. Bush = zero importance
in a few month and nearly none right now. Anyway, given the
trash running, we're in for at least four more years of
idiocy no matter who wins since all three are clowns in their
own way. Mindless "change" rhetoric, a repeat of 90s psycho-
drama, or bog standard ego boosting and corruption. Yay.... |
| 2008/4/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, ERROR, uid:49737, category id '18005#10.07' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49737 Activity:nil |
4/12 No wonder the Republicans on the motd are bitter:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3rkvtz (NYT)
"What is concerning is that we lost ground in every one of the
highest-growth demographics," said Mehlman, the former RNC
chairman and Bush political adviser, who is now a lawyer at the
lobbying firm Akin Gump.
\_ Very weak troll. Son, if you're going to troll someone, you can't
spell out who your target is. Your trolling skills are pathetic.
\_ It is not really intended to be a troll. -op
\_ It is a troll. Move on. Nothing to see here. |
| 2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49724 Activity:moderate |
4/11 So ummm.... Why the heck is John Yoo a prof at Boalt?
\_ Because Berekley is a great academic institution with a wide
diversity of viewpoints?
\_ Why do you ask? (I keep hearing stuff about Yoo on the motd
but I don't see why he's controversial.)
\_ He is the main author of the "torture is okey-dokey" legal
argument.
\_ Perhaps b/c he is an excellent lawyer, teacher and scholar?
I am not saying that Prof. Yoo is any of those things b/c I
do not know him. But he could be an exceptional lawyer and
teacher even if his politics are completely incompatible w/
yours. My favorite law school prof and I have quite different
political views on many things but it does not change the fact
that he is a superb lawyer and teacher.
\_ If he such a superb lawyer, why did he produce such a
wrongheaded legal opinion?
\_ I do not know why Prof. Yoo wrote the torture memo.
My experience suggests that someone asked him to
write it. That he reached a conclusion that you
\_ I did not say that Prof. Yoo was a superb lawyer.
Also, I do not know why Prof. Yoo wrote the torture
memo. My experience suggests that someone asked him
to write it. That he reached a conclusion that you
(and perhaps he also) disagree with, does not mean
that he is not a good lawyer. Clients sometimes
(often?) ask one to do support positions one thinks
are morally, though not legally, unsupportable.
(often?) ask one to find legal support for positions
one thinks are morally unsupportable. Fortunately,
sometimes the law does not offer such support. In
other situations, the law does offer the support a
client seeks. And in those case, one has no choice
client seeks. And in those cases, one has no choice
but to disclose that fact to the client.
Anyway, my point was merely that Prof. Yoo may have
qualities that qualify him for the job he holds,
abilities that qualify him for the job he holds,
desipte his political views.
[Update: I think the following blog post is
particularly relevant:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3g96eg [legal ethics forum]]
\_ No, he is a counter-revolutionary and must be sent to the
gulags. There can be no dissent!
\_ Do you think torture is something that America should
support? Do you think that it is against the law of
the land?
\_ I personally do not think torture is something
America should support. But I do not think that
it is against the law of the land in all cases.
\_ Anyone who defends a counter-revolutionary is also
counter-revolutionary! We will root out these
traitors!
\_ At a certain point, someone has to be responsible for
ass-covering. "I was only following orders" and all that.
\_ Well, he has tenure, which should protect him from
being fired for holding unpopular opinions. But since
he apparently was primarily responsible for the US
violating the Geneva Convention, jail time is not
out of the question.
\_ I have not followed in detail the USSC's decisions
on the GC issue, but as far as I am aware, it is
not clear that the GC has been violated by BUSHCO's
actions or that a violation of the GC would imply
jail time for the principals b/c no applicable
privilege exists.
Re "following orders" - I agree that someone should
be held accountable, but why should it be Prof. Yoo
instead of those who commissioned his memo?
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy
\_ It remains unclear that any law has been
broken wrt Prof. Yoo and/or those who
sought his advice and acted upon it.
Even if some crime has occured, it is
unclear that some form of executive priv.
would not apply.
\_ Do you believe the executive has the
privilege to break the law with impunity?
The Supreme Court disagrees with that.
\_ As I said, I have not followed the
USSC's decision wrt the GC. Based
on my very brief reading of the
decisions, it is unclear that any
crime has been committed by Prof.
Yoo or those who sought his advice.
It is also unclear that even if a
crime has been committed an exec.
privilege will not apply. The USSC
has not rule on this particular
issue and likely never will
("John Marshall has issued his
order now let him enforce it").
\_ Google "United States v. Nixon."
\_ It is not clear to me that
Nixon applies to this
situation. There may be
many kinds of executive
privilege and power.
\_ I think US v. Nixon is very
clear - executive priv. exists,
but it is specifically NOT
immune to judicial review,
particularly in the case
where a crime may have been
committed. I don't think there
are "many kinds" of executive
priv. - there is the kind
recognized by the courts only.
\_ It is not at all clear that
Nixon applies when the Pres.
acts in the arena of foreign
affairs or national defense,
which is the situation in
relevant to Prof. Yoo. The
Pres. inherent power may be
overriding in those realms.
[I was not using "privilege"
in the technical sense]
\_ I am doubtful of that
argument, and I believe
most legal scholars are
as well. Note that
Congress is given the
power to ratify treaties.
\_ Congress is also given
the power to declare
war, maintain a navy,
&c. so clearly there is
shared power over the
conduct of foreign
affairs and national
security. But it is
still unclear whether
the Pres. power trumps.
BUSHCO clearly believes
it does. I am not sure
they are correct. But
the argument exists.
And I believe that we
will never have an
answer.
\_ I wonder how many of the Yoo defenders were calling for that
stupid "A million little Hitler's" prof's head on a platter.
(Or some such nazi/9-11 reference)
\_ They hired him fresh out of the administration in 2004. The torture
memos weren't revealed until after that. If he were brought up on
charges as a contributor to undermining and violating the Convention
Against Torture and war crimes, could he lose his tenure then?
I was very happy to see him on talk show right after he was hired.
A prominent conservative from Berkeley! Now I'd like to see him in jail.
\_ Absolutely, COMRADE! Those who write or speak statements that
WE the PEOPLES disagree with shall be imprisoned! The FIRST
AMENDMENT only protects POPULAR speach WE like! Excuse me,
COMRADE, I must now march on our ENEMIES, the TERRORISTS of
EURASIA. Up with the REVOLUTION, COMRADE!
\_ Uh, is the criminal or incompetent practice of law a first amendment
issue? Surely there are standards about whether an argument is a good
faith effort or a load of legal bullshit, with no evidence or
justification in US jurisprudence. Writing legal opinions
to justify the use of torture makes you a party to violating our
own laws, and treaties against torture and war crimes to which the US
is a signatory.
That's why he's in the news. Because his classified memos are
finally coming out -- those upon which Gitmo and the Padilla
confinement are based -- and they are laughable, to the point of
malpractice.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4q74q
\_ 404 Not Found
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4q74qt
Bush: "We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."
\_ Bush will pardon the whole lot of them. |
| 2008/4/10-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49719 Activity:nil 88%like:49716 |
4/10 68% of the Republicans still approve Bush. SAY WHAT?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/55ugy7 [gallup]
\_ Stupid people of America, unite! Bush is your man!
\_ It takes a real Conservative to really appreciate GWB.
Obviously, there aren't many Conservatives on motd.
\_ ^Conservative^idiot
\_ Case in point, the above knee jerking libural
-emarkp #1 fan
\_ On the contrary, I think most Real Conseratives are horrified
by Bush. Hence the historically low approval ratings.
\_ I honestly don't understand most of the above comments. GWB has
preciseley 2 conservative stances: 1) lower taxes, 2) national
defense (and really #2 shouldn't be a conservative principle, it
should be an American one). I can't wait for GWB to be out of
office, except then he'll be replaced by left-wing commies or Bush
#3 (McCain) -emarkp
\- keepin mind the number of "independents" are growing
so the remaining Rs are more extreme/SIVs.
\_ So are the remaining Ds.
\- that's true to some extent but there is a difference in
the R and D populations, but it is hard to explain without
drawing a picture
\_ No, the number of Ds is remaining constant, or even slightly
increasing.
\_ Loyalty and subordinance to authority are pretty strong
\- well if we are talking about the last year, rather
than a "generational" trend, more than the number of
Ds changing, the D-leaning Indeps have increased a lot.
\_ Loyalty and obedience to authority are pretty strong
Conservative virtues.
\_ As are showing strong stance for America (don't flip flop)
and never showing weaknesses and never admitting mistakes.
\_ As are marching in lockstep to sound bites for Lefties. (Bush
lied, people died, etc.)
\_ The Left is united by a common enemy (Bush) but if you actually
went to a demonstration or paid any attention or even looked
at the Zombietime site, you would know that you are full of
crap. It is more a temporary coalition of 100 different
special interest groups. Read The Nation letters section
sometime.
\_ The Left is united by a common enemy (Bush) but if you
actually went to a demonstration or paid any attention or
even looked at the Zombietime site, you would know that you
are full of crap. It is more a temporary coalition of 100
different special interest groups. Read The Nation letters
section sometime. |
| 2008/4/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49716 Activity:high 88%like:49719 |
4/10 68% of the Republicans still approve Bush. SAY WHAT?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28093/Bush-Job-Approval-29-Lowest-Administration.aspx
\_ Stupid people of America, unite! Bush is your man!
\_ It takes a real Conservative to really appreciate GWB.
Obviously, there aren't many Conservatives on motd.
\_ ^Conservative^idiot
\_ Case in point, the above knee jerking libural
-emarkp #1 fan
\_ On the contrary, I think most Real Conseratives are horrified
by Bush. Hence the historically low approval ratings.
\_ I honestly don't understand most of the above comments. GWB has
preciseley 2 conservative stances: 1) lower taxes, 2) national
defense (and really #2 shouldn't be a conservative principle, it
should be an American one). I can't wait for GWB to be out of
office, except then he'll be replaced by left-wing commies or Bush
#3 (McCain) -emarkp
\- keepin mind the number of "independents" are growing
so the remaining Rs are more exreme/SIVs.
\_ So are the remaining Ds. |
| 2008/4/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:49712 Activity:nil |
4/10 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034202 General lengthens Iraq tour so that Bush can shorten it and get credit. JOB WELL DONE BUSHIE! |
| 2008/4/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49699 Activity:nil |
4/9 Oops, Obama's *other* spiritual advisor is also a racist anti-American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM2M11BsA3g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meeks
blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain"
\_ Hey jerkoff who keeps runnin' dis drough ' JIBE', ya' some racist
\_ Hey jerkoff who keeps running this through 'jive', are you racist
too?
\_ No, but I think your feigned outrage is very funny to mock.
\_ "feigned"?
\_ feign
verb [ trans. ]
pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury) :
she feigned nervousness.
* archaic invent (a story or excuse).
* [ intrans. ] archaic indulge in pretense.
\_ I know what it means, just wondering why you think it's
apropriate. |
| 2008/4/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49694 Activity:nil |
4/8 Worst. President. Ever.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804
\- I am hoping for two things:
1. the us govt torturers [JYOO, DADDINGTON, DRUMSFELD etc]
get arrested in some EU country
2. The BUSHCO legacy is one of incompetence, such as being
labelled "the worst president in US history". Some presidents
were labelled as losers because they didnt win a second term
and since BUSHCO was inconceivable re-elected, he wasnt tainted
in the same way as JCARTER and GHWBUSH, eventhough he is vastly
worse. Second, I dont think DRUMSFELD or DCHENEY give a rats
ass about being called "evil", but I think mass opinion that
they are fools and incompetent would bother them [ALBERTO on
the other hand was so stupid apparently even universally being
condemned as a moron doesnt seem to have affected him much.
Like an amoeba, he probably only reacts to extreme hot and cold
or beatings.]
\_ I love when you put stuff in ALL CAPS as if that MEANS SOMETHING
IMPORTANT. Since you brought it up, by torture do you mean lap
dances from hot CIA chicks and having underwear put on your
head? Terrifying stuff, truly evil.
\_ More likely he's referring to waterboarding, stress positions,
and the numerous people that have been murdered in custody.
Not to mention all the people we rendered to Egypt where
they were tortured by Egyptian security into producing
false information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shaykh_al-Libi
\_ Being strapped to a board, beaten, then sodomized by a
big hairy Egyptian policeman sounds like a good time to me. |
| 2008/4/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49680 Activity:moderate |
4/7 In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
\_ If you add more people to the system and not more dollars this
will happen. Universal care will end up costing taxpayers more
money for a reduced (or the same) level of service - and don't
give me this BS about how preventative care will save money. If you
think that's true then make the Universal system include only
preventative care.
\_ Well, any solution that amounts to layering a bureaucracy on
top of the existing system is dubious.
\_ ...well, hell, if you don't believe preventative care will
save money, how about you go ahead and stop receiving any of it
and let us know how you're doing in about 10 years?
\_ I think you missed his point. -!pp
\_ Not if his point was that preventative care will save
\_ Not if his point was that preventative care won't save
money or cut costs in a Universal healthcare system.
\_ Do you mean 'will not save?'
\_ Er, yes. Will fix soon and erase both of these
comments.
\_ Preventative care won't save money if it then leads to
expensive procedures anyway. However, I'm all in favor
of free medical exams. Free clinics funded by the government
do this already. That's the extent of it, though.
\_ http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/prevention-cost.html
-- ilyas
\_ Excellent: _some_ preventative medicine will save costs;
indiscriminate spending on unproven preventatives will
raise costs. That's important to know so's we can focus.
\_ Does early cancer screening save costs, improve
quality of life, or neither? I would argue that
overall it might improve quality of life, but it
doesn't lower costs. In fact, it adds to costs
because you have the cost of the screening plus the
costs of the treatment which is much the same either
way. On top of that, as the article points out,
you've extended a life so that you can have more
expensive screenings and ultimately (in many cases)
a recurrence anyway. Prevention works for conditions
which we have cures for like polio. It doesn't work
so well for cancer, heart disease, and such which
is probably where most of the medical $$$ go anyway.
\_ Have you included the value of saving the lives
of fully-productive adult members of society in
your calculation? [Hint: No.] -tom
\_ We are comparing prevention to no prevention +
treatment. Are you claiming that the former
actually saves more lives (aside from the
known beneficial cases, e.g., vaccinations)?
-- ilyas
\_ The data shows that the cases where preventative
care actually does save productive lives are
very rare, except for those few known things like
vaccines or a single colonoscopy at a certain
age.
\_ This depends entirely on what you consider
preventative: is abstinence education prevent-
ative? how about safe sex classes including
information on condoms? It makes sense, though,
that certain testable measures are much more
reliable than, say, handing out pamphlets.
\_ No, because over 1/3 of the current costs of the medical system
go to the "free market" beauracracy. All those countries that
go to the "free market" bureaucracy. All those countries that
have introduced universal health care have cut costs. I leave
it as an exercise for the reader to discover how this could
possibly have happened.
\_ US government != European governments. As history proves
over and over again, US government = inefficient beauracracy
that cannot be trusted, and hence we have no choice but
to rely on the free market.
\_ You mean inefficient like the US Army or Marine Corp?
\_ Our military branches are efficient at torture.
\_ They save costs because you die while waiting to get the
surgery you need because of rationing. The free market
can allocate resources much more effectively than some
bureaucrat can. If you really want to cut costs you should
eliminate insurance entirely. Right now people don't pay
attention to whether their doctor charges $1400 versus
$1200 for a procedure. If it's within the customary
averages insurance companies are going to pay it.
However, if that extra $200 comes out of their pocket you
can be sure people will pay more attention to costs. Our
current nightmare of employer-sponsored HMO plans is
basically already Universal Healthcare for the working
class. Sure, you can purchase individual coverage but how
many people eligible for an employer-sponsored plan do
that? (And if they do, not many employers refund their
portion of the premium!) For the elderly we already have
Medicare. Universal health care is a step in the wrong
direction. Eliminate virtual-mandatory participation in
these plans and watch both doctors and patients become
much happier as they split that 1/3 overhead that HMOs
currently enjoy. I pay $600/month for health insurance if
you count my portion and my employer's portion and I am
under 40 and healthy. That's your UHC tax right there.
Refund it back to me and let me decide how to obtain
medical care. Don't legislate away the only choice I have
(not to participate).
\_ Savings have to come from eliminating bureaucratic fat,
better experimental study design (so we actually know what
works), and more personalized medicine (relying on averages
works), and more RUSSIAN medicine (relying on averages
is expensive and kills people). People who just want
Universal Healthcare <tm> basically aren't thinking about
the problem, they are just shouting a political meme.
-- ilyas
\_ You mean how the free market so efficiently allocated
resources during the dot-com bubble and the housing
run-up and collapse? Simply repeating your ideological
position does make it any more persuasive. Yes, the free
market rations health care according to ability to pay and
state run systems allocate them according to need. Guess
which one gets more bang for your buck? People die in both
systems waiting for health care.
\_ What exactly was wrong with the <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> bubble or
the housing run-up? It's how markets work. I'm sure
you far prefer the former Soviet Union which didn't
have those "problems". Bureaucrats cannot decide
"need" as well as dollars can. I argue that more
bang for the buck is the one that eliminates the
middle-man.
\_ The medicare and VA bureaucracy is much more
lightweight than the HMO/medical insurance one is.
I prefer what works, not what my ideology tells me
"must" work.
\_ I think you are the one with an ideological
problem here.
\_ Another issue is that people without insurance or ability
to pay still get care in emergency rooms. I don't know
what the $ numbers are for those cases. But most med
insurance is pretty obviously not very efficient. If med.
insurance should be mandatory it should have really
high deductibles. The biggest problem with insurance
is that it neuters market forces towards the medical
industry. With most insurance plans, all doctors and
all drugs cost similar amounts, barring some brand
name vs. generic category things. The consumer as you
say has little reason to look for medical "deals".
And insurance is expensive, and those who aren't insured
freeload.
\_ Exactly. There is no reason to shop around. When
shopping for a new doctor how many people inquire
as to his rates? How many times do you pay your
bill at the doctor *after* services are rendered?
High deductibles and large co-pays make sense, but
I do not think that's what the UHC people have in
mind. Anyone who has spent time at a free clinic
(or knows someone who works at one) realizes what a
disaster that is for all involved. We should be
looking for a more streamlined solution, not a
bigger and more difficult to administer solution
with mandatory participation that will screw
middle-class taxpayers even more than they already
are while doing nothing to improve medical care.
\_ I agree with everything except for your conclusion.
UHC works very well in the places it has been tried:
the US Army, VA hospitals, Canada, England, etc. In
this country, we will probably have to have a two
tier system, more like England, rather than a
mandatory participation system, like Canada, though.
\_ Do you know anyone in the military? My gf's
mom was an Air Force and then Army nurse
(active duty) for 30 years and when she
retired from nursing she continued to work
closely with Tricare, NIH, VA, and State Dept
(believe it or not they are involved for things l
like sharing patient data between branches of
military) as a consultant. She was also a
hospital administrator for a military hospital
and her daughter (my gf's sister) is Air
Force reserves, former Army, and works
full-time for the VA right now. In addition,
my gf's dad and stepdad were both military
officers and my gf's sister's ex-husband is
active duty Army who spent time in Iraq. I
can say from my experiences at military
hospitals (visiting) and from the stories
I've heard that I do not want military
medicine or the VA as a model for anything.
\_ I grew up on military bases all my life. My
father was a hospital administrator for the
Navy (35 years service). While I would not
suggest that OCHAMPUS is by any means perfect,
it provided adequate health and dental coverage
for us throughout my childhood. I would
consider it a fine model for basic services.
--erikred
\_ The key words you used were 'adequate'
and 'basic services'. I would say
'substandard'. I wouldn't go to a military
hospital unless I had to. Lots of military
people like it because it's free to them,
but if I had a serious illness I would
rather it be treated elsewhere. Also, ask
your dad about the waste that goes on. For
instance, military hospitals require the RNs
to be trained in almost every discipline.
Private hospitals only require nurses train
in the field they work. I think that part
of the reason that military healthcare
seems cheap is that many costs are
hidden. For instance, doctors' salaries
are very low (which scares me in itself)
but there are other benefits they receive
which many think makes it worth their while.
You will not be able to hire doctors
privately at those salaries because the
total package needs to be evaluated
(e.g. retirement benefits, travel benefits,
and so on). I am not sure if studies that
examine the costs of military medicine
account for these externalities. The
military hospitals receive many benefits
private hospitals do not just by virtue
of being part of the military machine
and yet the quality of care still sucks.
\_ I was a medic for three years, so yes
I am familiar with the military medical
system. I think it is fine. The VA
system is even better. We can easily
hire doctors at the pay level that the
military pays them: that is what MDs
make everywhere in the world, except
here. The AMA artificially keeps the
supply low, to inflate salaries. I am
surprised that such a purported free
market cheerleader would not be aware
of this fact.
\_ Many people would dispute your
assertion re: AMA. The AMA does
not have this power. Less than
20% of physicians are members and
the AMA has no direct regulatory
authority. Also, many countries keep
MD salaries artificially low. Spain,
for instance, recruits MDs from
Eastern Europe and Third World
nations at low salaries and
holds them hostage with visas.
It's not worthwile for Spaniards
to even bother with medical
school at those wages. The
salaries of US doctors are high
and it's one reason we have a
high standard of care. Plus, US
doctor salaries have actually eroded
over the past 40 years.
\_ The AMA controls licensing for
medical schools, which is how
they keep the number of doctors
low. Show me proof that MD salaries
have eroded over the last 40 years,
because I don't believe it. Maybe
for primary care docs, but almost
assuredly not for specialists.
Salaries are high due to monopoly
pricing power, not quality.
\_ The AMA does no such thing.
The government controls
this. Sure, the AMA is a lobby
but they can't mandate anything.
http://tinyurl.com/e33gk
http://tinyurl.com/4yn35s
\_ Your articles provide support
for my claim that an
artificial shortage of MDs
has been created. And a four
year snapshot of MD salaries
from 10 years ago doesn't
prove much. Lately MD salaries
are going up:
http://www.csua.org/u/l96
\_ An artificial shortage of
MDs has been created by
whom?
\_ AMA of course.
Why is it so hard to
get a medical edu.?
Actually learning the
stuff isn't that hard,
but getting into the
school is. -!pp
\_ The articles dispute
that the AMA has any
such power.
such power. It is
the gov't that you
trust to admin UHC
which is the problem.
-/
http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/newsRoom/newsRm_acGlance.asp
"The ACGME's member organizations are the American Board of Medical
Specialties, American Hospital Association, American Medical
Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the
Council of Medical Specialty Societies. Member organizations each
appoint four members to the Board of Directors, which also includes
two resident members, three public directors, the chair of the Council
of Review Committee Chairs and a non-voting federal representative."
The AMA is one of the people on the board of the organization that
certifies medical schools, but is not the only member.
\- Might be of interest: WSJ article on non-profit hospital profits:
http://tinyurl.com/55v9th
\_ Nice to know, but in the end it is the government (through Medicare)
\_ Nice to know, but in the end is it the government (through Medicare)
that funds residents. In theory, we don't need any more accredited
programs to churn out more doctors. We just need more students in
the existing programs.
\_ In other words, the AMA (amongst others) controls licensing for
medical schools, which is what I said. The AMA also agressively
lobbies the government to underfund medical education, but that
is a bit more complicated as there are other players. But for
generations, the AMA has done everything in its power to keep
the number of doctors artificially low. Nice to see that some
people are waking up to the fact that this might not be a good
idea afterall.
\_ This is what you said:
"The AMA controls licensing for medical schools"
(This statement is not really true as the AMA does not
have sole, or even majority, control. They have input.)
"which is how they keep the number of doctors low."
(This statement is not really true either since, as I
pointed out, the number of residents is largely
determined by the government.)
The AMA is a lobby out to protect the interests of
doctors. Wow, what a shocker. Next you will tell me that
UAW is trying to protect American autoworker jobs. However,
the AMA always gets blame for artificially limiting the
number of doctors and the reality is that they don't have
that capability. They have the desire, but let's not
overstate their authority. The biggest party at fault is the
government - the same government that people want to run
Universal Health Care.
\_ You said "the government controls this" which is entirely
false. "The government" is you and me, put the blame
where it belongs.
\_ You can increase funding for medical residents? You
should get on that. |
| 2008/4/5-9 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49673 Activity:nil |
4/4 Uh, WOW. Pravda English edition. This may be the best reading on the
Intarweb
http://english.pravda.ru
\_ what is this?
\_ "US sniper meets Bush with his pants down"
"People marry animals trying to find happiness"
"Women feel depressed of being women"
\_ So it's like the National Enquirer of the Soviet Union? |
| 2008/4/5-9 [ERROR, uid:49672, category id '18005#3.54875' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49672 Activity:nil |
4/4 Ten times as much media coverage for Obama's bowling as for John Yoo
memo and Mukasey's 9/11 comments:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/05/media/index.html |
| 2008/4/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49636 Activity:nil |
4/1 Oliver Stone to make George W. Bush biopic (not an April Fool, sadly)
Starring Josh Brolin
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/03/27/oliver-stone-casts-dubyas-parents
Given how unintentionally hilarious JFK was, this may simultaneously
be both the best and worst movie ever made. |
| 2008/3/31-4/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49615 Activity:moderate |
3/31 Mark Steyn analyzes 'Dreams From My Father'
http://csua.org/u/l5p
This transcript covers on feature of Obama's first book that I found
so odd. I surprised more people who plan on voting haven't read it.
\_ Gee townhall. Surprise surprise.
\_ Ahhh, the Hugh Hewitt show! Let me guess, you're a Romney voter.
\_ Actually, I'd never heard of Hugh Hewitt until today. I got this
off a blog. I take it neither of you have read "Dreams From
My Father?" It's not that it's an amazing book or anything,
but it was the first thing I read when I first heard of
Obama and was thinking about voting for him. It's also the
reason I decided I didn't want to vote for him. I continue
to be surprised that more people haven't read it, especially
among those who love and those who hate him. -op
\_ Which aspect(s) of the book made you not want to vote for
him, and does that mean you chose Clinton instead?
\_ Well, I actually voted for Obama in the primaries because
I still like him a lot more than Clinton. Looks like I'll
end up voting for McCain in the general election unless
something big changes.
The book bugged me in a couple of ways. He seems to
realize early on that he can choose who he wants to become.
This is an unusual and admirable quality. So he decides
to join the black radical culture. This I find less
admirable. He then spends a lot of his youth trying to
prove how 'black' he is. Even going so far as to pressue
other african-american students if he doesn't think they're
acting black enough. He even calls one guy an Uncle Tom
for studing too hard, although he apologizes for that.
There seems to be a sort of 'hate whitey' undercurrent
throughout the text, although he never actually says
something so quoteable. There is one line where he
writes (as I recall) 'I came to the conclusion that
perhaps not all whites are worthy of our scorn.' Umm,
thanks? And perhaps not all blacks are criminals?
I would be okay with this if he ever seemed to get past it,
but near then end of the book he suggests that some
random white family in a restraunt in Kenya is there
because they "want black people to serve them."
This is all difficult to draw strong conclusions about
because, as the article mentions, he never overtly
states his positions, or if his ideas have changed.
He also comes across as ignorant of economics. -op
\_ Did you try the second book?
\_ No, I read the first book partially because I figured
the second book was likely to be written purely for
political reasons, and would therefore not show his
true beliefs. He stated in an interview that Dreams
From My Father contained things that were
'politically inconvinent' but that he stood by them.
I was impressed by that bravery. However, since he
never really makes any solid statements in the
first book, I guess I may as well read the 2nd. -op
\_ Okay, you piqued my curiosity enough that I am going
to read this book. I wonder what kind of book Dubya
would have written at that age. Probably nothing
as impressive.
\_ This constant bringing up of Dubya sounds kind of
pathetic, along the lines of 'Ok, but the Republicans
are still worse... right? right? Just checking'.
-- ilyas
\_ Why is it pathetic? Wasn't Dubya the best possible
candidate the Republican Party could nominate?
We have heard for years what a great President
he was, from many Conservative pundits. Would
McCain be any better?
\_ What's pathetic is your fixation on Dubya.
This thread isn't even about Dubya but you keep
somehow trying to bring him in. -- ilyas
\_ Dubya == McCain. I am not the one who
brought up McCain.
\_ No, Dubya is not McCain. McCain is
McCain. I think you should let Dubya go.
\_ I think it is pathetic that the Bush
voters want us to forget history so
quickly. You should have the loyalty
to stand by your man or at least be
willing to learn from your mistakes.
In what significant way do McCain's
In what significant way does McCain's
policy positions differ from Dubya's?
\_ I am not a Bush voter, and I grow
tired of this conversation.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
\_ Facts are such tiresome things.
You are going to vote for McCain
even though you have no idea
what his policies are, just
because you don't like a book
the other guy wrote 20 years
ago? That is a reason to vote
for someone I guess. Kind of a
lame reason, imho, but it is
your right.
\_ This has got to be a troll.
We have no idea what McCain's
policies are? No one here
could make such a stupid
statement seriously, could
they? -!pp
\_ So tell me then where
McCain would be different
than Bush. Their important
policies are the same.
\_ And Obama = Clinton = LBJ!
\_ Also LBJ == JFK == FDR
\_ No Obama's policies are quite
different than LBJ's. Depending on
which Clinton you mean, you are
actually pretty close to the mark
there.
\_ The quotes I've seen clearly seem written
from the perspective of exploring the mindset of
various individuals and groups, not really statements
of personal philosophy. Obama clearly has "racial
baggage" and identity confusion as part of his life
experience. The book seems more of an explanation of
why/how he would be involved in black radicalism rather
than an espousal of it. Can you honestly say you have
never had racist thoughts? Obama's book is open about
it, but I can't see any evidence he "hates whitey" at
this point in time, or understands less about econ.
than his rivals.
\_ Well, I find that theory even more disturbing. Does
he have no principles at all? What does it mean
when someone goes to so much trouble to avoid making
any sort of personal statement of principles?
\_ Most of us have a personal and moral philosophy
that evolves as we mature. I think that this is
a good thing and a sign of a smart and agile mind,
but I know that some (mostly extremists, on all
ends of the political spectrum) find that to be
a sign of moral weakness.
\_ That's not the focus of that book. The second
book is. Honestly though, I'm not sure what you
expect. How do you write a book on the subject
he did? Did he need a "for dummies" chapter
to reassure white people that he doesn't hate
them? What is "the solution" to the problems he
deals with? Should blacks ignore racism, pretend
it doesn't exist? On balance it seems better for
him to have written the book than not. It shows
that he has allowed himself to process and
consider ideas that we don't find appealing.
But I think in the end he rejects them, if only
because he decides the ideas not effective. Have
you ever seriously considered the merits of
communism, segregation, etc.? The reality is that
most smart people don't pretend to have a simple
rulebook for every situation in life. The best
he can do is point to his past actions and show
that he considers all angles of a problem and its
solution. There doesn't seem to be any way for
him to prove himself to you -- after all, if he
simply says something you can suspect him of
hidden resentment and hatred.
\_ The most common objection I've seen to the book is that
Obama's description of himself as a young man doesn't match
up with the experience that others had of him - that he was
much more outgoing and cheerful than he seems to have thought
himself. I'd say this is really common - I'm willing to bet
most of you would have a description of your younger self that
contradicted what others saw. Self-awareness takes a LONG
time to really develop, and some people never develop it.
\_ I love how Barack just confuses the hell out of conservatives.
\_ I love how Barack demonstrates so clearly how shallow the
majority of Dems are.
\_ What defines a non-shallow Dem for you?
\_ The silence just speaks volumes, doesn't it? |
| 2008/3/28-4/6 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49607 Activity:nil |
3/28 Consumer confidence lowest in 16 years but BUSH'S TAX CUTS
AND REBATES will rescue us!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23843931 |
| 2008/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Industry/Jobs] UID:49594 Activity:nil |
3/28 HA HA HA
"Bush sees Opportunity for Renewed Platitudes in Iraq." |
| 2008/3/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49577 Activity:low |
3/26 The Republican party preaches self-reliance and responsibility.
The bail out of Bear Stearns seems to contradict these points.
They're not self-reliant anymore, and they don't seem to bear
any responsibility. What's up? Will someone who voted for
George W Bush explain to me what self-reliance and responsibility
mean?
\_ Nice straw man. The only reason for the gov't to get involved in
this is to provide liquidity--had this happened in the 20's, we
might have avoided the problems back then.
\_ Providing excess liquidity was what caused the problems in the
20's in the first place. The government was involved all through
the 20's and 30's.
\_ No it wasn't. Read "The Forgotten Man"
\_ Yes it was. "The Forgotten Man" doesn't refute this and
isn't the authority anyway.
\_ No cookie. |
| 2008/3/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49576 Activity:high |
3/26 As foreclosures go up, wouldn't it contradict Bush's idea of the
great New Ownership Society? Would foreclosure have a lasting
effect on this cool idea?
\_ ...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of
our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more
vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital
stake in the future of this country.
- President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
\_ We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation
to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow
the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the
generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew,
with the past cut off and the future ignored.
- John Major conference speech 1991.
\_ It already has. We are back to the ownership levels we had
pre-Bush.
\_ People made stupid financial decisions. This is clearly the
fault of the Bush administration. It is part of Yet Another
Karl Rove plot to destroy the country! Grow up. I mean that
literally. If you screw yourself spending money you didn't
have you are stupid and it is only your fault. Are you a
believer in "predatory lending"? Sheesh.
\_ Yes, I believe in predatory lending. Deregulation and the
selfish and immature philosphy behind it has been a
disaster. Grow up, indeed. The one last thing that the
Republicans had to be proud of has turned to dust. When
will you admit that you need to learn from your mistakes?
\_ 1) I'm not what you think I am. 2) Please explain how
you can "predate" on an adult. Legal adults of age and
means to sign a contract for hundreds of thousands of
dollars were somehow "forced" into doing so? Ridiculous.
Fortunately, most people are smart enough to have a loan
they can afford, are doing just fine paying them, do not
need or want Big Government Mommy help and thus the
Republic is safe for a few more years until the next fake
crisis that "requires" Mommy's intervention to screw things
up even worse.
\_ How about fraud? Isn't that predatory? How about having
someone sign a contract in a language they don't read
and the translater lies to them about the contents.
Is that okay in your sophomoric "Atlas Shrugged" view
of the world?
\_ I think you're missing the point. The op is
conveying that he/she does not care about stupid
people who make stupid decisions. Survival of
the fittest should be how things go, or something
like that.
\_ I think the op is foolish and immature and
is the last person who should be telling others
to grow up. Society is based on mutual
interdependency and all of our survival depends
of the general willingness to co-operate. Things
like fraud undermine that.
\_ Url to prove this?
\_ http://www.progress.org/2008/baker01.htm
Okay, not quite all the way back yet, but very close.
\_ Not exactly a reputable source. This site is left
leaning and pro-socialism. Case in point, "American
dream is a myth! Life is not fair in America!" URL
http://www.progress.org/2004/noury05.htm
\_ Facts often are "left leaning"
http://www.csua.org/u/l4u (census bureau)
\_ That's true. Almost as often as they are "right
leaning."
\_ Faith-based vs. reality-based
\_ Ownership Society has more to do with the ever expanding
choice and your participation in making those choices.
"On the other hand, having an ever-expanding number of choices
doesn't necessarily make us happier, just as bigger and bigger
food portions don't make us healthier."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0512.glastris.html
\_ http://blognonymous.com/2006/02/ownership-society-means-foreclosure.html
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/2nft5l [blognonymous] |
| 2008/3/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49558 Activity:kinda low |
3/25 New warnings about entitlements shortfall
Medicare unable to pay full benefits by 2019, Social Security by 2041
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23796483
Bush wanted to fix the problem but could not convince the Democrats
to change. Damn the Democrats!
\_ Um, wasn't Bush the one primarily responsible for making the
Medicare problem worse?
\_ Bush taps a guy to lead social security privitization. Every year
the dude releases reports that say "DOOM! DOOM!" But gee, he has
a vested intrest in shouting doom. Every year his numbers don't
really hold up that well.
\_ Bush and the Republicans conspired to make the Medicare problems
much much worse. Their "solution" to Social Security will destroy
it while enriching Wall Street. Social Security is in much better
condition than many other parts of the federal goverment.
\_ It's true, it's Bush's fault Social Security is an untenable
pyramid scheme, raided by Congress for unrelated expenses.
That some parts of the government are WORSE is not really a
good defense.
\_ There's a great quote by Warren Buffett about how
politicians are sounding the alarm about Social Security
running a small deficit 40 years from now, and yet a
$400 billion deficit today doesn't bother anyone.
Social Security is fine for something like another 40
years as long as BushCo and the Republicans don't get
their greedy paws on it.
\_ It's true, the democrats in Congress totally kept their
paws off the social security pot. Idiot.
\_ You have such a convincing debate style. Idiot.
\_ Social Security is fine: the GOP has predicting its demise since
the 30s (no joke), but Medicare is in big trouble. The entire
medical system is in trouble, in fact, since medical costs keep
going up much faster than the GDP and we have demographics working
against us to boot. Only a sea change in our health care management
philosophy, combined with some pretty serious rationing, is going
to possibly reverse that trend.
\_ Plus, you know. Figuring out what actually helps. We need
personalized medicine, current statistics-based medical
research is shit. |
| 2008/3/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49548 Activity:nil |
3/24 An honest dialogue about race
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9955
\_ I see very little honesty there. |
| 2008/3/17-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49478 Activity:nil |
3/17 So what's up with Bush's government intervention of the financial
market (e.g. Bear Sterns)? I mean, I thought REPUBLICANS are pro
FREE MARKET INVISIBLE HAND but clearly, the hand is very visible.
\_ I supported the Iraq War -emarkp
\_ Capitalism for the masses, socialism for the rich Wall Street guys!
After all, deep executive talent is awfully hard to find in a
competitive global marketplace.
\_ "Privatize the profits, socialize the losses" -- the Republican
mantra. Get rid of any and all regulation to maximize risk and
return, and when everything collapses (long after all the rich
have gotten obscenely richer) bail the whole train wreck out
using taxpayer money.
\_ waiting for jblack and emarkp to counter these blatantly
false liberal statements.
\_ is there supposed to be something wrong with that?
\_ yes. |
| 2008/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49468 Activity:nil |
3/16 Chavez - US supports terrorism:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yuus2k (cnn.com) |
| 2008/3/13-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49450 Activity:low |
3/13 Oops, the media has finally noticed Obama's racist preacher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWvxTUy47Fk
\_ Racist.
\_ Obama's response:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23hqyu [huffington post]
I'm sure the media will give him exacty the same treatment as they
do when Pat Robertson makes some off the wall remarks. Yep.
Totally sure.
\_ Pat Robertson is responsible for what he says. Obama is not
responsible for what someone else says. Understand the
difference? |
| 2008/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49408 Activity:low |
3/10 I love this expose of the liberal media circle.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/7060
thinkprogress -> media matters -> Keith Olbermann -> media matters ->
new york times
\_ So if I go on national tv and ask if George Bush rapes little
boys that's totally just you know, sillyness?
\_ You haven't watched the clip, obviously. -emarkp
\_ Even if done in jest, it is the sort of thing that adds up.
Especially when done on a serious news program.
\_ Sorry, you're an idiot. Beck has called the people who are
asking if Obama is the Anti-Christ, "crazy" and "nutjobs".
Mockery and sarcasm are common and reasonable ways to express
an opinion. -emarkp
\_ It's the way the mockery and sarcasm are presented. Find
me a talking head asking "Is George Bush a Nazi?" on a
national news show. I doubt you'll find it.
\_ So you still haven't watched the clip? -emarkp
\_ Ah yes, the "liberal media."
\_ Yes, precisely. -emarkp
\_ Exactly how "liberal" did you find the NYTimes series on WMD?
A little bit, a lot, or extremely? Damn liberals!
\_ How fair did you find the front-page utterly fabricated
smear on McCain? A little bit, a lot, or extremely?
\_ The Times sucks. No disagreement from me. But calling
them the "liberal media" is ignoring reality.
\_ Yes, you're repeatedly denied that they're liberal.
However, they consistently err on the side of
criticizing the right. -emarkp
\_ Except for their years-long crusade on behalf
of the Whitewater investigation, their shameful
series on WMD from Judith Miller, etc...
\_ Ah, I wrote "consistently". My bad. I meant
to say they do so in the overwhelming majority.
-emarkp
\_ I'm not sure what you base this
"overwhelming majority" assertion on.
They infuriate me on a daily basis.
--liberal
\_ Hypothesis: The right is worthy of
criticism more often.
\_ Odd hypothesis, and probably difficult to
test.
\_ Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic mayor of
[prove]
\_ Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic gvrnr of
New York just got busted on a connection
with a prostitution ring (!?). -- ilyas
\_ ... which the Times is doing a huge
story on.
\_ yes. And note, he wasn't
"connected with a prostitution
ring"; he hired a prostitute. -tom
\_ Governor of NY State.
\_ Yes sorry, fixed. -- ilyas
\_ I disagree. They just tend to go after
whoever is in power, which is part of the
role of media as government watchdog. See
the huge above the fold story about Spitzer
right now. It has just been so long since
the Democrats were in power, that people
have forgotten the role the NYT played in
attacking Clinton, Rostenkowski, etc. The
NYT might be slightly more liberal than
most, but that is just a reflection of
their readership. Overall, they are just
another big corporation, controlled by
billionaires and in the business of selling
ads. Why do you believe otherwise?
\_ If their role is to go after those in
power, why did they play such a major
role in aiding and abetting the WMD
shenanigans and in going into Iraq in
the first place?
\_ War against a foreign country only
happens when the moneyed classes think
they are going to profit from it.
-George Orwell
\_ I guess I've never seen Keith Olbermann before, he looks like he's
made of plastic. |
| 2008/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49348 Activity:low |
3/5 Defence spending has been what has busted the budget, not
domestic programs:
http://www.csua.org/u/kys (The Economist'v View)
\_ What is Defence?
\_ It's what's around dehouse. |
| 2008/2/29-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49306 Activity:nil |
2/29 Two more criminals Bush is sure to pardon:
http://www.csua.org/u/kxk
\_ You really want to review past Presidential pardons as a troll?
That's pretty dull stuff. You can do better than this, Shirley.
\_ I guess you are right, crooked Republicans are a dime a dozen
these days. |
| 2008/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49285 Activity:nil |
2/28 Bush re-assures America that the economy is actually doing fine:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_26
\_ but he also said: "No question, we're in a slowdown"
\_ But he didn't say "a full stop." |
| 2008/2/27-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49276 Activity:low |
2/26 Goodbye, Bill Buckley, you magnificent bastard.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_re_us/obit_buckley
\_ Some of Buckley's vaginal orgasms:
Buckley vs. Gore Vidal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
Buckley vs. Chomsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk
\- good riddance.
\_ some low life here always wishes ill upon the dead. he's
gone. get over him. move on.
\- i am not sure what your point is, but let me elaborate
on mine:
Wm Buckley "mastered" the art of defending a self-serving
set of ideas in a forum he controlled. He looks smart
and shiney next to talk show hacks, and perhaps is
somebody you look up to when you mature from a
High School Randroid into a freshly card carrying
college republican. But a deep and original thinker
like say Robert Nozick? Hardly. Although Cheney makes
him look good. [and yes i know Conservatism != Randoidism]
\_ He's dead. Attacking dead people doesn't hurt them.
I'm concerned for your emotional and mental well being,
not WFB's reputation or feelings. It's unhealthy.
\_ You're joking, right? It's WFB. Some of his best friends
are still going to spit on his grave.
\_ Like who? URL?
\_ wow. i really want a "...Mr. Anderson" on that 2nd video
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/kxl (NY Times)
David Brooks on Buckley. |
| 2008/2/26-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Computer/Theory] UID:49265 Activity:nil |
2/26 the day the routers died
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0 |
| 2008/2/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49232 Activity:low |
2/24 CBS affiliate in northern Alamaba "mysteriously" goes dark during
Karl Rove/Don Siegelman segment:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002487
\_ How do you think Rove was going to create a Permanent Republican
Majority? You don't really think he expected to win electiond
Majority? You don't really think he expected to win elections
did you?
\_ This segment on this one affiliate in northern Alabama going
dark was key to Karl Rove's plan to rule the world!
\_ Someone didn't read the url or watch the video, yay!
\_ keyword: ignorant |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:49220 Activity:nil |
2/22 Bush Pentagon Office Of Public Affairs inserting itself into election
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179784.php
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179742.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23301273
http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1203696668.shtml
\_ I'm shocked, shocked
\_ libural URL alert! Don't believe it unless it's on FoxNews. |
| 2008/2/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49213 Activity:high |
2/21 Isn't it weird that assassinated or attempted assassinated
presidents are usually portrayed as good presidents in
media, books, etc? Do we EVER say bad things to people in their
obituaries? I mean, if president Nixon was assassinated, would
we say nicer things today?
\_ Well thank god no one tried anything funny on George W Bush,
otherwise he'd be known as a great President. -Democrat
\_ Counterexample: Gerald Ford. -tom
\_ listen up tom holub, the key word is usually
\_ I'm not sure Ford is a good example, his obits seem
positive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/863634.stm
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2e9n3k (washingtonpost.com)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y5yxvu (telegraph.co.uk)
And the only real "bad thing" I've ever heard
about Ford that I've heard (from non-kooks) is that
he was klutzy.
And the only really "bad thing" I've ever heard re
Ford (from non-kooks) is that he was klutzy.
\_ Ford was ineffectual. Obits are never negative; even
Nixon got transformed into a respected elder statesman. -tom
\- Notes on the Passing of an American Monster:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
There were plenty of negative comments upon the death
of the Indonesian Crook Suharto.
There were plenty of negative comments about
Benazir Bhutto. By Shashi Tharoor, William Darymple etc.
Not a pol but see: http://www.slate.com/id/2111506
YMWTFG(samuel johnson lapidary)
YMWTGF(samuel johnson lapidary)
You guys dont know what you are talking about.
\_ Nixon just looks better relative to the current disaster
in chief. They are both crooks but I don't remember Nixon
accused of being incompetent and/or intellectually stunted.
\- i have kind of a soft spot for nixon [and musharaf]
but it is kinda hard to compare W and RMN because
the time have changed. for example W would never make
the times have changed. for example W would never make
the kinds comments to Condi about being black as Nixon
did to SuperK about being jewish. but of course SAGENEW
never shot an old man in the face and then got him to
apologize to the country.
\_ I hear "A Legacy of Ashes" isn't kind to JFK, but I haven't read
it yet.
\_ key word: usually
\_ This may be the best motd meme since "obviously you've
never served."
\_ "Richard Nixon, hero of his age, began the long painful draw down
of troops which later led to the end of the Vietnam conflict, also
responsible for opening China to the West, ending the long cold war
with our former foe, he shall always be remembered as the greatest
American President of his era before he was assassinated by unknown
Democrats".
agents".
\_ Pinochet had some pretty mixed obituaries, but no I have never
seen a bad one for an assassinated US President. You might be
able to find one written by a foreign newspaper.
\_ I was in Santiago the day Pinochet died:
http://flickr.com/photos/tholub/365629145 -tom
\_ Reagan was attempted assassination, and supposedly he was a bad
president.
\_ He defeated an EVIL communist regime and his STAR WARS
legacy helped us advance our space programs. He is an
all American HERO and a nice looking actor.
\_ Thanks to Star Wars we got to shoot down a sattelite.
And the fact that the weather cooperated.
\_ ... and the fact that the satellite is in a lower
altitude than normal orbiting ones.
\_ But not lower than an ICBM. |
| 2008/2/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49198 Activity:kinda low |
2/20 Ah, so it's just Billary that's putting out the anti-Obama slimes eh?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM2NDQ3ZWQ1YWM0Y2QyZTUxMDdkY2M2OTJlNGE5MWE
\_ Billary. Why must we use cutesy little names for people in
politics? The freepers do this. The DU/Kosians do this. We
don't need this on the motd.
\_ exactly which MOTD have you been reading where this doesn't
happen?
\- it think there is actually some smarts to names like
BUSHCO, BILARY etc. BUSHCO reflects: the whole CEO-
President idea, the corporate backgrounds of CHENEY and
RUMSFELD, and most relevantly today, their diffuse and
limited "liability". similar BILARY, the two-for-one,
the looming presence of Bill in the background etc.
[and of course ALGOR = robot].
\_ Almost every politician has a corporate background.
Hillary spent many years on the Walmart board and as a
corporate lawyer/partner but we don't call her HILLARYCO.
\- if you think your example are comparable, you dont
know what you are talking about ... and you clearly
think it is comparable ...
\_ If you could explain why then we'd have something
to discuss instead of just stating your opinion
as fact.
The two-for-one BILLARY is 'cute' but again unnecessary
for what is supposed to be a group of intelligent and
aware people who shouldn't need that constant reminder.
I don't care which party or what beliefs any of these
people have. I just find all the little grade school
names silly and for me they detract from what might
otherwise be a more intelligent discussion.
\_ I didn't say it doesn't happen here. I said we don't need it
and can/should do better. I like to think that the typical
motd poster is smarter and can make a better point than
resorting to childish name calling like a freeper or kosian.
\_ AssUMe.
\_ I like how none of you even commented on the ridiculous article
this link points to, which basically argues that "since Obama's
mother was Jewish, and his dad was black, and since I went to a
school where any couple like that were DIRTY COMMIES, Obama must
also be a COMMIE."
\_ You have bad reading comprehension. It didn't claim his mother
was Jewish. But what's there to comment about? It's just some
blog entry.
\_ Sorry, wasn't really interested in the article as much as the
discussion it generated. |
| 2008/2/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49176 Activity:nil |
2/16 Poverty is Poison:
http://www.csua.org/u/ksu
\_ You know, this article started off good until it got to "But
progress stalled thereafter: American politics shifted to
the right..." which has the effect of turning off 1/2 of the
readers in the U.S. On the other hand, I don't know any
conservative reading NY times so maybe it's well fitted.
\- if you are interested in this topic, read WHY ZEBRAS DONT GET
ULCERS. very, very good book. [the book is primarily about
something else, but coverns this in some depth as well]. --psb |
| 2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49149 Activity:nil |
2/14 How the Bush Administration helped the banks screw the American
borrower:
http://www.csua.org/u/krq
\_ Liberal slant alert.
\_ is there supposed to be something wrong with that? |
| 2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49141 Activity:kinda low 75%like:49133 |
2/13 Mythbusting Canadian Health Care
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gpm64 (part I - http://ourfuture.org)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/27ejwh (part II - http://ourfuture.org)
\_ Oh sure, you'd expect this from free-market deniers.
\_ Care to respond to the arguments or just blather
and set up strawmen?
\_ "1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work
directly for the state."
This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick. (And goes downhill
from there.)
\_ All I can say is that I have one of the best PPOs money
can buy in the USA, and it SUCKS DONKEY BALLS. If
what Canada has is socialism, then bring on the
socialism. ok thx.
\_ What sucks about your PPO?
\_ Maybe your PPO isn't as good as you think. My
current one sucks, but my previous one was awesome.
If yours sucks then it doesn't indict the entire
medical system.
\_ Move to Canada then.
\_ yeah, because who would want to do anything to
improve America? -tom
\_ I don't think it would be good for America, and
the arguments at the links above are specious. I
think the government needs to get *less* involved
in health care, not more. If you want Canada's
system, go to Canada.
\_ If the system changes and you don't like it,
where are you going to go? -tom
\_ Excellent non sequitur, sir!
\_ Mexico, where health care is cheap and
of high quality.
\_ Cuba!
\_ What exactly sucks about it? That it's not free?
\_ This is my favorite:
"We'll have rationed care
Don't look now: but America does ration care. And it does it in the
most capricious, draconian, and often dishonest way possible.
"Mostly, the US system rations care by simply eliminating large
numbers of people from the system due to an inability to pay."
Um, yes. That's called capitalism. This is saying, "socialized
health care would be better because socialism is better!"
-emarkp
\_ no, it's saying that capitalism rations care. -tom
\_ No, capitalism puts care on a market.
\_ and that's good because...?
\_ Because markets are a proven mechanism for optimizing
results and give you a choice of where and how to
spend your money. What's good about socialism? You
are trying to change the system so the onus is on
you.
\_ Evolution is also a proven mechanism for
optimizing results. Just let all the poor, dumb
people die, it's the natural order of things.
\_ Don't forget about the UNLUCKY. Evolution
doesn't care if it operates fairly. Fairness
is a human peculiarity.
\_ Darwinism does account for luck where
both the lucky and unlucky offset each
other hence you'll still find order in
any chaos system.
\_ It's lots of fun for those who lose
because of bad luck, isn't it?
\_ It is a fallacy that markets optimize results.
An obvious failure case in the health realm is that
markets don't provide universal vaccine, which
ends up being a larger public health cost than
vaccine would be. -tom
\_ I'm not saying everything should only be driven
purely by markets. So provide free vaccine. Next?
\_ Socialist.
\_ Exceptions don't mean it's a fallacy. "Commons"
concerns are a known area where markets alone
can't optimize the problem, because the costs
and benefits aren't easily quantified or owned.
Another example is stuff like national parks
and open space. The actual value of open space
to the society at large or in the area is hard
to accurately capture. I'm open to discussion
of what constitutes such cases but I don't see
convincing arguments with respect to health
care.
\_ Proven, you mean like how the markets put CAs
power out a few years back? And gave us M$ as a
monopoly product? No one seriously believes in
unregulated markets as a mechanism for optimizing
anything.
\_ No one seriously promotes unregulated markets,
dumbass. Power markets are a laughable example
however: regulations prevented investment in
more power infrastructure.
\_ Then if you agree we need to regulate markets
you are just arguing over how much "socialism"
we really need.
\_ Regulation (laws) is not socialism, dumbass.
\_ I'm confused. op posts article debunking
myths about Canada's healthcare system.
emarkp makes comparison to socialism.
criticisms of capitalism follow, then
praises of capitalism (by way of the
free market, i.e., competition), then
bad examples of said competition, then
qualifications based on possible limited
regulation, followed by ironic
invocation of "socialism," followed by
literal reference to socialism. At what
point does any of this point to the US
system somehow being better?
\_ dumbass
\_ Yay! You're contributing!
\_ Well, it's true but oddly twisted. All limited resources
must be rationed some how. I only know of 3 ways, money,
politics, and violence. The Free Market uses money for a
variety of good reasons, but sometimes it doesn't work.
However, we are so used to the free market that we only call
political rationing, rationing. It's just a matter of
common language use.
\_ No, it's saying "fears of rationing care are based on a
fictional lack of rationed care in the US."
\_ I love this argument:
- Universal health care is Socialism! Capitalism rox! F U TAXES!
- Our health care system sucks! We need Canada's system! OBAMA!! |
| 2008/2/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49133 Activity:high 75%like:49141 |
2/13 Mythbusting Canadian Health Care
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers
\_ Oh sure, you'd expect this from free-market deniers.
\_ Care to respond to the arguments or just blather
and set up strawmen?
\_ "1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly
for the state."
This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick.
This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick. (And goes downhill
from there.)
\_ All I can say is that I have one of the best PPOs money
can buy in the USA, and it SUCKS DONKEY BALLS. If
what Canada has is socialism, then bring on the
socialism. ok thx.
\_ Move to Canada then psb.
\_ That wasn't psb. --also not psb
\_ Maybe your PPO isn't as good as you think. My
current one sucks, but my previous one was awesome.
If yours sucks then it doesn't indict the entire
medical system.
\_ Move to Canada then.
\_ yeah, because who would want to do anything to
improve America? -tom
\_ I don't think it would be good for America, and
the arguments at the links above are specious. I
think the government needs to get *less* involved
in health care, not more. If you want Canada's
system, go to Canada.
\_ If the system changes and you don't like it,
where are you going to go? -tom
\_ Excellent non sequitur, sir!
\_ Mexico, where health care is cheap and
of high quality.
\_ Cuba!
\_ What exactly sucks about it? That it's not free?
\_ This is my favorite:
"We'll have rationed care
Don't look now: but America does ration care. And it does it in the
most capricious, draconian, and often dishonest way possible.
"Mostly, the US system rations care by simply eliminating large
numbers of people from the system due to an inability to pay."
Um, yes. That's called capitalism. This is saying, "socialized
health care would be better because socialism is better!"
-emarkp
\_ no, it's saying that capitalism rations care. -tom
\_ No, capitalism puts care on a market.
\_ and that's good because...?
\_ Because markets are a proven mechanism for optimizing
results and give you a choice of where and how to
spend your money. What's good about socialism? You
are trying to change the system so the onus is on
you.
\_ Evolution is also a proven mechanism for
optimizing results. Just let all the poor, dumb
people die, it's the natural order of things.
\_ Don't forget about the UNLUCKY. Evolution
doesn't care if it operates fairly. Fairness
is a human peculiarity.
\_ It is a fallacy that markets optimize results.
An obvious failure case in the health realm is that
markets don't provide universal vaccine, which
ends up being a larger public health cost than
vaccine would be. -tom
\_ I'm not saying everything should only be driven
purely by markets. So provide free vaccine. Next?
\_ Socialist.
\_ Exceptions don't mean it's a fallacy. "Commons"
concerns are a known area where markets alone
can't optimize the problem, because the costs
and benefits aren't easily quantified or owned.
Another example is stuff like national parks
and open space. The actual value of open space
to the society at large or in the area is hard
to accurately capture. I'm open to discussion
of what constitutes such cases but I don't see
convincing arguments with respect to health
care.
\_ Proven, you mean like how the markets put CAs
power out a few years back? And gave us M$ as a
monopoly product? No one seriously believes in
unregulated markets as a mechanism for optimizing
anything.
\_ No one seriously promotes unregulated markets,
dumbass. Power markets are a laughable example
however: regulations prevented investment in
more power infrastructure.
\_ Then if you agree we need to regulate markets
you are just arguing over how much "socialism"
we really need.
\_ Regulation (laws) is not socialism, dumbass.
\_ I'm confused. op posts article debunking
myths about Canada's healthcare system.
emarkp makes comparison to socialism.
criticisms of capitalism follow, then
praises of capitalism (by way of the
free market, i.e., competition), then
bad examples of said competition, then
qualifications based on possible limited
regulation, followed by ironic
invocation of "socialism," followed by
literal reference to socialism. At what
point does any of this point to the US
system somehow being better?
\_ Well, it's true but oddly twisted. All limited resources
must be rationed some how. I only know of 3 ways, money,
politics, and violence. The Free Market uses money for a
variety of good reasons, but sometimes it doesn't work.
However, we are so used to the free market that we only call
political rationing, rationing. It's just a matter of
common language use.
\_ No, it's saying "fears of rationing care are based on a
fictional lack of rationed care in the US."
\_ I love this argument:
- Universal health care is Socialism! Capitalism rox! F U TAXES!
- Our health care system sucks! We need Canada's system! OBAMA!! |
| 2008/2/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49122 Activity:nil |
2/11 If David Shuster accused George H.W. Bush of pimping his son
George W. Bush, would he get the same flak he's getting now?
\_ No, it's a sympathy ploy for Clinton.
\_ Of course not. MSNBC is a wholely owned subsidiary of the DNC and
\_ Of course not. MSNBC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC and
Clinton(tm) machine.
\_ For your anology to make sense, Dubya would have to be accused
of pimping his daughters. When will some big time reporter
do that, so we can find out? |
| 2008/2/7-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49088 Activity:moderate |
2/7 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241324358751455.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Biofuels actual worsen warming and other problems, while gov't mandates their use. Score another one for meddling, overbearing, incompetent government. \_ You might want to look at who's really backing biofuels. -tom \_ How is that relavent to the point being made? \_ How is that relevant to the point being made? ADM and their ilk are backing it. Many of the environmentalists (at least the organizations) have come around and realized that only tools were supporting this, but guess what, it will continue to recieve giant subsidies. -crebbs will continue to be mandated and subsidized . -crebbs \_ The issue, then, is the power of the coporation, not "meddling, overbearing government." -tom \_ Govmnt is always acting on some's behalf. Usually some large already powerful organization like a corp. The difference is that the coporation does not have the power the forcibly take my money (without getting the government to do it for them). and use it fuck shit up. Only the Govmnt has this and use it to fuck shit up. Only the Govmnt has this power, which is one of the reasons continually expanding the power of govmnt is a bad idea. (see Hayek for others (and more lucidity). It is also why the point made by top is relavent and it is not why the point made by top is relevant and it is not reasonable to try to move blame being rightfully assigned (a piss poor use of government power) to "the big evil corporations". (even if, as in this case, a particular big evil corporation certainly does share culpablility). -crebbs does share culpability). -crebbs \_ LIBERAL RANT ALERT BELOW! LIBERAL RANT! \_ Government doesn't inherently work on behalf of coroporations, although that's certainly been the case in the U.S. since Reagan took office. The more you weaken government, the less it has the ability to fight against the control of large powerful organizations. The fact that conservatives beholden to large corporate interests have been championing deregulation and lower taxes is not coincidental; it is quite intentionally meant to foster a specific pro-corporate ideology, that the purpose of the government is to protect coporate interests. -tom \_ If the government was limited to essential functions, instead of messing around with stuff like lightbulbs and fuel percentages, then corporations could not do this. Same goes for income tax shenanigans that corporations do: a simple fixed tax scheme would go a long way towards preventing those. \_ If coporations ran everything except "essential functions", we'd be worse off than we are. -tom \_ No we wouldn't. Yay! \_ Cf. Free Market in Baja California. \_ You're an idiot. \_ You're an asshat. Are we ready to talk like adults now? \_ The farm lobby? \_ Whoever cornered the corn market in Mexico? \- cornholio? \_ Isn't that guy worth more than Bill Gates now? \_ President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. See, it's all Bush's fault: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23057867 |
| 2008/2/5-7 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49070 Activity:nil |
2/4 Bush's tax cuts/rebates will have beneficial effects on certian
industries like Phillip Morris, Anheiser Busch, and gambling
casinos. Pick your stocks wisely! -stock swami |
| 2008/1/25-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49014 Activity:nil |
1/25 Goodnight, Kucinich:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/us/politics/25kucinich.html |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49000 Activity:nil |
1/24 Obama might win because of his race. Hillary might win because of her
gender. If Condy Rice were to run this round, would she stand an even
better chance just because her race (more Black than Obama) and gender
might overcome her political stance?
\_ No, because the disadvantage of her being so closely associated
with the hated Bush would sink her despite gender/race advantage.
\_ well one of them will wni the democratic primary. Whichever
one of them wins will be because they're notrepublican. Condi
fails this test. |
| 2008/1/23-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48991 Activity:low |
1/22 Sweet, Bush's stimulus package is nearly *twice as large* as the
one Clinton proposed in 1993, but couldn't get passed. Go
Bushonomics!
\_ So who are you blasting? Is it a good idea that was unfairly spiked
in 1993, so....Bush is bad?
\_ Dunno about op, but I find it to be more evidence of how BushCo
is lacking in principles, even ones I don't support. Morally
bankrupt doesn't do it justice.
\_ Wait, wasn't congress a majority D in 1993? What does this
have to do with BushCo? Okay, now checking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress
The D's had a majority in both houses and the presidency. How
does what they failed to pass mean anything wrt Bush?
\_ Clinton proposed a stimulus package that would have raised
the Deficit; har, har, snicker conservatives, typical Dem.
Bush proposes _twice as large_ stim package, yet pretends
to be fiscally conservative Rep in the tradition of Reagan.
The irony is enough to cure world-wide anemia.
\_ Reagan was never fiscally conservative.
Reagan == trickle down economics. High deficit spending
is not being fiscally conservative. Ron Paul is the
only current candidate promoting fiscal conservativism.
\_ Bush hasn't pretended to be fiscally conservative for a
long time. It's why he's lost a lot of his base. See
the thread from 1/18 on that very topic. -emarkp
\_ Now you're memorizing threads+date? Dang you're
a major motd-snob.
\_ more like a major motd-geek than a motd-snob.
\_ No, I'm not memorizing it, I just remember
mentioning it a few days ago. Checking the history
was easy. -emarkp
\_ Yes, you know that, I know that, lots of people
know that. He still keeps pretending.
\_ So the real story is that Clinton proposed an R idea, and a D
congress shot it down?
\_ The real story is that there are no conspiracies. It's all out
in the open.
\_ These economic stimulus packages are bogus and don't address the
fact that the economy is being hollowed out and the financial
system is out of control due to lack of any kind of regulation.
Out of control lending and speculation, twin deficits over a
trillion a year is setting up the system for collapse, all this
shit Bush and the Fed are doing is just delaying the inevitable.
\_ The important thing is delaying shit hitting the fan until
someone else takes over, then it's their problem.
\_ Yup -- the shit will hit the fan around 2010/2012 when
peak oil arrives so whatever party wins the election
will get one term and then get dumped (see Carter)
\_ You're totally nuts if you think Carter got kicked out
because of oil prices or economic events his
administration wasn't mostly responsible for. Maybe
you also heard of this little thing called The Iran
Hostage Crisis? Are you old enough to remember the
daily count-up on the news reminding us yet another
day had gone by while our people were held by a
foreign power while Carter stood around with two thumbs
up his ass telling us how America should get used to
being a third rate power? Sheesh. I could go on but
there's no point.
\_ I had forgotthen how Reagan solved the Iran hostage
crisis in the first 5 minutes of his Presidency ...
\_ I'm sure you forgot because it has nothing at all
to do with anything I said about Carter. Nice
try.
\_ PEEK OIL!!!!11!!
\_ Yeah, we got to this point for a reason. Cutting the rate
more and spending more is just digging the hole deeper. Maybe
it will prop up housing again for a while with more cheap credit.
\_ Isn't the economy more than twice as large today?
\_ Not even close. It's like ~9:13. 1:1.7 in real dollars.
(According to US budget tables.)
\_ Is Bush's budget stimulus twice as large in real dollars
or nominal dollars? In nominal dollars the economy is
almost exactly twice as big:
http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GDP.htm
\_ For some reason I was comparing against 2000. You're
right about nominal dollars vs. 1993. But in real dollars
it's still only like 33% bigger. Hooray for inflation.
And that also assumes the government CPI shit is accurate.
(I'll let the op figure out whatever he was referring to.) |
| 2008/1/22-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48990 Activity:nil |
1/22 Study: Bush, officials made false statements prior to war
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
In other news, sky still blue!
\_ 935 false statements in two years is a lot of false statements, even
for a President. |
| 2008/1/22-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48985 Activity:nil |
1/22 Fred Thompson drops out
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UB49H00&show_article=1
\_ Damn. Can't see his busty wife's pics anymore.
\_ Damn. Can't see his busty wife anymore.
\_ Mrs. Jeri "Minnesota Tits" Thompson, the Future First Lady and
The First Twins, "Stacey" and "Becca."
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/228508.php
\_ Do the First Twins "drop out" also? |
| 2008/1/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48968 Activity:low |
1/18 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22725498 Bush calls for $145b tax relief (cuts) to rescue us from recession! Go trickle-down-economy! Reaganomics works! \_ Well, the other side is saying we should transfer wealth from rich to poor. And? \_ It is good that Bush and Republican Congress have been fiscally responsible, so that now we are in a downturn, we can spend some of the money we have been saving the last seven years. \_ You do realize that's one of the reasons R's are pissed at Bush and congress, right? And why some of use went to I? -emarkp \_ Yeah, I have heard some grumbling from my evangelical (R) brother. Did you switch to I? Is there any chance you will actually vote for a D? \_ Yes I did, and (for instance) I never voted for the Governator. If a D had a decent plan, I'd be happy to vote for him/her. But it's gotta be more than Hope or Change -emarkp \_ Unfortunately the R version of "saving" is moving money into the pockets of the rich. \_ If the rich buy more fences to keep out the poor, they'll have to hire the poor to build them! Yay, stimulated economy! |
| 2008/1/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48940 Activity:nil |
1/14 36-year-old state governor!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_re_us/louisiana_governor
I'm one year older and I'm goofing off browsing Yahoo at work. :-(
\_ Same here, but on the plus side I don't live in Louisiana
\_ you got the better end of that deal. |
| 2008/1/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48932 Activity:nil |
1/11 OSC horrified by ham-handed presidential candidates' responses to
Bhutto's assassination.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-12-30-1.html
\- i'll limit my reply to "benazir bhutto has 3 not 2 children."
ok one more thing: fatmia bhutto is not unattractive. |
| 2008/1/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:48906 Activity:nil |
1/8 Angry White Man: The archives of Ron Paul's newsletters
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
\_ He's white? Wow I can't support a white man.
\_ LGF had this 2 months ago
http://csua.org/u/kf5 |
| 2008/1/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48888 Activity:high |
1/4 474,000 workers retire from work force in December, buy Jim Cramer's
new book: "Stay Mad For Life"! Dubya pessimistic: to present
economic stimulus pkg on Monday with Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson
Unemployment Month
5.0% Dec 2007
4.4% Dec 2006
http://www.bls.gov/cps
\_ You know 5% unemployment is a very low number historically? |
| 2007/12/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48823 Activity:nil |
12/18 Why is Bush pardoning all these people all of a sudden?
http://www.csua.org/u/ka2
\_ Why do dogs lick their balls? |
| 2007/12/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:48814 Activity:nil |
12/15 A guide to the official U.S. torture system
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001917 |
| 2007/11/30-12/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48724 Activity:low |
11/30 "The Bush administration is working with industry on a plan to extend
lower, introductory interest rates on home loans before they reset
at higher levels."
Wait whatever happened to Bush's strong stance towards FREE MARKET
without fucking intervention from the government?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22039594
\_ He's under tremendous pressure to do something whether he wants
to or not.
\_ Polls don't matter! I read it on the motd, Bush will do what
is right, no matter what the polls say.
\_ If you don't understand the difference between lip service to ideals
and actually believing them what are you doing paying any attention
to politics?
\_ he could stick to his ideals and let the FREE MARKET decide, by
letting people trapped into these 'bad bad loans' move by banning all
early payment penalties in existing loans.
letting people trapped into these 'bad bad loans' move by banning
all early payment penalties in existing loans.
\_ I don't think prepayment penalties are really at the heart
of the issue here.
\_ A fine question, and one of the reason that conservatives are
unhappy with Bush. -emarkp
\_ A good president works hard to prevent any of his association
\_ A good president works hard to prevent any association
with recession (case in point Read My Lips George).
\_ that sounds like something a terrorist would say!
\- ^sounds^sounds suspiciously |
| 2007/11/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48692 Activity:nil |
11/25 Is Waterboarding torture?
http://www.csua.org/u/k2i (The Week)
\_ Apparently, Tasers are. At that point, anything is torture.
\_ The USSC said tasers are torture? When did they say that?
\_ No, SCOTUS didn't say that. Google the news for tasers and
torture.
\_ Tasers can be torture. When police use tasers one a restrained
subject, as punishment, they are using tasers as torture
devices.
\_ In this same vein, so are car batteries, hammers,
whatever....
\_ Umm, those are regularly used as torture devices.
Or would you be happy if police regularly smashed
people in the hand with a hammer for not doing what
they say?
\_ So when a prisoner is escorted to court with a taser belt, and
it's used to zap him if he gets out of line, you'd say it's a
torture device?
\_ If it is used to zap him if he attacks someone, probably
not. If it is used to make someone do something that
could be done without the use of pain, yes, it is
torture. And that's what tasers have become to some
law enforcement, ways of getting people to kowtow
instantly. That's torture.
\_ I thought torture was inflicting pain to get
information, not to get them to comply. What about
beating someone with batons if they won't fall in line?
\_ That's pretty obvious torture. It's part of ruling
by fear. And it is what our police departments are
rapidly becoming, forces of fear.
\_ It is not torture the way the Geneva Convention
defines torture. There has to be a lot more to
it than that, like permanent damage.
\_ This is not a testable distinction if you
include psychological damage. -- ilyas |
| 2007/11/24-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48688 Activity:high |
11/23 John Howard loses not only the national election, but his own seat.
Another Bush lapdog goes down.
\_ Kevin Rudd: We're pulling out of Iraq, and we're signing the
Kyoto Treaty. Smackdown!
\_ You people with Bush Derangement Syndrome are funny! Everyone is
Bush's lapdog.
\- funny-but-not-really was the "coalition of the willing".
[c.f. Costa Rica, Palau, Tonga]. if you hate minke whales
[the "rats of the sea"], this is actually kinda funny:
"Pro-whaling Mali and Mongolia have consistently
voted with Japan in the IWC in its campaign to
resume whale hunting. [http://tinyurl.com/2ekq52]
See also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2073945,00.html
BTW, JHOWARD also took flack for a number of "conservative"
ideas in domestic/econ policies, not just "war on terror"
issues. --!OP
\_ Cf. Aussie immigration policy, Pauline Hansen (better us
than her lot, eh?), Fiji, Indonesia, and the rapid
deterioration of Aussie cricket and rugby. Good on yer,
John!
\_ Not as funny as people with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
\_ Sorry, but it's at least twice as funny as CDS because of the
self-contradictory nature of BDS. Bush is simultaneously a
bumbling fool and a genius criminal mastermind/manipulator?
At least CDS is consistent - Clinton let crap happen because
he was too busy chasing booty/food?
\_ I am pretty consistently of the "bush is a bumbling
fool who has fucked up the entire world" kind of guy
myself.
fool who has messed up the entire world" school
of thought, myself
\_ You mean he killed Vince Foster and gave nuclear secrets
to the Chinese by accident while chasing booty?
\_ According to people with CDS, Hilary was behind these.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/k2j (NewsMax, I know...)
"How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold
them all the technology they needed . or handed it
over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is
to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose."
\_ A fool in a position of power can still reward his friends.
Or commit crimes. Or spend money, or initiate wars.
\_ But only a genius master manipulator can get away with
it.
\_ It is not clear that he got away with it.
\_ Bush is the greatest Republican President ever! Better than
Reagan! Better than Lincoln! We will build shrines in his
honor, put his face on Mt. Rushmore and the Two Dollar Bill!
http://www.csua.org/u/ify (Mission Accomplished!)
\_ You mean the 2/3 of America that doesn't like Bush, as opposed
to you 30% that still think he is swell? Do you really think
that 2/3 of America is deranged?
\_ Disliking != derangement. See, it's the deranged that say that
a second-longest-in-power PM getting ousted is "another Bush
lapdog" going down. -op
\- Bush Derangement Syndrome? perhaps. i do hope that he lives
long enough to be tried for his role in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,
and the kidnapping, "extraordinary rendition", and torture of
people around the world (who sometimes turn out to be innocent).
but what i hate are Bush's policies. it doesn't really matter
whether he's the evil mastermind behind the policies or a
cretinous sock puppet with Dick Cheney's hand shoved up his ass
making his mouth move (though i tend to suspect the latter).
regardless, i'm delighted when supporters of his policies get
voted out of office.
\_ You're seriously deluded if you believe he'll ever be tried
for so much as a traffic violation much less anything else
on your list. Most of your list is post 9/11 but do you
know that extraordinary rendition was a Clinton era policy?
Yes, Bush continued it but his administration sure as hell
didn't come up with the idea. Should Clinton be tried for
that? If you don't think so or you have some other
rationalization then you suffer from BDS. There is no cure.
\_ Heh, have you known psb long?
\_ Yes but there's always hope.
\- what does this have to do with me?
the only thing i wrote in theis thread was the
minke whale comment above. i'm not holding my breath
but i could see something like what happened to
pinochet happening to bush/rumsfeld/cheney ...
bush should be around for a while. --psb
\_ Bill Clinton should be indicted for the murder of Ed Willey,
Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
\_ Bill Clinton should be indicted for the murder of Ed
Willey, Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
\_ Maybe but first the cases should be properly
investigated. I know the first 2 weren't. I don't
know the RB details. |
| 2007/11/20-26 [ERROR, uid:48666, category id '18005#5.6425' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48666 Activity:low |
11/20 The White House has no comment:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_mcclellan_5
\_ I mean, why would they? You don't expect conservatives to
apologize do you? Stand strong, emphasize the positive,
ignore criticsm, move on. These are very effective conservative
tactics.
\_ troll.
\_ I guess a refusal to learn and change can be considered a hallmark
of conservatism.
\_ I guess a refusal to learn and change can be considered a
hallmark of conservatism.
\_ troll++;
\_ Call it a troll if you like, but it is a defining quality
of conservatism to preserve the past against the future.
Part of this is resistance to change. Too bad you have
such blinders that you can't see this. Conservatives call
liberals "flip-floppers" all the time. Do you call them
out as "trolls" for that?
\_ Please tell us your name so we can Swift Boat you
to death. -independent pretending to be conservative
\_ You are not just a troll, but incredibly stupid too. |
| 2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:48662 Activity:nil |
11/19 Are all charities "equivalent"? If I donate $100,000 to the
Metropolitan Opera House to encourage aspiring young musicians most
who will never make it in their lifetime, will I be more/less
impactful than donating $100,000 to help the poor in Africa?
\_ That depends on who you ask. A libertarian will say both are
equivalent as there's no moral judgements on people. A
socialist will think you're a total asshole. A capitalist
will point out that you're an idiot for not donating to
an organization that will somehow benefit you [in]directly.
\_ Is this a troll? If not, your best bang/buck on charity is
probably subsidizing childhood immunizations.
\_ unless you're against over-population
\_ When you find your humanity again, feel free to join the
rest of the human race.
\_ When you stop making assumptions about people because you
mis-interpreted a comment, feel free to join the rest of
literate adults.
\_ I'm too lazy to think about these issues. So when I want to donate,
I just donate to the American Red Cross, and then close my eyes and
let them do whatever they want with the money.
\_ What sort of impact do you want your donation to have? If you find
helping aspiring musicians more important than helping the poor in
Africa, then that is more impactful. As far as Africa goes, the
best thing the West can do for them is stop flooding the place with
freebies. How does anyone expect a local economy to grow in any
place that gets free throw aways of everything from the West? Who
would buy shoes from the local shoe maker when the US/UN/EU is
giving them away free down the street?
\- for an unbelievable story, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/national/24pickens.html
--psb |
| 2007/11/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48624 Activity:nil |
11/12 the repub nominee candidates are all terrible. romney
seems the least batshit right now to me, even with his double
gitmo comment. what am i going to do?
\_ Come over to the Dark Side, Luke.
\_ Romney? He's an idiot. He would be another GW Bush. If you like
GW Bush then there you go. For a "status quo" candidate, what
is batshit about Giuliani or Thompson? -Ron Paul voter
\_ I vote for Ron Paul too. I am a Democrat.
\_ Why? Actually how are you voting in the Rep. primary when
you are a Democrat? Anyway... i bet it's fun to be able to
take very principled stands when you have no chance of
winning. Ron Paul's other positions are pretty way over
there on the other end of the scale, extreme right wing.
I guess he gets points for being completely honest about it.
I still can't vote for him.
\_ What are the "extreme right wing" positions? He's more of
a libertarian, I'm pretty comfortable with him, knowing
he won't push crazy religious agendas for example. He's
not going to cut old people off social security.
I kinda doubt many of his ideas would get through Congress
anyway.
At this point I'm apathetic about everyone else so I
have no reason to vote for anyone else.
\_ Romney is an 'idiot'? Proof?
\_ Not a literal, dictionary one of course. I hate the guy
but I don't feel like digging up links for you, sorry.
Ok I don't even actually personally hate him to be honest.
But what's a motd post without exaggerated bombast?
\_ So 'idiot' means, "doesn't agree" with you? Okay, thought
so.
\_ There's nothing to agree/disagree with. He's one of those
"smiling faces in a suit" type of politicians, with a
generic status quo platform. "I love America!" whee
\_ What you (left wing liberal nut) want: an intellect,
sympathetic to LGBT, yada yada yada.
What America wants: good looking, confident,
and loves America. That's Romney.
\_ In another word he's like Ronald Reagan and
HE IS GONNA KICK YOUR SORRY D ASS!!!
\_ ^^^ you guys are idiots, I'm not a D. I said
I was a Ron Paul guy.
\_ Which of course makes *you* an idiot. Paul is
nuttier than a fruitcake.
\_ Bush talks to an invisible entity every day.
Various kinds of nuttiness of the president are
beside the point, the important thing is what
direction will a given president push the
current status quo, given his beliefs, and the
inherent limitations of the office of the
president. -- ilyas
\_ At least he's not fruitier than a nutcake?
Also: "Proof"?
How is Romney different from GWB? Other than
being better looking and more articulate.
Romney's web site is virtually content free.
The only clear message is about fighting
Jihadists. I think Romney is ignorant of
economics based on his speeches and writings.
I'd rather have Duncan Hunter, for a "non nutty"
candidate.
\_ Paul has said he will dissolve the FBI.
Yes, Duncan Hunter is the real conservative
candidate.
\_ Link? Dissolving the FBI doesn't sound
inherently nutty. Why do we need FBI,
CIA, Homeland Security, DEA, BATF, etc.?
It's ridiculous. I don't know anything
about Ron Paul's plans in this arena
and a quick google doesn't find it.
But I'm not someone who thinks status quo
must be the best because it's the status
quo.
\_ Romney is not an idiot, he is a Moron(i).
\_ I've decided being a Mormon isn't so bad. They believe
in the Moroni Golden Plate theory, Catholics believe
the living flesh of Christ appears when you take
communion. This is amazing on so many levels! eat
that fake dead living flesh of your lord!
\_ Any R >>> D. Say no to socialism!!! -fake conservative |
| 2007/11/9-14 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:48598 Activity:nil |
11/9 AP IMPACT: New Army chopper overheats
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_re_us/overheating_helicopters
"The cost of an air conditioning unit per aircraft is about $98,000,"
Gee, since these choppers are for disaster relief instead of combat,
why don't they just paint it white or leave it unpainted as silver to
reflect the heat away?
\_ because you won't get that jack booted thug look |
| 2007/11/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48553 Activity:low |
11/5 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_pakistan 'WASHINGTON - President Bush urged Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Monday to "restore democracy as quickly as possible," choosing mild disappointment over punishment or more pointed rhetoric to react to the declaration of emergency rule in anti-terror ally Pakistan...Bush did not speak directly to Musharraf, a leader who took power in a 1999 coup but whom he has previously hailed as a friend he trusts and as a strong defender of freedom...They were the president's first public comments on the situation since Musharraf imposed a state of emergency, suspended his country's constitution, ousted the country's top judge, stifled independent media and deployed troops to crush dissent. He called it necessary to prevent a takeover by Islamic extremists.' \_ Who would you prefer to see in power in a nuclear-armed pakistan? Democratically-elected islamic extremists, or Musharraf? \_ Bhutto. \_ Who is reputedly corrupt. She'll just sell the nukes on the black market. \_ They're all corrupt. They're all out to make a buck and may very well sell nuke tech. Now that we've established that, we can move on to the more meaning distinguishing characteristics, like whether they're military dictators, religious fascists, or actual proponents of free elections democracy. Thus: Bhutto FTW. |
| 2007/11/5-8 [Science/Space, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48534 Activity:nil |
11/5 It's a little hard to sympathize with Georgia over the Atlanta
water troubles. Their population has been growing but they
have invested nothing in new water infrastructure for Atlanta,
for ~50 years. Let's hope other areas learn from the problems.
\_ The private sector will fix the problem, just like during Katrina.
If they have problems it's because things weren't privatized enough.
\_ Katrina was a public corruption problem. There are a lot of
examples you could have used. Katrina wasn't the one you were
looking for.
\_ Time for a tax cut! |
| 2007/10/30-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:48483 Activity:nil |
10/29 that fake FEMA news conference is funny, funny stuff |
| 2007/10/29-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48481 Activity:nil |
10/29 Former FEMA spokesman loses spy job after overseeing fake news
conference:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/intelligence_fema |
| 2007/10/29-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48473 Activity:nil |
10/29 Oil hits all time inflation adjusted high:
http://www.csua.org/u/juv (Bloomberg)
Bush breaks another record! Go Bush Go!
\_ Why do you care? RIDE BIKE! USE FEET! |
| 2007/10/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48440 Activity:high |
10/25 Lefty enemies of free speech force Horowitz from stage.
http://csua.org/u/jto
\_ not gonna read it. you could have written that headline before
he did his stupid islamo facism week.
\_ Oh, come on. There's video of the nutters on the site. Doesn't
that get your anti-free-speech blood riled up?
\_ It's amazing how all the leftists have plenty of opportunities to
speak, but they seem to be the only ones shutting down speech on
the other side. -op
\_ Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! The blatant disregard for
reality is charming!
\_ So which are you claiming--that leftists *don't* have
plenty of opportunities to speak? Or that they're the only
ones chasing their opponents off the stage?
\_ http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandLo.mov
\_ Oh you've got to be kidding me. O'Reilly's show is
hardly a public forum.
\_ Oh, right, and he's "only an entertainer," so
there you go.
\_ You can't see the diff between a staged TV
show where the paid host kicks off a 'guest'
he doesn't like, and a public speech getting
mobbed?
\_ If a bunch of raving lefties stormed the
Fox News HQ and mobbed BO'R, would you
say "Fair play"?
\_ You mean all those people who were arrested for
booing or heckling Bush?
\_ Are you taking your ball with you?
\_ No free speech for fascists!
\_ That was always my favorite line from the Sproul Plaza chanting
idiots.
\_ They may be serious students of the French revolution and
are engaging in a clever word play on "No liberty
for the enemies of liberty!". Or maybe not.
\_ horowitz deliberately sets up shit like this. he's been doing it
for years. gonna ignore him.
\_ If only other people ignored him, rather than chasing him out of
the room, there wouldn't be a problem.
\_ Sure he's doing it for PR but he has a point about the
censorship thing. (And please don't quote the dictionary
definition at me.)
\_ "Your Honor, I did rape the defendant, but look at what the
bitch was wearing!" -- ilyas |
| 2007/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48422 Activity:low |
10/22 Nixon is against counter culture.
Bush is against _________________.
Fill in the blank.
\_ Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
\_ Nonono, Bush will justify any action in the name of
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
\_ motd trolls. He's on record as taking a firm stance against motd
trolls.
\_ counter revolutionary propaganda. |
| 2007/10/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48421 Activity:moderate |
10/22 I haven't trolled emarkpd in a while. How's that Mormon thing
coming along?
\_ He still supports Bush and his Iraq War in the glorious name
of freedom. Troll on that.
\_ Wow. Now I'm a daemon process? -emarkp
\_ Hey emarkp, why are Republicans against renewal energy and weed?
\_ Because all Republicans are evil neanderthals and all Democrats
are living incarnations of the essence of Good. This is the
motd, there is no other fact you need know. Run along.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalocalypse
\_ you know there is a lot of current evidence that Republicans
and their media machine and all the noisy right wing blogs
are really run by insane, evil neanderthals bent on destroying
all that is good in this world. democrats just aren't that
organized.
\_ Straw man. No one on the motd believes the latter statement
(though perhaps many believe the former).
\_ They don't believe it but they sure say it on the motd
a lot. Are they all trolls? No, there are people right
here on the motd who actually believe it.
\_ I have never seen anyone post to the motd that Democrats
are all perfect, except in satire. Can you find one for
me?
\_ This is the place to be to see Democrat politico
stupidly defended to the bitter end. The most
recent case being "Reid+40 other (D) Senators wrote
a smearing lie letter to a radio show host's boss
in an effort to help charity". But really you know
that and many other things I don't have to dig out
of the archives. There's no point. Go post your
final comment if you like. I won't respond any
futher to such an obvious troll. You've been fed
enough today.
\_ can we please classify dans as "idiot" rather
than "democrat"?
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
-- ilyas
\_ But ilyas, isn't the wikipedia composed by
the crowds of unwashed masses? Isn't it a
tool for unsuspecting fools and morons
doomed to be duped by faux inexpert
wisdom; the blind leading the blind if you
will? I'm shocked. Shocked I say that you
would quote from such a source. -dans
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
-- ilyas
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
-dans
\_ Nope, more like his idiocy trumps everything
else. It's not that he isn't a true democrat,
it's that he is also a true egotistical moron
as well.
\_ Clearly I'm doing sometthing right if I'm
pissing people off this much. -dans
\_ I don't think dans would consider himself a
Democrat, but am ready to concede here if wrong.
How about it dans, are you a Democrat?
\_ No, but I have voted for Democrats in the
past. -dans |
| 2007/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:48404 Activity:low 76%like:48396 |
10/19 People say "jew-lery" and "re-lator" instead of
jewelry and realtor. Are these proper pronunciations?
\_ I don't think so.
\_ Racist!
\_ So you think "realtor" and "relator" should sound the same?
-- PP, Chinese
\_ I have never heard anyone sal jelery. Re-lator is because
Realtor (tm!) is a stupid fucking made up word that would never
be an english word if someone hadn't made it up. The l to t
transision is just fucked up.
\_ hello bitter housing guy! How's your rent?
\_ Not bitter housing guy, just bitter abuse of the english
language guy.
\_ Thats totally NUKULAR!
\_ Isn't this an accepted pronunciation in one of the
dictionaries?
\_ Only if you're a fan of Jimmy Carter.
\_ Or Dubya. Is this just a Southern thang?
\_ Dunno but JC was way ahead of Dubya on the Nukular thing |
| 11/22 |