Politics Domestic President Bush - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
Results 1651 - 1800 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/07/02 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2007/10/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48394 Activity:nil
10/19   Freepers get all hot and bothered over.. oh who really cares
        what they are hot and bothered over. They are going to be pulled
        off the government teat and they are crying like babies.
        \_ I don't think anyone here reads the freepers.  Who cares about the
           freepers?  They're no different than the kosians.
           \_ There are certainly more similarities than differences, but on
              on the whole, KOSians don't make me want to drown humanity at
              birth. Reading two pages of Freeper comments is enough to make
              me want to endorse eugenics.
2007/10/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48365 Activity:nil
10/18   It's not just the Religious Right:
        http://csua.org/u/jr9 (WashPo)
        \_ Why do you hate America?
2022/07/02 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2007/10/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48332 Activity:moderate
10/15   Republicans working on the "Stab In The Back Myth"
        for use after our defeat in Iraq:
        \_ More at:
        \_ that sounds like traitor talk to me!
        \_ It is funny to watch the Right in full on paranoid melt-down mode.
           Just wait until after Commander-In-Chief Hillary Rodham Clinton
           is inaugurated!
           \_ will the hills be far enough a place to head for?
           \_ Oh boy, utopia, 4-8 more years of corruption, law breaking, lies
              and *-gate scandals along with the troops staying in Iraq past
              2013.  Can't wait.  Sounds like an American success story.
              \_ Fortunately, Bush can't run again, Cheney won't run, and
                 BushCo has made it extraordinarily unlikely that a Repub
                 will win, so the problem is solved!
                 \_ Uh yeah, like I said.  Elect Clinton to get 4-8 more years
                    of corruption, lies, *gate and troops in Iraq past 2013.
                    \_ If Hillary can figure out how to get fellated in the
                       Oval Office, more power to her.
              \_ Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
                 We won't get fooled again!
        \_ Looks like the Sanchez speech was all part of the mythos building:
           \_ No, the article in your link is about "Sanchez was an idiot and
              he's bitter so this is him moaning and griping about his failures
              and blaming everyone but himself".
2007/10/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48325 Activity:kinda low 66%like:48324
10/15   Reid sucks (yes even in NV) [restored, after someone deleted it]
        \_ Tied with Bush!
           \_ Except one terms out.  The other we're stuck with til he dies
              of old age.
              \_ If he's as unpopular as op implies, he'll be out at the next
                 election. Want to make a bet?
                 \_ His popularity appears to me to be linked to his leadership
                    position.  People see the congress as ineffective, and that
                    goes to his leadership of it.
                 \_ Actually Bush is now at 24%, according to Zogby:
                    http://www.csua.org/u/jqu (WashPo)
                    But who do you believe, Fox News! which has Bush
                    at 35% or Zogby which has him at 24%?
                 \_ I bet he gets re-elected, since he won last time by
                    26% and he does not face re-election until 2010.
                 \_ Depends on who runs but betting against an incumbent, any
                    incumbent, in this country is always a bad bet.  That says
                    nothing about how good our incumbents are and everything
                    about the process of electing people.  Reid is still a
2007/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48303 Activity:nil 52%like:48298
10/13   George W Bush should get a Nobel Peace Prize for changing an
        evil regime and pacifying Al Qaeda in Iraq. Clearly, the
        NPP has a liberal bias.
2007/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48296 Activity:nil
10/12   I am very curious... do people in USA actually think they have the
        moral high ground of accusing others for genocide?
        \_ Yes.  Oh, and today is the 12th of Oct.
        \_ Absolutely, and that doesn't negate our obligation to recognize
           injustices to Native Americans by our predecessors at the same
           \_ i am still waiting.
              \_ Dude, we let them gamble and they don't have to observe
                 state law.  It's a pretty sweet deal! ;)
                 \_ They can even declare themselves sovereign nations.
                    Exactly what it means by having sovereign nations within
                    the US, I don't know.
                    \_ Exactly.  As far as I can tell it means they have to
                       follow federal law, and that's about it.
        \_ Your logic: because the US was responsible at one time in the
           past for atrocities against the natives here we have no business
           telling people committing genocide today to stop.  Thank you for
           joining us today.  Maybe you'll have better bait tomorrow.
           \_ my logic is that the only reason why we stopped is not because
              we didn't feel it was the wrong thing to do.  We stopped because
              we've gotten what we wanted and these natives are no longer
              have any means to fight back.  ANd even today, USA never
              officially label these acts "genocide," nor have American
              produce any sort of remedy for such act (return some of their
              land?  monetary compensation?).  and now we are passing a bill
              labelling Turkey for doing the same thing?
              \_ Same logic: you did bad stuff so you can't point out when
                 other people do bad stuff.
              \_ The bill has no 'weight'.  Symbolic only.  At least in the US
                 most people would agree that we were pretty shitty to the
                 Indians.  The Turkish government completely denies anything
                 happened at all.
                 \_ Sounds similar to Germans vs. Japanese regarding WWII.
                    \_ You're over generalizing.  If anything, the Germans of
                       today accept MORE than their fair share of the blame
                       for WW2.  They won't shut up about how awful they were.
                       Boo hoo.  nationalist Japanese parties like to pretend
                       the barbaric excesses of the imperial army did not
                       happen, I'll give you that.
                 \_ The "weight" is that Turkey will become an enemy.
                    Currently, 70% of our supplies for Afghanistan and Iraq go
                    through Turkey's airspace.  This bill has been attempted
                    for over a decade.  Only now, when it will cut off the
                    supply lines to our troops are the Dems working on it.
                    \_ The Dems are building alliances around the world!
                       \_ While calling Bush terrible at diplomacy.
                          \_ Enjoying some crow with your Freedom Fries?
                             \_ Huh?
              \_ Native American tribes can run casinos in CA.  White trash,
                 n***er and Chinamen can't.
        \_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20071011
2007/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48252 Activity:nil 61%like:48246
10/4    It all depends on what the meaning of "torture" is:
        http://www.csua.org/u/jnr \_ Even the Red Cross calls it torture:
2007/10/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48246 Activity:low 61%like:48252
10/4    It all depends on what the meaning of "torture" is:
        \_ Even the Red Cross calls it torture: http://www.csua.org/u/jnw
        \_ Even the Red Cross calls it torture:
2007/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48232 Activity:high
10/3    Jimmy Carter faces down Darfur officials
        He bravely ran away, away!
        \_ Would you kindly fuck off, you cowardly piece of shit? The man
           is 83 years old, and he got in a shouting match with armed men.
           His companions and the Secret Service convinced him to get in the
           car rather than continue the confrontation. If you're going to
           post something, have the nards and decency to read it first.
           \_ I did read it.  He didn't "face them down" they faced him down.
              Nothing really wrong with that, I'd leave too, but the headline
              is wrong.
           \_ Seconded.  Running away would be just scrapping the whole
              deal and not trying again.  In the real world you can't
              go on a humanitarian mission and shout your way past angry
              men with big guns.  That doesn't do any good for anyone.
              But feel free to live in your fantasy world where everything
              gets solved by swinging your big dick around and all the women
              have gravity defying 36DD breasts.
              \_ In my fantasy world, all the women have gravity-defying 32DD
                 breasts instead. -- !PP
        \_ I had the same reaction as the person above, "Hey, Carter may not
           be the POS I thought he was.. read.. read.. oh well".
        \_ He displayed infinitely more personal courage than Bush did
           after 9/11, when the Commander-In-Chief turned tail and
           disappeared into a hole.
           \_ If the President, any President, of any party, showed up at
              ground zero just to pose for the cameras, he deserves to die.
              That is the most assinine and stupid gripe you could possibly
              have.  It is the one thing that he clearly did right that day.
              \_ Did I say he should have gone to ground zero? No, I did not.
                 He could have provided some leadership though, instead of
                 being a coward.
2007/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, ERROR, uid:48230, category id '18005#4.545' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48230 Activity:high
10/3    The Islamist Head-Fake
        \_ http://www.ibdeditorials.com/default.aspx?src=ICOMART
           This site is really hilarious. It's almost as if there were a
           machine in place to publish anti-liberal, pro-conservative rhetoric.
           Oh, wait a minute....
           \_ Bad troll!  Down!  Stay!  Because DU and Kos and etc etc are
              so different.  I wonder what it is like to be so blindly certain
              of how the world is but to be 50% right/wrong at all times....
              Might as well flip a coin.  The results are more interesting.
              \_ Yay! The other side is not perfect, so batshit poisonous
                 behavior and hate/fear-mongering is allowed! Yay!
                 \_ BZZZT! Bad troll! Sit! Stay! The lesson, Young Troll, is
                    that stupid does not excuse stupid.  And blindness of
                    one's own faults does not make you smart for pointing out
                    the faults of others.  The lesson, YT, was anyone posting
                    obviously biased crap is wasting Precious Bits (tm) and
                    should stop.
                    \_ I agree with you that op either shouldn't have posted
                       or at the least should have labeled the URL, just as
                       anyone posting anything from any site should.
        \_ I like how the President of Bolivia is called a "dictator" -- with
           that logic Bush is much more of a dictator, I think their election
           went smoother than ours.
           \_ Oh really?  Just because Carter declared it so?
           \_ It is always easier when you have armed guys at every voting
              booth who 'secure' the ballots after everyone has chosen the
              correct candidate.  Real voting is messy.
              \_ I have worked the polls in San Francisco and a cop comes
                 by and picks up the ballot box at the end of the day. Do
                 you mean like that?
2007/9/27-10/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48205 Activity:high
9/27    In response to the previous threads about rubber stamp Democrats.
        My point is not rather we should fund the war or not.  But rahter,
        if we going to fund it, fund it as part of regular budget process
        instead of going through all these supplement spending bills which
        doesn't have the same oversight as regular spending bill.  Further,
        I failed to understand why Democrat would take Bush's veto threat
        about domestic spending while this guy's military spending is going
        completely out of control.   Democrats should just say "fund the war
        via the regular spending bill, or not fund the war at all."
        \_ Ask Pelosi and Reid why they continue to fund it.  The American
           people put them in office for a reason.  They promised to end the
           war and clean up government.  Under their watch, the war has
           actually expanded by 30k troops and corruption is rampant across
           the board.  Oh yay, I so can't wait to vote for that bunch again.
           They've been so effective.
           \_ In what way is "corruption rampant"? Is there more or less
              corruption than with the Republican Congress?
              \_ Hello?  Earmarking the hell out of the budget?  Just like
                 Republicans, except the Democrats promised to cleanup.  So
                 we get corruption+hypocritics instead of 'mere' corruption.
                 There's a reason Congress's popularity rating as a whole is
                 at all time lows.  No one likes a liar (Iraq funding) or
                 a hypocrite (earmarking corruption).
                 \_ give some examples of corrupt earmarking.  earmarking is
                    not inherently corrupt.
                    \_ you're kidding, right?  DiFi's committee granting
                       nobids to her husband's company?  Pelosi granting
                       handouts to her family's companies?  Murtha, well damn,
                       just about anything Murtha has come near.  Look, be
                       serious.  You can't point a finger at the other party
                       and scream 'corruption!' when your own party is doing
                       the same crap.  Glass houses and all that.  If you
                       spent less time prowling for Republican corruption
                       and turned less of a blind eye towards Democratic
                       party corruptions, you'd see the hypocrisy and I for
                       one have had enough.  I will not support corrupt people
                       of either party even if they sometimes agree with me or
                       even vote the way I like most of the time.
                       \_ Please back up your claims.
                          \_ I did.  I'm not going to discuss this further
                             with someone so clearly wearing blinders.  You
                             would google for it yourself if you actually
                             cared and weren't suffering from severe self
                             inflicted blindness.
                             \_ No, you didn't.  You gave allegations.
                                \_ Whatever.  You don't want to know and
                                   wouldn't care if I put it under your
                                   nose.  Bored now.  Bye.
                                   \_ "And I'm taking my ball and going home!"
                                      \_ No, just bored and not looking to get
                                         trolled today.  I gave you more than
                                         enough info to google it if you
                                         cared to know.  You don't.  Story
                                      \_ Wow, fools do mock! -!pp
                                         \_ Your contribution: zero. oktnx
                       \_ You do know that the current Congress has 1/10th
                          as many earmarks in the budget than the GOP Congress
                          immediately preceeding it, right?
                          \_ When it is zero, lemme know.  "Woot!  The one
                             party is not quite as corrupt (yet) as the other
                             party!  Yay for such heroism in government!"
                             \_ Good luck on holding out for your utopian
                                society. Are you going to hold your breath
                                until you get it? Not everyone even is able
                                to agree on what "corruption" in government
                                is, so you will never find one without any.
                                As a previoius poster noted, sometimes there
                                are legitimate uses for an earmark.
                                \_ Name a legitimate use for an earmark.  I'm
                                   not certain you even understand what an
                                   earmark is.  An earmark is a politician
                                   sticking something into a bill to give
                                   money to some local cronies in their
                                   district which usually has nothing at all
                                   to do with the bill.  The bill in question
                                   is typically one of many "must be passed"
                                   pieces of legislation so no one will vote
                                   against it even though it is loaded with
                                   pork.  If the allocation of money was
                                   legitimate it would have it's own bill.
                                   Earmarking = corruption.  Unless you
                                   already hold office or are the recipient
                                   of said funds.
                                   \_ Earmarks can be legitimately used to
                                      fund specific projects.  Don't be
                                      obtuse.  -tom
                                      \_ Name a legitimate earmark.  Just one.
                                         A specific project can and should get
                                         a specific bill, or be part of a
                                         larger related budget.  I expect the
                                         military budget to include funding
                                         for specific weapons and bases.  I do
                                         not expect it to include bridges to
                                         no where, funding for DiFi and Pelosi
                                         family and friends, or anything not
                                         related to the military.  Either you
                                         don't know what an earmark is or
                                         you're being a total idiot
                                         intentionally.  Either way, no one
                                         has posted a single earmarked item
                                         that is legit.  Given how many
                                         billions of dollars in earmarks go
                                         out in each budget, you should be
                                         able to name one legitimate earmark,
                                         if there were any.  There are not.
                                         \_ Here is $1B worth of earmarks
                                            to improve the CA freeway system.
                                            Are you going to claim that all of
                                            them are unneeded?
                                            \_ privatized freeway systems
                                               are cost effective and
                                               better utilized.
                                               \_ Better utilized? Wtf does
                                                  that even mean?
                                               \_ So your claim that these
                                                  earmarks are corrupt is
                                                  based on the idea that
                                                  freeways should all be
                                                  tollways??! Hoo-kay, please
                                                  sign your posts with the
                                                  moniker "Libertarian Troll"
                                                  next time, so I will know
                                                  not to waste my time
                                                  researching a reply.
                                            \_ You're kidding right?  Of course
                                               a transportation bill has money
                                               for transportation projects.
                                               Why do you even bother?  I don't
                                               get it.  Do you think no one
                                               will fact check your links? I
                                               specifically said they're
                                               filling the budget with money
                                               for local projects unrelated
                                               to the bill they're attached
                                               to.  Transport money in a
                                               transport bill is not what I
                                               was talking about and you knew
                                               \_ The transportation bill is
                                                  one of the appropriations
                                                  bills that make up the
                                                  "budget".  It is you who do
                                                  not know of what you speak.
                                                  He pointed to a "budget" bill
                                                  with "earmarks" which you
                                                  admit are "valid".  You are
                                                  clearly too short for this
                                                  ride. --scotsman
                                                  \_ I was quite specific about
                                                     this.  If you choose not
                                                     to read it and instead
                                                     pick and choose single
                                                     words out of context to
                                                     'feel big', then do so
                                                     but don't think you've
                                                     actually proven anything.
                                                     \_ You have repeatedly
                                                        mistaken "earmarks" for
                                                        "pork".  When called on
                                                        it, you got all
                                                        defensive and claimed
                                                        that everyone else is
                                                        an idiot.  To earmark
                                                        is to set aside monies
                                                        for a specific project.
                                                        Tom's phraseology is
                                                        right.  Yours is wrong.
                                                        Also, you mentioned
                                                        the "Bridge to Nowhere".
                                                        I assume you meant
                                                        Stevens' $200M joke.
                                                        What bill do you think
                                                        that was to be in?
                                                        Hint: it wasn't in
2007/9/27-10/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48197 Activity:high
9/26    Another win for the Constitution and another blow to the Bush Admin:
        http://www.csua.org/u/jll (Yahoo News)
        \_ The Bush admin is dead.  Who cares?  Look to the future, don't
           dwell on the past.  Do you have any idea what the front runners in
           both parties are saying about this?
           \_ unfortuantely, Bush is not dead.  He is threating veto on the
              spending bill if it exceed its limit.  Rubber stamp Democrats
              for some reason doesn't want to put Iraq war spending as part of
              of the spending bill.  They should just cut the war funding
              completely if things are not going their way.
              \_ Bush is dead.  He vetos.  So what?  The Democrats are not
                 rubber stamps for the war.  The reason they keep funding it
                 is because they want us to stay there.  They should do a lot
                 of things but I don't put weight on what they should do, I
                 look at what they've actually done, which is fund the war to
                 every penny Bush has asked.  Anyway, none of this means
                 anything either way since the Democrats are doing nothing
                 different from what Bush has been doing.
                       \_ what is your proposal, then?  we have 70-100 Iraqi
                          civilians dies every day, ~4 million (out of total
                          of 20+ million) displaced internally and externally.
                          So, obviously we are not making this peaceful right
                          now.  My ears are all yours.
                          \_ What was unclear?  We leave Iraq.  Unfortunately
                             our leadership in the Congress is too pathetic
                             and cowardly to do what we put them there to
                             do.  Or more likely, I believe that *want* us
                             to stay there.  They aren't putting up *any*
                             sort of fight against Bush, an unpopular lame
                             duck President.  I can only conclude they want
                             us in Iraq.  They = Democrats, if that was
                             \_ If you think the Dems are pathetic and cowardly
                                for not "putting up *any* sort of fight
                                against Bush," and are thus unworthy of office,
                                that must mean that you think the GOP are
                                murderous traitors who ought to be hanged, yes?
                                \_ Hanged?  No.  We don't hang politicians for
                                   failed policy.  Out of office?  Sure, of
                                   course.  That is the nature of our system.
                                   But I don't see the Dems saying they'll do
                                   anything substantially different if they
                                   have the executive office and they own both
                                   the house and senate and have done nothing.
                                   They aren't even very good at doing nothing.
                                   \_ Hyperbole aside, you've seen that the
                                      GOP are criminally negligent and corrupt.
                                      Surely even Do Nothing would be a better
                                      polict than the current polciy of
                                      screwing the American people over.
                 \_ The reason they keep funding it is because they're scared
                    of the punditry saying "they abandoned the troops in the
                    field."  This is of course bullshit, and they'll need to
                    find their voices and spines and change that meme.  But IMO
                    they are obliged now to cut off the funding.  There is no
                    other way for them to end it.  And until they get up the
                    courage to do so, more soldiers and civilians continue to
                    \_ Whereas when the troops leave Iraq, it will instantly
                       become peaceful?  Pass me some of what you're smoking!
                       \_ what is your proposal, then?  we have 70-100 Iraqi
                             \_ some sort of "final solution?"
                          civilians dies every day, ~4 million (out of total
                          of 20+ million) displaced internally and externally.
                          So, obviously we are not making this peaceful right
                          now.  My ears are all yours.
                          \_ Stop cut n pasting.  Say something new or don't
                             bother posting.
                       \_ Oh, no, Iraqis will continue to see violence, and
                          that's on our heads.  But our troops leaving now
                          or 10 years from now won't change that.  I'm speaking
                          specifically of the US's cost in blood and treasure.
                          We need to attack the issue with other approaches.
                          It will be a long road as Bush has ignored all other
                          approaches, failing to lay any groundwork
                          diplomatcally/politically, but them's the breaks.
                          \_ There is no need if we TRY to spread diseases
                             like Cholera. The military should consider that
                             as a cheap and effective option.
                             \_ Or we could send in the CIA to spread crack.
                          \_ I love how casually you predict the next 10 years.
                             Here's another possibility.  In 10 years, Al
                             Qaeda has taken over Iraq, used the oil revenue to
                             get biological and nuclear weapons, and erased a
                             US city.  See, we can all play that game.
                             \_ That may be true but in 30 years they'll
                                be commercialized and embrace everything
                                Western just like Vietnam it is now.
                                \_ And at the cost of only one major US port
                                   city!  A good deal at twice the price!
                                   Maybe it'll be a smaller port city like
                                   San Francisco or Oakland....
                                   \_ I can live with that.
                                      \_ Lemme guess, you don't live anywhere
                                         near SF?
                             \_ Since Al Qaeda is very unpopular amongst the
                                Iraqi people, it is hard to imagine how they
                                could possibly "take over" Iraq. Try to
                                imagine something with a greater chance of
                                likelyhood, like Iran taking over Iraq.
                                \_ That is already happening.
                                \_ How popular was Saddam with the Iraqi
                                   \_ Are you saying that we are funding AQ?
                                   \_ SH was extremely popular with one tribe,
                                      one that represented about 20% of the
                                      Iraqi people. AQ has no such inherent
                                      power base. The Shi'ites hate them
                                      and the Sunni in Iraq have turned
                                      against them.
                                      \_ The Sunni aren't a tribe.  They're
                                         a religious branch of Islam.  Saddam's
                                         tribe was in Tikrit and the areas
                                         immediately around Tikrit.  I agree
                                         with the rest of what you said.
2007/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48173 Activity:nil
9/24    NYTimes:  our $70K discount to http://moveon.org was a "mistake"
2007/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48167 Activity:nil
9/24    Hillary's cackle
2007/9/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48158 Activity:nil
9/23    Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
        \_ YHBT
2007/9/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48136 Activity:moderate
9/20    why does Bush always say 'Democrat party'.  weirdo.
        \_ to denigrate his opponents, of course.  -tom
        \_ It is a code word to the wing-nut Right to let them know he is
        \_ It is a code work to the wing-nut Right to let them know he is
           one of them.
        \_ He's not the first to do it. I think Dem critics have gotten tired
           of "Democratic" party sounds like they're democratic.
           \_ Parse error at 'party'.
           \_ No, it's cause Democrat Party sounds harsh and curse like.
              Lucky for me it's a great litmus test.  If someone says
              "Democrat Party" you know they are a partisan hack and it's not
              worth reading/listening any further.
              \_ I find it easy to simply use anyone who claims such a "litmus
                 test" as a litmus test and ignore them.
                 \_ This is why we can't have nice things.
              \_ It sounds like "bureaucrat", "autocrat", and "rat".
        \_ http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005
           The Republicans have used it as an insult since McCarthy.
        \_ I've only seen this come up on the motd and some very far left
           web sites.  It never even occured to me there was a difference or
           it mattered.  I certainly don't see the dramatic insult.  Can
           someone please explain?
           \_ I don't think it 'matters' in any sense that anyone can
              possibly demonstrate.  What I find interesting is how much
              time people waste on shit like this in political discussions,
              rather than things actually relevant to our lives. -- ilyas
           \_ You think that The New Yorker is very far left?
              \_ Where did I say I read The New Yorker?  Anyway, I still
                 don't see the dramatic insult.  Or any insult.  I wouldn't
                 blink if someone said "Republic Party".  What's the BFD?
2007/9/20-24 [Recreation/Media, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48134 Activity:nil
9/20    Dan Rather pulls back the curtain on the whole "liberal media" thing:
        "Viacom, CBS and some of the senior management sacrificed supporting
         independent journalism for their corporate financial interests,"
         he added.
        \_ Sorry Dan, those memos are obvious fakes, get over it.
        \_ Why would I trust Dan Rather? He's obviously part of the
           corporate media with an agenda to slander the liberal executives
           at Viacom and CBS.
           \_ This has nothing to do with liberal or corporate or anything
              agendas.  It is Dan "I Got Busted Being A Dumbshit" Rather
              trying some last ditch pathetic effort to recover his self-
              stained reputation before he keels over and dies a laughing-
2007/9/20-22 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48127 Activity:nil
9/20    Bush cites 'unsettling times' in housing market. Afterwards, he
        urges everyone to get more education.           -The Onion
2007/9/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48123 Activity:nil
9/19    So why aren't news outlets talking about the dollar being at its
        weakest point since 1992?  Dubya likes a weak dollar?  liburals don't
        know anything about economics so they don't care?
        \_ Hint: "liburals" don't control the media.
2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48070 Activity:low
9/14    Another radical leftist on Bush's economic policies:
        "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the
        weighing of long-term consequences," Greenspan writes of the Bush
        Greenspan said he unsuccessfully urged the White House to veto
        "out-of-control" spending bills while the Republicans controlled
        Congress. Republicans "deserved" to lose control of Congress in last
        year's election because they "swapped principle for power," he said.
        \_ Who are you baiting?  I don't recall anyone here being an ardent
           proponent of high spending.
           \_ There sure are (were?) a lot of pro-war pro-spending folks
              posting a few years ago. Nice if they all had a change of heart.
              \_ You're confusing pro-war with pro-spending.  I was appalled
                 when Bush's first action in 2001 was to do an across the
                 board increase to every federal budget.  I'm still anti-tax,
                 anti-spending.  That has no relation to my opinions on the
                 war which is a foreign policy decision, not an economic or
                 political one (for me).
                 \_ You think the war is free?
                    \_ Don't strawman, of course it isn't.  It also isn't a
                       "spending" decision as I explained.
                       \_ It's not a spending decision, it's just a decision
                          which requires spending!  As much spending as all
                          our other decisions combined!  Right!
                          \_ Snarky was cute in HS.  If you have something
                             worth saying I'll gladly discuss it further with
                             you but if all you've got is snarky one liners in
                             response to my serious explanations then don't
                             bother.  Snarky is no longer a successful debate
                             tactic at this stage of life.
                             \_ You don't have a serious point.  "war is a
                                policy decision, not a spending one" is
                                tautological and meaningless.  Whether to
                                embargo Cuba is a policy decision; whether
                                to go or war or not is a spending decision.
                                \_ Well, going to war without cutting anything
                                   else is certainly an interesting spending
                                   \_ Oh they cut things.  Taxes for one.
                                      \_ Well, duh... CUTTING TAXES INCREASES
                                         REVENUES DIDN'TCHAKNOW
                       \_ No, it is not a "strawman" to point out that starting
                          wars costs money. It is kind of willfully blind to
                          pretend that it does not.
                          pretend that it does not. Would you support starting
                          a war that had a moderate foreign policy gain if it
                          cost $10T? $100T? Of course cost considers into the
2007/9/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48058 Activity:nil
9/14    Hey, trust cue person, how do you tell the difference between these
        and Bush's constant and inane use of catchphrases and sloganeering?
        Are there any differences?
2007/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48049 Activity:very high
9/12    Actual history of the Patriot Act, for those who think that GWB
        had nothing to do with it:
        "When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush
        administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General
        John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill --
        without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate
        Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to
        agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make
        significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that
        further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to
        blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately."
        Yes, Congress passed it, after the usual intimidation and fearmongering
        from the White House, but is it Bush's baby.
        \_ Cute and all but that isn't how legislation is created or passed.
           It requires a sponsor and Congress does not have to convince the
           Justice Department or the AG or anyone else of anything.  The
           legislature makes the laws.  Period.  If they don't have the guts
           to deal with their job, they need new jobs.  "Oh no mean mr. bush
           scared us so we abdicated our constitutionally granted power and
           just fell over like so many pansies in the wind, boo hoo, you're
           so mean mr. bush!  it isn't our fault!  vote for us and we'll fix
           it and we'll end bush's war, too!!"  riiiiight.
           \_ I agree with you that Congress abdicated their responsibilty
              here, but the true author of the legislation was the Justice
              Department. We do need to flush most of Congress and get a new
              one. Feingold, we can keep, the rest need to go.
        \_ So now I know where you get all your incorrect assumptions. You read
           wacko sites like http://epic.org. Apparently, you're also one of those
           people who sees everything in black and white. Either GWB was the
           primary person behind the Patriot Act, or he had nothing at all to
           do with it.
           \_ Please tell me this is intended as sarcastic.  Do you seriously
              think of EPIC as a wacko organization?  Do you think the EFF is
              a wacko organization? -dans
              \_ you're an idiot.
                 \_ Oh man, you really got him that time! Zing!
              \_ Maybe you should re-evaluate your extremist views, dans.
                   The June 1995 issue of WIRED magazine quoted a member of the
                   Electronic Frontier Foundation as saying that EPIC "made
                   everybody else at the table look moderate. It's the old
                   good-cop-bad-cop routine."
                   \_ In 1995 the EFF was radical.  They realized there was
                      a damn good chance important rights were going to be
                      stomped on and acted quickly to fight that.  That was
                      12+ years ago, when almost noone had any concept
                      of digital privacy and rights.  Then there was this
                      whole thing called the .com revolution and now, and
                      while the EFF may not be mainstream it is far from
                      \_ Anyone who does not support the Patriot Act is
                         an extremist. EFF does not support the Patriot Act.
                         Therefore EFF is extremist. Q.E.D.
                         \_ Nice strawman.
2007/9/12-14 [ERROR, uid:48039, category id '18005#15.0238' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48039 Activity:kinda low
9/12    NY Times gives http://Moveon.org a discount
        http://csua.org/u/ji5 (newsbusters.org)
        \_ This is completely standard for media advertising. No one pays
           the posted rates. -works in media
           \_ Other groups have since come out to say that they were charged
              the full rate or more for the same size ads.  Whoopsie!
           \_ How dare you!  It's obviously AN EVIL LIB'RUL PLOT!
           \_ Really?  I had no idea.  What's the point of the posted rate
              then? -op
              \_ You must be new to this concept of bargaining.
                 \_ Not really, but a 60% discount is quite the bargain.
                    \_ So without any idea of what is common practice, you're
                       jumping on a Drudge-style bandwagon?
                       \_ What are people complaining about it? it gave
                          the senators tons of mileage to complain about
                          the stupid ad for 10 minutes per questinoingoning
                          round instead of asking the general "do you
                          reall honestly think we are leaving iraq in the
                          next 10 years?
                          \- i dont think the question is "are we leaving
                             iraq in 10 yrs" but "how many iraqis are the
                             walking dead" ... "chronicle of a death foretold"
2007/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47938 Activity:nil
9/7     Dems support the troops! (pre-emptively dismiss the Petraeus report)
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883904/posts
           "... the left is doing its usual adept job of spewing treasonous
            rhetoric over things that only exist in their Bush-hating
            conspiracy-riddled minds."
2007/9/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47913 Activity:nil
9/6     Another loss for Bush and another win for The Constitution:
        \_ You *do* know that the Dems voted for it as well, right?
           \_ Who sponsored it? Who shepherded it? Who's been defending it?
              Who argued vehemently for its renewal? It's Bush's baby, and
              its black eyes are Bush's black eyes.
              \_ Who voted for it and continues to do so?
              \_ Only members of Congress may sponsor a bill. So who did
                 sponsor it? Bush certainly didn't. What other assumptions of
                 yours are completely wrong?
              \_ The answers are: Diane Feinstein sponsored it, shepherded it,
                 defended it, and argued vehemently for its renewal.
                 Yup, it sure is Bush's baby...
                 \_ Thanks for reminding me why I never once have voted
                    for Feinstein. It is hard to find a Senator more
                    opposed to liberty than Bush, but she sure is.
                 \_ Feinstein is a sell-out and a disgrace to California.  -tom
                 \_ It's impossible for me to defend DiFi since I happen to
                    agree with tom on this, so I'll split the difference and
                    allow as how this is a black eye for both DiFi and
                    Bush. -pp
                 \_ I love Feinstein in so many different ways! -- ilyas
2007/9/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47881 Activity:kinda low
9/3     "We invaded a sovereign nation based on a lie."
        \_ BS.  Go back to your cage Michael Moore.
           \_ You're kind of reaching the bottom of the barrel when
              you don't really need to, to get that kind of quote from
              the web, I don't think that was the main point of the
              article.  I think you can find plenty of Republicans
              now who would agree that we invaded Iraq for unknown
              or disengenous reasons.
              \_ Lie != Intelligence Failure
                 \_ At what point does a willful ignorance and denial of
                    fact cease to be the fault of the intel provider and
                    become the fault of the intel receiver? And then at what
                    point does the refusal to accept fact then become a lie?
                    \_ If you don't find out the intel is wrong until after
                       you've invaded then it isn't a lie that caused you
                       to go in.  It was ignorance.  So to answer your
                       question in this context: never.
                       \_ Okay, now what if you tell your intel people that
                          you only want intel that backs up your premise? At
                          what point does willful, active ignorance like that
                          become lying?
        \_ There was a recent Tom Tomorrow comic where he had a dream
           that everyone, from the bush admin to the press to the pundits
           to the entire staff of the Weekly Standard realized they had
           made a terrible mistake and dedicated their lives to living
           the rest of their life in exile, obscurity, and penance.  That's
           exactly what I want.
           \_ "My party is Good, the other party is Evil", as seen on Dailykos,
              freerepublic, democratic underground, etc, etc.
              \_ Oh, no, it wouldn't break my heart if everyone who voted to
                 authorize went into exile, etc.
              \_ Like it or not, the War On Terror has been branded as
                 Republican thing.  Good job branding there guys!
                 You can make a pretty strong case that all of the think
                 tanks and pundits and elected officials pushing the Iraq
                 invasion were Republican.  I think pointing out that
                 plenty of Democrats voted to authorize invading is
                 a moot point.  Bush would have figured out a way to invade
                 democrats or no democrats.
        \_ BS.  Go back to your cage Michael Moo    yet?"
                    \_ did you shower between couplings aspo
                     \_ Not as a rule no.
        \_ Does his wife have camel toe?  I just found out yesterday that my
           sister-in-law does.
        \_ Maybe something about having two humps?
              \_ So you still think invading Iraq was a good choice?
2007/8/31-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:47864 Activity:kinda low
8/31    motd armchair historians, what do you think of bush's
        recent speech comparing Iraq to Vietnam?
        \_ I think everyone who screamed "quagmire!" is just as stupid as
           everyone who thinks leaving Iraq now will lead to millions of dead
           like the killing fields in Cambodia.  Iraq != Vietnam in that
           sense.  The problem with leaving is that (once again) we will have
           meddled in something and put the lives of many locals on the line
           who trusted us and then fucked them by leaving.  Each time we do
           that we lose face and credibility around the world making
           diplomatic efforts much much harder since we continue to build up a
           history of our word having no value.  You break it, you bought it,
           you gotta fix it.
           \_ The problem is that it does not seem to matter if we stick around
              or not; we're not capable of fixing the situation. If we leave
              now rather than later, we will lose less American lives in the
              inevitable violence and the Iraqis may actually have a chance of
              getting things going on their own faster.
              \- everytime bush deals with a (living) historian, the historian
                 has to school/disown/disclaim BUSHCO. YMWTGF "john dower",
                 "alistair horne" etc.
              \_ An anonymous French politician recently agreed with you that
                 the only way Iraq would see peace would be if the US left
                 and let them slaughter each other until one side 'won' and
                 then we/whoever could assist them in 'diplomatically'
                 resolving their problems after the shooting stops.  Of course
                 at that point you have one side butchered, but hey, that's
                 ok, right, since they're not Americans.  Right?  No.  The
                 right thing to do is stick around for a while now that their
                 tribal leaders (this is a heavily tribal society unlike
                 Vietnam) have figured out that AlQ is bad news.  Places that
                 were deadly a year ago are now quiet and no more dangerous
                 than say, Oakland, is today.
                 \_ And how many trillions of taxpayer dollars and how many
                    thousands of American lives do we need to spend until we
                    get to your Iraq utopia?
                    \_ Strawman: No one said utopia.  Iraq was never a utopia.
                       How much blood and treasure you ask?  You tell me what
                       you think it is worth for the nation to have yet another
                       failure where we specifically abandon our local allies
                       to yet another mass murder event.  Each time we do that
                       we lose credibility around the world and encourage our
                       enemies.  Especially if we left right now when it looks
                       like things have finally turned in our favor with new
                       leadership and tactics and the tribes turning our way.
                       Nothing is so American these days like snatching defeat
                       from the jaws of victory.
                       \_ You guys have been claiming victory is right around
                          the corner for about four years now. You will have
                          to excuse me for not buying the bullshit anymore.
                          Remember when Reagan left Lebanon after the
                          Beirut bombings? Too bad Bush is no Ronald Reagan.
        \_ I think Bush is very much like Johnson.
2007/8/30-9/3 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47824 Activity:nil
8/28    Matt Taibbi interview:
        "I read "Dead Souls" about forty times before I was twenty. He was
        my hero. For the longest time I just wanted to... well, not to be
        Nicholai Gogol, because he was an insane and miserable boot
        fetishist who ended up becoming an overbearing religious bore
        before starving and bleeding himself to death with leeches, but
        to write like that anyway. But you should see how pathetic it is
        when a modern American tries his style."
        \_ Like many great artists, Gogol was an anti-semite. -- ilyas
2007/8/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Travel/Nola] UID:47802 Activity:nil
8/29    New Orleans is so screwed up.  Why is anyone seriously talking about
        rebuilding it?
        \_ conservative think-tanks are so pointless.  Why does anyone take
           their commentary seriously?
           \_ funny short url there
           \_ Sheer volume. It's hard to believe that anyone could publish so
              much and yet actually say so little.
2007/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47690 Activity:low
8/21    why doesn't the bush administration name the next
        hurricane Hurricane Obama ?
        \- What doesnt Congress rename Camp X-ray, Camp Cheney?
        \- Why doesnt Congress rename Camp X-ray Camp Cheney?
        \_ That's silly.  Camp X-Ray already exists.  I'm talking about
           naming a future event.  Completely different things!
           \- Cape Canaveral was (temporarily) renamed Cape Kennedy.
2007/8/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47670 Activity:nil
8/20    the one or two bush administration fans left, please watch
        this Dick Cheney clip from 1994:
2007/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47607 Activity:moderate
8/13    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xosmq (The Economist)
        The Republicans have failed the most important test of any
        political movement: wielding power successfully. They have
        botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they
        have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now
        the Democrats' game to win or lose.
        [No doubt another partisan screed]
2007/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47601 Activity:nil
8/13    Rove Resigns :
        \_ Having successfully destroyed America I look forward to spending
           more time with my family
        \_ And you won't have Karl Rove to kick around anymore.
        \_ Actually all this really means is he's going back to doing what
           he does: working as a polling wonk to get Republicans elected.
2007/8/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47550 Activity:very high 88%like:47545
8/6     Karl Rove + iPhone
        http://urltea.com/15ng (time.com)
        \_ Perhaps the Bush administration would like to know what most people
           working at Apple (inluding their top executives) really think of the
           Bush administration. Even Steve Jobs told his employees to vote
           Democrat during a company-wide conference.
           \_ Just because Steve told them to doesn't mean they did.  Voting
              is still anonymous in this country.
           \_ So what? Technology crosses political lines. Rush Limbaugh is
              a huge apple fan boi who has been pitching apple gear for years.
              \_ I could say the same thing about the flip side.
                 Republicans are always quick to point out that the
                 military is comprised primarily of Republicans and,
                 therefore, Republicans are entitled the protection
                 of the armed forces and not Democrats (e.g. Bill-O
                 soliciting terrorists to attack "liberal" SF and
                 military should not defend it). Of course, this is
                 entirely ludicrous because if you looked at policies
                 which Republicans like to promote so much, you would
                 actually think that Republicans hate our military.

                 The point I was originally trying to make was this:
                 Republicans like to portray Democrats (you know,
                 like the vast majority who work at Apple) as these
                 crazy, evil, godless, tree-hugging, pot-smoking,
                 terrorists-loving, anti-military, communist bums
                 who smell like garbage when, in reality, they're
                 just a bunch of smart and talented engineers and
                 entrepreneurs who believe in the free market and
                 love making cool products like the iPhone. Karl
                 Rove is using a product made by the same people
                 he ridicules so much.
                 \_ Oh. Well, I totally agree w/ that.
                 \_ So, can you post a link where Karl Rove makes fun of
                    Apple?  'Cause, I think you're just a paranoid nutcase.
                    \_ Sticks and stones. Paranoid nutcases believe that
                       if we don't attack them there (Iraq), they'll come swim
                       over and attack us here. I don't need to post a link.
                       You can google this all you want. "liberals saw the
                       savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
                       indictments and offer therapy and understanding for
                       our attackers." Rove doesn't directly attack
                       Apple and I never said he did. But he does attack
                       the people who comprise the majority of the company.
                       \_ Who says the majority of Apple employees are
                       \_ So, you think it's ok to be a paranoid nutcase
                          because Karl Rove is?  There's an odd justification.
                          \_ Take Reading Comprehension 101.
                             \_ Nice try, I'd say you need a writing class,
                                but but you need coherent thought more.
                                Your posts jump between multiple unconnected
                                topics and are full of bizarre over-
                                generalizations.  They basically make no sense.
                                It's just plain old raving.  Sorry.
                                \_ You can't even point out when I said it
                                   was okay to be a paranoid nutcase.
                                   \_ You're right, I just kind of assumed
                                      you thought it was ok, since you do it
                                      so well.
                 \_ Exec Summary: Republicans = evil, stupid, cranky, smearing,
                    hypocritical baby killers.  Democrats = good, kind, smart,
                    all-knowing, loving, generous, tolerant victims of moronic
                    Republican abuse.  All Apple Engineers = Democrats.  Did I
                    miss anything in your bizarre rant?
                    \_ Did I say any of that? Boy, you must not know how to
                       read. Or do you only hear what you want to hear?
                       \_ It's standard motd noise, yes, you did.  That is the
                          correct executive summary.  So answer me this: do
                          you disagree with any of those statements?  Which
                          ones, if any?
                          \_ Yes, I disagree with all of them. You put words
                             into other people mouths. I never said Republicans
                             were all of those things. There are some who are
                             but I never made that generalization. And there
                             are Demorcrats who are those things. And no,
                             being an Apple employee doesn't make you a Dem.
                             But from my personal experience (I'm no Gallup
                             Poll but I know way more Apple employees than
                             you do) most of them are Dems. So once again,
                             you're wrong. I never said any of those things
                             you claim I did.
           \_ Is that good thing?  A boss telling his employees how to vote
              is jaw-droppingly inappropriate.  If that's true I'm never buying
              apple again.
              \_ I've heard bosses (but not the CEO) tell people how they
                 should or shouldn't vote frequently. I'm guessing its
                 pretty common.
              \_ No it's not.  They're adults, they're not being coerced, and,
                 the whole premise of Democracy is that people can think for
                 themselves. -dans
                 \_ I didn't say the couldn't, or even that there's some way
                    for Jobs to verfiy what they did.  It's still wrong to
                    order people how to vote.  It's an attempt at misuse of
                    power.  Attempted murder is a crime, and so is attempted
                    corruption.  It's fine if he says "I'm voting for Ds,
                    and I think everyone should." "You must vote D" is not ok.
                    I'm sure if he said "You must vote R" you'd see why it's a
                     \_ He didn't order people to vote D. An employee had a
                        concern about how the unstable state of the world
                        was negatively impacting the Apple and Silicon
                        Valley environment and he responded by recommending
                        that (s)he vote D.
                        \_ Well, that's different then, isn't it?
                        \_ Apple needs some smarter employees.  The world is
                           always in an 'unstable state'.  Or at least some
                           more employees who have read some history.
        \_ Troll was here
2007/8/6 [Computer/Companies/Apple, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47545 Activity:kinda low 88%like:47550
8/6     Karl Rove + iPhone
        \_ Perhaps the Bush administration would like to know what most people
           working at Apple (inluding their top executives) really think of the
           Bush administration. Even Steve Jobs told his employees to vote
           Democrat during a company-wide conference.
           \_ Just because Steve told them to doesn't mean they did.  Voting
              is still anonymous in this country.
2007/8/4-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:47532 Activity:nil
8/4     O'Hanlan and Pollack rapidly backpedal from their op-ed
        \_ Liberal media, my ass.
2007/8/3-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47523 Activity:low
8/3     http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343
        Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling
        the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President
        \_ The Republicans support the war and the Democrats do not. That is
           not really news.
           \_ "This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies.
              Democrats--some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress
              would bring an end to the war in Iraq--expressed overwhelming
              displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94%
              giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of
              that issue."
              \_ So we agree. The Democrats are upset at Congress for not
                 taking stronger action against the war and the Republicans
                 are upset at Congress for taking action against the war.
                 \_ How many are upset that the Democrats ran on a platform of
                    cleaning up corruption in DC and not only did nothing to
                    clean it up but went out of their way to make it worse?
                    \_ Show me how it's worse. Then show me how the Dems made
                       it so.
                       \_ Because they're doing the exact same thing with
                          earmarks but are also hypocritical liars about it.
                    \_ What do you have against the Ethics Reform Bill? At
                       least it is a step in the right direction.
                       \_ Nothing except the fact they left so many holes in
                          it they shouldn't have bothered.  With control of
                          Congress and a President who will sign it, they
                          could have done a real reform bill but they're all
                          so addicted to giving away other people's money to
                          buy campaign funds they'll never do real reform.
                          It is just a PR bill so in 2008 they can say they
                          cleaned up DC like they promised, meanwhile having
                          filled their pockets with your cash.
                          \_ Bush would never sign real campaign finance
                             reform. The GOP sucks at the teat of big money.
                             \_ Of course he wouldn't.  It was never sent to
                                his desk, duh.  Of course the GOP requires
                                big money.  Hint: so do the Dems.  I find this
                                whole "my guys are angels and your guys are
                                devils" line of non-reasoning both amusing and
                                somewhat sad at the same time.  Try some
                                critical reasoning skills before posting in
                                the future.
                                \_ Are you the same guy who said "did nothing
                                   to make it better but went out of the way
                                   to make it worse." If so, you are a
                                   hypocrite. If not, no one was talking to you.
                                   \_ There is absolutely nothing hypocritical
                                      about saying the Dems are hypocrites on
                                      the issue.  I've always been very
                                      consistent on the motd: both parties
                                      suck equally.  Party politics sucks.
                                      Your pet party is no better than the
                                      opposition party.  Deal.
                                      \_ Nope. The GOP has been more corrupt
                                         this last six years than the Democrats
                                         have ever been. The two parties are
                                         not exactly the same and you are just
                                         a cynic with no idea or hope to
                                         improve things. It is very easy to
                                         sit on the sidelines and whine. Learn
                                         to make some positive change and maybe
                                         someone will pay attention to you.
                                         \_ You're either ignorant or blind.
                                            Both parties have been corrupt,
                                            robbing the tax payers, stealing
                                            elections, and serving themselves
                                            first and foremost for far longer
                                            than anyone here has been alive.
                                            I'm not here to 'make positive
                                            change' nor am I 'sitting on the
                                            sidelines'.  I reject your
                                            ridiculous and damaging two party
                                            scam system.  It is not a mindless
                                            "our guy" or "your guy" choice.
                                            So tell me oh great bringer of
                                            justice and wisdom, what have you
                                            done to make positive change?
                                            \_ For one thing, I was one of the
                                               people that circulated petitions
                                               and then got endorsements from
                                               the Democrats, Republicans and
                                               Greens for a campaign finance
                                               reform initiative on the SF
                                               city ballot, one that passed by
                                               80%+ of the vote.
                                               More recently, I have joined
                                               Common Cause. And if you are who
                                               I am pretty sure you are, it is
                                               kind of amusing your sudden
                                               conversion to independent.
                                               Weren't you posting pro-war
                                               Freeper links not that long ago?
                                               \_ I not only have never posted
                                                  freeper links, I think the
                                                  freepers are just as stupid
                                                  as their counterparts at
                                                  dailykos.  So, no.
        \_ This Dem is angry at the Dems for not killing the Farm Bill. I'm
           angry with the vetoing President and the filibustering Republicans
           for everything else.
           \_ Bush has barely vetoed or even threatened to veto much of
              anything compared to most Presidents.  Both parties have
              abused the Senate rules to make almost every vote require 60
              votes to pass anything.  This is all pot, kettle, black.
              \_ Bush's own party had controlled both houses for the majority
                 of his time in office.  I have no actual numbers, but I'd bet
                 that his veto/threat pace this session outstrips many other
                 There's some numbers.  Fuck off with your kettles.
                 \_ "Fuck off"?  Childish.  Ok, so where in this article does
                    it say Bush vetoed or even threatened to veto more bills
                    than any other President or even any particular President?
                    You've added absolutely nothing to this but you have shown
                    you're immature and not too bright.  I also see you
                    entirely ignored my point about abuse of Senate rules
                    by both parties which is what PKB was a reference to.
                    Have a nice evening.
2007/8/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47510 Activity:moderate
8/2     ha ha ha:
        "Rove tells Bush to tell Rove not to testify"
        \_ what?
           \_ E_TOOSHORT
           \_ E_TOOSHORT - Rove always tells Bush what to do and Bush told Rove
              not to testify - ok it isn't funny if you have to explain the
              \_ Following unix error conventions, this should be E_HEIGHT
                 \- except it is following Rap Conventions.
                    \_ E_YERMOM
2007/8/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47502 Activity:kinda low
8/1     If Bush had just given Obama's most recent speech
        there would be riots in the streets.
        \_ Yes.  This is called 'politics'.
        \_ Frankly, with how quickly this country is becoming a mockery of
           itself there SHOULD be riots in the streets.
           \_ A mockery of itself?
        \_ Bush wouldn't have given that speech.
           \_ Circular.  We know he didn't therefore he didn't.  What's your
              \_ What's your point?
                 \_ What was yours?
           \_ Because Bush isn't an idiot?
        \_ Arnold->Democrat, Obama->Republican.
           \_ False dichotomy. Not all Republicans are strong on defense; not
              all Democrats are weak on defense.
              \_ Don't confuse a good stupid troll with your facts.
        \_ How many wars did Bush start again?
2007/7/27-8/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47442 Activity:nil
7/27    these are really odd photos (kind of political content)
2007/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47438 Activity:kinda low
7/26    Regarding the contradiction between Mueller and Gonzales.  The Bush
        admin's story is that there were two surveillance programs:  the
        #1 Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and #2 an unnamed one.  Comey
        was going to resign over #2.  Mueller said Gonzales came to see
        Ashcroft for #2.  Gonzo said it was #2.  Dems think Gonzo said #1
        and Mueller said #2.  No one could talk about #2 clearly because
        of national security.  See?!  Perjury trap!!!11
        \_ Someone should get Gonzalez a lawyer, and maybe someone who
           can tell him to stop sounding like a fucking idiot.  What
           do they call those people?
           \_ The Bush admin's story is he's only being obtuse to avoid
              disseminating classified information that revealing could only
              INCREASE the potential of mushroom clouds over major U.S. cities.
              disseminating classified information that revealing could
              only INCREASE the potential of mushroom clouds over major
              U.S. cities.
2007/7/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:47425 Activity:high
7/25    He's right.
        "Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into
        a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly
        ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the
        constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the
        statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.
        If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into
        precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be
        permanently changed."
        \_ "Without going into all the specifics" is pretty damn stupid.
           Isn't this guy supposed to be a smart dem?
           \_ Did you just arrive from Mars or something? Have you been
              ignoring the news for the last 6 years?
              \_ I have been following the news extremely closely.
                 \_ And none of FISA, Gitmo, Geneva Convention, War Crimes
                    Act, Justice Department firing and ignoring subpeanoas
                    rings a bell? At all?
        \_ Bah, the constitution got thrown out decades ago when courts
           started making their own laws from whole cloth on a long list of
           topics.  We're already and have been for a long time nothing like
           the founder's vision for how government should work.
           \_ ...what exactly do you see as the purpose of the courts?
              \_ Courts apply the law.  In the case of SSC and USSC they are
                 also empowered to overturn laws that violate the State/US
                 constitutions.  They are not to make up laws the legislature
                 has not passed.  What do you think courts are for?
                 \_ Adjudicating grievances between parties; interpreting the
                    law as legislated by the Legislative branch and signed by
                    and/or executed by the Executive branch; determining the
                    constitutionality of those laws and the actions of the
                    other two branches. In the course of determining the
                    constitutionality of certain laws and in the interest of
                    not wasting taxpayer time and money with legislation that
                    is doomed to be deemed unconstitutional, I see no reason
                    why a court could not suggest an example of the sort of
                    legislation that would not be considered unconstitutional.
                    This suggestion is not, in and of itself, legislation.
                    \_ ob more hunting trips with mr. scalia and mr. cheney
                    \_ Ok so we basically agree.  Now then, are you opposed to
                       courts legislating from the bench, even in such cases
                       that you agree with the outcome?
                       \_ Please indicate where you see the courts legislating
                          from the bench?
                          \_ You're kidding, right?  The classic is Roe v Wade.
                             \_ Awesome wingnut logic.  Roe V Wade justifies
                                the current administration's destruction of
                                checks and balances.
                                \_ What?  I said no such thing.  You're also
                                   way over stepping assuming you know my
                                   opinion of if abortion should be il/legal
                                   or not simply because I think RvW was a
                                   bad ruling based on bad law.  I figured you
                                   would get personal if I tried to discuss it
                                   intelligently with the best known example.
                                   I was right.  Thanks for not disappointing.
                                   \_ I am not the guy you were talking to
                                      ealier, but I think that the problem of
                                      judges legislating from the bench pales
                                      in comparison to the problem of the
                                      Executive legislating all the time
                                      when it is not their job to do it.
                                      But they are both problems, imho.
                                      \_ Just because another branch may be
                                         abusing their authority, does not
                                         mean what the courts have been doing
                                         for decades hasn't made a complete
                                         mockery of our constitution.  The
                                         system is supposed to have checks and
                                         balances.  I see none anymore.  I see
                                         courts making laws.  I see the exec
                                         branch (and not just this one, kids)
                                         making laws.  "Stroke of the pen, law
                                         of the land, cool!"  Go look that
                                         quote up.  And congress is sitting on
                                         their collective thumbs apparently
                                         concerned about nothing important
                                         and certainly not doing their jobs.
                             \_ Am rereading Roe v. Wade right now, and while
                                I don't agree with a lot of it, I'm still not
                                seeing the legislating you're referring to.
                                Can you be more specific about this, please?
                                \_ It's conservative dogma that judges are
                                   legislating from the bench, and as such,
                                   cannot be examined or questioned.
                                   \_ Thanks for contributing nothing.  Come
                                      back when you'd like to have a discussion
                                      instead of a smear fest.  Thanks again.
                                \_ Ok, let's get right to it.  What is the
                                   basis underlying RvW?  Once we agree on
                                   that I'll go to the next step.
2007/7/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47405 Activity:nil
7/24    Hillary prefers "Progressive".  Hmm...
        Progressives ... tended to assume that opponents were motivated by
        ignorance or corruption
        \_ what is wrong about the above statement?
        \_ "In the United States, the Progressive Era was a period of reform
            which lasted from the 1890s through the 1920s."
           Hell, if you're going to go that far back, why not call Giuliani
           a Whig?
           \_ Hillary specifically referred to Progressive as an early 20th
              century movement.
              \_ Would it kill you to type out the quote?
                 \_ "I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American
                    meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning
                    of the 20th century."
                    \_ Thank you! Wow, now I'm actually excited to vote for
                       \_ Huh? Why?
                          \_ Reform or bust, baby!
                    \_ Oho, you sneaky out-of-context quoter! From the next
                       line of the article:
                       "I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who
                        believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms,
                        who believes that we are better as a society when we'
                        re working together and when we find ways to help
                        those who may not have all the advantages in life get
                        the tools they need to lead a more productive life for
                        themselves and their families. So I consider myself a
                        proud modern American progressive, and I think that's
                        the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to
                        bring back to American politics."
                       Yup, looks good to me.
                       \_ You sneaky out-of-context replier!  Does she disclaim
                          any of the principles?  No, she specifically included
                          the early 20th century and she agrees with the
                          principles of that movement.  And my reply was to the
                          person criticizing my reference to the early 20th
                          century movement.
                          \_ So, the word "modern" in no way modifies the
                             views espoused in the early 20th century?
                             \_ I didn't say it "in no way modifies" anything.
                                \_ Soooo, if one of the principles of the
                                   early 20th century Progressives was
                                   that all of their opponents were corrupt or
                                   ignorant, which they generally were, is it
                                   reasonable that a modern Progressive, faced
                                   with a different political climate, might
                                   not view her opposition with such contempt?
                                   \_ That is one of the aspects of early
                                      Progressives which I see as relatively
                                      the same as modern liberals (or modern
                                      \_ BushCo invites oil execs to a secret
                                         meeting to determine America's energy
                                         policy, and you don't see corruption?
                                         If there's contempt for a corrupt GOP,
                                         it's hard to pretend the GOP hasn't
                                         earned it.
2007/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47361 Activity:nil
7/20    Quick!  You're Dick Cheney and you get to be "preznint" for only a few
        hours while Bush has a colonoscopy.  What do you do?!
        \_ Kill a man on live tv and then claim executive privilege
        \_ Bush, Dick, Colin -- The White House Sex Trio.
2007/7/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47340 Activity:nil
7/19    from http://talkingpointsmemo.com
        From Maria Bartiromo's interview of Condi Rice in the current issue
        of BusinessWeek:

        MB: Would you consider a position in business or on Wall Street?
        CR: I don't know what I'll do long-term.
            I'm a terrible long-term planner.
2007/7/18-21 [Recreation/Humor, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47332 Activity:low
7/18    How many neocons does it take to change a lightbulb?
        \_ One neocon with a shotgun. Point the shotgun at a liberal and
           the liberal will do whatever he/she is asked to do.
           \_ these are supposed to be funny, not stupid.
              \_ hint: they're never funny.
                 \_ Sorry crankypants. I found the "War on Darkness" one funny.
                    \_ I'm sure you did.
        \_ None. George Bush predicts the light bulb will be fully capable of
           changing itself within 3 months.
        \_ None. The socket welcomes the light bulb with candy and flowers.
        \_ Neocons don't bother with light bulbs. They declare a War on
           Darkness and set the house on fire.
        \_ Only the Almighty who gave the gift of light to all can make a
           lightbulb change. Its sort of a theological perspective I have.
        \_ "i have other priorities" --dcheney
        \_ Why do you hate America?
2007/7/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Religion] UID:47306 Activity:moderate
7/17    Here's some flamebait for you.  Holy freakin shit:
        "It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an
        Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And
        I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that
        doesn't exist."
        \_ Ummm, so?  The Declaration of Independence says the same thing.
           \_ He's saying he makes decisions based only upon religious
              considerations.  In other words, we're in Iraq because God
              told him that was the Right Thing To Do.  Read up on the history
              of the Crusades and you might see why this is a Very Bad Thing.
              \_ The above quote said this?
                 \_ "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and
                     then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did,
                     and now I am determined to solve the problem in the
                     Middle East."
                    "Events aren't moved by blind change and chance" ...,
                     but by "the hand of a just and faithful God."
                    "I believe God wants me to run for president."
                    Yes, all actual Bush quotes.
                    \_ Belief in Providence was common among the Founding
                       \_ So was Diesm, which discounts religion.
              \_ You do the atheists proud, my friend.
        \_ Freedom isn't unambiguous. Does the Almighty advocate anarchy?
           Communism? Both are freedom in some sense. Freedom from what?
           Strictly from a Biblical perspective, it seems pretty clear that
           Yahweh likes pious kings with many concubines (an autocratic king,
           no wimpy separations of powers or Magna Cartas).
           The Bible also recognizes slavery as legitimate...
           \_ If the Almighty told Bush to invade Iraq, obviously he does
              advocate anarchy.  The fact that he talks to Bush at all means
              that he is not on our side, since his advice seems to be always
              \_ Bush: Worshipping Loki since sobriety.
              \_ Or else he doesn't exist and Bush imagines God talking to him.
                 Or else /something/ talks to him, but it turns out it's not
                 actually God as Bush likes to imagine it. It's the CIA
                 talking through a receiver in his tooth filling (or else
                 the Jews, but the Jews run the CIA so it's the same thing).
                 Or else Bush doesn't even believe it but says it for
                 political points to the religious constituency. Or else
                 Bush doesn't exist and Bush is a sniggering automaton.
                 \_ Sort of like the NASA automatons on the old Mission to Mars
                    ride?  A moment of silence for the M2M ride, please.
2007/7/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47295 Activity:nil
7/13    Motd poll:
        The Canadian dollar will be worth more than the US dollar:
        this year:
        before Bush leaves office: .
        someday, but not soon:
2007/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47266 Activity:nil
7/12    Bush says he doesn't want to talk about Libby anymore:
        \_ But for years we've been told they can't talk about it because it's
           an "ongoing investigation" -- Gosh could he have something to hide?
2007/7/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47265 Activity:high
7/11    You want a felony to impeach Bush for?  Here ya go:
        \_ dubya will say this is for a "proper" purpose (stemming from
           executive privilege), therefore there is no felony because this
           is defined for an "improper purpose".  anyways you want
           to impeach cheney first.
           \_ You can't just say "I'm not showing up, executive privilege."
              You have to honor the supeona and then say "I won't answer that
              question, executive privilege."  It's like refusing to even
              o to court because you'll take the 5th.
        \_ At this point, it is like the Gambino family: what aren't they
           guilty of?
           \_ Not guilty of intern sucking dick. THERE I gotcha! Har har
        \_ Get real.  No President is going to get impeached for that.  But
           you could get rich off whatever you're smoking.  Of all the things
           to impeach over that is the most stupid possible.
        \_ Again, this is a separation of powers issue.
           \_ Do you mean "everyone has to obey the law but us" kind of
              seperation of powers? Or are you trying to say something else
              by repeating this phrase? I assume you are the same guy who
              claimed that Bush didn't have to follow the FISA laws like
              everyone else, because of "seperation of powers." Seperation
              of powers doesn't mean that the White House can ignore the
              law of the land.
              \_ No, I mean to what degree does one branch of gov't have the
                 power to tell another branch to do something.
                 \_ You don't quite know what separation of powers is, do you?
                 \_ that's the whole point of having different branches of
                 \_ Thinking about this some more, I decided that I see your
                    point. The FISA law, in particular, was designed to only
                    apply to the Exectutive Branch, and while it was passed
                    by Congress and signed by the (then) President, it has
                    not survived any serious court challanges. It could even
                    be unconstitutional, for all we know. Though the
                    Administration sure hasn't been quick to try and get
                    it in front of the USSC, I can see where they can argue
                    that they think parts of it are invalid.
                    \_ You have made a reasonable statement about a hot button
                       political issue on the motd.  For this gross violation
                       of etiquette your account shall be terminated.
2007/7/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:47264 Activity:low
7/11    Al Qaida as powerful as it was in summer 2001
        \_ Funny, why do we believe our intel now?
           \_ You know what's wrong with our intel? It's government run
              pork program! They should have privatized CIA and NSA
              long time ago.                            -Republican
              \_ They do call the CIA "The Company".
              \_ No, troll, they should have not relied solely on satellites
                 and not let the human side of the intelligence program
                 whither away to nothing.  This is the fault of many
                 administrations going back.
2007/7/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47259 Activity:moderate
7/11    Any hope of GWB's impeachment before 2008? In America the only
        case for impeachment is Watergate (and maybe Sex scandals).
        Why isn't GWB having sex with interns? Is his wife actually
        making him happy? Damnit.
        \_ I don'tthink it can happen.  It's a waste of time. concentrate
           on winning the next election cycle and saving lots of evidence
           to tar the legacy of gwbush when he's out of office.
           if the current fuckfest isntenough to impeach him immediately.
           not gonna happen
        \_ What's the high crime or misdemeanor?
           \_ The two that I am aware of are the violations of FISA
              and the violations of the War Crimes Act. Are there others?
              \_ The FISA thing is a clear struggle between the branches.  War
                 Crimes Act violations?  What the hell are you talking about?
                 \_ The Administration clearly violated the law with regard
                    to FISA and the courts called them on it. Most criminals
                    claim the "right" to break the law. Bush's torture
                    memos were known to be potentially illegal right from
                    the get-go. The whole Gitmo thing is illegal, which is
                    why the Administration wants to shut it down now.
                    \_ Why do you say 'the whole Gitmo thing is illegal?'
                       The only thing I am aware of that was ruled illegal
                       in connection with Gitmo was the recent trials ruling.
                       It's true that this makes Gitmo a lot less useful for
                       the Administration, and perhaps it will cause Gitmo
                       to be shut down and for the inmates to move to US
                       soil somewhere -- but the illegality of the 'whole
                       thing'?  -- ilyas
                        \_ 'the whole gitmo thing' is an incredible thought
                            construct where the administration plants
                            detainees in this imaginary fun land that they
                            claim with a straight face is not on US soil,
                            since.... it's in CUBA.  How do these people
                            manage to function without falling over laughing?
                            \_ Right, the salient difference here is
                               between 'illegal' and 'immoral.' -- ilyas
                               between 'illegal' and 'immoral.'
                               The whole 'soil' thing does have the vibe of
                               a Solzhenitsyan farce. -- ilyas
                       \_ It is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Remember
                          the Bush Administration claimed the "right" to hold
                          people indefinitely, without charges and without a
                          trial. This is a violation of Geneva Convention
                          Article 3 (I can dig up the exact prt if you want),
                          which the United States is a signatory to. The whole
                          "enemy non-combatant" classifcation is utter bullshit
                          that no one but a few loons in the Bush White House
                          claim exists. And it will not and is not holding up
                          in a real court of law, even one (the USSC) that is
                          overwhelming packed with Republicans.

                          \_ Alright, but here's what will have to happen
                             before there's a realistic chance of impeachment.
                             First, the SC will have to strike down the 2006
                             law which was specifically passed to get around
                             the Geneva Convention restrictions (they may well
                             do this).  Then you would have to make an argument
                             that you can try people for crimes retroactively.
                             THEN, the Democrats will have to make the political
                             calculation that it is worth raising the muck on
                             a wildly unpopular President on his way out
                             anyways (remember, 'persecution' tends to raise
                             approval ratings).  Finally, all of this will have
                             to happen before Bush leaves office.  Bush is not
                             getting impeached.  -- ilyas
                             \_ Step 1 has already happened:
                                They broke the law before 2006, since Gitmo
                                was opened in 2003. They passed the law to
                                retroactively try and give themselves legal
                                cover for a law they knew they were breaking.
                                But you are right, the Democrats in Congress
                                are unlikely to find their backbone any time
                                \_ I lack the legal background to evaluate
                                   how likely a conviction is in such a case.
                                   Is there a legal principle (or precedent)
                                   for the situation at hand:
                                   "Action X happens.  Then law Y is passed
                                   which makes X unquestionably legal.  Then Y
                                   is struck down."
                                   At issue here is at the time X happened
                                   the law for X was not settled (as witnessed
                                   by subsequent developments).  So it's
                                   unclear you can prosecute for X until Y
                                   was struck down. -- ilyas
                                   \_ Impeachment isn't a legal event.  It is a
                                      political one.  If the Ds had the balls
                                      and the votes for it they could impeach
                        \_ I have to agree with ilyas.  gwbush has fucked
                           up the US for 5000 years, but he's not going
                           anywhere until his term is up.
                           \_ 5000 years?  *laugh*  I'm just curious, have you
                              been around long enough to vote for a non-Bush,
                              non-Clinton administration?  Before Bush is even
                              out of office no one will care.  They'll be
                              deeply focused on the 08 election.  Life will
                              move on.
                              \_ I think invading Iraq, fucking it up,
                                 continuing to fuck it up, and committing
                                 us to occupy a giant piece of oil laden
                                 shit in the middle east for the next
                                 several decades is a HUGE FUCKUP.
                                 bush has shown the world that our military
                                 is not the unstoppable force everyone
                                 thought it was.  now every pissant guerilla
                                 force knows how to defeat us.  happy now?
        \_ Why would you want an impeachment?  You really want to distract the
           country from the current election cycle with political hatchet BS
           instead of spending that time and political effort on getting into
           office?  I'm sure all your friends in the Bay Area are in favor of
           impeachment and don't understand why it hasn't already happened.
           \_ It's important for the future of the country and for
              our worldwide credibility to hold accountable those who
              commit criminal behavior and war crimes while in office.
              What's wrong with simple justice?
              \_ Also, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and a number of others
                 have shown themselves worthy of disqualification (the
                 other bit after removal)
        \_ How do you know GWB isn't having sex with interns?
           \_ 1) why do you think we can keep only one thought in our heads at
              a time?
              2) for those who want impeachment, this is about accountability,
              and being on the record that bush's behavior has been
              unacceptable.  A president who admits to breaking laws, lies
              about war, undermines our national security for the sake of
              politics deserves impeachment and removal for those acts, and
              we have a duty to do so to prevent his actions from becoming
        \_ The correct way to do this is to impeach Cheney first, then Dubya.
2007/7/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47241 Activity:moderate
7/1-    When our bureaucrats fuck up, they get promoted, are rewarded with the
        Congressional Medal of Freedom, or have their sentences commuted.
        In Communist China...they get executed.
        \_ Yes, let's emulate the Chinese way of doing things where they ignore
           tremendous levels of corruption and make an example out of someone
           every so often instead of having a real legal system and cleaning
           up their act in a day to day way.  Woot random justice!
        \_ No in China one bureaucrat who went too far got executed as
           a scapegoat.  Let me guess, you think the Abu Ghraib torture
           scandal was just a few bad apples?
           \_ You have evidence to the contrary?  -not op
                \_ There's a lot of evidence that the people at the bottom
                   of the totem pole on staff at Abu Ghraib did not just
                   magically wake up one morning and start torturing
                   detainees.  Bush/Bush's advisors such as Gonzalez,
                   Yoo and David Addington put together a plan to make
                   torturing info out detainees legal, and it trickled
                   down from there.  There is reams and reams of evidence.
                   dunno why people aren't raiding the white house with
                   pitchforks now.
                   \_ It is one thing for Gonzalez to publish a paper.  It
                      requires actual proof if you want to claim that Bush, etc
                      were responsible and this wasn't just a case of a few
                      bad apples.  The fact that such a small number of people
                      were involved compared to how many prisoners there are
                      strongly implies the bad apple theory.
                      \_ All the "proof" is classified and Bush refuses to
                         hand it over to Congress. Hence the need for
                         impeachment hearings. Where was your demand for
                         proof in the run-up to the Gulf War? Doesn't a
                         desire to start a war require some "proof" as well?
                        \_ how many more bad apples at the top do you want?  I
                           have read articles about how Addington and Gonzalez
                           and Yoo put together legal briefs giving the
                           president infinite power to torture people.  This
                           is not a secret.  How many more 'bad apples' at the
                           freakin' top do you want?  Why are the minions at
                           the bottom serving prison sentences and the guys
                           who ordered them to do it are walking free?  Fuck.
                           \_ I'll say it slowly this time: Writing a legal
                              brief is not the same as having sent orders down
                              the line to the 2 dumb shits who abused those
                              guys at AG.  "Fuck."  Again: No one ordered them
                              to abuse prisoners.  There is no evidence of such
                              a thing and no one outside the realms of dailykos
                              thinks so.  If you wanted to argue that the two
                              knuckleheads actually read the Gonzalez brief and
                              on that basis decided it was a good idea to
                              abuse and humiliate some prisoners you might
                              have something, except both are too stupid to
                              read or understand VCR instructions much less a
                              legal brief.
                      \_ Many more were tortured in Afghanistan and in
                         extrodanary rendition cases, where the CIA turned over
                         people to other governments to torure them. It wasn't
                         just a few prisoners, it was systematic.
                         \_ Which is a totally different thing than what we've
                            been talking about.  That was clearly a government
                            sanctioned policy.  Two idiots at AG taking it upon
                            themselves to abuse prisoners was clearly not.  The
                            former is about trying to get information out of
                            them, the latter is just abuse and not useful to
                            anyone.  You can see the difference, yes?
              \_ all evidence says these "few bad apples" are those belongs to
                 the white house.
                 \_ What evidence?
                    \_ You haven't read Sy Hersh's New Yorker series?
                       Start here:
                       \_ Not yet but I will now, thanks for the link.
                       \_ Ok, I read the whole thing.  The only line in the
                          entire thing that even refers to anyone above the
                          local commander, Karpinski is this:
                                "Human Rights Watch complained to Secretary of
                                Defense Donald Rumsfeld that civilians in Iraq
                                remained in custody month after month with no
                                charges brought against them."
                          This is light years away from "Bush, etc, were aware
                          and directly responsible for abuses taking place at
                          Abu Graib.  This was not just a 'few bad apples'".
                          Maybe you have something that actually addresses that
                          issue directly?  Ya know... evidence of White House
                          knowledge and complicity?
                          \_ Fair enough, but this article does indicate that
                          \_ Fair enough, but that article does indicate that
                             quite a ways up the chain of command, they were
                             aware of abuses. Here is something that claims to
                             draw the connection:
                             http://www.csua.org/u/j4p (salon)
                             and another Hersh article where the connection
                             between the "torture memos" and Abu Gharib.
                             There is no doubt that Yoo and gang authorized
                             torture from the top. The only debate is on
                             whether this rule was applied in Iraq or not.
                             \_ Nah, sorry, I don't have time to read endless
                                links.  You had your shot.  The next time this
                                comes up post your best link first, not four
                                pages of junk I read closely looking for your
                                point which didn't exist.
                     \_ "Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American
                        journalism has to a terrorist, frankly." -Perle
                        \_ Anyone Richard Perle hates cant be all bad.
               \_ The policy came from the top:
                  \_ Sorry, anything that opens calling people 'neocons' has
                     a clear bias and is not worth reading.  I stopped on the
                     first line.  If you have something factual that at least
                     pretends to be unbiased I'll happily read it.  I don't
                     accept dailykos or freeper crap.  Thanks.
                        \_ read this . fun stuff
                     \_ You know that there is a large number of people
                        who call *themselves* neocons, right? Are you willing
                        to read the Weekly Standard?
                        \_ Done in an entirely different context not as a slur.
                           But I know you knew that, right?  Post real links
                           from sites without such an giant axe to grind and
                           I'll happily read and respond to them and if they
                           reveal something I was unaware of I'm open to
                           changing my mind on this or any other topic but not
                           from a dailykos/freeper quality crap site.
2007/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:47230 Activity:low
7/8     Looks like the US is finally, actually, going to start turning
        the corner in Iraq:
        \_ ummmm, your title is rather misleading.
           \_ more or less misleading than when Cheney told us that?
2007/7/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:47226, category id '18005#8.4175' has no name! , ] UID:47226 Activity:nil
7/8     Beautiful blonde conservative females (like the ones in Wisconsin
        and N Dakota) have the greatest preferences for smaller, face-to-
        face social groups, and have, on average, the lowest political
        awareness of the outside world. They are also the most genetically
        selective when it comes to reproduction, that is, they tend to
        mate with genes most similar to their own. [Do White Populations in
        Racially Mixed Regions Become More Conservative Over Time?]
        \_ Wisconsin is a famously liberal state. Haven't you ever heard
           of the Democratic Farm Labor Party?
2007/7/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:47224, category id '18005#8.0875' has no name! , ] UID:47224 Activity:nil
7/8     White liberal males love Asians. The Conservative males also had
        the lowest rates of physical attraction towards blacks.:
2007/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47213 Activity:low
7/7     Nearly half of Americans support impeaching Bush.  More than half
        support impeaching Cheney.
        \_ So? More than half believe in the law of Jesus Christ
           \_ Jesus Christ is not a fringe idea, and neither is impeachment.
              However, it is routinely derided as such.
              \- i dunno who this dood is, and i think he goes off the rails
                 a bit at the end with the mob boss stuff, but this is a
                 good paragraph ....
                    Now, George Bush and his cronies are showing America
                    in the  worst possible light.  They are illuminating
                    the  chasm between  the weak  and the  powerful, the
                    rich   and   the  poor,   the   connected  and   the
                    disconnected. They are doing  all they can to find a
                    death  row  cell for  the  American  Dream and  when
                    crunch  time comes,  giving none  of us  hope  for a
                    commutation of that sentence.
        \_ I suspect far fewer even know what impeachment means.
        \_ More than 85% of Americans believe in the personification of
           the Biblical Angels, too.  They're still looking for a pin, though.
2007/7/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47186 Activity:nil
7/6     Damn this Bush economy!
        \_ Another piddling job growth report that beat expectations... Great.
           Let me know when wages grow along with productivity, and when the
           savings rate is positive again.  Wake me when job growth meets
           population growth... Go go bushonomics
        \_ Tax Cuts and the Not So Great Economy (Economist's View)
           \_ This has exactly crap to do with the article.  And this putz
              points to negative job growth and decreasing GDP after 2001 and
              blames the tax cuts?!  No mention of, say, other events in 2001?
              to the
        \_ Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute,
           a Washington think tank, noted the participation rate has fallen
           especially sharply for young people, blacks and Hispanics, groups
           who are especially sensitive to the economys ups and downs.
           If those missing workers were reported as unemployed, the jobless
           rate would be 5% instead of 4.5%, he said in a report.
           \_ Sure.  A Left think tanker says "which do you believe, me or the
        \_ Damn these tax and spend Democrats in charge of Congress and their
           nearly instanteous good effect on the economy!
2007/7/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47177 Activity:high 69%like:47152
7/4     Happy 4th of July! Support our troops! Support our president!
        Why Bush commuted Libby's sentence instead of pardoning him:
        http://www.csua.org/u/j2p (Economist's View)
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859825/posts
           "Great news!"
        \_ More obstruction of justice.                 -ausman
2007/7/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:47154 Activity:moderate
7/3     iTard Nation:
        http://urltea.com/wdp (ostroyreport.blogspot.com)
        \_ Sheesh.
        \_ "I stood in line for the iPhone. Three hours. It was a fun way to
            spend an afternoon with my wife, child, and a bunch of strangers."
           What fun! I love standing in lines. Sometimes I go to amusement
           parks and stand in line just for the camaraderie of the line, the
           joy of finally being in front. Then I go stand in another line.
           I only wish I had children so I could stand in lines with them like
           this man.
           \_ Hey, in Japan standing in lines is a family activity.
              \_ In Soviet Russia, line stand in You!
           \_ In Hong Kong, lines are longer but they move much faster.
              \_ why is that?
2007/7/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47152 Activity:nil 69%like:47177
7/2     Why Bush commuted Libby's sentence instead of pardoning him:
        http://www.csua.org/u/j2p (Economist's View)
        \_ More obstruction of justice.
2007/7/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47145 Activity:moderate
7/2     Prez commutes croney's sentence:
        http://csua.org/u/j2k (sfgate.com)
        \_ I gotta hand it to "Bush will not pardon Libby" guy, he turned
           out to technically be correct. He should have bet me, he would
           have made $20. -ausman
           \- ausman advisory: this commutation is an exercise of the
              pardon power. i.e. the president (or many governors)
              can use the POWER OF THE PARDON to change a death sentence
              to a life sentence. this is a weird version of that.
              See e.g. Shcick v Reed: http://tinyurl.com/3cuec3
           \_ Too bad no one took me up on my $1m bet.  :-)   To the advisor
              above: Libby is still a convicted felon with a $250k fine, and
              2 years of probation to go along with his destroyed career,
              reputation, lost time, stress, and millions of dollars in legal
              fees.  That is hardly a 'pardon' in any normal sense of the word.
              \_ Bush can (and probably will) still pardon Libby, after
                 he has exhausted the appeals process.
                 \_ Time will tell.  I admit to being surprised Bush did even
                    this much for him but it does fit the pattern of pissing
                    everyone off without actually doing the right thing.
              \_ Besides the above, don't be too sure Libby's career is
                 destroyed. It will not be the same as it was but I don't
                 think he's out on his ass. Millions in legal fees? Reference
                 \_ GOP fundraisers are already covering his legal costs and
                    a juicy appointment with the AEI awaits him.
                    \_ Oh goody, that makes it all ok.  Sign me up!
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859840/posts
        \_ Praise jesus!
        \_ You know, Bush has been hammered by people about Ramos and Compean
           (two border guards currently serving a sentence for something I
           don't think they're guilty of), and his response when asked for a
           pardon/commutation has been that "there's a process to go through"
           and he'd look at it after it went through that progress.  He seems
           to have skipped that process for his pal.  I have to wonder why his
           approval rating is above 0% at this point for anything other than
           the war. -emarkp
           \_ not that i have any sympathy for illegal immigrant drug dealers,
              but didnt those border guards falsify their reports?
              \_ apparently.  what about it?  should that result in their
                 lives being destroyed?  should that be enough to grant
                 immunity to a known illegal alien felon to testify against
                 them?  i dont think so.  dock their pay?  sure.  put them
                 on suspension?  sure.  send them to some hellish HR inspired
                 training for a few weeks?  sure.  demotion?  maybe.  prison?
                 for a false report?  nuh-uh.
                 \_ Part of the reason for the relatively stiff (though not,
                    as Bush claims, beyond the sentencing guidelines) penalty
                    against Libby was because of the abuse of office.  I would
                    submit that law enforcement personel deserve similarly
                    stiff sentences for abuses of their offices as well.
                    \_ They got hammered to 'send a message' to the rest of
                       the border patrol agents.  Abuse of office?  Bullshit.
                       Happens all the time without *any* punishment at all
                       levels of government much less going to friggin prison.
                       \_ I don't know the particulars of this case.  I was
                          speaking generally.
                          \_ Generally, an abuse of power, especially something
                             as trivial as misfiling a report not only would go
                             unpunished but unnoticed.
              \_ No, they didn't.  They were required to submit oral reports to
                 their supervisors.  The supervisors /were present/ at the
                 scene after the shooting when 9 officers helped collect shell
                 casings.  That's part of the lie that Johnny Sutton (a Bush
                 buddy) keeps telling.  Another of the lies was the claim by
                 Homeland Security that they said they were "going to shoot
                 some mexicans", which was only exposed when an HS rep was in
                 front of Congress under oath for another reason. -emarkp
        \_ Just in time for Indepedence Day!
        \_ Why does the president have this power, again? Seems pointless.
           \_ So he can pardon his predecessor of any crimes committed while
              in office. And the circle-jerk goes round and round.
           \_ The Founders gave the President this power so he could take
              action to right wrongs even though it may be unpopular.
              Ultimately this is about having a final say in thwarting mob
              rule quality 'justice'.  Seems pointed.
              \_ There was much debate about the merits of the power even
                 when the Constitution was written. While it has "a point"
                 I don't believe the greater good is served by the president
                 having this power. We have a justice system and a supreme
                 court. That's not mob rule. Think if the power didn't exist,
                 what great wrong would not have been righted? Some death
                 sentences have been commuted but there you have to get into
                 the whole "should we have the death penalty" issue. Having
                 the executive leader arbitrarily decide who dies is stupid
                 and reminiscent of monarchy.
                 \_ The justice system is all about mob rule.  That's what a
                    jury is.  Very few cases are taken up by the USSC.  I don't
                    see it as the executive arbitrarily determining death.  We
                    already have the justice system for that as you said.  This
                    is about having a final way to correct some great wrong.
                    I looked up Clinton's pardon list.  There was a mix of
                    drug offenses, white collar crime and military crimes he
                    over turned.  Most of them were so old the people had
                    already served their sentences so what he was really doing
                    was restoring their right to vote, cleaning their records,
                    etc so they can live normal lives.  Anyway, I don't see
                    400 or so pardon/commutations out of the zillions convicted
                    to be that big a deal.
                    \_ Have you ever gone through the jury selection process
                       and actually served on a jury?  Just curious.  I have
                       a lot more faith in an average jury, than an
                       average gvt procecutor, say. -- ilyas
                       \_ I think most juries do their best to get it right
                          but we know that isn't always true.  Thus the
                          President has the power to pardon as the ultimate
                          final check on the system.  The founders didn't give
                          him the power to convict, only free.  Reagan did just
                          over 400.  Clinton did a few more.  Bush1 did under
                          100.  I don't know how many Bush2 has done.  These
                          are very small numbers and I'm a-ok with them even
                          if some were questionable.
        \_ Wait, this is the treason guy, right?  -John
2007/6/30-7/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47135 Activity:nil
6/30    Democrats, not very popular:
        \- anybody who compares the approval ratings between the
           president and congress is either stupid or disingenuous.
           to say "congress's rating have slid more in the last
           6mos while the president's rating have gone up" might
           be meaningful, but the only virtue of comments like this
           "President Bush is doing terribly -- an average of 30 percent
           job approval in six recent polls. Congress is doing worse --
           25 percent on the average in five polls." is to signal you can
           add this dood to your KILL file. that article is the journalistic
           equivalent of a college paper with the thesis "the iliad
           is a poem by homer about the trojan war, which was difficult."
           \- see also:
        \_ The only poll that matters happens in November every two years.
2007/6/29-7/1 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47126 Activity:nil
6/29    Hi I'm lazy, do my work for me.  Is it true that the government's
        official 9/11 report completely refrains from mentioning
        WTC Building 7?
        I was reading http://www.patriotsquestion911.com ,
        which doesn't appear to be populated by the raving tinfoil
        hat crowd.  Maybe the ex military retired tinfoil hat crowd.
        \_ Yes, it was all an inside job by the competent Bush administration
           with the help of TEH JOOS as commanded by His High Lord Elvis and
           His Right Paw Of Greatness, Bigfoot.  There is no truth to the
           rumors that Area 51 and the Greys were involved.
        \_ I have not been able to find any information that is was
           not deliberately brought down by demolition.  Also, it appears
           there were highly-sensitive gov't offices in that building.
           Keep digging deeper and you may come to understand who
           controls the political and economic power structure in this
           country, parallels with the Weimar republic.
2007/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47092 Activity:high
6/27    People vote with emotions and not brains. Fear-mongering works
        better than reasoning-- Why Democrats are destined to lose:
        \_ Because Democrats are the party of logic?  Er, ok.  And here I
           thought they did the same fear mongering and heart string pulling
           as the other party.  Or maybe you meant that some third party
           candidate is going to win?
           \_ ...are you really going to tell me that you think the Dems have
              fear-mongered anywhere near the level of Bush and the current
              GOP, the party that made the "us or suitcase nukes in your city"
              part of their 2004 campaign?
              \_ They are no more 'pro-logic' than the other party, yes.  D=R.
                 \_ I'm certainly not exonerating them for their petty foibles,
                    but comparing them to the current Admin and the GOP under
                    DeLay and Gingrich is utterly laughable. Let's try to
                    preserve a modicum of scale.
                    \_ It's on the same scale, just open your eyes and see
                       that just because you agree with something doesn't mean
                       they got there by logic.  Both parties do it equally
                       and treat all the voters like a commodity.
                       \_ I agree with you that they are neither of them
                          logical. We can also agree that firecrackers and
                          thermonuclear devices are explosive, but you wouldn't
                          suggest that the damage done by the first is the
                          same as that done by the latter, would you?
                          \_ OUR LIZARDS ARE BETTER, DAMN IT! -- ilyas
                          \_ You're begging the question.  It isn't
                             firecrackers vs. nukes.  The two parties are the
                             same.  That is exactly the point here.
2007/6/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47075 Activity:high
6/26    Another Bush Administration official convicted by a diabolical
        prosecutor and a vengeful Congress, similar to the Libby case:
        \_ Uhm, no.  This guy was directly involved in a bribery scandal.
           Libby was busted for his memory of events not matching eight
           reporters memory of events which didn't match each other's
           memory of events nor their own notes nor their own prior
           testimony.  Thanks for the opportunity to correct your grave
           misunderstanding of Libby's situation, troll.
           \_ If this was really true he wouldn't have been convicted.  He
              got caught red handed, refused to turn on his boss and expose
              Cheney's treasonous crimes and so went to jail.
              \- As Mr. Uhm, no suggests, Libby was a victim of the RAHM-
                 I think it is is pretty clear George McGovern created
                 Patrick Fitzgerald in his mountain side laboratory and
                 had him spend 30 years infiltrating the REPUBLICAN
                 ESTABLISHMENT for a moment like this. The code word
                 to activate him was "Barbarella".
                 \_ Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the prosecutor and judge
                    were both Republicans or Republican appointees.
              \_ You've heard of 'the appeals process', right?  We have that
                 because the justice system is understandably flawed.  By
                 your 'logic' we don't need an appeals process and all those
                 folks on death row should be executed immediately.  Care to
                 try again?
                 \_ You erased the much more amusing preceding material just
                    post this? Minus ten points for Slytherin.
                    \_ It wasn't amusing at all.  It was off-topic and not
                       even dailykos quality and frankly the same drivel that
                       gets posted anytime anyone here tries to have a serious
                       political discussion.  I'm trying to discuss the facts
                       of the case with the other poster, this has nothing to
                       do with anything.  It is pure noise and as such
                       provides no opportunity for intelligent discussion and
                       no, it wasn't funny the second time either.
                       \_ You presume to be arbiter of teh funny?  Being too
                          thin-skinned to take your well-deserved mockery
                          should make you rethink using motd.
                          \_ Yadda yadda blah blah blah, yadda yadda.  I see
                             there's still no reply to the real comment about
                             the appeals process, Libby's case details, etc.
                             Just whining about "my drivel got deleted, wah!"
                             I'll take that as either agreement or general
                             ignorance of what actually happened in Libby's
                             case, thanks.
                             \_ Saying "the sky is blue" doesn't really warrant
                                a reply.  Yes, it's up for appeal.  How 'bout
                                you try again after his appeals are rejected?
                                \_ So as I said, you don't know a thing about
                                   his trial and exactly how his bogus
                                   conviction came about.  I'll say it again
                                   even though I know you don't want to know
                                   the truth: he was convicted because his
                                   story didn't entirely match the stories of
                                   8 reporters.  The 8 reporters stories didn't
                                   match each other.  The 8 reporters stories
                                   didn't even match their own earlier
                                   testimony, nor their own written notes.  It
                                   was not possible for Libby's story to match
                                   the differing and ever-changing stories of
                                   8 people.  Thank you for supporting real
                                   justice and not punishing people for having
                                   political views that differ from your own.
                                   \_ You are utterly convinced that your
                                      reading of the case is correct.  Will
                                      you acknowledge you have been wrong
                                      if his appeals are denied?  Somehow, I
                                      suspect not.
                                      if his appeals are denied?
                                      And you really have an obnoxious delete
                                      finger.  Fuck off.
                       \_ Erasing other people's comments on a globally
                          editable MOTD just shows that you are too short for
                          this ride.
                          \_ Comments are erased on a daily basis.  Get over
                             \_ What is it with people missing the point today?
                                Sure, comments are erased on a daily basis,
                                but erasing part of a thread just so you can
                                post your own POV is something else entirely.
                                Grow up.
                                \_ Bzzt, sorry.  Erasing someone else's post
                                   had no effect on posting my POV.  Try
                                   again? (y/N)__?
2007/6/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47071 Activity:low
6/26    Secret: The Freemasons influenced Bush to start the Iraq War.
        \_ Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
        \_ You are so totally wrong. Majestic 12, the Knights Templar, the
           HK Triad, FEMA and the Illuminati worked together to influence
           Bush to invade Iraq as part of their scheme to use Terrorism as
           smoke screen to hide their conspiracy for world domination. Its
           all documented in UNATCO's files. -jcd
2007/6/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47032 Activity:high
6/21    Bush at 26% in Newsweek poll
        \_ That's not too bad. Compare that to Nixon's:
           http://preview.tinyurl.com/eytw5 (cbsnews.com)
           Keep in mind this is from CBS, liberal Jewish media.
           \_ Thanks for invalidating anything else you have to say.
        \_ I don't think he cares.  Why should he?
           \_ maybe because he is supposed to be a representative of the
              \_ He is. The people are idiots and so is he. I don't see why
                 people's opinions changed. What is different now? A lot of us
                 disapproved of him from the beginning. And, you know, didn't
                 vote for him. Now all these Johnny come latelys want to be
                 cool like us. But it's too late. We moved on to disapproving
                 of the mainstream primary frontrunners.
                 \_ Pft!  I've already dismissed them all and moved on to
                    disapproving of the second and third tier candidates as
                    well as several who aren't even rumored to be interested in
                    running.  -Johnnt C. L.
             \_ He still has things he is trying to get accomplished and it
                is hard to get Congress to listen to him when he is so
                unpopular. Most politicians care about something called
                their "legacy" as well, and every indication is that Bush
                cares, too.  So sorry, he probably cares. Maybe his
                supporters (like you?) do not.
                \_ His current goal appears to be to veto everything and keep
                   the investigations off his back until he can get out of
             \_ IANARepublican, but think about it: ~43% of Americans voted in
                the last Presidential election, and W got about 50% of the
                vote, so, hey, 26% is pretty good for him.
                \_ You might want to check the assumptions in your math
                   there sonny.
                   \_ 50% of 43% =~21.5% < 26%. I'd say my math assumptions,
                      faulty as they are, are probably more accurate than
                      those of the POTUS.
                      \_ You're making the assumption that the set of W
                         supporters is a subset of the 2004 presidential
                         voters.  You'll have to justify that assumption
                         \_ he's also making the assumption that 100% of
                            the country responded to this poll.  -tom
                            \_ You're both right, but you're missing my
                               (feeble) point, which is that the POTUS thinks
                               like this.
              \_ Maybe he was when he was elected, but now that he *IS* elected
                 and that due to term limites, he can't be re-elected,  why
                 should he care any more? Lame duck presidency FTL.
                 \_ I loved the comedy central clip where GWB 2000 'debated'
                    GWB 'current', especially the total reverse on intervening
                    in other  nations and 'nation building'.
        \_ Mission Accomlished!
        \_ Congress at 14% (below HMOs at 15%)
           \_ For "confidence", not "approval".
           \_ For "confidence", not "approval". And from a different poll.
              \_ OP didn't say "approval".
                 \_ The article did.  Sure, blame your reading comprehension
                    issues on the OP
                    \_ I was making a point.  I read the article.
                       \_ How is saying "apples are not oranges" a point?
              \_ Isn't low confidence worse than low approval? I might not
                 approve of the job someone is doing, but I might still have
                 confidence that they will improve. Low confidence seems to
                 imply to me that not only does one disapprove of the job
                 someone is doing but also that they've lost any hope that
                 they will improve.
                 \_ Read a few polls and see how the two numbers tend to
                    relate.  Motd will not do your homework for you.
                    \_ I'll take that as a yes then. So, the American people
                       feel more negativity towards Congress than the President
                       \_ Take that as a yes.  Continue in obstinate ignorance.
                          \_ This only validates my assumption further. If it
                             really is a false assumption, you wouldn't have
                             been this much of an ass about it.
                       \_ Congress is always lower.  You can hate the
                          bastards but not hate YOUR bastard.  The president,
                          however, is all or nothing.
        \_ How does that compare to Carter?
           \_ The cbsnews link in the first reply will tell you.  Other than
              that, learn to use google.
              \_ No, it does not. Other than that, have you heard of the
                 Socratic technique?
                 \_ Oop.  It wasn't in that article.  It was in another blog
                    post.  Carter's lowest was 28% in '79.
2007/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47000 Activity:nil
6/17    Email records missing for 51 of 88 White House Officials with RNC
        \_ Whooops!!
2007/6/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46986 Activity:nil
6/16    Thank God Bush's stormtroopers are protecting America from
        toddlers with sippy cups:
2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46969 Activity:kinda low
6/15    Bush's approval rating is now 29%. Who are these people supporting
        Bush and where/why do they still support him?
        \_ No intern sucking dick? Approve.
           Christian? Anti-abortion? Anti-faggots? Approve.
           No flip-flop? Doesn't change mind? Approve.
           \_ http://csua.org/u/iyj (Daily Show: Bush vs. Bush)
           Represents GOOD and stands up against EVIL? Approve.
           Marriage stable? Approve.
           White male? Uses simple commoner vocabulary? Approve.
           Supports NRA? Special Interests? Approve.
           Supports free-market, corporations, and profits? Approve.
           *** I am an American, and I approve George W Bush ***
        \- because the most important thing in the world to them is:
   save-the-fetus || i-hate-asslords || my-personal-NPV || gun-cold-dead-hands
        \_ Congress' is lower.  Reid is lower.  Who are supporting them?
           \_ Hint: Congress has many people in it.  Which job of Congress
              do you think people disapprove of?
           \_ Is Reid lower in his own district?  Almost certainly not.
           \_ Well, in congress' case, it only matters what the approval
              rating for your local congressman is.  I can hate the guy from
              New Orleans all I want, but it doesn't matter.  I believe the
              local rating for congressman tend to be fairly high.
           \_ Are you one of those Bush supporters then? What makes you still
              support him? Congress is almost always lower than the President,
              over the last 50 years. And the Congressional Democrats have
              quite a bit higher rating than either Bush or the Congressional
              Republicans, though they have dropped quite a bit lately.
              \_ The Congress has had a lower approval than the President
                 every time I've checked for years.
                 \- without geting into a longer discussion about statistics,
                    you probably cannot easily compare the opinion about
                    Reid and BUSHCO, because a *much smaller* number of people
                    know who Reid is. So you cant really ask "do you know
                    who the sen maj leader is?" if yes, then "what do you
                    think about reid". since the <20% of america who can
                    correctly answer the "filtering" question biases the
                    population you are sampling. and if you dont know who
                    Reid is [you ask ask the Reid <-> Maj Leader question
                    Reid is [you can ask the Reid <-> Maj Leader question
                    in either direction], what does your opinion matter?
                    in either direction], what does your opinion really mean?
                    now if "do you know who the maj leader of the senate is"
                    was the filtering questions for both "what do you think
                    about Reid, BUSHCO, Cheney" those numbers might be
                    \_ You *can* take a look at the people who know who Reid
                       is and voted (D) based on his false promises to get us
                       out of Iraq.  Since the number of actual voters vs.
                       potential voters in this country is so small you might
                       as well say that no polls are meaningful due to the
                       required filtering, etc.
2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46964 Activity:nil
6/15    Has the Bush Administration finally and completely lost it?
        \_ I believe it.  We're not leaving Iraq.  Anyone who believes
           otherwise is naive.
           \_ I know it seems like it will never happen, but we're supposed
              to get a new president in 18 months.  Anybody from either party
              has got to be better than this gang of jackals.
        \_ as an American, I would say we just leave and cut our losses.
           We are not serious about solving iraq's problem anyway.  We might
           as well just go home and repair the damage to our arm forces in the
           past couple years.   And yes, I stand by my statement about we are
           not serious about solving Iraqi problem.   Everything we do in
           Iraq since we invaded it has everything to do about our internal
           politics than anything else.  Otherwise, we've be forming alliances
           with *ALL* Iraqi neighbors to come up with something agreeable.
2007/6/12-15 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46921 Activity:nil
6/12    Scientists find that salvage logging makes wildfires worse
2007/6/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46918 Activity:kinda low
6/11    http://CNN.com headline:
        "Terror suspect wins U.S. legal battle"  Ph34r!!!11
          http://www.capsteps.com/sounds/doyoufear.mp3 --/
        \_ Fear?  Fear what?  This is the system working.  The only issue is
           it took so long to work which I consider a real problem.
           \_ that sounds like something a terror suspect would say ...
              \_ or a real american who believes in the us constitution and
                 not just the parts that suit me.
2007/6/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46908 Activity:low
6/10    "To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to
        seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President
        calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for
        the constitution and the country," the court panel said.
        http://www.csua.org/u/iwc (URL updated with more recent version)
        \_ No worries, the USSC will give the POTUS peace of mind.
        \_ I guess we could arrest Tony Blair and call him 'enemy combatant'
           and lock him up forever.  Since the first thing we do will be
           strip him of any personal belongings, there is no way he can prove
           he is Tony Blair.  We can then use all sort of "techniques" to
           make him confess that he is a terrorist... hmm...
2007/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46902 Activity:nil
6/10    More on the Libby case from a decidedly liberal econ prof:
        \- i dont understand why more people dont see the "procedural aspect"
           to this libby case. i mean the burden on second guessing spectators
           has to be pretty high given: 1. republican prosecutor 2. libby had
           best defense money could buy 3. bush appointee judge. given that
           he was still found guilty, unless you somehow think he was hurt
           by the "friend of the sack of shit" letters from wolfowitz,
           kissinger, bolton, etc it you have to say more than "i dont like
           the outcome".
           by the "friend of the sack of shit" briefs from wolfowitz,
           kissinger, bolton, et al you have to say more than "i dont like
           the outcome". anybody who argues "do we want our tax dollars
           going to incarcaerate LIBBY" should just be beaten on the spot.
           i am quite happy to have my tax dollars going to this end.
           i am quite happy to have my tax dollars going to this end. much
           more so than small scale potheads or notorious asslords, neither
           of whom i have much natural affinity for.
           of which i have much natural affinity for.
2007/6/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46887 Activity:nil
6/7     Check out the top story on http://news.yahoo.com right now. What kind
        of "news" is that???
        \_ immigration bill fails crucial vote?
                \_ I'm referring to the "Krumping", as reported by the
                   Yahoo! Underground team.
                   \_ Krump! Trends sell man
           \_ LibDems block critical reforms championed by President and
              Commander-In-Chief Bush. Don't they understand how this
              encourages the enemy?
2007/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:46858 Activity:low
6/5     I used to date a Republican girl. I was pretty much whipped. I
        went along with whatever she had to say. She'd say things like
        "GWB encourages oil refineries in the Middle East so that when
        they run out of oil, we'll still have plenty left! Pretty darn
        smart eh?" Whatever she said, I just listened and accepted without
        any objection. Reason: the pre-marital sex was absolutely amazing,
        and for sex, I turned into a Republican. Now that the relationship
        is over, I feel so liberated. It's amazing how my addiction to
        sex turned me into a complete moron.
        \_ This is actually a pretty good reason to be a Republican. Who
           are you dating now?
           \_ Just bobbing your head in return for her own head bobbing
              doesn't "turn your into a Republican", but it may say
              something about your priorities [I mean that non-judgementally].
              Usually, it's the other way around where guys go along with
              fruitcake liberal girls.  In fact one reason some right-wing
              nutjob groups are so powerful is they spend their fridays nights
              promoting their politics while liberals spend their friday nights
              in hedonistic pursuits ... but of course when something like
              abortion rights is seriously challenged, that may roust them.
              BTW, are you sure she was really a Republican or was she just
              an materialist/egoist.  Did she believe in "conservative
              values" like pemartitial sex is wrong etc or she just believed
              in lower taxes and welfare queens should get a job.  Just out
              of curisority what profeession was she in?  Sales?
              \_ Yes she was a hardcore Republican because she was raised
                 that way. Let me clarify and say that she's socially
                 liberal but values most non-religious Republican values
                 like small government, self-reliant, hatred for the poor
                 who use welfare (she thinks they're lazy so they deserve
                 nothing from her), racial superiority, pre-emptive strike
                 on people who are "evil", self righteous, and lastly,
                 STUBBORN. There is no possibility that anyone could
                 change her opinion because they've been hardcoded since
                 childhood. Profession? How is this relevant to
                 the topic? Anyways, the more I think about this the more
                 pissed off I am. I will be voting non-Republican for the
                 first time in 8 years. I AM LIBERATED.
                 \_ Was she good in bed? Can I have her number?
        \_ yeah, thats pretty much the definition of being 'whipped'.
        \_ Since you didn't believe anything she said you weren't a Republican
           or a conservative.  No more so than any conservative man was
           magically transformed into a liberal while dating a woman's studies
           vegetarian (cough).
2007/6/1-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46830 Activity:moderate
6/1     Why does Peggy Noonan hate America?
        http://urltea.com/oiv (opinionjournal.com)
        \_ Nothing more than an attempt by a GOP leader to distance
           herself from what has become a very unpopular presidency.
           themselves from what has become a very unpopular presidency.
           She loved Bush for 6 years, but now his usefulness is over.
           The GOP is worried that they are going to lose in 2008, so they
           are going to throw Bush under the bus, hoping that this will
           improve their chances. They are desperate.
           \_ Or maybe this whole amnesty thing really does grate on
        \_ Here's your real answer: We all knew in 2000 that Bush was
           Conservative Light but given the choices (Death before Gore) we
           pulled the lever and hoped for the best.  Our gut instinct was
           correct but overall it was still better than Gore would have been
           so we went with it.  In 2004 we had even worse choices: more of
           the same or Kerry, a man who made Gore look like a great option.
           Sitting here in 2007, after everything, he's still a better call
           than Gore or Kerry but that doesn't mean we have to be happy about
           it.  The amnesty bill is of course the final straw but is no
           different than we would've had from Gore/Kerry.  That leaves all
           those people who supported Bush thinking, "Why'd I bother?" which
           is why you're heading rumors about the grass roots fund raising
           is why you're hearing rumors about the grass roots fund raising
           taking a dive on the (R) side.  Next time they run a Light(c)
           candidate I'll be staying home because, "Why bother?".  Sorry to
           interupt.  Everyone please continue with mindless all-caps posts
           and baseless speculation.
2007/5/30-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46799 Activity:nil
5/29    White house implicity recognizes gay parents:
        (link fixed thanks a lot whoever messed it up).  It's a pic of the
        Cheneys, the baby, and the caption: "His parents are the Cheneys.
        daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe"
        \_ I guess they mean "whitehouse" the porn site.
        \_ What does this have to do with the White House or whitehouse the
           porn site (other than the fact that the pic is porn) or gay parents?
        Actual link is this:
2007/5/30-6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46793 Activity:nil
5/30    And, yes, Plame was covert.
        \_ Motd poll:
           Bush will pardon Libby:  .
                \_ not a chance.  loyalty only goes up the chain.
                   \- do you want to bet on this? --psb
                      \_ US$1 million.  Payable 24 hours after GWB leaves
           Bush will "sacrifice" Libby: .
           Bush will have Libby killed:
           Libby who???: .
2007/5/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46745 Activity:kinda low
5/24    "Why is he at large? 'Cause we haven't got him, yet, Jim. That's why.
        And he's hiding. And we're looking. And we will continue to look until
        we bring him to justice. We've brought a lot of his buddies to justice,
        but not him. That's why he's still at large."
        --Bush answering a question today about why we haven't caught OBL.
        \_ http://www.sitiofan.com/images/guia/beforeafter/caseyhoy2.jpeg
        \_ Maybe they should put OJ on the job.
        \_ Stupid questions deserve stupid answers.  At least the press and
           the President are on the same page now.
           \_ What about the question is stupid?
              \_ Perhaps he should have rephrased. "Hey dumbshit! Where is
                 that jackass Osama you promised to capture six years ago?"
                 or "Hey dumbshit! What the fuck are you doing being
                 president? You're looking in the wrong fucking country."
                 See, GWB is too stupid to recognize a rhetorical question.
                 \_ GWB is not stupid.  He blew off a question he didn't want
                    to answer.  He's a politician.  That is what all successful
                    politicians do.  How is that stupid?
              \_ Q: Why is he at large?  A: Because we haven't caught him yet.
                 Stupid question.  Stupid answer.  Especially from a press core
                 member who should know better than to leave a politician with
                 an open question like that.  What about the question is not
                 \_ Asking a president why he has failed to capture a person
                    he has promised to catch isn't stupid. I'm sure he knows
                    the real answer: "because we have a significant chunk
                    of our armed forces looking in the wrong country."
                    \_ It was a stupid question.  If he wanted a real answer to
                       that question he should have known better than to make
                       it possible to directly answer the question without
                       answering the implied question.  Why is this so hard
                       to figure out?  Show me the politician who answers
                       implied questions that will make him look bad and I'll
                       show you the politician who won't make it above city
                       dog catcher in an election.
2007/5/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46714 Activity:nil
5/19    Bush accuses Democrats of "pure political theatre" without
        even one drop of irony noted:
2007/5/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46709 Activity:moderate 72%like:46685
5/18    Freepers, um, "respond" to immigration plan
        http://urltea.com/l9i (wonkette.com)
        \_ Is this the move that will drop his approval ratings to sub-Nixon
           \_ You're not thinking far enough ahead.  All but one of the
              2008 R candidates has come out against this bill.  This will
              fire up the base and enable them to rant and rave about how
              THEY wouldn't have sold the country down the river for them
              damn Mexicans if THEY had been President.  This is a parting
              gift from Dubya for em.
              \_ Ezra Klein has a good take
                 http://csua.org/u/iq0 (prospect.org)
           \_ It's still above congress' approval.  However, "the base" that
              will leave Bush has already done so.  I can't imagine it'd go
              \_ With a slip of 6% in rasmussen's daily poll, i expect to
                 see 25% in other polls by the end of the month. 22% by
                 july 4?
        \_ There are no Freepers on the motd.  We used to have one and then we
           had several fakes and now we fortunately have none.
           \_ No, I think we had two. But yeah, they rarely post anymore.
              \_ $freeper++.  I stand corrected.  :-)
2007/5/19-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46697 Activity:moderate
5/19    Bush "The Worst in History" according to Carter:
        \_ Not surprisingly, he's a liberal.            !emarkp
        \_ "I mean heck, he may even be worse than me now!" Carter added.
        \_ Just about everyone I know, assholes, pious people, liberals,
           conservatives, libertarians, apolitical people, political
           people, think Bush is The Worst In History.  Iraq is really
           a gigantic fuckup of difficult to fully comprehend
           \_ You obviously don't know emarkp and his fellows.
              \_ I'd be hesitant to call *any* president the worst in history.
                 Given Carter's ineptitude (not because he's liberal, just
                 because he's incompetent) he should be a little careful
                 throwing stones. -emarkp
                 \_ i don't think anyone can deal with oil embargo
                    like that gracefully.  Further, may I ask, do you think
                    GW Bush incompetent?
                    \_ Oil embargo?  The one in 73 when Carter wasn't in
                 \_ *shrug* He followed Ford, whose defining moments were
                    pardoning Nixon and falling down stairs, and was followed
                    by Reagan, who proved that popularity has nothing to do
                    with being a good, let alone honest and effective, leader.
                    I'd say his glass house has fine foundations.
                    \_ Ford was actually quite athletic.  Don't watch too
                       much SNL for your history lessons.
                       \_ As noted here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yun246
                          I didn't say he was Chevy Chase, I said it was one
                          of his defining moments. Read or perish.
           \_ Not really.  Carter's mis-handling of Iran changed the world in
              ways Bush's mis-handling of Iraq can't compare to.  Had Carter
              shown strength instead of weakness it is possible and even quite
              likely the concept of terrorism as we know it today wouldn't
              even exist.  If you're going to make historical claims you must
              look at things from a historical perspective.
                        \_ Wow!  Carter did NOT:
                           - Use torture
                           - Allow torture of POW's
                           - Imprison people without trial
                           - Render people to other countries for torture
                           - Lie to get the US into a war
                           - Erode our rights in the name of patriotism
                           - Allow rampant incompetence and corruption in his
                             Administration (except possibly HIMSELF if you
                             argue that his handling of IRAN was incompetent)
                           - Mishandle a war so badly that the US is failing
                             its objectives despite massive waste of national
                           - Alienate virtually the entire planet
                           - Allow a massive terrorist attack to occur on US
                             territory during his administration
                           - Allow the illegal outing of a CIA agent for
                             petty political retaliation
                           UM, WHY AREN'T WE IMPEACHING BUSH AGAIN?  HE IS THE
                           WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!
              \_ Who are you, Charles Krauthammer?  I don't think Iran was
                 involved in the whole Russia invades Afghanistan->We dump
                 billions of dollars and weapons on Afghanistan to ensnare
                 Russia in a War Of Pain->Russia leaves->Russia collapses->
                 \_ You really think Afghanistan was the root cause of the
                    collapse of the Soviet Union?  After saying this it makes
                    the rest of what you say hard to take seriously.
                    \_ I think it helped.  Wasnt main cause.  Sure didnt hurt!
                 We forget about Afghanistan-> IT ALL COMES BACK
                 TD BITES US IN THE ASS-> chain of events. of maybe
                 Iran helped us channel a few guns to Afghanistan. How
                 ANY of this would have been changed if we had 'shown strength
              \_ Who are you, Charles Krauthammer?  I don't think Iran was involved
                 in the whole Russia invades Afghanistan->We dump billions of
                 dollars and weapons on Afghanistan to ensnare Russia in a War Of
                 Pain->Russia leaves->Russia collapses->We forget about Afghanistan->
                 IT ALL COMES BACK AND BITES US IN THE ASS-> chain of events.
                 ok maybe Iran helped us channel a few guns to Afghanistan.
                 How ANY of this would have been changed if we had 'shown strength
                 in Iran', I do not know.  Russia would not have cared.  A bunch
                 of dudes living in caves in Afghanistan would not have cared.
                 Please explain your Carter fantasy?
                 of dudes living in caves in Afghanistan would not have cared.  Please
                 explain your Carter fantasy?
              \_ Your historical perspective is the one that needs fixing.
                 \_ Thanks for adding nothing.  Maybe next time you'll do
                    better than "you're wrong, nyah!" but I doubt it.
              \_ Look further back: if the CIA hadn't instigated the overthrow
                 of the democratically elected President of Iran and the
                 reinstatement of the Shah, extremists like Khomeni would never
                 have gained widespread support in '79. No Khomeni, no
                 hostage situation, and no Islamic Revolution running a nuclear
                 Iran today. Sure, Carter can be blamed for funding Mujahadeen
                 in Afghanistan, but then you'd have to paint your Saint Ronnie
                 with the same brush; worse, people might remember that whole
                 Iran-Contra scandal, and then the hagiography really falls
                 \_ The CIA didn't take action in a vacuum.  Leaving a pro-
                    Soviet/anit-US government in Iran may have been worse
                    than what we got.  It is hard to say but I'll grant that
                    yes Khomeni didn't come out of no where.  OTOH, his group
                    was just as likely to overthrow any non-Islamic government
                    so it may not have mattered.  Reagan is not my saint
                    anymore than Carter is my satan.  They are men.  They were
                    Presidents.  They did what they did.  I examine their
                    actions in a historical context.  I don't care beyond that.
                    I don't even see why you'd try to bring anyone else into
                    it.  To defend Carter?  Who cares?  Boost Reagan?  Who
                    cares?  That is completely unimportant trivial political
                    agenda crap.
                    \_ The charges of Bolshevism in Iran were frankly baseless.
                       The UK was upset about Mossadegh nationalizing the AIOC
                       and convinced Eisenhower to sic the CIA on him. We fell
                       victim to the whole enemy-of-my-enemy mindset and worked
                       to reinstate the Shah. (Cf. eerie parallels with Iraq
                       and Chalabi). While Khomeni's group was anti-non-
                       Islamic govt., it's unlikely they'd have had the support
                       they had from ordinary Iranians if it hadn't been for
                       the brutal repression inflicted by the Shah, and thus
                       it's unlikely they could have actually overthrown a
                       democratically elected Iranian govt. descended from
                       Mossadegh and co.
              \_ Terrorism existed long before Carter and will exist long
                 after we are all dead. It is naive and foolish to believe
                  after we are all dead. It is niave and foolish to believe
                 otherwise. Unless you are trying to say something else with
                 your statement "the concept of terrorism as we know it
                 today." Do you mean that Carter changed our conception
                 of terrorism?
                 \_ "As we know it today".  Meaning that I really don't care
                    if some folks in whatever country get pissed off enough
                    to take some violent but overall minor action which has
                    always been going on, as opposed to becoming the new way
                    of lesser powers to wage war by heavily funding, arming,
                    training, and supporting people who have nothing better
                    to do full time than try to do as much damage as possible.
                    The key difference being that the minor separatist group
                    is unlikely to ever do much or go anywhere while a group
                    supported by a state has options and capabilites sufficient
                    to kill thousands and make real changes.
                    \_ Um, Al Qaida, 9/11, hijackers, airplanes. WTC.
                    \_ This is not really a new phenomenea. Just off the
                       \_ Yeah, exactly.  Did you read the thread at all before
                    \_ This is not really a new phenomena. Just off the
                       top of my head I can think of the French supporting
                       the American Colonial seperatists and the English
                        \_ and Americans blew up a lot of british in the UK?
                       then supporting the Southern Confederates. Also,
                        \_ The SC blew up the French at home?
                       remember that WWI was started by a terrorist, when
                        \_ assassin, lone gunman, not part of a multinational
                           movement with national level support.
                       he shot Duke Ferdinand. Nations have always waged
                       proxy war by supporting seperatist groups inside
                       their rivals. You could argue that the widespread
                       availability of WMD has changed the equation of
                       assymetrical warfare, but it is pretty hard to lay
                       that at the feet of Carter.
                       \_ One of my favorite historical proxy conflicts was
                          Rome and Constantinople duking it out in ancient
                          Romania and Bulgaria. Romanians and Bulgarians are
                          *still* mad at each other, nearly 1200 years later.
                       \_ It is not hard to lay the concept of modern terrorism
                          at Carter's feet.  Prior to Carter there were many
                          nationalist movements but no organised multinational
                          terrorists funded and supported by various nations
                          who had vague but large scale goals of "kill all the
                          people in the west" or some such like we see today.
                          \_ To "lay it at Carter's feet", you need to show
                             some underlying cause.  "Because it happened
                             around the same time" is not enough.  If
                             coincidence was evidence, you could say the
                             Beatles' breakup could be lain at Nixon's feet.
                             \_ "Those Liverpool cocksuckers...." -RMN
                          \_ The Jews and the Catholics are still mad at each
                             other after nearly 2000 years.
2007/5/18-22 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46688 Activity:nil
5/18    Dubya may reward Tony Blair's loyalty with World Bank post
        http://tinyurl.com/29flyc (dailymail.co.uk)
        \_ Predicted on the MOTD, May 16:
        \_ Predicted on the MOTD:
2007/5/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46685 Activity:low 72%like:46709
5/18    Freepers, um, "respond" to immigration plan
        \_ Is this the move that will drop his approval ratings to sub-Nixon
           \_ You're not thinking far enough ahead.  All but one of the
              2008 R candidates has come out against this bill.  This will
              fire up the base and enable them to rant and rave about how
              THEY wouldn't have sold the country down the river for them
              damn Mexicans if THEY had been President.  This is a parting
              gift from Dubya for em.
              \_ Ezra Klein has a good take
                 http://csua.org/u/iq0 (prospect.org)
           \_ It's still above congress' approval.  However, "the base" that
              will leave Bush has already done so.  I can't imagine it'd go
        \_ There are no Freepers on the motd.  We used to have one and then we
           had several fakes and now we fortunately have none.
2007/5/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46674 Activity:nil
5/17    Welcome to the new congress, as partisan as the old congress.
        \_ Until we have true political reform, what do you expect?
2007/5/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46662 Activity:low
5/16    Looks like Wolfowitz will resign.  Who do you think Bush will
        nominate as a "fuck you" replacement?  Betting pool!
        Douglas Feith:
        Rick Santorum:
        Alberto Gonzales:
        Gordon Gekko:
        Bernie Kerik:
        \_ That would be a slap in the face to the reality-based community.
        Bernie Kerik:
        \-Shaha Riza ... "the circle is now complete,
                          am i am am the master, paul"
        \_ Jenna Bush
           \- make her the War Czar
        \_ Don Imus
        \_ John Bolton
        \_ Tony Blair - he's freeish these days
        \- on a serious note, the true sabotage candidate is RZOELLICK.
        \_ Charles Krauthammer
        \_ oh! me! me!  I'll do it!
2007/5/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46649 Activity:nil
5/15    White House attempted to get Gonzalez to authorize illegal
        spying program from his hospital bed:
        \_ You mean Ashcroft.
2007/5/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46616 Activity:nil
5/13    Say, speaking of irony, who was head of Public Policy at Chevron when
        it was paying kickbacks to SADDAM under the UN Oil-for-Food program?
        Way to go, Condie!
        \_ What's so ironic about members of the Bush administration being
           consistently corrupt?
           \- http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43901
           \_ Does it bother you at all the Pelosi is stuffing public cash
              into her family's businesses?  Or DiFi has been doing the same
              for her husband's?
              \_ Yes, yes, yes, when you have enough evidence, contact your
                 local Bush-appointed US Attorney who will almost certainly
                 leap to indict. Oh, wait, you have no evidence of wrong-
                 doing? Well, don't let that stop you making accusations!
2007/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46612 Activity:nil 92%like:46611
5/13    A twist on the usual nonsense.  Are you really a Republican or a
        http://urltea.com/jnc (realclearpolitics.com)
        \_ Given the plurality of our nation it makes very little sense to
           associate one self as a "pure" Democrat or Republican. A smart
           person is happy to give up faith and blind party loyalty to
           adaptability and logic. A smart person does not associate oneself
           to purely one party. A smart person is one who is independent.
2007/5/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:46611 Activity:insanely high 92%like:46612
5/13    A twist on the usual nonsense.  Are you really a Republican or a
        \_ Given the plurality of our nation it makes very little sense to
           associate one self as a "pure" Democrat or Republican. A smart
           person is happy to give up faith and blind party loyalty to
           adaptability and logic. A smart person does not associate oneself
           to purely one party. A smart person is one who is independent.
2007/5/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46515 Activity:moderate
5/2     Add "tampering with witnesses" and violating Federal law to
        Gonzales' crimes. Do you really want to keep standing up for this guy?
        \_ "I pledge of allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America,
            one nation, under the Christian God, with liberty and justice for
            Republicans.  Everyone else gets the shaft."
        \_ "I pledge of allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of
            America, one nation, under the Christian God, with liberty and
            justice for Republicans.  Everyone else gets the shaft."
        \_ Who are you talking to?
           \_ This has been an ongoing conversation on the motd. See:
              Et al
              \_ Yes, I know, but I haven't seen anyone on motd defending
                 \_ "It happens all the time." "...standard enough politics
                     to not be worth looking into.. The Dems are playing
                     lame-o gotcha games with Bush..." "I guess I don't
                     understand why this is a story.  Almost every
                     president fires all the attorneys and replaces them with
                     their own. W decides to just replace a few.  Therefore W
                     is bad? huh?"
                     \_ No no no.  Those are people saying that the firing of
                        US attorneys was okay, not people saying Gonzales
                        should stay.  Once he came out saying "duh, I wasn't
                        involved" he became indefensible.
                        \_ He should have said, "their hiring was a political
                           decision, they serve at the whim of the President,
                           their firing was a political decision, tough".  But
                           he was stupid and should get replaced now not
                           because he broke any laws or is unethical, etc, but
                           because he is stupid.
2007/4/30-5/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46484 Activity:low
4/30    It's nearly noon in DC. Why hasn't Bush vetoed the bill yet?
        \_ They're delivering it tomorrow.  4th anniversary of "Major
           combat operations in Iraq have ended" speech.
        \_ 'cause he ain't woke up yet?
           \_ Damn you, O'Doul's!
        \_ I keep wondering what would happen if W just signed it with a
           "signing statement" saying congress has no power to direct
           troop assignments, and he'll assign the tropps as he sees fit to
           protect american interests.
2007/4/27-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46463 Activity:low
4/27    "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars
        just trying to catch one person." -Romney on Osama Bin Laden
        Buried deep in AP story, media reaction nil.  Wonder what would have
        happened if a Democratic candidate had said this...
        \_ Romney stands no chance anyways. Only WASP males get elected
           Kennedy being the only exception, but he cheated to get that
           \_ Kennedy cheated? Oh, spin us a tale, please. This has gotta be
              \_ This is part of the Neocon lexicon: it is okay that Bush
                 cheated because Kennedy did too. If you ask them to explain,
                 they always say that dead people voted in Illinois. If you
                 point out that Kennedy would have won without Illinois,
                 they are rendered mute.
                 \_ Hardly. Was watergate ok because Nixon would have won
                    without spying on the Dems?  The claim that a gross
                    immoral act is unimportant if it does not affect the
                    outcome is so ridiculous, that I can not believe you
                    actually think that.
                    Also neocon does not mean "every person I disagree
                    \_ Indeed.  PP has his moral reasoning in a knot.  The
                       proper point is "what was the evidence?"  The Karl
                       Rove "There's voter fraud in them thar hills" line
                       that underlies the US Atty scandal is another of these
                       web-weavings.  See also, Foster, Vince, Murder of.
2007/4/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46460 Activity:nil
4/26    Dubya finally embraces his role as Village Idiot:
        \_ He's a better dancer than Gore that's for sure.
2007/4/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46445 Activity:kinda low
4/24    How Nigerian scammers provided the "proof" Bush needed
        to justify the war he wanted so badly:
        \_ Like the lawyer said at the end of Robocop 2: "Don't worry Sir, I'll
           find the proof, whether it exists or not"
        \_ this is the part I don't understand.  Democrat could of just cut the
           funding and blame Bush for *EVERYTHING* But I don't see they are
           doing that right now.
           \_ It's politics.  The democrats are walking a fine line between the
              far left anti-war folks who put them in power last fall and the
              reality of knowing that if we bailed on Iraq right now or any
              time soon, the current situation will look like a trip to
              disneyland.  And they'll get blamed for not 'staying the course'.
              What's going on now is a low to low-moderate scale 'event' where
              you have a few thousand folks planting bombs or doing hit n run
              attacks with mortars or sometimes a suicide attack.  They are not
              doing enough to topple the US propped government which slowly
              grows stronger each day, but no one is doing that much to really
              stop them.  'Stay the course' will eventually result in a stable
              (for the region) mostly democratic government but only while
              we're there.  It will be a very weak government for many years.
              Leaving will be an anarchic bloodbath.  Cutting funds will lead
              directly to that bloodbath and the dems don't want to get
              blamed for that.
                \_ the "far left anti-war folks" AKA 60-70% of Americans
              \_ Most Americans could care less what happens in Iraq, as long
                 as no more taxpayers dollars are spent there.
2007/4/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:46410 Activity:moderate
4/22    Blue Angle crashed, setting homes and vehicles on fire.
        Glad that it didn't crash in SF.  What's the point of maintaining an
        expensive team and performing these stunts in populated areas
        endangering people on the ground?
        \_ http://csua.com/?entry=45491
           Recruitment, pride, morale, feeling of security, and tradition.
           Similar to why the Red army of 1 million marching down
           Red Square.
        \_ Jingoism.
           \_ As opposed to the full military? I'm glad you think so.
              With citizens like these, who needs enemies?
        \_ The mission of the Blue Angels is to serve as a recruiting tool.
           Every time they put on a show, there are some people in the crowd
           who think "wow, I want to be a fighter pilot".  That's the point.
           \_ And here I thought that the mission of the Blue Angels was a
              yearly "show of force" to any punk that might be getting ideas.
           \_ Is it cost-effective?  How many actually join the air-force
              successfully because of Blue Angel?  Thanks.
              \_ I don't know and am not going to hazard a guess.  This is
                 their mission, which they're quite open about (it's right
                 there on their web site).  I was merely answering the question,
                 not the implied criticism.  By the way, the Blue Angels are
                 part of the Navy, not the Air Force.
        \_ You all forgot the part where you say, "RIP" for the dead Blue
           Angel and a moment of thought for the 8 people injured on the
           ground before you dove in to attacking the wasteful recruiting
           policies of the BUSHCO military/industrial complex/HALLIBURTON!
           \_ Blue Angels started under a Democrat admin, and continued
              with the full support of many Demo admins. The last Navy man
              in office was Carter.
              \_ We all knew that. If the Republicans started it, it would
                 have been called the Red Angels.
              \_ Don't tell *me* that.  Tell it to the we-hate-the-blue-angels
                 they're-such-a-waste types above.  -RIP guy
2007/4/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46400 Activity:nil
4/20    2003 - Mission Accomplished
        2004 - We Have Turned A Corner
        2005 - Insurgency In Its Last Throes
        2006 - Leaving Iraq Now Would Be A Disaster
        2007 - The Direction Of The Fight Is Beginning To Shift
        2008 - ???
        \_ 2008 - Halliburton profit down 48%. CEO resigns.
           \_ Don't bet on that one.
        2009 - The war was lost under the a Democrat administration!
2007/4/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46328 Activity:low
4/17    President Bush's approval rating goes up after the school rampage.
        Why? I don't understand it.
        \_ Americans are conditioned to glorify violence.  The more violence,
           the more approval.  See?
        \_ Americans are more united during crisis.
        \_ The President's popularity goes up in months when he manages to get
           less Americans in Iraq than are killed in school shootings.
           less Americans killed in Iraq than are killed in school shootings.
        \_ 1 right answer out of 3 is pretty good for the motd these days.
2007/4/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46289 Activity:nil
4/13    Another Bush effort to trample our civil liberties:
2007/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46282 Activity:nil 66%like:46265
4/11    BYU students protest...Cheney?
        http://urltea.com/57v (nytimes.com)
        \_ You know you may have gone too far when even the people you can
           count on want nothing to do with you.
2007/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46281 Activity:nil
4/12    Good vs. Evil Foos Ball:
        \_ I want a conservative vs. liberal foos ball. On one side
           you have GWB, Cheney, Sam Walton, Kenneth Lay, etc. On the
           other side, you have Saddam, Kim Jung the Second, hippies,
           gays & lesbians, etc.
        \_ Evil will always triump over good because good is dumb!
2007/4/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46278 Activity:nil
4/12    Free advice to the Bush Administration: Turn whatever machine you have
        for passing on talking points toward getting your people to stop f-ing
        up, at least for a while; there are too many fish in the shooting
        bucket already:
        http://news.google.com/?ncl=1115102767&hl=en (Wolfowitz, girlfriend)
        \- FT call on Wolfowitz to resign. Let's hope others chime in.
           \- meanwhile, back at the DoJ:
              (although these guys were never the biggest fans of ALBERTO.
              although i cant imagine they are going to get somebody hugely
              more appealing now, unless it is a senator)
2007/4/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46270 Activity:nil
4/12    The Bush Administration's amazing propensity for "losing" important
2007/4/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46265 Activity:nil 66%like:46282
4/11    BYU students protest...Cheney?
        \_ You know you may have gone too far when even the people you can
           count on want nothing to do with you.
2007/4/11-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46257 Activity:nil
4/11    Nobody wants to be the Czar:
        \_ that's weird, I thought all these neo-Cons would flock to the
           position by now.
        \_ Maybe they'd have better luck if they changed the title to Warlord.
        \_ I do.  How much does it pay?  Can I telecommute?
           \_ Everyone else has been phoning it in, so why not?
              \- The press and public should just start referring to
                 CHENEY as the WAR CZAR..
2007/4/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46253 Activity:nil
4/10    So when Bush dressed up in the flight suit to give his
        Mission Accomplished speech, why did these guys dress up too?
        \_ I guess they weren't "dressing up", but those are the standard
           uniforms for the sailors when acting as side boys.
        \_ "In the Navy .... "
2007/4/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46234 Activity:nil
4/8     http://www.slate.com/id/2163601
        The gamble patrons make is that it's worth rewarding
        unqualified loyalists because they will be hidden in
        the bureaucracy and never become important enough to
        draw attention. But the Bush administration has lost
        this wager more times than is becoming ...
        \_ "...Attorney General Alberto Gonzales bad-mouthed his
           former employees. In so doing, Gonzales severely undercut their
           employment prospects and all but forced them to fight back."
           Unless you believe those USAs that testified have perjured
           themselves, this article is WAY behind the times.
           Ah, nevermind.  The article was written 4/1.  Even then, he'd
           have been behind the times.
        \_ It is hard to tell who was using who.
2007/4/2-3 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46176 Activity:nil
4/2     USSC denies cert. in Gitmo habeas appeals; lets D.C. Cir. get
        first crack.
        http://urltea.com/3ay (scotusblog.com)
2007/4/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46170 Activity:moderate
4/1     Senior Republican strategist loses faith on Bush after son is
        ordered to deploy to Iraq:
        "If the American public says they're done with something, our leaders
        have to understand what they want," Dowd said. "They're saying, 'Get
        out of Iraq."'
        \_ More like, "political opportunist who follows blowing winds decides
           he can make more money buttering the other side of his bread for
           the next few years".  The guy started as a Democrat when that's who
           was in power, then switched when he saw money in being a Republican
           and now sees the wind shifting the other way.  I don't see what his
           son has to do with it.  When Rove switches parties it'll be news.
           \_ When is Rove's first born deploying to Iraq?
              \_ As soon as he sees Rove rapping.
              \_ Does Rove even have kids?  Is he or has he ever been married?
                 \_ He has special drawing rights on Bush's Comfort Women
                    [condie, harriet, karen etc] as well as 20-30 somethings
                    with no qulaitification except marginal reglious educations
                    and zealotry/loyalty.
                 \_ Married and divorced. One son, 20, just the right age
                    to sign up for his country:
           \_ After Bush, if Rove discovers the equivalent of Evangelicals == Reelection
              Forever, he would switch parties faster than you can say Deep Fried Dollars
           \_ After Bush, if Rove discovers the equivalent of
              Evangelicals == Reelection Forever, he would switch
              parties faster than you can say Deep Fried Dollars
              \_ And Rove switching parties would be news.
2007/3/30-4/3 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46155 Activity:nil
3/30    "Bush Fish and Wildlife Service appointee not only sends internal
        government reports to industry lobbyists but also to online gaming
        'virtual friend' for unbiased second opinion."
        \_ Worth reading for the WoW reference alone...
2007/3/29-4/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46143 Activity:nil
3/29    John Dean on executive privilege and the "unitary executive" theory:
2007/3/29-4/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46141 Activity:nil
3/28    "Bush's long history of tilting Justice"
        by Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in
        the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He
        now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
        \_ This man is a hypocrite because not even once did he mention
           Bill Clinton's c*ck.
2007/3/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46125 Activity:nil
3/27    http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/27/iraq.torturesuit/index.html
        BAHAHAHA you Liburals lost!
        \_ "Despite the horrifying torture allegations," wrote U.S. District
            Judge Thomas Hogan in a 58-page opinion, "the plaintiffs lack
            standing to pursue a declaratory judgment against the defendants."
            2/10 on the troll scale.  As a layman it's clear that this case was
            brought to make a statement, and would be thrown out for lack of
            standing.  I assure you the lawyers for the plaintiffs were well
            aware of this.  And 'liburals', seriously, are you twelve? -dans
2007/3/27-31 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46114 Activity:nil
3/27    Governor of Mass has 9/11 truther webpage:
        \_ And did you hear?  MoveOn had a short film calling Bush Hitler!
        \_ I just read most of this, I think this is a community
           website that lets anyone who has registered to post
           an article, so it's not the Governor or his staff posting
           \_ If your beliefs can be simplified to the organizations you
              belong to or associate with, then that says a lot about your
              intellectual inflexibility and overall lack of.
           \_ Go to http://freerepublic.com
              Now please go away.
           \_ Don't let facts get in the way of a good slander.
2007/3/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46112 Activity:nil
3/26    Bush's kangaroo court gets its first "conviction":
        http://www.csua.org/u/ibj (SF Gate)
        \_ "Under the evolving rules of the Military Commissions Act
            passed by Congress in September..." i.e. after five years
           we're still making it up as we go along.
           "civilian criminal defense lawyer Joshua Dratel was barred
            from participating because he refused to promise to adhere
            to procedural rules that have yet to be defined.
            Kohlmann also declined to approve a second civilian lawyer,
            Rebecca Snyder, on the grounds that commission rules allow
            civilians only if their representation incurs no expense to
            the U.S. government. Snyder is a Pentagon employee." Awesome.
2007/3/26-28 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Academia/GradSchool] UID:46097 Activity:nil
3/26    Alberto Gonzalez just keeps on lying.  Now I personally
        think that NO ONE should be surprised that the bush administration
        has been firing US Attorneys for politically motivated
        reasons.  It's just the sort of thing they would do.  Yawn.
        I wonder why Gonzalez gives new and exciting reasons for
        it all happening every day.  His masters should tell him
        to quit talking to the press.
2007/3/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46076 Activity:nil
3/23    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805580/posts
        "a 'dramatic shift' in political party identification since 2002, when
        Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, 50% of those
        surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, whereas 35%
        aligned with Republicans."
        Do we need to reweight polls with the updated party identification #'s?
        \_ Don't forget the I's, which are growing quite a bit.
2007/3/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46065 Activity:kinda low
3/23    L.A. Times leans right.  Notice how the top 3/4's of the story spews so
        much irrelevant chaff, focusing on how Reagan/Clinton/Dubya fired
        most/all attorneys when they came to power.  Only toward the end do you
        get:  "When you have a transition between presidents - especially
        presidents of different parties - a U.S. attorney anticipates that you
        will be replaced ... the unwritten, No. 1 rule ... is that once you
        become a U.S. attorney you have to leave politics at the door."
        http://tinyurl.com/2na94k (latimes.com)
        The perversion of truth -- especially the willful, disingenuousness
        attitude that permeates the Republican Party today -- disgusts me.
        \_ I think most politicians are like that. Except guys like Nader
           who cannot get elected.
        \_ Seriously, do you really believe one party is all beauty and nice
           and the other the sole benefactor of all evil?  They are the same.
           The Democratic party is absolutely in no way shape or form ethically
           or morally superior to the Republicans.  You have one party with two
           names.  And btw, how dare the LAT actually tell it's readers that
           all USAGs expect to be replaced?  Let's not tell anyone anything
           that might soften the political damage to the evil Bush even if it
           is the truth and relevant to the story.
           \_ Answering your first two lines: No. I think both parties are
              guilty of stupidity and petty politics designed to keep them-
              selves in power; this is the nature of our current political
              system. That said, the Bush Admin has done so in a much more
              blatant and egregious manner. I expect corruption, but I would
              prefer some decorum and a modicum of circumspection along the
              way. The current firings are simply insulting. -!op
              \_ You have Democratics currently in office in positions of
                 great power, even holding Chair positions who were caught red
                 handed in bribery scandals, in land scams, in having $90k in
                 cash stuffed in their fridge, using the IRS to punish
                 political enemies, etc, etc, ad nauseum.  Don't come on here
                 and try to tell me the Bush Admin is more blatant and
                 egreious about anything.  I don't find bribery, theft, fraud,
                 and fridge stuffing to be less corrupt or more circumspec or
                 providing more decorum than what the Bush admin has done with
                 the USAG firings.  In comparison the USAG thing is trivial BS
                 and I find it ridiculous and insulting anyone cares *at all*
                 about this compared with everything else going on in *both*
                 parties.  Do any of the things I mentioned about the Dems
                 upset you at all?  Or would they only be worth mentioning if
                 they were Republicans?  And hey, how about stuffing that Iraq
                 funding bill with Democratic pork?  That's cool, too, huh?
                 Take off the blinders.
                 \_ What part of "both parties of are guilty of stupidity and
                    petty politics" and "I expect corruption" didn't you get?
                    Jail anyone, Dem, GOP, or Ind. who's engaged in corruption,
                    bribery, or abuse of power. How can your outrage over
                    Dem corruption not spill over into the arena of egregious
                    abuse of the US Atty system to punish political enemies?
                    Before pointing out the mote in my eye, howzabout dealing
                    with the beam in your own?
                    \_ The part where you find firing a few USAG worse than
                       stuffing $90k in your fridge *and* *still* *keeping*
                       *your* *seat*.  I'd like to see a URL that says why
                       they were fired and not from a NYT op/ed piece.  Show
                       me a reliable source that says they were fired for not
                       punishing political enemies.  You continue to weigh
                       (R) ethical violations much heavier than (D) ethical
                       violations even when the actual events don't match up
                       like that.  Example: Which is worse ethically?  Canning
                       a few prosecutors who server at your whim and aren't on
                       the same political page (and understood the deal when
                       they accepted the job) or stuffing bribe money in your
                       fridge as an elected representative of the American
                       people at the highest levels of government?  Go ahead
                       and say the fridge stuffing isn't as bad and we can stop
                       right there.  The firing is just hard ball politics and
                       although unfortunate for the guys sacked, TS.  It's a
                       political event.  The fridge stuffing is a felony.  How
                       is that investigation going, huh?  It's not.  The guy
                       will be in office until he retires 'honorably'.  *That*
                       is truly sickening.
                       \_ For the love of G_d, get this: They're both bad.
                                          \_ of what now?
                                             \_ "God".  for some level of
                                                orthodoxy among jews, to
                                                write the name of god on
                                                anything that might be erased,
                                                destroyed, damaged, etc, is
                                                \_ But God is not the name of
                                                   \_ ...than to open it and
                                                      remove all doubt.
                                                      \_ KNEEL BEFORE YAHWEH
                       \_ For the love of YAHWEH, get this: They're both bad.
                          I appreciate that you're frustrated that the fridge
                          investigation has faltered (and yes, it should be
                          investigated fully), but it's not being held up
                          just because Congress is investigating Presidential
                          abuse of power (i.e., firing USAtys for not pursuing
                          political opponents). If fridge-stuffer is guilty of
                          accepting bribes, jail his ass. If AG fired the US
                          Atys because they wouldn't persecute the opposition,
                          can his ass. Also, didn't the FBI say they had
                          Jefferson on video taking a bribe? Then they should
                          arrest him for it! Right now, there appears to be
                          more evidence of dickery in the White House than in
                          Jefferson's fridge!
        \_ I guess I don't understand why this is a story.  Almost every
           president fires all the attorneys and replaces them with their own.
           W decides to just replace a few.  Therefore W is bad?  huh?
           \_ He decided to replace a few on the basis that they weren't using
              their power to hound and harrass the political opposition. An
              across-the-board replace wouldn't have raised eyebrows;
              demanding loyalty oaths to The Leader is another thing entirely.
              \_ Why do you think they normally fire them all?  To get loyal
                 ones. Duh.  I see no difference.
                 \- a company can close a plant and open one a town over.
                    but they still cant fire all the black people.
                    you are allowed to hire who you want. you can
                    fire them for incompetence or if they are not
                    "getting with the program" but the program cannot
                    be political prosecutions. a second issue is the
                    be partisan prosecutions. a second issue is the
                    "cover up". at this point there is probably nobody
                    guilty of a legal crime in the executive branch, but
                    certainly people can be tried in the court of
                    public opinion for being mendacious, unprincipled
                    sacks of shit. it is reasonable to hypotheteize
                    "ALBERTO has made the DOJ a wing of the white
                    house" ... i think people are free to hold that
                    against BUSHCO just like they are free to hold
                    CLINTON being a serial adulterer against him.
                    much of this turns on the relatively simple distinction
                    between political and partisan. the doj can have
                    poltical priorities like going after sodomites and
                    drug fiends instead of antitrust, but it cannot be
                    a partisan enforcer like a party whip of chairman who
                    withhold appointments or $$$ from you. this is not
                    an especially subtle argument.
                    \_ I guess you're welcome to hold it against him if you
                       like. Seems pointless to me, there are pleanty of
                       actual things he's done wrong to hold against him.
                       Your "firing the black people" analogy is obviously a
                       completely false analogy.  But, still.  You think it's
                       morally superior to fire everybody, then only rehire
                       white people?  I would argue the opposite.  If you only
                       want to get rid of a few people, don't make everyone go
                       through the unemployment ringer.
                       \- you cant hire "only white people". yes, i commented
                          early on it is odd congress is fixating on this
                          when there is katerina incompetence, iraq
                          incompetence, not catching osama, the plutocrati-
                          zation of society etc. at least w.r.t. to the
                          iraq war, congress feels they have "clean hands"
                          here. and of course the dems are in agenda control.
                          you're also caught in the "93 > 8" mentality.
                          \_ No crap.  You also can't only fire black people.
                             That's why this is a false analogy, as I noted.
                             Also: So, 93 < 8?  Must be that "new math." :)
                             \_ Obtuse little fucker.
                       \_ I don't think it's morally superior. It think it's
                          Better Form. It implies an understanding that the
                          appearance of propriety, while not sufficient in
                          and of itself, is necessary.
                          \_ Another way to say this is "The first is easier
                             to prove."  I can't argue with that, I just don't
                             see any moral difference.
                             \_ Out of curiousity, so you see a moral diff
                                between this and, oh, using postage to send
                                mail out as Socks the Cat?
                                \_ Had to look that one up.  Yes, there's a
                                   difference. I can't see anything wrong at
                                   all with using postage to send out mail as
                                   "Socks the Cat."
                                   \_ Okay, then what about the christmas card
                                      list "scandal".  That warranted 140 hours
                                      of testimony UNDER OATH to determine that
                                      nothing improper happened.  Is there a
                                      moral difference between that possible
                                      impropriety and this?
                                      \_ Seesh, are you just going down a list
                                         a dem talking points, trying to prove
                                         I'm some rep stooge?  I can't even
                                         find this story, just dem blogs
                                         whining about it.  I never said the
                                         lame-o Rep attempts to get Clinton
                                         were ok, so get off it.
                                         \_ Are you saying, though, that the
                                            firing of the USAs was proper, and
                                            therefore should not be looked
                                            into?  That's what you seem to be
                                            saying with "I guess I don't
                                            understand why this is a story."
                                            I think you may be too short for
                                            this discussion.
                                            \_ Sheesh, sorry I'm too young for
                                               you.  Somehow pulling out old D
                                               talking points I don't recall
                                               that then saying I'm too "short
                                               for this discussion" seems
                                               amazingly lame though. I'm done.
                                            \_ I'm saying the firing was
        standard enough politics to not be worth looking into.  I don't like
        hardball politics to begin with, so I'm not going to say firings were
        'proper,' but they aren't unusual.  The Dems are playing lame-o gotcha
        games with Bush, just like the Rs did with Clinton.  Niether case was
        worth the time and money.
        \- do you know what united states attorneys do?
        \_ So do you prefer the last 6 years of 0 oversight out of congress?
           What you call "gotcha games" is what most people call "Congress's
        \_ They were unusual _because_ they were firings singling out very
           specific individuals on the basis of "performance issues" after all
           8 received good evaluations. The LCD here is suspect. And then
           they're unusual in that the AG lied in his testimony on the subject.
           \_ We've come full circle, just read from the top for replies to
              these posts.
                             \_ I think that the difference in morality
                                between two different acts of corruption is
                                a complicated matter of ethics that has been
                                wrestled with for thousands of years.
        \_ Let's see if the American people agree with you or not. I think
           the Democrats obviously think they have a winner here or they
           would not be pushing so hard.
2007/3/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46062 Activity:nil
3/22    Pew Research: Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007
2007/3/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46040 Activity:low
3/21    Once again Dems are pussies.  Gore first got the Senate to waive the 48
        hour rule (receiving written copy of testimony 48 hrs before hearing)
        for a 24 hour rule.  Then he failed to submit his testimony until this
        morning, a few hours before the hearing.  Oh, and then the Dems got it
        hours before the Repubs.
        http://csua.org/u/ia3 (cnsnews.com)
        \_ At a time when the President is vowing to fight congressional
           subpoenas up to the ussc, it's funny that you hold this up as
        \_ Wow, if only I had a forum for my slanted view of the world; wait,
           that's what the Internet is for! And if I call it News, it must be
           \_ So are you saying that Gore *did* submit his testimony before
              this morning? -op
              \_ I'm saying that a gossipy slagfest is not a news source.
           \_ So is senate.gov good enough for you?  http://csua.org/u/ia4
              \_ What you mean is, is Senator Inhofe's blog good enough for
                 me? And even more to the point, is a staffer on Inhofe's
                 blog good enough for me? And the answer is, not without
                 further corroboration. But WAIT! It gets better: Marc
                 Morano, the source in question, was "previously known as
                 Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and
                 producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show."
                 Please, if you're going to post stooges, at least include
                 Larry, Moe, and Curly.
                 \_ I'm fascinated by the refusal to accept reporting of fact
                    simpy because of the name Limbaugh. I can understand your
                    not accepting his analysis perhaps, but the basic facts?
                    \_ Much like we trusted the Bush Administration's report
                       on the "fact" that Saddam had WMD?  I can't fault this
                       guy for not accepting some politico's "facts".  --PeterM
                       \_ Wow, this is such a red herring.
                       \_ You do know the difference between an intelligence
                          report and reporting a fact that has occurred in
                          front of witnesses and will be a part of the senate
                          record, right? -emarkp
                       \_ There's reporting of fact and there's stirring shit
                          up. If the source is a known shit-stirrer, anything
                          the source reports is automatically suspect, esp. if
                          it is, on its face, true, because there's plenty of
                          reason to believe that it's only being reported to
                          stir up more shit. If I report that the sky is
                          blue, that's true; if I report that the sky is blue
                          despite claims that Global Warming is going to
                          result in smog smog smog, that is also true, but
                          it's presented in a way that makes GW seem like a
                          myth. Your professional shit-stirrers, like Mark
                          Morano, do this for a living, and sifting nuggets of
                          truth from the shit that they're stirring up is
                          about as reqarding as actually sifting through
                          feces for gold.
                          \_ http://csua.org/u/ia6
                             LA Times quotes Joe Barton as saying the they
                             didn't receive his written testimony more than 2
                             hours before the hearing.  Is that a lefty source
                             enough for you? -emarkp
                             \_ "lefty enough" is the level of immaturity that
                                I expect from shit-stirrers, emarkp, not you.
                                \_ When a dog craps on the floor, you rub his
                                   nose in it.  Same for these nutjobs. -emarkp
                                   \_ The only nutjobs I see here are the ones
                                      that think a slagfest from a propaganda
                                      hack constitutes a real news source.
                                      \_ Oh, so a senator's office stating
                                         what's happening in the Senate TODAY
                                         is a nutjob?  Go back to your hole
                                         anonymous nutjob. -emarkp
                                         \_ If you're trying to defend someone
                                            from being called a nutjob, Inhofe
                                            is just about the most difficult
                                            \_ So you don't like his politics
                                               so he's a nutjob and what his
                                               boy reported on his Senate
                                               blog is suspect?  Tin foil and
                                               blinders.  Better than plastic.
                                               I'm going to be rich.
                                         \_ Read who posted the account. It's
                                            Mark Morano, a hack. That Inhofe
                                            is letting him use his blog is
                                            simply shameful. --erikred
                                            \- how could you be unaware
                                               inhofe is shameless.
                                               \_ The irony of my shame in
                                                  needing to be reminded of
                                                  this is not lost on me,
                                                  Partha. --erikred
                             \_ LA Times leans right, now, when it used to
                                be a neutral reporter of facts, which is
                                why I cancelled my subscription last year.
                                \_ Haha.  I don't know about now, but 8 years
                                   ago the LA Times could out do the Cron on
                                   lefty bias.  I assume what you mean is,
                                   "The LA times used to agree with me."
                                   \_ Perhaps this is a confusion of Pro-
                                      Israel (as LAT seems to be) with either
                                      the right or the left.
                    \_ Unless reported by dailykos, http://moveon.org, or some other
                       neutral and unbiased site, it doesn't count.  Having to
                       respond to factual statements is annoying.  It is much
                       easier to just say 'neener! it never happened because
                       your source is biased! nyah!'
        \_ Desperate attempt to change the subject. Won't work, America
           has woken up to Roveian tactics and is mostly immune right now.
2007/3/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46038 Activity:nil
3/20    Tom DeLay, moral center of the Republican Party:
2007/3/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46033 Activity:low
3/20    I hope if I ever get into legal trouble, I can require that
        I NOT be questioned under oath and that NO transcripts
        of what I say are taken!  Go Team Bush!
        \_ Why does everything have to be political?
           \_ What do you mean by that?  How is GW Bush's
              administration officials requiring that they meet
              privately, not be put under oath, and no transcript
              recorded before they will talk to Congress 'political'?
              I guess I got trolled.  Good job.
           \_ Why do liburals use sarcasm much more than conservatives?
              Does it make you smarter?
              \_ on the MOTD, conservative trollers use sarcasm way more than
                 liberals.  -tom
                 \_ Are all conservatives trolls?  Are all liberals smart, well
                    spoken, and informed?
                    \_ No, and no.  -tom
                       \_ An example of non-troll conservative and stupid
                          liberal, please.
                          \_ anonymous coward and anonymous coward.  -tom
                             \_ Quack!
              \_ Sarcasm is nicer than calling everyone faggots
                 and terror lovers.
                 \_ When did Coulter get a soda account?  When she does, you
                    can chat with her about it.  No one here called anyone
                    any such things.  Sarcasm like yours is no more intelligent
                    or useful than school yard chanting.
                    \_ Fine.  I will take boring pills.  I displeases me
                       mightily the the GW Bush administration basically
                       wears tshirts that say 'LOL IM GONNA LIE TO YOU
                       WHEN I TESTIFY LOL'.  HAPPY?
                       \_ You've heard of that whole separation of powers
                          thing, yes?  They don't have to testify at all
                          at any time under any circumstances.  If there
                          was a felony committed then it would be in a legal
                          court, not a political one.  Am I happy?  Yes.  My
                          happiness has nothing to do either way with the
                          motd, though.  Thanks for asking.
                          \_ So you think congress can't subpoena the executive
                             branch?  You think executive privilege gives the
                             WH and its staffers carte blanche vis a vis
                             subpoena?  Read up on Nixon.
                             \_ No.  No.  Know it, thanks.  The entire episode
                                is just bizarre.  The President has the power,
                                the right, and the authority to dismiss civil
                                servants in the Executive at his whim.  If the
                                admin wasn't full of such spineless wimps,
                                they'd not only be fighting this but making
                                political points on it.
                                \_ But firing the attorneys in order to
                                   obstruct justice is illegal.  You can't
                                   interfere in law enforcement, even if you
                                   are the executive branch.  Didn't Nixon
                                   get in trouble for something similar?
                                   \- "saturday night massacre" ... also
                                      starring ROBERT BORK.
                            \_ 'the white house' denies having any hand
                               in firing the attorneys.  too bad they're
                               about to appear to be big fat liars.
                                \_ So you don't see any matter to this odor
                                   of Obstruction of Justice around the whole
                                   game?  Yes, they have right to change their
                                   staff.  But they went a step further.  They
                                   used a litmus test (loyal Bushies).  They
                                   lied about their reasons for dismissal.
                                   And the correspondence over discussions of
                                   their firings are lining up quite shockingly
                                   with indictments and new investigations of
                                   Cunningham, Hunter, Lewis, Foggo, et al.
                                   And most recently, possible links between
                                   Cunningham, Wilkes, and Cheney.  The AG is
                                   not (supposed to be) the President's tool.
        \_ ^require^offer
2007/3/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46004 Activity:moderate
3/16    So who do you believe, Plame and the CIA or Novak and Cheney?
        Let's put to rest the canard that Plame was not undercover when
        Novak published her identity:
        \_ I automatically begin to ignore any admin official who points out
           'plame was in the society papers' and 'everyone knew what she
           looks like'.  The point of Plame's 'cover' was that she out
           and about and managing business entities in other countries
           that needed a figurehead for a CIA front business.  The CIA
           spends years building up this business to provide cover for
           their other activities.  If you blow away the cover of the
           people running it, all of that years of effort is down the
           drain, and any foreign nationals involved with it are probably
           on a hit list somewhere now.  Thanks Cheney.  If he had
           just calmed down and realized no one analyzes NYTimes editorials
           as much as he does, none of this would have happened.
        \_ Trust No One. -fmulder
        \_ Of course, this link only shows that she claims she was covert.
           \- can you imagine if the dems had outed her and started claiming
              "she wasnt really covert". you all know the repply would be
              "oh the treasonous dems now are supposed to decide who is
              covert and who isnt? see we told you they were soft on defense
              and wont support out intelligence profressionals dedicating
              their lives for the country. the democrats are going to get
              your children killed in this age of brown terror."
           \_ http://tinyurl.com/369ert (crooksandliars.com)
              Clear logic on why she was covert
              \_ Of course that clear logic points right back to her own
                 \_ And the CIA's statements. Whose job it is to know this
2007/3/15-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45985 Activity:nil
3/15    What will Dubya do?  Leahy has subpoenaed the fired U.S. attorneys, and
        they will probably provide sworn testimony.  Months earlier Dubya's
        ppl told them he'd help them "land on their feet" if they didn't fight
        their firing.  You probably have some attorneys who already have found
        new jobs w/o Dubya's help, and some still looking.  You really just
        want to prevent any of these guys from testifying at all.  One approach
        that was tried was to ask for them to come in voluntarily, providing
        non-sworn testimony, but this was obvious and flaccid.
        ... The default approach would be to just let it happen, then spin it
        to death.
        \- does anybody want to bet on ALBERTO RESIGN?
           \_ already are - tradesports shows 55% for March resignation
              \- i meant on sloda.
              \_ How does this tradesports thing work? Can I make cash moneys
                 by becoming famous and then betting on myself to do things?
                 \_ http://csua.com/?entry=45235
          \_ http://www.csua.org/u/i9h (LA Times)
             "no leading Republican in Congress has stepped forward to defend
              Torquemada is toast.
2007/3/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45963 Activity:kinda low
3/14    torture:  eh
        extraordinary rendition: whatever
        illegal wiretapping: yawn
        crazy executive signing statements saying 'i dont have to
        follow your laws, Congress, piss off': no one cares
        HR problems in the Justice Department:  THIS WILL NOT STAND
        \_ There is one huge differance.  There is a democratic congress
           and senate willing to actually investigate the issue.  That
           makes it a lot harder for the administration to wave their arms
           about and say "there is nothing to see here".
           \- i suspect the OP isnt mystified about the outcome
              but is making a comment about priorities. we understand
              why monica lewinsky looms larger than say the rwandan
              genocide, but it's worth reflecting on that.
        \- i actually had a pretty similar reaction to what the OP is
           saying. over dinner maybe a week and a half ago when somebody
           was gleeful about this being another "front" for BUSHCO to
           deal with, I was wondering "well this might also crowd out
           the actual really horrible stuff with wide, wide impact ...
           like say the iraqi contracting scandals and shutting down any
           auditing ... which has cost billions." now i guess i'm glad
           i didnt say that. although another way to look at it might be
           anything to keep the heat on to make bombing iran less likely.
           btw, let's add to the list above: hurricane katerina, osama got
           away, taliban is back, and above anything else, there may be
           500,000 iraqis who are "dead men walking". re: comment below ...
           nobody is trivializing it, but it is smaller than "the loss of
           american credibility for a generation". i'd love it if it caused
           ALBERTO to get canned, and then we can start scrutinizing
           cheney again ... in a sense we've taken our eye off the bald-
           headed satan.
        \_ Your attempt to trivialize political corruption has been found
2007/3/13-15 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45961 Activity:nil
3/13    More on the BUSHCO US attorney fiasco:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/b76k6 (boston.com)
2007/3/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45944 Activity:high
3/12    Alberto Gonzales and Pete Domenici, buh-bye
           \_ Hi there.  So I guess every administration fires
           \_ It's not just the firing, it's the (ab)use of the Patriot Act
              to replace the fired attorneys with Bush-cronies without
              Senate approval.  But of course, no one in our government
              ever abuses the Patriot Act!
        \_ Why isn't the attorney general's office busy rooting out
           corporate crime, fraud, criminal conspiracies, government
           contractor fraud?  Are they really that petty that they would
           devote a lot of time over firing a few federal prosecutors
           who weren't sufficiently anti-Democrat?  Maybe this is better
           than Ashcroft's obsession with prosecuting porn, but I'm not
           sure.  I like how they originally thought for a brief amount
           of time that they should fire EVERY SINGLE federal prosecutor
           and replace them with Bush friendly appointees.  See that
           last line again.  EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.  Funny stuff.
           \_ It's not just the firing, it's the (ab)use of the Patriot Act
              to replace the fired attorneys with Bush-cronies without
              Senate approval.  But of course, no one in our government
              ever abuses the Patriot Act!
        \_ Why not post a news article instead of some wonk's blog?
           \_ If you don't know who Josh Micah Marshall is, just say so.
              If you don't like his blog, read him in The Hill.
           \_ HERE. HAPPY?
              http://preview.tinyurl.com/yo9knb (news.yahoo.com)
           \_ I'm not the op, but what's wrong with posting a link to a blog?
              It's also worth noting that TPM isn't just some random blog, it
              has a readership that rivals some newspapers.  TPM is clearly a
              liberal source, but, last I checked, having a variety of
              viewpoints strengthens debate.  Why not post a link to a
              conservative source on the story?  I took a look on little
              green footballs but he doesn't appear to have a post about this.
              \_ I actually just found the blog post hard to read.  He assumes
                 you've read his previous stuff.  That doesn't mean I want a
                 rightie blog.
                 \_ That's an interesting point. -dans
                    \_ Oh look, dans thinks something is interesting!
                       The motd isn't about what you think is interesting. -tom
                       \_ Yes, it's about tom being an asshole with NPD.
                          Well, that or people impersonating tom being an
                          asshole with NPD, which is equally amusing. -dans
                          \_ Sorry to interupt, but what's NPD?
                             \_ Narcissistic Personality Disorder -dans
                             \_ Narcissistic Personality Dansorder -dans
                                \_ It is pretty funny to watch you two
                                   arguing over who is the biggest jerk...
                                   \_ I serve at the pleasure of the motd.
                                      Also, I am recovering from NPD, which
                                      is why I am able to admit I have it
                                      unlike Tom and also why I would like to
                                      help him.  Tom, the first step is
                                      admitting you have a problem.
                                      \_ dans, I want you to stop talking
                                         about me in the motd immediately.
                                         \_ I can't believe tom actually wrote
                                            this since it was tom (or someone
                                            who signed as tom) who stepped in
                                            to this thread slamming dans in
                                            the first place only a few lines
                                            up.  That would be shockingly
                                            \_ I'm reasonably certain it was
                                               somebody who signed as tom on
                                               the first one. One usally have
                                               to eviscerate tom's points
                                               before he resorts to insulting
                                               you.  Though being shockingly
                                               hypocritical is totally in
                                               character for tom since, in his
                                               head, it all makes sense. -dans
                                               you. -dans
           \_ Here is a link to a Washington Post article:
              http://preview.tinyurl.com/34647w (washingtonpost.com)
              Re the subject matter - what is the big deal here? BUSHCO fired
              some attorneys for political reasons? So what? It happens all
              the time.
              \_ It absolutely does not "happen all the time".  This is a big
                 deal because it's unprecedented.  And for the executive to
                 fire DoJ prosecuters at the whim of legislators is possibly
                 a separation of powers issue.  Gonzales is holding a 2pm ET
                 presser.  Let's see if he resigns.
                 \_ It does happen all the time:
                    http://preview.tinyurl.com/ywyvym (nytimes.com)
                    The Times notes that on 24 March 1993 AG Reno demanded
                    the resignation of all US Attorneys for an arguably
                    political reason - to stop the on-going investigation
                    of Dan Rostenkowski.
              \_ These are not just attorneys; they're US Attorneys,
                 responsible for deciding what gets investigated and
                 prosecuted in their regions. The accusation is that they were
                 fired because they refused to open potentially politically
                 damaging investigations of Dems for corruption just prior to
                 the '06 elections. If they're being fired because of
                 incompetence or failure to do their jobs, that's one thing;
                 if they're being punished for not caving in to political
                 pressure to open spurious investigations for political gain,
                 that's something else entirely.
                 \_ How else was Karl Rove going to create his
                    Thousand Year^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPermanent Republican
                 \_ Old jungle saying: to the victor go the spoils. BUSHCO
                    won the 04 election, they can decide how they want to
                    run the DOJ. If that means they want to get rid of US
                    attorneys they don't like, that is w/in their executive
                    I agree that BUSHCO acted in a potentially stupid and
                    short-sighted manner and have set a very bad precedent
                    for future administrations, but there isn't anything
                    "wrong" w/ what they have done; it was completely w/in
                    their discretion to act like a bunch of idiots.
                    NOTE: I agree that if the new appointments are done w/o
                    senate approval and by abusing the Patriot act, then
                    the appointments are VERY suspect and maybe illegal,
                    but I cannot agree that they dismissals rise to that
                    \_ The rolling resignations say otherwise.  Gonzales
                       TESTIFIED UNDER OATH about this matter.  He lied.
                       That's what us jungle folk call "perjury".
                       \_ So what? Try him for perjury. That still doesn't
                          make the dismissals wrong. Appointing cronies
                          w/o senate approval, I think, crosses the line.
                          \_ If the dismissals had been across the board or
                             hadn't labeled the failure to prosecute Dems as
                             incompetence and dereliction of duty, they would
                             not have occasioned as much attention.
                    \_ Wow, just wow.  So subverting the justice system
                       for political gain is just hunky dory?  This thread
                       is just crying out for a Godwin...
                       \_ Justice is not subverted simply b/c one set of
                          prosecutors is replaced w/ another. Justice can't
                          be subverted so long as the judiciary remains
                          independent of the executive.
                          The real issue here is merely whether BUSHCO
                          acted w/in its discretion in dismissing attorneys
                          who worked for it. They did, regardless of the
                          motivations for doing so. Let's say that Pres.
                          ALGOR fired a bunch of US attorneys for failing
                          to start politically motivated investigations
                          against big oil, would it even be a "scandal"?
                          Probably not.
                          BUSHCO, like every other administration, is
                          also free to appoint whoever they want as
                          replacement attorneys provided that they do
                          not bypass the approval process. Bypassing
                          the approval process is arguably subvertion
                          of justice.
                          \_ It may not be subverting justice, but it is
                             certainly going to look bad politically, that
                             BushCo fired justice dept attorneys, to try
                             and cover up for Abramoff and DeLay.
                             \_ That I can agree w/. It looks *really*
                                stupid, but if BUSHCO wants to act like
                                a bunch of idiots, that is w/in their
                                discretion (and not really out of char-
                                acter). Its too bad there is no national
                                recall election.
                       \_ My reference to the Thousand Year Reich was
                          not Hitleresque enough for you?
                          \- you may enjoy:
2007/3/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45935 Activity:kinda low
3/12    What do you all think of the people protesting outisde Pelosi's home?
        Go Team!  or  Abusive Invasion of privacy?  or something else?
        \_ are they protesting the person, or a role of their office. IMO,
           if it is the latter, Pelosi's home is an inappropriate place for
           a protest.
           \_ I believe they are protesting her lack of immediate substantive
              action to pull American troops out of Iraq full scale.
              \_ there's probly thousands of random citizans doing as  much
                 or less 'substanstive action' so unless they want to protest
                 at those peoples' homes too, it is still wrong.  If they're
                 protesting her lack of action in her political office, then
                 the Office is the proper protest site.
                 \_ So you don't think Crawford was the right place either?
        \_ Even though I agree with their cause, I think they are being
           counter-productive jerks.
           \_ Do you think they were counter productive jerks when they were
              in Crawford outside Bush's ranch?
              \_ Not really.  I think Bush throwing away decades of
                 my great country's army, money, good will and moral
                 authority down a giant rat hole for reasons I STILL
                 CANT FIGURE OUT is a big enough deal that I think Bush
                 can put up with a bunch of annoying people camped a mile
                 from his door.
                 \_ But you're ok with the same folks doing the same thing for
                    a while outside Pelosi's home?
              \_ If they camp out in front of his door and demand to speak to
                 him as he walks to his car, then yes, I think they're
                 counter-productive jerks.
                 well-intentioned counter-productive jerks.
                 \_ Thanks.  That's fair.
2007/3/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45927 Activity:kinda low
3/10    "Poll: Character trumps policy for voters"
        S Voter: "H Clinton has a bitchy character"
        S Voter: "Edwards is a libural"
        S Voter: "Obama is a negro"
        \_ I find this funny when leading R candidates are Gingrich and
        \_ I'm all for Gingrich winning the R nomination, because he
           will LOSE.
           \_ Gingrinch cheated on his wife, married his lover and is still
              with her.  Giuliani moved out, and started dating someone else
              during the divorce.  Is there something else you were talking
              about besides their failed marriages?  I'm unaware of other
              character issues such as $90k in their fridges, stealing
              national security documents, having fabulous 'good luck' in
              the markets, or lying about their past.
              \_ These other issues you mention relate to the D candidates
                 how?  Gingrich divorced his second wife while she was in
                 the hospital for cancer treatments.  He was pulled from the
                 speakership by his own party while dogged by multiple ethics
                 charges.  Giuliani announced his separation from his second
                 wife in a press conference before telling her.  He's widely
                 seen as a petulant tantrum thrower in his political life.
                 And who can forget Bernie Kerik?
2007/3/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45926 Activity:nil
3/10    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_bi_ge/economy
        News liburals can't handle: Unemployment rate dips to 4.5 percent
        and paychecks got fatter. Tax cuts, privitization, and trickle
        down economy works afterall.
        \_ As long as they are combined with massive deficit spending.
2007/3/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45905 Activity:low
3/7     Bush will pardon Libby and am happy to take any bet to the
        contrary, since I can just arb it on Tradesports. -ausman
        \_ Loyalty is a one way street in that world.  He won't do it.
        \_ No money down, but I'll take that as a gentleman's bet.
           Bush won't pardon Libby. -aspo
           \_ Why wouldn't he though? I think he will. Those who don't
              already hate him won't care if he does it.
              \- any bets the VP will "discover" he can issue pardons too?
                 anyway, unless the issue is moot for some reason, i will
                 also bet he gets a "and turn the lights out" pardon, although
                 if a "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenario is legal,
                 that is a possibility. --psb
                 \_ Just not seeing it.  Not today, not at light's out.  Bush
                    doesn't care about some dumb jerk like 'Scooter'.  Why
                    would he pardon him?
                 \_ what?
                    \_ E,MFDYSI?
                       \_ sorry i'm not familiar with "and turn the lights out"
                          pardons or "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenarios
                          \- lights out pardon: last minute before leaving
                               office [presidents pardon many people all the
                               time, but you typically only hear about con-
                               troversial last minute ones]. this isnt a std
                               term, it is my term]. clinton's patty hearst
                               and marc rich pardons are "lights out" pardons.
                               [the marc rich pardon was one of the worst
                               things clinton did. other interesting pardons:
                               reagun:steinbrenner, raygan:deep throat,
                               nixon: jimmy hoffa]
                             pardon in my pocket scenario: i am not sure if
                               a pardon must be announced. it is clear that
                               a president can give a pardon before you have
                               been found guilty even [most famously ford's
                               nixon pardon]. so the question is can he quietly
                               slip somebody a pardon they can carry around
                               like an immunity idol or joseph conrad's
                               secret agent ... and only whip it out if
                               needed, or never at all. YMWTGF(trust johnson
2007/3/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45886 Activity:high
3/6     "Scooter" Libby: Guilty.
        \_ Bush will pardon him.
           \_ Want to make a bet?
              \_ Tradesports has "pardon Libby" trading at only 20%, so you
                 might be right...
           \_ Probably, but not until after the Nov 2008 elections.
              \_ I don't think he'll do it at all.
           \_ No pardon, but:  "You'll be the next Ollie North!"
           \- I am not going to bet on it since it might be my cynicism
              speaking but i think Bush will pardon him if it is not
              a moot issue before he leaves office. --psb
              \- somewhat ironically: Scooter Libby was one of
                 pigdog Marc Rich's lawyers. at 5:1, i'd take the
                 libby gets a pardon bet, assuming it is not a
                 moot question by the time the 2008 election is over.
2007/3/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45859 Activity:moderate
3/2     Returning Honor and Dignity to The White House:
        \_ but.. but... privatization fixes everything!  invisible hand!
           invisible hand!
           http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gan3z (cnn.com)
           \_ Goddamn unions...
           \_ I will not be mocked.  --The Invisible Hand
2007/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45839 Activity:moderate
2/28    The Iraq War: a bargain at double the price:
        \_ You can stop reading at "Dominated by Social Security and health
           care, the federal budget..."
           Over 50% of the federal budget is now military.   -tom
           \- if you are accruing liabilities, then you arent really capped
              at 100% so it is better to talk number of dollars than
              percentages. so he is right the total cost of servicing
              things like the social security obligations and medicare
              obligations are larger than the military. the numbers vary
              based on assumtions and how many years out to but for medicare
              and soc security you start seeing numbers like 45-75 trillion
              dollars. so the entitlement number seem smaller because we're
              not actually paying them but putting in IOUs. we cant pay
              the military with IOUs, let alone haliburton. but i'm not
              defending this dood's accounting of course. "how many billion
              dollars would you be willing to burn to reclaim the loss
              of american credibility" etc. it's of course equally bogus
              of american credibility" etc. if's of course equally bogus
              on only focus on econ costs.
              of american credibility" etc. it's of course bogus to only
              focus on econ costs.
              \_ You need to consider the net present value of all this
                 spending. And we are certainly paying Halliburton with
                 IOUs, they are called treasury bonds.
                 \_ re: NPV ... yes obviously ... that's what is being done.
                    give me a little credit [no pun intended]. there are a
                    lot of other actuarial and economic assumptions in there
                    as well ... that's the tricky part, not mechnically coming
                    up with the NPV ... that's just arithmetic.
                    re: halliburton ... no, we are PAYING halliburton with
                    cash. we are FINANCING it with borrowing. when you buy a
                    house, you are not paying the seller with a mortgage.--psb
                    \- see e.g.
                [see in particular the 3rd paragraph in the SD UT article]
                    \_ i thought of a good analogy: say you are going to
                       MIT and paying for it though student loans. the mit
                       tuition is $33k/yr now. now say your are paying
                       $1000/mo on rent and $1000/mo on food and entertainment.
                       $1000/mo rent and $1000/mo for food and entertainment.
                       It is not accurate to say "50% of my expenses is rent".
                       Really you are accruing close to $3k/mo in liabilities.
                       So yes, it is fair to say "your budget is dominated by
                       tuition expenses" ... even if you are only say paying
                       $100/mo toward your student loans. --psb
                       It really is not accurate to say "50% of my expenses is
                       rent". Really you are accruing close to $3k/mo in
                       liabilities. So yes, it is fair to say "your budget is
                       dominated by tuition expenses" ... even if you are only
                       say paying $100/mo toward your student loans. --psb
                       \_ The future liabilities of our military posture
                          surely outpace those of social security, though
                          they may be more difficult to project.  -tom
                          \_ medicare liability is more than 2x soc sec
                             obligations. it's hard to take your judgement
                             obligation. it's hard to take your judgement
                             calls seriously when you seem to miss a basic
                             fact like that. you can look for
                             google(kansas city federal reserve bank, social
                             security, medicare) for a research report on this
                             from 2006. that bartlett fellow has written a
                             bunch on this too. there is also an excellent
                             article in the nyrb ... i think i mentioned that
                             earlier in the motd or wall archive.
                             \_ PSB > TOM
                                http://tinyurl.com/yrtors (60 Minutes)
2007/2/27-3/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45835 Activity:nil 76%like:45830
2/27    Compare Gore's hypocrisy to Bush's reality:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/2exgv9 (plentymag.com)
        \_ The difference here, you see, is that Bush is evil.
           \_ No, the difference is that Bush reneged on promises.
              Note the house was being built leading up to the 2000
              elections, back when he said he would cut carbon emissions.
              That's great that the ranch house uses green techniques,
              but his record betrays the house's campaign stunt nature.
              \_ Which still means that Bush's house is far more green than
                 \_ Wow, so you have one piece of data that supports your
                    argument that conservatives R00L, liburals DR00L!  It must
                    be true!  AWESOME. -dans
        \_ You tree huggers have to realize that your celebrity allies
           fly around in private jets, drive exclusive limos to awards
           shows, all the while proclaiming tooting the same message.
           \_ Point of information as you spew bile: alg0r flies Coach.
              \_ I'm sure he flew coach to and from Nam as the only
                 military photographer with his own bodyguard.
2007/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45830 Activity:kinda low 76%like:45835
2/27    Compare Gore's hypocrisy to Bush's reality:
        \_ The difference here, you see, is that Bush is evil.
           \_ No, the difference is that Bush reneged on promises.
              Note the house was being built leading up to the 2000
              elections, back when he said he would cut carbon emissions.
              That's great that the ranch house uses green techniques,
              but his record betrays the house's campaign stunt nature.
              \_ Which still means that Bush's house is far more green than
2007/2/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45767 Activity:nil
2/17    In the spirit of President's Day:
        \- The House and the Senate were both about 56% Dem in '72. --psb
2007/2/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45763 Activity:high
2/17    Nixon
        \_ Former President of USA
        \_ Like Chinese food
        \_ Quaker
        \_ Only President everyone is absolutely certain was 100 percent
           faithful to his wife.
           \_ How so?
        \_ Republican
           \_ Culture of Corruption
              \_ No different than the Democrats.
        \_ Crook
           \_ No one today would even blink at what he did then.
        \_ Out of touch with reality
           \_ GWB
        \_ Better than Bush
2007/2/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45713 Activity:nil
2/12    Top Gear in Republican America. Disturbingly funny.
        \_ I like Top Gear, but this is lame.
           \_ How so?
           \_ It just was.  That said if you download the entire episode
              (Season 9, episode 3, look on bittorrent) there are some
              pretty amazingly funny bits.
2007/2/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45663 Activity:nil
2/5     Hillary: All your profits are belong to us!
2007/2/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:45661 Activity:kinda low
2/5     Fuck Bush, R congress, Microsoft, Redhat <=AS2.1, et. al..  The
        DST change is going to make my life hell.
        \_ I actually like it. I think it is overdue. I want evening
           daylight, not daylight at 5:00am.
        \_ What are you talking about?
           \_ IYHTAYDW
              \_ If You Have To Ask You Don't... Whoah?
        \_ Time zone change?  Did you mean the start and end of Daylight
           Savings time instead?
           \_ Yes.  To your OS, there is no difference between the two.
           \_ The change of law that has moved the dates to start DST.
              \_ I thought M$ has downloads to update Windozes for this.
        \_ What about all the money/resources wasted to make new
           'gadgets' that are aware of this stupid new DST? Have to
           replace your damned alarm clock for crying out loud!
           \_ Nah.. That's not "waste"!  That's "reducing inventory"!
        \_ Hello ignorant person.  This is hardly the first time DST has
           been changed.  In about 8 seconds of searching you'll find the
           history of day light savings and see just how far back and how
           many times this has happened.  I suggest searching for "History
           of day light savings".  BTW, when you blame Bush and R's for
           every trivial thing you sound like Chicken Little.  No one wants
           to hear the real complaints when you moan and cry and finger
           point about everything from DST changes to the ocean not being
           quite the right shade of pink in the mornings.
           \_ Wow, someone's hyperbole detector is on the fritz.  Fuck off,
              little man.
2007/1/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45584 Activity:nil
1/24    Gonzales thinks you have no RIGHT to habeas relief:
        http://tinyurl.com/39moz4 (sfgate.com)
        And why does Arlen Specter hate America?
2007/1/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:45540 Activity:nil
1/11   21,500 more troops, yay!!! Let's kill all the bad people!
        \_ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16576547
           Pentagon wants 92,000 more. "Failure is not an option."
           \_ Where are they gonna got 92,000 more when recruitment is down?
        \_ hmm, I recall that we have roughly 20,000 casualties (3000 dead, rest
           of them wounded).  If anything, this "surge" is nothing but
           replenishment for the casualties, no?
        \_ for once, I actually *AGREE* with Bush that we need a "surge."
           however, I really think we should use this "surge" in Afghanistan
           instead of Iraq.  These 20k soldiers would probably made a big
           differences in Afghanistan.
2006/12/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45513 Activity:nil
12/29   http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/29/villainsandheroes.appoll.ap/index.html
        Bush is hero and villain of the year.
2006/12/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45506 Activity:moderate
12/28   John Edwards runs again for the presidency. Let's see, the Dems
        could pick a liberal hippy that has 0% of getting any vote in
        the south, an outspoken female bitch that has no chance of getting
        elected, and a black man whos last name is one letter away from
        being Osama. Dems in 2008... what a joke.
        \_ "Dam negro's name is Obama. That ryhmes with Osama, and his middle
            name is Hussein. Dam negro is a terrorist in disguise, let's
            hang him boys!"                     -average white Southerner
        \_ And, hey, his middle name is Hussein!  Think about it, people..
           Think about it.
        \_ It is unclear to me that people who would not vote for Obama because
           he is black/his name sounds muslim would vote for any other
           Democractic candidate anyway.
           \_ A lot of people are not ready for a black/female president
              who might still vote Democrat. It doesn't mean they hate
        \_ Wait, aren't you the same guy that said Dems had no chance in 2006?
           \_ I must've missed the 2006 Presidential election.
        \_ Wow, aren't we shallow!  "hippy" "bitch" and "black man almost
           named 'Osama'".  You might be right on all points, but let me
           ask you this:  would any of them be a better president than
           \_ whether or not they would be a better president is immaterial.
              The quesion is which is more likely to get elected.
              \_ I already conceded you might be right about their
                 inelectability, given this country's bigotry and sexism.
                 Now, setting aside the question of electability, which
                 would be the better president?
                 \_ I'm not the op but here is my answer which probably
                    resonates with many readers out there:
                      In theory, ANY three candidate will do better than
                    GWB. IMHO GWB is not *my* president, he is the president
                    of the blind masses who voted for him and who are still
                    supporting him. And stop calling him "The president"
                    as the fucktard deserves as much respect as Nixon.
                      In reality though none of the three other candidates
                    will win.  America is made up blind mass who do not
                    understand or care about policies. To them, as long
                    as its leader is strong, unwaivering, and/or good looking
                    or simply with whom they can relate to personally, then
                    that is the leader they will elect. This is the exact
                    reason why Bush and Reagan won despite the fact that
                    they're both fucktards.
                      The blind mass does not want smart and nerdy Kerry
                    + Al Bore. Instead the blind mass want fantasies
                    where the leader is as strong and as likeable as
                    Clint Eastwood, and want to be told that their world
                    has become better because of them. If you Dems do not
                    understand this, you Dems will never win the hearts
                    of the blind mass.                          -former Dem
                    \_ Bitter, much?
                 \_ Better for...?  The American people?  The world?  The
                    western world?  At what?  Domestic policy?  Foreign?
                    Least corrupt (they're all corrupt)?  Strengthing freedoms
                    at home?  Abroad?  Better economic policy?  Better?
           \_ It doesn't matter if my dog would be a better president than
              Bush.  Bush isn't running in 08.  They don't have to beat Bush
              in an election.
              \_ The spectre of Bush will haunt the Republican Party for a
                 while. Who will the GOP nominate? Rice? Tancredo? Gingrich?
                 Are any of these people electable?
                 \_ Guiliani has the charm of Reagan.
                 \_ That's a different issue and I disagree with your opinion.
                    Voters tend to fall into two categories: the party line
                    types who vote for the R/D who are unlikely to either stay
                    home or vote non-R/D no matter what, and the more moderate
                    center who vote for the candidate they like in a personal
                    way.  Bush is nothing but history for the 08 ballot box.
                    Rice is no more electable than Hillary.  Neither has
                    engaged in a real campaign or a real debate.  Gingrich
                    would have the support of a huge number of people but has
                    been on the side lines (mostly) for a long time.  His
                    'crimes' were that he left his wife and married another
                    woman to whom he is still married.  Tancredo?  No.
                    Rudy?  Has more political experience than a Hillary but
                    like Obama, Hillary, and McCain is just a media hyped
                    creation with limited support.  My total guess based on
                    absolutely nothing (motd style) is that we'll see some
                    currently unknown dark horse come from the R side to win
                    the R nomination while one of the D's media hyped creatures
                    emerges with the D nomination but is badly battered by the
                    nomination process.  I think this will be a hard fought
                    election season the likes of which the country has never
                    \_ How many people do you think went into the "non-R" camp
                       over the last 2 years?
                       \_ From the core "always vote R"?  None.  That's the
                          point.  From the center, at current, any number
                          you'd like to name.  But "at current" is not
                          important for the 08 election.  What people think
                          and feel about the names on the ballot after the
                          campaign and a few debates is what matters, not
                          right now.  I make no prediction about who or even
                          which party will actually win the 08 election.  It
                          is far far far far (I feel like I'm writing a Star
                          Wars opener) far far too early for that right now.
                          \_ Bush did horribly on the debate yet he won.
                             Maybe you care about debates. Most
                             Americans do not.
                             \_ I disagree.  The hype at the time was what a
                                fantastic uber debater Gore was and how smart
                                he was and how he was going to mop the floor
                                with W.  He didn't live up to the hype so he
                                (Gore) didn't get what he should have from it.
                                If debates were unimportant to most Americans
                                then it wouldn't have been watched by a zillion
                                people and talked about everywhere the next
2006/12/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45426 Activity:nil
12/11   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235767,00.html
        Fox News commentator blasts Bush. "Denial is the first stage in
        dealing with death. The president still has to get through
        anger, bargaining, and depression before he reaches acceptance."
2006/12/1-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45405 Activity:nil
12/1    http://www.cagle.com/news/BushCivilWar/main.asp
        Cartoons on Iraq's [impending] Civil War
        \_ http://www.cagle.com/news/BushCivilWar/images/plante.jpg
        \_ http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-11-26-1.html
           \_ "For instance, in Connecticut, the voters rejected the
               extremist wing of the Democratic Party (otherwise known as
               "The Democratic Party") by reelecting Joseph Lieberman, the
               most notable (but not the only) Democrat who has the brains to
               understand that the War on Terror is vital to our national
              In other words, if you've OSC's rants before, there's nothing
              new here. I take that back: there's even more venom and
2022/07/02 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 1651 - 1800 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush: