Politics Domestic President Bush - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
Results 1801 - 1950 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/06/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2008/9/30-10/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51333 Activity:nil
9/30    73% of Americans now officially deranged:
        \_ Insert rant from "polls don't matter" guy here.
        \_ It blows me away that 64% or Republicans are still for this guy.
           I mean what does it take?
           \_ Republicans have one thing Democrats will never have:
              LOYALTY. That's why Democrats always lose.
              \_ You misspelled "stupidity."
                 \_ 2000 and 2004 proved that stupidity wins. Don't
                    underestimate the power of stupidity. Don't
                    repeat the same mistakes in 2008!!!
              \_ Stop trolling kchang.
2008/9/25-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:51297 Activity:low
9/25    have you called/e-mailed your congresscritter today?
        remember:  barney frank is a slimebucket
        \_ And George Bush is a War Hero: Mission Accomplished! Do you still
           call them Freedom Fries, I am kind of curious.
        \_ And George Bush is a War Hero, so of course none of this is
           his fault.
2008/9/25-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51295 Activity:low
9/25    Yah, we saw this coming, but congresscritters prevented Fannie/Freddie
        from being fixed
        \_ Mission Accomplished!
        \_ And the Bush Admin vetoed the fix congress sent them.
           \_ URL?
              \_ It was on the motd last week, but here it is again:
                 \_ That's not what the article says.  The bill passed the
                    house but not the Senate, hence it was never vetoed.
                    I posted another article that claims Bush backed the
                    Bill.  I doubt it, but McCain apparently sponsored it.
                    It never made it out of committee in the Senate, the
                    committee is/was chaired by a Dem.
                    \_ No, the Senate was controlled by the GOP in 2005. When
                       you control the Senate, your party chairs all the
                       committees. That is how the Senate works.
        \_ Why are you so obsessed with F&F? It is the unregulated CDS that have
           caused the financial meltdown.
        \_ Why are you so obsessed with F&F? It is the unregulated CDS
           that have caused the financial meltdown.
2008/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51276 Activity:nil
9/24    "Laura Bush: Palin lacks foreign policy experience"
2008/9/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51260 Activity:nil
9/22    why does the onion ALWAYS KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN
        \_ I think the CIA must be tipping them off or something.
           \_ Old joke: how do we know the CIA didn't kill Kennedy?
              Answer: He's dead, isn't he?
2008/9/22-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51255 Activity:nil
9/22    If you would like to call your senator or representative about the
        $700B bailout (the one where Congress would give Hank Paulson sole
        discretion on what to spend it on), but are not sure what to say:
        (I left messages over the weekend with Mike Honda, Boxer, and
        Feinstein.  I also said that bank transparency needs to happen
        SIMULTANEOUSLY with any money disbursement.  How in the hell do you
        have any negotiating power when you give the money first and negotiate
        later on reform measures?)
        \_ Look how well it worked in Iraq!
        \_ also see: -op
2008/9/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51222 Activity:nil
9/18    Bush says socialism is good:
        \_ Oh, so Bush has been a Democrat all along, and so the current
           mess is due to Democrats.  Awesome doublethink!
        \_ Which is why so many people have left the R party.
2008/9/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51198 Activity:low
9/16    (Brought up with update)
        Interesting old NYTimes article.  It seems Bush tried to overhaul
        Fannie and Freddie regulation 5 years ago, but was blocked by Dems.
        \_ Thanks, this renewed my faith in McCain
        \_ How was it blocked by Dems if the GOP had a majority of both
           houses of Congress?
        \_ Newer NYTimes article. The house DID pass a reform bill 3 years
           ago (with bipartisan support) but it died in the Senate after
           Greenspan and the Bush administration opposed it, according to
           the former Republican congressman who had pushed for it.
           \_ McCain apparently sponsored the this Bill in the Senate, but
              it never made it out of committee. http://csua.org/u/me8
              \_ Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said: "I'm always for less
                 regulation" and referred to himself as "fundamentally, a
                 \_ So what?  So am I, but Freddie and Fannie were a
                    terrible implementation of priviatization and
                    deregulation.  What kind of idiot says to businessmen
                    "Ok, I'll take all the risk, and you can have all the
                     profits.  We'll have congress watch you."  That's
                    just flat out retarded.
                    \_ So far, I have never seen a politician come out and
                       say "I am in favor of bad government" but it is amazing
                       to watch the GOP go from "government is bad" to
                       "nationalize everything" in two weeks.
                       \_ As a free market person I am disappointed in the
                          actions of the GOP. I don't much care for the
                          GOP, but WTF are they thinking? My take:
                          1) Preserve stock equity for their cronies
                          2) Pander to the public ahead of the election
                          No honest Republican or fiscal conservative wants
                          any part of this crap plan they are wasting taxpayer
                          money on. In fact, who *does* want it other than
                          Wall Street? Why should the gov't bail out Wall
                          Street? The gov't is broke. Wall Street has been
                          raking in massive profits. The US banking system
                          will be just fine. Reprice the debt, declare a
                          loss, and move on. Good ideas will still find
                          capital. There's a lot of money flowing in the
                          markets around the world.
                          \_ The entire world is a free market. If the
                             US government is incompetent, good people
                             with good ideas will simply move their ideas
                             to countries where it is profitable for them.
                             If the US government is unfit to compete, then
                             it deserves to die.        -free market person
                          \_ The problem is that so much of our economy is
                             based on nothing -- just moving numbers around
                             computer systems.  Financial markets are supposed
                             to support real markets, not the other way around.
        \_ Nationalization of Freddie and Fannie is a good thing.  It should
           never been privatized.
2008/9/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51196 Activity:kinda low
9/16    I'm confused on this one.  Obama's campaign denies that he pressed
        Iraqi's to delay security agreement by confirming it.  Huh?
        \_ Isn't this what Nixon did?
           \_ I'm not sure of the history on that one. -op
           \_ Ah, I've heard this charge before.  As far as I know it's just
              speculation, and there is no proof.  Besides, is Nixon really
              the role model you want for the next president?
              \_ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080900-01.htm
                 Reagan did the same thing with Iran when they were holding
                 American hostages. At least Obama is negotiating with aj
                 nominal ally.
                 \_ Errr...  kinda?  This should sink Obama's hopes for
                    presidency, as it would have for Nixon.  I would
                    hope no one here would think this is OK.
2008/9/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51188 Activity:nil
9/16    "In Ike's wake, holdouts complicate rescues"
        I thought some officials has said that whoever refused to evacuate
        before the storm hit wouldn't be rescued afterwards.  Why are we
        spending the time and resources to rescue them now?
        \_ I took them to have meant that no one would be rescued during
           the hurricane, a promise which was pretty much kept.  It'd
           be unconscionable not to help people now.
2022/06/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2008/9/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51170 Activity:low
9/15    What happened to the Asian Dude in the Enron movie who loved
        strippers and bailed from Enron right before it all went to hell?
        \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Pai
        \_ Nothing bad ever happened to him. Moral of the story: get in
           fast, get out fast, and you're trouble free. This is true
           with everything, like real estate boom/bust, dot com boom/bust,
           etc. Your free market REWARDS people who are smart!
           \_ I like the note how he hooked up with a stripper, was "forced"
              to sell his enron stake for the divorce settlement, to get out
              before the bust.
              \_ Better to be lucky thank good, sometimes.
              \_ Better to be lucky than good sometimes.
                \_ either lucky or incredibly smart.  He wound up marrying the
                   stripper post-divorce, and kept most of his fortune.
                   \_ Did he really marry a stripper? URL please.
                      \_ its in the wikipedia link at the start of this thread.
2008/9/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51156 Activity:nil
9/13    Gibson got the Bush Doctrine wrong.  Krauthammer should know, since he
        coined the phrase.
        http://tinyurl.com/5yzcgd [wapo]
        \_ Bush Doctrine means what Gibson said it means, if you know anything
           about policy you'd know that.  But you know what, even if it was
           an ambigious term, after Gibson explained exactly what he meant by
           The Bush Docterine Palin obviously still had no idea what he was
           talking about and kept rambling along mouthing empty platitudes.
           Please try again.
           (Once you get past the 100's of edits of the past two days as
            people try to cover up Palin's confusion, it is pretty clear
            what the Bush Doctrine meant 2 months ago.  Once again McCain
            chooses truthiness over truth.)
            \_ Why do you choose that particular edit, when the only diff
               between that and the one later is that on 7.31 someone used
               'nukular'?  That edit also says "Al Qaeda was from its inception
               a CIA-funded terrorist group" which is patently false.
               \_ I chose it as one of the first before sept 12th.  Choose
                  another edit before then and you'll see the same thing.
                  What the Bush Doctrine meant was not under debate until
                  after Palin flubbed an interview question even after
                  Gibson (fairly) clarified his question after her obvious
2008/9/12-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51149 Activity:nil
9/12    http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php
        a well thought out comment about the Palin interview.
        \- that is a good "adult" discussion of matters. thanks for the link.
        \- That is a good "adult" discussion of matters. thanks for the link.
           SPALIN is a good exaple of what i call "reptillian intelligence".
2008/9/10-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51128 Activity:nil
9/10    I don't really care about what the rest of the world thinks when they
        don't even believe what happened on 9/11.
        \_ Yeah! We all know it was Iraq!
           \_ I am pretty sure a majority of Republicans still believe that.
              \_ Yes but you're an idiot.
                 \_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/yp552s
                    "A Harris poll taken two weeks before the 2004
                     presidential election found that a majority of
                     Bush's supporters believed that Iraq was behind the
                     9/11 attacks"
                     Who are the idiots?
2008/9/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51103 Activity:low
9/8     Stay classy, college republicans
        \_ Uh, by kicking that jerk out they are.
         \_ Damage control is not class.
2008/9/7-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51088 Activity:nil
9/7     U.S. taxpayer put on hook for junk stuffed in FNM/FRE/FHLBs.
        Cost likely to exceed $500B over next couple years:  "In the end, the
        ultimate cost to the taxpayer will depend on the business results of
        the GSEs going forward" - Hank Paulson
        \_ Thanks Republicans! Deregulation sure had worked out great!
        \_ Thanks Republicans! The deregulation thing is working out really
           \_ Get ready for FOUR MORE YEAR.
           \_ Wrong. There's been a dedicated regulator created just for these guys
              since early 90s, and it has always done a terrible job. Fannie, et al have
              great lobbyists. Repubs have been fighting to cut them loose and
              completely privatize, while Dems defend them because they help
              subsidize loans to lower income people.
        \_ The article says Treasury will put up up to $200B. Where does it say $500B?
           \_ Wrong. There's been a dedicated regulator created just for these
              guys since early 90s, and it has always done a terrible job.
              Fannie, et al have great lobbyists. Repubs have been fighting to
              cut them loose and completely privatize, while Dems defend them
              because they help subsidize loans to lower income people.
              \_ But but Bush sucks!
              \_ An interesting way to put it; another way might be to say that
                 the Dems are supporting the dream of home ownership, while
                 the GOP want to cripple the govt. by privatizing any
                 successful programs.
              \_ Didn't Bush just nationalize them? It is true that F&F have
                 given generously to both parties over the years, but the GOP
                 could have easily killed them when they controlled both house
                 of Congress and the White House, but they didn't. Instead they
                 let the IBs run wild with SIVs and GSEs and derivatives and
                 ignore their capital requirements.
                 http://preview.tinyurl.com/5w38tk (FNM gives to whoever is in)
        \_ The article says Treasury will put up up to $200B. Where does it
           say $500B?
2008/8/28-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:50993 Activity:nil
8/28    Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address from 1978.  Quite amazing, I'd never
        read it.
        \_ do you agree with it, or is it an interesting curiosity to you?
           (it appears to support gw bush!)
           "a decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end"
           "people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more
           valuable one"
           "socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction"
           "politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly
           gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold
           Vietnam now looms"
           "It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance
           be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of
           unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired
           self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism."
           \_ Only if you read it selectivly and with blinders on.  And now I
              see from a Google search that seems to be a favorite talking
              point on the right wing blogs these days.
              \_ Actually I wasn't selective. If I'm blind, what did I miss?
                 \_ Bush is courageous? Didn't he turn tail and hide on 9/11?
        \_ I can list about 500 reasons why Bush should be stuck on his
           own prison planet.  I don't use just one metric.
        \_ Suggest you learn about his book 200 Years Together - might
           reveal some insights on WWII, the power structure in this
           country, and why you don't hear much about him these days.
2008/8/28-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50989 Activity:nil
8/28    More Zombie: DNC giant puppet parade!
        \_ If you were a POW, you wouldn't be worried about silly parades!
        \_ you know, anyone who really thinks zombietime is interesting could
           go see his schtick themselves.
           \_ Sure, I could go hang around all day to watch some protestors,
              but I have better things to do.  This takes 5 min. in my compy
              office and is free.
              \_ I'm saying you don't need to post it to MOTD.
                 \_ Ok fine, but come on, giant puppet parade.  That bears
                    posting no matter who took the pictures.
2008/8/27-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50987 Activity:kinda low
8/27    Rising tide has not been lifting all boats:
        \_ dems, always wanting a handout from highly productive republicans
        \_ Look at all the whining people in the comments.  "Master's degrees
           from esteemed universities mean little ... journalism"  LAUGH.
           This article is stupid though: the data shows improvement from 2006
           to 2007 yet Krugman is talking about fantasyland 2000 numbers.
           \_ "These increases in earnings follow three years of annual
               decline in real earnings for both men and women."
        \_ Economics aren't important when you're a POW!
              \_ and?  do you think the 2000 economy was long term viable
                 and bush came in and screwed it up?
                 \_ Yes, I think Bush and the Republicans have been terrible
                    stewarts of the economy, don't you? The situation in 2000
                    was no where near as bad as what we have today.
                   \_ Which actions or nonactions can you put your finger on?
                      The NASDAQ crash was in March 2000.
                      DJIA crashed after 9/11/2001.
                      Why was 2000 so much better than today?
                      \_ Oh come on. How about a little problem like doubling
                         the national debt? Blowing $1T on a pointless war?
                         Giving a huge tax cut to his rich cronies, who of
                         course invested it (mostly overseas) instead of to
                         the middle class, who actually would have spent it,
                         boosting the economy. Adding a budget busting
                         drug benefit to Medicare, right when we could least
                         afford it. Should I go on?
                        \_ Yes but Democrats also voted for that pointless
                           war and continued to fund it.  (do you really
                           think the war was utterly pointless?)
                           Medicare drugs? McCain voted against it. Democrats
                           passed it.
                           My point, which I'm tired of having to bring up
                           repeatedly, is that you keep fingering Republicans
                           for things that both Republicans and Democrats did.
                           And yet you aren't independent.
                           It's partisan stupidity.
                           \_ A majority of Democrats voted against the war,
                              and also against the Bush tax cuts. You seriously
                              believe that Iraq isn't "Bush's War"? You are
                              delusional. All this happened with a GOP President
                              and a GOP Congress, so yes, they are the ones
                              responsible. I forgot another one: the whole
                              housing bubble/meltdown, which Bush encouraged
                              and failed to do anything about, when he should
                              have been regulating the IBs. No, I am not
                              independent. I used to be, but Bush convinced me
                              to join the Democratic Party.
                             \_ Bush should have regulated IBs? Don't you think
                                Congress has some responsibility there? What
                                exactly should they do? A whole lot of people
                                bought houses who shouldn't have. That's the
                                people's fault, just like the dot bomb.
                                What about the Greenspan and the Fed? Greenspan
                                was appointed by both R's and D's. Greenspan
                                admitted that the housing bubble was
                                engendered by the decline in real long-term
                                interest rates"
                                Why do you ignore what happened in 2000/2001?
                                Where do you think the blame lay there? Bush
                                again? We have had a Democrat Congress since
                                2006 and they have done pretty much nothing
                                different.  Furthermore there were no Democrat
                                initiatives addressing the housing bubble.
                                \_ 2000/1 is mostly the responsibility of
                                   Bill Clinton. It is the Executive branches
                                   responsibility to control the money supply,
                                   all those fools would not have bought houses
                                   if the Fed and the Treasury Dept had not
                                   been asleep at the switch when the IBs
                                   created all the unregulated money. It would
                                   have been easy for them to turn off the tap,
                                   they just believed that the "invsible hand"
                                   would sort it out. The Democrats have had
                                   how many bills blocked or vetoed since 2006?
                                   The GOP had six years of total power and
                                   they fucked it up. Why are you making
                                   excuses for them? Greenspan is a Randoid
                                   from way back, in no way shape or form
                                   is he a Democrat, nor believe in any kind
                                   of liberal policy framework.
                                   \_ Laugh! Clinton appointed him too.
                                      You tell me how many relevant bills were
                                      blocked or vetoed. Bush only has 12
                                      vetoes so those should be easy for you.
                                      I'm not making
                                      excuses for the R's.  IMO the real
                                      problems are ignored by both parties
                                      and people like you.  (e.g the Fed)
                                      Obama talks about change but he is not
                                      effectively different from any mainstream
                                      \_ I am not going to try and explain the
                                         very complicated topic of bank
                                         regulation here, but suffice to say
                                         that the Executive alone, via the
                                         FDIC and the OCC has a huge influence
                                         on the money supply. Clinton was pretty
                                         much a moderate, true, but he was still
                                         a much, much better stewart of the
                                         economy than Bush. Obama will reverse
                                         the worst Bush tax cuts and also end
                                         the Iraq War, if nothing else, that
                                         will improve our fiscal deficit. He
                                         is also talking about a middle class
                                         tax cut and infrastructure spending,
                                         which shold help the economy more. No,
                                         you won't get a revolution from either
                                         party in America, people are too
                                         complacent here to want that. And
                                         surely you know the rest of the
                                         Greenspan quote you pulled from
                                         wikipedia, where he stated that asset
                                         markets put credit control out of the
                                         Fed's hands.
                                         \_ Which is obviously false. Greenspan
                                            of course wants to duck
                                            I like the Bush tax cuts. I just
                                            hate the Bush/Congressional
                                            The Iraq War is going to end up
                                            about the same, Obama or not.
                                            I don't want more gov't spending,
                                            I want less.  Middle class tax cut?
                                            Maybe if you redefine middle class.
                                            \_ Every family maing under $150k/yr
                                               That isn't middle class to you?
2008/8/26-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50975 Activity:nil
8/26    I've been wondering about the Georgian side of the story, here it is
        Very interesting.
        \_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
           Obama for the whole thing.
        \_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
           McCain for the whole thing.
        \_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
           Bush for the whole thing.
        \_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
           Putin for the whole thing.
        \_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
           Rice for the whole thing.
        \_ Can you summarize? I'm not going to read this unless it blames
           Gorbachev for the whole thing.
           {Obama,McCain,Bush,Putin,Rice,Gorby} for the whole thing.
           \_ No, if I could summerize in 80 characters, it would not be very
              interesting.  I will say this explanation makes much more sense
              than the reported one, although I would need futher confirmation
              to totally believe it. It does have much less "WTF?".
        \_ This is the part I don't understand.  It is Georgia started the
           whole thing, knowning fully well that Russian is going to step in.
           Now, they are crying foul?
           \_ So, you didn't read the article?
2008/8/22-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50941 Activity:nil
8/22    Non-MSM article on the conflict in Georgia.  Other than Bush
        ordering the invasion of Somalia (what?) -- I found it interesting:
        \_ Bush did order the invasion of Somalia - the first Bush:
        \_ I didn't get very far because it starts off with a couple of
           baseless assumptions.  Whenever one of the US allies does something
           stupid, I always hear how the US govt. "had to have known."  BS.
           They're our allies, not our territories.  It's just like the
           accusation that the Carter administration "had to have known" about
           Chun Doo-hyun's plans about the Gwangju Massacre.
           http://csua.org/u/m5s Sorry no, histroical documnents show
           pretty conclusively he didn't have a dang clue, and I doubt Bush
           did either. People can do stupid things just fine w/o Bush.
           \_ Condoleezza Rice was in Georgia 3 weeks before everything started!
              You think that's a coincidence?
           \_ Condoleezza Rice was in Georgia 3 weeks before everything
              started! You think that's a coincidence?
              \_ The Georgie Russia war + Rice thing is hilarious since Rice
                 has a PHD in international relations, specifically former
                 USSR + foreign relations.  Maybe Stanford could give her a
                 slight tuition refund since she obvs didnt learn a
                 goddamn thing
              \_ Dan Rather was in Dallas when JFK was shot, obviously Dan
                 Rather shot JFK!
                 \_ Dan Rather isn't the secretary of state -- mega duhs
                    \_ Correlation is not causation -- giga duhs
                    \_ Let me check if the Sec. of state was in Dallas...
              \_ Also, it doesn't have to be a coincidence for her to be
                 ignorant.  Hawks in Georgia may have argued something like:
                 "Rice was just here!  We can't tell them, but obviously the
                  US will back us up if things go south!"
              \_ Dan Rather was in Washington when Watergate happened. Dan
                 Rather was in Vietnam when we lost the war. I am starting
                 to see a pattern here...
2008/8/16-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50885 Activity:moderate
8/16    Hilarious.  Barack catches himself saying Clarence Thomas was not
        exprienced enough.
        \_ you know Justice Thomas hasnt said a word in court for 2.5 years?
           \_ Do you now he has written some of the best dissents?
           \_ Do you think Obama is experienced enough?
              \_ Yes. Do you think Clarence Thomas is experienced enough?
                 Would you a Diet Coke while you think about that?
                 \_ Then where does Barack of 143 days get off saying Thomas
                    isn't experienced enough?
                    \_ What does Obama's time in office have to do with
                       Thomas's experience?
                       \_ That he's unqualified to rate someone else as
                          \_ So someone has to have worked longer than in their
                             field than someone else in another field in order
                             to say that person is not experienced enough?
                             Have you never supervised someone older than
                             \_ yes
                                \_ The drugs must be tasty in your neck of the
           \_ So what? These days almost all cases are decided on the briefs.
              In my experience, oral argument is often a waste of time and
              rarely matters (esp. at the appellate level).
              \_ not asking any questions at all for 2.5 years is kind of
              \_ This may simply be a difference of opinion, but I find that
                 the justices seem more influenced by the Q&A these days
                 than the actual briefs.
        \_ Almost as funny as Bush complaining about Russia invading Georgia
           on phony, trumped-up charges, in violation of International Law.
           \_ that is a pathetic response
              \_ So it is okay that Bush is a hypocrite but not that Obama is?
                 Why do you hold Obama to a higher standard?
                 \_ Who said it's okay? Jesus Christ you buffoon.
                    But since we're on this topic, democratic Georgia is
                    different from Saddam's Iraq with its history of
                    aggression. The US actually did present its trumped-up
                    case to the UN etc. and gave Saddam alternatives. Russia
                    pretty much just rolled tanks in. We are also not annexing
                    pieces of Iraq to the US.
2008/8/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50877 Activity:nil
8/15    The Republican Campaign of Hate has just begun:
        \_ What further proof is needed that free speech is alive and well in
           America when hate-filled garbage can get printed?
        \_ Corsi isn't Republican:
           "Why I am not a Republican"
           \_ Uh-huh.
           \_ Right.
        \_ "just begun" ?
        \_ And the "liberal media" plays right along:
2008/8/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50861 Activity:nil
8/13    So are the Bush-loving GOPers:
        \_ You have some evidence that the shooter likes Bush or is GOP?
        \_ You have some evidence that the shooter liked Bush or was GOP?
        \_ "Gwatney owned three Little Rock area car dealerships and the search
           of Johnson's home turned up two sets of keys for vehicles from
           Gwatney car lots."
           You dumbass, he was just a twistoid.
           \_ Actually a Democratic donor:
              Look he gave money to Bill Clinton! Can we add him to the Clinton
              Death List?
2008/8/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50849 Activity:nil
8/11    Timeline:  Condi visited Georgia one month before its invasion of
        S. Ossetia.  Russia also gave warning of potential of large scale
        military conflict four days before invasion.
        http://tinyurl.com/5s4u2y (abc.net.au)
2008/8/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50847 Activity:nil
8/11    Analysis: roots of conflict between Georgia and Russia
        \_ This is an excellent insight. Thank you.
        \_ this is pretty straightforward actually:
           - s. ossetia is de facto independent and allied with Russia
           - georgia takes s. ossetia by force, pokes Russian Bear in eye
           - Russia steamrollers georgia, makes them pay
           - Dubya yammers helplessly
           \_ You forgot: US foreign policy encourages Georgia to think we've
              got their back, infuriating Russia and encouraging Georgia to
              take unnecessary risks.
              \_ Sounds like its Taiwan policy.  (This is unrelated to which
                 side of the Straight is right and which side is wrong.)
                 \_ Yes and no.  We paid attention whenever Taiwan's president
                    went too far and defused any potential crisis before things
                    got out of hand.
              \_ You would think that the Georgian president got the memo
                 titled "Subject: Don't invade S. Ossetia!"  Unless the U.S.
                 foreign policy team wasn't very clear about that ...
                 Me:  Condi?  Fucking things up AGAIN?  What?  Did you think
                 yer buddy GEORGE was going to catch this?  Didn't you do your
                 dissertation on the Soviet Union and satellite states?
                 \_ More likely, Condi gave Georgia the green light, just like
                    Bush I gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade
                    Kuwait. Bushco is trying to stir things up here to give
                    McCain a chance. I wonder what Act II is going to be.
                    \_ I think your tinfoil hat is a little too tight.
                       \_ After Kissinger's secret meetings with the North
                          Vietnamese and Reagan's Iran-Contra stuff, I really
                          don't think so. There is historical precedent.
                    \_ Condi's green light to Georgia:
                       Please go ahead and take over S. Ossetia.  We support
                       your efforts to get bent over and assfucked by Russia.
2008/8/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50834 Activity:nil
8/10    GWB is talking to Bob Costas right now. He's been surprisingly
        \_ Maybe he is back on the wagon.
           \_ Wagon of Mass Destruction?
        \_ s/competent/articulate/ perhaps?
        \_ You know, Bush is really good at being an Olympic cheerleader.
           I hate this guy, but I have to admit he looks great on TV, seems
           happy and relaxed and is enjoying himself there. Too bad he can't
           spend the rest of his term at it.
2008/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:50817 Activity:high
8/8     Edwards admits affair, doesn't admit for being incredible
        stupid dumbass who apparently thought having an affair and having
        his life withstand the scrutiny of being a viablepres. candidate
        were sustainable
        \_ He's a Democrat. This is expected. No big deal. Suck dick,
           fuck pussy, whatever. Just don't do anything stupid like
           invading a country and getting ourselves into deep shit.
           Look you fucking Conservatives. Adultery is a sustainable
           business. Invading countries in the Holy Name of Freedom
           is NOT a sustainable business. Ok?
           \_ Liberals invaded Vietnam and Korea.  Actually, liberals invaded
              Iraq too, in the Senate anyway.  Atheist liberals ran the USSR.
              Look at the subways and efficient apartment buildings they built.
              Iraq was a fucked up country already.  I don't like that I had
              to spend my tax dollars fixing their problems but in the long
              run they will probably be better off.  I dunno about us being
              better off though.  Also, Bush != "Conservatives".  Bush is
              not a classical conservative.
              \_ "Liberals" invaded Vietnam and North Korea? Wtf are you
                 talking about? If you mean that Democrats got us involved in
                 those two conflicts, you seriously need to read a book some
                 time. The people who ran the Soviet Union are not the same
                 as the Clintons. Get out of the 50s. Wake up. -!pp
                 \_ Harry Truman.
                    \_ What, are you channeling Batman from the video below?
                       You're not making any sense. What are you trying to
                       \_ "...liberals invaded Iraq too..." It's almost like
                          they're proud of being ignorant.
                       \_ Harry Truman was President when Vietnam started.
                          He was a Democrat.
                          \_ And? When did this supposed invasion occur?
                             \_ Well, I might argue it was when the first
                                American soldiers entered S. Vietnam. Or
                                could be during LBJ's term with passing of
                                the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
                                the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The start
                                and escalation of the conflict happened
                                with Democrats in office. They could have
                                just sent all Americans home but instead
                                sent troops. Sending troops is an invasion.
                             \_ In earnest after Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,
                                but before then even. Troops were pulled
                                out under a Republican, of course.
                                \_ Send combat troops to aid friendly
                                   govt. != invade. Running away !=
                                   pulling troops.
                                   \_ Ask the Vietnamese if they consider
                                      it an invasion.
                                      \_ North or South?
                                         \_ Either/or. Fully 80% of Vietnamese,
                                            whether in the North or South,
                                            considered the US an unwanted
                                            aggressor. It's one reason we
                                            left. No one wanted us there
                                            except a minority of elites.
                          \_ Truman? Are you proud of being ignorant? The
                             puppet state was set up by Eisenhower.
                             \_ Are you proud of being a douchebag?
                                Truman started it. (D)  Kennedy was the first
                                to send combat troops. (D)
                                \_ You keep saying that "Truman started it" but
                                   you are unable to explain what you mean by
                                   "it." The nation of Vietnam? It has existed
                                   for at least 1000 years. Try again, in
                                   English this time.
                                   \_ Duh, US military involvement in Vietnam.
                                      Do you have a cognitive impediment?
                                      The point was, Democrats got us involved
                                      in the Vietnam War (and Korea). Why not
                                      explicitly say whatever it is you think
                                      refutes this instead of dancing around
                                      with your head in your ass?
                                      (the puppet government is irrelevant)
                                      \_ Christ, if you're going to go down
                                         this route, why not just say that
                                         Wilson started it when he wouldn't
                                         hear out Ho Chi Minh's proposal for
                                         Viet independence after the signing
                                         of the Treaty of Versailles?
                                         \_ Because Kennedy and LBJ are the
                                            ones who actually started US
                                            combat operations in Vietnam.
                                            Keep dancing.
                                      \_ I can't wipe out a lifetime of
                                         ignorance in a few paragraphs, sorry.
                                         From the Vietnamese eyes, the
                                         Vietnamese war of independence started
                                         in 1885. The first direct US involve-
                                         ment in Vietnam was during WWII, so you
                                         might as well blame FDR. The actual
                                         Civil War between north and south
                                         started during Eisenhower and JFK sent
                                         sent first US combat troops Trying to pin
                                         US involvement in Vietname on Truman
                                         is just bizarre.
                                         sent first US combat troops. Trying to
                                         pin US involvement in Vietname on
                                         pin US involvement in Vietnam on
                                         Truman is just bizarre.
                                         \_ Truman was President first and
                                            the US was already involved
                                            militarily by the time Eisenhower
                                            was elected. However, you can blame
                                            FDR, too, if you want.
                             \_ Google MAAG
                                Besides, we sure were lucky D's were
                                elected and stopped the conflict before it
                                got out of hand!
                                \_ So your claim is that the US/Vietnam conflict
                                   started while Vietnam was still a French
                                   colony under French control? How did you do
                                   in your history classes? Get any A's?
                                   colony under French control?
                                   \_ No, my claim is that US military
                                      involvement started then.
                 \_ You're wrong.
                    \_ Am I? Whew. Thank you for, um, your convincing
                       argument backed up with facts.
                       \_ My point exactly!  Have a cigar.  And a dick.
                          \_ No thanks, you're a big enough dick for
                             the both of us.
        \_ Shit, good thing the Democrats didn't nominate him.
        \_ What happened to 'mccain has affair, nytimes reports on it,
           mccain served in vietnam so no one follows up'
2008/8/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50816 Activity:nil
8/8     Russia invades Georgia
        \_ Welcome back Soviets, we missed you.
        \_ They picked the luckiest day to invade!
        \_ Anyone have any idea what's really going on here?  Georgia wants
           to join Nato and be west aligned, so Russia has been supporting
           some rebel/seperatist groups?  These groups are Russian citizens
           or what?  I don't really get that part.  Georgia just made a major
           offensive against a seperatist group and crushed them, so Russia
           is rolling in the tanks?
           \_ There's a population of ethnic Russians in that region of Georgia
              who want to break away and join Russia. Mind you, given Russia's
              opposition to Kosovar independence and Chechnyan separatists,
              the irony is appalling.
              \_ Just curious, was that population of ethnic Russians shipped
                 there by the soviets?  They did that with some areas.
                 \_ Turns out (on closer viewing) that the separatists are a
                    different ethnic population from Russia and Georgia. As
                    usual, the BBC has an excellent primer on the region:
2008/8/6-10 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50800 Activity:nil
8/6     Pro-US rallies greet Bush in Seoul.
        http://csua.org/u/m12  (Blog w/ pics & vid and link to Rueters)
        Actually, when I was a missionary in SK, Bush made a visit
        (Feb 2002).  An odd fellow in the neighborhood brought us a cake
        to give to Bush.  I guess because we were the closest Americans he
        knew.  It said (in Korean) "Welcome Bush".  Anyway, we told him we
        couldn't give it to Bush, so he told us to eat it.  We did. -jrleek
        \_ Good to hear that Bush has done a good job of improving our
           image overseas.
        \_ You ate it?  Wow, you are VERY brave.  I would have assumed
           it was poisoned.
           \_ A) This was 2002. B) We knew the guy, he was harmless, just a bit
                 kooky. -jrleek
        \_ We forced them to import our beef again, and they still like us?
           It's not clear from the article what Bush did recently that more
           than offset the negative feeling from the beef issue.
           \_ My understanding is that the protests were less about beef,
              and more about the current SK prez, Lee Myung Bak.  The beef was
              just sort of a handy flashpoint. -jrleek
              Addendum: It was good flashpoint largely because Lee Myung Bak
              was being so high-handed about it and had terrible PR.
        \_ Can someone explain why beef import is such a touchy issue in Korea?
           \_ Again, my impression is that it wasn't that the beef was such a
              huge deal, it's that Lee Myung Pak is pissing everyone off.  He
              seems to think he's Park Chung-hee (The 1st military dictator.)
              My understanding is that it went something like this:
              Lee: We're importing beef again.
              A few protestors: Hey!
              Lee: Stupid poor people, always protesting.
              Everyone else: WTF?  Rawr!
        \_ I talked to my wife about this after I got home.  I had forgotten
           but Lee Myung Bak is/was a member of a VERY large church in Seoul.
           My wife guessed that a large chunk of the pro-US group was from that
           church and 'allied' churches. -jrleek
2008/8/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50789 Activity:nil 71%like:50835
8/5     Pulitzer prize winning journalist breaks the lid on the illegal
        techniques the White House used to decieve the nation into supporting
        the Iraq War:
        \_ Obviously he is making this all up.  You anti-semite!
        \_ No evidence.  Let's start an impeachment based on some guy's book!
           \_ Oh, you have already read it? Where did you get the advance
              copy? I thought it wasn't in the bookstores until tomorrow.
              \_ I don't need to read it to know that. Someone else will
                 waste their time, read it, and summarize (like this
                 article you posted).
                 I'll read a 415 page work of art. Not a political
                 article/masturbation session blown up to 415 pages.
                 \_ I'm sure that someone will summarize and say that the
                    claims have veracity and Bush is a criminal.  Someone
                    else will summarize and say that the author is full of
                    it.  I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict
                    that you'll believe the second guy.  -tom
                    \_ The book itself is obviously not evidence. If there
                       is veracity, we can go to the actual source of the
                       veracity. This book is irrelevant.
                 \_ You don't need to read it to know that there is no
                    evidence in it? How do you know that?
                    \_ If he has real evidence, publish it in a paper, not a
                       book for profit.
2008/7/31-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50745 Activity:nil
7/31    US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed
        <DEAD>preview.tinyurl.com/6r3epf<DEAD> (Yahoo News, AP story)
        Welcome to contempt, Miers.
        \_ Welcome to PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
        \_ Another loss for Bush and another win for America.
2008/7/30-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50741 Activity:high
7/31    Tell me again how City IS workers are all overpaid:
        \_ There are MANY governments in the US, from Alaska to Tenessee.
           It is like a FREE MARKET for government loving employees. They
           can go to any government branch they want, no one is FORCING them
           to go to SF government. Free market is at force, and therefore
           the pay is justified.
        \_ You do realize this is their pay only through 6/13/08, which
           means half a year's pay? Right? So 8,700 employees have been
           paid at least $50K for half a year's work so far. Incredible.
           (FWIW, there are 28K employees total so 1/3 make > $100K.)
           \_ Where do you get the 28k employees?
              \_ I STFW like you should do.
               \_ City AND county?
                  \_ Same thing in SF:
           \_ you're reading it wrong; look at some of the examples, most
              have "other pay" which is not part of their salary.  The
              salaries are quite low for IT people.
              \_ No, I am not reading it wrong. Some of them do have "other
                 pay". Some do not. "Other pay" is still pay and for most
                 of them it's not that significant (less than 5% of
                 \_ Do you know that they get it every year?  Do you know
                    what's included?  No.  You're looking at a number that's
                    provided without details, and assuming it means what you
                    want it to mean.
                    \_ All you need to know is that:
                       1) Not every salary includes it.
                       2) Of the ones that do, it tends to be a very small
                          amount - so small as to not matter.
                          \_ So, what do you think the base pay should be for
                             the highest-paid IT guy in an organization of
                             10K+ people?  How about the second highest-paid?
                             \_ I dunno. Strawman. We're talking about
                                8700 people, not the top 1 or 2.
                                \_ So?  What do you think the 8700th
                                   best-paid person should make in an
                                   organization you don't even know the
                                   size of?
                                   \_ I do know the size. 28K people. And
                                      you are a waste of time, because you
                                      apparently cannot read (see above
                                      where I stated the size).
           \_ No, I did not realize this, thanks for straigtening me out.
              I was astonished at how underpaid they were, now it looks
              about the same as the private sector, which does seem kind
              of high, given the bennies and job security they get.
              \_ The same as the private sector? Maybe at the high end of
                 the private sector plus they are eligible for overtime. Check
                 out these median SF salaries for comparison:
                 \_ Most are not eligible for overtime, and the SF city
                    numbers posted above are not the median numbers, they're
                    the highest-paid staffers.  The least expensive one on
                    the list is a senior IS business analyst; $100K is a
                    completely reasonable salary for that title.
                    \_ You do realize the list keeps going, right? So it's
                       not just the highest paid. It's everyone. The
                       highest paid person in SF made $264K for 6 months
                       of work. The second highest (a nurse) made $200K
                       including $128K of overtime. Of the 1000 highest paid
                       employees, there were only 4 IS employees. This
                       isn't just about IS. It's about 9000 people making
                       100K per year working for the city. We all know
                       that city employees work harder than anyone and only
                       the best and the brightest work for the city of SF.
                       It's reflected in the quality of the services provided.
                       Why you would defend this bloated piece of shit
                       organization is beyond me. Got a relative working
                       for the city?
                       \_ "In the first half of the 2008 calendar
                           year, the City and County of San Francisco
                           has more than 8,700 employees who have been
                           paid at least $50,000 (through June 13)."
                           You're misunderstanding the data; these are just
                           the 8700 top who've earned more than $50K so far
                           this year.
                           \_ Go to the link, you fuck. You can get the
                              salaries for the entire city. 8700 are just
                              the people who make over $100K.
                              \_ You are wrong, as usual and typically too
                                 arrogant to admit it. Go to the link, pull
                                 the drop down that says "See ALL" and hit
                                 search. How many entries do you see? 8730.
                                 There are far more city employees than that.
                                 \_ Okay, you are correct that the bottom
                                    2/3 are not listed, but what is your point?
                                    What did I misunderstand? Nothing. I stated
                                    in my very first paragraph that it was 1/3
                                    of the city employees who make more than
                                    $100K and in my last sentence above that
                                    "8700 are just the people who make over
                                    $100K". Tell me something I don't know.
                                    \_ The point is you have provided no data
                                       which suggest that SF city employees
                                       are paid over the median or average.
                                       \_ Look at the salaries and the
                                          job titles. Compare to industry.
                                          Rinse. Repeat.
                                          \_ Yeah, I did, and it looks
                                             pretty low.
                                             \_ You are on crack. You think a
                                                nurse making $200K in 6 months
                                                is "pretty low"?
                                                \_ You think a CEO making
                                                   $10 million in 6 months for
                                                   bankrupting his company is
                                                   "pretty low"?  It's all
                                                   \_ No, I don't think that's
                                                      "pretty low".  Regardless,
                                                      nursing wages are well
                                                      understood and $400K
                                                      is a lot for a nurse.
                                                \_ The nurse makes $130k in
                                                   regular salary, as you know.
                                                   \_ Which, as you know,
                                                      is a lie to hide her
                                                      actual salary. Government
                                                      employees use that trick
                                                      a lot - especially
                                                      police and firemen.
                                                      I think her W-2 is
                                                      far more interesting
                                                      than her paper wage.
                                                      \_ Bullshit. You have no
                                                         idea what you are
                                                         talking about.
                                                         \_ Uh huh. Which is
                                                            why the facts
                                                            support me and
                                                            you have none
                                                            to support you.
                              \_ That quote is from the link.  And you still
                                 haven't answered how much you think
                                 the 8700th-highest-paid city worker should
                                 \_ It's a stupid question not deserving
                                    of an answer. The point here is that
                                    the city pays the same as - or higher
                                    than - industry for most jobs, which
                                    is in direct contrast to the "poor
                                    underpaid government employee" schtick
                                    some SOBs on motd believe. The city
                                    pays plenty of its employees higher than
                                    the median salary. Maybe even all of them,
                                    but we can't be sure of that because
                                    we don't know what positions the
                                    bottom 2/3 hold. Why does the city
                                    employ 28K people anyway? Caltax says
                                    that is 1.5x as many per capita as
                                    Santa Clara, San Diego, or LA.
                                    \_ you've provided no data which show
                                       that the median city staffing salary
                                       is higher than the median private
                                       salary for comparable jobs.
                                       \_ I don't have to show that. I
                                          just have to show that 1/3 of
                                          positions in the city pay higher
                                          than the median in order to
                                          prove that city employees can be
                                          paid plenty well and hence are
                                          hardly underpaid as a whole.
                                          \_ If less than 1/3 make more than
                                             the median you need to retake
                                             your statistics classes.
                                          \_ do you even understand what
                                             a median is?  If less than 50%
                                             of city employees are paid
                                             above the median, the class
                                             "city employees" is underpaid.
                                             And the average will be even
                                             lower than the median, because
                                             cities don't have CEOs pulling
                                             down seven figures for running
                                             their companies into bankruptcy.
                                             \_ We can't compute the median
                                                without more data. However,
                                                there's a good bet that most of
                                                the lowest paid workers are
                                                not in job classifications
                                                that matter. My argument
                                                is not "the median city
                                                employee makes more than
                                                the median private sector
                                                employee" (which might still be
                                                true). My argument is that
                                                city workers are often paid
                                                plenty well - at least market
                                                rate if not more.
                                                \_ City workers are often
                                                   paid poorly, well under
                                                   market rate.  Nice impasse,
                                                   eh?  You could resolve it
                                                   by looking at median and
                                                   average earnings, but you
                                                   have no interest in doing
                                                   that.  -tom
                                                   \_ I'll look at them if
                                                      you can find them.
                                                      However, the data we
                                                      do have contradicts
                                                      your statement.
                                                      \_ It does no such thing.
                                                         \_ Sure it does. The
                                                            jobs we can see are
                                                            paid as well as or
                                                            more than comparable
                                                            jobs in industry.
                                                            \_ Which says
                                                               nothing at all
                                                               about the median
                                                               or average, or
                                                               even about
                                                               people with
                                                               experience and
                                                               \_ We don't need
                                                                  median or
                                                                  average to
                                                                  show that
                                                                  they are not
                                                                  "paid poorly".
                                                                  All we need
                                                                  are the
                                                                  which are not
                                    \_ The City is a unified City and County,
                                       so it requires additional staffing. But
                                       I agree that the number of employees
                                       still seems to high.
                                       \_ Not much more staffing, since there
                                          are no other cities in the County
                                          to manage and oversee.
                                          \_ MUNI >> public transit in
                                             LA/Santa Clara/San Diego, per
                                             capita.  -tom
                                             \_ If true then that's SF's
                                                own fault for having such an
                                                expensive infrastructure
                                                given the populace it serves.
                                                \_ SF is providing more
                                                   services, therefore it
                                                   has more staff.  I
                                                   hope you don't view
                                                   Santa Clara as the
                                                   greatest example of
                                                   city services.  -tom
                                                   \_ Why is it providing
                                                      more services than
                                                      it needs to?
                                                      \_ It's not.  -tom
                                                         \_ Apparently it is if
                                                            Santa Clara is
                                                            getting by just
                                                            fine with less.
                                                            \_ You're an idiot.
                                                               I'm done here.
                                                               \_ That's good
                                                                  because you've
                                                                  nothing of
                                                                  value to the
                                                                  except to
                                                                  your steadfast
                                                                  belief that
                                                                  workers are
                                                                  poorly paid
                                                                  even in the
                                                                  face of facts
                                                                  which show 1/3
                                                                  make more
                                                                  than the
                                                                  \_ you're
                                                                     an idiot.
                                                                     \_ Clever
                                                \_ That is what the residents
                                                   want, you know that, right?
                                                   \_ I'm not sure this is
                                                      true. If you give
                                                      the people want they
                                                      want they will spend
                                                      you to a multi-trillion
                                                      dollar deficit. If
                                                      SF is solvent then
                                                      no issues, I guess.
                                                      However, I read SF
                                                      is facing a $250M
                                                      deficit next year.
                                                      true. If you give the
                                                      people what they want
                                                      they will spend you to a
                                                      multi-trillion dollar
                                                      deficit. If SF is solvent
                                                      then no issues, I guess.
                                                      However, I read SF is
                                                      facing a $250M deficit
                                                      next year.
                                I live here and I can _/
                                assure you that this
                                is true. The voters
                                routinely vote for
                                increased taxes for
                                increased services.
                                The widely reported
                                $250M gap is being
                                closed by (gasp!)
                                rainy day funds,
                                which The City put
                                away during better
                                times and by a
                                hiring freeze. And
                                while $250M might
                                sound like a lot,
                                it is less than 4%
                                of the total budget.
                                What is the State of
                                CAs deficit this year?
                                How about Bush's?
                                \_ Actually, I haven't heard that the deficit
                                   was covered. I did read that the Rainy Day
                                   Fund is $122M, so it's not enough by itself.
                                   And then what? Bush is a moron and a red
                                   herring, but sure, other government sucks,
                                   too. I won't argue that.
                                   \_ So the City is doing better than the
                                      the State and the Federal government
                                      in this time of recession. I think we
                                      can agree this is a testament to the
                                      superior quality of SF City government.
                                      Not sure why you think the Federal
                                      deficit is a red herring, aren't we
                                      talking about government fiscal
                                      management here? How many companies
                                      are running in the red right now? Check
                                      out GMs deficit.
                                      \_ If you want to argue that the Feds are
                                         bigger fuckups than SF feel free. I
                                         agree. However, that doesn't exonerate
                           Of course, you realize your argument is directly
                           at odds with your free market advocacy; if
                           the city jobs really are better-paying and easier,
                           they will naturally attract the best people.
                           \_ Markets are not efficient. I don't think
                              most people realize how much money is to be
                              made at the city. That's the point of
                              publicizing the salaries.
                        \_ You don't understand what you are looking at.
                           Those are the highest paid 8700 out of a work
                           force of over 27k. So over 2/3 make less than
                           \_ I understand completely and you are restating
                              what I said. Is English your first language?
                           Your ignorance of SF City services is
                           showing. Don't you live in LA or something?
                           How many times have you even used a SF city service?
                           Most of them work good or even great, like the
                           public parks and libraries.
                           \_ The city couldn't even fire a guy who they
                              thought was a wacko and then he locked them
                              out of their own systems. Sounds like things
                              are going swimmingly.
                              \_ well he's still cooling his heels in jail.
                                 i doubt he'll have a job for much longer.
2008/7/30-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50728 Activity:nil
7/29    Torture is Un-American (or another whacko with BDS)
2008/7/29-8/3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50718 Activity:low
7/29    Place your bets:
         Sen. Stevens of Alaska faces criminal charges
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/6yrtp2 (Yahoo News)
        \_ I knew we should have gotten rid of that dick weed when he
           offered.  -R
           \_ People like that is why I left the party. -I
              \_ huh, people like BUSH-II CHENEY ADDINGTON ROVE is
                 why i left the party.  a little 100k graft never hurt
              \_ Disloyalty is evil                     -Reagan
              \_ Is our children learning?
2008/7/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:50702 Activity:nil
7/28    Merrill Lynch forecasts +1.8% GDP growth in Q2, dropping to a -2.5%
        contraction in 2008 Q4 and 2009 Q1.
        http://tinyurl.com/65bmm8 (bloomberg.com)
        \_ This would be a big drop, if true. ECRI is not showing evidence
           of that kind of drop in their leading indicators, at least not yet.
        \_ The White House predicts considerably better performance than that:
           http://preview.tinyurl.com/6j86v4 (Yahoo News)
2008/7/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50670 Activity:nil
7/23    Bob Novak: [bodily orifice]:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/5nyb6s (CBS News)
        \_ Another Compassionate Conservative. Bush will probably pardon
           him, too.
           \_ This really is the model, isn't it? "I didn't see him!
              I wasn't running away, really! And why are you blocking
              my car with your bike? I haven't done anything wrong!"
2008/7/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50658 Activity:nil
7/23    When did the National Enquirer start reporting stories that are true?
        \_ Oh even the Weekly World News included the odd true story.  (In
           the WWW news' case, usually as a 1 paragraph blurb.)
        \_ Quite a while actually.  They even win real awards every now
           and then.  Of course they also do tons of crap as well.
           CHILD!" story? Or the "BUSH BOOZE CRISES" one?
           \_ i hope its not true.  you have to pretty incredibly awe
              inspiring worthy of study and fodder for comedy show jokes
              for the next 10 years to have an affair when you are a
              mainstream presidential candidate.  they always get caught.
2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50647 Activity:moderate
7/21    Wouldn't we be better off having an "executive council" of a few people
        (e.g. 3) instead of one single elected leader? It would look more
        democratic. They could hold terms of 6 yrs each, staggered with
        an election every 2 yrs. Majority rule. Plus, watching them bicker with
        each other would be fun. Also we'd eliminate the useless VP role.
        It works for the Supreme Court, right? We don't have one single Supreme
        \_ We could have a Politburo, elected by elected  representatives of
        \_ We have three branches of government instead of one single
           elected leader.
           \_ We have one single elected executive, I mean. Besides, the other
              branches don't get nearly as much scrutiny as the POTUS. POTUS
              is responsible for appointing SCOTUS and all this stuff
              that people complain about with Bush.
              \_ POTUS focuses a lot of scrutiny by being the sole Executive.
                 POTUS _nominates_ SCOTUS Justices, but Congress approves or
                 denies; similarly, Congress proposes legislation which POTUS
                 approves or denies. The current system of checks and balances
                 works, if the players are willing to fulfill their roles.
                 \_ Ok how about: put leader 1 in charge of Air Force, leader
                    2 in charge of Army, leader 3 gets the Navy.  They
                    can roll dice each week for who gets supreme command.
                    Ok, just kidding... someone else come up with a motd
                    subject damnit.
        \_ The Triumvarate never worked very well for Rome.
           \_ That's not strictly true. It just didn't work out in the long
              \_ Neither did Rome. So what? This isn't an argument.
                 \_ ... dum conderet urbem
                    inferretque deos Latio; genus unde
                    Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae.
                    en huius, nate, auspiciis illa incluta Roma
                    imperium terris, animos aequabit Olympo,
                    septemque una sibi muro circumdabit arces,
                    felix prole uirum
                    tum pater Anchises lacrimis ingressus obortis:
                    'o gnate, ingentem luctum ne quaere tuorum;
                    ostendent terris hunc tantum fata nec ultra
                    esse sinent. nimium uobis Romana propago
                    uisa potens, superi, propria haec si dona fuissent.
                    quantos ille uirum magnam Mauortis ad urbem
                    campus aget gemitus
                 \_ [latin deleted]
                    \_ I'm adding a translation I found on the internet.
                    ... until he founded a city and brought his gods to Latium:
                    from that the Latin people came, the lords of Alba Longa,
                    the walls of noble Rome.
                    Behold, my son, under his command glorious Rome will match
                    earth's power and heaven's will, and encircle seven hills
                    with a single wall, happy in her race of men.
                    O, do not ask about your people's great sorrow, my son.
                    The fates will only show him to the world, not allow him to
                    stay longer.  The Roman people would seem too powerful to
                    you gods, if this gift were lasting.

                    \_ Ille ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus auena
                       carmen, et egressus silvis uicina coegi
                       ut quamuis auido parerent arua colono
                       gratum opus agricolis, at nunc horrentia Martis
                 \_ The Triumvarate "worked" for Rome in a variety of ways
                    until it didn't. The original statement lacks any rigor.
                    \_ Since both times it was tried, it led to a civil war,
                       no further evidence is needed. Unless you think a
                       civil war every few decades is a good way to run
                       your government.
                       \- one of the "Big Questions" in Roman scholarship is
                          "was the Roman Revolution inevitable" [or more of
                          a contingent outcome]. RSYME is "the standard"
                          and one of the important rebuttals/reconsiderations
                          is by EGRUEN (UCB Dept History...one of the finest
                          lecturers at Berkeley). Anyway, the "it led to civil
                          war" is a little glib, like say "the assassination
                          of Archduke Ferdinand led to WW1".
                       \_ Worked for Thomas Jefferson.
        \- the more appropriate roman analogy would be to the practice of
           dual consuls. and there were two Triumvirates ... the
           first was an alliance, not a formal structure of govt. and
           groups of 3 can be quite unstable because it is open 2:1, so
           that may make one "the decider". anyway, it is silly to go on.
           \_ Why is that more unstable? With 1, that one is the decider.
        \_ See Julius Caesar Act IV, Scene 1
        \_ Brain for world emperor:
                _              _
              /~\\            //~\
              |  \\          //  |
              [   ||        ||   ]
             ) Y  ||        ||  Y (
             |  \_|l,------.l|_/  |
             |   >'          `<   |
             \  (/~`--____--'~\)  /     _____________________________________
              `-_>-__________-<_-'     /                                     \
                  /(_#(__)#_)\       /  By right of superior intelligence,    \
                  \___/__\___/  ____/                                         |
                   /__`--'__\   \___    I am best suited to guide the destiny |
                /\(__,>-~~ __)      \                                         |
             /\//\\(  `--~~ )        \  of this planet.                       |
             '\/  <^\      /^>        \                                      /
                  _\ >-__-< /_         `------------------------------------'
                 (___\    /___)
2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50644 Activity:high
7/21    Look at all these corrupt Democrats. But how can this be? Democrats
        are supposed to be noble and good. And getting the Green party off
        the ballot sounds... undemocratic.
        \_ They are all HITLER
        \_ Corruption seems to be endemic to the human experience,
           unfortunately. I don't believe anyone (here) has claimed that
           Democrats are all noble and good. Is that a Straw Man you are
           furiously bashing?
        \_ And yet, strangely, they still won't be the party that sold out the
           government to Halliburton, Worldcom, and Enron.
           \_ What exactly does "sold out the government" mean?
              \_ Started a ruinous war to further profits for.
                 \_ Yet, strangely, Democrats voted to authorize that war.
                    An inscrutable contradiction!
                    Could it be that Democrats also profit from Corporate
                    America, Inc.?
                    But that's silly. Corporations are evil and Democrats
                    are axiomatically good.
                    \_ And yet, strangely, they're collaborators, not
                       instigators. Their culpability is still less than that
                       of the GOP, war-profiteering-wise.
                       \_ Strangely, I think you need to justify that.
                          \_ And stranger still, I think the charges need to
                             be justified first.
                    \_ A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the
                       war, but you already knew that. Don't the facts get
                       in the way of your supposed rhetorical point.
                       \_ A majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for it.
                          Enough in the house to pass the resolution. They
                          are Democrats. A few Republicans also voted against
                          it, so what?
                          \_ An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted
                             for the resolution and an overwhelming majority
                             of Democrats voted against it, even when it
                             took quite a bit of moral and intellectual
                             courage to do so. The resolution would have
                             passed without any Democratic support whatsover,
                             since the GOP was in the majority. Why are you
                             so hellbent on re-writing history? Are you a
                             GOP partisan? Ashamed of your earlier war support?
                             I remember when Bush supporters were smashing
                             courage to do so. Why are you so hellbent
                             on re-writing history? Are you a GOP
                             partisan? Ashamed of your earlier war support?
                             I remember when war supporters were smashing
                             shop windows and beating opponents of the war,
                             where was your outrage then?
                    \_ I am still wondering why the Democrats didn't try to
                       impeach Bush. God, they have no balls at all.
                       Repubs impeach a guy for oral sex while Democrats win
                       control of Congress and proceed to mostly whine
                       about a supposed war criminal.
                       \_ I don't seem them whining about war crimes. Who
                          does that? Not the mainstream ones, anyway. You
                          get guys like Paul, Gravel, + Kucinich but nobody
                          votes for those guys. People vote for the status quo.
                          \_ You mean they are complicit and aren't opposed to
                             the war? That makes it better for them? I was
                             giving them some credit. People voted Dems
                             into office because they were unhappy with
                             the Repub leadership and the Dems turned
                             around and did absolutely nothing. And now
                             morons believe Obama is gonna change that?
                             \_ Better to do nothing than to do something
                                stupid. Stupid.
                                \_ They did do the stupid thing themselves.
                                   They authorized the war, continue to
                                   fund it, and Obama says he'll keep troops
                                   there indefinitely. Yay.
                                   Politics is all about complaining about
                                   whatever bad thing exists. Like gas prices.
                                   Look at the price of gas! Vote for me!
                                   What am I gonna do about it? Who cares,
                                   vote for me. War? War is bad right? Vote
                                   for me!
                                   \_ More lies. Obama said he will bring
                                      the troops home. Do you get your
                                      playbook from Rove?
                                      the troops home.
                                \_ That's why the Dems will never get
                                   anything done. They don't want to make
                                   bad decisions. That never stopped the
                                   Republicans, who beat the Dems like a drum.
                                   Good leaders aren't afraid to stick
                                   their necks out. They worry about being
                                   proven right later. I'm not saying bad
                                   decisions are a good thing, but I'd say
                                   no decisions at all is worse. We don't
                                   need a government if we're not going to
                                   take any actions. Just refund the tax
                                   dollars to the citizens then. I think a
                                   token rumbling about impeaching Bush
                                   would have been a good thing, even if
                                   they didn't actually go through with it.
                                   Instead, they approve everything Bush wants.
                                   \_ Kucinich has repeatedly tried to get
                                      articles of impeachment to the House
                                      floor, but cannot get the votes. This is
                                      the way a Democracy works. There are
                                      other ways to win in politics, other
                                      than beating your opponent like a drum.
                                      That is the Rove playbook. Did FDR ever
                                      beat anyone like a drum? No one would
                                      dispute that he got a lot done.
                                      \_ "Did FDR ever beat anyone like a drum?
                                         YES! Geez, don't you know any history?
                                         \_ Where and when? Maybe you define
                                            beating like a drum differently
                                            than me, but mostly FDR was a good
                                            consensus builder, not a 50% + 1
                                            kind of divisive leader like the
                                            Bush/Rove/Cheney gang.
                             \_ They tried, over and over again, to get a time-
                                table for withdrawal passed, and you know what
                                the GOP did? Filibustered. That's right, the
                                party that threatened the "nukular" option if
                                the Dems filibustered turned around and fili-
                                bustered. Couple that with Bush's veto-frenzy,
                                and the charge that the Dems did nothing
                                quickly becomes: the GOP cock-blocked every
                                way they could. But hey, go ahead and blame the
                                Dems for the GOP's fuckups.
2008/7/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50635 Activity:nil
7/19    Now less popular than Nixon:
        \_ Incorrect, this is only true among CA voters. Bush is still
           a hero to 28% of the Americans, or less than 1/2 of the
           loyal conservative. Keep in mind, he still hasn't had sex
           with an intern, therefore, he is a GOOD MAN.
2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:50595 Activity:nil
7/16    Yes let's start making interest rate super low and make it super easy
        to get loans so that every American can own a home! Go for it
        Greenspan, and keep it up Bernanke. "We're creating...an ownership
        society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able
        to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house,
        welcome to my piece of property," Bush said in October 2004.
        Please don't f***ing paste your f***ing CATO links here, thank you.
        \_ All of that started in 1996.
           \_ It is all Bill Clinton's fault.
        \_ related to the carbon emission thread above. This is the perfect
           time for US to curb consumer behaviors.  we can now impose
           heavy taxes on housing that has sq.feet per person larger than a
           a preset limit, *AND* we can impose rules on developers that mediem
           house size to a fixed sq feet.   China has similiar regulation
           already in place to curb large houses.   Time for US to do something
2008/7/15-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50579 Activity:nil
7/15    How the government cooks economic statistics (great article by
        Kevin Phillips)
        \- YMWTGF(cambridge forum kevin philips)
2008/7/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50547 Activity:nil 72%like:50545
7/12    You stay classy lefties
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/66bphh [ap.google]
        \_ You pick out one obscure blogger that gets, what, one hundred
           hits a day, as representing "lefties?" I am sure Herr Coulter
           says more disgusting things daily and millions follow her every
           \_ I pointed to the AP.
              \_ What about that AP story is offensive to you?
2008/7/12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50545 Activity:nil 72%like:50547
7/12    You stay classy lefties
2008/7/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50544 Activity:nil
7/11    Berkeley's own Brad DeLong on the Fannie Mae bailout:
        Most amusing moment: Grover Norquist blames Nancy Pelosi
        for high gasoline prices.
        \_ I blame Al Gore.
2008/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50543 Activity:nil
7/11    Grover Norquist blames Nancy Pelosi for high oil prices:
2008/7/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50495 Activity:low
7/8     Congress approval in single digits for first time ever
        \_ The Democrats in Congress are considerably higher, though
           still quite low, at 21%:
           \_ The trick is, the Republicans are also 21% favorable.
              "Congress" is too amorphous a body to have a meaningful
              approval rating.  -tom
              \_ Also meaningless because generally people like their guy.
                 And since you can only vote for your guy overal approval
                 rating is really just a indicator of how fucked up people
                 think the country/economy is getting.
              \_ But the comparison to previous congresses is valid.
        \_ The way this congress handled issues like war spending, Farm Bill,
           and the upcoming FISA bill make me want to vote out pretty much
           every incumbent senator and congressman out of office regardless
           of party affiliation, starting with Nancy Pelosi. This congress
           has not attempted to resolve any issues that they were elected
           to work on, and for the last 12 months they had been for the
           most part engaging in election year politics and pandering to voters.
           most part engaging in election year politics and pandering to
           \_ Totally agree.  Didn't we elect them to remove the rubber-stamp
              practices?  I don't get why Pelosi doesn't stand up to Bush
              the way she did when first elected, telling the President he
              needed to calm down.  Since then, every confrontation the
              democrats have caved.  Almost all the slightly controvertial
              legislation they have passed has been vetoed, why does Bush
              have any credibility or sway with them anymore?  Its getting
              pretty annoying that the republicans vote in a complete block
              but the democrats can't come to a cohesive position... ever.
              \- i'm willing to wait and see what kind of hearings we get
                 about cheney and the other liars and theives and tortures
                 after the election. i can see being risk averse if it looks
                 like you will cruise to victory.
        \_ Not exactly:
           http://preview.tinyurl.com/5n4kc2 [yahoo news]
2008/7/4-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50473 Activity:nil 71%like:50472
7/4     Wow, even the NYTimes is noticing Obama's 'refinements'
2008/7/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50472 Activity:nil 71%like:50473
7/4     Wow, even the NYTimes is noticing Obama's PLEASE USE ANOTHER TERM OK
        THX BYE
2008/6/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50403 Activity:nil
6/27    In a blistering condemnation of President Bush's willingness to go to
        the wall for corporations he relies on to spy on Americans, MSNBC host
        Keith Olbermann says the president's message in his State of the Union
        address calling for immunity of telecommunications companies is a
        "textbook example of fascism."

        Obama votes for FISA bill with immunity of telcoms.

        Yesterday, Olbermann says:
        "Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject
        of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA
        compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own
        party . . . But first, it's time to bring in our own Jonathan Alter,
        also, of course, senior editor of "Newsweek" magazine."
2008/6/27-7/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50392 Activity:nil
6/27    Wow, 23 percent approval rating. Is this a record low?
        \_ 77% of America has BDS.
2008/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50355 Activity:moderate 92%like:50333
6/23    Passing out "homemade" signs at Obama rally
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/67xltd [theunfocused.blogspot.com]
        \_ this is about the level of me seeing a pro mccain poster on
           the bulletin board at work.  big whoop-dee-do.  stop
           blogging about your toast being burnt.
        \_ Wow, look at all that FURIOUS ANGER in the comments.  This is
           \_ The always vitrolic and bile-filled Right actually has something
              to be upset about for once. I wonder if their heads are going
              to explode in November when O actually wins.
              \_ What do they have to be upset about again?  That they were
                 given a free reign to do anything they wanted for 5-6 years
                 and ended up destroying the economy and America's reputation?
                 \_ They are losing control of the government.
                    \_ You mean they are unable to control the BEAST!!!
                       Big government BAD BAD BAD! Starve it! Go Reagan!
                  \_ It's all Bill Clinton's fault!
                     \_ When Bill was POTUS we had a Republican Congress.
                 \_ Yes because the economy and America's reputation were
                    perfect before W.  Hint: deficits and bubbles were
                    existing problems.  And don't liberals love gas prices
                    being high?
                    \_ The argument that the absurdities of the W-Admin
                       should be forgiven because no one's perfect fails on
                       its face. In the history of !perfect, no POTUS has
                       done more to screw us up.
                       \_ Carter.
                          \_ Even Carter didn't leave our military and our
                             economy in a mess on the scale of W.
                             \_ Carter only had four years, W got eight.
                             \_ Are you kidding?  Carter's military failed to
                                get a bunch of helicopters across the desert.
                                Carter's economy introduced the phrase
                                "double digit inflation" and "odd-even gas
                                days" to the American public.  *AND* he
                                managed to fuck up the country in only 4
                                years.  Were you even alive during Carter's
                                term?  Do you remember any of it?  I do.
                                We've been over this before.  As bad as Bush
                                has messed up any number of things, Carter
                                was worse.  I could go on and on with Carter's
                                failures but there's no point.  If he was a
                                (R) you'd think he was Satan.  If Bush was a
                                (D) you'd be making excuses for him.  Go read
                                Carter's Malaise Speech.  That sums it up
                                \_ You're comparing Carter's inability to
                                   rescue the hostages to our humiliation at
                                   the hands of insurgents with IEDs? The
                                   resurgent Taliban? Year after year of
                                   quagmire? D or R doesn't matter to me
                                   nearly as much as the squandering of
                                   surplus of budget _and_ international
                                   support by the Bush Admin.
                                   \_ I'm comparing Carter's entire concept of
                                      diplomacy and military gutting policies
                                      to nothing.  The failure stands tall and
                                      proud on the absolute scale without
                                      requiring any comparison.  How much
                                      international support do you think we
                                      had after the fucked up rescue?  After
                                      The President Of The United States Of
                                      America gave the fucking "Malaise
                                      Speech"?  Really, I seriously suspect
                                      like our other poster here that you
                                      either weren't alive or aren't old enough
                                      to remember the nightmare and very dark
                                      days for the Carter era in this country.
                                      I don't think you're stupid or anything
                                      like that, I believe you're simply
                                      uneducated on the topic.  Go look up that
                                      speech and we'll talk after.
                                \_ you know, you're right, i was not a
                                   thinking human during the carter years,
                                   but im going to go out on a short limb here
                                   and state that the Bush Administration has
                                   screwed up America 100x worse than Carter
                                   could have dreamed.  Do you realize how
                                   much of a gigantic clusterfuck Iraq is?
                                   fuck.  i don't swear that much but just
                                   thinking of bush right now makes my heartbeat
                                   go up.
                                   thinking of bush right now makes my heart-
                                   beat go up.
                                   \_ You weren't there and the media would
                                      never remind you.  I'm sorry but really
                                      you have no clue how bad it was in *this*
                                      country during Carter's era.  Since you
                                      seem so intense about Iraq, I'd rather
                                      the cluster fuck be in another country
                                      than in this country.
                                \- BUSHCO is a vastly bigger fuckup than
                                   PEANUT. and unless you are a die hard
                                   israel supporter, carter is a good
                                   "ex-president". what are the odds
                                   BUSHCO will grow up and be respected
                                   for his service, sacrifice, maturity
                                   of thought etc.
                                   \_ After he's out of office I really don't
                                      care what he does.  I barely care now.
                                      I'm not a die hard anything but I do
                                      believe it is stupid to support the
                                      theocrats and thugs in the area over
                                      the only democracy that has women's
                                      right and doesn't execute homosexuals.
                                      \- let's review: you dont have strong
                                         feeling about the US being a
                                         democracy that tortures people,
                                         is becoming a plutocracy, and
                                         appoints judges hostile to
                                         women's/gay rights ["I barely care
                                         now"], but you are significantly
                                         concerned about women's and gay
                                         rights in the middle east. why is
                                         it hard to take you seriously?
                                         YBHBCA:S. --psb
2008/6/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50305 Activity:nil
6/19    High gasoline prices accelerating return to the cities:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/4gdqop (SF Gate)
        \_ http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/fallows
           Reading SF Gate + Atlantic is like reading Kunstler's rants.
           CITY GOOD SUBURB BAD! Fucking hippies. Pasadena rules!!!
           \_ This article is amusing, but unlikely. Why would China want to
              collapse the American economy? This would be like a crack dealer
              shooting his best customer.
2008/6/19-20 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50297 Activity:nil 75%like:50317
6/19    Dumbest liberal evar!
2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:50278 Activity:nil
6/16    Pin for sale at Texas GOP state convention
        "If Obama is President... will we still call it the White House?"
2008/6/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50200 Activity:nil
6/9     aazif mandi is my hero.
        \_ Do you people get all your news from The Daily Show?
           \_ Statistically, no: http://preview.tinyurl.com/4nkuwn
2008/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50181 Activity:high
6/6     Pure comedy as freepers react to Obama's fist bump with his wife:
        "History has shown repeatedly, when Whites set up new countries and
        then give the control to the blacks, or any non-White race, it will
        soon collapse into another third world catastrophe."
        "You got to be kidding, The fist “bump”, .America “WAKE UP”, You are
        getting your first taste of what it is going to be like electing Barack
        HUSSEIN Obama for president. Next you are going to see southern fried
        chicken, black-eyed peas, corn bread, and watermelon as your daily
        meal. Let’s not forget what Obama’s middle name is, funny thing, he
        never wants to use his middle name on his campaign."
        \_ Compare any day with the HufPo nutters.  yawn.
           \_ Or DailyKos, or Democraticunderground, etc, etc.  Since there are
              no freepers on the motd, I wonder who the OP is trying to troll.
2008/6/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50178 Activity:low
6/6     Suprise! John Bolton doesn't think much of Obama!
        \_ Oh, John Bolton, is there any situation you can't stick your foot
           in your mouth over?
           \_ Evil John Bolton puts US before UN!  Rat Bastard!
              \_ Bolton's a bundle of neuroses and anger management issues
                 looking for an outlet; you don't hire a man like that for
                 his patriotism, you hire him so you can aim him at people
                 you don't like, then watch him spew.
                 \_ Can we give him a CSUA account?
                    \_ Now you're catching on. Look for him on the freep
                       boards, too.
2008/6/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50168 Activity:nil
6/6     http://www.google.com/news?q="fist+bump" - danh
        \_ Gag. And 1000 reporters jizz in their pants.
           \_ Heil!
        \_ Behind the times: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JUUIBJme-bg
           (Bud commercial)
        \_ http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060007
           It wasn't a fist bump it was a "terrorist fist jab"!  Go Fox!
2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50129 Activity:nil
6/2     http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nezv8
        Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new
        autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime
        commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment
        that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of
        historic proportions."  Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A
        Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four
        contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S.
        response that was reportedly egged on by the president.  During a
        videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez
        writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:
        "Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to
        stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We
        must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close.
        It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to
        prepare us for withdrawal."  "There is a series of moments and this is
        one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a
        better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident!
        Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

        A White House spokesman had no comment.
2008/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50088 Activity:nil
5/29    Look at that.  McClellan's hit piece is published by Soros
        \_ Go to Barnes and Noble.  Notice the shelves of really not very interesting
           conservative tomes from agit prop national right wing figures. I'll
           list a few later if you want.  Notice they're almost all published
           by the Newsmax guys.  I just can't imagine anyone buying that stuff,
           at least the McClellan books sounds a little exciting.  emarkp
           have you finished your copy of the Stossel book yet?
        \_ You make my brane hurt. The man spit up lies for BushCo for years
           then decided to make some money while clearing his conscience.
           What part of what he has to say about BushCo surprises you?
           \_ Oh, you're a string theorist?
              \_ Un, fish?
                 \_ "brane"
                    \_ Oh, right! Thanks!
        \_ That dirty dirty hippie!
2008/5/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50070 Activity:high
5/28    Former White House press sect comes out with book bashing
        his old boss.  I feel like we're trapped in an alternate
        universe where I read the newspaper and think immediately
        I read the newspaper and that The Onion should give up, since
        their writers will never be able to keep up with the tragic
        humor masters of the Bush administration.
        \_ Uhm... "fired staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
        \_ Uhm... "fired Bush staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
           any administration.  Is this your first election cycle in this
           \_ Yeah, let's talk about something more important, like WHY
              \_ Nice strawman.
                 Bush bashing is such old hat now isn't it? I mean, how
                 \_ doesn't get old.  consequences of trying to pave Iraq
                    with no viable plan will be with us for decades.
                    old money bluebloods in CT still whine about the
                    New Deal, and that was a long time ago.  Iraq isn't
                    even last week.  Iraq is The Now(tm).
                    \_ Well, Al Qaeda has a part to play in this doesn't it?
                       If it didn't do 9/11 and fight us in Afghanistan and
                       Iraq then a lot fewer innocents would have died.
                       If Saddam wasn't a brutal strongman then we'd have no
                       excuse to go in there. Who is responsible for the
                       terrorism in Iraq? It's not the USA that is blowing up
                       street markets.  Iraq is pretty effed up but it was
                       already effed up.
                       \_ AQ wasn't in Iraq pre-US Invasion. AQ and SH were
                          not BFF. We should have stopped with Afghanistan.
                          We should have brought other pressures against
                          SH. There were no WMD. There was no link to AQ.
                          Stop perpetuating lies told by chickenhawks to
                          sell a war to demonstrate that the Powell
                          Doctrine was bunk.
                          \_ I know there was no link to AQ, but there is now
                             right? So what about that? Should we ignore AQ?
                             AQ is there now and causing deaths.
                             \_ AQI is nowhere near as powerful or popular
                                as the AQ was when the Taliban ruled Afg.
                                We should leave the internal affair of
                                cleaning up AQI to the Iraqis.
                 much more dead can that horse get? Me, I consider myself
                 an independent voter because the reality is that both major
                 parties are full of posturing blowhards. If you really care
                 about change then you should push for instant runoff voting
                 and support real change from status quo American politics.
                 Not Obama populist speechmaking change, actual structural
                 change. Americans are too complacent. We often complain about
                 the choices but then go ahead and vote for one of them anyway
                 instead of making a concerted effort to bring someone else in.
                 I actually think a random selection of people would be better
                 Congresspersons than district-based elected reps from
                 political parties. Proportional representation would be
                 pretty good but political parties in general are somewhat
                 broken. You could have a bunch of people randomly selected
                 from an opt-in pool and then have voters approve some number
                 of those. The usual road to political campaign promotes
                 corruption and actor-style figurehead polticians.
                 change. Americans are too complacent.
                 \_ You really think a Democratic President is going to
                    be exactly like a Republican one? You expect more
                    unprovoked wars and massive transfers of wealth from
                    future taxpayers to well-connected defence contractors?
                    I don't. If you support real change, you should join
                    Common Cause and push for campaign finance reform. I did.
                    \_ You really think a new Republican President is going to
                       be exactly like Bush?
                       Bush couldn't do what he has done without the support
                       of Democrats in Congress. Do you really think Democrats
                       \_ I believe Bush and his advisors were able to
                          brilliantly out maneuver and bully Congress into
                          funding their Iraq plan.  Also in another thread
                          we can all rant about Bush not following laws,
                          interpreting laws only in the way his lawyers
                          say they should be interpretted, just simply not
                          following laws he didnt like because hey its
                          war time, and then we can get into torture and
                          how Bush has thrown away decades of world good
                          will by showing how the US just doesn't care about
                          the Geneva conventions.
                          \_ Laugh. How did they bully Congress? If Bush is
                             not following laws, why don't they impeach him?
                             \_ I DO NOT KNOW!
                                \_ They didn't have the votes.
                             What laws? What world good will exactly? The
                             \_ look up 'signing statements'
                                \_ what material effect has this had?
                             good will was already pretty suspect in most
                             Arab countries; we have been strongly supporting
                             Israel for a long ass time and fucking around
                             protecting or deposing various third world
                             regimes. The Guantanamo dudes were mainly from the
                             Afghanistan thing which everybody seems to think
                             was a fine and jolly war.
                             \_ American popularity has plummeted worldwide,
                                not just in the Middle East.
                                \_ Well, it doesn't seem to matter anywhere but
                                   in the middle east. I don't think this is
                                   a long term thing. Muslims aren't very happy
                                   about Europe either, and China already had
                                   tension for obvious reasons. I don't see any
                                   real long term difference.
                             \_ The majority of the Guantanamites were sold to
                                us by our allies in Pakistan. The Bush Admin
                                encouraged a sloppy attitude toward accepting
                                these guys without research or due process.
                                This same Admin then took a laissez-faire
                                approach to torturing those same people,
                                most of whom have now been released as not
                                having been terrorists to begin with.
                       are corruption-free? Do you think liberals are good
                       and conservatives are evil?
                       Democratic presidents took the USA into WW1, WW2, Korea
                       Vietnam, and Kosovo.
                       \_ WW1 = won
                          WW2 = won
                          Korea = stalemate
                          Vietnam = lost
                          Kosovo = won
                          I think the batting average of a Dem >>> Rep
                          \_ That's nice, pinhead.
                          \_ somalia = lost
                             grenada = won
                             nicaragua = won
                             \_ Somalia: poor planning, no war.
                                Grenada: The entire USMC vs. a minor band of
                                guerillas; if we'd "lost," there would have
                                been hell to pay.
                          \_ Panama '89 = won
                       Democrats are just as cosy with corporate America as
                       Campaign finance reform is mostly meaningless.
                       \_ Bush definitely could not have done what he did
                          without the support of the GOP. If the Dems are
                          collaborators, then GOP are Nazis. I'll take the
                          former over the latter any day.
                          \_ Really. Why? Bush couldn't do what he did without
                             the complacence of the American people. Anyway
                             Iraq isn't fundamentally very different from those
                             \_ So, since we didn't storm the White House or
                                impeach them, we're to blame for his bad
                                behavior? This is like someone killing people
                                then blaming the police for not catching him.
                                \_ Well, yes, because we elected him twice.
                                   I blame the American people and Congress.
                                   What do you want from me? We have only
                                   two stinking parties and they are both
                                   bad in various ways. Last time I voted
                                   for Kerry, but I didn't even like Kerry.
                                   This time I will vote for McCain. What
                                   exactly do you want to impeach Bush on?
                                   \_ Lying. Suppressing intel that didn't
                                      favor his plans. Destroying e-mail.
                                      Outing a CIA operative. What do I
                                      want from you? A realization that no
                                      matter who gets elected, they are
                                      not going to be as fundamentally
                                      bad as the President and Veep; a
                                      statement to the effect that no
                                      matter what anyone else didn't do
                                      stop them, they were responsible
                                      for the evil that they did. I
                                      want you to hold the Bush Admin
                                      responsible for its actions, and I
                                      want you to do so without qualifying
                                      it with excuses or references to the
                                      Dems' behavior.
                                     \_ No, I can't hold ONLY Bush
                                        and Veep responsible because they
                                        did not have the power to do their
                                        thing alone. Congress was complicit,
                                        CIA members were complicit, Britain
                                        went to war and we did not force
                                        it to do that. There was evidence
                                        that SH wanted WMD even if he did
                                        not have them, and there was an
                                        insufficient trail for the WMD
                                        that he was supposed to have had.
                                        It's not useful to fixate only on
                                        Bush and ignore the big picture.
                                        How much was evil and how much was
                                        incompetence I do not know. SH did
                                        sponsor Palestinian terrorism to
                                        some extent.
                                        \_ I want a drug pony, indict me.
                                           The POTUS was in a position to
                                           know that the intel he was
                                           receiving was shaky at best.
                                           He still passed it on like it
                                           was a "slam dunk." I buy that
                                           Congress didn't stop POTUS,
                                           and that some in the CIA wanted
                                           to please the prez. The least
                                           you can do is admit that the
                                           Prez. set the tone and ignored
                                           anything that contradicted.
                                           This inability to accept *any*
                                           blame w/o blaming someone else
                                           at the same time is the key
                                           character flaw of this Admin
                                           and its apologists.
                                         \_ Yes, obviously POTUS wanted war,
                                            and dismissed indications
                                            that were contrary to his aim,
                                            and pumped the dubious stuff and
                                            misportrayed the state of intel.
                                            This was wrong etc. But then it's
                                            not like there was hard evidence
                                            against the WMD thing. We do know
                                            SH had a WMD program of sorts and
                                            it's possible we'd have ended up
                                            in Iraq by now anyway for one
                                            reason or another.
                                            But yes, I do blame the prez for
                                            the war. But I don't transfer this
                                            blame to the entire Republican
                                            Party; or at least not really more
                                            than the D Party. Americans elected
                                            W after the WMD fiasco was known.
                                            At that point I am less concerned
                                            about Mr. Bush personally.
                             other wars in principle. Saddam was a bad guy
                             and we're fighting for freedom. What's the
                             \_ the reasons we invaded Iraq change every
                                day.  i don't think this is like past wars,
                                at all.
                                \_ It's exactly like past wars. The US was
                                   not threatened in any war except WW2, and
                                   that case was after the US already made
                                   offensive moves against Japan.
                                   The difference is that Bush was more
                                   clumsy and hamhanded about it with the
                                   lame justifications. He wasn't able to
                                   make adequate speeches to inspire the
                                   rabble (but it was still enough).
                                   \_ We got involved in the Korean and
                                      Vietnam war to show our muscle and
                                      annoy the local power in that part of
                                      the world, China.  So we invaded Iraq
                                      to annoy Iran?  Piss off Syria?  Huh
                                      I guess you're right the Iraq war
                                      is like every other war!
                                   \_ So your argument is that just because
                                      others talked us into illegal actions
                                      we should let this bungler off the hook
                                      just because he was so bad at it?
                                      What the hell kind of behavior are we
                                      rewarding here?
                                      \_ No that's not my argument. (?)
                             difference? We killed lots and lots of civilians
                             in those other wars too. What's your big problem?
                             Did defense contractors not profit in the past?
                             Let's say we didn't go into Iraq. We'd still be
                             in Afghanistan, right? We'd still maintain the
                             overwhelming power of the US military. We'd still
                             have dot com bubbles and housing bubbles. The D's
                             aren't putting forth anything really different.
                             Guys like Nader and Ron Paul do put forth stuff
                             that is different. In 2000 Gore and Bush sounded
                             very alike and spent the debates mostly agreeing
                             with each other.
                             \_ Clinton significanly cut the military budget
                                and used that money to balance the fed budget.
                                This is not a small thing. A more liberal
                                Democrat might actually get something
                                significant done, like national health care.
                                WWII was different in that we actually
                                attacked the people who bombed us. I will
                                grant you Vietnam.
                                \_ Of course the Republican strategy to
                                   Vietnam would have been so much less
                                \_ Re: national health care
                                   Be careful what you wish for.
                       \_ No, Democrats aren't just as cozy with corporate
                          America as the Republicans, or they wouldn't support
                          things like Unions. Corporate America hates unions.
                          But they are cozy with certain sorts of corporations,
                          ones that do things like educate, build mass transit,
                          entertain and litigate (okay, not so great perhaps).
                          I prefer all of these to bombing civilians for
                          I am kind of nutty that way.
                          \_ You are pretty nutty to believe that Republicans
                             literally bomb civilians for profit, and that
                             they don't educate or do anything other than
                             rape babies. Seriously, take a breath and think
                             about it. Corporations give huge amounts of
                             money to Dem campaigns. Dems have huge investment
                             stakes and other ties large corporations. HRC
                             served on the board of Wal-Mart. But no,
                             Republicans bomb civilians for profit. Yay.
                             \_ Yes, I am very familliar with which special
                             \_ Yes, I am very familiar with which special
                                interest groups give to which candidates.
                                Obviously, you are not. Who does Boeing,
                                Halliburton, Bechtel and the other war
                                profiteers donate to? Do you even know?
                                Most big corporations hedge their bets a
                                little, but Big Oil and the Military Industrial
                                Complex overwhelmingly lean GOP. Can you guess
                                why? Wal-Mart arguably does some things that
                                are in the public interest (I know, so does
                                Big Oil...)
                                \_ Show me the data. And show me where the
                                   money is going in the current election.
                                   Democrats seem to be getting a lot of funds
                                   from defense industry employees now:
                                   Democrats have had power in this country
                                   before and have power in Congress now.
                                   Where's the beef? Where's the utopian
                                   legislation that will lead us to the
                                   promised land? Democrats authorized Bush
                                   to invade Iraq. Democrats do Bad Things
                                   sometimes. National defense is not a
                                   Republican invention and none of the
                                   frontrunning candidates are going to
                                   cut our military meaningfully after 2008.
                                   The only one with that platform was Paul
                                   (a Republican).
                                   \_ and Kucinich, Gravel, Frank Moore.
                                      \_ what about Nader? Point being that
                                         these guys are essentially not in
                                         the Democratic Party.
                                   What's Obama gonna do?
                                   \_ Look at the last eight years. But yes,
                                      everyone can see which way the wind blows
                                      now. A majority of Democrats in Congress
                                      voted against the bill to give Bush the
                                      authority to invade Iraq, no amount of
                                      spin can change that. I think you are
                                      wrong about Obama and defense spending.
                                      Clinton cut it by 1/3 from Reagan. Obama
                                      will do the same. There is no promised
                                      land, but leadership matters and some of
                                      it is clearly better.
                                      \_ Obama would inherit Iraq. He's not
                                         going to be able to cut the military
                                         by 1/3 in a first term, you are nuts.
                                         Clinton did not inherit any wars.
                                         The president doesn't even have that
                                         power, he needs Congress to do it.
                                         As you said, companies try to go where
                                         the wind is blowing and the wind was
                                         blowing for GOP in the last 8 yrs.
                                         \_ Repeatedly questioning my sanity
                                            does not make your arguments any
                                            more pursuasive. I have been shown
                                            to be 100% right about Bush, even
                                            when my position was the extreme
                                            minority. You have not apparently
                                            learned anything at all. Simply
                                            ending the war in Iraq will cut
                                            the military budget by 1/3. I
                                            expect Obama to do thatin the first
                                            expect Obama to do that in the first
                                            two years of his term.
                                            \_ Your position was never in the
                                               extreme minority; that proves
                                               you have a fantasyland inside
                                               your head. What am I supposed
                                               to learn? I didn't vote for
                                               Bush, nor do I like him. I am
                                               just being pragmatic. The
                                               Democrats are not better and
                                               are worse in other ways. The
                                               war in Iraq will play out
                                               similarly with any of the
                                               candidates. Obama will "end"
                                               the war but we will still have
                                               troops there. We already ended
                                               it a long time ago; mission
                                               accomplished etc.
                                               \_ Bush popularity rating was
                                                  91% at one point. Either you
                                                  have a strange definition
                                                  of extreme minority or a very
                                                  selective memory.
                                                 \_ His rating was never 91%.
                                                    Maybe among Republicans.
                                                    \_ Oct '01 according to
                                                       some polls. Check:
                                                       Riding high after 9/11
                                        '01? Bush hadn't done shit by then. _/
                                        But ok I stand corrected. What were
                                        you saying about him in Oct 01 that
                                        you were so right about? In Oct 01
                                        we were inundated with patriotism.
                                        \_ Apologies: stat was posted by
                                           motd fact-checker, not pp. Pls
                             \_ Somebody sure made money from all those bombs
                                dropped on Iraq. They don't build those
                                things for free, you know.
                                \_ You think no Democrats profited from that?
                                   Hell, maybe you have a mutual fund with
                                   defense industry stock and you profited
                                   yourself. I probably profited. Democrats
                                   profited from napalming Vietnamese villages.
                                   This is not a fruitful line of discussion.
                                   \_ "...You are pretty nutty to believe that
                                        Republicans literally bomb civilians
                                        for profit..." Yes, I would imagine
                                        you find it unfruitful.
                                        \_ Yes?
                 \_ Hardly a strawman: Obama was called a Marxist on the motd
                    and the flag pin question was in the PA debate.
                    \_ Wow, that's real serious important discussion there.
                       \_ Exactly my point. The media has spent more time
                          on Obama's non-existent flag pin then on health care.
                          \_ What? No, this is false.
                             \_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/69jcj3
                                Okay, they have pretty much the same
                                amount of entries here. Do you have any
                                evidence to back up your claim that the media
                                has spent more time on health care?
        \_ If only McClellan had said something about books like this...oh.
        \_ You know what?  I think if Gore the Democrat had been elected,
           the new Gore Administration would not have been full of
           hubris filled neocon toadies.  I do not think they would have
           invaded Iraq under false pretenses.  We can debate this all day,
           but I firmly believe this.  I do not think the world would
           appear to be headed towards a gigantic United States led
           clusterfuck if a Democractic, Gore led administration were
           in power right now.  I believe there are significant differences
           between the current Republican Bush administration, and my
           fantasy Gore Democractic administration.  I believe an Obama
           or Hillary (ahem) administration would not blindly invade Iran
           right now.  I haven't heard Obama or Hillary (ahem) casually
           mention that we should prepare to be in Iraq for the next 1000
           \_ While this is most certainly true, I think this has more to
              do with BUSHCO than it has to do with the GOP. I doubt Pres.
              McCain would have blindly invaded Iraq, &c.
              \_ It was hardly blindly. It was very deliberate.
                 \_ yes, in fact it had been suggested by the whole host of
                    GOP chicken hawks as far back as 1997.  See the PNAC.  -tom
                    \_ Which is exactly why a McCain administration will
                       invade Iran, if they can figure out how to talk
                       Congress into it.
                       \_ It depends on which McCain we get after the election.
2008/5/28-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50065 Activity:nil
5/28    http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11412562
        The amusing bit is at the end, where McCain voted against this, and
        Obama voted for.  Extra amusing is how someone deleted this without
        comment.  (Bush vetoed this bill also). -- ilyas
        \_ Change!
2008/5/26-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50053 Activity:nil
5/25    Even the AP is has noticed the Obama is just making up his policy
        as he goes along.
        \_ you're an idiot.
           \_ A stunning argument!  The opposition can make no response!
              \_ Masturbation's a one-player game.
                 \_ Oh, you may carry on with it then, but please stop
                    jizzing all over the motd.
                    \_ Freeper: the sound of one hand fapping.
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021273/posts
           \_ The Hugo Chavez one is kinda 'meh' since he could be saying that
              Chavez's power increased due to Bush's negligence.
              I think it's pretty obvious he hasn't thought through his
              position on things like FARC tho'.
2008/5/25 [Health, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50050 Activity:nil 74%like:50052
5/25    Obama's gaffes are really starting to pile up.
        He's made another one recently claiming that Bush was responsible
        for getting Chavez elected.  Oops, Chavez was elected in '98.
        That link is a little silly, it suggests Obama is on drugs, I
        just posted it for the accurate list of mistakes it starts out with.
2008/5/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Travel/Nola] UID:50029 Activity:nil 88%like:50031
5/22    Time to abandon New Orleans
2008/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50015 Activity:nil
5/20    Here's my recollection of the final candidates in presidential
        elections of which I have memory:
        1980:   Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan
        1992:   George Bush vs. Bill Clinton
        2000:   George W. Bush vs. Al Gore
        2004:   George W. Bush vs. John Kerry
        2008:   Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama (With the media coverage, it
                sure feels that way.)
        \_ Do a lot of drugs such that you missed so many?
           \_ I don't always remember the losing candidate.  Besides, I wasn't
              in this country until 1989 when I was 19.  Oh, I just recalled
              one more losing candidate called "Dukakis" or something, but I
              forgot which year it was.  Maybe 1996?  BTW Ross Perot doesn't
              \_ So, basically, your recollection is worthless. We should
                 pay attention to you why?
                 \_ No reason.  BTW I could've filled in the gaps by STFW, but
                    that wouldn't be from memory.
              \_ You don't remember Bob Dole? I guess he was pretty forgettable.
              \_ You don't remember Bob Dole? I guess he was pretty
2008/5/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49999 Activity:nil
5/19    What a dumb ass.
        \- meritocracy in action! also:
        \- meritocracy in acton! also:
           \_ What does Acton have to do with this?
2008/5/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49994 Activity:nil
5/18    John Yoo fans:
        "Protesters in Guantánamo orange have disrupted his class and dogged
        him in public forums. I talked to another Berkeley law professor who
        refuses to attend faculty meetings with him. “Until he atones,” he
        said, “I don't want to be in the same room with him.” But Yoo shrugs
        it all off. He likes living among liberals, he says. "Liberals from
        the sixties do a great job of creating all the comforts of life --
        gourmet food, specialty jams, the best environmentally conscious
        waters." - danh
        \_ I'm waiting for Coultier, Limbaugh and Savage to declare him
           a hero.
2008/5/17-23 [Transportation/Car, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49987 Activity:nil
5/17    Bush suspends oil reserve deliveries to soften the gas price.
        Good idea (lowering price) or bad idea (less gas in the reserves)?
        \_ Don't you mean "Bush agrees with Congress to suspend oil reserve
           deliveries after they threaten veto?"
           \_ Veto doesn't mean what you think it means.
        \_ Bad because such a tiny amount of oil won't make a dent to the oil
           or gas price.  Good for the politicians who initiated it though, as
           election is coming up.  If oil or gas prices doesn't drop, such
           initiative won't hurt them.  But if prices does drop for whatever
           other reason, they can say "See, we made the price drop."
2008/5/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49973 Activity:nil
5/16    Congress passes huge pork bill.
        \_ Hello NATIONAL REVIEW crap!
           \_ Is it wrong?
              \_ No. NationalReview is right. Very RIGHT. Righteous.
                 Right wing. Right.
                 \_ Is this an interesting line of discussion to you?
                    Partisan line-drawing and team-based politics?
                    Left, right: it's all bullshit. Both left and right
                    wing politicians do stupid and corrupt things. The
                    rational individual will evaluate criticism impartially.
                    \_ The rational individual learns that some sources
                       are untrustworthy propaganda.  While there may be
                       a story here, I'm not going to pay much attention
                       to the National Review's framing because I know they
                       are mendacious idealouges.  (That being said I
                       am anti-farm subsidy, but there are plenty of sane
                       op eds out there declaiming the current bill.)
                        \_ Context seems to mean that you are saying
                           that there are lots of sane op-eds out there
                           supporting this bill.  URL please? (if so)
                       \_ Untrustworthy propaganda? It's an op-ed. It is
                          not even a source. Find me a better op-ed then.
                          You talk as if you have no brain and can't
                          judge an argument on its own merits. Where's the
                          outcry from a mainstream source?
                          \_ If it's an op-ed, then label it as such. Posting
                             a bunch of shortened urls with a label that
                             appears to be about news is misleading. -10 pts.
              \_ It is now.  Any fact given in NRO immediately becomes untrue
                 by virtue of being printed there.
        \_ Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
2008/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49948 Activity:moderate
5/15    Amateur motd directors, what do you think of the East Bay Express's
        article on why UCB should fire John Woo for just being an all around
        terrible director:
        \_ I was unaware of the purpose of john woo's old office in
           the administration.  now i know!
        \- ths is an interesting and hard problems. much, much discussion
           at brad delong WOB site.
        \_ Anyone who says stuff we don't like should be destroyed!  Free
           speech is only for people who agree with us!
           \_ This might be a little deeper than that.  Read the article
              then come back.  It's not that he says things that are
              unpopular, but he might have either just made up
              law out of his ass, or committed a crime, or perhaps
              he was just following the instructions of someone else.
              I don't think this is a free speech issue.
           \_ Do you think that mob boss who orders a hit is protected
              by a "free speech" defence?
              \_ No, I do not.
        \_ I think that he has tenure and should not be fired until he is
           convicted of a felony. I believe he committed one, but we should
           wait until the legal system has decided that or not. What if
           Bush pardons him though, which looks more and more likely?
           \_ I keep hearing that Bush is going to pardon all these people,
              but I haven't seen him actually do it.
              \_ These pardons usually come in a Presidents last week
                 in office.
                 \- "i have a pardon in my pocket" jyoo@autodafe.berkeley.edu
2008/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49946 Activity:nil
5/15    Sign the angry renter petition! No bailouts!
        \_ Angry renter?  How about the 99% of mortgage holders who pay their
           bills *and* the taxes that would fund a bailout?
        \_ Actually a product of a billionaire and a politician:
2008/5/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:49932 Activity:nil
5/12    Another big disaster in Asia in a week:
        "Death toll in China earthquake up to nearly 9,000"
        \_ my work place is full of mainlanders trying to get funding
           to help their fellow mainlanders. however, they're also the
           people who are insulted at FREE TIBET and LEAVE TAIWAN ALONE
           slogans and we've had heated arguments on this. why should i
           help people who just want to fuck your homeland?
           \_ It's nobody's business but China's, but hand over your donations.
              \_ Very few American knows that China donated 5 million US$
                 for the Katrina disaster (that's from the government alone)
                 because it was rarely, if at all, reported in the media.
                 But I guess most Americans consider New Orleans an hostile
                 alien regime that should be wiped out  anyway.
        \_ I'm pretty much as anti-PRC as a person can get, but getting
           the Premier out to the disaster sites and having him shouting
           to survivors to hang in there is poignant. Go, PLA, go!
           \_ It's funny how accidental deaths are only a concern to
              governments when they happen in a large enough spurt
              that there is intense media coverage.
2008/5/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49888 Activity:low 61%like:49921
5/5     10000 dead from one storm:
        "The United States said the junta had so far refused to allow an
        American disaster team in to assess damage to follow up on an
        emergency U.S. contribution of $250,000."
        \_ 22000 now.
        \_ Is Myanmar denying international aid in order to strengthen its
           Junta to outside:    No we don't want your aid.  Go away.
           Junta to citizens:   We've been asking for international aid but
                                nobody came!  See?  The West is evil.
           \_ Citizens to Junta: We're dying of dysentary and malaria. We
                                 don't care how evil they are, please let them
              \_ That is only if the citizens know the fact that the aid is
                 not missing, but is being refused.
2008/5/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49886 Activity:low
5/5     "Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers"
        \_ I vote for football players, then politicians, then lawyers
        \_ Very old people, people with chronic conditions, people who
           have other problems making them likely to die.  Thing is,
           amongst the rest, who gets allowed to die?  Males?
           \_ The obvious answer is the ALPHA MALE. One Alpha breeds
              with all the females.
              \_ You Mormon!
        \_ Welcome to triage.
        \_ In a real pandemic everyone is going to die.  The doctors won't have
           a cure right away, if ever, and no one is going to run around asking
           victims to see their driver's license, prior medical, financial and
           educational history before treatment.  This is just silly stuff.
2008/5/5-9 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49881 Activity:nil
5/5     Comrade!  "Reasonable Profits Board"
        \_ I think the US did this before, but I don't remember the circumstances.
        \_ they were talkin windfall profits back in the 80's too.  question is
        \_ I think the US did this before, but I don't remember the
        \_ they were talking windfall profits back in the 80's too.
           question is
           if you let the market ration the consumption back to the supply,
           the prices necessarily go up.  a lot.  Who gets the money from that?
           The people in control of the supply.
2008/4/24-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49825 Activity:nil
4/24    Lefty gives the beat down on girl in wheelchair, cause he hates Bush so
        \_ left wing nuts are more violent than right wing nuts.
           \_ yeah, just ask those kids in Oklahoma City...oh wait
              \_ Or Waco
           \_ remember it was the national *Socialist* party
              \- gee you forgot about the DPRK and Deutsche
                 Demokratische Republik.
        \_ "Are you kidding me? This guy actually punched a wheelchair bound,
            helpless girl to express his rage at Bush. My outrage meter is
            pegged out, along with my disgust meter"
           So, what we have hear is an opinion piece based on a NYPost story.
           In other "news," this guy I know totally saw Condoleeza Rice set
           a hobo on fire the other day.
2008/4/24-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49822 Activity:nil
4/24    Run on rice hits American stores:
        http://www.csua.org/u/lca (LA Times)
        \_ went to costco this weekend (4/27) and wow, they were cleared out,
           of the two pallets of space for rice, they were empty except for one
           lonely bag.   -ERic
2008/4/22-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49798 Activity:nil
4/21    President Bush now has highest disapproval rating in the history of
        Gallup poll.  Previous record holder was Harry Truman in the depths
        of the Korean War.  Numbers are 28% approval, 69% disapproval.
        \_ Still 66% approval rating amongst Republicans baby!
           If Democrats and Independents had the same loyalty as Republicans,
           they'd rule by now.
        \_ BDS
           \_ eh?
        \_ Mission Accomplished!
        \_ Why are we still talking about Bush? He is irrelevant now.
           He can't lower taxes further. He can't start another war.
                                        \_ actually i think he could!
           He can't save the housing market. He can't lower fuel prices.
           His credibility is low and no one's really listening to him.
           He can still veto but wrt new actions/initiatives, he's pretty
           \_ The crapitude of W Bush is still relevant because he is the
              winner of the last two elections and now we have another
              election. It's worth thinking about how and why he got
              elected. Twice. He also happens to still be the president.
              \_ He is a great stick to beat the GOP with, especially since
                 a majority of Republicans still think he is doing a great job.
                 \_ Causality. Is he still getting 66% approval from R
                    because he's doing a great job? Or is he getting 66%
                    approval from R because the R party is great and loyal?
                    It's more of the latter. As Ronald Reagan the
                    God of the R said one, thou shall never speak ill of
                    thy friend, family, and affiliates.
           \_ He can also start a war with Iran, which he seems hellbent on
2008/4/21-30 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49786 Activity:nil
4/19    Bush interrogation program was being used before Yoo memo
        \_ He and Libby will both get a pardon.
2008/4/20-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49784 Activity:nil
4/19    Gitmo interrogators inspired by 24 and Jack Bauer
2008/4/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49778 Activity:nil
4/17    What do you think, will Bush drop below even Nixon? What if
        the recession turns out to be a real downturn?
        http://www.csua.org/u/l9v (Gallup)
        \_ What I care more is, is there any correlation between
           approval ratings and say, stock prices?
           \_ yes.
        \_ BDS?  It doesn't matter.  What I care about is the future of the
           country: our security, economy, and general living conditions of
           the citizens.  I don't care which party can achieve this, although
           I suspect neither cares about anything but attaining and keeping
           power.  A focus on the trivial such as Bush's current poll numbers
           or approval ratings vs. stock prices is not helpful.
           \_ You are correct no doubt: the 23 percent of Americans who rate
              Bush as the worst President ever are deranged, while the 1% who
              rate Bush as the Best Ever are all Patriotic right thinking
              Americans. Only by confronting and examining our mistakes can we
              hope to learn from them, I think. But perhaps it is still too
              early to do a post-mortem on the Bush Administration.
              \_ Yawn.  You totally miss the point.  It does not matter at all
                 what anyone thinks of Bush right now.  The moment you start
                 talking about polls and ratings you're off track on what
                 matter.  I agree about studying history and not repeating
                 mistakes and such but you can't study it while you're living
                 it.  Instead, we should be examining the candidates we have
                 and asking *them* the tough questions.  Bush = zero importance
                 in a few month and nearly none right now.  Anyway, given the
                 trash running, we're in for at least four more years of
                 idiocy no matter who wins since all three are clowns in their
                 own way.  Mindless "change" rhetoric, a repeat of 90s psycho-
                 drama, or bog standard ego boosting and corruption.  Yay....
2008/4/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, ERROR, uid:49737, category id '18005#10.07' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49737 Activity:nil
4/12    No wonder the Republicans on the motd are bitter:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/3rkvtz (NYT)
        "What is concerning is that we lost ground in every one of the
        highest-growth demographics," said Mehlman, the former  RNC
        chairman and Bush political adviser, who is now a lawyer at the
        lobbying firm Akin Gump.
        \_ Very weak troll.  Son, if you're going to troll someone, you can't
           spell out who your target is.  Your trolling skills are pathetic.
           \_ It is not really intended to be a troll. -op
              \_ It is a troll.  Move on.  Nothing to see here.
2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49724 Activity:moderate
4/11    So ummm.... Why the heck is John Yoo a prof at Boalt?
        \_ Because Berekley is a great academic institution with a wide
           diversity of viewpoints?
        \_ Why do you ask? (I keep hearing stuff about Yoo on the motd
           but I don't see why he's controversial.)
           \_ He is the main author of the "torture is okey-dokey" legal
        \_ Perhaps b/c he is an excellent lawyer, teacher and scholar?
           I am not saying that Prof. Yoo is any of those things b/c I
           do not know him. But he could be an exceptional lawyer and
           teacher even if his politics are completely incompatible w/
           yours. My favorite law school prof and I have quite different
           political views on many things but it does not change the fact
           that he is a superb lawyer and teacher.
           \_ If he such a superb lawyer, why did he produce such a
              wrongheaded legal opinion?
              \_ I do not know why Prof. Yoo wrote the torture memo.
                 My experience suggests that someone asked him to
                 write it.  That he reached a conclusion that you
              \_ I did not say that Prof. Yoo was a superb lawyer.
                 Also, I do not know why Prof. Yoo wrote the torture
                 memo. My experience suggests that someone asked him
                 to write it. That he reached a conclusion that you
                 (and perhaps he also) disagree with, does not mean
                 that he is not a good lawyer.  Clients sometimes
                 (often?) ask one to do support positions one thinks
                 are morally, though not legally, unsupportable.
                 (often?) ask one to find legal support for positions
                 one thinks are morally unsupportable.  Fortunately,
                 sometimes the law does not offer such support. In
                 other situations, the law does offer the support a
                 client seeks. And in those case, one has no choice
                 client seeks. And in those cases, one has no choice
                 but to disclose that fact to the client.
                 Anyway, my point was merely that Prof. Yoo may have
                 qualities that qualify him for the job he holds,
                 abilities that qualify him for the job he holds,
                 desipte his political views.
                 [Update: I think the following blog post is
                 particularly relevant:
                 http://preview.tinyurl.com/3g96eg [legal ethics forum]]
                 \_ No, he is a counter-revolutionary and must be sent to the
                    gulags.  There can be no dissent!
                    \_ Do you think torture is something that America should
                       support? Do you think that it is against the law of
                       the land?
                       \_ I personally do not think torture is something
                          America should support. But I do not think that
                          it is against the law of the land in all cases.
                       \_ Anyone who defends a counter-revolutionary is also
                          counter-revolutionary!  We will root out these
                 \_ At a certain point, someone has to be responsible for
                    ass-covering.  "I was only following orders" and all that.
                    \_ Well, he has tenure, which should protect him from
                       being fired for holding unpopular opinions. But since
                       he apparently was primarily responsible for the US
                       violating the Geneva Convention, jail time is not
                       out of the question.
                       \_ I have not followed in detail the USSC's decisions
                          on the GC issue, but as far as I am aware, it is
                          not clear that the GC has been violated by BUSHCO's
                          actions or that a violation of the GC would imply
                          jail time for the principals b/c no applicable
                          privilege exists.
                          Re "following orders" - I agree that someone should
                          be held accountable, but why should it be Prof. Yoo
                          instead of those who commissioned his memo?
                          \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy
                             \_ It remains unclear that any law has been
                                broken wrt Prof. Yoo and/or those who
                                sought his advice and acted upon it.
                                Even if some crime has occured, it is
                                unclear that some form of executive priv.
                                would not apply.
                                \_ Do you believe the executive has the
                                   privilege to break the law with impunity?
                                   The Supreme Court disagrees with that.
                                   \_ As I said, I have not followed the
                                      USSC's decision wrt the GC. Based
                                      on my very brief reading of the
                                      decisions, it is unclear that any
                                      crime has been committed by Prof.
                                      Yoo or those who sought his advice.
                                      It is also unclear that even if a
                                      crime has been committed an exec.
                                      privilege will not apply. The USSC
                                      has not rule on this particular
                                      issue and likely never will
                                      ("John Marshall has issued his
                                        order now let him enforce it").
                                      \_ Google "United States v. Nixon."
                                         \_ It is not clear to me that
                                            Nixon applies to this
                                            situation. There may be
                                            many kinds of executive
                                            privilege and power.
                                            \_ I think US v. Nixon is very
                                               clear - executive priv. exists,
                                               but it is specifically NOT
                                               immune to judicial review,
                                               particularly in the case
                                               where a crime may have been
                                               committed.  I don't think there
                                               are "many kinds" of executive
                                               priv. - there is the kind
                                               recognized by the courts only.
                                               \_ It is not at all clear that
                                                  Nixon applies when the Pres.
                                                  acts in the arena of foreign
                                                  affairs or national defense,
                                                  which is the situation in
                                                  relevant to Prof. Yoo. The
                                                  Pres. inherent power may be
                                                  overriding in those realms.
                                                  [I was not using "privilege"
                                                  in the technical sense]
                                                  \_ I am doubtful of that
                                                     argument, and I believe
                                                     most legal scholars are
                                                     as well.  Note that
                                                     Congress is given the
                                                     power to ratify treaties.
                                                     \_ Congress is also given
                                                        the power to declare
                                                        war, maintain a navy,
                                                        &c. so clearly there is
                                                        shared power over the
                                                        conduct of foreign
                                                        affairs and national
                                                        security. But it is
                                                        still unclear whether
                                                        the Pres. power trumps.
                                                        BUSHCO clearly believes
                                                        it does. I am not sure
                                                        they are correct. But
                                                        the argument exists.
                                                        And I believe that we
                                                        will never have an
        \_ I wonder how many of the Yoo defenders were calling for that
           stupid "A million little Hitler's" prof's head on a platter.
           (Or some such nazi/9-11 reference)
        \_ They hired him fresh out of the administration in 2004. The torture
           memos weren't revealed until after that. If he were brought up on
           charges as a contributor to undermining and violating the Convention
           Against Torture and war crimes, could he lose his tenure then?
           I was very happy to see him on talk show right after he was hired.
           A prominent conservative from Berkeley! Now I'd like to see him in jail.
           \_ Absolutely, COMRADE!  Those who write or speak statements that
              WE the PEOPLES disagree with shall be imprisoned!  The FIRST
              AMENDMENT only protects POPULAR speach WE like!  Excuse me,
              COMRADE, I must now march on our ENEMIES, the TERRORISTS of
              EURASIA.  Up with the REVOLUTION, COMRADE!
              \_ Uh, is the criminal or incompetent practice of law a first amendment
                 issue? Surely there are standards about whether an argument is a good
                 faith effort or a load of legal bullshit, with no evidence or
                 justification in US jurisprudence. Writing legal opinions
                 to justify the use of torture makes you a party to violating our
                 own laws, and treaties against torture and war crimes to which the US
                 is a signatory.
                 That's why he's in the news. Because his classified memos are
                 finally coming out -- those upon which Gitmo and the Padilla
                 confinement are based -- and they are laughable, to the point of
                 \_ 404 Not Found
                 Bush: "We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."
                 \_ Bush will pardon the whole lot of them.
2008/4/10-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49719 Activity:nil 88%like:49716
4/10    68% of the Republicans still approve Bush. SAY WHAT?
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/55ugy7 [gallup]
        \_ Stupid people of America, unite!  Bush is your man!
           \_ It takes a real Conservative to really appreciate GWB.
              Obviously, there aren't many Conservatives on motd.
              \_ ^Conservative^idiot
                 \_ Case in point, the above knee jerking libural
                                                        -emarkp #1 fan
              \_ On the contrary, I think most Real Conseratives are horrified
                 by Bush.  Hence the historically low approval ratings.
        \_ I honestly don't understand most of the above comments. GWB has
           preciseley 2 conservative stances: 1) lower taxes, 2) national
           defense (and really #2 shouldn't be a conservative principle, it
           should be an American one).  I can't wait for GWB to be out of
           office, except then he'll be replaced by left-wing commies or Bush
           #3 (McCain) -emarkp
        \- keepin mind the number of "independents" are growing
           so the remaining Rs are more extreme/SIVs.
           \_ So are the remaining Ds.
              \- that's true to some extent but there is a difference in
                 the R and D populations, but it is hard to explain without
                 drawing a picture
              \_ No, the number of Ds is remaining constant, or even slightly
        \_ Loyalty and subordinance to authority are pretty strong
                 \- well if we are talking about the last year, rather
                    than a "generational" trend, more than the number of
                    Ds changing, the D-leaning Indeps have increased a lot.
        \_ Loyalty and obedience to authority are pretty strong
           Conservative virtues.
           \_ As are showing strong stance for America (don't flip flop)
              and never showing weaknesses and never admitting mistakes.
           \_ As are marching in lockstep to sound bites for Lefties.  (Bush
              lied, people died, etc.)
              \_ The Left is united by a common enemy (Bush) but if you actually
                 went to a demonstration or paid any attention or even looked
                 at the Zombietime site, you would know that you are full of
                 crap. It is more a temporary coalition of 100 different
                 special interest groups. Read The Nation letters section
              \_ The Left is united by a common enemy (Bush) but if you
                 actually went to a demonstration or paid any attention or
                 even looked at the Zombietime site, you would know that you
                 are full of crap. It is more a temporary coalition of 100
                 different special interest groups. Read The Nation letters
                 section sometime.
2008/4/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49716 Activity:high 88%like:49719
4/10    68% of the Republicans still approve Bush. SAY WHAT?
        \_ Stupid people of America, unite!  Bush is your man!
           \_ It takes a real Conservative to really appreciate GWB.
              Obviously, there aren't many Conservatives on motd.
              \_ ^Conservative^idiot
                 \_ Case in point, the above knee jerking libural
                                                        -emarkp #1 fan
              \_ On the contrary, I think most Real Conseratives are horrified
                 by Bush.  Hence the historically low approval ratings.
        \_ I honestly don't understand most of the above comments. GWB has
           preciseley 2 conservative stances: 1) lower taxes, 2) national
           defense (and really #2 shouldn't be a conservative principle, it
           should be an American one).  I can't wait for GWB to be out of
           office, except then he'll be replaced by left-wing commies or Bush
           #3 (McCain) -emarkp
        \- keepin mind the number of "independents" are growing
           so the remaining Rs are more exreme/SIVs.
           \_ So are the remaining Ds.
2008/4/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:49712 Activity:nil
4/10    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034202
        General lengthens Iraq tour so that Bush can shorten it and
        get credit. JOB WELL DONE BUSHIE!
2008/4/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49699 Activity:nil
4/9     Oops, Obama's *other* spiritual advisor is also a racist anti-American.
        blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain"
        \_ Hey jerkoff who keeps runnin' dis drough ' JIBE', ya' some racist
        \_ Hey jerkoff who keeps running this through 'jive', are you racist
           \_ No, but I think your feigned outrage is very funny to mock.
              \_ "feigned"?
                 \_ feign
                    verb [ trans. ]
                    pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury) :
                        she feigned nervousness.
                    * archaic invent (a story or excuse).
                    * [ intrans. ] archaic indulge in pretense.
                    \_ I know what it means, just wondering why you think it's
2008/4/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49694 Activity:nil
4/8     Worst. President. Ever.
        \- I am hoping for two things:
           1. the us govt torturers [JYOO, DADDINGTON, DRUMSFELD etc]
              get arrested in some EU country
           2. The BUSHCO legacy is one of incompetence, such as being
              labelled "the worst president in US history". Some presidents
              were labelled as losers because they didnt win a second term
              and since BUSHCO was inconceivable re-elected, he wasnt tainted
              in the same way as JCARTER and GHWBUSH, eventhough he is vastly
              worse. Second, I dont think DRUMSFELD or DCHENEY give a rats
              ass about being called "evil", but I think mass opinion that
              they are fools and incompetent would bother them [ALBERTO on
              the other hand was so stupid apparently even universally being
              condemned as a moron doesnt seem to have affected him much.
              Like an amoeba, he probably only reacts to extreme hot and cold
              or beatings.]
            \_ I love when you put stuff in ALL CAPS as if that MEANS SOMETHING
               IMPORTANT.  Since you brought it up, by torture do you mean lap
               dances from hot CIA chicks and having underwear put on your
               head?  Terrifying stuff, truly evil.
               \_ More likely he's referring to waterboarding, stress positions,
                  and the numerous people that have been murdered in custody.
                  Not to mention all the people we rendered to Egypt where
                  they were tortured by Egyptian security into producing
                  false information:
                  \_ Being strapped to a board, beaten, then sodomized by a
                     big hairy Egyptian policeman sounds like a good time to me.
2008/4/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49680 Activity:moderate
4/7     In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
        \_ If you add more people to the system and not more dollars this
           will happen. Universal care will end up costing taxpayers more
           money for a reduced (or the same) level of service - and don't
           give me this BS about how preventative care will save money. If you
           think that's true then make the Universal system include only
           preventative care.
           \_ Well, any solution that amounts to layering a bureaucracy on
              top of the existing system is dubious.
           \_ ...well, hell, if you don't believe preventative care will
              save money, how about you go ahead and stop receiving any of it
              and let us know how you're doing in about 10 years?
              \_ I think you missed his point. -!pp
                 \_ Not if his point was that preventative care will save
                 \_ Not if his point was that preventative care won't save
                    money or cut costs in a Universal healthcare system.
                    \_ Do you mean 'will not save?'
                       \_ Er, yes. Will fix soon and erase both of these
              \_ Preventative care won't save money if it then leads to
                 expensive procedures anyway. However, I'm all in favor
                 of free medical exams. Free clinics funded by the government
                 do this already. That's the extent of it, though.
              \_ http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/prevention-cost.html
                   -- ilyas
                 \_ Excellent: _some_ preventative medicine will save costs;
                    indiscriminate spending on unproven preventatives will
                    raise costs. That's important to know so's we can focus.
                    \_ Does early cancer screening save costs, improve
                       quality of life, or neither? I would argue that
                       overall it might improve quality of life, but it
                       doesn't lower costs. In fact, it adds to costs
                       because you have the cost of the screening plus the
                       costs of the treatment which is much the same either
                       way. On top of that, as the article points out,
                       you've extended a life so that you can have more
                       expensive screenings and ultimately (in many cases)
                       a recurrence anyway. Prevention works for conditions
                       which we have cures for like polio. It doesn't work
                       so well for cancer, heart disease, and such which
                       is probably where most of the medical $$$ go anyway.
                       \_ Have you included the value of saving the lives
                          of fully-productive adult members of society in
                          your calculation?  [Hint: No.]   -tom
                          \_ We are comparing prevention to no prevention +
                             treatment.  Are you claiming that the former
                             actually saves more lives (aside from the
                             known beneficial cases, e.g., vaccinations)?
                                -- ilyas
                          \_ The data shows that the cases where preventative
                             care actually does save productive lives are
                             very rare, except for those few known things like
                             vaccines or a single colonoscopy at a certain
                             \_ This depends entirely on what you consider
                                preventative: is abstinence education prevent-
                                ative? how about safe sex classes including
                                information on condoms? It makes sense, though,
                                that certain testable measures are much more
                                reliable than, say, handing out pamphlets.
           \_ No, because over 1/3 of the current costs of the medical system
              go to the "free market" beauracracy. All those countries that
              go to the "free market" bureaucracy. All those countries that
              have introduced universal health care have cut costs. I leave
              it as an exercise for the reader to discover how this could
              possibly have happened.
              \_ US government != European governments. As history proves
                 over and over again, US government = inefficient beauracracy
                 that cannot be trusted, and hence we have no choice but
                 to rely on the free market.
                 \_ You mean inefficient like the US Army or Marine Corp?
                    \_ Our military branches are efficient at torture.
              \_ They save costs because you die while waiting to get the
                 surgery you need because of rationing. The free market
                 can allocate resources much more effectively than some
                 bureaucrat can. If you really want to cut costs you should
                 eliminate insurance entirely. Right now people don't pay
                 attention to whether their doctor charges $1400 versus
                 $1200 for a procedure. If it's within the customary
                 averages insurance companies are going to pay it.
                 However, if that extra $200 comes out of their pocket you
                 can be sure people will pay more attention to costs. Our
                 current nightmare of employer-sponsored HMO plans is
                 basically already Universal Healthcare for the working
                 class. Sure, you can purchase individual coverage but how
                 many people eligible for an employer-sponsored plan do
                 that? (And if they do, not many employers refund their
                 portion of the premium!) For the elderly we already have
                 Medicare. Universal health care is a step in the wrong
                 direction. Eliminate virtual-mandatory participation in
                 these plans and watch both doctors and patients become
                 much happier as they split that 1/3 overhead that HMOs
                 currently enjoy. I pay $600/month for health insurance if
                 you count my portion and my employer's portion and I am
                 under 40 and healthy. That's your UHC tax right there.
                 Refund it back to me and let me decide how to obtain
                 medical care. Don't legislate away the only choice I have
                 (not to participate).
                 \_ Savings have to come from eliminating bureaucratic fat,
                    better experimental study design (so we actually know what
                    works), and more personalized medicine (relying on averages
                    works), and more RUSSIAN medicine (relying on averages
                    is expensive and kills people).  People who just want
                    Universal Healthcare <tm> basically aren't thinking about
                    the problem, they are just shouting a political meme.
                          -- ilyas
                 \_ You mean how the free market so efficiently allocated
                    resources during the dot-com bubble and the housing
                    run-up and collapse? Simply repeating your ideological
                    position does make it any more persuasive. Yes, the free
                    market rations health care according to ability to pay and
                    state run systems allocate them according to need. Guess
                    which one gets more bang for your buck? People die in both
                    systems waiting for health care.
                    \_ What exactly was wrong with the <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> bubble or
                       the housing run-up? It's how markets work. I'm sure
                       you far prefer the former Soviet Union which didn't
                       have those "problems". Bureaucrats cannot decide
                       "need" as well as dollars can. I argue that more
                       bang for the buck is the one that eliminates the
                       \_ The medicare and VA bureaucracy is much more
                          lightweight than the HMO/medical insurance one is.
                          I prefer what works, not what my ideology tells me
                          "must" work.
                          \_ I think you are the one with an ideological
                             problem here.
                 \_ Another issue is that people without insurance or ability
                    to pay still get care in emergency rooms. I don't know
                    what the $ numbers are for those cases. But most med
                    insurance is pretty obviously not very efficient. If med.
                    insurance should be mandatory it should have really
                    high deductibles. The biggest problem with insurance
                    is that it neuters market forces towards the medical
                    industry. With most insurance plans, all doctors and
                    all drugs cost similar amounts, barring some brand
                    name vs. generic category things. The consumer as you
                    say has little reason to look for medical "deals".
                    And insurance is expensive, and those who aren't insured
                    \_ Exactly. There is no reason to shop around. When
                       shopping for a new doctor how many people inquire
                       as to his rates? How many times do you pay your
                       bill at the doctor *after* services are rendered?
                       High deductibles and large co-pays make sense, but
                       I do not think that's what the UHC people have in
                       mind. Anyone who has spent time at a free clinic
                       (or knows someone who works at one) realizes what a
                       disaster that is for all involved. We should be
                       looking for a more streamlined solution, not a
                       bigger and more difficult to administer solution
                       with mandatory participation that will screw
                       middle-class taxpayers even more than they already
                       are while doing nothing to improve medical care.
                       \_ I agree with everything except for your conclusion.
                          UHC works very well in the places it has been tried:
                          the US Army, VA hospitals, Canada, England, etc. In
                          this country, we will probably have to have a two
                          tier system, more like England, rather than a
                          mandatory participation system, like Canada, though.
                          \_ Do you know anyone in the military? My gf's
                             mom was an Air Force and then Army nurse
                             (active duty) for 30 years and when she
                             retired from nursing she continued to work
                             closely with Tricare, NIH, VA, and State Dept
                             (believe it or not they are involved for things l
                             like sharing patient data between branches of
                             military) as a consultant. She was also a
                             hospital administrator for a military hospital
                             and her daughter (my gf's sister) is Air
                             Force reserves, former Army, and works
                             full-time for the VA right now. In addition,
                             my gf's dad and stepdad were both military
                             officers and my gf's sister's ex-husband is
                             active duty Army who spent time in Iraq. I
                             can say from my experiences at military
                             hospitals (visiting) and from the stories
                             I've heard that I do not want military
                             medicine or the VA as a model for anything.
                             \_ I grew up on military bases all my life. My
                                father was a hospital administrator for the
                                Navy (35 years service). While I would not
                                suggest that OCHAMPUS is by any means perfect,
                                it provided adequate health and dental coverage
                                for us throughout my childhood. I would
                                consider it a fine model for basic services.
                                \_ The key words you used were 'adequate'
                                   and 'basic services'. I would say
                                   'substandard'. I wouldn't go to a military
                                   hospital unless I had to. Lots of military
                                   people like it because it's free to them,
                                   but if I had a serious illness I would
                                   rather it be treated elsewhere. Also, ask
                                   your dad about the waste that goes on. For
                                   instance, military hospitals require the RNs
                                   to be trained in almost every discipline.
                                   Private hospitals only require nurses train
                                   in the field they work. I think that part
                                   of the reason that military healthcare
                                   seems cheap is that many costs are
                                   hidden. For instance, doctors' salaries
                                   are very low (which scares me in itself)
                                   but there are other benefits they receive
                                   which many think makes it worth their while.
                                   You will not be able to hire doctors
                                   privately at those salaries because the
                                   total package needs to be evaluated
                                   (e.g. retirement benefits, travel benefits,
                                   and so on). I am not sure if studies that
                                   examine the costs of military medicine
                                   account for these externalities. The
                                   military hospitals receive many benefits
                                   private hospitals do not just by virtue
                                   of being part of the military machine
                                   and yet the quality of care still sucks.
                                   \_ I was a medic for three years, so yes
                                      I am familiar with the military medical
                                      system. I think it is fine. The VA
                                      system is even better. We can easily
                                      hire doctors at the pay level that the
                                      military pays them: that is what MDs
                                      make everywhere in the world, except
                                      here. The AMA artificially keeps the
                                      supply low, to inflate salaries. I am
                                      surprised that such a purported free
                                      market cheerleader would not be aware
                                      of this fact.
                                      \_ Many people would dispute your
                                         assertion re: AMA. The AMA does
                                         not have this power. Less than
                                         20% of physicians are members and
                                         the AMA has no direct regulatory
                                         authority. Also, many countries keep
                                         MD salaries artificially low. Spain,
                                         for instance, recruits MDs from
                                         Eastern Europe and Third World
                                         nations at low salaries and
                                         holds them hostage with visas.
                                         It's not worthwile for Spaniards
                                         to even bother with medical
                                         school at those wages. The
                                         salaries of US doctors are high
                                         and it's one reason we have a
                                         high standard of care. Plus, US
                                         doctor salaries have actually eroded
                                         over the past 40 years.
                                         \_ The AMA controls licensing for
                                            medical schools, which is how
                                            they keep the number of doctors
                                            low. Show me proof that MD salaries
                                            have eroded over the last 40 years,
                                            because I don't believe it. Maybe
                                            for primary care docs, but almost
                                            assuredly not for specialists.
                                            Salaries are high due to monopoly
                                            pricing power, not quality.
                                            \_ The AMA does no such thing.
                                               The government controls
                                               this. Sure, the AMA is a lobby
                                               but they can't mandate anything.

                                               \_ Your articles provide support
                                                  for my claim that an
                                                  artificial shortage of MDs
                                                  has been created. And a four
                                                  year snapshot of MD salaries
                                                  from 10 years ago doesn't
                                                  prove much. Lately MD salaries
                                                  are going up:
                                                  \_ An artificial shortage of
                                                     MDs has been created by
                                                     \_ AMA of course.
                                                        Why is it so hard to
                                                        get a medical edu.?
                                                        Actually learning the
                                                        stuff isn't that hard,
                                                        but getting into the
                                                        school is. -!pp
                                                        \_ The articles dispute
                                                           that the AMA has any
                                                           such power.
                                                           such power. It is
                                                           the gov't that you
                                                           trust to admin UHC
                                                           which is the problem.
        "The ACGME's member organizations are the American Board of Medical
        Specialties, American Hospital Association, American Medical
        Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the
        Council of Medical Specialty Societies. Member organizations each
        appoint four members to the Board of Directors, which also includes
        two resident members, three public directors, the chair of the Council
        of Review Committee Chairs and a non-voting federal representative."
        The AMA is one of the people on the board of the organization that
        certifies medical schools, but is not the only member.
        \- Might be of interest: WSJ article on non-profit hospital profits:
        \_ Nice to know, but in the end it is the government (through Medicare)
        \_ Nice to know, but in the end is it the government (through Medicare)
           that funds residents. In theory, we don't need any more accredited
           programs to churn out more doctors. We just need more students in
           the existing programs.
           \_ In other words, the AMA (amongst others) controls licensing for
              medical schools, which is what I said. The AMA also agressively
              lobbies the government to underfund medical education, but that
              is a bit more complicated as there are other players. But for
              generations, the AMA has done everything in its power to keep
              the number of doctors artificially low. Nice to see that some
              people are waking up to the fact that this might not be a good
              idea afterall.
              \_ This is what you said:
                 "The AMA controls licensing for medical schools"
                 (This statement is not really true as the AMA does not
                 have sole, or even majority, control. They have input.)
                 "which is how they keep the number of doctors low."
                 (This statement is not really true either since, as I
                 pointed out, the number of residents is largely
                 determined by the government.)
                 The AMA is a lobby out to protect the interests of
                 doctors. Wow, what a shocker. Next you will tell me that
                 UAW is trying to protect American autoworker jobs. However,
                 the AMA always gets blame for artificially limiting the
                 number of doctors and the reality is that they don't have
                 that capability. They have the desire, but let's not
                 overstate their authority. The biggest party at fault is the
                 government - the same government that people want to run
                 Universal Health Care.
                 \_ You said "the government controls this" which is entirely
                    false. "The government" is you and me, put the blame
                    where it belongs.
                    \_ You can increase funding for medical residents? You
                       should get on that.
2008/4/5-9 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49673 Activity:nil
4/4     Uh, WOW.  Pravda English edition.  This may be the best reading on the
        \_ what is this?
           \_ "US sniper meets Bush with his pants down"
              "People marry animals trying to find happiness"
              "Women feel depressed of being women"
              \_ So it's like the National Enquirer of the Soviet Union?
2008/4/5-9 [ERROR, uid:49672, category id '18005#3.54875' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49672 Activity:nil
4/4     Ten times as much media coverage for Obama's bowling as for John Yoo
        memo and Mukasey's 9/11 comments:
2008/4/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49636 Activity:nil
4/1     Oliver Stone to make George W. Bush biopic (not an April Fool, sadly)
        Starring Josh Brolin
        Given how unintentionally hilarious JFK was, this may simultaneously
        be both the best and worst movie ever made.
2008/3/31-4/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49615 Activity:moderate
3/31    Mark Steyn analyzes 'Dreams From My Father'
        This transcript covers on feature of Obama's first book that I found
        so odd.  I surprised more people who plan on voting haven't read it.
        \_ Gee townhall.  Surprise surprise.
        \_ Ahhh, the Hugh Hewitt show! Let me guess, you're a Romney voter.
           \_ Actually, I'd never heard of Hugh Hewitt until today.  I got this
              off a blog.  I take it neither of you have read "Dreams From
              My Father?"  It's not that it's an amazing book or anything,
              but it was the first thing I read when I first heard of
              Obama and was thinking about voting for him.  It's also the
              reason I decided I didn't want to vote for him.  I continue
              to be surprised that more people haven't read it, especially
              among those who love and those who hate him. -op
              \_ Which aspect(s) of the book made you not want to vote for
                 him, and does that mean you chose Clinton instead?
                 \_ Well, I actually voted for Obama in the primaries because
                    I still like him a lot more than Clinton.  Looks like I'll
                    end up voting for McCain in the general election unless
                    something big changes.
                    The book bugged me in a couple of ways.  He seems to
                    realize early on that he can choose who he wants to become.
                    This is an unusual and admirable quality.  So he decides
                    to join the black radical culture.  This I find less
                    admirable.  He then spends a lot of his youth trying to
                    prove how 'black' he is.  Even going so far as to pressue
                    other african-american students if he doesn't think they're
                    acting black enough.  He even calls one guy an Uncle Tom
                    for studing too hard, although he apologizes for that.
                    There seems to be a sort of 'hate whitey' undercurrent
                    throughout the text, although he never actually says
                    something so quoteable.  There is one line where he
                    writes (as I recall) 'I came to the conclusion that
                    perhaps not all whites are worthy of our scorn.'  Umm,
                    thanks?  And perhaps not all blacks are criminals?
                    I would be okay with this if he ever seemed to get past it,
                    but near then end of the book he suggests that some
                    random white family in a restraunt in Kenya is there
                    because they "want black people to serve them."
                    This is all difficult to draw strong conclusions about
                    because, as the article mentions, he never overtly
                    states his positions, or if his ideas have changed.
                    He also comes across as ignorant of economics. -op
                    \_ Did you try the second book?
                       \_ No, I read the first book partially because I figured
                          the second book was likely to be written purely for
                          political reasons, and would therefore not show his
                          true beliefs.  He stated in an interview that Dreams
                          From My Father contained things that were
                          'politically inconvinent' but that he stood by them.
                          I was impressed by that bravery.  However, since he
                          never really makes any solid statements in the
                          first book, I guess I may as well read the 2nd. -op
                    \_ Okay, you piqued my curiosity enough that I am going
                       to read this book. I wonder what kind of book Dubya
                       would have written at that age. Probably nothing
                       as impressive.
                       \_ This constant bringing up of Dubya sounds kind of
                          pathetic, along the lines of 'Ok, but the Republicans
                          are still worse... right?  right?  Just checking'.
                                -- ilyas
                          \_ Why is it pathetic? Wasn't Dubya the best possible
                             candidate the Republican Party could nominate?
                             We have heard for years what a great President
                             he was, from many Conservative pundits. Would
                             McCain be any better?
                             \_ What's pathetic is your fixation on Dubya.
                                This thread isn't even about Dubya but you keep
                                somehow trying to bring him in.  -- ilyas
                                \_ Dubya == McCain. I am not the one who
                                   brought up McCain.
                                   \_ No, Dubya is not McCain.  McCain is
                                      McCain.  I think you should let Dubya go.
                                      \_ I think it is pathetic that the Bush
                                         voters want us to forget history so
                                         quickly. You should have the loyalty
                                         to stand by your man or at least be
                                         willing to learn from your mistakes.
                                         In what significant way do McCain's
                                         In what significant way does McCain's
                                         policy positions differ from Dubya's?
                                         \_ I am not a Bush voter, and I grow
                                            tired of this conversation.
                                            \_ Facts are such tiresome things.
                                               You are going to vote for McCain
                                               even though you have no idea
                                               what his policies are, just
                                               because you don't like a book
                                               the other guy wrote 20 years
                                               ago? That is a reason to vote
                                               for someone I guess. Kind of a
                                               lame reason, imho, but it is
                                               your right.
                                               \_ This has got to be a troll.
                                                  We have no idea what McCain's
                                                  policies are?  No one here
                                                  could make such a stupid
                                                  statement seriously, could
                                                  they? -!pp
                                                  \_ So tell me then where
                                                     McCain would be different
                                                     than Bush. Their important
                                                     policies are the same.
                                      \_ And Obama = Clinton = LBJ!
                                         \_ Also LBJ == JFK == FDR
                                         \_ No Obama's policies are quite
                                            different than LBJ's. Depending on
                                            which Clinton you mean, you are
                                            actually pretty close to the mark
                    \_ The quotes I've seen clearly seem written
                       from the perspective of exploring the mindset of
                       various individuals and groups, not really statements
                       of personal philosophy.  Obama clearly has "racial
                       baggage" and identity confusion as part of his life
                       experience.  The book seems more of an explanation of
                       why/how he would be involved in black radicalism rather
                       than an espousal of it.  Can you honestly say you have
                       never had racist thoughts?  Obama's book is open about
                       it, but I can't see any evidence he "hates whitey" at
                       this point in time, or understands less about econ.
                       than his rivals.
                       \_ Well, I find that theory even more disturbing. Does
                          he have no principles at all?  What does it mean
                          when someone goes to so much trouble to avoid making
                          any sort of personal statement of principles?
                          \_ Most of us have a personal and moral philosophy
                             that evolves as we mature. I think that this is
                             a good thing and a sign of a smart and agile mind,
                             but I know that some (mostly extremists, on all
                             ends of the political spectrum) find that to be
                             a sign of moral weakness.
                          \_ That's not the focus of that book. The second
                             book is. Honestly though, I'm not sure what you
                             expect. How do you write a book on the subject
                             he did? Did he need a "for dummies" chapter
                             to reassure white people that he doesn't hate
                             them? What is "the solution" to the problems he
                             deals with? Should blacks ignore racism, pretend
                             it doesn't exist? On balance it seems better for
                             him to have written the book than not. It shows
                             that he has allowed himself to process and
                             consider ideas that we don't find appealing.
                             But I think in the end he rejects them, if only
                             because he decides the ideas not effective. Have
                             you ever seriously considered the merits of
                             communism, segregation, etc.? The reality is that
                             most smart people don't pretend to have a simple
                             rulebook for every situation in life. The best
                             he can do is point to his past actions and show
                             that he considers all angles of a problem and its
                             solution. There doesn't seem to be any way for
                             him to prove himself to you -- after all, if he
                             simply says something you can suspect him of
                             hidden resentment and hatred.
              \_ The most common objection I've seen to the book is that
                 Obama's description of himself as a young man doesn't match
                 up with the experience that others had of him - that he was
                 much more outgoing and cheerful than he seems to have thought
                 himself.  I'd say this is really common - I'm willing to bet
                 most of you would have a description of your younger self that
                 contradicted what others saw.  Self-awareness takes a LONG
                 time to really develop, and some people never develop it.
        \_ I love how Barack just confuses the hell out of conservatives.
           \_ I love how Barack demonstrates so clearly how shallow the
              majority of Dems are.
              \_ What defines a non-shallow Dem for you?
                 \_ The silence just speaks volumes, doesn't it?
2008/3/28-4/6 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49607 Activity:nil
3/28    Consumer confidence lowest in 16 years but BUSH'S TAX CUTS
        AND REBATES will rescue us!!!
2008/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Industry/Jobs] UID:49594 Activity:nil
3/28    HA HA HA
        "Bush sees Opportunity for Renewed Platitudes in Iraq."
2008/3/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49577 Activity:low
3/26    The Republican party preaches self-reliance and responsibility.
        The bail out of Bear Stearns seems to contradict these points.
        They're not self-reliant anymore, and they don't seem to bear
        any responsibility. What's up? Will someone who voted for
        George W Bush explain to me what self-reliance and responsibility
        \_ Nice straw man.  The only reason for the gov't to get involved in
           this is to provide liquidity--had this happened in the 20's, we
           might have avoided the problems back then.
           \_ Providing excess liquidity was what caused the problems in the
              20's in the first place. The government was involved all through
              the 20's and 30's.
              \_ No it wasn't.  Read "The Forgotten Man"
                 \_ Yes it was. "The Forgotten Man" doesn't refute this and
                    isn't the authority anyway.
        \_ No cookie.
2008/3/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49576 Activity:high
3/26    As foreclosures go up, wouldn't it contradict Bush's idea of the
        great New Ownership Society? Would foreclosure have a lasting
        effect on this cool idea?
        \_ ...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of
           our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more
           vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital
           stake in the future of this country.
                        - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
        \_ We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation
           to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow
           the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the
           generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew,
           with the past cut off and the future ignored.
                        - John Major conference speech 1991.
        \_ It already has. We are back to the ownership levels we had
           \_ People made stupid financial decisions.  This is clearly the
              fault of the Bush administration.  It is part of Yet Another
              Karl Rove plot to destroy the country!  Grow up.  I mean that
              literally.  If you screw yourself spending money you didn't
              have you are stupid and it is only your fault.  Are you a
              believer in "predatory lending"?  Sheesh.
              \_ Yes, I believe in predatory lending. Deregulation and the
                 selfish and immature philosphy behind it has been a
                 disaster. Grow up, indeed. The one last thing that the
                 Republicans had to be proud of has turned to dust. When
                 will you admit that you need to learn from your mistakes?
                 \_ 1) I'm not what you think I am.  2) Please explain how
                    you can "predate" on an adult.  Legal adults of age and
                    means to sign a contract for hundreds of thousands of
                    dollars were somehow "forced" into doing so?  Ridiculous.
                    Fortunately, most people are smart enough to have a loan
                    they can afford, are doing just fine paying them, do not
                    need or want Big Government Mommy help and thus the
                    Republic is safe for a few more years until the next fake
                    crisis that "requires" Mommy's intervention to screw things
                    up even worse.
                    \_ How about fraud? Isn't that predatory? How about having
                       someone sign a contract in a language they don't read
                       and the translater lies to them about the contents.
                       Is that okay in your sophomoric "Atlas Shrugged" view
                       of the world?
                       \_ I think you're missing the point. The op is
                          conveying that he/she does not care about stupid
                          people who make stupid decisions. Survival of
                          the fittest should be how things go, or something
                          like that.
                          \_ I think the op is foolish and immature and
                             is the last person who should be telling others
                             to grow up. Society is based on mutual
                             interdependency and all of our survival depends
                             of the general willingness to co-operate. Things
                             like fraud undermine that.
           \_ Url to prove this?
              \_ http://www.progress.org/2008/baker01.htm
                 Okay, not quite all the way back yet, but very close.
                 \_ Not exactly a reputable source. This site is left
                    leaning and pro-socialism. Case in point, "American
                    dream is a myth! Life is not fair in America!" URL
                    \_ Facts often are "left leaning"
                       http://www.csua.org/u/l4u (census bureau)
                       \_ That's true.  Almost as often as they are "right
                          \_ Faith-based vs. reality-based
        \_ Ownership Society has more to do with the ever expanding
           choice and your participation in making those choices.
           "On the other hand, having an ever-expanding number of choices
           doesn't necessarily make us happier, just as bigger and bigger
           food portions don't make us healthier."
        \_ http://blognonymous.com/2006/02/ownership-society-means-foreclosure.html
        \_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/2nft5l [blognonymous]
2008/3/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49558 Activity:kinda low
3/25    New warnings about entitlements shortfall
        Medicare unable to pay full benefits by 2019, Social Security by 2041
        Bush wanted to fix the problem but could not convince the Democrats
        to change. Damn the Democrats!
        \_ Um, wasn't Bush the one primarily responsible for making the
           Medicare problem worse?
        \_ Bush taps a guy to lead social security privitization.  Every year
           the dude releases reports that say "DOOM!  DOOM!"  But gee, he has
           a vested intrest in shouting doom.  Every year his numbers don't
           really hold up that well.
        \_ Bush and the Republicans conspired to make the Medicare problems
           much much worse.  Their "solution" to Social Security will destroy
           it while enriching Wall Street.  Social Security is in much better
           condition than many other parts of the federal goverment.
           \_ It's true, it's Bush's fault Social Security is an untenable
              pyramid scheme, raided by Congress for unrelated expenses.
              That some parts of the government are WORSE is not really a
              good defense.
                \_ There's a great quote by Warren Buffett about how
                   politicians are sounding the alarm about Social Security
                   running a small deficit 40 years from now, and yet a
                   $400 billion deficit today doesn't bother anyone.
                   Social Security is fine for something like another 40
                   years as long as BushCo and the Republicans don't get
                   their greedy paws on it.
                   \_ It's true, the democrats in Congress totally kept their
                      paws off the social security pot.  Idiot.
                      \_ You have such a convincing debate style. Idiot.
        \_ Social Security is fine: the GOP has predicting its demise since
           the 30s (no joke), but Medicare is in big trouble. The entire
           medical system is in trouble, in fact, since medical costs keep
           going up much faster than the GDP and we have demographics working
           against us to boot. Only a sea change in our health care management
           philosophy, combined with some pretty serious rationing, is going
           to possibly reverse that trend.
           \_ Plus, you know.  Figuring out what actually helps.  We need
              personalized medicine, current statistics-based medical
              research is shit.
2008/3/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49548 Activity:nil
3/24    An honest dialogue about race
        \_ I see very little honesty there.
2008/3/17-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49478 Activity:nil
3/17    So what's up with Bush's government intervention of the financial
        market (e.g. Bear Sterns)? I mean, I thought REPUBLICANS are pro
        FREE MARKET INVISIBLE HAND but clearly, the hand is very visible.
        \_ I supported the Iraq War                             -emarkp
        \_ Capitalism for the masses, socialism for the rich Wall Street guys!
           After all, deep executive talent is awfully hard to find in a
           competitive global marketplace.
           \_ "Privatize the profits, socialize the losses" -- the Republican
              mantra.  Get rid of any and all regulation to maximize risk and
              return, and when everything collapses (long after all the rich
              have gotten obscenely richer) bail the whole train wreck out
              using taxpayer money.
              \_ waiting for jblack and emarkp to counter these blatantly
                 false liberal statements.
              \_ is there supposed to be something wrong with that?
                 \_ yes.
2008/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49468 Activity:nil
3/16    Chavez - US supports terrorism:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/yuus2k (cnn.com)
2008/3/13-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49450 Activity:low
3/13    Oops, the media has finally noticed Obama's racist preacher.
        \_ Racist.
        \_ Obama's response:
           http://preview.tinyurl.com/23hqyu [huffington post]
           I'm sure the media will give him exacty the same treatment as they
           do when Pat Robertson makes some off the wall remarks.  Yep.
           Totally sure.
           \_ Pat Robertson is responsible for what he says. Obama is not
              responsible for what someone else says. Understand the
2008/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49408 Activity:low
3/10    I love this expose of the liberal media circle.
        thinkprogress -> media matters -> Keith Olbermann -> media matters ->
        new york times
        \_ So if I go on national tv and ask if George Bush rapes little
           boys that's totally just you know, sillyness?
           \_ You haven't watched the clip, obviously. -emarkp
           \_ Even if done in jest, it is the sort of thing that adds up.
              Especially when done on a serious news program.
               \_ Sorry, you're an idiot.  Beck has called the people who are
                  asking if Obama is the Anti-Christ, "crazy" and "nutjobs".
                  Mockery and sarcasm are common and reasonable ways to express
                  an opinion.  -emarkp
                  \_ It's the way the mockery and sarcasm are presented.  Find
                     me a talking head asking "Is George Bush a Nazi?" on a
                     national news show.  I doubt you'll find it.
                     \_ So you still haven't watched the clip? -emarkp
        \_ Ah yes, the "liberal media."
           \_ Yes, precisely. -emarkp
              \_ Exactly how "liberal" did you find the NYTimes series on WMD?
                 A little bit, a lot, or extremely?  Damn liberals!
                 \_ How fair did you find the front-page utterly fabricated
                    smear on McCain? A little bit, a lot, or extremely?
                    \_ The Times sucks.  No disagreement from me. But calling
                       them the "liberal media" is ignoring reality.
                       \_ Yes, you're repeatedly denied that they're liberal.
                          However, they consistently err on the side of
                          criticizing the right. -emarkp
                          \_ Except for their years-long crusade on behalf
                             of the Whitewater investigation, their shameful
                             series on WMD from Judith Miller, etc...
                             \_ Ah, I wrote "consistently".  My bad.  I meant
                                to say they do so in the overwhelming majority.
                                \_ I'm not sure what you base this
                                   "overwhelming majority" assertion on.
                                   They infuriate me on a daily basis.
                                \_ Hypothesis: The right is worthy of
                                   criticism more often.
                                   \_ Odd hypothesis, and probably difficult to
                                   \_ Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic mayor of

                                   \_ Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic gvrnr of
                                      New York just got busted on a connection
                                      with a prostitution ring (!?).  -- ilyas
                                      \_ ... which the Times is doing a huge
                                         story on.
                                         \_ yes.  And note, he wasn't
                                            "connected with a prostitution
                                            ring"; he hired a prostitute.  -tom
                                      \_ Governor of NY State.
                                         \_ Yes sorry, fixed.  -- ilyas
                                \_ I disagree. They just tend to go after
                                   whoever is in power, which is part of the
                                   role of media as government watchdog. See
                                   the huge above the fold story about Spitzer
                                   right now. It has just been so long since
                                   the Democrats were in power, that people
                                   have forgotten the role the NYT played in
                                   attacking Clinton, Rostenkowski, etc. The
                                   NYT might be slightly more liberal than
                                   most, but that is just a reflection of
                                   their readership. Overall, they are just
                                   another big corporation, controlled by
                                   billionaires and in the business of selling
                                   ads. Why do you believe otherwise?
                                   \_ If their role is to go after those in
                                      power, why did they play such a major
                                      role in aiding and abetting the WMD
                                      shenanigans and in going into Iraq in
                                      the first place?
                                      \_ War against a foreign country only
                                         happens when the moneyed classes think
                                         they are going to profit from it.
                                         -George Orwell
        \_ I guess I've never seen Keith Olbermann before, he looks like he's
           made of plastic.
2008/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49348 Activity:low
3/5     Defence spending has been what has busted the budget, not
        domestic programs:
        http://www.csua.org/u/kys (The Economist'v View)
        \_ What is Defence?
           \_ It's what's around dehouse.
2008/2/29-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49306 Activity:nil
2/29    Two more criminals Bush is sure to pardon:
        \_ You really want to review past Presidential pardons as a troll?
           That's pretty dull stuff.  You can do better than this, Shirley.
           \_ I guess you are right, crooked Republicans are a dime a dozen
              these days.
2008/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49285 Activity:nil
2/28    Bush re-assures America that the economy is actually doing fine:
        \_ but he also said: "No question, we're in a slowdown"
           \_ But he didn't say "a full stop."
2008/2/27-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49276 Activity:low
2/26    Goodbye, Bill Buckley, you magnificent bastard.
        \_ Some of Buckley's vaginal orgasms:
           Buckley vs. Gore Vidal
           Buckley vs. Chomsky
           \- good riddance.
              \_ some low life here always wishes ill upon the dead.  he's
                 gone.  get over him.  move on.
                 \- i am not sure what your point is, but let me elaborate
                    on mine:
                    Wm Buckley "mastered" the art of defending a self-serving
                    set of ideas in a forum he controlled. He looks smart
                    and shiney next to talk show hacks, and perhaps is
                    somebody you look up to when you mature from a
                    High School Randroid into a freshly card carrying
                    college republican. But a deep and original thinker
                    like say Robert Nozick? Hardly. Although Cheney makes
                    him look good. [and yes i know Conservatism != Randoidism]
                    \_ He's dead.  Attacking dead people doesn't hurt them.
                       I'm concerned for your emotional and mental well being,
                       not WFB's reputation or feelings.  It's unhealthy.
                 \_ You're joking, right? It's WFB. Some of his best friends
                    are still going to spit on his grave.
                    \_ Like who?  URL?
           \_ wow.  i really want a "...Mr. Anderson" on that 2nd video
        \_ http://www.csua.org/u/kxl (NY Times)
           David Brooks on Buckley.
2008/2/26-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Computer/Theory] UID:49265 Activity:nil
2/26    the day the routers died
2008/2/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49232 Activity:low
2/24    CBS affiliate in northern Alamaba "mysteriously" goes dark during
        Karl Rove/Don Siegelman segment:
        \_ How do you think Rove was going to create a Permanent Republican
           Majority? You don't really think he expected to win electiond
           Majority? You don't really think he expected to win elections
           did you?
           \_ This segment on this one affiliate in northern Alabama going
              dark was key to Karl Rove's plan to rule the world!
              \_ Someone didn't read the url or watch the video, yay!
              \_ keyword: ignorant
2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:49220 Activity:nil
2/22    Bush Pentagon Office Of Public Affairs inserting itself into election
        \_ I'm shocked, shocked
        \_ libural URL alert! Don't believe it unless it's on FoxNews.
2008/2/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49213 Activity:high
2/21    Isn't it weird that assassinated or attempted assassinated
        presidents are usually portrayed as good presidents in
        media, books, etc? Do we EVER say bad things to people in their
        obituaries? I mean, if president Nixon was assassinated, would
        we say nicer things today?
        \_ Well thank god no one tried anything funny on George W Bush,
           otherwise he'd be known as a great President.        -Democrat
        \_ Counterexample: Gerald Ford.  -tom
           \_ listen up tom holub, the key word is usually
           \_ I'm not sure Ford is a good example, his obits seem
              http://preview.tinyurl.com/2e9n3k (washingtonpost.com)
              http://preview.tinyurl.com/y5yxvu (telegraph.co.uk)
              And the only real "bad thing" I've ever heard
              about Ford that I've heard (from non-kooks) is that
              he was klutzy.
              And the only really "bad thing" I've ever heard re
              Ford (from non-kooks) is that he was klutzy.
              \_ Ford was ineffectual.  Obits are never negative; even
                 Nixon got transformed into a respected elder statesman.  -tom
                 \- Notes on the Passing of an American Monster:
                    There were plenty of negative comments upon the death
                    of the Indonesian Crook Suharto.
                    There were plenty of negative comments about
                    Benazir Bhutto. By Shashi Tharoor, William Darymple etc.
                    Not a pol but see: http://www.slate.com/id/2111506
                    YMWTFG(samuel johnson lapidary)
                    YMWTGF(samuel johnson lapidary)
                    You guys dont know what you are talking about.
                 \_ Nixon just looks better relative to the current disaster
                    in chief.  They are both crooks but I don't remember Nixon
                    accused of being incompetent and/or intellectually stunted.
                    \- i have kind of a soft spot for nixon [and musharaf]
                       but it is kinda hard to compare W and RMN because
                       the time have changed. for example W would never make
                       the times have changed. for example W would never make
                       the kinds comments to Condi about being black as Nixon
                       did to SuperK about being jewish. but of course SAGENEW
                       never shot an old man in the face and then got him to
                       apologize to the country.
        \_ I hear "A Legacy of Ashes" isn't kind to JFK, but I haven't read
           it yet.
           \_ key word: usually
              \_ This may be the best motd meme since "obviously you've
                 never served."
        \_ "Richard Nixon, hero of his age, began the long painful draw down
           of troops which later led to the end of the Vietnam conflict, also
           responsible for opening China to the West, ending the long cold war
           with our former foe, he shall always be remembered as the greatest
           American President of his era before he was assassinated by unknown
        \_ Pinochet had some pretty mixed obituaries, but no I have never
           seen a bad one for an assassinated US President. You might be
           able to find one written by a foreign newspaper.
           \_ I was in Santiago the day Pinochet died:
              http://flickr.com/photos/tholub/365629145  -tom
        \_ Reagan was attempted assassination, and supposedly he was a bad
           \_ He defeated an EVIL communist regime and his STAR WARS
              legacy helped us advance our space programs. He is an
              all American HERO and a nice looking actor.
                \_ Thanks to Star Wars we got to shoot down a sattelite.
                   And the fact that the weather cooperated.
                   \_ ... and the fact that the satellite is in a lower
                      altitude than normal orbiting ones.
                      \_ But not lower than an ICBM.
2008/2/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49198 Activity:kinda low
2/20    Ah, so it's just Billary that's putting out the anti-Obama slimes eh?
        \_ Billary.  Why must we use cutesy little names for people in
           politics?  The freepers do this.  The DU/Kosians do this.  We
           don't need this on the motd.
           \_ exactly which MOTD have you been reading where this doesn't
              \- it think there is actually some smarts to names like
                 BUSHCO, BILARY etc. BUSHCO reflects: the whole CEO-
                 President idea, the corporate backgrounds of CHENEY and
                 RUMSFELD, and most relevantly today, their diffuse and
                 limited "liability". similar BILARY, the two-for-one,
                 the looming presence of Bill in the background etc.
                 [and of course ALGOR = robot].
                 \_ Almost every politician has a corporate background.
                    Hillary spent many years on the Walmart board and as a
                    corporate lawyer/partner but we don't call her HILLARYCO.
                    \- if you think your example are comparable, you dont
                       know what you are talking about ... and you clearly
                       think it is comparable ...
                       \_ If you could explain why then we'd have something
                          to discuss instead of just stating your opinion
                          as fact.
                    The two-for-one BILLARY is 'cute' but again unnecessary
                    for what is supposed to be a group of intelligent and
                    aware people who shouldn't need that constant reminder.
                    I don't care which party or what beliefs any of these
                    people have.  I just find all the little grade school
                    names silly and for me they detract from what might
                    otherwise be a more intelligent discussion.
              \_ I didn't say it doesn't happen here.  I said we don't need it
                 and can/should do better.  I like to think that the typical
                 motd poster is smarter and can make a better point than
                 resorting to childish name calling like a freeper or kosian.
                 \_ AssUMe.
        \_ I like how none of you even commented on the ridiculous article
           this link points to, which basically argues that "since Obama's
           mother was Jewish, and his dad was black, and since I went to a
           school where any couple like that were DIRTY COMMIES, Obama must
           also be a COMMIE."
           \_ You have bad reading comprehension. It didn't claim his mother
              was Jewish. But what's there to comment about? It's just some
              blog entry.
           \_ Sorry, wasn't really interested in the article as much as the
              discussion it generated.
2008/2/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49176 Activity:nil
2/16    Poverty is Poison:
        \_ You know, this article started off good until it got to "But
           progress stalled thereafter: American politics shifted to
           the right..." which has the effect of turning off 1/2 of the
           readers in the U.S. On the other hand, I don't know any
           conservative reading NY times so maybe it's well fitted.
        \- if you are interested in this topic, read WHY ZEBRAS DONT GET
           ULCERS. very, very good book. [the book is primarily about
           something else, but coverns this in some depth as well]. --psb
2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49149 Activity:nil
2/14    How the Bush Administration helped the banks screw the American
        \_ Liberal slant alert.
        \_ is there supposed to be something wrong with that?
2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49141 Activity:kinda low 75%like:49133
2/13    Mythbusting Canadian Health Care
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gpm64 (part I - http://ourfuture.org)
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/27ejwh (part II - http://ourfuture.org)
        \_ Oh sure, you'd expect this from free-market deniers.
           \_ Care to respond to the arguments or just blather
              and set up strawmen?
              \_ "1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
                 False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work
                 directly for the state."
                 This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick. (And goes downhill
                 from there.)
                 \_ All I can say is that I have one of the best PPOs money
                    can buy in the USA, and it SUCKS DONKEY BALLS.  If
                    what Canada has is socialism, then bring on the
                    socialism.  ok thx.
                    \_ What sucks about your PPO?
                    \_ Maybe your PPO isn't as good as you think. My
                       current one sucks, but my previous one was awesome.
                       If yours sucks then it doesn't indict the entire
                       medical system.
                    \_ Move to Canada then.
                       \_ yeah, because who would want to do anything to
                          improve America?   -tom
                          \_ I don't think it would be good for America, and
                             the arguments at the links above are specious.  I
                             think the government needs to get *less* involved
                             in health care, not more.  If you want Canada's
                             system, go to Canada.
                             \_ If the system changes and you don't like it,
                                where are you going to go?  -tom
                                \_ Excellent non sequitur, sir!
                                \_ Mexico, where health care is cheap and
                                   of high quality.
                                   \_ Cuba!
                    \_ What exactly sucks about it? That it's not free?
        \_ This is my favorite:
           "We'll have rationed care
           Don't look now: but America does ration care. And it does it in the
           most capricious, draconian, and often dishonest way possible.
           "Mostly, the US system rations care by simply eliminating large
           numbers of people from the system due to an inability to pay."
           Um, yes. That's called capitalism.  This is saying, "socialized
           health care would be better because socialism is better!"
           \_ no, it's saying that capitalism rations care.  -tom
              \_ No, capitalism puts care on a market.
                 \_ and that's good because...?
                    \_ Because markets are a proven mechanism for optimizing
                       results and give you a choice of where and how to
                       spend your money. What's good about socialism? You
                       are trying to change the system so the onus is on
                       \_ Evolution is also a proven mechanism for
                          optimizing results. Just let all the poor, dumb
                          people die, it's the natural order of things.
                          \_ Don't forget about the UNLUCKY.  Evolution
                             doesn't care if it operates fairly.  Fairness
                             is a human peculiarity.
                             \_ Darwinism does account for luck where
                                both the lucky and unlucky offset each
                                other hence you'll still find order in
                                any chaos system.
                                \_ It's lots of fun for those who lose
                                   because of bad luck, isn't it?
                       \_ It is a fallacy that markets optimize results.
                          An obvious failure case in the health realm is that
                          markets don't provide universal vaccine, which
                          ends up being a larger public health cost than
                          vaccine would be.  -tom
                          \_ I'm not saying everything should only be driven
                             purely by markets. So provide free vaccine. Next?
                             \_ Socialist.
                          \_ Exceptions don't mean it's a fallacy. "Commons"
                             concerns are a known area where markets alone
                             can't optimize the problem, because the costs
                             and benefits aren't easily quantified or owned.
                             Another example is stuff like national parks
                             and open space. The actual value of open space
                             to the society at large or in the area is hard
                             to accurately capture. I'm open to discussion
                             of what constitutes such cases but I don't see
                             convincing arguments with respect to health
                       \_ Proven, you mean like how the markets put CAs
                          power out a few years back? And gave us M$ as a
                          monopoly product? No one seriously believes in
                          unregulated markets as a mechanism for optimizing
                          \_ No one seriously promotes unregulated markets,
                             dumbass. Power markets are a laughable example
                             however: regulations prevented investment in
                             more power infrastructure.
                             \_ Then if you agree we need to regulate markets
                                you are just arguing over how much "socialism"
                                we really need.
                                \_ Regulation (laws) is not socialism, dumbass.
                                   \_ I'm confused. op posts article debunking
                                      myths about Canada's healthcare system.
                                      emarkp makes comparison to socialism.
                                      criticisms of capitalism follow, then
                                      praises of capitalism (by way of the
                                      free market, i.e., competition), then
                                      bad examples of said competition, then
                                      qualifications based on possible limited
                                      regulation, followed by ironic
                                      invocation of "socialism," followed by
                                      literal reference to socialism. At what
                                      point does any of this point to the US
                                      system somehow being better?
                                      \_ dumbass
                                         \_ Yay! You're contributing!
              \_ Well, it's true but oddly twisted.  All limited resources
                 must be rationed some how.  I only know of 3 ways, money,
                 politics, and violence.  The Free Market uses money for a
                 variety of good reasons, but sometimes it doesn't work.
                 However, we are so used to the free market that we only call
                 political rationing, rationing.  It's just a matter of
                 common language use.
           \_ No, it's saying "fears of rationing care are based on a
              fictional lack of rationed care in the US."
        \_ I love this argument:
           - Universal health care is Socialism!  Capitalism rox!  F U TAXES!
           - Our health care system sucks!  We need Canada's system!  OBAMA!!
2008/2/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49133 Activity:high 75%like:49141
2/13    Mythbusting Canadian Health Care
        \_ Oh sure, you'd expect this from free-market deniers.
           \_ Care to respond to the arguments or just blather
              and set up strawmen?
              \_ "1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
                 False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly
                 for the state."
                 This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick.
                 This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick. (And goes downhill
                 from there.)
                 \_ All I can say is that I have one of the best PPOs money
                    can buy in the USA, and it SUCKS DONKEY BALLS.  If
                    what Canada has is socialism, then bring on the
                    socialism.  ok thx.
                    \_ Move to Canada then psb.
                       \_ That wasn't psb. --also not psb
                    \_ Maybe your PPO isn't as good as you think. My
                       current one sucks, but my previous one was awesome.
                       If yours sucks then it doesn't indict the entire
                       medical system.
                    \_ Move to Canada then.
                       \_ yeah, because who would want to do anything to
                          improve America?   -tom
                          \_ I don't think it would be good for America, and
                             the arguments at the links above are specious.  I
                             think the government needs to get *less* involved
                             in health care, not more.  If you want Canada's
                             system, go to Canada.
                             \_ If the system changes and you don't like it,
                                where are you going to go?  -tom
                                \_ Excellent non sequitur, sir!
                                \_ Mexico, where health care is cheap and
                                   of high quality.
                                   \_ Cuba!
                    \_ What exactly sucks about it? That it's not free?
        \_ This is my favorite:
           "We'll have rationed care
           Don't look now: but America does ration care. And it does it in the
           most capricious, draconian, and often dishonest way possible.
           "Mostly, the US system rations care by simply eliminating large
           numbers of people from the system due to an inability to pay."
           Um, yes. That's called capitalism.  This is saying, "socialized
           health care would be better because socialism is better!"
           \_ no, it's saying that capitalism rations care.  -tom
              \_ No, capitalism puts care on a market.
                 \_ and that's good because...?
                    \_ Because markets are a proven mechanism for optimizing
                       results and give you a choice of where and how to
                       spend your money. What's good about socialism? You
                       are trying to change the system so the onus is on
                       \_ Evolution is also a proven mechanism for
                          optimizing results. Just let all the poor, dumb
                          people die, it's the natural order of things.
                          \_ Don't forget about the UNLUCKY.  Evolution
                             doesn't care if it operates fairly.  Fairness
                             is a human peculiarity.
                       \_ It is a fallacy that markets optimize results.
                          An obvious failure case in the health realm is that
                          markets don't provide universal vaccine, which
                          ends up being a larger public health cost than
                          vaccine would be.  -tom
                          \_ I'm not saying everything should only be driven
                             purely by markets. So provide free vaccine. Next?
                             \_ Socialist.
                          \_ Exceptions don't mean it's a fallacy. "Commons"
                             concerns are a known area where markets alone
                             can't optimize the problem, because the costs
                             and benefits aren't easily quantified or owned.
                             Another example is stuff like national parks
                             and open space. The actual value of open space
                             to the society at large or in the area is hard
                             to accurately capture. I'm open to discussion
                             of what constitutes such cases but I don't see
                             convincing arguments with respect to health
                       \_ Proven, you mean like how the markets put CAs
                          power out a few years back? And gave us M$ as a
                          monopoly product? No one seriously believes in
                          unregulated markets as a mechanism for optimizing
                          \_ No one seriously promotes unregulated markets,
                             dumbass. Power markets are a laughable example
                             however: regulations prevented investment in
                             more power infrastructure.
                             \_ Then if you agree we need to regulate markets
                                you are just arguing over how much "socialism"
                                we really need.
                                \_ Regulation (laws) is not socialism, dumbass.
                                   \_ I'm confused. op posts article debunking
                                      myths about Canada's healthcare system.
                                      emarkp makes comparison to socialism.
                                      criticisms of capitalism follow, then
                                      praises of capitalism (by way of the
                                      free market, i.e., competition), then
                                      bad examples of said competition, then
                                      qualifications based on possible limited
                                      regulation, followed by ironic
                                      invocation of "socialism," followed by
                                      literal reference to socialism. At what
                                      point does any of this point to the US
                                      system somehow being better?
              \_ Well, it's true but oddly twisted.  All limited resources
                 must be rationed some how.  I only know of 3 ways, money,
                 politics, and violence.  The Free Market uses money for a
                 variety of good reasons, but sometimes it doesn't work.
                 However, we are so used to the free market that we only call
                 political rationing, rationing.  It's just a matter of
                common language use.
           \_ No, it's saying "fears of rationing care are based on a
              fictional lack of rationed care in the US."
        \_ I love this argument:
           - Universal health care is Socialism!  Capitalism rox!  F U TAXES!
           - Our health care system sucks!  We need Canada's system!  OBAMA!!
2008/2/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49122 Activity:nil
2/11    If David Shuster accused George H.W. Bush of pimping his son
        George W. Bush, would he get the same flak he's getting now?
        \_ No, it's a sympathy ploy for Clinton.
        \_ Of course not. MSNBC is a wholely owned subsidiary of the DNC and
        \_ Of course not. MSNBC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC and
           Clinton(tm) machine.
        \_ For your anology to make sense, Dubya would have to be accused
           of pimping his daughters. When will some big time reporter
           do that, so we can find out?
2008/2/7-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49088 Activity:moderate
2/7     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241324358751455.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
        Biofuels actual worsen warming and other problems, while gov't
        mandates their use.
        Score another one for meddling, overbearing, incompetent government.
        \_ You might want to look at who's really backing biofuels.  -tom
           \_ How is that relavent to the point being made?
           \_ How is that relevant to the point being made?
              ADM and their ilk are backing it.  Many of the environmentalists
              (at least the organizations) have come around and realized
              that only tools were supporting this, but guess what, it
              will continue to recieve giant subsidies.  -crebbs
              will continue to be mandated and subsidized .  -crebbs
              \_ The issue, then, is the power of the coporation, not
                 "meddling, overbearing government."  -tom
                    \_ Govmnt is always acting on some's behalf.
                       Usually some large already powerful organization
                       like a corp.  The difference is that the coporation
                       does not have the power the forcibly take my money
                       (without getting the government to do it for them).
                       and use it fuck shit up.  Only the Govmnt has this
                       and use it to fuck shit up.  Only the Govmnt has this
                       power, which is one of the reasons continually
                       expanding the power of govmnt is a bad idea. (see
                       Hayek for others (and more lucidity).  It is also
                       why the point made by top is relavent and it is not
                       why the point made by top is relevant and it is not
                       reasonable to try to move blame being rightfully
                       assigned (a piss poor use of government power) to
                       "the big evil corporations".  (even if, as in this
                       case, a particular big evil corporation certainly
                       does share culpablility). -crebbs
                       does share culpability). -crebbs
                       \_ LIBERAL RANT ALERT BELOW! LIBERAL RANT!
                       \_ Government doesn't inherently work on behalf of
                          coroporations, although that's certainly been the
                          case in the U.S. since Reagan took office.  The
                          more you weaken government, the less it has the
                          ability to fight against the control of large
                          powerful organizations.  The fact that conservatives
                          beholden to large corporate interests have been
                          championing deregulation and lower taxes is not
                          coincidental; it is quite intentionally meant to
                          foster a specific pro-corporate ideology, that
                          the purpose of the government is to protect
                          coporate interests.  -tom
                 \_ If the government was limited to essential functions,
                    instead of messing around with stuff like lightbulbs
                    and fuel percentages, then corporations could not
                    do this. Same goes for income tax shenanigans that
                    corporations do: a simple fixed tax scheme would
                    go a long way towards preventing those.
                    \_ If coporations ran everything except "essential
                       functions", we'd be worse off than we are.  -tom
                       \_ No we wouldn't. Yay!
                          \_ Cf. Free Market in Baja California.
                             \_ You're an idiot.
                                \_ You're an asshat. Are we ready to talk
                                   like adults now?
           \_ The farm lobby?
           \_ Whoever cornered the corn market in Mexico?
              \- cornholio?
              \_ Isn't that guy worth more than Bill Gates now?
        \_ President Bush signed energy legislation in December that
           mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36
           billion gallons a year by 2022. See, it's all Bush's fault:
2008/2/5-7 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49070 Activity:nil
2/4     Bush's tax cuts/rebates will have beneficial effects on certian
        industries like Phillip Morris, Anheiser Busch, and gambling
        casinos. Pick your stocks wisely!               -stock swami
2008/1/25-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49014 Activity:nil
1/25    Goodnight, Kucinich:
2008/1/24-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49000 Activity:nil
1/24    Obama might win because of his race.  Hillary might win because of her
        gender.  If Condy Rice were to run this round, would she stand an even
        better chance just because her race (more Black than Obama) and gender
        might overcome her political stance?
        \_ No, because the disadvantage of her being so closely associated
           with the hated Bush would sink her despite gender/race advantage.
        \_ well one of them will wni the democratic primary. Whichever
            one of them wins will be because they're notrepublican.  Condi
            fails this test.
2008/1/23-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48991 Activity:low
1/22    Sweet, Bush's stimulus package is nearly *twice as large* as the
        one Clinton proposed in 1993, but couldn't get passed.  Go
        \_ So who are you blasting? Is it a good idea that was unfairly spiked
           in 1993, so....Bush is bad?
           \_ Dunno about op, but I find it to be more evidence of how BushCo
              is lacking in principles, even ones I don't support. Morally
              bankrupt doesn't do it justice.
              \_ Wait, wasn't congress a majority D in 1993?  What does this
                 have to do with BushCo?  Okay, now checking:
                 The D's had a majority in both houses and the presidency. How
                 does what they failed to pass mean anything wrt Bush?
                 \_ Clinton proposed a stimulus package that would have raised
                    the Deficit; har, har, snicker conservatives, typical Dem.
                    Bush proposes _twice as large_ stim package, yet pretends
                    to be fiscally conservative Rep in the tradition of Reagan.
                    The irony is enough to cure world-wide anemia.
                    \_ Reagan was never fiscally conservative.
                       Reagan == trickle down economics. High deficit spending
                       is not being fiscally conservative. Ron Paul is the
                       only current candidate promoting fiscal conservativism.
                    \_ Bush hasn't pretended to be fiscally conservative for a
                       long time.  It's why he's lost a lot of his base. See
                       the thread from 1/18 on that very topic. -emarkp
                       \_ Now you're memorizing threads+date? Dang you're
                          a major motd-snob.
                          \_ more like a major motd-geek than a motd-snob.
                          \_ No, I'm not memorizing it, I just remember
                             mentioning it a few days ago. Checking the history
                             was easy. -emarkp
                       \_ Yes, you know that, I know that, lots of people
                          know that. He still keeps pretending.
        \_ So the real story is that Clinton proposed an R idea, and a D
           congress shot it down?
           \_ The real story is that there are no conspiracies. It's all out
              in the open.
        \_ These economic stimulus packages are bogus and don't address the
           fact that the economy is being hollowed out and the financial
           system is out of control due to lack of any kind of regulation.
           Out of control lending and speculation, twin deficits over a
           trillion a year is setting up the system for collapse, all this
           shit Bush and the Fed are doing is just delaying the inevitable.
           \_ The important thing is delaying shit hitting the fan until
              someone else takes over, then it's their problem.
                \_ Yup -- the shit will hit the fan around 2010/2012 when
                   peak oil arrives so whatever party wins the election
                   will get one term and then get dumped (see Carter)
                   \_ You're totally nuts if you think Carter got kicked out
                      because of oil prices or economic events his
                      administration wasn't mostly responsible for.  Maybe
                      you also heard of this little thing called The Iran
                      Hostage Crisis?  Are you old enough to remember the
                      daily count-up on the news reminding us yet another
                      day had gone by while our people were held by a
                      foreign power while Carter stood around with two thumbs
                      up his ass telling us how America should get used to
                      being a third rate power?  Sheesh.  I could go on but
                      there's no point.
                        \_ I had forgotthen how Reagan solved the Iran hostage
                           crisis in the first 5 minutes of his Presidency ...
                           \_ I'm sure you forgot because it has nothing at all
                              to do with anything I said about Carter.  Nice
                   \_ PEEK OIL!!!!11!!
           \_ Yeah, we got to this point for a reason. Cutting the rate
              more and spending more is just digging the hole deeper. Maybe
              it will prop up housing again for a while with more cheap credit.
        \_ Isn't the economy more than twice as large today?
           \_ Not even close. It's like ~9:13. 1:1.7 in real dollars.
              (According to US budget tables.)
              \_ Is Bush's budget stimulus twice as large in real dollars
                 or nominal dollars? In nominal dollars the economy is
                 almost exactly twice as big:
                 \_ For some reason I was comparing against 2000. You're
                    right about nominal dollars vs. 1993. But in real dollars
                    it's still only like 33% bigger. Hooray for inflation.
                    And that also assumes the government CPI shit is accurate.
                    (I'll let the op figure out whatever he was referring to.)
2008/1/22-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48990 Activity:nil
1/22    Study: Bush, officials made false statements prior to war
        In other news, sky still blue!
        \_ 935 false statements in two years is a lot of false statements, even
           for a President.
2008/1/22-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48985 Activity:nil
1/22    Fred Thompson drops out
        \_ Damn.  Can't see his busty wife's pics anymore.
        \_ Damn.  Can't see his busty wife anymore.
           \_ Mrs. Jeri "Minnesota Tits" Thompson, the Future First Lady and
              The First Twins, "Stacey" and "Becca."
              \_ Do the First Twins "drop out" also?
2008/1/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48968 Activity:low
1/18    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22725498
        Bush calls for $145b tax relief (cuts) to rescue us from recession!
        Go trickle-down-economy! Reaganomics works!
        \_ Well, the other side is saying we should transfer wealth from rich
           to poor.  And?
        \_ It is good that Bush and Republican Congress have been fiscally
           responsible, so that now we are in a downturn, we can spend some
           of the money we have been saving the last seven years.
           \_ You do realize that's one of the reasons R's are pissed at Bush
              and congress, right? And why some of use went to I? -emarkp
              \_ Yeah, I have heard some grumbling from my evangelical (R)
                 brother. Did you switch to I? Is there any chance you will
                 actually vote for a D?
                 \_ Yes I did, and (for instance) I never voted for the
                    Governator. If a D had a decent plan, I'd be happy to vote
                    for him/her. But it's gotta be more than Hope or Change
           \_ Unfortunately the R version of "saving" is moving money into the
              pockets of the rich.
              \_ If the rich buy more fences to keep out the poor, they'll
                 have to hire the poor to build them! Yay, stimulated economy!
2008/1/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48940 Activity:nil
1/14    36-year-old state governor!
        I'm one year older and I'm goofing off browsing Yahoo at work. :-(
        \_ Same here, but on the plus side I don't live in Louisiana
        \_ you got the better end of that deal.
2008/1/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48932 Activity:nil
1/11    OSC horrified by ham-handed presidential candidates' responses to
        Bhutto's assassination.
        \- i'll limit my reply to "benazir bhutto has 3 not 2 children."
           ok one more thing: fatmia bhutto is not unattractive.
2008/1/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:48906 Activity:nil
1/8     Angry White Man: The archives of Ron Paul's newsletters
        \_ He's white? Wow I can't support a white man.
           \_ LGF had this 2 months ago
2008/1/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48888 Activity:high
1/4     474,000 workers retire from work force in December, buy Jim Cramer's
        new book:  "Stay Mad For Life"!  Dubya pessimistic:  to present
        economic stimulus pkg on Monday with Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson
        Unemployment    Month
        5.0%            Dec 2007
        4.4%            Dec 2006
        \_ You know 5% unemployment is a very low number historically?
2007/12/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48823 Activity:nil
12/18   Why is Bush pardoning all these people all of a sudden?
        \_ Why do dogs lick their balls?
2007/12/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:48814 Activity:nil
12/15   A guide to the official U.S. torture system
2007/11/30-12/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48724 Activity:low
11/30   "The Bush administration is working with industry on a plan to extend
        lower, introductory interest rates on home loans before they reset
        at higher levels."
        Wait whatever happened to Bush's strong stance towards FREE MARKET
        without fucking intervention from the government?
        \_ He's under tremendous pressure to do something whether he wants
           to or not.
           \_ Polls don't matter! I read it on the motd, Bush will do what
              is right, no matter what the polls say.
        \_ If you don't understand the difference between lip service to ideals
           and actually believing them what are you doing paying any attention
           to politics?
        \_ he could stick to his ideals and let the FREE MARKET decide, by
           letting people trapped into these 'bad bad loans' move by banning all
           early payment penalties in existing loans.
           letting people trapped into these 'bad bad loans' move by banning
           all early payment penalties in existing loans.
           \_ I don't think prepayment penalties are really at the heart
              of the issue here.
        \_ A fine question, and one of the reason that conservatives are
           unhappy with Bush. -emarkp
        \_ A good president works hard to prevent any of his association
        \_ A good president works hard to prevent any association
           with recession (case in point Read My Lips George).
        \_ that sounds like something a terrorist would say!
           \- ^sounds^sounds suspiciously
2007/11/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48692 Activity:nil
11/25   Is Waterboarding torture?
        http://www.csua.org/u/k2i (The Week)
        \_ Apparently, Tasers are.  At that point, anything is torture.
           \_ The USSC said tasers are torture? When did they say that?
              \_ No, SCOTUS didn't say that. Google the news for tasers and
           \_ Tasers can be torture.  When police use tasers one a restrained
              subject, as punishment, they are using tasers as torture
                \_ In this same vein, so are car batteries, hammers,
                   \_ Umm, those are regularly used as torture devices.
                      Or would you be happy if police regularly smashed
                      people in the hand with a hammer for not doing what
                      they say?
              \_ So when a prisoner is escorted to court with a taser belt, and
                 it's used to zap him if he gets out of line, you'd say it's a
                 torture device?
                 \_ If it is used to zap him if he attacks someone, probably
                    not.  If it is used to make someone do something that
                    could be done without the use of pain, yes, it is
                    torture.  And that's what tasers have become to some
                    law enforcement, ways of getting people to kowtow
                    instantly.  That's torture.
                    \_ I thought torture was inflicting pain to get
                       information, not to get them to comply.  What about
                       beating someone with batons if they won't fall in line?
                       \_ That's pretty obvious torture.  It's part of ruling
                          by fear.  And it is what our police departments are
                          rapidly becoming, forces of fear.
                          \_ It is not torture the way the Geneva Convention
                             defines torture. There has to be a lot more to
                             it than that, like permanent damage.
                             \_ This is not a testable distinction if you
                                include psychological damage. -- ilyas
2007/11/24-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48688 Activity:high
11/23   John Howard loses not only the national election, but his own seat.
        Another Bush lapdog goes down.
        \_ Kevin Rudd: We're pulling out of Iraq, and we're signing the
           Kyoto Treaty. Smackdown!
        \_ You people with Bush Derangement Syndrome are funny!  Everyone is
           Bush's lapdog.
           \- funny-but-not-really was the "coalition of the willing".
              [c.f. Costa Rica, Palau, Tonga]. if you hate minke whales
              [the "rats of the sea"], this is actually kinda funny:
                 "Pro-whaling Mali and Mongolia have consistently
                 voted with Japan in the IWC in its campaign to
                 resume whale hunting. [http://tinyurl.com/2ekq52]
              See also:
              BTW, JHOWARD also took flack for a number of "conservative"
              ideas in domestic/econ policies, not just "war on terror"
              issues. --!OP
              \_ Cf. Aussie immigration policy, Pauline Hansen (better us
                 than her lot, eh?), Fiji, Indonesia, and the rapid
                 deterioration of Aussie cricket and rugby. Good on yer,
           \_ Not as funny as people with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
              \_ Sorry, but it's at least twice as funny as CDS because of the
                 self-contradictory nature of BDS. Bush is simultaneously a
                 bumbling fool and a genius criminal mastermind/manipulator?
                 At least CDS is consistent - Clinton let crap happen because
                 he was too busy chasing booty/food?
                 \_ I am pretty consistently of the "bush is a bumbling
                    fool who has fucked up the entire world" kind of guy
                    fool who has messed up the entire world" school
                    of thought, myself
                 \_ You mean he killed Vince Foster and gave nuclear secrets
                    to the Chinese by accident while chasing booty?
                    \_ According to people with CDS, Hilary was behind these.
                       \_ http://www.csua.org/u/k2j (NewsMax, I know...)
                          "How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold
                          them all the technology they needed . or handed it
                          over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is
                          to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose."
                 \_ A fool in a position of power can still reward his friends.
                    Or commit crimes. Or spend money, or initiate wars.
                    \_ But only a genius master manipulator can get away with
                       \_ It is not clear that he got away with it.
           \_ Bush is the greatest Republican President ever! Better than
              Reagan! Better than Lincoln! We will build shrines in his
              honor, put his face on Mt. Rushmore and the Two Dollar Bill!
              http://www.csua.org/u/ify (Mission Accomplished!)
           \_ You mean the 2/3 of America that doesn't like Bush, as opposed
              to you 30% that still think he is swell? Do you really think
              that 2/3 of America is deranged?
              \_ Disliking != derangement. See, it's the deranged that say that
                 a second-longest-in-power PM getting ousted is "another Bush
                 lapdog" going down. -op
           \- Bush Derangement Syndrome?  perhaps.  i do hope that he lives
              long enough to be tried for his role in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,
              and the kidnapping, "extraordinary rendition", and torture of
              people around the world (who sometimes turn out to be innocent).
              but what i hate are Bush's policies.  it doesn't really matter
              whether he's the evil mastermind behind the policies or a
              cretinous sock puppet with Dick Cheney's hand shoved up his ass
              making his mouth move (though i tend to suspect the latter).
              regardless, i'm delighted when supporters of his policies get
              voted out of office.
              \_ You're seriously deluded if you believe he'll ever be tried
                 for so much as a traffic violation much less anything else
                 on your list.  Most of your list is post 9/11 but do you
                 know that extraordinary rendition was a Clinton era policy?
                 Yes, Bush continued it but his administration sure as hell
                 didn't come up with the idea.  Should Clinton be tried for
                 that?  If you don't think so or you have some other
                 rationalization then you suffer from BDS.  There is no cure.
                 \_ Heh, have you known psb long?
                    \_ Yes but there's always hope.
                       \- what does this have to do with me?
                          the only thing i wrote in theis thread was the
                          minke whale comment above. i'm not holding my breath
                          but i could see something like what happened to
                          pinochet happening to bush/rumsfeld/cheney ...
                          bush should be around for a while. --psb
                 \_ Bill Clinton should be indicted for the murder of Ed Willey,
                    Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
                 \_ Bill Clinton should be indicted for the murder of Ed
                    Willey, Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
                    \_ Maybe but first the cases should be properly
                       investigated.  I know the first 2 weren't.  I don't
                       know the RB details.
2007/11/20-26 [ERROR, uid:48666, category id '18005#5.6425' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48666 Activity:low
11/20   The White House has no comment:
        \_ I mean, why would they? You don't expect conservatives to
           apologize do you? Stand strong, emphasize the positive,
           ignore criticsm, move on. These are very effective conservative
           \_ troll.
           \_ I guess a refusal to learn and change can be considered a hallmark
              of conservatism.
           \_ I guess a refusal to learn and change can be considered a
              hallmark of conservatism.
              \_ troll++;
                 \_ Call it a troll if you like, but it is a defining quality
                    of conservatism to preserve the past against the future.
                    Part of this is resistance to change. Too bad you have
                    such blinders that you can't see this. Conservatives call
                    liberals "flip-floppers" all the time. Do you call them
                    out as "trolls" for that?
                    \_ Please tell us your name so we can Swift Boat you
                       to death.  -independent pretending to be conservative
                    \_ You are not just a troll, but incredibly stupid too.
2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:48662 Activity:nil
11/19   Are all charities "equivalent"? If I donate $100,000 to the
        Metropolitan Opera House to encourage aspiring young musicians most
        who will never make it in their lifetime, will I be more/less
        impactful than donating $100,000 to help the poor in Africa?
        \_ That depends on who you ask. A libertarian will say both are
           equivalent as there's no moral judgements on people. A
           socialist will think you're a total asshole. A capitalist
           will point out that you're an idiot for not donating to
           an organization that will somehow benefit you [in]directly.
        \_ Is this a troll?  If not, your best bang/buck on charity is
           probably subsidizing childhood immunizations.
           \_ unless you're against over-population
              \_ When you find your humanity again, feel free to join the
                 rest of the human race.
                 \_ When you stop making assumptions about people because you
                    mis-interpreted a comment, feel free to join the rest of
                    literate adults.
        \_ I'm too lazy to think about these issues.  So when I want to donate,
           I just donate to the American Red Cross, and then close my eyes and
           let them do whatever they want with the money.
        \_ What sort of impact do you want your donation to have?  If you find
           helping aspiring musicians more important than helping the poor in
           Africa, then that is more impactful.  As far as Africa goes, the
           best thing the West can do for them is stop flooding the place with
           freebies.  How does anyone expect a local economy to grow in any
           place that gets free throw aways of everything from the West?  Who
           would buy shoes from the local shoe maker when the US/UN/EU is
           giving them away free down the street?
           \- for an unbelievable story, see:
2007/11/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48624 Activity:nil
11/12   the repub nominee candidates are all terrible.  romney
        seems the least batshit right now to me, even with his double
        gitmo comment.  what am i going to do?
        \_ Come over to the Dark Side, Luke.
        \_ Romney? He's an idiot. He would be another GW Bush. If you like
           GW Bush then there you go. For a "status quo" candidate, what
           is batshit about Giuliani or Thompson?  -Ron Paul voter
           \_ I vote for Ron Paul too.  I am a Democrat.
              \_ Why?  Actually how are you voting in the Rep. primary when
                 you are a Democrat?  Anyway... i bet it's fun to be able to
                 take very principled stands when you have no chance of
                 winning.  Ron Paul's other positions are pretty way over
                 there on the other end of the scale, extreme right wing.
                 I guess he gets points for being completely honest about it.
                 I still can't vote for him.
                 \_ What are the "extreme right wing" positions? He's more of
                    a libertarian, I'm pretty comfortable with him, knowing
                    he won't push crazy religious agendas for example. He's
                    not going to cut old people off social security.
                    I kinda doubt many of his ideas would get through Congress
                    At this point I'm apathetic about everyone else so I
                    have no reason to vote for anyone else.
           \_ Romney is an 'idiot'?  Proof?
              \_ Not a literal, dictionary one of course. I hate the guy
                 but I don't feel like digging up links for you, sorry.
                 Ok I don't even actually personally hate him to be honest.
                 But what's a motd post without exaggerated bombast?
                 \_ So 'idiot' means, "doesn't agree" with you?  Okay, thought
                   \_ There's nothing to agree/disagree with. He's one of those
                      "smiling faces in a suit" type of politicians, with a
                      generic status quo platform. "I love America!" whee
                      \_ What you (left wing liberal nut) want: an intellect,
                                sympathetic to LGBT, yada yada yada.
                         What America wants: good looking, confident,
                                and loves America. That's Romney.
                      \_ In another word he's like Ronald Reagan and
                         HE IS GONNA KICK YOUR SORRY D ASS!!!
                      \_ ^^^ you guys are idiots, I'm not a D. I said
                         I was a Ron Paul guy.
                         \_ Which of course makes *you* an idiot.  Paul is
                            nuttier than a fruitcake.
                            \_ Bush talks to an invisible entity every day.
                               Various kinds of nuttiness of the president are
                               beside the point, the important thing is what
                               direction will a given president push the
                               current status quo, given his beliefs, and the
                               inherent limitations of the office of the
                               president. -- ilyas
                           \_ At least he's not fruitier than a nutcake?
                              Also:  "Proof"?
                              How is Romney different from GWB? Other than
                              being better looking and more articulate.
                              Romney's web site is virtually content free.
                              The only clear message is about fighting
                              Jihadists. I think Romney is ignorant of
                              economics based on his speeches and writings.
                              I'd rather have Duncan Hunter, for a "non nutty"
                              \_ Paul has said he will dissolve the FBI.
                                 Yes, Duncan Hunter is the real conservative
                                \_ Link? Dissolving the FBI doesn't sound
                                   inherently nutty. Why do we need FBI,
                                   CIA, Homeland Security, DEA, BATF, etc.?
                                   It's ridiculous. I don't know anything
                                   about Ron Paul's plans in this arena
                                   and a quick google doesn't find it.
                                   But I'm not someone who thinks status quo
                                   must be the best because it's the status
                \_ Romney is not an idiot, he is a Moron(i).
                   \_ I've decided being a Mormon isn't so bad.  They believe
                      in the Moroni Golden Plate theory, Catholics believe
                      the living flesh of Christ appears when you take
                      communion.  This is amazing on so many levels!  eat
                      that fake dead living flesh of your lord!
        \_ Any R >>> D. Say no to socialism!!!          -fake conservative
2007/11/9-14 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:48598 Activity:nil
11/9    AP IMPACT: New Army chopper overheats
        "The cost of an air conditioning unit per aircraft is about $98,000,"
        Gee, since these choppers are for disaster relief instead of combat,
        why don't they just paint it white or leave it unpainted as silver to
        reflect the heat away?
        \_ because you won't get that jack booted thug  look
2007/11/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48553 Activity:low
11/5    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_pakistan
        'WASHINGTON - President Bush urged Pakistani President Pervez
        Musharraf on Monday to "restore democracy as quickly as possible,"
        choosing mild disappointment over punishment or more pointed rhetoric
        to react to the declaration of emergency rule in anti-terror ally
        Pakistan...Bush did not speak directly to Musharraf, a leader who
        took power in a 1999 coup but whom he has previously hailed as a
        friend he trusts and as a strong defender of freedom...They were the
        president's first public comments on the situation since Musharraf
        imposed a state of emergency, suspended his country's constitution,
        ousted the country's top judge, stifled independent media and deployed
        troops to crush dissent. He called it necessary to prevent a takeover
        by Islamic extremists.'
        \_ Who would you prefer to see in power in a nuclear-armed pakistan?
           Democratically-elected islamic extremists, or Musharraf?
           \_ Bhutto.
                \_ Who is reputedly corrupt.  She'll just sell the nukes
                   on the black market.
                   \_ They're all corrupt. They're all out to make a buck and
                      may very well sell nuke tech. Now that we've established
                      that, we can move on to the more meaning distinguishing
                      characteristics, like whether they're military dictators,
                      religious fascists, or actual proponents of free
                      elections democracy. Thus: Bhutto FTW.
2007/11/5-8 [Science/Space, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48534 Activity:nil
11/5    It's a little hard to sympathize with Georgia over the Atlanta
        water troubles.  Their population has been growing but they
        have invested nothing in new water infrastructure for Atlanta,
        for ~50 years.  Let's hope other areas learn from the problems.
        \_ The private sector will fix the problem, just like during Katrina.
           If they have problems it's because things weren't privatized enough.
           \_ Katrina was a public corruption problem.  There are a lot of
              examples you could have used.  Katrina wasn't the one you were
              looking for.
           \_ Time for a tax cut!
2007/10/30-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:48483 Activity:nil
10/29   that fake FEMA news conference is funny, funny stuff
2007/10/29-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48481 Activity:nil
10/29   Former FEMA spokesman loses spy job after overseeing fake news
2007/10/29-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48473 Activity:nil
10/29   Oil hits all time inflation adjusted high:
        http://www.csua.org/u/juv (Bloomberg)
        Bush breaks another record! Go Bush Go!
        \_ Why do you care?  RIDE BIKE!  USE FEET!
2007/10/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48440 Activity:high
10/25   Lefty enemies of free speech force Horowitz from stage.
        \_ not gonna read it.  you could have written that headline before
           he did his stupid islamo facism week.
           \_ Oh, come on.  There's video of the nutters on the site.  Doesn't
              that get your anti-free-speech blood riled up?
           \_ It's amazing how all the leftists have plenty of opportunities to
              speak, but they seem to be the only ones shutting down speech on
              the other side. -op
              \_ Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! The blatant disregard for
                 reality is charming!
                 \_ So which are you claiming--that leftists *don't* have
                    plenty of opportunities to speak?  Or that they're the only
                    ones chasing their opponents off the stage?
                    \_ http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandLo.mov
                       \_ Oh you've got to be kidding me.  O'Reilly's show is
                          hardly a public forum.
                          \_ Oh, right, and he's "only an entertainer," so
                             there you go.
                             \_ You can't see the diff between a staged TV
                                show where the paid host kicks off a 'guest'
                                he doesn't like, and a public speech getting
                                \_ If a bunch of raving lefties stormed the
                                   Fox News HQ and mobbed BO'R, would you
                                   say "Fair play"?
                     \_ You mean all those people who were arrested for
                        booing or heckling Bush?
           \_ Are you taking your ball with you?
        \_ No free speech for fascists!
           \_ That was always my favorite line from the Sproul Plaza chanting
              \_ They may be serious students of the French revolution and
                 are engaging in a clever word play on "No liberty
                 for the enemies of liberty!".  Or maybe not.
        \_ horowitz deliberately sets up shit like this.  he's been doing it
           for years.  gonna ignore him.
           \_ If only other people ignored him, rather than chasing him out of
              the room, there wouldn't be a problem.
           \_ Sure he's doing it for PR but he has a point about the
              censorship thing.  (And please don't quote the dictionary
              definition at me.)
           \_ "Your Honor, I did rape the defendant, but look at what the
              bitch was wearing!" -- ilyas
2007/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48422 Activity:low
10/22   Nixon is against counter culture.
        Bush is against _________________.
        Fill in the blank.
        \_ Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
           \_ Nonono, Bush will justify any action in the name of
              life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
        \_ motd trolls.  He's on record as taking a firm stance against motd
        \_ counter revolutionary propaganda.
2007/10/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48421 Activity:moderate
10/22   I haven't trolled emarkpd in a while.  How's that Mormon thing
        coming along?
        \_ He still supports Bush and his Iraq War in the glorious name
           of freedom. Troll on that.
        \_ Wow.  Now I'm a daemon process? -emarkp
        \_ Hey emarkp, why are Republicans against renewal energy and weed?
           \_ Because all Republicans are evil neanderthals and all Democrats
              are living incarnations of the essence of Good.  This is the
              motd, there is no other fact you need know.  Run along.
              \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalocalypse
              \_ you know there is a lot of current evidence that Republicans
                 and their media machine and all the noisy right wing blogs
                 are really run by insane, evil neanderthals bent on destroying
                 all that is good in this world.  democrats just aren't that
              \_ Straw man. No one on the motd believes the latter statement
                 (though perhaps many believe the former).
                 \_ They don't believe it but they sure say it on the motd
                    a lot.  Are they all trolls?  No, there are people right
                    here on the motd who actually believe it.
                    \_ I have never seen anyone post to the motd that Democrats
                       are all perfect, except in satire. Can you find one for
                       \_ This is the place to be to see Democrat politico
                          stupidly defended to the bitter end.  The most
                          recent case being "Reid+40 other (D) Senators wrote
                          a smearing lie letter to a radio show host's boss
                          in an effort to help charity".  But really you know
                          that and many other things I don't have to dig out
                          of the archives.  There's no point.  Go post your
                          final comment if you like.  I won't respond any
                          futher to such an obvious troll.  You've been fed
                          enough today.
                          \_ can we please classify dans as "idiot" rather
                             than "democrat"?
                             \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
                                  -- ilyas
                                \_ But ilyas, isn't the wikipedia composed by
                                   the crowds of unwashed masses?  Isn't it a
                                   tool for unsuspecting fools and morons
                                   doomed to be duped by faux inexpert
                                   wisdom; the blind leading the blind if you
                                   will?  I'm shocked.  Shocked I say that you
                                   would quote from such a source. -dans
                                   \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
                                        -- ilyas
                                     \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
                              \_ Nope, more like his idiocy trumps everything
                                 else.  It's not that he isn't a true democrat,
                                 it's that he is also a true egotistical moron
                                 as well.
                                 \_ Clearly I'm doing sometthing right if I'm
                                    pissing people off this much. -dans
                            \_ I don't think dans would consider himself a
                               Democrat, but am ready to concede here if wrong.
                               How about it dans, are you a Democrat?
                               \_ No, but I have voted for Democrats in the
                                  past. -dans
2007/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:48404 Activity:low 76%like:48396
10/19   People say "jew-lery" and "re-lator" instead of
        jewelry and realtor. Are these proper pronunciations?
        \_ I don't think so.
           \_ Racist!
              \_ So you think "realtor" and "relator" should sound the same?
                 -- PP, Chinese
        \_ I have never heard anyone sal jelery.  Re-lator is because
           Realtor (tm!) is a stupid fucking made up word that would never
           be an english word if someone hadn't made it up.  The l to t
           transision is just fucked up.
           \_ hello bitter housing guy! How's your rent?
            \_ Not bitter housing guy, just bitter abuse of the english
               language guy.
        \_ Thats totally NUKULAR!
           \_ Isn't this an accepted pronunciation in one of the
              \_ Only if you're a fan of Jimmy Carter.
                 \_ Or Dubya. Is this just a Southern thang?
                    \_ Dunno but JC was way ahead of Dubya on the Nukular thing
2022/06/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 1801 - 1950 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush: