Politics Domestic President Bush - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
Results 451 - 600 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/11/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/18   

2004/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32652 Activity:high
8/3     What's up with the frenzy of freeper links lately?
        \_ Desperation.
           \_ Does that explain the anti-Bush links too?
              \_ At least the anti-Bush links are on the right side.
                 \_ No, they're on the left-side.
        \_ I must have missed them.  Where are the "freeper" machines?
2004/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32650 Activity:very high
8/3     Teresa Heinz is too much of a bitch
        \_ Apparently you missed out on Nancy Reagan.
        \_ A rich Republican one from South Africa no less. Nancy Reagan
           was actually liked. Kerry's okay, but if he can get along with
           that bitchy Republican wife then you have to wonder how strong
           his principles are. She's not that hot either.
           \_ sugar mommy
           \_ As they say about porn stars: its all about the money, honey.
              And just because Nancy was "liked" doesn't mean she wasn't
              a crazy beeyotch.  Have you ever seen the clips of the "Just
              Say No" speech?
           \_ Do you seriously think that Laura Bush is hotter?
        \_ No, Nancy Reagan was an EVIL BITCH.  Teresa Heinz is a bitch on
           the side of GOOD, that is, if she were a man, she stands for
           something, and won't take your stupid crap.  Now, if you imagine
           Dubya as female, Georgina Bush would just be a stupid, drunk bitch.
                \_ your republican talking point email wasn't that
                   funny today
        \_ I like Teresa Heinz very much.  She speaks frankly and doesn't
           pretend to be someone other than herself, unlike most American
           politicians who wears many masks.
           \_ I agree, she's not pretending to be insane, she really is!
              \_ kind of like bush being dumb?
              \_ why do you think she is insane?
                 \_ All Demoncraps are insane, by definition.
                    \_ Demoncraps?  I bow to your debate skills.
        \_ you prefer a stepford wife like laura bush, with her fake smile?
           \_ How about someone who is not a Republican senator's wife who
              got all of her money from an evil corporation?
              \_ What's evil about condiments?
                \_ Its not like she's from DeBeers.
                \_ Ignorant slut! Don't you know the cruel exploitative history
                   of Heinz ketchup? The tomato slave gangs, the Mexican
                   "ketchup coup" in 1971 (covered up by the liberal media of
                   course), those frustrating glass bottles... and Heinz was
                   a Nazi. And later a communist.
                   \_ At least he wasn't a commie-nazi -McBain
        \_ My brother roomed with Chris Heinz freshman year college.
           Privileged information says she's not all that bright and definitely
           not a nice person.
        \_ What about Hillary?
2004/8/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32644 Activity:very high
8/2     So, I've been wondering... We know GWB almost certainly wasn't at
        the Alabama AF base in 72/73.  Where was he???  Why is there no one
        out there who seems to remember him being *anywhere* *at* *all*?
        It's like he dropped off the face of the earth.  If he was out
        coking up I'd expect to hear from dozens of people who partied with
        him during that time period.
        \_ This month's GQ has a pretty funny article, complete with
           reasonable photoshop jobs, about how W was knocking around SE
           Asia as a tux-wearing hitman for the CIA.  -John
           \_ Not photoshop.  It's a doppleganger. --scotsman
        \_ Hahahahaahahahaahahaha. Right. These people are part of the
           old-boy wealth network. How many hippies do you think were
           at those Bush coke parties?
           \_ Doesn't it bother any motd liberals that Kerry is part of the
              same network?
              \_ No, no, no Bush bad, anyone else good!
              \_ The child of Jewish-cum-Catholic immigrants is part of the
                 old-boy wealth network?  How does this work, exactly?
                 \_ They are both Skull and Bones members from Yale. You
                    can choose the dumb one married to a Republican or the
                    do-nothing also married to a Republican. Isn't America
                    great?
                    \_ yea but there's always democrat super stud james
                       carville who boinks republican biatch mary matalin
                       everyday.
           \_ So every person from his coke friend to his maid and taxi
              drivers are all part of the old-boy wealth network and is
              covering up for him?  No one saw him in a store, at a gas
              station, eating out dinner, or at a night club?  He hid out
              and spent time *only* with old-boy wealth network people,
              including servants and staff, for a year?  You're an idiot.
        \_ He was with buddies. He wasn't particularly famous in 72/73.
           If he was with buddies, they probably would cover for him, since
           hey, if you buddy becomes POTUS it can be useful.
           \_ See above about the odds he spent his time _only_ with his
              buddies for a _year_ and every single one of them is willing to
              cover for him.  Your answer would only satisfy the tinfoil hat
              crowd.  People do remember other people especially someone
              like GWB who was always the outgoing center of attention
              where ever he went.  Anyway, being "with his buddies" is still
              no answer.  Where were *they*?  And who?
        \_ He was training to be the Manchurian Candidate.
        \_ How exactly do we "Know" he wasn't there?  Some missing records
           and some people who can't remember him is hardly proof of
           anything.  I've seen other people who DO remember him, and his
           papers show full service. There's more proof for him being
           there than there is against.
           \_ Yes, because that's all the evidence the WH has allowed to be
              released.
              \_ The white house also hasn't allowed evidence that we are
                 secretly ruled by space aliens to be released!  AAAAAAAA!
                 \_ Don't be stupid.  They STILL haven't released all his
                    military records.  Can you think of a reason why other than
                    to hide what he was really doing?
                    \_ Do you mean the missing records or the records they
                       released 6 months ago?
        \_ Here's a blog link on the subject, comes with links to real
           articles.  (follow the links at the top of the page.)
           http://csua.org/u/8fh
http://boards.historychannel.com/threaded.jsp?forum=2174&thread=100000898&start$
2004/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32636 Activity:nil
8/2     I almost misread this quote on CNN pull: "Will President Bush's
        intelligence help thwart terrorist attacks?". I missed the
        'reform' between intelligence and help. :)
        \_ Bush = Strong Leader ; Kerry = Flip-flopper
           \_ Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
              \_its what drives the Liberal media, it seems to work.
                it brainwashed you twink.
                \_ I think you are more brainwashed than you think.
                   \_ Anybody who thinks the media is liberal is out
                      of touch with reality.
2004/7/31 [ERROR, uid:32608, category id '18005#4.27786' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32608 Activity:nil
7/31    Dead bitter old jew crone wastes deathbed wish:
        http://www.local10.com/news/3598475/detail.html
        She could have asked her family to do something meaningful and lasting
        like helping the local pet shelter or orphaned children or gave her
        money to the make a wish foundation.  Please God, never let me become
        so partisan and bitter that my dying wish is some ugly political crap.
        \_ maybe you should ask your God to help you reduce your own bitterness.
           why do you feel the need to describe this person as a "jew crone"?
        \_ A similar story: http://www.whistleass.com
        \_ 1) Jew crone? Lame troll.
           2) http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/obituary.asp
              The original is always preferable to the vector.
2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32598 Activity:high
7/30    Washington Post book review on the 9/11 commision report
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26729-2004Jul30.html
        Clinton did something before 9/11; Bush didn't.
        \_ You don't call taking a month-long vacation doing something?
        \_ They were, they were trying to figure out how to pick a
           fight with China so they can spend all the tax payer's money
           to make themselves rich, until Bin Ladin shitted on their
           face. It's amazing people have such short memory.
2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32588 Activity:nil
7/30    Bush campaign employee overheard saying workers who don't like their
        low-wage jobs should take Prozac:
        http://csua.org/u/8e1 (yahoo news)
2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32584 Activity:high
        9/11 commission report -- they don't portray the intent like this
        book does.  I have postponed reading it up to today.
        \_ The timing of this information is very suspicious...
        \_ The timing of this information is very suspicious... why on
           sysadmin appreciation day?
           \_ It's to distract us from our day with off topic propaganda.
              Clearly this is a plot by the <insert political group directly
              opposed to your agenda> to destroy Sysadmin Credibilty Around
              The World For Generations To Come!
        \_ Tenet has lost SO much credibility because of the "slam dunk"
           claim.  That statement was 90-99% bogus, based on the assessments
           at the time by the CIA
           \_ Yep.  And he's the guy the President relies on for information.
              Should Bush have jogged over to CIA HQ and started quizzing
              individual intel analysts?
              \_ "When McLaughlin concluded, there was a look on the
                 president's face of, What's this? And then a brief moment of
                 silence. ... 'Nice try,' Bush said. 'I don't think this is
                 quite -- it's not something that Joe Public would understand
                 or would gain a lot of confidence from.'"
2004/7/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32580 Activity:low
7/29    Old news, but, this is where Tenet says it's a "slam dunk" case,
        as excerpted from the Bush-blessed book _Plan of Attack_:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22552-2004Apr18_4.html
        By the way, I strongly recommend you go read this as your primary
        source.  All the other books, the newspapers, the magazines, the
2004/7/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32573 Activity:kinda low
7/29    The July 7 New Republic article on pressure on Pakistan to announce
        squishage of high-value targets during the Democratic convention
        http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904
        \_ Only the left expresses compunction over the
           capture of Eastasian operatives.
           \_ Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
              \_ Spaceballs rule!
2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32547 Activity:high
7/28    I think someone just used the liberal version of "Why do you hate
        America" on me. I was telling a guy I know that I thought Michael
        Moore's "would you sacrifice your children?" question is stupid
        because Moore can take the correct response of "no, because I don't
        speak for my children- they make their own decisions" and say,
        "see! see! you said no, you're a hypocrite!" To which this guy
        responded with, "So it's okay to lie to go to war?"
        \_ Yeah, sounds like it to me. Still not quite as snappy, but close.
           \_ Why do you support torture?
        \_ Moore is an idiot.  In any case, he could do his job a lot easier
           by stopping his calling Bush a liar, and saying he's incompetent
           instead.  As well, Moore should be asking, "If you were President,
           would you send America's children to Iraq based on what you knew?"
           instead of asking the ridiculous version of the question ("Would
           you send your own kid ...").
        \_ I think a better response is: so if the UN sanctioned the war
           you would then automatically 'sacrifice' your children?  As if
           it should make a difference.
           \_ You're all missing the fucking point.  The people Moore approaches
              are the ones making the decisions to authorize the use of the
              troops, cutting their benefits and danger pay, etc.  He has two
              \_ Bill O'Reilly makes decisions to authorize use of troops?
              audiences with that stunt, those watching through the camera,
              and the legislators themselves.  The point is not that their
              children should be compelled to serve.  It's that 1) they might
              weigh their decisions differently if they could imagine that
              it was their own child, and 2) the poor join up to the military
              for the opportunities they see in it while the well off don't.
              Moore wants the soldiers lives to be weighed to their worth.
              \_ Nice try. Moore just wants to make people look like
                 hypocrites when they clearly aren't.
                 \_ Did you even watch the damn film.  If you want to over-
                    simplify it without considering what I just said, I weep
                    for you.
                    \_ Someone mentioned a film?
2017/11/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/18   

2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32541 Activity:very high
7/28    So why don't the libertarians move to someplace like the Congo,
        where there is no oppressive government, no taxes and they
        can carry any weapon they like?
        \_ Why don't republicans move to Saudi Arabia where they can finally
           have total religious control of the government, hereditary
           absolute power, and an economy totally dominated by the oil
           industry?
           \_ Wrong religion.
        \_ Why don't liberals move to Cuba or North Korea?
                \_ because they don't have access to Kais Motd      -kchang
                \_ because America is our country.  That is why you are here.
           \_ Bad analogy. You should ask why the liberals don't move
              to Canada or The Netherlands.
              \_ Oh yeah, as if the original 'Congo' thing is a good analogy.
                 It should have asked 'why don't libertarians move to
                 Switzerland.'  Sometimes I wonder myself.
                 \_ No, Switzerland has confiscatory taxes and takes money
                    from its citizens at gunpoint, forcing them to work as
                    virtual slaves for The State.
                    \_ And the Netherlands and Canada have cruel capitalism,
                       and class warfare.  You are a weak troll, buddy.
                       \_ Got you, though, didn't he?
                       \_ Liberals aren't socialists dunderhead. The sooner
                          you figure that out, the better off you will be.
              \_ In fact, we have it on record that regular citizens are
                 contemplating a move to Canada if Bush wins a second term.
                 Whether they would follow through?
        \_ Why should they have to, when they can make America just like it?
        \_ Because they like the US' government services, they just don't think
           they should have to pay for them.
           \_ What are you talking about?
              \_ law enforcement, national defense, public roads, etc
2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32532 Activity:nil
7/28    Bush breathes air he tries to poison.  See all the pics:
        http://www.whitehouse.gov
        \_ what about illegal immigration pollutes delta/sacramento
           river and destroys levees w/ unlawful aliens?
           \_ RACIST!  Why do you hate America?  I'll bet you don't RIDE
              BIKE! or USE LINUX! either!
2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32524 Activity:high
7/28    Bush lied again... Castro never said those things about prostitution
        http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/28/bushs_lies_about_cas.html
        \_ Bush did not lie! The CIA told him to say that and he trusted them.
2004/7/27 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32515 Activity:very high
7/27    So was the home-buying thread intentionally to hijack the motd?
        \_ housing prices as a topic are currently the #1 most reliable
           troll topic, where reliable means "guaranteed to produce maximum
           verbiage, maximum flameage, and minimum knowledge."  Politics
           have become too obvious.
           \_ hey, fuck off.  that doesn't make it a troll.  housing is an
              extremely important issue to absolutely everyone.
           \_ I got trolled  :(
           \_ You missed the Bush lied/did not lie flame war.
              \_ Well, he didn't lie, nor did the CIA "trick" him -- I don't
                 know who came up with that one. -liberal
2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32510 Activity:nil
7/27    Heh, http://drudgereport.com has a URL on Michael Moore on the O'Reilly show.
        Moore has been saying that Bush is a liar.  O'Reilly says Bush never
        lied, but he may have been mistaken.  Moore can't admit the difference.
        Now this is what I've been saying all along -- as a liberal.
        \_ hey, let's hear from the guy who said he spent 20 hours a week for
           a month researching bush's wmd claims because of a motd thread.
           what's your take on this?
        \_ OK, we can probably both agree that Bush said things that were shown
           to be false.  The difference in opinion is conservatives think he
           was simply mistaken while liberals think he knew it was wrong.
           In the run-up to the war, conservatives said "Trust that the
           president has access to the best intelligence that shows that
           Saddam has WMDs"  Now some are trying to say "He was tricked by the
           CIA".  Which is it?  Did he know there were no WMDs (and is a liar)
           or was he tricked, and is being led not leading.
           \_ He did have access to the best intel.  Going back years,
              everyone in the previous administration, Senators on the
              intelligence committee, foreign leaders, etc, all stated their
              belief that Saddam had WMD or was soon to develop working WMD.
              The intel was wrong.  Everyone's intel was wrong.  Who is
              saying that Bush claims he was "tricked"?  Whatever on that.
              If it had gone the other way and the exact same intel said the
              exact same thing in the exact same way and he did nothing and
              Saddam nuked something you'd be screaming that Bush is a moron
              and the worst leader ever.  Let's just grant that you hate Bush,
              Bush can do nothing right for you, and that's that.  By taking
              Bush out of context and making him be the only one to ever say
              or believe that Saddam had WMD is intellectually dishonest,
              verging on weak trolling.
              \_ You are lying and badly at that. Why do you continue to
                 lie about this, even though you have been proven wrong
                 repeatedly? You just make yourself and Bush supporters
                 in generally look deluded and out of touch with reality.
                 Some people believed there were WMD in Iraq and some did
                 not. This has been proven to you repeatedly, yet you
                 still claim otherwise.
           \_ Bush is responsible for what he says.  Harry Truman had a sign
              on his desk, "The Buck Stops Here"--meaning that he claimed
              responsibility for his own decisions, rather than pointing
              fingers.  Whereas Bush claims responsibility for things he
              has nothing to do with, like the economy, and refuses
              responsibility for decisions he personally made, like unilateral
              war with Iraq.  -tom
              \_ I don't think that word "unilateral" means what you think it
                 means.
                 \_ A lot of things don't mean what tom thinks they mean.  Be
                    kind.  He only has a high school diploma.
           \_ Okay, let me be absolutely clear:
              In my opinion, Bush did not lie.  Moore says Bush is a liar;
              Moore is wrong.  I have been saying this all along.
              -a liberal, and op
              \_ Glad to hear your opinion.  My opinion is that Bush is a
                 liar and a manipulator. I have been saying this all along.
                 - liberal who knew that Clinton was lying, too, but didn't
                   think a blowjob and perjury under duress constituted an
                   impeachable crime
           \_ How can you call him a liar if every intelligence agency in the
              world (and the UN!) said that Iraq had WMD's?  If intelligence
              said Iraq *didn't* have WMD's and Bush said they did, that would
              be lying.
              \_ First of all, every intelligence agency in the world did
               not say that. I have proven that this is false many times
               on the motd. The UN and everyone else said that the
               evidence was inconclusive. Bush claimed it was conclusive.
               That makes him a liar in my book, or at the very least
               he acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
                  \_ You're full of crap.  British, French, Russian, UN.  If
                     the Guatamalan intel agency didn't keep close tabs on
                     Iraq then I'm sorry, you're right, it isn't *every* intel
                     agency on the planet.
                     \_ You have been proven wrong on this so many times
                        it is embarrassing you. Hans Blix, in his own words:
                        http://csua.org/u/8ci
              \_ "Imminent threat", "yellowcake", putting Iraq and Al-Qaida in
                 the same sentance constantly.  "I'm a uniter, not a divider",
                 "Healthy Forest" as Bush-speak for clear-cutting.
                 \_ Never said imminent threat.  England and FRANCE still stand
                    by the yellowkcake.  Iraq has Al-Qaida ties.  And tell
                    SoCal how the "hands-off-the-trees" approach helped the
                    fires down there.
                    \_ Calling it "healthy forests" is blatantly deceptive, and
                       SoCal was mostly chaparall.  Selective cutting of the
                       large trees is good forest managment, but it's less
                       profitable.  Clear-cutting is very bad for the health of
                       the forest.
              \_ Because he is a stupid chimp, that's why! -- ilyas
                 \_ what you wrote has proven to be not far from the truth, IMO
              \_ I don't think the previous poster disagrees with you.
                 \_ But the liar/tricked is a false dichotomy.  To be tricked,
                    the CIA, MI6 etc. would have to be lying.
2004/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32484 Activity:nil
7/26    Does anyone have a link about Dubya's best 10k time? This
        recent http://espn.com article has his marathon and 5k times. It's
        difficult to google his 10k time.
        http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/040726
2004/7/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32453 Activity:insanely high
7/23    Average number of lightning deaths in US each year: 67.
        Number in 2003 due to increased angelic activity: 44.
        Bush saved an additional 23 people from lightning strikes last year!
        http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/040722lightning.shtml
        \_ Imagine how many lives we could save with a Catholic president!
           \_ JFK.
              \_ he died for our sins.
                 \_ He was the holiest man ever to slap iron!
                    He killed for your sins.
                 \_ he died for his own sins.
                    \_ He's killed by the same people who killed Marilyn.
                 \_ He died to appease the malevolent Yahweh. We need to throw
                    some maidens into a volcano soon though, with all the shit
                    going on the Gods must be getting antsy. Human sacrifice
                    levels must be at an all-time low.
                    \_ That's not true.  There're a lot of sacrificed humans
                       these days.  It's just that they aren't very appealing
                       to the gods.
                       \_ They're sacrificed on the altar of greed, not God. We
                          don't even sacrifice animals. Sure we kill a lot of
                          them, but for our own greedy consumption, not as
                          sacrifices. The smell is pleasing you know. When did
                          burnt offerings stop anyway?
                          \_ When we left the bronze age.
2004/7/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:32447 Activity:high
7/23    http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2004/nq040723.gif
        "Why do you hate America?" has made it to the comics.
        \_ Except this is being used exactly the opposite of the motd poster.
           \_ Nah, I would say that is being used in exactly the same way.
              \_ You would say that but you'd be wrong.
                 \_ You are stupid. Sorry to say this, but someone has to.
                    When someone uses the phrase "Why do you hate America?"
                    on the motd, it is used as a stock phrase to rebutt
                    any strong attack on the Bush Administation. It is
                    used to make fun of the right wing tendency to grab
                    for the flag whenever they are attacked. This comic
                    is doing the exact same thing, pretending to use
                    a patriotic defense in order to make fun of those
                    who do it. Too bad you are too dumb to realize this.
                    \_ Do you really believe all that?  Wow.  I didn't think
                       anyone was really that blindly stupid.  You went to Cal?
                       \_ Yep, I really believe all that. What do you believe
                          smart guy?
                          \_ I believe you're taking yourself and a silly
                             phrase way too seriously.  YHBT.
2004/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32445 Activity:very high
7/23    P Diddy launches election crusade:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3912141.stm
        \_ Can P Diddy read?  Oh yeah, that's not required to vote anymore.
           \_ Are you kidding?  It's not even required for presidency.
              \_ Are you going to post that photoshopped "upside down book"
                 pic with GWB now?
                 \_ http://www.wtfomg.com
        \_ Why does his name sound like a word a child would use in place
           of "to urinate?"
           \_ He's a big admirer of R. Kelly
2004/7/22-23 [ERROR, uid:32421, category id '18005#3.5' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32421 Activity:low
7/22    no trust in the courts, no trust in cops. revolution is brewing
        \_ You've been in berkeley too long, dude.
        \_ i was just reading the posts on various far-right and far-left
           online forums.  both sides are planning to show up in nyc for the
           rnc with weapons.  there's going to be really serious trouble...
           \_ Link please?
           \_ heh.  Even if that were true, I seriously doubt the national
              guard and whomever else they have there for security will let
              them get very far.  Downtown NYC will be a fortress on that
              week.
        \_ explain
        \_ Thanks yoda.
        \_ I think you meant to log in to http://socialistworker.org
           \_ Yeah, this is <DEAD>wingnutsysadlibertarians.net<DEAD>, keep it straight!
2004/7/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:32415 Activity:insanely high
7/21    I typed "What is fascism" in Google because I never really understood
        what the hell it is... the closest I ever came to a definition was
        "It's the opposite of communism. SO opposite that they are very
        similar." Anyway, here's the first link:
        http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
        What's wrong w/ fascism and how different is it from our society?
        \_ Remember that Mussolini started out as a strong left-winger.
           Fascism was a combination of nationalism and statism--the idea
           being to bind the population very strongly to the state, and
           to essentially let industry run its course as long as it supports
           the goals of the (authoritarian) state.  Usually associated with
           militarization and a pronounced regimentation of society, and
           almost always gone horribly wrong.  -John
           almost always gone horribly wrong--as with communism, stemming
           from partially understandable (admirable, for some) ideals, any
           ideology that provides for strong state control is easily misused
           by bad people in jackboots.  Comes from the fasces, or rods & axe,
           used as a symbol of Roman justice (cue psb)  -John
           \_ Oh yeah, you can also enter 'define xyz' on Google.  -John
        \_ People in America is completely blind when we are talking about
           fascism, especially consider we have concluded that
           Nazi = absolute Evil, and Hitler = some sort of anti-Christ.
           The reality is that American and Nazi are not *ALL* that different
           in terms of their view on communism, and their view on race.
           \_ troll
             \_ Dear MOTD, I recently acquired a baby chicom troll.  He's
                cute, and aside from an amusing inability to conjugate verbs,
                very amusing to me and my guests.  Unfortunately, he wets
                the couch almost daily!  Am I feeding him wrong?
        \_ dict fascism
        \_ um, we already had this thread. search for "mussolini":
           /home/digital/mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v
           are you just trolling? "what's wrong with absolute authority?"
           \_ THis is a delayed response to that thread. That thread was more
              negative towards fascism (did you read the original url?) and
              also more political, as it was more about Bush and the present
              day. This thread more hints at that and is more theoretical.

              I asked the question because in italy i met so many ppl who called
              themselves fascist, and i didnt really understadn waht the meant.
        \_ Why do some people have a problem with the term
           "Islamofascist?"  Every definition of fascism I've seen fits
           the Islamic militants perfectly.
           \_ Maybe because it equates all Islam with fascism?
              \_ Does it?  Does "Germanic Fascism" equate all germans with
                 fascists?
                 \_ I dunno.  Generally when I've seen the phrase in action,
                    such equating is what's going on.
                    \_ Hmm.. if you say so.  I've only seen it used a few
                       times.  I don't remember the context.  I just
                       remember someone on the motd getting all huffy
                       about it a few weeks ago.
        \_ I recommend this great essay on fascism by David Neiwert:
           http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php
           \_ I knew the essay was going to be good when I saw the picture at
              the top... it didn't disappoint. -- ilyas
              the top... it didn't disappoint.  To summarize: 'proto-fascist
              movements' are any movements I, the educated liberal, do not
              like, including the gun nuts, the libertarian groups, etc.
              If any of their ideology contradicts historical fascism,
              then that's because fascism is 'mutative.'  Once those guys
              acquire power, they ll start with the Jew burning like the Nazis.
              Basically, I have license to call anything fascism.  The end.
              Rush Limbaugh calls things he doesn't like 'fascist' but he is
              both an entertainer AND an idiot.  The author of the essay has
              no such excuse.  -- ilyas
              \_ I'm curious ilya.  Why do you think being an 'entertainer'
                 lets someone off the hook for being a demagogue and/or an
                 idiot?  Entertainers have just as much impact on the
                 dialectic than serious thinkers, if not much more in our
                 dumbed down "pop" driven culture.
              \_ No that is not what that series of articles says at all.
                 Did you even read the whole thing? I am a pretty fast
                 reader and it took me four hours from the time it was
                 posted to the motd. I am disappointed with you.
                 \_ It is pretty clear he didn't read any more than what
                    proved his initial hypothesis based on the picture. No,
                    it couldn't be that he was, gasp!, a little intellectually
                    lazy? Give the articles a read and some time. I found them
                    insightful and well-informed.
                 \_ You have far too much time on your hands.
2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32392 Activity:very high
7/20    Wilson finally shows on the News Hour: Senator Kit Bond
        directly calls him a liar.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175208/posts
        \_ Bond calls him a liar. Wilson refutes with reports. Bond resorts
           to semantics and long-windedness to try to out-time Wilson.
           Wilson continues to refute with documents and facts.  Bond demands
           that Wilson make an apology to the Pres. Wilson again refers to
           documents and facts.  Bell rings. Winner, Wilson, with dignity.
           \_ Except he is wrong and a liar:
              A scam and a sham
              http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040701-085559-3349r.htm
              But you are right... maybe Wilson knows more than the Senate
              and MI6.
              \_ "[A]n inquiring Iraqi official had visited Niger in 1999"
                 and had a meeting where the subject of Uranium was never
                 discussed.  How do you go from a trade meeting that never
                 talked about uranium to the assertion that the Iraqis were
                 trying to buy it from Niger?  Hey, check this out: several
                 Japanese diplomats met with North Korean diplomats recently.
                 The North Koreans then allowed abducted Japanese to return
                 to Japan. How did that happen? According to your logic,
                 it must have been because Japan agreed to give nuke-tek to
                 North Korea.
              \_ Wilson is assuredly more trustworthy than a bunch of
                 career politicians. As for MI6, didn't these guys invent
                 the term "disinformation?"
        \_ http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4885826.html
           The funniest thing is that Wilson was right all along and Bush
           was wrong. Why are you guys trying to drag this out? Iraq never
           bought uranium from Niger.
           \_ LOL talk about tautological.  You cite the liar in order
              to defend his earlier statements??? Are you on crack?
              From his letter even... 'I never claimed to have
              "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was
              seeking uranium from Africa.'
              \_ Tautological is saying he's a liar because he's been called
                 a liar.
2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32391 Activity:nil
7/20    Debunking the 59 Deceits:
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/20/18926/6104
2004/7/20-21 [ERROR, uid:32385, category id '18005#5.79' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32385 Activity:very high
7/20    Bush flip flops.  Is he a "war president" or a "peace president?"
        http://csua.org/u/89r (reuters via yahoo news)
        \_ always @(negedge PollNumbers) Bush <= ~Bush;
           now, that's a flip flop.
        \_ War is Peace
        \_ Peace makes war.
2004/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32383 Activity:moderate
7/20    National Review column amazing study in Straw Men and False Dichotomy!
        http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/lowry/lowry.asp
        \_ Yeah... Who ever called W a "manipulative genius"?
           \_ Wasn't Bush behind 9/11? Didn't he convince the CIA to fabricate
              Iraq-AlQuiada connections? Isn't the whole purpose of the war in
              Afghanistan to get an oil pipeline built? Isn't the whole Iraq
              War just a big profiteering scheme for BushCo? Didn't Bush
              *steal* the election?
              \_ Bush Vs. BushCo.
              \_ The logical error made over and over again in the above
                 column is to assume that all people that you disagree with
                 must hold the same opinions.
        \_ Oh poor widdle widdle Bush and his poor whiney widdle supporters.
           How can you stand to be hated by the whole world so?
2004/7/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32319 Activity:insanely high
7/16    Bush campaign focusing on the issues that matter most to the
        voters, Cuban prostitutes:
        http://csua.org/u/87h
        \_ how to tell the difference between a Cuban and a Dominican
           prostitute?
           \_ Preguntales sobre la machina capitalisma.
        \_ Given that we have a system in which florida voters are worth
           hundreds of times more to a president than voters from almost
           any state, this is not suprising.
        \_ "Addressing a conference on human trafficking, Bush quoted
           Castro as saying that prostitutes in Havana were the cleanest
           and best educated in the world.
           Bush said that comment was evidence that Havana was encouraging
           sex tourism. Castro praised Cuban prostitutes for having a
           college education in a documentary interview by the U.S.
           filmmaker Oliver Stone. "  Well, thank Goodness I can finally
           get a well educated prositute.  You know, when I'm banging up a
           prostitute I want her to know full well that I'm employing my
           chavanistic male power over her.
           \_ I dunno, sex with smart girls is more fun than sex with stupid
              girls.  -John
              \_ sodans are not picky.  they take whatever they can get.
           \_ http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4028&n=2
           \_ You're missing the point. Cuba keeps the smart ones. It's the
              stupid who are "trafficked" to the US. You know, like yermom.
              \_ If Bush is against trafficking of Cuban prostitutes, then
                 I'm for it.
                 \_ Bush is against suicide.  Are you for that?
                    \_ Why yes, I am all for Bush commiting suicide.
            |\
        \_ o| | Guantanamera, guajira Guantanamera...
             o|
           \_ La LaLa LaLa - | - - -Fa LaFa | So LaMe SoSo - | - - - -
           \_ This is quite appropriate and clever. Thanks!
        \_ Everyone missing the point: if Cuban women with college degrees have
           to prostitute themselves then there's something very fucked about
           Cuba.
           \_ Certainly, very fucked. Get it? *fucked*???
              \_ No, could you please explain it?
           \_ Aren't there American college girls who do the same?
                \_ You have it backwards.  Saying some college girls are
                   hooking is not the same as saying all the hookers have
                   4 year degrees.
                \_ urlP. and saying "#t" is not the answer I'm looking for.
                      \_ #t
                         \_ jerk.
                            \_ #f
                   When someone asks "Do you have the time?" only a jerk
                   responds "Yes." When someone writes "urlP" they are asking
                   "do you have a URL?"
                   \_ urlP is a stupid way to ask a question.
                      \_ ilyas might think otherwise.
                      \_ it's called "shorthand".  it's also a motd convention.
                         get used it to.
                         \_ Uhm, no it's not a motd convention.  It never has
                            been.  Only idiots like yourself that don't
                            understand what it means (and stubbornly refuse to
                            admit being ignorant) repeatedly keep trying to
                            use it that way.  (you know, predicate?  boolean?
                            lisp?  cs61a?)
                            \_ maybe it's stupid, but you can't blame it
                               on the motd:
                               http://csua.org/u/885
                            \_ i agree. if there's any convention, it's used
                               as it would be in Scheme, so #t/#f is expected.
                               if you want an english answer use english.
                               \_ Dear lord, in scheme they use ?, like
                                  atom?, number?, eq?, etc.  Were you
                                  paying attention in 61a?
                                  \_ I was taught that P (short for predicate)
                                     was the way to indicate boolean funcs.
                                     I suspect there's a slight conventional
                                     difference between lisp and scheme, but
                                     that's highly dependant on the instructor.
                         \_ No it isn't. If it was, it would have been in
                            the motd README. But people like you deriving
                            pleasure out of needlessly obfuscating things
                            for the sole purpose of limiting who understands
                            you. Needless to say, I think people who post
                            questions in the form of urlP are social
                            retards. The world doesn't revolve around lisp.
                   \_ Sorry, I have no URL for you, you will just have to take
                      my word for it. I know a couple of college educated
                      prostitutes personally.
                   \_ If you are not too lazy, you can STFW.  If you have
                      memory, you would remember the controversy a while a ago
                      of a Berkeley high school teacher who is also a
                      professional woman, of the ancient kind.  She has a
                      college degree, maybe more than one..  And if you circles
                      of friends were wide engouh, you would even know one.
2004/7/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32308 Activity:nil
7/15    A series of amusing anti-Bush quotes
        http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39459
        \_ Man you can do this for anything.  Would you like to see some
           choie Anne Coulter moments?
           \_ Sure.  I just thought they were funny. Let the ants out of
              your pants man.  Some people think Bushisms are endlessly
              hilarious, I thought this was amusing.
           \_ But Anne Coulter is *hot*!
        \_ It is pretty amusing that the guys who spent 8 years literally
           going through Cliton's underwear are suddenly surprised and
           shocked by the coarseness of the debate.
           \_ They weren't course enough with a man who has literally
              destroyed the lives of so many who have come into contact with
              him over the course of his career.  But I think my all time
              favorite is Hillary making money by selling the homes out from
              old folks after they made a single late payment on their houses.
2004/7/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32306 Activity:insanely high
7/15    I'm not the same poster as below.  Today must be "Telling the Truth
        about Michael Moore" Day.
        http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraq911.htm
        \_ Damn you, right wing zealot, damn you all to hell!! Michael
           Moore is the messiah and he is going to lead us to the
           promised land! How dare you prove us wrong!
           \_ this type of 100% sarcastic post is... retarded.
              \_ it isn't any worse than "Why do you hate America?"
        \_ Gawd, Condi is stupid.  I'd almost think Moore expected people
           to find the full quote, and discover for themselves how much
           crack Condi was smoking.
           \_ How did you get "Condi is stupid" from Michael Moore
              misquoting the hell out of her?  This is what we call
              "blaming the victim".
              \_ he got "Condi is stupid" from her full quote.
        \_ I don't get Rice's full quote.  So we attacked Iraq because it
           was a cesspool of Islamic fundamentalism?  Sounds like BS to me.
        \_ Bush repeatedly linked the 9/11 attacks in Iraq. It is not
           deceptive to imply that, even though that one quote is
           perhaps a bit deceptive on its face. The Bush Administration
           really tried to convince America that Iraq had something
           to do with the 9/11 attacks and they were so successful
           that many people still believe that, in spite of
           overwhelming evidence to the contrary and a public
           disavowal from Bush recently.
           \_ Uhm, the point is that Moore is being deceptive with his
              use of editing, like what he did in his previous movie.
              I don't know about you, but Moore is the Leni Reifenstahl
              of the modern era. It's propoganda, and I think we can do
              better than propoganda. The film does nothing to convince
              us of its merits. I don't see how it really helps the left.
              \_ You're comparing a guy who doesn't like Bush to a woman
                 that helped justify a regime that murdered millions of
                 people?  Hyperbole anyone?
                 \_ He is comparing the means, not the ends.  You are right,
                    though, Moore is not in a particularly reassuing
                    company. -- ilyas
                    \_ Moore is attacking those in power, Leni is
                       glorifying those in power and their ideology.
                       That, to me, is a fundamental difference.
                    \_ Moore is attacking those in power in a country
                       with freedom of speech, Leni is glorifying those
                       in power and their ideology in a country where
                       there is no freedom of speech.  These, to me,
                       are fundamental differences.
                       \_ Feh.  Both used propaganda to achieve a political
                          goal.  No highground for Moore.
                          \_ If by propaganda, you mean Moore is promoting
                             a cause, sure.  Bush's State of the Union
                             address is also propaganda then.  shrug.
                             \_ I understand 'propaganda' to be the kind of
                                message which appeals to the same part of
                                the brain which likes the 'circuses' (from
                                'bread and circuses').  There is this element
                                to propaganda where you are only really
                                deceived if you want to be deceived (or you
                                are really really dumb).  Someone who thinks
                                he is being a friend to the cause by using
                                these kinds of techniques to 'promote' it is
                                not a real good friend. -- ilyas
                                \_ I can say the same for bush's state of the
                                   union address, and all the propaganda
                                   about Iraq's link with 911.  Lots of
                                   people got deceived nevertheless.
                                   shrug.  If one wants to equate Moore
                                   with Leni, one might as well equate
                                   bush with hitler.  Also, by your
                                   reasoning, I guess the Germans of WWII
                                   just naturally really want to kill Jews,
                                   or they are just really really dumb.
                                   \_ So you defend Michael Moore's blatant
                                      misquote by saying it's ok because the
                                      President gives a speech every year?
                                   \_ I call Godwin.  You apparently don't
                                      comprehend 'means vs ends' at all.
                                      Best to stop this. -- ilyas
                                      \_ I understand it perfectly.
                                         Both Bush and Hitler uses
                                         propaganda.  That doesn't mean
                                         I would associate the two.  To
                                         call Moore the "Leni Reifenstahl
                                         of the modern era" is stupid.
                                         Besides, the quote of
                                         Condi was fair enough.  She is
                                         deceptively trying to associate
                                         Iraq with 911 using BS like
                                         "ideologies of hatred".
                                         \_ then why not use the full quote
                                            if it means the same thing?  why
                                            chop it up to make her look even
                                            more stupid if the full quote does
                                            that and Moore doesn't end up
                                            looking like a scumbag?
                                            \_ why make her look stupid?
                                               the quote Moore gave is
                                               exactly what she said.
                                               Moore is under no obligation
                                               to elaborate on everything
                                               everyone said.  That will
                                               make a 5 hour movie.
                             \_ I don't recall Bush using dubious editing
                                techniques on other people to make it look
                                like they said something they didn't in
                                the State of the Union address.  Could you
                                post a link? Thx.
                                \_ presenting information that is biased
                                   and deceptive for a political cause =>
                                   propaganda.  shrug.  Like I said, the
                                   context is very important.  Besides,
                                   as presented in the link above, Moore's
                                   quote of Rice wasn't unfair.  She
                                   has herself to blame for trying to
                                   deceptively link Iraq and 911 with such
                                   wishy washy BS like "ideologies of
                                   hatred". Bah!
                                   \_ perhaps you missed the numerous reports
                                      from both the US Senate oversight
                                      committee and various foreign intel
                                      agencies that have all recently agreed
                                      that there was a link and that Iraq
                                      really was seeking nukes?  Moore is
                                      being smashed for misquoting someone.
                                      He should have given the full quote and
                                      allowed the audience to decide if it
                                      was deceptive or not.  He made her say
                                      something she didn't by eliminating the
                                      context.
                                      \_ he quoted her fairly.  she is the
                                         one who is trying to be deceptive.
                                         If she doesn't know any link, she
                                         should say so, and not give bS
                                         like "ideologies of hatred".
                                         \_ If I was kchang, I would file
                                            all this guy's responses under
                                            "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
                                            LA LA LA LA!" (On the Kais
                                            motd, of course)
                        kchang doesn't file manually -kchang -/
            \_ Nah, Lee Atwater is the "Leni Reifenstahl of the modern era."
               How soon we forget.
2004/7/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32292 Activity:very high 60%like:32295
7/14     BUSH (& BLAIR) WIN AGAIN
        http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/25023.htm
        \_ Nice OPINION & EDITORIAL link, CAPITAL LETTERS boy.
           \_ Trouble reading?  The URL is clearly from the op/ed page.
              As if this is the first time an op/ed piece has been
              posted to the motd, genius.  Some of you knuckleheads are
              posting links from blogs as 'proof' of your points!  -!op
                \_ the NYPOST editorial pages are even more retarded
                   than most blogs.
                   \_ In your opinion.  And that's what this is all about:
                      opinion.  Since the NYP has greater readership than
                        \_ i read the nyp every day, you are a moron.
                           you obviously are not familiar with the history
                           of the NYPOST, or who owns and runs it,
                           or that they have been an even bigger journalistic
                           laughingstock than normal recently.
                \_ ok i'm trying to understand the NYPOST's spin on
                   lord higgins' report, i don't fully understand it yet.
                      any blog and people actually *pay* to read it and
                      other people get paid to write it, I'll take that over
                      some random blog spew anyday.  Are you really truly
                      seriously trying to claim that blogs are anything more
                      than raw unedited spewage?
                        \_ It's still dumb.  And OP's caps lock was stuck.
        \_ So... they weren't lying... they just don't like to read?
        \_ I bet you the guy who posted this likes to slam Michael Moore, too.
           Compared to the post he's fucking gospel.
           \_ FWIW, 'gospel' means "good news".
              \_ How about scripture?  I'm having thesaurus issues today,
                 sorry.
                 \_ writings
2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32271 Activity:very high
7/14    I just saw F911. I didn't know John Ashcroft was such a good singer.
        He is cool.
        \_ The movie had the opposite effect as intended on me.  The cheap
           potshots Moore took at Bush, Wolfowitz, etc., getting made up
           for the camera actually made me briefly feel sorry for the
           bastards.
           \_ I've heard that reaction from a lot of people; I think it's
              a pretty common reaction, actually.  I agree with most of
              Moore's politics, but that movie really sucked and was a cheap
              shot--with lousy editing to boot.
                \_ I agree. --liberal dem
        \_ The family of the Major who got blown up by a grenade in his
           tent is *really* pissed off that footage of his funeral was
           used without permission or even letting them know.  Moore is
           scum.  Bush's poll numbers are actually *up* since F9/11.  The
           American people know trash when they see it.
           \_ So when Fox News uses random footages of people's funerals
              for their touchy-feely stories without permission, it's
              perfectly okay?
              \_ How do you know they do it without permission?  And is Fox
                 the only news caster doing this?  Why do you single out Fox
                 news when they all do it?  Fox bad, everyone else good?
           \_ there is a WSJ poll recently, and the percentage of
              people who support bush among those who have
              seen the movie is about 1/2 of the percentage of people
              who support bush among those who intend to see the movie.
              \_ Stat 2.  It is a self selecting group that has seen/not seen
                 the movie.  The most hardcore leftists flocked to it on
                 opening.  The rest took a wait and see attitude.  Your stats
                 only prove that Moore is preaching to the choir.  The movie
                 has not changed the minds of some large percent of viewers.
                 Why do I have to explain such a simple concept on the motd to
                 what are supposed to be college students and alumni?
                 \_ er ... I just gave the stat as it is without any attempt
                    to interpret it.  it's you who just tried to interpret it,
                    rather unconvincingly.  you need to learn to get off your
                    soap box, and not spew misdirected saliva all over the motd.
           \_ Let me guess, they haven't even seen the movie.
           \_ Bush's poll numbers are not up. What poll have you been smoking?
              \_ It must be the FoxNews push poll.
                 "Do you support (a) a patriotic American who will fight
                 terrorists or (b) a communist liberal who will run this
                 country into the ground?"
                 \_ I hate bush. I *really* hate bush, but I don't hate bush
                    enough to ignore the truth:
                    http://www.zogby.com
                 \_ It isn't hard to get the full set of questions for most
                    polls.  Only politicians do push polls, not news orgs.
              \_ Up.  Polls are up.  Compare the last few days to what they
                 were just prior to F911 coming out.  New number minus old
                 number is positive.  Up.
                 \_ I don't know about the polls, but my erection is up.
2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32268 Activity:high
7/12    If you were Edwards and Bush offered you a night with one of his
        daughters to throw the election, would you do it?
        \_ When you're vice president, you can have all the women you want.
           Would YOU?
           \_ I think Cheney would die of a heart attack if he got all the
              women he wanted.
        \_ Man, I wouldn't sleep with one of the Bush girls if you paid me.
           Do sodans have a thing about chubby blonde vapid Texas girls?
                                        \_ not everyone prefers anorexic, vapid
                                           la girls, and might prefer the allure
                                           of the well-proportioned, vapid,
                                           southern belle.
                                           \_ Well you're in luck.  Get thee
                                              to Texas lad!  Stop fantasizing
                                              about the so-so Bush twins and
                                              experience the amazing land of
                                              Tex-Mex pussy!
           If you really want one, go to Texas - there are tons of them there
           and they are horny as hell.  They'd even sleep with a sodan for
           free, if he could manage to tie his shoes and shower once a day.
           [restored]
           \_ Man, I wouldn't touch this thread with a 10 foot pole.  I bet
              the Feds are still watching soda.
              \_ By "Feds," do you mean csua alumni who are supposed to be
                 doing useful work at some national lab but are wasting time
                 on the motd?
                        \_ tomasu bin holub
                           \_ Osama bin Laggin?
                           \_ This is abysmally stupid.  Grow up already.
                              \_ Tom Holub, the undergrad who never grew up.
              \_ As you know, the sexual desirability of the Bush daughters is
                 of paramount importance to national security.
              \_ let alone your massive huge 10inch one?  --Jon
                \_ bigger than the standard Jap 1cm size.
                   \_ Cubits!  Our context is bushel/cubit!  no metric!
        \_ For *both* twins, I'd do it in a second. The world can wait four
           more years for HRC.
           \_ But why?  You can get a pair of women to do anything you want
              that look 100x better and will be 100x better in bed for
              just a little bit of cash!
        \_ Well, if you're gonna lose anyway, might as well take what you
           can get.
           \_ I can hardly wait to mock you the day after the election.
                   \_ I can hardly wait to mock you the day after the
                      election.
2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32264 Activity:high
7/12    So for those afraid that Bush will declare himself Caesar (stealing a
        line from Jon Stewart) by postponing the federal election, what would
        you like the government to do if San Francisco and NYC got hit with a
        dirty bomb on election day?
        \_ Women and minorities would be hit hardest.
        \_ Go to the polls and vote like a proper democracy and not be
           cowed like a bunch of fucking maggots.  Although in Florida's
           case it'd probably cause weeks worth of bitching about lost
           vote results.  -John
        \_ First of all, the answer to your question doesn't change whether
           the city hit with a dirty bomb votes mostly Democrat or mostly
           Republican.  Second, the concern isn't that Bush is lengthening
           his term (this part is just a joke), but that postponing the date
           might benefit him -- seeing as how the elections in Spain favored
           the liberal party after their terror attacks (a real and
           contemporary example) -- because if Bush couldn't protect you, then
           why not try Kerry?  Third, the Bush administration is looking at
           changing the date if a terror attack occurs arbitrarily close to
           election day -- it does not have to occur on election day.
           \_ This doesn't answer the question.
              If a major attack happened the day of, or shortly before the
              election, what do you think the gov't should do?
              \_ The question is flawed, as explained above, but to answer
                 your question:  If Houston or SF got hit with a dirty bomb,
                 the government should -- before the terror attack occurs --
                 have a policy in place on the question of whether or not to
                 postpone the election, and it should be bi-partisan.  Also,
                 assuming the above, the election should not be postponed so
                 far out that it extends Bush's term, as much as it can be
                 helped.  Bi-partisan is the key word here.
                 \_ So early inquiries about the legality of the possibility
                    didn't deserve the flak it got in the press?  People having
                    fits about Bush as president-for-life need to get a grip?
                    Yeah, that was my point.
                    \_ They had fits because it was discovered that Bush
                       was looking into this unilaterally.  If, on the
                       other hand, Republicans and Democrats announced they
                       were studying this issue in a joint press conference,
                       it would be ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
                       \_ That's just plain stupid.  The initial inquiries were
                          about the legality of the possibility, which is a
                          logical first step.  The next step would be to have a
                          committee work on the specifics.
                          \_ If you don't tell the other side you're looking
                             into it, it looks like you're trying to postpone
                             the election, to your own benefit, using
                             terrorism as an excuse.
                             Here's a question for you:  If President Gore did
                             this, what would Republicans say?
                             (Do you see my point yet?)
        \_ This is pure fantasy.  Why would they hit the Bay Area?  That
           only be slightly more likely than them bombing Tehran.
           \_ Why not hit any major city where people aren't expecting it?
           \_ Insert-your-favorite-metro-area there then.
2004/7/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:32242 Activity:very high
7/12    Facism, anyone? http://csua.org/u/85n -- The 14 common characteristics
        of fascist regimes -- ring any bells?
        \_ The Council for Secular Humanism?  This is way worse than
           WorldNetDaily.
        \_ Well, the obvious point of this piece is to say that
           Bush = Fascist, but it does a pretty poor job of substatiating
           that claim. Many of the points it tries to make don't apply to
           Bush at all.  Some don't even apply to Fascism.  (The one about
           religion is a pretty obvious secular humanists swipe at
           religion, but has little to do with what was actually done in
           fascist governments.)  The ones that are refelcted with Bush
           are often a big stretch.  A few fascist like tendencies are
           shown to be in the Bush-like, but I don't think it's any
           more than you would see between Hitler and say, FDR.
           \_ But FDR is a facist with a socialist bend.
              \_ how true, it was said FDR envied Stalin because
                 he was such an effective collectivist.  Would explain
                 their friendship.
                 \_ "it was said"? By whom? Freepers?
              \_ FDR = fascist is just as patently absurd as Bush = fascist.
                 FDR defeated fascism.  I don't think any of you or the people
                 in the URL really understand the word "fascism."
                 \_ Thank you.  Can anyone here actually define fascism
                    for me?  I had a roommate who hated Regan because he
                    was a "fascist" but he could never point to any
                    specific instances, or even tell me what that meant.
                    \_ fascism : a political theory advocating an authoritarian
                       hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy
                       or liberalism).  Its really not that complicated.
                       Perfectly describes the result of the policies of the
                       New Deal and the left today.
                    \_ The URL above is a paraphrase of a very common
                       14 point definition.  Its workable but I think
                       the comparison to Bush falls down (I dislike
                       Bush as much as the next guy but calling him
                       Hitler is hyberbole).  There was a recent
                       book on this subject that got favorable reviews,
                       but the name escapes me at the moment.
                    \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
                       is as good a definition of fascism as
                       you are going to find anywhere.
                    \_ it's not something just a one-sentence little blurb
                       could sufficiently describe. mussolini wrote an essay
                       defining it:
                      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
                       As that site mentions, the term comes from "fasces"
                       which were held by Roman officials as symbols of the
                       authority of their office. Basically it's authoritarian
                       nationalism, the idea that only strong authority can
                       lead a nation to greatness and vitality, the State
                       being more important than individuals.
                       being more important than individuals. There's also
                       the notion that this national struggle is the only thing
                       with meaning, with the wars and all, making your place
                       in history; that otherwise you might as well be dead.
                       Which helps explain how Hitler could just roll the dice
                       with millions of lives in the balance.
           \__ Actually, most fascist governments do form an alliance
               with organized religion. See Italy, Brazil, Argentina,
               Spain, Chile and Indonesia for examples. A few did not.
        \_ yes the Dems like Schumer, Hillary the witch and WJC.
        \_ Bush is a Fascist!  Bush is a Fascist! Saying it enough times
           makes it true!
           \_ You should watch Starship Troopers.
              \_ I did one better, I read the book.
                 \_ Watch the movie again.  Movies work.
                    \_ Work for what? BTW, have YOU read the book?
                       \_ Movies work in the ways that books don't.  I have
                          not read the book, but now you mention it, I will.
                          I can understand why you would not want to see the
                          movie (again) if you've read the book.
                          \_ Don't bother. The difference is that Heinlein
                             basically advocated fascism - particularly in ST.
                             The movie was, by contrast, a satire on the book's
                             enthusiasm for fascism. MANY people did not figure
                             this out, though. -- ulysses
                             \_ I guess I'm one of them then -- IIRC, positions
                                in government were decided by a popular vote.
                                I honestly don't see how that's fascist.
        \_ If you are a liberal, please don't use the term fascist to describe
           the Bush administration.  It's become an epithet.
           \_ Saying that it has become an epithet is also saying that it
              once wasn't one.
              \_ In Italy, it's quite common for people to still identify
                 themselves as communists or fascists. --studied there
              \_ "Fascist" as applied to Mussolini and Hitler's regimes is
                 accurate.
                 \_ Accurate for what?  You mean it's an accurate
                    description of Bush's policies?  Only if "Communist"
                    is an accurate description of Clinton's policy.  Maybe
                    you should re-read the definition of fascim linked to
                    above.
                    \_ "Fascist" is accurate, low on the epithet meter, and
                       acceptable in academic publications when applied to
                       Mussolini and Hitler's regimes.  And I *just* said,
                       please don't use the term fascist to describe the
                       Bush administration.
           \_ If you are a conservative, please don't use the terms communist,
              terrorist, America-hater, etc. etc. to describe liberals.  Can
              we all just get along?!?!
              \_ The word you are looking for is "socialist".
                 Conservatives : fascist :: Liberals : socialist
           \_ The Bush Administration certainly has fascist tendencies. But
              they are also certainly not fascist. At least not as long
              as we continue to have elections and free speech.
                \_ Right.  No one is suggesting Bush is a fascist.  However,
                   his adminstration does appear to be pulling this country
                   more towards that direction.
                   \- is it not obvious that "fascist" when used to describe
                      BUSH CO is indended as an epithet rather than a term
                      from political science, just as when BUSH is described
                      as an idiot or moron it is also an epithet and not a
                      allegation that his tested iq fals into a particular
                      band. same for john ashcroft is a nazi etc. trying to
                      find precision where it isnt intended is ... dumb --psb
2004/7/9-10 [ERROR, uid:32206, category id '18005#7.575' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32206 Activity:very high
7/9     http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=40424
        Good news!  We're getting less liberal!
        \_ Any direction from here would be less liberal.
           \_ We should take the vote away from women and put the blacks
              back in chains! Damn liberalism!
2004/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32203 Activity:moderate
7/9     This is a report that should concern all patriotic Americans,
        no matter what their political affiliation:
        http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001002.html
        \_ Like duhhh, apparently you've never been in either civil service
           or in the army. Where did you think the backronim "snafu" for
           Situation Normal, All Fucked Up comes from? This is also why
           tax breaks are good, because private citizens and enterprise
           are a lot more efficient at containing costs than the U.S. Gov't.
           Welcome to reality.
        \_ All Hail the Special Skills Draft!  All geeks to the Pentagon, hut
           hut!
           \_ Why would they want a bunch of smelly snarly know nothings?
              They want highly skilled technical people.  A very tiny number
              of motd readers have to even think about this.
2004/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32201 Activity:nil
7/9     U.S. NEWS obtains all classified annexes to report on Abu Ghraib
        http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/prison.htm
        The second half is where it gets good.
2004/7/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32194 Activity:insanely high
7/8     "No analyst is going to say they changed their view as a result of
        specific pressure. No analyst is going to admit that. But there is no
        doubt and this report reflects the fact that there was tremendous
        pressure inside the agency. As a matter of fact, [CIA Director George
        J.] Tenet himself said, and this report reflects that, that he was
        told by analysts that they were under tremendous pressure. And what
        Tenet said is, well, in that case, just try to ignore that pressure.
        But the pressure was clearly there." -Carl Levin, a senior Democrat on
        the Senate intelligence committee today
        \_ just wait--soon we'll be hearing from the GOP that the whole
           thing was the fault of the Democrats because they failed in their
           responsibility as the minority party to question the actions of the
           majority and mindlessly followed to avoid looking unpatriotic.
           for once, i'd be in agreement.
           \_ Further proof of motd axiom #4: anything a democrat does, evil.
              Anything a republican does, good.
              \_ careful, the poster you're responding to just might be a
                 Democrat
                 \_ if you mean that I hate the republicans, greens, socialists
                    and libertarians even *more* than I hate the democrats,
                    then yes, i guess i'm a democrat. -above poster
                    \_ I ve never understood the hatred of librarians.
                    \_ I ve never understood the hatred of libertarians
                       Do you just hate them in their capacity as a bookish
                       voting block?  Or do you have a problem with their
                       'live and let live' mentality? -- ilyas
                       \_ I'm going to assume you mean "libertarian."
                          I hate libertarians because it has been my
                          observation from reading stuff on their website,
                          reading publications of the self-proclaimed
                          libertarian cato institute, and reading motd
                          libertarian posts that while they claim to
                          care about freedom, they're really just for
                          corporate socialism.  When it comes to individual
                          freedoms, i agree with libertarians, but it seems
                          that their biggest issue is not with the freedom
                          of individuals but with the "freedom" of corporations
                          who in many cases have more power than any but
                          a handful of nations to do whatever they want.
                          This is a very simliar arguement to saying that
                          the "freedom" of governments must be preserved
                          by letting them oppress poeple, because that's what
                          governments do and they should have to the right to
                          do it.  when the government decides it has the right
                          to imprison citizens indefinitely based on secret
                          evidence, the libertarians are mostly silent, but
                          when the goverment tries to limit a corporations
                          "right" to kill people and cause birth defects
                          with pollution, they're up in arms.
                          \_ Some idiot changed my post.  Anyways, I don't
                             know where you get this thing about libertarian
                             silence.  Libertarians don't like the elements
                             of Bush policy involving the patriot act and
                             indefinite detention etc.  I certainly don't, and
                             said so before.
                             As for corporations, there are big
                             differences between corps and governments.  Corps
                             can't use force, for example.  Thus, while corps
                             are worth watching, governments are worth watching
                             ten times more.  I think it's a matter of picking
                             your villains.  There is no question in my mind
                             that corps do bad things.  But governments do bad
                             things too, and their bad things are much worse.
                             Look at Mogabe's [sp?] government, for example.
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ Corporations can't use force in the way of guns
                                (not counting mercenaries in countries we dont
                                like), but they can use almost any other kind
                                of force.  Their legal resources dwarf the
                                agerage citizen's.  They can basically buy laws
                                to make the governement do what they like
                                (within limits).  Ask someone who's had their
                                home taken away by eminent domain to build
                                a shopping mall whether the corporation or the
                                government used force.  Ask the good citizens
                                of Bohpal if a corporation's power is less
                                dangerous than their government.
                             differences between corps and governments.  Corps
                             can't use force, for example.  Thus, while corps
                             are worth watching, governments are worth watching
                             ten times more.  I think it's a matter of picking
                             your villains.  There is no question in my mind
                             that corps do bad things.  But governments do bad
                             things too, and their bad things are much worse.
                             Look at Mogabe's [sp?] government, for example.
                               -- ilyas
                                \_ I don't think you ll have a lot of luck
                                   blaming eminent domain abuses on corps.
                                   That's a government flavor of evil: "hey if
                                   we have a shopping mall on this land instead
                                   of this old grandma's home, we ll get a lot
                                   more taxes!"
                                   Libertarians really don't like eminent
                                   domain abuses, too.  Also, you seem to have
                                   \_ My great uncle's house was taken by
                                      eminent domain supposeadly to build a
                                      road.  He then found out the county was
                                      planning to sell the land to a
                                      politically-connected developer so the
                                      developer would essentially be able to
                                      buy commercial land at residential
                                      prices.  My G. Uncle sued to force them
                                      to build a road there.  This is in Clark
                                      County, NV.  There's a similar situation
                                      in NJ where Atlantic City tried to take
                                      someone's house to build a road to a
                                      parking lot for a Trump casino.  Is it
                                      really government being evil, or is it
                                      the power of corporations corrupting
                                      government?
                                      I guess you'd say government is
                                      dangerous because it wields power, while
                                      I'd say corporations are dangerous
                                      because they wield government.
                                   a weird way of assigning blame.  If the
                                   system is venal, who are more to blame: the
                                   folks who buy or the folks who are bought?
                                   I d say the latter, because if they acted
                                   morally, the former would be SOL. -- ilyas
                                   \_ In the current circumstance, the acts
                                      themselves are not _illegal_ on the part
                                      of the buyers; they're still unethical
                                      and immoral, and they contribute to the
                                      continuation of the corruption. It breaks
                                      the spirit of the Social Compact to game
                                      the system.
                                      \_ If the buyer is giving a kickback to
                                         someone in government, it is very
                                         illegal (though potentially hard to
                                         proove).
                                         \_ So now back to my original question,
                                            Did anything I say sound
                                            unreasonable to you? -- ilyas
                 \_ I think that's ok.  this is an axiom of the *motd*, not
                    reality.
2004/7/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32193 Activity:very high
7/9     Bush military records destroyed. Bush has friends everywhere, it seems.
        Time for Fox Mulder - the Truth is out there!
        http://tinyurl.com/25ffq
        \_ So the payroll record is supposed to prove he's AWOLed for those
           couple of months? I guess they dock his pay?
           \_ This isn't a court of law.  This is politics.  He's being
              evasive and misdirecting on a question that should have
              a simple answer.
           \_ Actually, yes. Something like AWOL would have a financial,
              as well as disciplinary action.
        \_ Oh no! A politician who wields the power to recreate the past
           in his image. When will the madness stop!?
           \_ He who controls the past controls the future.  He who controls
              the present controls the past.  -Saying of The (Grand Old) Party
2004/7/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32187 Activity:very high
7/8     http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4027&n=3
        Does this hit close to home for anyone else?
        \_ nope. i get more pissed every day.  right now i'm about on
           red fucking alert, man.
        \_ Tom Tomorrow covered this ground in the first few months of the
           Dubya.
        \_ I sure wish you all would shut the freak up.
           \_ http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=14485
        \_ I sure wish you all would shut the FUCK up.
           \_ Just tell them to go fuck themselves.  It needs to be said,
              it's long overdue, and you'll feel better. -Dick Cheney
              \_ We need that motd conservative guy that always calls people
                 that swear at him children, and to talk to him when they
                 "grow up" and "join the adult world."  We need him to talk
                 to Cheney.
                 \_ If "Fuck you!" is good enough for Cheney it is good
                    enough for me.  You need to stop being so naive.
                    \_ Oh, go fuck yourself.
                       \_ No, that's what yermom is for.
2004/7/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31220 Activity:very high
7/8     Read transcripts of conversations by enron employees gleefully
        discussing fucking the state of califorinia and the great prospects
        for having a president who's number one contributor is enron:
        http://csua.org/u/83k (nytimes.com)
        why are you fuckers loyal to these people?
        \- see also http://csua.org/u/83p
        why are you fuckers loyal to these people?
        \_ Let's see, we threw out the Governor that allowed Enron to get
           away with it, and now that Bush is in office, Enron is getting
           convicted...  Wait, who's loyal to who again?  I'm lost.
           \_ Bush sat on his ass until California was almost bankrupt.  If
              the right thing is to wait so long until it becomes so blatantly
              obvious Enron is breaking the law what would the wrong thing have
              been?
                \_ the Federal government doesn't do squat for California.
           \_ Wilson stuck us with the deregulation system that let Enron
                do this, Davis got stuck trying to clean up the mess.
        \_ RRRiiiighhhhttt.  From the article:
           In their August conversation, Matt and Tom discussed their hope
           that George W. Bush, then the Texas governor, would win the
           2000 presidential race because he opposed price caps. But
           unfortunately for Enron, Mr. Bush's picks for the Federal
           Energy Regulatory Commission, Patrick Wood III and Nora
           Brownell, moved quickly to impose price caps throughout the
           Western United States after they took office in summer 2001, a
           move that helped break the back of the power crisis.
                So.. What do you have against Bush?  He apparently agrees
                with you.
           \_ The FERC repeatedly dragged their feet on price caps,
              costing California billions. Cheney said it was all
              California's fault, remember?
              http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/12/congress.energy
              \_ I'll repeat myself again in case you're having trouble
                 remembering: anything a democrat does, evil.  Anything
                 a republican does, good!
              \_ So first you say Bush was opposed to price caps, anti-CA and
                 pro-Enron.  That's proven false by reality so then you say
                 "yes he acted but he waited too long".  There's just no
                 pleasing some people.  When people will bitch and moan and
                 cry no matter what you do for them and hate you for it, you
                 have no incentive to help them in the future.  You're lucky
                 they bothered to do anything at all.  You'd be just as bitter
                 and hateful if that were the case.
                 \_ I think he's just jealous because Bush did the right
                    thing despite a heafy campaign contribution from
                    Enron, where as Davis took bribes like crazy.
                    \_ Bush did the right thing?  Did you miss the part where
                       his FERC royally screwed us?  I'm calling you out as
                       a California fifth columnist.
                 \_ "Proven false by reality"??? Where you even here during
                    that time? Bush and Cheney both opposed price caps.
                    The FERC imposed them over their objections after
                    spending a long time studying the issue. Cheney met
                    with Enron to help develop their nationwide and
                    California energy policy and still suing to keep
                    the transcripts of those meeting secret.
        \_ hahaha, stupid californians getting screwed by bush, cheney
           and enron ... and some are even loving it.  I'm sure glad I'm
           not a stupid californian.
2004/7/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:31218 Activity:moderate
7/8     The July Surprise?
        http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904
        "...a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that 'it would be best
        if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six,
        twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July'--the first three days of the
        Democratic National Convention in Boston."
        \_ If only the liberal media would follow this up!
           \_ They're too busy cheer leading Kerry and Edwards.
              \_ Bzzt!  Tom Ridge just announced another nonexistent Al Qaida
                 plot!
                 \_ this is a precurser to declaring martial law in nyc
                    during the RNC in August.  just wait and see.
        \_ Is it a surprise if everyone knows?
           \_ You expect anyone to actually pay attention to the inside
              baseball?
2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31212 Activity:nil
7/7     Mr. Bush, your presidency seems to have the momentum of a runaway
        freight train. Why are you so popular?
        \_ Heh.
           http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17231
           \_ The last few Tom Tomorrow's sucked, but this one isn't bad.
              \- the opening is genius. is that supposed to be tim russert?
2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31210 Activity:insanely high
7/7     From the "about f$#ing time" department"        :
        Kenneth Lay indicted
        http://csua.org/u/832 (AP via Yahoo News)
        \_ TWO NA1MS, L1KE: ROBURT RUBIN + CIT1GROUP
              \_ You obviously know nothing about Rubin.
        \_ Financial cases with zillions of documents always take years
           to get to this stage.  Once they file charges, they only have a
           short time to get it together in court.  By waiting until they
           know wtf they're looking at in the financial papers, they can
           build a case sufficient for a guilty verdict.  If they had filed
           charges shortly after Enron went to shit, Ken Lay would be a free
           man today and forever, not facing charges that now have a good
           chance of sticking.
2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31175 Activity:insanely high
7/6     Bush lied!  (NYT)
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/politics/06INTE.html?ei=5062&en=313ad
e4c60ca9e37&ex=1089691200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
        \_ I think this says that the CIA lied, or at least did not
           do their job properly.
           \_ shit rolls downhill.
2004/7/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:31169 Activity:insanely high
5/7     Why does anyone take Moore seriously? His movies are fiction,
        not documentaties.  First columbine now 911.
        Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
        http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
        \_ written by a democrat who voted for nader.
           \_ holy shit!  he voted his concious instead of his party! traitor!
              kill him!  burn the witch!  he violated group think!  he has
              independent thought!  destroy the infection!
              \_ "independent thought" != intelligence.
              \_ its relevant bc its written by a dem, not hannity or foxnews.
                 \_ A Dem who writes for the National Review. NRO has spent
                    the last six months openly campaigning for Bush and
                    slamming Kerry, so they are hardly an objective source.
        \_ even before seeing 911, I do not see how any reasonable,
           compassionate person could vote for gwbush again.
           \_ compassionate?  meaning what?  you take my money and give it
              to yourself and others who haven't earned it through the
              power of the federal and state government?  get a job and
              you won't need compassion.
                \_ no, i don't sit around thinking of ways to steal your
                   money and give it to welfare queens.  I am an equal
                   opportunity bush despiser.  there's lots of reasons
                   to not vote for george bush, i could easily make
                   a list of several hundred good ones not involving
                   taxes.
                   \_ It is a common fallacy of the politically maladroit
                      to assume that compassion has anything to with
                      politics. It does not. Politics is about ambition,
                      and ambition plays to what is expedient and necessary.
                      How is your Boston Brahmin any more or less despicable
                      than the Texan? You need wake up and smell the coffee.
                      Believing that compassion rules human behavior is
                      something that wisdom and common sense should have easily
                      discredited.
                      \_ And yet he sold his platform in 2000 on "compassionate
                         conservatism".  We all knew the term was bullshit, and
                         yet it sold.
                         \_ No, it didn't.  People voted against Gore because
                            he did poorly in the debates and is a crackpot.
                            Very few voted 'for' Bush in 2000.  Gore's own
                            home state wouldn't even vote for him.
                            \_ Funny, I seem to remember Gore got over 50
                               percent of the vote...
                            \_ Funny, you seem to remember wrong. 48.38%.
                               http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
                      \_ Perhaps.  But like any good game, politics requires
                         either compromise or utter domination.  For a short
                         while there, the Repubs had the latter: the House,
                         the Senate, the Presidency, the Bench, and the
                         support of the People.  Recently, they seem to have
                         lost the latter two and confused the former two.
                         This requires compromise, and the Texan (and his
                         Cabinet) are notorious for being poor compromisers.
                         The Boston Brahmin is famed for being able to come
                         to reasonable compromises that diminish neither side.
                         \_ Famed?  I call bullshit.  I've *never* heard
                            anyone claim the most liberal voting Senator is
                            famed for any such thing.
                            \_ HE'S A FLIP FLOPPING LIBERAL, I TELL YOU!
                               (For the clue impaired, "flip flop" is right
                                wing speak for compromise.)
                               \_ Incidentally, whatever else may be true,
                                  'flip-flopping' is perhaps the most damaging
                                  smear against Democrats in the Republican
                                  arsenal, in terms of real effects. -- ilyas
                               \_ What happened to 'waffling'?
                               \_ you mean it's not a piece of electronics!?
        \_ Because the dems are out of power and they need someone like
           Moore. The Reps used to use Limbaugh when they were out of power.
           The opposition party always needs a wacky muckracking spokesman
           to rally the troops. Moor's just the latest in a long line.
           \_ Yes Rush is a firebrand but he's never this deceitful.
              \_ Bull.  Rush spews false stats, misquotes, and is almost
                 psychotically hypocritical.
                 \_ Uh?  Rush doesn't tend to give any stats at all, when he
                    does he's quoting someone else, and his quotes are all
                    checkable online.  Where is he a hypocrite?  He was never
                    an anti-drug crusader so turning out to be a drug addict
                    doesn't make him a hypocrite.  Do you know *anything* about
                    the man or are you just spewing the DNC talking points?  I
                    wonder if you've even listened to his show for more than
                    5 minutes, if ever.
                    \_ http://www.fair.org/extra/0311/limbaugh-drugs.html
                       You are wrong, again. As usual.
                    \_ More Limbaugh Lies:
         http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html
        \_ As opposed to CNN, NYTimes, ABC, etc. which is just 100% fact.  Yup.
           \_ By the kind of argument  employed in that url, everyday there
              are 10 imes more "deceits" in any of the above than F911.
              \_ I've been saying that about the media for years on the motd
                 but people always call me a crackpot for saying the main-
                 stream media is inaccurate, biased, or in any way
                 unreliable.  Are you a crackpot, too?
                 \_ If that means considering mainstream media inaccurate
                    rather than accusing them of bias along particular
                    directions, yes.
                    \_ well, i think you're both off base.  if "news" means
                       15 minutes of ads, 10 minutes of sports, 10 minutes of
                       weather, 10 minutes of "puppy saved in local lake"
                       and five minutes of sound bites with pretty pictures
                       about what's actually going on in the world, who gives
                       a shit if it's biased or wrong?  that's just not the
                       point.  the point is that no responsible journalist
                       is *ever* going to be able to reduce the news to a
                       five minute cartoon, and as long as that's all people
                       will take for their news, we have a serious problem.
                       I blame the morons who don't bother to *read*, not
                       the tv news networks  that respond accurately to
                       the demand of the news consumer.
                       \_ You'd feel differently if it was *your* puppy.
                          \_ not likely. in my experience, they'd get the
                             name of the puppy wrong, then say the police
                             rescued it when it was really the fire department,
                             and incorrectly name the lake from which it
                             was rescued.
        \_ When your sources include Slate articles by Chris Hitchens, you
           really must be scraping the barrel.
                          \- are you in fact the only person in the world
                             who refers to Christopher Hitchens as "Chris"?
                             \_ No, I'm in good company:
                                http://csua.org/u/81y
                                However, I promise not to call you "Par."
           \_ Either the material is true or it is not.  If you have to
              attack the source instead of the truthfulness of the material
              presented, you're not even in the barrel anymore.
              \_ Hitchen's article is a fact-free zone - its just a bloviating
                 screed.
                 \_ Maybe.  You expected anyone to actually read the URL before
                    commenting?
                 \_ So you're saying that the clip in the movie at Camp David
                    does *not* show Bush sitting next to Tony Blair?
        \_ 50 of these "deceits" are not even lies, by any stretch of the
           imagination. It is a "deceit" to show that Bush sat and read in
           a classroom for nine minutes after being informed of the 9/11
           attacks? The author calls it a deceit because Moore offers no
           attacks? The author calls it a "lie" because Moore offers no
           other suggestion as to what Bush should have been doing....
           Whaaaat? Most of the rest are the same. He calls Moore a
           "liar" for not presenting both sides of controversial
           topics. This is a good example of "bias" but a terrible
           example of a "lie." This guy is a big hypocrite anyway,
           if you read any of his columns, he does not bother to
           present both sides of any views.
2004/7/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31163 Activity:kinda low
7/4     Look, Neocons can feel bad about their mistakes. Too bad he doesn't
        feel bad for calling the Geneva Convention "quaint" just for the
        political fallout:
        http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040704/nysu010a_1.html
        \_ sorry, it'll take more than that to bait anyone.
2004/7/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31151 Activity:insanely high
7/2     Bush stoops to yet another new low. Hits up churches for names,
        money, and votes:  http://tinyurl.com/34v27
        \- if you think this is a new low, you need to check your
           altimeter.
        \_ How is this any different than the DNC swapping donor
           lists with unions and NPR?
           \_ Unions pay taxes, churches do not.
           \_ how about separation of church and state? unions have
              always been political. NPR probably has an axe to grind
              for republicans trying to silence an independent point-of-
              view. Just shows how low Bush will go to be the prez.
              \_ There is no such notion of 'separation of church in
                 state' in the Constitution.  It is a contrivance of
                 leftist judges during the first half of the 20th
                 century.  NPR receives federal funding, exclusive
                 of other news organizations.
                 \_ Duh, like the founders had things all figured out.
                    Take some civics lessons to know that the constitution
                    is a living document that can add rights and protections,
                    though, the "right" wants to abuse even the constitution
                    to limit certain people's rights - not even taken in
                    account the un-patriotic patriot act. sheesh.
                    \_ The document is not *living*.  It says what it says and
                       has provisions for change.  This is not the same as
                       *living* which really means "we make it say what we
                       want it to say".
                    \_ You are an idiot.   I say this without malice, I just
                       think you should know.     -cuhdz
                       \_ I think you are a cock-sucker. I think you already
                          know. Probably from spending too much time down
                          there in the "Bush"-es.
                    \_ Yes there is provision to change to Constitution.  Its
                                                                    It's _/
                       called an Amendment, and there are 17 of them.  And
                       guess what else - judges were not designed as part
                       of the Amendment process, contrary to
                       what you see today.
              \_ You mean like the dems' political rallies IN CHURCHES?
                 \_ thank you.  jesus fucking christ this is a dumb thread.
                    it makes me ashamed to call myself a democrat.  of
                    course democrats campaign in churches all the time.
                    Didn't anyone notice that one of the candidates in the
                    primary race was a reverend? hello?
                     \_ Dems=good, republicans=EEEVIIILL, everything repubs
                        do is bad.  You are not being a good little CA dem.
                        if you think further than this.
                        \_ well, I don't live in California, so maybe that's
                           my problem.  Where I live, the parties actually
                           get things done together from time to time.
                           \_ !!!! WHERE DO YOU LIVE?!  I WANT TO GO THERE!
                              SEND HELP!   --CA resident
                              \_ so. you want to move to a state with less
                                 retarted politics, huh?  ok, i'll give you
                                 directions.  get out a compas.  go any
                                 direction other than south or west, and you'll
                                 be there.
                                 \_ Can't your state just invade and bring
                                    democracy to California?  The weather is
                                    so nice here.  Democracy is the only thing
                                    we're missing.
                                    \_ California suffers from excess of
                                       democracy, among other things. -- ilyas
2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31124 Activity:very high
7/2     Why isn't Jackass:The Movie considered a documentary? All this talk
        of F/911 being the first documentary to debut at #1 and being the
        highest grossing feature length documentary.
        \_ 1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in
               writing <documentary evidence>
               writing
           2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art
            broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>
;
            broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE
           2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or
               art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE
           \_ Jackass sounds like a documentary to me then!
              \_ F911 doesn't/
        \_ By that logic, every movie is a documentary, since it documents
           what the actors are doing.
           \_ I'm assuming you haven't seen Jackass.
              \_ If you can equate Jackass with F9/11, can I equate Hannity
                 and Rush with Bozo the Clown?
                 \_ Bad dodge! Btw, IMDB has Jackass down as a documentary
                    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322802
                    \_ A bunch of retards on the Intarweb say it, it must be so!
                    \_ A bunch of retards on the Intarweb say it, it must be
                       so!
                       \_ and Yahoo
                          http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/jackass.html
                          \_ You're still being deliberately obtuse by
                             equating F9/11 with Jackass.  No one mistakes
                             "Jackass" for a documentary, although apparently
                             that was the category a couple of websites decided
                             to stuff it into for lack of a better term.
                             F9/11 is a documentary about current events, like
                             it or not.  It is based primarily on news footage
                             of real events.  Jackass is completely staged.
                             Get real.
                             \_ I'm assuming you haven't seen F/911 either...
                             \_ Based is an interesting word in this case.
                                If only it was based on and presented facts,
                                then it would be a documentary.
        \_ I haven't seen F911 yet, but I want to see it in a reasonably
           conservative area.  What's the most conservative place in the SFBA?
           \_ I recommend Castro Valley. I dated a girl from there... they have
              a rodeo and lots of Bush Lovers there.
           \_ Why?  Any particular reason?  Are you scared some volvo-driving
              latte-sipping New York Times-reading scary liburul is going to
              solicit you for gay butt love?
              \_ I don't drink latte -straight BMW-driving liberal.
                 \_ But you're cool with the gay butt love?
                    \_ No, but if you're looking I recommend Castro St.
              \_ No.  I'm a left-liberal and want to see what the other half
                 thinks of it, rather than going to see it with a bunch of
                 people going whoop-whoop.
                 \_ Most conservatives won't go and see this "movie". We
                    have better things to do with our $9 than waste time
                    watching some twit's lame over-hyped ramblings.
                    \_ And you know that this movie is some "twit's
                       lame over-hyped ramblings" because you saw the
                       movie or because you listened to some twit's
                       lame over-hyped ramblings about how you shouldn't
                       see this movie?
                        \_ I know things like Richard Perle saying that he
                           told MM that what MM put in his movie about RP's
                           stuff simply wasn't true and MM had months to fix
                           it before release and wouldn't even respond.  For
                           example, RP says he is the one who gave the OK for
                           the bin Laden family to leave the US; it never went
                           higher than him personally yet MM blames Bush for
                           it as if it was a Bush/bin Laden oil conspiracy. MM
                           is a proven liar and a scumbag and won't see my
                           money.  Thanks for asking.
                        \_ I don't listen to the radio. I saw a summary
                           of the movie in a newspaper (think it was the
                           WSJ). The newshour had some stuff about it
                           as well. Seemed to me like yaOverHypedFlick.
                           Anyway, movies aren't really my thing. The
                           last movie I saw was ST:Nemsis. The next
                           movie I'll see might be Bourne Supremacy.
                           \_ Most of this "hype" is being generated by
                              people calling it some "twit's lame over-hyped
                              ramblings". I'm sure Michael Moore couldn't
                              be happier with all the free publicity
                              conservatives are giving him.
                              \_ When someone tells the Big Lie in public and
                                 worse, gets money and accolades for it, it is
                                 important to say something.  Otherwise people
                                 will blindly accept it as fact instead of as
                                 "that controversial movie by that guy".
                           \_ Ahh, so you just have extremely poor taste.
                              Likely you don't bother to vote anyway, so its
                              moot.
                                \_ Can't argue about the poor taste
                                   in movies part. I'll watch almost
                                   anything with the words Star Trek
                                   in the title.
                                   I have voted Republican in every
                                   election since 1995. Someone has to
                                   keep the commies from taking over
                                   the country. :-)
                                   \_ The Trekkies vs. the Commies??!!?!
                                      Now THAT I would pay $10 to see.
                                        \_ Winner takes on the Moonies
                                           in a steel cage death match.
                                           \_ Bust a deal, spin the wheel!
                    \_ Apparently you're wrong about that, but please
                       continue with your fantasy world, its amusing to
                       the rest of us.
                       \_ Don't you see his logic?  If they see the movie, then
                          they aren't Real Conservatives (TM).  It's like how
                          lots of Christian denominations disclaim other
                          wacky Christians by saying "Those aren't Real
                          Christians."
                          \_ no.  if we see the movie, we're wasting our time
                             and money better spent with families, at work, or
                             doing something useful elsewhere.
                       \_ Most of my conservative friends have skipped
                          this movie prefering to spend their money on
                          real entertainment instead (spidey 2).
                          \_ Spiderman's a Democrat.
                                \_ So what? Conservatives can't like
                                   Democrats? When was that law passed?
                                   \_ Dude, it was a joke. I don't even
                                      think Spiderman has a political
                                      affiliation. Take that rod out of
                                      your ass.
                                        \_ So was my response.
                                   \_ obAnnCoulterToThread
                          \_ "I'm having trouble paying my mortgage, but
                             everyone is these days in the Bush economy."
                             \_ Yeah with interest rates at 46 year lows, if
                                you can't pay your mortgage you're an idiot.
           \_ I vote for Danville or Atherton.
              \_ I dunno if Atherton is that conservative - just extremely
                 rich.
                 \_ Piedmont - extremely rich and pretty liberal
                    Atherton - extremely rich and pretty conservative
                    \_ All the Atherton residents I know (8 households,
                       both my age-group and my parents') are fairly
                       liberal.
                       \_ Are you liberal?  If so, what are the odds you
                          would spend social time with anyone who wasn't?
                       \_ Maybe Stockton?  Most of the Bay Area is pretty
                          liberal.  All major Bay Area counties voted Dem
                          in the 2000 election.
        \_ To call F911 a "documentary" is an injustice to real documentary
           film producers such as Ken Burns. Its like comparing the crap on
           Discovery channel to real programs such as Nova or American Exp.
           \_ Ken Burns?  You've gotta be kidding me.  I would argue about
              this with you but just the thought of Ken Burns is putting me
              to sleee.....zzzzzzz
                \_ Almost everything Ken Burns has produced for American
                   Experience has been exceptional. Entertaining, factual,
                   well researched.
                   \_ ZZZZZZzzzZZ....mph...ZZzzz
           \_ Nova is a real documentary???  It can be many times more biased
              than F9/11 except nobody is bothered about it.
                \_ I've been watching Nova for more than 20 yrs. I haven't
                   ever seen a biased eps.
                   \_ That says more about you than Nova or F9/11.
                        \_ Name some biased eps in Nova.
2004/7/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31111 Activity:very high
7/1     I don't get what all the hoopla is with the Irish interview of Bush.
        I haven't watched the video, but based on the transcript, it seems
        to me like he gave reasonable responses to all the tough questions.
        http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html
        When I read that Bush "lost it" in the interview, I thought he
        Howard-Dean lost-it. Or Steve Ballmer lost-it.
        \_ I see the interviewer was an *@#hole.
           \_ And I see you're a fucking prude!
        \_ I don't know that there's that much hoopla. He did that "let me
           finish! please! can i finish?" thing a billion times which is
           funny though. That interviewer seemed kind of unintelligent
           though, unable to explain the point about the world being less
           safe. There is a rational argument to be made there but she just
           said (twice) "i don't know if you can see that".
           \_ Well, yeah.  The interviewer was being really rude.  Maybe
              he should have just walked out after the 3rd time.  It
              looked to me like Bush handled it really well.
              \_ walking out could have looked pretty bad. i think the
                 interviewer was just impatient with the predictable answers,
                 but it's her own fault for not asking the right questions.
                 \_ I have to admit that I thought the question about God
                    guiding him was pretty funny.
        \_ Just listened the an audio version. Interviewer comes off
           badly. Bush comes off as pretty competent for someone
           constantly bashed for his poor public speaking.
           \_ link?
2004/7/1 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31107 Activity:insanely high 72%like:31117
7/1     Liars and cheaters have bigger brains:
        http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996090
        \_ They need them, keeping track of all the lies.
        \_ Explains why Democrats are "smarter" than Republicans.
           \_ Republicans use their money to buy their lies, and cheat
              people out of their money.
        \_ In monkeys and apes.
2004/7/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31104 Activity:very high
6/30    So the link:
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html
        Regarding Moore's veracity has some troubles itself.
        The number they give about vacations, excluding camp david trips,
        assumes that every weekend was spent at camp david.  This doesn't
        jive with the month long vacations to Crawford.  And excluding the
        Camp David trips doesn't go all that far in negating Moore's point.
        \_ So you agree that Moore is lying, you just disagree with the
           specific numbers?
           \_ Um, no.  I'm saying Fox, even with an invalid qualifier,
              got their numbers wrong. --scotsman
              \_ But the point is still valid that Moore puts weekends at Camp
                 David as part of his "vacation" time.  Is Moore's 42% number
                 exaggerated or not?
        \_ Interesting.  According to <DEAD>csua.org/u/80m<DEAD>
           The first President Bush had a ratio of 37% per year if you include
           weekends at Camp David.  Was he slacking off?
        \_ Moore's source for the 42% is almost certainly this article:
           <DEAD>www.dke.org/haginranch.html<DEAD>
           Interestingly, that was published in 8/2001 and said:
              By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day
              after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have
              spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his
              parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his
              presidency.

              Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in
              Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the
              presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42
              percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.
           So the percentage is based on the first year up to the end of the
           big vacation, including weekends at Camp David--which of course is
           going to be much higher than the total percent for the first year,
           and has been the highest percentage of the entire presidency.
           It's a pretty disingenuous statistic unless all the qualifiers are
           included.
           \_ So FNC could be correct if they're talking about the entire
              presidency while this article is talking about the most
              vacation-filled part of Bush's presidency.
        They counter the 7 minutes with a politic quote from L Hamilton.
        Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (not to mention an authority that
        the right screamed about for months as being a non-starter
        witchhunt).
        \_ Of course, I credible is FNC these days? If you've ever taken
        \_ Of course, how credible is FNC these days? If you've ever taken
           a look at "Lying Liars and the Liars the tell Them" there are
           documented cases of people on FNC just flat out lying. And
           unlike FNC, Franken actually presents evidence to back things
           up when he accuses others of lying.
        \_ So we disagree about the significance of the 7 mins.  No biggie.
           Moore turns it into something it isn't.
                     The news of Clarke having approved the saudi flights
        didn't come out until June 1st, well after the Palme D'or was
        handed down.
        \_ So here Moore was just incompetent?  No only did Clarke approve the
           flights, but they didn't happen when US airspace was closed (which
           is part of what Moore claims).
           \_ Where do you get "incompetent"?  He said what was general
              knowledge at the time.  Clarke retracted his statement
              some time after the film was released.  This goes to Clarke's
              veracity.  Not Moore's.  --scotsman
           \_ How is the White House magically not responsible for what
              their cabinet does? The Cabinet are the closest direct
              reports to the President and appointed by him. Bush can't
              claim that he is not responsible for their actions, no matter
              what Clarke tries to claim to deflect responsibility onto
              himself.
                      Since I don't have a transcript, I can't address the
        parts about the Taliban visit to Texas, but faulting Moore for
        "not mentioning that THE CLINTON approved the visit" is pretty
        hollow.
        \_ Check the history then.  The visit happened during the Clinton
           administration.  How is this hollow?  He's blaming Bush for letting
           the EVIL TALIBAN in when it wasn't Bush who did it.
           \_ This is why I said "I don't have the transcript."  But I'll grant
              you, he did suggest it.  And will you grant that the Bush admin-
              istration suggested that saddam was involved with 9/11?
              --scotsman
                 Moore has had plenty of harsh words about Clinton and
        other democrats in his books.  But he seemed to be comparing the
              \_ That's right.  When he's done with the right, he's coming
                 after you too.  Be careful who you get into bed iwth.
        tacit approval of THE CLINTON vs. the active support by THE BUSH
        in regards to the Taliban. To wit:

          But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After
          bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected
          president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's
          camp" in Afghanistan-but instead just killed civilians.
          Then he bombed a factory in the Sudan, saying it was
          "making chemical weapons." It turned out to be making
          aspirin. Innocent people murdered by our Air Force.

          Back in May, you gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48
          million dollars of our tax money. No free nation on earth
          would give them a cent, but you gave them a gift of $48
          million because they said they had "banned all drugs."
          Because your drug war was more important than the actual
          war the Taliban had inflicted on its own people, you
          helped to fund the regime who had given refuge to the
          very man you now say is responsible for killing my friend
          on that plane and for killing the friends of families of
          thousands and thousands of people.
          \_ This is a big lie.  The money was to a relief fund administered by
             the UN to relieve the FAMINE in Afghanistan.
             \_ How 'bout the Cato Institute's take?
                http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html
                \_ Cato is anti-american.  Boycott Cato!

                \_ While CATO is useful to find stuff, I can't rely on them
                   alone.  Every news story I find about this says the $43M was
                   in "additional emergency aid" and was the result of
                   perceived efforts in reducing the poppy harvest (which was
                   wrong).  It doesn't say it went to the Taliban, and it
                   doesn't say how the funds were administered.  My
                   understanding is that it was through the UN and was typical
                   aid (food, clothing, medicine, etc.).  Do you have any
                   reason for believing it was a cash payment to the Taliban as
                   Moore suggests?
                   \_ Cato does not say (though kind of impies) that the money
                   \_ CATO does not say (though kind of impies) that the money
                      went to the Taliban.   As far as I can tell that untruth
                      originated in an LA times, by (yet another leftist liar)
                      Robert Scheer.  However, if you think that the taliban
                      got no part/control/benefit of that money (to say, give
                      building contracts to their cronies) then
                      you don't understand how international aid works in
                      autocratic 3rd world countries, even if it was
                      administered "though NGOs" by the U.N.
                      \_ So Moore is arguing that we shouldn't give aid to
                         countries with totalitarian leaders?
                         \_ I don't know about Moore, but I like that
                            argument. --erikred
           \_ Moore said that we gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48M
              dollars. He did not say what the aid went for. He simply
              say that we gave it. You call this "a big lie" yet you
              agree with him that the money went to Afghanistan, which
              was controlled by the Taliban at the time. How is this
              a lie, again? It matters not if the money went directly
              to the Taliban or indirectly helped them by supporting
              their government and substituting for tax money they
              would have had to spend on the same programs anyway.
        --scotsman
2004/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31083 Activity:insanely high
6/30    People complain that Moore and Franken call themselves "comedians", but
        how come there is no MOTD talk about Jon Stewart? Do repubs hate him
        less bc he is willing to make fun of loser democrats as well as bush?
        \_ jon stewart calls himself a comedian too.
           \_ I think that jon stuart doesn't try to be serious sometimes, then
              hide behing the "hey I'm just a comedian" when he says something
              stupid. The way that Franken (and P.J. O'rouke for that matter)
              do.  Jon pretty much always has the attitude that "hey, i'm just
              a guy doing comedy".  He does, though, have the best take on the
              martha stewart conviction:
http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8108
.html
                http://tinyurl.com/3g5qt (comedycentral.com)
              Also, Jon is clearly a California Democrat, but he is not some
              by-the-book liberal-democrat the way Franken and Moore are.
              \_ Jon Stewart is very much a liberal, but he's also not afraid
                 to point out stupidity no matter who puts it out there.  He's
                 also very fair to his guests, Repub or Dem, and he'll often
                 call the audience to task for dissing a guest. (One exception:
                 the guy who wrote a book proposing a link between Iraq and
                 al Qaeda got pretty short shrift, but hell, the man was
                 really asking for it.)
                 \_ he was really nice to richard perle, don't know why
                \_ Yeah, that was surprising how he treated that guy.  I
                   watch pretty much every episode and I've never seen him
                   do that.  But, the guest was clearly trying to capitalize
                   on a lie, and he knew it, so Stuart just called it for
                   what it was.
                 \_ Yeah, that was surprising how he treated that guy.  I watch
                    pretty much every episode and I've never seen him do that.
                    But, the guest was clearly trying to capitalize on a lie,
                    and he knew it, so Stuart just called it for what it was.
                    \_ Jon did try to give the guy some credit by suggesting
                       that perhaps the recent capitulation could be traced to
                       the invasion, but then the guy himself pointed out that
                       Libya funded the recent assassination plot against the
                       Saudis.  Really, there was no helping that guy.
                    \_ As opposed to the tongue kiss he gave Michael Moore who
                       is capitalizing on several lies.
                       \_ Name one.
                          \_ Where have you been?  These links have been posted
                             more than once to the motd, and are very easy to
                             find, unless you restrict your google search to
                             site:indymedia.org like you probably do...
                             http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 - for the new.
                             http://bowlingfortruth.com - for the previous.
                             \_ The hitchens article blathers a whole lot
                                without saying much of substance. Please point
                                out the specific lies in question.
2004/6/29-30 [Science/Space, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31072 Activity:high
6/29    Rev. Sun Myung Moon was crowned by lawmakers (both GOP and demo)
        as the "savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."
            http://www.jonsullivan.com/DiaryDetail.php?pg=1337&mat=ddef
        and Rep. Danny Davis put the crown on Moon's head wearing white
        gloves.  (For the latter you may have to do google a bit.)
        \_ The denials have been almost as amusing as the story itself.
           As is the lag time for the story to get legs.
        \_ the 1st george bush is best friends with the rev moon,
           so sad
        \_ Yeah, so?  What's wrong with that?
                \_ are you an idiot?
        \_ Do religious conservatives really think Moon is The Messiah?
2004/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31069 Activity:high
6/29    "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the Common Good."
        Hillary Rodham Clinton, making my point much more eloquently than I
        ever could. -- ilyas
        \_ isn't that the definition of taxes?
        \_ or the Republican line: we're going to take things away from
           you and there's nothing you can do about it....buah! ha! ha! haaaa!
           \_ Your comment does fall a little flat in that she was commenting
              on the (hoped for) repeal of Bush's tax cuts.  -- ilyas
              \_ Okay, she wants to repeal ill thought out tax cuts.  That
                 seems like a lesser evil when compared to an administration
                 that seeks to deny US citizens their right to legal counsel,
                 as well the right to a speedy public trial based on the
                 frighteningly slippery classification of 'terrorist' under the
                 aegis of National Security.
                 \_ Eh.  I don't like erosion of rights.  However, the Courts
                    recently reaffirmed that whole 'checks and balances' thing,
                    while they can do nothing about the growth of government
                    at our expense.  It's telling, also, that most of the
                    responses to this thread have been counterattacks on
                    republicans (I am neither republican nor conservative),
                    rather than the defense of Hillary's statement. -- ilyas
                    \_ Think of it this way: The current administration is
                       like a guy that wants to shoot you in the left testicle.
                       He missed his first three shots, but he's still armed
                       and in a position to try again.  Would you feel safe
                       knowing that?  I can't speak for everyone else, but the
                       current administration makes me veeeery nervous when it
                       comes to preservation of rights.  Don't get me wrong:
                       I want terrorists dead, but I'm not excited about seeing
                       the US turn into a police state acheiving that goal.
                    \_ Sure, you are neither conservative nor republican!
                       I thought you claimed to be a conservative of some sort
                       once upon a time.
           \_ "We're taking things away from you on behalf of Halliburton and
              Enron and the Military-Industrial Complex." Cutting taxes while
              running huge deficits isn't really giving much.
2004/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31067 Activity:high
6/29    Bushisms funnier than Kerryisms:
        http://spinsanity.org/columns/20040615.html
        \_ Yeah, but doesn't everyone know that Slate sucks ass?
        \_ "I do think we need for a troop to be able to house his family."
           This one isn't about sounding stupid due to semantics....
           \_ And if "troop" was misquoted from "trooper" which is obviously
              what he meant and probably what he said does it still sound
              stupid?
2004/6/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31048 Activity:moderate
6/28    Pop Quiz!  A CBS News poll today (http://csua.org/u/7yz shows the
        following results.  Q - The Bush administration's policies have
        made the U.S.:  Safer from terrorism (53%), Less safe (28%), No
        effect (15%) among registered voters.  A CNN poll from last week
        seemed to show the opposite result.  Why the discrepancy?
        \- did the previous poll ask about "bush co policies" or "invading
           iraq" ... yes, erasing the taliban hurt al quedas training
           infrastructure, but i think bushco also has also given al queda
           their latest recruiptment poster in the hooded fellow --psb
           \_ Correct.  The CNN poll question was:  Do you think the war
              with Iraq has made the US safer -- or less safe -- from
              terrorism?  Safer (37%), Less safe (55%), No change (6%).
              People appreciate that Southwest or United Airlines flights
              aren't blowing up, but they're irritated that there were no WMDs,
              with the prisoner abuse, dead Iraqis and GIs, and with the
              corresponding effect on America's credibility.
              \_ goes to show that the American people are smarter
                 than your average motd troll?
                 \_ All polls are push polls.  Polling shows nothing but it
                    does keep us amused until the real thing.
        \_ Using sub-sampling and not giving the MoE for that subsample,
           or even the sample size?  Also, the Q is quite different.
           the CBS poll asked about "the bush admin's policies."  The
           CNN poll asked about "the war in iraq."
2004/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31046 Activity:high
6/28    Fahrenheit 9/11 is No. 1 at box office
        - Michael Moore's controversial Bush-bashing film has strongest opening
          ever for a documentary.
        http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/27/news/box_office.reut/index.htm
        \_ look at what it's up against.  I'll be knocked down once the
           July 4th weekend blockbusters come out.
           \_ It might've already been knocked down, now that Iraqi
              sovereignty has been handed over.
           \_ what's news about this?  Americans would rather see Wayans films
              than pay attention to the world around them?  It's remarkable
              that a film with a tiny budget, that opened on less than 1000
              screens was the #1 money earner for any weekend.  Of course it
              can't compete with a big-budget movie on 3000 screens, but
              it doesn't need to, to become by far the most successful
              documentary ever.  -tom
              \_ Tiny budget?  What does he need a large budget for?  To hire
                 Andy Serkis + a team of CGI programmers to portray Bush?
                   -- ilyas
                 \_ I don't know what tom wants, but I do want to see this:
                    http://csua.org/u/13a  (Mad Magazine, old link)
                    http://csua.org/u/7yt  (related to above)
        \_ I never liked "Roger and Me" which made MM famous, and didn't
           watch his later films.  I went to see F911 because others were
           footing the bill.  It is way bettern then "Roger and Me" and
           definitely worth watching.  I think people are boycotting it not
           because of high principle but because they are afraid, really
           afraid.
        \_ and it barely beats White Chicks!
           \_ hey, white chicks looked pretty funny from the previews!
        \_ I think Moore's a liar and a scumbag (not to mention anti-American
           and a flt slob), but this is a huge success for the opening
           and a fat slob), but this is a huge success for the opening
           weekend.  Look at the per-screen totals and it's as big a hit as
           Return of the King.  We'll see what it's staying power is, but MM is
           definitely the reigning king of hype. -emarkp
           \_ ^Moore^Bush
           \_ At worst, I can say Moore is a conspiracist, a Bush-hater, a
              hater of pro-Bush Americans, and fat -- but the footage he has
              collected is what interests me.  I don't really care about the
              bin Laden - Saudi - Bush links or the make corporations rich
              theme, which seem ridiculous; or the ambushing, which is unfair.
              I do want to see Bush put in his place, since, while he is not
              a liar or a scumbag, IMO -- he is a dumbass.
2004/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31040 Activity:insanely high
6/28    I watched F911 and frankly I don't see anything controversial except
        its choice of targets.  This movie does not stand out at all in the
        technics it employs to make its pointed criticism.  OK, It does not
        compare to the artistically great but evil propaganda from the last
        century, nor is it for publication on Nature or Daedalus.  It is about
        as wicked and biased as the all the mainstream network news,
        documentaries, or frontline exposes, i.e. the normal media you immerse
        yourself in and rave about on the motd, freerepublic or slashdot.,
        perhaps even a tiny bit less so.  If you have a problem with its
        fairness, you can't just cherry pick this one.  You should disconnect
        yourself from TV, printed media, internet etc even when they are just
        picking on M$, EPA, or Bangladesh.  On the other hand, if you hate F911
        because you think strong criticism of our Leader is unpatriotic and
        challenge to the upper echelon of society is subversive, you can
        and should make your point directly without shame.
        \_ I disagree.  I think Moore is qualitatively different from mainstream
           news.  His vibe as entertainer reminds me of Limbaugh, only he
           uses film as his medium, not talk radio. -- ilyas
        \_ I disagree.  I think Moore is qualitatively different from
           mainstream news.  His vibe as entertainer reminds me of Limbaugh,
           only he uses film as his medium, not talk radio. -- ilyas
        \_ What is the big deal about this movie? The dude sounds like a huge
           retard who doesn't know jack about anything and just goes around
           mouthing off. Whatever.
           \_ The "big deal" seems to be created by the staunch right-wing
              who have never seen the movie (or anything by Michael Moore)
              but telling others that it is an un-American movie and that
              they shouldn't watch it.
              \_ Ad-hominem attack #2.
                 \_ How the hell is this "ad-hominem"?
                    \_ I was wondering that too -AH#1
              \_ I don't care what movie people go and see. You want
                 to pay $9 and see the movie, bully for you. Whatever.
                 To me it doesn't look like a good movie and the comments
                 the director makes make it sound like a terrible movie.
                 But then again, maybe I'm not the best judge of such
                 things since I only watch movies with the words 'Star Trek'
                 in the title.
                 \_ Well, I personally didn't like the movie myself and,
                    like so many movies I've seen, wished I didn't pay
                    $10 for it. But whether a movie's good or bad is a
                    matter of opinion from people who've seen it. What
                    I think is absured are all these people who haven't
                    seen the movie and are telling others to boycott the
                    movie and calling them unpatriotic otherwise.
           \_ Ad-hominem attack #1.
              \_ It's not ad-hominem since Moore is the director and also in
                 the movie.
                 \_ people, please stop putting a hyphen in ad hominem. do it
                    for the children.
                 \_ OMG, YOU HUGE RETARD, U DONT NO JACK, QUIT MOUTHING OFF!!!1
                 \_ Yes it is.  You insulted MM without adressing any of the
                    content of the movie.
                    \_ Would it be better if he said "He seems like a huge/fat
                       retard, speaking through a megaphone outside the capital"
                       He's in the movie, so attacking him is attacking one of
                       the characters/protaganists of the film. I vaguely
                       " He's in the movie, so attacking him is attacking one
                       of the characters/protaganists of the film. I vaguely
                       enjoyed the film, but not really the parts that he was
                       \_ Saying he made an ass of himself in front of the
                                            \_ the british calls it arse
                          White House is a criticism of the movie.  Just saying
                          he's "a huge retard who doesn't know jack about
                                                               \_ who's jack?
                          anything" is a personal attack.  If you had said
                          "MM says foobar, which is wrong." that would be
                           \_ what's MM?
                                   \_ what's foobar?
                          a fair criticism.
                       in. I don't like watching fat people in movies/TV.
               \_ Whatever. I've read speeches/interviews with this guy
                  (about this and other movies). He has a very one sided
                  view about stuff and passes it off as informed and
                  objective. If he was honest about the fact that his
                  movies and writing are anything but objective then he
                  might not come off as such a huge jackass.
                  \_ When did Moore ever say he was objective?  As far as I
                     know, he has always tried to push his agenda.
        \_ This is one of those things I don't need to see to know I won't
           like it.  I heard enough about the Passion of Christ to know I
           wouldn't want to see that.  I eventually saw Titanic but wished I
           hadn't.  Really, MM is just about self glorification.  In some ways,
           he is very much like Limbaugh.  The difference I see is that I can
           pick up the phone and challenge Rush 5 days a week any time during
           his 2 to 4 hour show and put him on the spot and make him explain
           if he said something I disagree with or if he twisted something.  I
           do not have that option with MM.  I only have people like this to
           "talk" with about him:

        Boredcast Message from 'brain': Mon Jun 28 08:34:19 2004

        if someone who is not a raging asshole sees that movie,
        I can pretty much gaurantee they will vote against Bush
                \_ Interesting.  This is the usual trick of defending your
                   opinon by taking an example of your opponents out of
                   context (like when he is stoned or walling) or
                   representativeness and ridicue it.  This is something MM
                   might been guilty, but see it is SO mainstream.
                   context (like when he is stoned or walling, which is same)
                   or representativeness and ridicule it.  This is something MM
                   might been guilty of, but see it is SO mainstream.
                   \_ I indented your interruption bc it looks like a continue
                      of the rest of my post.  So, the wall log is there.  What
                      did I take out of context?  What exactly is the context
                      on the wall log that I have unfairly smeared brain or
                      taken his post out of context?  It's there.  Maybe I'm
                      blind or something.  Please explain.  As far as stoned or
                      walling goes, I get the same replies on the motd and the
                      wall is covered in that sort of noise.  I picked the
                      first one I saw related to the topic.  I didn't dig for
                      a special case.  I didn't have to.  It was said, that's
                      who I have the opportunity to discuss anything with and
                      I still can't chat with MM and I can still call Rush 5
                      days a week.  Please explain my 'trick' and maybe answer
                      some of my other questions and points as well.  Thank
                      you. --c
                      \_ Um, perhaps becuase you WEREN'T discussing it with
                         brian, and pulled his quote from wall to try to
                         illustrate an impervious liberal veneer.  If you
                         had engaged him, on wall, or by email, you might
                         have the chance to find that he is intelligent,
                         reasonable, and possibly could give you something
                         to think about on the subject.  But you seem to
                         like your blinders. --scotsman
                         \_ I must be an asshole -- I am voting Nader.  This
                            brain fellow better be using some sort of
                            hyperbole, because it sure sounds like he is
                            mouthing off mindlessly on wall. -- ilyas
                            \_ Why don't you go ask him?  Something like:
                               "Hi brain, I don't know you, but on wall today
                               you sounded like you were mouthing off
                               mindlessly.  Were you using some sort of
                               hyperbole?"
                            \_ you'll notice I said "against Bush" ilyas.
                                Not "for Kerry."  You don't know me, so you
                                don't know my politics.  But you haven't asked.
                                go ahead, ask me!  I'm not a hostile person.
                                most of the time.  Unlike most people, I'm not
                                offended that you don't agree with me.  It's a
                                free country, and it doesn't make you less of an
                                American.  My point with the movie is: regardless
                                of your politics, it is pretty hard to see thepain
                                of a mother who has lost her son to a war cometo
                                grips with the realization that there may not have
                                been a good reason for it.  And this experience
                                will make you ask yourself questions; perhaps
                                questions you should have been asking yourself
                                previously.  To ignore the possibility of a new
                                experience is a sign of intellectual and in this
                                case moral weakness.  Just think about it.  -brain
                                free country, and it doesn't make you less of
                                an American.  My point with the movie is:
                                regardless of your politics, it is pretty hard
                                to see the pain of a mother who has lost her
                                son to a war come to grips with the realization
                                that there may not have been a good reason for
                                it.  And this experience will make you ask
                                yourself questions; perhaps questions you
                                should have been asking yourself previously.
                                To ignore the possibility of a new experience
                                is a sign of intellectual and in this case
                                moral weakness.  Just think about it.  -brain
                                \_ Heh.  I am voting for Nader because CA is
                                   not a battleground state, and because I wish
                                   to splinter the liberal vote further by
                                   encouraging Nader to run again.
                                   I sympathize with people (both American and
                                   otherwise) who were harmed by Bush's
                                   policies, but I think your conclusion on,
                                   for instance the worth of the war, seems a
                                   little premature.  Even if Bush lied through
                                   his teeth about the reasons, the actual
                                   positive effects of the war (of a
                                   humanitarian nature, for example) is
                                   something neither you nor indeed the mother
                                   of a slain soldier should discount quite so
                                   readily.  As for ignoring the possibility of
                                   a new experience, with all due respect to
                                   Mr. Moore, I do not consider his films an
                                   intellectual experience at all.  I have
                                   plenty of intelligent liberal friends to
                                   argue with. -- ilyas
                                   \_ off topic I guess but I'm not totally
                                      convinced that Bush has zero chance here.
                                      anyway, I'll vote for Kerry just because
                                      I believe he's a better human being. I
                                      don't think the Iraq action itself should
                                      be the basis of voting. Bush bothers me
                                      across a lot of fronts independent of
                                      conservative/liberal politics. -IND voter
                                  \_ and what is my conclusion on the worth
                                     of the war?  I have never even brought it
                                     up, and honestly it's not the reason I
                                     think Bush is a terrible leader.  You need
                                     to understand that, at his core, Bush does
                                     not value your welfare, nor that of
                                     America, and that his policies, not just
                                     with regard to Iraq, are self-serving
                                     and evil.  Look at the results of Leave
                                     No Child Behind, or what has happened to
                                     the FCC or EPA's policies.  The Clear
                                     Skies Initiative.  Even a little research
                                     will show you a larger picture than just
                                     Iraq.  Not the ideology, I'm talking about
                                     the actual, measurable results.  This is
                                     important stuff here, and unless you
                                     personally own a gigantic manufacturing or
                                     oil corporation you have personally not
                                     benefitted from any of these things.  Do
                                     the math on the dividend tax cut- how much
                                     money did you save?  How much money was
                                     saved by others, never to be circulated
                                     back into our economy?     -brain
                               \_ I find Brian often weighs in on things
                                  he has not given much thought to or
                                  is not especially knowledgeable about.
                                  In some cases I assume it is just
                                  immaturity, but in this case I think he
                                  is carried away by emotion.  I've known
                                  him for a little while and I'm not a knee-
                                  jerk liberal.  I think part of his problem
                                  is he gets all of his news from web sites
                                  and soundbite sources.  But there are some
                                  niches he does seem knowledgeable.  But
                                  they are sort of superficial subjects.
                                 \_  I'm guessing you are referring to the
                                     tax law discussion, in which I was shouted
                                     down for trying to save you fools a few
                                     thousand dollars.  If someone shows me I am
                                     misinformed, I always apologise.  Always.
                                     But I'm not going to argue with you on wall
                                     when I can tell you are not interested in
                                     discussion.  While you guys snipe and rotin
                                     your cubes, other people are running around
                                     thousand dollars.  If someone shows me I
                                     am misinformed, I always apologise.
                                     Always.  But I'm not going to argue with
                                     you on wall when I can tell you are not
                                     interested in discussion.
                                     While you guys snipe and rot in your
                                     cubes, other people are running around
                                     the world accomplishing great things.  So
                                     forgive me for voicing an opinion, or sharing
                                     a piece of very expensive information it cost
                                     me a great deal to obtain.  Information that
                                     forgive me for voicing an opinion, or
                                     sharing a piece of very expensive
                                     information it cost me a great deal to
                                     obtain.  Information that
                                     came from my corporate tax lawyer.  -brain
                                     \_ It looks like someone made Brian cry.
                                       \_ nah it's cool.  I enjoy spending
                                          your tax money.   -brain
                                          \_ You'd have to, if you like Moore's
                                             movies with good conscience.
                                             \_ I'm not sure what you mean.
                                                Michael Moore is funded by
                                                tax dollars?
                   \_ I agree with this point as well.  The "conservative"
                      poster has taken the wall of one user and generalized
                      it to be the mindset of all liberals.  This is not a
                      convincing way to make an argument, and ironically makes
                      the op look close-minded.
           Now then, what's the point of even trying to talk to some of you
           when disagreeing with you or your media heroes make me an asshole
           in your eyes?  I don't think any of you are assholes simply for
                \_ It doesn't, and I never said that.  Interesting that you didn't
                    bring this up when I said it... No, what makes you an asshole is
                    writing this Rush Limbaugh diatribe in which you ascribe all
                    kinds of motives to a single portion of my conversation with
                    Rand.  Maybe O'Reilly actually... Limbaugh never cut his
                    guests' microphone.                 -brain
                \_ It doesn't, and you know that's not what that wall meant.
                   Interesting that you didn't bring this up when I said it...
                   No, what makes you an asshole is writing this (anonymous)
                   Rush Limbaugh diatribe in which you ascribe all kinds of
                   motives to a single portion of my conversation with Rand.
                   Maybe O'Reilly actually... Limbaugh never cut his guests'
                   microphone.       -brain
           disagreeing with me.  I don't even think most of you are assholes.
           If you are an asshole, you know it and you're proud of it and I'm
           ok with that.  But don't call me names because I don't like your
           hero or I disagree with your political philosophy.  If I said the
           same as the above but turned it around you'd call me a right wing
           nutter and dig up your motd watch logs to find out who I was so
           you could give me some twink points or try to get me squished.  As
           far as watching MM goes, I don't have the time or money to waste on
           things that get reviews like the above.  --conservative
           \_ This is why I thought F911 was a weak movie. Contrary to brain's
              suggestion, I don't think it'll win over any conservative votes.
              At best (and I don't think it'll do this either), it might
              "energize the party base".
              \_ It doesn't have to do that stuff to not be a weak movie. I'll
                 probably watch it at some point. I never watched Bowling just
                 because the subject matter seemed too boring. I don't expect
                 it to be a religious experience, but some insight and
                 entertainment.
        \_ Why would I want to pay $9 and waste 2 hours to watch MORE
           crappy propaganda?  Or even GOOD propaganda for that matter?
           \_ Or any movie.  period.
           \_ You watch for the footage they don't show on CNN.
              The Emperor has no clothes, and we want to see that. ;-)
           \_ good point.  You could probably get a bootleg, or sneak into the
                movie... or just go to a matinee!
2004/6/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31019 Activity:high
6/25    Just saw F9/11. Pretty disappointing. I'm quite upset that it won
        Cannes. It had some humourous moments, but other than "Bush sucks"
        didn't have a thesis or strong underlying theme. I don't think it'll
        help Busy get unseated in any way. The music seemed to stand out more
        than the movie.--liberal dem.
        \_ Am I supposed to get enlightened by The Birth of A Nation or
           Triumph of the Will?  Well, no, but that does not mean they are
           not first-rate films.  I doubt F9/11 is because MM's prevous work
           seemed stupid to me, regardless of politics.  But in the age of Rush
           and Fox, F9/11 is a natural and necessary response in an
           escalating media arms race.
           \_ Did you watch F9/11? The concept of the "necessary and natural"
              response is a good one, I just don't think it was that effective.
              I think his other movies (R&M, B4C) were better/funnier/more
              effective.
2004/6/26 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31017 Activity:high
6/26    Well, here is one person who thinks Michael Moore hates America, and
        provides evidence to back it up:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/opinion/26BROO.html
        \_ I have been told by conservatives that NYT is biased and op-ed
           cannot be trusted.
        \_ http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
        \_ so, anyone who don't like Bush hates America?  This is good shit.
           It is the American version of what used to called "counter-
           revolutionaries."
        \_ Criticism is not hatred.  People here are, on balance, under/un-
           educated.  We have a long track history of supporting despots and
           utilizing third world labor at very low wages.  We use our military
           to protect our corporate interests around the world.  Moore believes
           these aspects are wrong, and speaks against them.  You can argue
           whether these aspects of our relationship with the world and among
           ourselves make us stronger or not, but to say Moore "hates America"
           because of these statements is a straw man. -scotsman
           \_ If you ask any of these 'low wage' workers they will beg to be
              'exploited' in order to earn a wage and feed their family.
              The notion that third world societies can instantly propel
              themselves to a first world standard of living only if they
              were paid more is silly.  ALL capitalist Western economies
              progressed through requisite stages where workers endured
              hardship.  As long as the fruits of their labor are reinvested
              in their economies, as they are where most US corporations
              operate, and their societies nuture the political and economic
              policies that promote growth (not socialism), they win.  But
              somehow I suspect you'd prefer a proletariat revolution.
              With respect to supporting despots, this was an expediency of
              the Cold War, which history unequivocally vindicates.  One
              only need compare S. to N. Korea and Chile to Cuba.
              \_ Tell that to the families of 20,000 desaparecidos in Chile.
                 This is exactly the point.  Your whole argument is based
                 upon the necessity of our (US) supremacy.  Globalism based
                 on first world first is akin to regressive tax structure.
                 In the long run it's merely imperial, untenable.  People
                 won't stand for it.
                 Also, I'm not suggesting that higher wages will fix the 3rd
                 world's problems.  But rather than trying to control all the
                 resources from the raw material to the consumer, we could
                 work to foster entrepreneurship in these countries and have
                 an actual global market place with true local ownership.
                 Our country was granted a shortcut by history with the seeds
                 of our industry being sown under imperial rule.  Fortunately
                 for us, England didn't have the war tech of a superpower.  We
                 were able to buck them off, and now reap the benefits.  This
                 new global economy is basically of the same imperial character
                 but with a seemingly insurmountable military force to back it
                 up.
                 Final point, no I don't prefer a proletariat revolution,
                 though I'm terrified that one could come in my lifetime.
                 I'd prefer that we learn from history and tread lightly in
                 the imperial snake pit. --scotsman
                 --Final final point.  I really don't know where you pulled
                 the assertion that I was championing socialism from.  You
                 need to watch the knee jerking if you want to have a decent
                 discussion.
              \_ In response to the expidiency of supporting despots, you
                 should also think about the failures: the Shah in Iran
                 (we installed him and overthrew a democratically elected
                 prime minister leading to the current theocracy), Saddam in
                 Iraq, and others.
2004/6/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31014 Activity:kinda low
6/25    http://www.freepress.net/rules
        FCC attempt to relax media ownership rules overturned yesterday.
        \_ So... do the new regulation disagree with the constitution of
        \_ So... do the new regulations disagree with the constitution of
           some existing law?
        \_ Clearly this is a result of the ring wing controlled fascist BushCo
           state thwarted in their attempt to gain control of the ring wing
           controll fascist business owned media conglomerates!
           \_ no, it's the corporate controlled BushCo state thwarted in their
              attempt to further reduce competition and alternative voices.
                -tom
2004/6/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31007 Activity:very high
6/24    Ebert on Fahrenheit 9/11:
        "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the
        White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes
        across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and
        inauthentic in manner.
        http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-moore24f.html
        \_ Just curious but do they call this "Fahrenheit 11/9" in
           "Queen's English" speaking countries?
           \_ bbc calls it exactly what we do.
        \_ Ebert hates America. Boycott Ebert.
           \_ Actually, 9 out of 11 movie critics on http://movies.yahoo.com love it.
              \_ Exactly. 9 out of 11 liberal media critics hate America.
                 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Fahrenheit911-1133649
        \_ I *may* actually go see this, but I don't want to give MM my money,
           so I'll buy a ticket to White Chicks instead and sneak into the
           F911 theater.
           \_ Ah, the principled conservative...
              \_ No.  A conservative has no interest in wasting their time
                 watching the propaganda of a proven liar.  I wouldn't want
                 to see it at a free screening.  It's a waste of time.  The
                 ticket price isn't the issue.
                 \_ Does a conservative wasting his time posting/reading motd?
                    \_ Yes.  It's a better use of my time than seeing Michael
                       Moore's propaganda.  Sometimes things posted here are
                       actually true, context and backed by solid references.
                       If the motd were my only source of information on the
                       world I would have a more accurate picture than Michael
                       Moore provides.
           \_ I will freely give my money to MM.
              \_ Send him a check.  Why are you bothering us?
           \_ Why don't you want to give him your money?  If you don't want to
              give him money, don't see the film.  If you think he's a liar (as
              I believe has been shown) why would you sink to lying to see his
              movie? -emarkp
              \_ I agree 100% with emarkp
              \_ I think people who host Fox News are proven lying scumbags.
                 But I still watch FNC just to keep an open mind. I tell
                 you, the more I watch it the lower opinion I have of
                 the Republican party and their media arm.
                 \_ Sure, but if you were a Nielsen family would you lie on
                    your TV diary? -emarkp
                    \_ We are a Nielsen family.  Well, we were on Real People
                       back in the late 70s for being Nielsens... What was the
                       question? --erikred
                 \_ Proven lying scumbags? Perhaps youd care to share what was
                    said and then back that up with a reference?  Proven means
                    you have proof.
              \_ I've read both the positive and negative reviews and I'm
                 curious to see who I agree with, but at the same time, I do
                 not wish to promote this kind of "documentary" film-making
                 so that real documentaries like Spellbound, Home Movie, and
                 Fast Cheap and Out of Control don't get brushed aside. I
                 think MM and movies like SuperSizeMe and the critical acclaim
                 they are getting is the beginning of a really bad trend akin
                 to the horrible reality television trend we are currently
                 infected with. -op
                 \_ You mean like "The Octopus", "The Jungle", "Unsafe at any
                    Speed", "The American Way of Death", "Silent Spring" or
                    any of those other recent expose' hit pieces?  Yeah, they
                    are really just horribly self-serving and opportunistic.
                    \_ I think it's hilarious that you're comparing "The
                       Jungle" with Super Size Me which is nothing more than
                       Jackass:The Movie for the liberal elite.
                    \_ Yeah, I think "Unsafe at any Speed" matches up
                       pretty well with the crap the MM produces.
                 \_ So split the difference.  Go see a matinee after opening
                    weekend.  That way you're not giving him much money.
                    -emarkp
                    \_ Just realized another advantage: you'll have the theater
                       to yourself. -emarkp
                       \_ He probably would anyway in most places.
                          \_ Here in LA on a friday night there was a lively
                             crowd, complete with voter registration booths,
                             seething hatred, and anti-Bush bumper stickers.
                             Santa Monica rocks. -- ilyas
2004/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Recreation/Music] UID:31005 Activity:nil
6/24    http://www.onefinalnote.com/reviews/v/various-artists/no-w-now.asp
2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30990 Activity:high
6/24    http://www.pvponline.com
        Online idiots hate Captain America!  (In the news section)
        \_ Heh, when I play online and people have idiotic sound-bite names
           (Bush sux, etc.) I just start team-killing.  Much more fun that way.
2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30986 Activity:insanely high
6/24    You know the release of interrogation memos a couple days ago?
        Notice they did not include any State Department letters, ones that
        argue against Ashcroft and the Justice Department's legal conclusions?
        The Washington Post got one of the State Dept letters.  Guess who
        also gets bashed?  Boalt Law Professor John Yoo.  If you read to the
        end of the article, you'll also find that the military intelligence
        officers at Guantanamo who were supposed to be doing the abusing
        complained and ultimately reversed the policy.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A759-2004Jun23.html
           \_ Bush/Cheney 2004!
              \_ Yeah! Bush/Cheney! http://www.georgewbush.org
        \_ Why do you hate Ashcroft?
           \_ Bush/Cheney 2004!
        \_ Holy shit!  You mean our soliders aare actually good guys and thus
           the half dozen knuckle draggers in Abu Graib are an aberation and
           not taking their orders straight from Dubya?  Would ever woulda
           not taking their orders straight from Dubya?  Who ever woulda
           thunk that our guys aren't all raping murderous bastards?  This
           WAPO story must be a lie.
2004/6/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30973 Activity:very high
6/23    NYTimes reviews "Fahrenheit 9/11"  -dgies
        http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/movies/23FAHR.html
        /csua/tmp/fahrenheit911.txt
        \_ "Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise.
           He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory.
           He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to
           the republic."
           See, I don't understand this.  To a partial observer like myself,
           this just looks like, for lack of a better term, cocksucking.
             -- ilyas
           \_ Yes, because all begrudging praise for people we don't like is
              cocksucking. Cheney? Likes to have "swordfights" in his mouth.
              Bush? Satisfies the rich and loves bukakke. See how fun this is?
              \_ Sure, I understand begrudging praise.  But I don't understand
                 how in this particular case, the praise follows from what was
                 previously said.  Being rarely subtle and obnoxious does not
                 make one a credit to anything, be it one's parents, one's
                 race, one's country... -- ilyas
                 \_ There are any number of comedians, actors and politicians
                    to whom the same adjectives would apply, and they are just
                    as much a credit to this country as this author posits
                    for Michael Moore. -scotsman
                    \_ Like Al Franken and his popular radio show!
                    \_ Yes, but those characteristics don't make them a credit.
                       Those characteristics are negative.  Hence my problem.
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ It's not an if-then.  It's "He all these things that
                          people tar him with, and thank god he's there." Those
                          characteristics aren't necessarily negative. -scotsman
                       \_ All those characteristics make him a credit to his
                          country if his country also exemplifies those
                          characteristics.
        \_ perms
           \_ fixed, sorry.
        \_ It's funny that f911 is rated R and The Green Berets is rated G.
           \_ why is this even an issue? are there kids who aren't 17 now
              who will somehow manage to vote later this year?
           \_ Have you *seen* the Green Berets?
              \_ Did you see Burning Columbine?  footage of executions, etc.
                 PG-13
                 \_ Do you mean "Bowling for Columbine"?
           \_ Seeing corpses of actual people is probably more disturbing
              than phony violence.  Nothing wrong with that but it's not
              PG-13.
              \_ I see dead people... on the news. I think. It's all kind of
                 a haze mixed with the web media. A corpse is a corpse, of
                 course, of course, and kids can look at a corpse of course,
                 that is, of course, unless the corpse is in Fahrenheit 911.
                 Thousands of folks with their kids went to look at Reagan's
                 corpse, boxed though it was. There are hanging Jesus corpses
                 in all the churches. Bah.
                 \_ This must be a troll.  I can't believe you can't tell the
                    difference between showing a 15 year old cartoon violence
                    and showing a 15 year old the bullet riddled dehumanised
                    corpse of some poor dumb dead bastard lying in the street.
                    Or between a dead guy in a box and the same corpse in the
                    street.  Or between a symbolic carving or Jesus on a stick
                    and a dirty bloodied corpse in the street.  Go away, troll.
                    \_ You think 15 year olds aren't on the web? I remember
                       being 15. It depends on how it's presented, but don't
                       doubt those FPS-playing, pot smoking sex-having kids
                       are exposed to much worse if they so choose. They
                       saw jets flying into the WTC.
                 \_ Hi Lea.  Sign your name.
                    \_ I always sign my name iff it's mine. This isn't.
                       -chialea
                 \_ Are you trying to make it rhyme?
              \_ What's more amusing is that Moore appealed the rating because
                 an R-rating might decrease the audience.  Sorry Moore, the
                 rating system is on the content, no the /in/tent.
        \_ http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
        \_ Why do you hate America?
2004/6/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30971 Activity:insanely high
6/23    How many members of the Bush Administration are needed
        to replace a light bulb?
        The Answer is SEVEN:
        1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced,
        2. One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has
           questions about the light bulb,
           \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
        3. One to blame the Clinton administration for the need of a new
           light bulb,
        4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret
           stockpile of light bulbs,
        5. One to get together with Vice President Cheney and well, no, no one
           would want to be in the same room with Vice President Cheney.
        6. One to arrange a photo-op session showing Hillary changing the light
           bulb while carrying a tray of cookies she baked herself.
        7. And finally, one to explain to Bush the difference between
           screwing a light bulb and screwing the country and screwing an
           intern.
        8. And one more to explain that when your penis enters a woman's
           mouth, that is sex, no matter what the definition of 'is' is.
           \_ That's a waste of tax payers' money.  Bush still would not
              know the difference.
        \_ AWESOME!!
        \_ what are all these light bulb parts ending up in foreign country
        scrap yards?
           scrap yards like Kosovo and the Sudan and Afganistan?
          \_ they just removed the filaments and discarded the shells
2004/6/23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30964 Activity:very high
6/23    Read the interrogation memos yourself:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62516-2004Jun22.html
        Start with Feb. 1, 2002 (John Ashcroft's letter), it's short.
        Then go to Feb. 7, 2002 (Bush's memo).
        Now, my question:  Why isn't anyone talking about the "UN Convention
        Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
        Punishment", which I believe should apply to everyone, al Qaeda
        included?
        Anyway, those two are really short reads, and it's interesting to
        see how the AP mischaracterizes some parts.
        \_ Another point is the Geneva Convention covers warfare between nation
           states, the Bush administration decided the taliban and
           al-queda are not valid nation states, so the geneva
           convention does not apply to such prisoners.  I don't
           agree at all but that's their reasoning.
           \_ Yeah, to put it succinctly, if you read the two memos I
              highlighted --
              Ashcroft said:  Afghanistan is a failed state!  Therefore,
                              GC does not apply to Taliban.
              Bush said:  I accept what Ashcroft said (and if he's wrong,
                          he takes all the blame).  But, I still say the
                          Taliban should be covered by GC, but I reserve
                          the right to remove GC coverage later.
           \_ Conversely, it's therefore okay for non-nation states to torture
              others since they are not signatories of the Geneva Convention.
              \_ It's not quite conversely.  Let's say al Qaeda chops off
                 heads in Iraq.  Then they could be prosecuted by the Iraqi
                 government for murder, or extradited to the U.S.  The
                 difference is, that if the U.S. tortures al Qaeda people
                 in Guantanamo, no one cares.  If the U.S. abuses an
                 al Qaeda suspect who turns out to be innocent and people
                 complain about it, then you have problems.
                 \_ If the US doesn't torture a guy who had information that
                    would have lead to saving thousands more American lives,
                    you'd be the first to bitch about it and blame Bush.
        \_ Okay, I'm answering my own question:
           http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm
           See United States of America.  On signing, the USA made an
           exception for itself.  They took out "degrading".  Haha, I can't
           believe it was that straightforward.  Hahahahaha ... it's totally
           legal for U.S. forces to treat those not covered by GC in a
           degrading way.  This is what Bush means by never condoning torture
           or anything illegal, which is "true".
           Also, see this for the legal aspects behind torture at Guantanamo:
           http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000865.php
           Bottom line:  It's *all* legal!
                         (if they wanted to use torture there)
           \_ Well, the beating to death stuff is still illegal.
           \_ According to what you've posted, making prisoners stand naked
              would be acceptable.  Sexual assault, violence, and murder,
              however, would still be considered inhumane and would therefore
              constitute violations of the conventions.  In other words, Pfc
              England would be within the good zone if she just pointed, but
              would be in the bad zone if she touched.
              \_ Sexual assault, violence, and murder would be legal for
                 an al Qaeda member at Guantanamo.  Iraq is fully covered
                 by GC, on the other hand.  This is the Bybee memo that
                 the Bush adminstration has been disavowing as "too broad,
                 theoretical" for the last two days.
                 \_ No, murder, sexual assault (rape), and some forms of
                    violence would still not be ok.
                    \_ Not according to the Bush Administration. Well,
                       they would be "not okay" by policy, but Bush
                       claims that he is above the law and that the
                       Administration could not be punished by any
                       judge or legislative act. So the prison guards
                       could rape away without fear of any punishment
                       if that was Administration policy. Or so they
                       claim.
                       \_ Bullshit.  Show me where Bush said murder and rape
                          are ok in any American controlled prison.
                       \_ Don't forget:  Iraq, it's not legal; Guantanamo,
                          legal for al Qaeda members. -op
                    \_ That's right, torture/killing of al Qaeda members at
                       Guantanamo is "not okay" (Bush said don't do it), but
                       it's "legal".  Big difference. -op
                       \_ Torture, yes, of course.  Killing, no.  It is
                          intellectually dishonest to use "torture/killing"
                          as a one word phrase when only one part of it is
                          true.
                          \_ Let's put it this way:  If an al Qaeda member
                             ends up dead at Guantanamo from a torture session
                             gone wrong, what charge will be brought?
                             Can we at least say that this manner of killing
                             is legal, as determined by the Bush adminstration?
2004/6/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30959 Activity:high
6/22    Bush says he is above the law in wartime:
        http://csua.org/u/7vs (yahoo news)
        \_ Should I even read this obvious troll from an unnamed site?
           \_ Basically, Bush said the Justice Department said that Al Qaeda/
              Taliban don't legally qualify for Geneva Conventions protections,
              but he doesn't want to use this loophole.  He also says that
              treatment should be "consistent with the principles of Geneva".
        \_ This "war on terror" is the most comfortable war the US has
           ever fought. We out gun the enemy and we out number the
           enemy. We kill 100 of them for every one of us that died.
           Yet, we think we need to bypass the Geneva Conventions to
           use torture. It makes me wonder what we will do when we
           have a real war. Yeah, we are always great at telling
           others to do things that we can't follow, BECAUSE WE GOT
           BIGGER GUNS, HAHA.
           \_ You know, if you listen to the constant whining of the press,
              it really doesn't seem like it's the most comfortable war.
2004/6/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30936 Activity:very high
6/21    So much for the Reagan bounce.
        http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/iraq_election_040621.html
        \_ No one ever said there was one.  I want to see Kerry's poll numbers
           \_ patently false
              \_ it's nice that you both interrupted my statements and failed
                 to back yours up in any way.  score 2 points.
                 \_ patently means obviously, and he's right. -!op
           after a debate.  So far, the more news coverage he gets the lower
           his poll numbers go right after a press event.  His advisors should
           be shitting in their pants thinking about that one.
           \_ Yeah, just look up on http://news.google.com for "reagan bounce".
              Pew poll.  Do at least a tiny bit of research before posting.
              \_ Like research has anything to do with the motd.  Or hyperbole
                 is unheard of here.
                 \_ It does, actually.  And, you can exaggerate, but at least
                    don't be totally wrong.
              \_ Ok, so you went to google and found some op/eds from stupid
                 people.  You can always find stupid people in op/eds.  No
                 one from either campaign or any responsible person in
                 government said it would happen.
                 \_ That's a lot better than "No one ever said there was one."
                    Good.
        \_ I disagree. Go to http://www.pollingreport.com and look at the
           the polls done in the last week. The three most recent listed
           there all show a modest recovery in Bush's numbers. -Kerry supporter
        \_ "Seventy-six percent now say the war has damaged the United
           States' image in the rest of the world; that's 13 points more
           than last summer. Sixty-three percent say it's caused long-term
           harm to U.S. relations with countries that opposed the war, up
           12 points..." Where's the bozo who always calls this claim
           The Big Lie?
2004/6/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30918 Activity:very high
6/18    Stuff like this always confuses me.  Why do activists always
        preach to the choir?  Shouldn't liberals demonstrate and put of
        flyers in, say, Bakersfield?  Where they might actually be able
        to find people who don't agree with them?  (And therefore convert
        them)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/19/DDG7R781041.DTL
        \_ ok, now i'm confused.  I thought you morons believed that
           liberals control all the media.  doesn't that mean we have a
           *much* better way of telling the world about our evil agenda,
           which we force on the world every day?
           \_ hi troll!  people in bakersfield don't read your newspapers
              or watch your tv news anchors.  mostly, they either ignore it,
              shake their fists at it, or laugh at it.  so, if you want to
              preach to the unconverted you have to go to them.  bye troll!
              \_ so they don't watch any tv news or read any newspapers
                 in your world?  well, if that's true, why are you so
                 concerned about the Liberal Media Conspiracy?  What harm
                 is it doing if no one ouside of the Evil Liberal cities
                 like Jew York actualy watch the Commie News Network?
                 Why not come up with a self-consistent set of paranoid
                 delusions?
                 \_ You score 2 points for selectively choosing which part
                    of my post to reply to and at the same time putting words
                    in my mouth.  I never said they don't witness your
                    media's drivel.  Go re-read what I said and respond to
                    that and we can try again, troll.
                 \_ The great thing about the Liberal Media Conspiracy is
                    that it provides a convenient bogeyman that can never
                    be voted out of office.
                    \_ So I went over to http://nytimes.com today to check out the
                       apparently rather vicious review of Bill Clinton's new
                       book.  And what do I see on their site if not an advert
                       from the Kerry campaign asking for 50 bucks.  I've never
                       seen any republican campaigns advertise there.  Why do
                       you suppose that would be? -- ilyas
                       \_ We know that anyone who might donate to Bush is
                          obviously either evil or stupid and all those
                          red necks and hicks can't read anyway so it would
                          be stupid to advertise in the NYT.  The Republicans
                          only collect money during Church services I'm told.
        \_ Because if liberals actually did that they'd realize how futile
           and naive their "cause" is. Reality bites.
           \_ Yeah, right.  It's obviously soooo much better to be an apathetic
              cynical 'realist' like you.  Get serious.
        \_ For the same reason they scream and protest when some knuckle
           draggers take some silly pictures of naked Iraqi dudes but don't
           say a peep about honest to god genocide in other countries.
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30894 Activity:nil 66%like:35304
12/31   What does Dubya mean?
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:30893 Activity:insanely high
6/18    AH-64 Apache engineer beheaded and photos uploaded with head placed
        on his back.
        \_why dont you so called hackers destroy their islamic websites?
          \_ why don't you so-called nationalist hawks destroy their ability
             to wage war on us?
             \_ Workin' on it.
             \_ working on it.  what have you done for the country lately?
                \_ great! and by "working on it" i suppose you mean supporting
                   a president who lied to the american people and the world
                   to divert our military efforts from fighting terrorism to
                   carrying out a war of personal vengance in iraq?
                   good for you! keep wasting time at your sysadmin job while
                   posting to the motd and freerepublic and we'll have those
                   islamists under control in no time!
                   \_ Nearly all Republicans think Dubya did it to protect
                      America, not as a matter of "personal vengeance".
                      \_ Since 50% of Americans think Saddam Hussein conspired
                         with Al-Qaeda, a lot of Republicans are misinformed,
                         to say the least.
                         \_ ... could be half Democrats, half Republican.
                            Anyway, the far more believable scenario is Bush
                            not being tall enough to cut through the crap and
                            seeing that there was no WMD threat, in spite of
                            Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/the CIA/Chalabi.
                            \_ Assuming Republicans are at least as likely to
                               believe the lies of a Republican administration
                               as Democrats, then 50% of Republicans are
                               misinformed.
                               \_ I already said that
                         \_ Well, the 9/11 commission is in that 50%.  Not
                            conspired to commit 9/11, but there were many
                            Iraq-Al Qaeda links.
                            \_ They said there is no credible evidence of a
                               collaborative relationship between Iraq and
                               Al Qaeda.  "Links" means Al Qaeda formally
                               requested Iraqi support, and Iraq never
                               responded.
          \_ Point me to some Islamic Websites to take down.  (No
             Al-jezzera)
             \_ in progress.  you let them get strong enough that it's going
                to take a while.
        \_ the beheading is part of terrorist's propaganda campaign.
           should the media keep on hyping this event?
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30891 Activity:insanely high
6/18    Russian intel on Iraq, Bush polling data re: Reagan, Iraq, 9/11.
        The polling data (yahoo link) shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone.
        This is the first I've heard of the Russian intel (first link, myway):
        http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1.html
        http://tinyurl.com/2zrg8 (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ It seems grudgingly given.  "Hey Putin, my man, back the ol'
           Dubya up, will ya'?"
           \_ Putin has to be the most cynical and venal of all politicians.
              You can practically hear the greenbacks changing hands.
              \_ Would either of you like to quote Putin being grudging or
                 cynical in this article?
                 \_ On the "grudingly given" front, dewd, do you really need
                    to be told?
                    \_ Why do you ask?  Yes.  I need to be told.  It would
                       have been easier for you just to answer instead of
                       pretending to be smart.  My father always said no one
                       likes a smartass.  He was right.
                       \_ The issue here, is that IMO, it would have been
                          easier for you to think.  I don't think you need
                          your father to tell you that.  And I don't feel
                          like answering to you, and that's my prerogative.
                          \_ Jesus Christ, just answer the guy's question or
                             shut the fuck up.  It's not that hard if you
                             actually have anything to say.
                          \_ Ok, so it wasn't grudingly given.  Thanks for
                             playing.
                    \_ Yes, you really do need to back up your assertions if
                       you want to be taken seriously.
              \_ I'm really curious where you guys are getting your feel
                 for Putin.  Are there some websites I can check out?
                 \_ Cue Ilya, re: Russian politicians.
                    \_ I meant aside from the fact the Russian
                       politicians are always venal.  Russia would have
                       been the greatest power in the world from 300 years
                       ago, if they could ever figure out how to govern
                       themselves.
                       \_ What's this have to do with Putin and his alleged
                          grudging statements in the URL?  What you say is
                          probably true but not on topic.
                    \_ I meant aside from the fact the Russian politicians
                       are always venal.  Russia would have been the
                       greatest power in the world from 300 years ago, if
                       they could ever figure out how to govern themselves.
                       \_ What does this have to do with Putin or the URL?
                       \_ It also might help if the Russian men came out
                          of the bars now and then.
                          \_ Bars?  You confused man.  'Bars' are a western
                             europe thing. -- ilyas
                             \_ In Soviet Russia, party comes to YOU!
                                \_ In Soviet Russia, vodka consumes YOU!
                                     -- ilyas
                \_ As the majority of Russians would attest, Putin is probably
                   the best President/Ruler Russia ever had after a centuries
                   long succession of drunkards, incompetents, and tyrants.
                   Back to the topic, it is a well known fact that Bush and
                   Putin have become good friends and like each other a lot.
                   Have you noticed they have been seeing each other about
                   every two months in the recent times?
2004/6/17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30858 Activity:high
6/17    Bush disputes the Arch liberal 9/11 commission findings:
        http://csua.org/u/7st
        \_ Presidents like this will destabilize the Middle East for years to
           come.
           \_ WDYHA?
           \_ Generations, damn it!  And that's American credibility.  Get
              the Big Lie right before you start telling it.
2004/6/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30844 Activity:very high
6/16    Did any of you convert from: Liberal to Conservative or
        Conservative to Liberal?
        \_ libertatian to liberal
           \_ what's the url for the libertatians?  sounds interesting!
        \_ Highschool: conservative ->
           Berkeley: "I don't want your fucking fliers" ->
           Post-collegiate: Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/PatriotAct/ReligiousRight
                scares me silly.
        \_ High School: Conservative/Republican (especially on foreign
           diplomacy) -> College: Libertarian (minus Lyndon) -> post-college:
           Liberal.
        \_ High School: Far Left -> College: Liberal -> post-college: Moderate
           to Liberal.  My HS was the time of Newt Gingrinch et al.  In college
           I decided I had nothing in common with the BAMN and ISO, etc.
           My political movements have mostly been due to exposure to political
           archetypes.
           \_ you just described my experience exactly.
        \_ liberal --> conservative
           \_ what made you convert?
              \_ going to berkeley.
                 \_ There seemed to be a pattern in the early 90s: enter
                    doe-eyed and open-minded; get blasted by liberal profs
                    and rabid Young Republicans; exit moderate as long as you
                    don't touch my money.
                    \_ I only met 1 YR and he annoyed me.  --doe-eyed->consrv
                    \_ Berkeley Republicans are very amusing - they have this
                       whole "Help!  Help!  I'm being repressed!  Now you
                       see the violence inherent in the system!" thing going
                       on, but they are without fail upper-middle class white
                       kids with plenty of prospects, inside connections,
                       and money from daddy.
                       \_ Way to label!  Good smear!  How many have you met?
        \_ high school: blank.  berkeley: heard it all.  post-cal: conservative
2004/6/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:30824, category id '18005#19.655' has no name! , ] UID:30824 Activity:high
6/15    http://tinyurl.com/3f3xz
        Some of you were sceptical that I saw a Bush commercial on TV so
        to prove it I've uploaded it. Click on BushCommercial.mpg. Oh just
        so that you don't email me on how I recorded it, I used the ATI
        Radeon All-In-Wonder 9000 card   -kchang
        \_ I don't understand. kchang committed a serious offense by using
           an auto motd mudging script. If we don't squish him then the
           by-laws of CSUA is useless. We should stick to our principles
           and keep the squished, squished.
           \_ If you're going to post a "J'accuse," you'll need to sign your
              name to be taken seriously. -anonymous coward
           \_ Uh huh, and the penalty for munging the motd should be a
              permanent expulsion from your elite little club?  He's no worse
              than many others around here who never got squished but would
              if it was a popularity contest.  Justice, tempered by mercy.
              \_ I keep saying this, and people keep ignoring this.  If
                 kchang was squished for auto-munging the motd, why weren't
                 others who were doing the exact same thing? -- ilyas
                 \_ tell us about the stars ilyas!
                    \_ w00t!
                 \_ have you ever considered the possibility that some people
                    don't like you and don't take whatever point you
                    have to make, be it valid or not, seriously?
                    \_ Yes I have.  But not considering the validity of
                       something because of the delivery mechanism is, well,
                       kind of stupid.  Also, the best people who 'don't like
                       me' can do is to not like my 'online personality'.
                       People behave differently face to face (you know, the
                       kinds of social interractions where a poorly worded
                       reply can get you a punch in the face). -- ilyas
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30823 Activity:insanely high
6/15    Diplomats / Senior military officers calls for a New Administration.
        http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1957691
        \_ Why do diplomats / senior military official hate America?
        \_ NPR?  You might as well post from the http://democraticunderground.com or
           the freepers.  No one is going to eat this bait.
           \_ NPR != KPFA.  NPR keeps getting pegged as some sort of leftist
              think-tank, but they do a damned good job of keeping the bias
              to a minimum on both sides.
              \_ Said the far-left liberal.
                 \_ Sorry, you want my cousin, Lefty McLeft.  I'm a moderate.
                    \_ Really?  Ever voted for anyone who wasn't a Democrat?
                    \_ Certainly not your brother, Tighty Righty
                       \_ Anything you and my brother do in the privacy of
                          your own home is your business.
              \_ I find it really weird how all my ultra lefty friends who
                 think the Chronicle is part of the VRWC all listen religiously
                 to NPR as the source of all truth.  It must be their lack of
                 bias matching NPRs lack of bias I guess.
                 \_ I think I'm what you might call a far-left liberal, and I
                    think NPR is horribly biassed shit, mixed in with awful
                    music.
        \_ national palestinian radio
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30821 Activity:very high
6/12    Since when did aaron become bitter about US, foreign policy, and
        everything associated with politics?            -aaron #1 fan
        \_ why isnt everyone? too busy playing everquest? --psb
           \_ Progressquest >>> everquest!  -- ilyas
           \_ why should they be?  is it a big shock that not everyone shares
              your political philosophy and agenda?  i guess its because we're
              all just stupid since you have so clearly articulated the loss
              of american credibility around the world for generations to come.
              stalin would be proud.
              \- just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to not
                 supprt bush? i mean say he got a law passed saying all
                 income above $1m year was not to be taxed? or say he decided
                 to try disallow anybody from any muslim majority country
                 to visit/immigrate to the US? or how about if he req'd
                 a loyalty oath for any govt employee or said he would apply
                 a juducal limits test on abortion for all fed jud appointtees.
                 of how about if in the next 4 months 5000k us service people
                 get killed in iraq. i dont think any of these will happen,
                 but if any of these did happen, would you still support
                 bush? btw, is there a single bush suppert who will sign
                 his name? i'm not saying this invalidates you point, but
                 it does seem odd. --psb
                 \_ Sure, I ll sign my name.  Obviously, I am not a Republican.
                    I am not the guy you are replying to.  -- ilyas
        \_ I've never seen him *not* bitter.  Who cares anyway?
        \_ When Bush was (s)elected.
           \_ Bwahahaha!  You are *still* bitter you got crushed in the
              recounts?   All of them?  Get over it.
2004/6/15 [ERROR, uid:30810, category id '18005#3' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30810 Activity:nil
6/14    Here's that lying scumbag Drudge, of all people, trying to accuse
        the LAT of biased polling.  Of course their poll had a lot more
        Democrats than Republicans.  There are more of them around.
        http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm
        \_http://www.blackpitchpress.com/duckhunt/33%20-%20matt%20drudge.mp3
2004/6/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30751 Activity:insanely high
6/11    Would any Dems or Reps disagree:
        RR > GB > GWB
        \_ I'd say GB > RR > GWB  -liberal
           \_ I agree. GHWB was much more of a pragmatist, and much less of
              an ideologue than the other two. I didn't agree with a lot of
              his policies, but his presidency didn't fill me with terror.
              \_ The man was head of the friggin' CIA!!  What the fuck is
                 wrong with you?  Pramatist?  You mean the way it's ok to
                 just fucking shoot someone in the head if you don't like
                 their political philosophy?!
                 \_ Yes, he was a republican and a cold warrior with cia
                    roots, but he also understood the value of diplomacy.
                    And on the economy, he said "no new taxes" but when it
                    came down to it, he wasn't willing to bankrupt the
                    country the way his half-witted son is doing. It may be
                    largely subjective, but, like I said, as much as I
                    disliked him and his party, he just didn't scare me
                    like Bonzo or Dumbya.
                    \_ So he was a vicious bastard, a killer, a thug, and he
                       was the King VB,K,T for a few years before becoming
                       President and you think that's ok because he raised
                       taxes?  You're nuts.
                       \_ calm down.
                          \_ I'm calm.  You're praising a thug.
                       \_ so how would you order the three?
                          \_ GWB > RR > GB.  GWB and RR never ordered anyone
                             to be murdered.
              \_ I didn't agree with him, but I could respect his point of
                 view and way of doing things.
                 \_ In what way did he do things?  What are you talking about?
             \_ at least GHWB saw some real action - got shot down by
                japanese plane.
        \_ GB , RR >> GWB -liberal
        \_ RR >>> GB + GWB  - moderate
        \_ Has anybody else noticed that in the beginning of the last century
           we had 3 persidents with alliterative names?  WW, CC and HH.
           Were alliterative baby names a fad in the mid 1800's?
           \_ You have discovered our secret!  Now you must die!
        \_ RR > GWB > GB -conservative
           \_ agreed, except RR >>>>>> others  -another conservative
              \_ Agreed. -- ilyas
            \_ what makes GWB > GB?
               \_ GB was a flip floppy wishy washy man that no one liked for
                  good reason.  GWB is nothing like his father.  That makes
                  him better than his father in this case.
        \_ Take away the propaganda, and what you're left with is
           left hand amputed > deaf > blind.  The choices already suck.
           \_ More like lobotomy in the current case.
              \_ Yeah, he's a real dumbshit.  So how is it that this dumbshit
                 has control of all 3 branches of government?  How much more
                 stupid are your guys if they let him do this?
                 \_ America wants small government and protection for the
                    homeland.  America thinks you need more guts than brains
                    for this task.  Think Kerry:  brains (maybe), no guts.
                    \_ He got elected during a time of peace.  Security was low
                       on the list and "homeland" wasn't in the vocabulary yet.
                 \_ The economist article on Reagan was great.  "Clearly the
                    man was no intellectual.  Yet surprisingly, he was the man
                    for the job."  Lenin was an intellectual.  Sometimes I
                    wonder if we need less intellectuals in govenment. -- ilyas
                    \_ Did the economist fail to read Reagan's papers?  Must
                       be or they just had an axe to grind.
                    \_ nah, lenin was an ideologue, just like RR and GB.
                       \_ Lenin was an intellectual.
                    \_ You would.
                       \_ No one wants an "intellectual" as President, when
                          you could have a "strong leader" instead.  But,
                          everyone wants an "intelligent" leader.
                          Big difference.
                          everyone wants an "intelligent" leader.  Big
                          difference.  And even though I completely disagree,
                          nearly all Republicans would say that Bush is
                          intelligent.
                          \_ No.  I would say Bush is a somewhat above average
                             "Joe" kind of guy who follows through on what he
                             says.  No one can pin the "wishy washy" label on
                             the man.  Sometimes in life it is better to just
                             *do* something, even if it is the wrong thing than
                             sit on your ass wondering what to do.  Doing
                             nothing is often the worst option.  We call it
                             'leadership' when you decide *before* seeing the
                             poll results what you're going to do.
                             \_ But it's not so good when you decide without
                                considering the long-term consequences. This
                                kind of "leadership" is like that of the
                                first lemming leading the others over a cliff.
                                \_ I said "sometimes".  And yes "sometimes" it
                                   is better to act immediately than ponder the
                                   longer term consequences becausing pausing
                                   to do so takes time during which things may
                                   get even worse than whatever your long term
                                   consequences were from the initial decision.
                                   It also means not going all wiggly when the
                                   rubber hits the road and things don't go
                                   perfectly.  In real life they never do.  A
                                   man who understands that has leadship
                                   potential.
                    \_ Reagan "glazed over in meetings" and let his aides write
                       all his speeches and make policy decisions. I'm not sure
                       these are admirable leadership traits. The economic
                       policy of huge tax cuts, increased spending, and
                       increased payroll taxes makes little sense to me. If you
                       believe in small government you should cut the services,
                       not shovel the debt into the future.
                       \_ Yes, it's true.  You have discovered that he was
                          suffering from Alzheimers in his last years.  This
                          may come as a shock to you, but the rest of us knew
                          it at the time.
                       \_ My officemate and I are TAing a class for my advisor.
                          He basically lets us handle most of the decisions for
                          the class, including grading, the kind of midterm to
                          give, etc.  Does this mean he is a bad teacher or
                          not intelligent?  Reagan's spending was mostly
                          military, and I would say they were due to specific
                          international circumstances at the time.  His record
                          wasn't perfect, but as The Economist noted, Reagan
                          was a libertarian at heart. -- ilyas
                          \_ You guys got everything all mixed up.
                             Dubya is The Great Delegator.
                          \_ I don't consider big tax-cut + big spending to be
                             an example of leadership. It's the easy way out.
                             It's just ignoring reality. Whatever Reagan was at
                             heart he never consistently applied it to policy.
                             From the article: "...spent much of his presidency
                             compromising the free-market principles...", "one
                             of the more protectionist American presidents".
                             Add to that his lying about Iran-Contra. I don't
                             think any of this points to strong principles.
                             I consider Truman the greatest 20th century
                             president by the way. That was a guy who had
                             both capability and responsibility, who actually
                             led rather than function as a figurehead. "The
                             buck stops here."
                             \_ lied about iran contra?  next you'll say the
                                actions in central america were evil.  you
                                know, freeing the people from the evil
                                sandinistas?  yeah much better to let that
                                shit continue and allow the ussr to establish
                                a base in our hemisphere.  brilliant.
                                \_ so it's ok for the president to knowingly
                                   break laws passed by Congress as well as
                                   U.N. sanctions, as long as it's for the
                                   noble cause of aiding guerilla death
                                   squads against a democratically-elected
                                   government and appeasing Iranian terrorists
                                   who were at war with Iraq who we supported.
                                   Brilliant! Oh and the lying, piff.
                                   \_ Break laws?  Name the law.  And yes it
                                      is absolutely ok for the President to
                                      ignore the UN.  You're a bit confused
                                      about who was running Nicaragua at the
                                      time.  You're aware that the now truly
                                      democratic governments that have been
                                      elected since then are all very pro-US
                                      and very very happy that the US saved
                                      them back then?  We're talking here about
                                      governments elected by the now free
                                      Nicaraguan people.  Free people who keep
                                      re-electing pro-democracy, pro-US
                                      governments?  Maybe you think they'd
                                      prefer to get the sandinistas back or
                                      miss those butchers at all?  They only
                                      miss their dead relatives killed by the
                                      illegal sandinista government.
                                      \_ sheesh, might wanna work on that
                                         signal to noise ratio re: nicaragua.
                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista
                                         And ignoring the U.N. is one thing.
                                         But when the United States happens to
                                         be signatory to international treaties
                                         including accepting the U.N. charter
                                         then it's not the president's prerog-
                                         ative to violate them.
           \_ Which propaganda is that?
              \_ Right-wing == corporate media propaganda
                               Clinton-haters, Bush-lovers
                 Left-wing  == traditional liberal media
                               Clinton-lovers, Bush-haters
                 \_ So the right = propaganda, the left = goodness++?  Okey!
                    Glad you cleared that up in an unbiased and rational way.
2004/6/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30740 Activity:nil
6/11    Fascist Putin takes side of Fascist Bush against Democrats on Iraq
        http://csua.org/u/7pd (news.yahoo.com)
2004/6/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30735 Activity:very high 66%like:30728
6/10    Hey Bush-haters:  Go rent Spartan.  The first 75% is pretty good.
        Oh right, it's not out until next Tuesday.  Sorry. -Fellow Bush-hater
        \_ Put your money where your mouth is, just go shoot him.  You'll
           almost certainly be caught and put in the looney bin for 15 years
           but isn't one man's short term sacrifice worth it to save the rest
           of the country and our credibility around the world for generations
           to come?
           \_ Sorry, I misinterpreted your msg originally, but suggesting
              assassination of POTUS, even jokingly, is bad news.
              No fuzz, pls.
              \_ Coward.  The net is covered with rants about it.  I've seen
                 it on bumper stickers.  If you *really* hated him and *really*
                 thought he was going to destroy the world or at least this
                 country, the only sane thing to do is kill him.
                 \_ Two words: "president Cheney"
                    \_ Oh please, y'all have been saying since day 1 that GWB
                       is the greatest threat to world peace.  Go do the right
                       thing.  So you don't like Cheney?  So two of you will
                       have to sacrifice yourselves.  BFD.
2004/6/10-11 [ERROR, uid:30733, category id '18005#11.77' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30733 Activity:very high
6/10    Hmm.  No Reagan bump for GWB in the polls.  Not really surpsised,
        actually, since he only suffers by the comparison.
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122378,00.html
        \_ It's sick that you would even consider such a thing.
        \_ It must really burn the Right Wing Hate Machine to see
           Clinton tied in popularity with Bush.
           \_ As part of the VRWHMC, I assure you I don't care in the least
              about Clinton now that he's done.  History will soon forget
              about him and that'll be that.
              \_ We'll see. I bet you'll care again when he is First Husband.
                 \_ HAHHAHAHHAHAA!!!  The most divisive woman in the country
                    elected President?  Is there a place I can bet money
                    against that?
                    \_ Actually, I bet there are some sodans who will bet you
                       some hard cash.  What odds are you willing to take?
                       What do you say, guys/gals?
                       \_ I would still put it at 2:1, but a distinct
                          possibility.
                       \_ Lay out some ground rules start with by what year and
                          being VP and killing the P to get a promotion doesn't
                          count.
              \_ You need to turn off your blinders, right-wing conspiracy man.
                 \_ Uhm ok that was really witty.  Perhaps you'd like to
                    explain where I've gone blind and what about BC will make
                    him some rememberable historical figure?  What exactly is
                    his legacy that he'll be remembered for in 50 years or even
                    in 15?
                    \_ Mr. Charisma Rhodes Scholar with the dot-com boom in
                       one hand and a cigar with Monica in the other.  Hardly
                       forgettable!
                    \_ 8 years of peace and prosperity make for a pretty
                       good legacy. I would guess he will be in the good
                       but not great tier of presidents.
                       \_ There are other Presidents who lead in quiet times.
                          Can you name any of them?  For good or bad, BC is
                          soon to be forgotten.  He has no legacy.  He solved
                          no problems.  He advanced nothing.  He believed in
                          nothing.  The country didn't change, improve, win,
                          lose, or really do much of anything during his
                          tenure.  I guess we had a boom/bust cycle, NASA
                          continued to fall apart, Islamic terrorists hit the
                          US on US soil for the first time, and a bunch of
                          people's 401k's got demolished.  Still, none of that
                          is particularly note worthy in the historical sense.
2004/6/10 [Reference/History, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30728 Activity:nil 66%like:30735
6/10    Hey Bush-haters:  Go rent Spartan.  The first 75% is pretty good.
        -Fellow Bush-hater
        \_ Is it better than Trojan?
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30726 Activity:very high
6/10    This keeps getting deleted, but nevermind.  Global terrorism report
        being revised by State Department after Administration meddling.
        Revisions will show terrorism at highest level in 20 years, rather
        than lowest level in 34 years as originally stated.
        http://csua.org/u/7o4 (latimes via yahoo news)
        \_ Piffle.  An LA Times story with unnamed sources critical of the Bush
           administratioN?  What a surprise.  Wait until the facts come out and
           then post it again.
           \_ You are way, way understating this.  The poster, IMO, overstated
              somewhat.  Let's just call it what it is.  They are revising
              the report ... upward.
              And, a Washington Post story today:  http://csua.org/u/7op
              This is where you say, "Liberal media ... bad!"
              \_ Its only true if Rush Limbaugh says so.
                 \_ Rush never said you're an idiot, but it's still true.
                 \_ I always laugh when people attack radio, tv, newspaper or
                    other public figures they've never listened to, seen, read,
                    etc.
              \_ I didn't cry "libural media"--I was criticizing a single
                 paper.  I don't trust the LA Times or the NY Times unless it's
                 corroborated.  And I don't trust unnamed sources.  Oh, and I
                 don't listen to Rush.
        \_ revise the report to go back to 900 AD and see how much terrorism
           the muslim world produced
           \_ RACIST!
           \_ Why do you hate history?
           \_ Include the Crusades then too.
                \_ Crusades was dark ages version of "War on Terror"
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30719 Activity:very high
6/10    Hoping to draw parallels between our recently departed 40th
        president and the current one, the White House today revealed that
        George W. is known fondly among the staff and cabinet as "the
        Great Communicatator."  The President was unavailable for comment.
        \_ exactly, Reagan is unavailable for comment as well.
        \_ CFR (Call For References) on this claim.  -emarkp
           \_ Are you the type who reads The Onion and tries to verify the
              quotes?
           \_ it's supposed to be a joke.  communicator unavailable for
              comment.  ha ha.  -tom
              \_ I guess this worked better out loud, but read it again.
                 Imagine Bush trying to say "communicator" in public.
                 Communicatator isn't a typo.
                 \_ Dear god, is it possible to kill an already dead joke all
                    over again?  Good job, motd!  Ha ha indeed.
                    \_ Yeah once tom got on here trying to 'explain' to us
                       unedjumikated plebes it was dead dead dead.  After that
                       it just didn't matter any more.
2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30711 Activity:high
6/9     Reagan's death to help Bush's election, yay! Republicans rules!!!
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/inside.edge/index.html
        \_ Maybe they planned it?  He really died a while ago, and they
           just released it now when Bush needed a boost? (Watch out for
           the sudden capture of Bin Laden next month...)
           \_ I hope this is a joke but it's hard to tell on the motd these
              days.  Anyway, donning my tinfoil cap for a moment, if they were
              going to 'release the body' for political reasons, late October
              would be a better time or during some serious PR crisis.
2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30703 Activity:very high
6/9     Bush Administration memos:
        "What can we get away with that might not technically be torture?"
        "Who can we define as not protected against torture?"
        "Can we argue the president has the authority to authorize torture?"
        Bush Administration testimony:
        "We never authorized torture."
        \_ Doesn't it make sense that someone might want to know where the
           line is and what does and does not constitute torture and against
           who?  You'd be happier if no one asked and they just went ahead with
           no central policy for this stuff?  Then you'd bitch that no one
           thought about it or set a policy and how evil the admin is for not
           even considering setting any guidelines.
           \_ I think he says interesting things.  I don't always agree,
              but he's usually interesting and he expresses himself well.
              Also, his articles usually result in more interesting things
              on the motd, so I post them.
           \_ If they didn't intend to commit torture, or something close to
              it, why would they have reasearched legal justification of
              torture?  Idle academic curiosity?
              \_ Perhaps they wanted to get as close as possible but not over
                 the line?
                 \_ If that's the case, shouldn't the party line be:
                    "We never authorized this much torture."
                    \_ The New Improved Republican Party with 20% less torture!
              \_ I guess the only reason you want to read about copyright
                 law is if you want to steal software/movies/music right?
           \_ No, I'd be happier if the Administration would grow up and pass
              on the memos to Congress, and I'd be tickled pink to see Biden
              on the memos to Congress, and I'd be tickled pink to see BinLaden
              rip Ashcroft's head off in the US Capitol Rotunda Thunderdome.
              Barring that, I'd settle for Ashcroft in jail for contempt.
              \_ Man, bringing the "bust a deal, spin the wheel" credo
                 to Washington would kick ass.
        \_ Lies.  Response deleted
2004/6/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30693 Activity:high
6/9     How does one get rm -W to work?
        \_ I've been giving money to the Kerry campaign as well as the
           DNC and http://moveon.org, but we won't know if it worked until november,
           will we?
           \_ In the amount of your tax refund?
           \_ So... rm -W removes movey from your pocket and gives it to
              the Democratic party?
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:30670 Activity:insanely high
6/8     The very bottom of http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php
        has a small article with the following paragraph:

        "When he was seven years old, Brandon Maxfield was accidentally
        shot in the face, becoming a permanent quadriplegic, completely
        paralyzed below the neck. The pistol that discharged while being
        unloaded was deliberately designed so that its safety had to
        first be moved from "Safe" to "Fire," making the trigger active
        and accidents more likely.

        I can't figure out what that last sentence is trying to say.
        Help?
        \_ That you can't unload the gun with the safety on, and that's
           a bad feature for a gun.
           \_ It's also a bad idea to point a gun at a 7 year while
              unloading it.
              \_ Agreed.  In gun safety courses you're taught *never* to
                 point a weapon at something you don't intend to shoot.
                 Of course, young kids aren't typically sent through
                 hunter safety courses anymore.
                 \_ It doesn't say who was unloading the gun.  It feels to
                    me like the article leaves out details to obscure what
                    actually happened.
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30662 Activity:insanely high
6/8     This isn't meant to be a troll, but it may come across as one.
        I've been wondering why far left types like Micheal Moore will
        tell you that morallity is realitive, so terrorist are not
        evil, they just have a different morality, but Moore calls BUSHCO
        evil constantly. Huh?
        \_ I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote of Moore calling Bush
           evil.  In fact I'd be amazed if you could.
        \_ Relative Morality is the crutch of the atheist
        \_ Maybe we should add "WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS?" to one
           of the stupid things Republicans say about Democrats.
           \_ We Repukkklikans is all just st00pid!!  Weze awl jus sez wut
              Rush sez us to say!  Weze be so st00pid iz why yuze Dems runs
              da hole cun-tree nowz n fohevah n weze jus kin own-lee hopes
              y'awl lets us kepe lissenin too Rush evry dae!!!
        \_ He hasn't said anything of the sort about terrorists.  Yay for
           the Straw Man!
           \_ WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS?
        \_ Just because you believe morality is relative doesn't mean you can't
           have your own moral code.  I believe morality is relative, but
           because I have a personal moral code, there are people and things
           that I define as evil.
           \_ I have a question.  Why bother defining evil at all, if you
              believe in relative morality?  That seems like a needlessly
              judgemental attitude.  Live and let live, and so on. -- ilyas
           \_ Relative morality just lets you make the easy choices in life
              and self justify them.
              \_ No.  Relative morality != Fluid Morality.
                 Relative morality means acknowledging that things considered
                 bad in one culture might not be bad in another culture.
                 For example, Jefferson owned slaves.  Slavery is bad.
                 Jefferson is not bad because what he did was considered normal
                 in his time.  Thus Jeffreson owning slaves does not make him
                 evil, just not progressive.
           \_ I guess that makes sense.  Making morality statements is
              only stupid if other people are making them.
              \_ It's only stupid to assume everyone shares your morality.
                 Trying to hold everyone to your morality is just idealistic.
                 \_ So Moore is stupid?
                    \_ Where did he assume everyone shares his morality?
                       \_ That's pretty much all he does.  The statement
                          "BushCo is evil" doesn't even make sense if he
                          assumes no one else shares his morality.
                          \_ See above.  I'm pretty damn sure you couldn't
                             find that statement out of his mouth.  He portrays
                             \_ Would calling Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft
                                "the real axis of evil" qualify?
                                \_ Find me the quote.  I believe you're
                                   actually misquoting Noam Chomsky
                                   \_ My fault.  I was wrong.  He didn't call
                                      them "the real axis of evil".  His exact
                                      quote is "the Axis of Uber-Evil --
                                      Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft --...".
                                      http://csua.org/u/7ns
                             things that he sees as wrong.  He doesn't call
                             anyone evil.  He calls on them to change, or on
                             the voters to make the change for them.
                          \_ I would read it as "I think BushCo is evil." and
                             not as a stement of fact, but it's open to
                             interpretation.
              \_ Don't bring facts into this.  Bastard.  He was feeling good
                 about himself until you stepped up and poked a hole in his
                 self esteem.
2004/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30637 Activity:very high
6/5     Suppose Bush gets re-elected again (god forbid, I know, but let's
        just keep this as a hypothetical question) because of the other dumb
        states like Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, etc etc.
        Is it actually possible for his 2nd term to extend to the third term
        because "we're at war"?
        \_ RTFC:
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxii.html
        \_ Oh ho!  So it's only ok if this happen's to Lucifer's democratic
           minions like FDR, eh?
           \_ FDR:  Died 1942.  22nd Amendment:  passed February 27, 1951.
              Bad troll, have a history book.  -John
              \_ FDR died April 12, 1945 in Warm Springs, Georgia.
                 But your point still holds.
        \_ No. Unless he gets the supreme court to do some favors for him.
           \_ You mean like the last presidential election?
2004/6/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30621 Activity:moderate
6/4     Bush looking increasingly Nixonian:
        http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
        \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
        \_ So between complete utter bullshit and baloney, how seriously
           should I take this article?
           \_ I would guess, not very seriously. -op
        \_ If it was *anything* like that, people would be quitting left and
           right, top level advisors would all be gone and there'd be dozens
           of books out there all naming names.  In 4 years we've seen very
           little in the way of leaks compared to most administrations and
           very few resignations and very few books instead of the dozens we
           should be seeing.  I like a good ugly rumor as much as the next
           guy but there's no "there" there on this one.
2004/6/4 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30598 Activity:high
6/4     Fuck Enron, Fuck Bush! Bush is Capitalist Scumbag at its best,
        yeah, let the market work it out, hehe.
        \_ huh?
           \_ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/us_enron_justice
        \_ Too late. They fucked us first.
        \_ How are you linking Bush to Enron?  He didn't help them when they
           asked for it.  Ken Lay is *not* the Sec'y of Energy, etc.  Most of
           the abuses happened when Clinton was president and they got nailed
           during Bush's administration.
           \_ Because obviously EVERYTHING bad is Bush's fault, and
              everything good comes from Democrates.  Sheesh, some people
              are so small minded.
              \_ which obvious logical fallacy is this chump trying to
                 poop into our discourse? 2 points for a correct answer. -aaron
                 \_ straw man?
                 \_ coming from a self proclaimed troll and who gets
                    infuriated, like a little boy with his hand caught in the
                    cookie jar, when he's caught outright making shit up,
                    you're in position to be critical of others here.
           \_ Enron was Bush's number one campaign contributor. Enron helped
              write the American energy policies, in meetings that are still
              being kept secret from the American public. The most severe
              damage to California's economy from the power outages happened
              on Bush's watch. California asked the Bush appointed FERC to
              implement energy caps, which they refused to do. Need I go on?
              \_ Enron was NOT the #1 campaign contributor (I know the Enron
                 yuks said that on the tape, but they were incorrect).  How do
                 you know they helped write energy policies--last I checked the
                 meetings are STILL secret, and congress still hasn't passed
                 Bush's energy bill.  As for caps, conservatives are against
                 them in general.
                 \_ http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=E&Cycle=2000
                    We know that Enron attended the energy meeting hearings.
                    The notes of those meetings are being kept from the
                    public. Did you honestly not know this, or are you being
                    disingenuous?
                    http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=220
                    \_ Are you obtuse?  His energy policy wasn't passed.  It
                       doesn't matter if the only thing to come out of the
                       meetings was a plan to actively fuck CA and divert
                       Iraqi war funds into Ken Lay's pocket.  Nothing came
                       of any of it.
                       \_ Uh, yeah.  The energy bill currently in Congress
                          has not passed.  That's just a portion of the
                          administration's policy.
                    \_ Your link shows Enron at the top of the list in the
                       energy industry, not overall.  I know that Enron-related
                       people were in the meeting, but neither you nor I know
                       what was said.  Keep using that tin-foil hat.
                       \_ Don't need it.  The SC will pry it open soon enough.
                       \_ Did you look at the publicintegrity link? Enron
                          was Bush's number one lifetime contributor in 2000.
                          Until very recently, they were still number 1. So
                          let's see, we know that Bush met with his number
                          one lifetime contributor in the midst of the CA
                          energy crises. We know he has sued to keep the
                          notes from that meeting public. We know he appointed
                          Enron executives to his cabinet. Yet you still
                          maintain that Bush has "no links to Enron." Keep
                          dreaming, bub.
                    \_http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/contrib/P00003335.htm
                      \_ http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=1&act=cp
2004/6/4 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30596 Activity:very high
6/4     Bush gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the Pope?
        I don't get it.
        \_ WHY DO YOU HATE CIA?
        \_ It's just a stupid PR stunt.
           \- jesus told him to do it.
        \_ Bush got the advice from the CIA?
        \_ Answering my own post, I guess this is Bush's way of saying
           "Sorry" to Europe, with the nice side effect of boosting
           Latino and religious-minded support!
        \_ Yeah, crazy that a government leader could show respect for a
           religious leader.
           \_ Bush gives Pope medal.  Pope disses Bush on "deplorable events".
              It's kind of absurd.
              \_ Does The Pope hate our freedom?
                 \_ He also dissed same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
              \_ It is absurd, because Bush isn't Catholic. Not being a
                 Catholic is heresy and in the old days they'd burn you
                 in heaps. This policy is currently "in abeyance". In any
                 case Bush is excommunicated.
           \_ deplorable is in association with the Abu Prison.
              Demos and Republicans both are upset with the incidents at
              the prison.
              \_ Bush gives Pope medal.  Pope disses Bush on Abu Ghraib / War.
                 It's kind of absurd.
                 \_ Here is the actual statement by the Pope.  It seems
                    balanced and reasonable:
                    http://tinyurl.com/252u4
                 \_ "a Vatican spokesman said the two were in agreement
                     about the situation in Iraq"
                     http://tinyurl.com/39zdw
2004/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:30589 Activity:high
6/3     http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&u=/ap/20040603/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_asia_2&printer=1
        There's 187,000 available troops with no draft.
        \_ What part about "we cannot keep our troops in combat zones
           year after year without degrading their effectiveness" don't
           you understand?
2004/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30587 Activity:very high
6/3     http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2606171
        Yet another Democrat beltway insider voting for Bush.
        \_ This guy is a shill not a Democrat.  At the bottom of the
           article there is a note saying the author is a member of the
           American Enterprise Institute (AEI).  Take a look at the AEI
           mission statement (http://www.aei.org/about/filter.all/default.asp
        \_ Some of my friends who are otherwise Democrats found themselves
           sitting there on September 12 thinking pretty much the same thing.
           They deplore what Bush has done to the environment, the economy,
           and to our credibility, but they're firmly behind him when it
           comes to striking a strong blow against the perceived source of
           terror.  Some of them were sated after Bush took out the Taliban,
           but some of them remained staunch supporters of the invasion of
           Iraq.  I think they were swayed because it felt good to be active,
           to strike a blow, to be on the offensive rather than on the
           defensive.  Most of them have since come to the conclusion that
           the whole thing has been mishandled, but there's still a nagging
           feeling in the back of their heads that that a policy of
           pre-emption against baddies is all right.  I'm not a Dem, a
           Repub, or a Green.  I'm a social progressive, and there is no
           party that represents my viewpoint. I supported the campaign
           against the Taliban, I support the effort to root out and destroy
           Al Qaeda, and I still opposed the invasion of Iraq on the basis
           of WMDs, and I think the handling of the aftermath of the invasion
           is a black eye on America. Where am I going with this? I don't
           know, but I'm tired of the labels.  They don't mean anything. It's
           the issues you care about that make up your mind when the election
           comes.
           \_ Look you dimwit, how many times does this have to be pounded
              home before you get it?   Iraq wasn't a threat to us.
              Afghanistan was justified, and the world was behind us.
              Iraq was and is a huge mistake and a terrible mess.  Just
              because striking a blow makes you feel better, doesn't mean
              it was the right blow to strike OR that it helped in any way.
              \_ Hello, asshole, I agree with your second, third, and fourth
                 sentences, and I think the general principle of your fifth
                 sentence is spot on.  What I'm pointing out is that quite
                 a few people who would normally be called Dems were
                 prepared (before Abu Graib and thee mounting US losses) to
                 keep W in office just to feel safe.  You need to understand
                 that this phenomenom exists, despite your (and my)
                 understanding that the root reasoning behind it is flawed.
                 Well, that, and you really need to stop being a knee-jerk
                 asshole.
                 \_ To deny Iraq, along with Iran, was the largest state
                    sponsor of terror is patently absurd.  Where did
                    the fugitive bomber of WTC 1 live?  Where did Abu Abbas
                    live?  Where did Abu Nidal live?  Saddam DID have
                    contacts with Al Qaeda.  On and on...
                    \- Do you support "taking out" Syria, Iran, Libya and
                       Pakistan? Can you explain why they are different?
                       Also, can you explain why the US is investing in
                       Iraqi reconstruction and lobbying to have some of
                       their loans forgiven, if "they had it coming"?
                       Do you think Spain should attack Morocco? Any thoughts
                       on North Korea?
                        \_ sicko, the saddam regime had it coming, not the
                        iraqi people. ditto for n koreans
2004/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:30580 Activity:nil
6/3     Here's 184,000 troops that don't need to be where they are.
        http://tinyurl.com/26k96 (news.yahoo.com)
2004/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30574 Activity:nil
6/3     HAHAHAHA.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black.  personified:
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-03-chalabi-tenet_x.htm
        Best quote:  Chalabi also accused Tenet of providing "erroneous
        information about weapons of mass destruction to President Bush,
        which caused the government much embarrassment at the United States
        and his own country."
        \_ How dare he pass on my fairy tales to the president. -AHC
2004/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30567 Activity:insanely high
6/3     Almost every single person I personally know are in California,
        and every single one of them hates Bush. Having this said, how come
        the poll still shows that Bush/Kerry are neck to neck? In another
        word, how come people outside of California like Bush? What did
        Bush do for them?
        \_ Do a google search on: "Pauline Kael" McGovern
        \_ Gah, why bother even asking here?  You're not going to get a
           coherent answer, and even if you do, it will instantly be drowned
           out by a bunch of name calling.  Oh wait, its the motd, maybe you're
           just trolling.
        \_ Move to Orange County.
        \_ I know a lot of people who don't exactly love Bush, but are
           tolerant of him because they really don't like Kerry or other
           Democrats. They live in CA. In the last election a lot of
           people in CA voted for Bush.
           \_ I predict Bush will win California in a landslide!
        \_ troll.  Let's see: I live in the liberal part of a liberal state and
           I don't understand why I don't know any Bush supporters!  Let's see,
           I hate Bush and I hate him loudly and refuse to talk to anyone who
           doesn't hate him and I wonder aloud why I don't know any Bush
           supporters... troll.
                \_ California has a very different economic/social makeup
                   than the rest of the nation. It has been fucked by
                   Bush's friends (Enron) and the little guys here have
                   benefited very little from Bush's administration.
                   Furthermore it receives less % of the share of Federal
                   aide than the other states. If anything, California
                   should at least attempt a Declaration of Causes
                   of Secession
                   \_ CA has received a lesser % of federal money than other
                      states for decades.  This is suddenly Bush's fault?  Did
                      you bitch about that from 1992-2000 and blame that
                      President for it at the time?  Did he do anything for the
                      little guys in CA?  Presidents don't do shit for the
                      little guys, the big states or anyone else.  That isn't
                      their job.  If you want a sugar daddy, go to SF, drop
                      your pants and someone will be along in a minute or two
                      to give you a few bucks.
                      \_ Is this really true? I would like to see some
                         statistics about this. I suspect CA used to get
                         its fair share back in the 70s and has been
                         on a downward trend since then, but I am interested
                         in seeing actual facts.
                   \_ BushCo would love that: military invasion of Cali,
                      followed by suspension of Statehood and negation of
                      those juicy anti-Bush electoral votes.
                      \_ Tinfoil.  Hat.  Nutter.  Prozac.
                         \_ Are you really so fucking stupid to think that
                            post is serious?
                            \_ With MOTD righties, it's sometimes hard to tell.
                               \_ Don't tell me you're still trying.
                      \_ would california be a good place to fight a
                         guerilla war?  like we have mountains, big cities,
                         small towns, farming communities, rivers, deserts,
                         etc.  should be fun.  hey, we may actually have
                         some real WMDs somewhere.
        \_ Our real enemy is not Bush but Bush supporters.
           \_ "Our"?  Who is "us"?  Enemies of the United States?  Pro-Soviet
              trolls who cry for loss of Stalin or maybe China's Mao?  'Enemy'
              is a harsh word.  You turn politics into a death match with
              words like that.  You can't afford to lose a death match.  I'm
              one of the people you declare as an "enemy" but I don't see you
              as such.  I only see you as young and misguided and not earning
              enough to get pissed off when you see your taxes being spent on
              buying votes at the next election which is the best way to kill
              a democracy or republic.  I'm not your enemy.
              \_ No, actually, you are.  I've been tracking you for years now,
                 and I will not give up now that I'm so close, so very, very
                 close.  Your time is coming, Moriarty.
              \_ Coulter and Savage has been calling anyone who disagrees
                 \_ I'm busted!  But you shall not have me before I destroy
                    all of London when the bomb goes off in Old Ben!
              \_ Coulter and Savage have been calling anyone who disagrees
                 with them "traitors" for a long time. Perhaps you should
                 work on muzzling the voices of hate on the right.
                 \_ That's it?  That's the best you've got?  A second rate
                    author and talk show personality and a third rate local
                    radio host?  How about you start at the top of your party,
                    then go to the NAACP, http://moveon.org, Soros, Hillary, Gore,
                    Kennedy, and I guess Kerry doesn't matter.  You can keep
                    Kerry.  He's useless to you.
                    \_ When have any of those people referred to the Republican
                       Party as "the enemy" or traitors? Oh, they haven't.
                       I guess that shoots down your theory about who
                       the haters are. Add Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly
                       and half of Congress to the Republican Hate Machine.
        \_ You and your friends are not a representative statistical sample of
           the population. Beware anecdotal statistics. -emarkp
        \_ I view liberalism (not classical) as a pernicious evil
           engendered by communism and secularism that has
           steadily eroded the foundation of this country.  Maybe this
           explains to you why I consider the GOP the lesser of two
           evils and why I will never ever ever sincerely vote for a Dem.
           And I live in Berkeley.
           \_ I view you as a Berkeley kook.
           \_ What is wrong with secularism?
              \_ Hitler, Mao, Stalin ... were all atheists.  WWII and Cold War
                 were effectively wars of theism vs. atheism.
                 \_ Hitler wasn't an atheist. He just wasn't a Christian.
                    Furthermore we allied ourselves with Stalin who did the
                    main work of defeating Hitler. The cold war was a war of
                    capitalism vs. command economies. But that was just how it
                    was waged; the real cause was the USSR's imperialistic
                    behavior.
                    "An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of
                    nature, and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man,
                    on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism
                    (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as
                    he perceives that the state, in sheer opportunism, is
                    making use of false ideas in the matter of religion,
                    whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure
                    science."
                    ...
                    "If in the course of 1-2,000 years science arrives at the
                    necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not
                    mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's
                    always striving, according to the momentary state of
                    knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a
                    mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity which
                    is the liar; it's in perpetual conflict with itself."
           \_ Quite a few vocal white supremacists live in Berkeley.
2004/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:30563 Activity:very high
6/3     Tenet resigns:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12296-2004Jun3.html
        \_ Yup, looks like the administration is siding with Chalabi.  Also
           interesting timing with Bush consulting a lawyer over the whole
           Plame thing.
           \_ Can you please connect-the-dots for those of us not frothing or
              tinhat fashionable enough to see what Chalabi has to do with
              Bush seeing a lawyer for some other issue?  Also, if we held it
              against every President who talked to a lawyer, they'd all be in
              prison.
           \_ It's a stretch to connect this with "siding with Chalabi", even
              though I personally think Chalabi was framed (or the CIA screwed
              up another one -- saw what they wanted to see).
              \_ Just curious, why do you think Chalabi was "framed" even
                 though there is overwhelming evidence that the guy is just a
                 crook?  He was a well known crook even before the Pentagon
                 adopted him.  Who's the one wearing the tinfoil hat here,
                 again?
                 \_ I don't know if "framed" is the right word, but the timing
                    of the raid on his office was mighty convenient: it
                    allowed the Prez to pretend to be distancing himself
                    from a crooked thief and liar.
                 \_ Scenario 1:  Chalabi told Iran's Baghdad intelligence
                    station chief that the U.S. cracked their code and is
                    reading all Iranian intelligence messages.  Iran's Baghdad
                    station chief sends a *detailed* message (including the
                    part about the drunken American) to headquarters using
                    same code.
                    This part of the story sounds highly implausible; I have
                    read no explanation for this.
                    Scenario 2:  Chalabi just told you, as station chief, that
                    the code encrypting all your intelligence communications
                    has been cracked by the Americans.  You know Chalabi will
                    get royally fucked if he is revealed as the source, so he
                    must want some reward or have a great interest in helping
                    Iran.  You travel to Iran and personally disclose this to
                    HQ, and then send a dummy message to confirm that the
                    Americans have cracked your code.
                    Scenario 3:  Iran wants Chalabi out.  Iran knows the CIA
                    wants him out.  Iran has known for a while the U.S. has
                    "that" code cracked.  Intelligence chief pens the frame-up
                    story to HQ, knowing this is what the CIA most wants to
                    hear.  Chalabi represents a secular Iraq, and has strong
                    ties with Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz, Defense Department.  Whack
                    the Americans' best bud.
                    The simplest answer here is scenario 3, a frame-up.
                    Scenario 1 is what the CIA wants you to believe; scenario
                    2 is how it should have happened if it were true.
                    I also am skeptical about Chalabi's "crook" labels.
                    I'm going to stick with "distrust" from the State
                    Department and CIA.
                    Simplest answer Part Deux:  Evidence surfaces that the
                    CIA just got duped again, and involving the idiot Chalabi
                    of all people.  Tenet resigns.
                    \_ So Chalabi's white collar criminal convictions mean
                       nothing?  The guy is a well known crook and has
                       zero credibility with just about everybody at this
                       point.  Your "frame up" scenario is far less
                       plausible than anything else I've heard thus far.
                       Sorry!
                       \_ I know it's a little hard to believe the CIA could
                          be so wrong.
                          Some history:  What happened in Jordan was that
                          Chalabi used a lot of personal connections to move
                          money into the bank.  However, he also loaned a lot
                          of money to family, and these loans defaulted.  He
                          speculated, and lost all the bank's money.
                          He ran, Jordan had to cover all the costs, and they
                          convicted him in absentia.
                          He also fed people to Rumsfeld saying Saddam's had
                          an active WMD program.  He fucked that up too.
                          But I tend to disbelieve the whole "Chalabi was
                          a spy the whole time!"
                          But I tend to disbelieve the "Chalabi was a spy the
                          whole time!" theory.
                          In any case, please offer an explanation for the
                          big hole in Scenario 1.
2004/6/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30557 Activity:very high
6/2     Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer out. http://www.michaelmoore.com
        -motd censor (bush #1 fan)
        \_ may be the most important film of this decade, opens 6/25 --darin
        \_ I'll make a point not to see it.  Hes a flatulent slob.
           \_ yes.  it is important to see the propaganda early so one can
              refute it at the water cooler, motd, etc, when the ignorant
              try to quote it as fact.  i had to help a friend detox after
              bowling for columbine but she made it with some patient help.
              now she's an informed citizen who casts her votes on facts, not
              distorted half truths, faked interviews that never happened,
              and lines ripped out of context from multiple public speeches
              sewn back together to say something entirely different.
                \_ what did michael moore lie about?
                   \_ links all over the motd and google.
              \_ Ya know, it's different in other parts of the country -
                 sitting here in your comfortable Safe San Francisco Home;
                 you can nitpick about various little things, but try living
                 in Lumberton, Miss or Beldoc, SC.  Ever seen a real lynching?
                 My girlfriend has.  Sometimes movies like this need to be
                 made - to get at least one voice of dissent out.
                 \_ ok thats nice and it has what to do with Moore's lies?
                    \_ it's ok to lie if it's for a good cause?
                       \_ Does the act of lying hurt anyone?
                          \_ Someone's always hurt.  The question is how
                             many people are hurt and how many people are
                             helped.
                       \_ it's not really a lie, is it?  just the difference
                          between one interpretation of events versus another.
                    \_ Bush lies all the time, but for *his* causes.
                       \_ Does one man's lies excuse another's?
              \_ Link?
                 \_ http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
                    \_ Man, this link is seriously short on Vague hints
                       and shadowy references.
                    http://www.mooreexposed.com
                    http://bowlingfortruth.com
                    \_ Useful, thanks --darin
                    \_ In the interests of reading both sides, Moore rebuts:
                       http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/index.php
                       And Hardy re-rebuts:
                       http://www.hardylaw.net/MoorereplyHeston.html
                       \_ I'm no fan of Michael Moore and there must be better
                          rebuttals. This guy is nit-picking.
                          \_ His rebuttal also requires that you didn't read
                             the transcript of Heston's speech, which Moore
                             wisely includes.  You can call someone a liar as
                             much as you want, but for god's sake, at least
                             TRY to back it up.
                             \_ What are you talking about?  He links to
                                the speech too.  I think Mike's rebuttal
                                is pretty sad.  He doesn't bother with the
                                stronger points at all.  Nor does he deal
                                with the fact that taking people's
                                statements out of context isn't honest.
                                \_ Small nitpick: Hardy says there was no
                                   rally.  Moore points to a transcript of
                                   Heston's speech at the rally. Wtf?
                                   Also, Hardy says that Moore took Heston's
                                   words out of context, but Moore's tran-
                                   script of Heston's speech has the words
                                   as Moore portrayed them in the movie,
                                   including phrases Hardy explicitly accuses
                                   Moore of leaving out.
                                   \_ First Nitpick: Read more carefully.
                                      Hardy says the annual "rally" was
                                      almost entirely canceled except the
                                      voters meeting that is required by
                                      state law.  (Which is where the
                                      speech was given.)
                                      I'm not sure what you're
                                      saying on the second one.  Moore's
                                      transcript of the speech posted on
                                      the website is NOT entirely in the
                                      movie, only about 4 sentances are.
              \_ Yawn.  Make a website refuting the movie, then post the URL.
                 Vague hints and shadowy references do not a credible review
                 make.
                 \_ oh my God! you're cluesles, this is old. columbine movie
                    was whacked!! ahaha and now you think F 9/11 is not?
                    sorry ass
                    \_ OMG WTF! U = TEH GAY!
                 \_ You're kidding, right?  This has been covered to death.
                    No one who can read and has a browser or ever touched a
                    printed newspaper thinks Moore is honest.
                    \_ Thanks to whoever posted the links above.  That was
                       much more helpful than this hyperbolic assurance.
                       \_ The links above were already there when I posted
                          that this is a done and dead "we all know he's a
                          liar" issue.  I've never posted a link proving the
                          sky is blue but I'm sure we could both find one if
                          it mattered.  Michael Moore doesn't matter.
                          \_ You sure are spending alot of time worrying
                             about something that doesn't matter.
                 \_ Clarification: I'm talking about F9/11, not Columbine.
2004/6/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30554 Activity:very high
6/2     Watch Bush asnwer unrehearsed questions on Iraq.
        rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/iraq/iraq060104_bush1.rm
        \_ There was this interview with Bush about the 9/11 commission
           where he was interested to see what the commission said about
           our intelligence services.  In his own words, he said,
           "I look forward to seeing the intelligence and the looks."
           \_ "I voted for it before I voted against it".  You can find stupid
              quotes and bad speeches from any politician.  It's just easier
              to make fun of the other guy's politician and ignore or excuse
              the stupidity your own spews out.
              \_ I'm amazed that the right has clung on to this.  Most people
                 can understand the distinction between procedural and final
                 votes.
                 \_ It wasn't procedural.  He proposed an amendment to roll
                    back tax cuts to cover the $87 billion.  The amendment
                    failed, so he voted against the bill.  This was on the
                    supplemental appropriations bill.
                 \_ See?  That's exactly what I mean.  You guy always has an
                    excuse while the other guy is always an idiot.  Thank you
                    for making my point in response to my point.  Perfect.
                    \_ But what would you do if Bush *really was* an idiot?
        \_ Does this really need to be said?
           "I look forward to seeing the intelligence and the looks."
                == stupidity
           "I voted for it before I voted against it"
                == maneuvering
           If you measure by quality and quantity of quotes, Bush is far
           stupider, than Kerry maneuvers.
           It is also quite clear that George Bush II is worse than Dan Quayle.
                 \_ See?  That's exactly what I mean.  You guy always has an
                    excuse while the other guy is always an idiot.  Thank you
                    for making my point in response to my point.  Perfect.
                    \_ Don't you get it?  Republicans prefer a stupid guy
                       who will lower taxes, to a maneuvering guy who will
                       raise taxes.
                       \_ I do too. -- ilyas
           \_ Watch the video - he gives an excellent press conference.
              \_ I did.  The prepared speech is fine; most people only see
                 that.  The Q&A session showed he has a very hard time
                 responding to reporter's questions.  Unfortunately, most
                 people don't see Bush's Q&A sessions.
                 \_ Okay then we see something completely opposite.
                    \_ I'm guessing you think he isn't the most eloquent
                       person, but he's honest and direct.  Is that accurate?
                       \_ he recognizes his limitations, has vision, and
                          is not egomaniac.  I think he has wisdom and
                          conviction, though unrefined.  Were he 10-15 years
                          older I think he could have been as good as
                          Reagan.  Eloquence is superfluous.
                          \_ I'm guessing what you value in Bush, from highest
                             to lowest, is:
                             wisdom, conviction, has vision
                              > recognizes his limitations, not egomaniac
                              >> eloquence
                             Is this accurate?
                             \_ I suppose ... That said he's too liberal and
                                has too many establishment ties and the
                                accompanying corruption.  I think Bush I was
                                a mistake - CIA officials should be prohibited
                                from other branches of government.  Obviously
                                he is the lesser of evils compared to Kerry,
                                Gore, and Clinton (or most any dem).
                                \_ Sigh, I basically completely agree with
                                   this guy.
2004/6/2 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30538 Activity:moderate
6/1     Just like we told you at the time, Enron deliberately
        withheld energy to drive up prices and cause outages in CA:
        http://csua.org/u/7jn
        \_ obWDYHA?
        \_ Uh, yeah?  Everyone knew that.
2004/6/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30537 Activity:very high
6/1     young MOTDers (and all young Americans): I fear for you:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1228331,00.html
        Summary: THere are two congressional bills, both approved
        and sitting in committee, to reinstate the draft as early
        as June 15, 2005. No college deferment or sanctuary in
        Canada this time.
        \_ Nice way to ignore context.  The draft is *not* being reinstated.
           Maybe if we all vote for Kerry, there won't be another Vietnam
           and we won't need a draft because Kerry's plans for Iraq are just
           like Bush's except they require more troops.
           \_ How is the military going to deal with its manpower shortage?
              I think the draft is coming back no matter who is elected.
              The military is already drawing heavily into the Reserves
              and has even started tapping the IRR. Last time I checked
              there was still a Stop Loss order in effect. That is pretty
              much everything they can do short of a draft.
              \_ We can start by closing bases in former NATO ally countries.
                 Then we can get out of places like Kosovo/Bosnia/Former
                 Yugoslavia.  6-9 months later we can leave Iraq and then
                 Afghanistan.
                 \- there are only a few 1000 troops in bosnia. bush said to
                    the european coalition "we went in together and we'll
                    leave together". mr. resolve has already said the us
                    will be unilaterally pulling out. do you read any news
                    at all or does ti cut into your xbox/ps2 time? try leaving
                    the the news on instead of the p0rn channel in the
                    background. --psb
                    \_ nice personal attack after ignoring the parts of my
                       post that you couldn't refute.  way to go, genius!
                       how many #1 Fans do you have now?  you can't be psb.
                       he just isn't that stupid.
                       \-i lack the ability to explain "why isolantionism
                           is a not a simple choice for the us" in 100words
                           or less. however youir posited a number of facts
                           clearly suggesting you are unaware of the underlying
                           state of affairs which i did answer. yes i am
                           accusing you personally of ignorance. --psb
              \_ Everything?  Why not just pack up in places our troops are
                 doing nothing?  The Soviet Union is dead.  Let's stop
                 pretending we need NATO and NATO bases in Europe.  Why are you
                 so hellbent on expanding the size of the armed forces?  I'm
                 staunchly conservative and I'm honestly shocked that I'm the
                 only one on the heavily liberal motd that would mention this
                 obvious (to me, anyway) option.
        \_ The chances of getting drafted will be small. Do the math.
           The Army only needs, at most, a few hundred thousand troops.
           There are 20M Americans in the 18-23 cohort. So your chances
           of getting drafted couldn't be much more than 1%.
           \_ But those chances are not random: the military is very
              fond of those with computer skills.
              \_ Yeah, but getting drafted for computer skills is better than
                 being drafted to patrol the streets of Iraq.
              \_ But the draft starts with the youngest first, and it's a
                 proven fact that the motd is composed of old farts.
                 \_ Yet another discussion revolving around the time honored
                    geek motto: "If its not happening to me, fuck em."
                    \- the vietnam era draft was much more avoidable for
                       the upper middle class than the brad draft during ww2.
                       congressmen dont want their kids drafted so there will
                       be lots of loopholes if anything like the draft came
                       back ... which it wont. --psb
                       \- if you are interested in "american and the imperial
                          will" [my phrase] read Niall Ferguson's book
                          Colossus http://csua.org/u/7k6 --psb
2004/6/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30536 Activity:insanely high
6/1     The Carter doctrine was such an unparalled success Kerry
        wants to do it all over again:
        Kerry's Plan: Ban U.S. Weapons to Stop WMD Threat
        http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/1/220814.shtml
        \_ what a bunch of distorting crap. all bush can do is smear,
           because he can't run on his record. hey, what's the worst
           kerry could do, go to war based on the lies of an iranian
           spy and blow $300bn, our credibility, our int'l goodwill,
           and thousands of lives? yeah, that would suck. --aaron
           \_ So aaron, how is that rabid liberalism working out at google?
              Does google even hire conservatives?
           \_ What Bush has accomplished towards limiting the proliferation
              of WMD is phenomenal; the battle against militant Islam has been
              relocated to the Middle East where our military can kill
              all the jihadis.  What is your policy for shifting foreign
              policy from a Cold War paradigm?  Oh that's
              right you, like all the leftist appeasers, don't have one.
              You rather pay lip service and kick the can down the road for
              someone else to clean up.
              \_ LIAR!
           \_ Nonononono, that's "American credibility around the world has
              been destroyed for generations!!!"  And the official Iraqi $$$
              is currently $120B give or take a few $B.  Not that that's a
              small number on its own but you're so far off from reality that
              your credibility around the world has been destroyed for
              generations!  If you need to lie and make up numbers to make your
              point, you don't have one.  Get it next time, "American
              credibility around the world has been destroyed for generations!"
              Like Partha said on the wall, you must repeat it until it
              becomes the new truth, just like in the old Soviet Russia.
                      \- just out of curiosity are you counting the $700m
                         funded by congress for afgansitan xferred to iraq?
                         also what fraction of the $25bn the administration
                         refused to separately earmark between afgansitan and
                         iraq are you counting? the troop levels are around
                         an order of mag higher in iraq. finally, i mentioned
                         that cheney and the other chieckenhawks should
                         continuously be referred to in that light. finally,
                         the whole idea of the importance of labelling issues
                         is inspired by frank luntz, the chief labeller of the
                         GoP. it seems only reasonable for the demos demos to
                         play the "abortion card" on their apathetic
                         constitutency. surely that is more valid than "if
                         we elected kerry, osama will end up in the lincoln
                         bdrm" --psb
                         \_ On money numbers since the rest is off topic and
                            uninteresting:  I'll grant *all* your numbers.  The
                            $300b is still off by more than a factor of 2 and
                            thus makes the whole message look like the made up
                            bullshit it is.  Get the facts straight first and
                            then try to forcefeed your agenda.
                            \- while i try to be conservative with numbers
                               [i think it is fair to use $200bn, i usually
                               say "cost $100bn, 800 us combat deaths, 25k
                               us casualties, 10k iraqi deaths vs lies on
                               WMD"], does it really matter whether it is
                               $300bn or $200bn? i'm not defensing sloppy use
                               of statistics, but do you really change your
                               mind based on this number?--psb
                \_ if you think Iraq is going to end up costing us less
                   than several trillion or you actually think we are
                   ever 'leaving' Iraq, you are deluded.
                            \_ maybe he is just projecting into the not
                               too distant future for a conservative
                               guestimate of the final total cost?
              \_ Nah, they didn't destroy American credibility, just the
                 dumb and dumber Bush regime credibility.  huh huh.
              \_ yea 120 bn no biggie, just a small fraction of the 400 bn
                 budget deficit.  huh huh.
                 \_ It's Beavis! -- beavis #1 fan
                    \- Butthead said "I am really cool Beavis, but I cannot
                       predict the future." Which makes Butthead smarter than
                       the NeoCons. --psb
              \_ So I am curious what your point is here. Are you claiming
                 that American credibility has been enhanced?
                 \_ My point is that there is no such thing as 'credibility'.
                    In international affairs there is only power and will.
                 \_ I think he's trying to say "... destroyed for generations"
                    is an exaggeration.
                       \- point worth raising ... and that is why BUSH must
                          be voted out. if neither rumsfeld nor BUSH is axed
                          than that essentially gives them a "mandate" in the
                          eyes of the world. --psb
                          \_ Yes, and so what?  Why does it matter what the
                             Europeans think?  They have their goals, the US
                             has other goals.  Sometimes those goals conflict
                             and their rabidly left press kicks us in the
                             teeth for it.  This isn't Europe.
                             \- because if you are trying to get NATO to help
                                out in iraq it matters. --psb
                                \_ NATO?  NATO isn't the world.  NATO is an
                                   alliance of EU/US military powers formed for
                                   the sole purpose of holding back the
                                   Soviets.  I don't think NATO should even
                                   exist.  It's a Cold War relic along with the
                                   rest of the trappings such as huge US bases
                                   in Germany, etc.  Close them down, end NATO.
                                   Who else do we need to care about and why?
                                   \- ok i will try to make this my last
                                      commit: i suppose you are unaware that
                                      bush is going to istanbul at the end
                                      of the month for a nato summit where
                                      nato involvement in iraq will be the
                                      main topic? are you the same person/
                                      idiot asking about europe? that question
                                      i answered. if you want to talk about the
                                      rest of the world, look at 6party talks
                                      w.r.t. north korrea. --psb
                                      \_ I'm aware.  I think it's a mistake.
                                         Just because Bush does it doesn't mean
                                         I'm blindly in favor of it.  Do you
                                         blindly favor anything the opposition
                                         party puts forth or does?  The 6 party
                                         talks have achieved nothing.
                    \_ Clearly he hasn't traveled abroad lately.
                    \_ Time will tell. I suspect you are right, but if
                       America continues on the imperialism and conquest
                       course laid out by the PNAC, he will have been right.
        \_ http://www.bushflash.com/ma.html
2004/6/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30528 Activity:high
6/1     "CNN - Government lawyers told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the
        president has the legal authority to detain and interrogate suspected
        terrorists indefinitely without charging them regardless of whether
        they are arrested overseas or in the United States."
        Is this one easy or what?  This should be a unanimous ruling.  And if
        you have to ask, yes, unanimous AGAINST the power.  Otherwise we might
        as well start calling him King George II of the United States of
        America.  We even have Scalia saying that the president's commander in
        chief status "doesn't mean that he has power to do whatever it takes
        to win the war."
        \_ I thought he already is. If he wants to do something, just utter the
           "terrorist" word and no one will say otherwise. It's the magic word
           to get things done, like communism.
           \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
              \_ WHY DO YOU HATE WHITE PEOPLE?
              \_ Because there's nothing to like about it!
                 \_ When are you leaving and for where?
        \_ You want to capture the TERRORIST or not!!
        \_ TERRORIST have no rights!
        \_ You sound suspiciously like a terrorist to me.
        \_ Why do you hate TERRORISM?
           \_ What's that? Terror-ism? Terrorgasm? Bush only uses "Terror".
              We are at war with an emotion.
              \_ Yes, Jeff.
        \_ Bush has the supreme court in his back pocket. He'll get
           what he wants.
           \_ I'm going to say this will be unanimous, and that this is the
              case the conservative justices will point to to show that
              they're not in Bush's back pocket.
              \_ I'll say 7-2. Scalia will write a convoluted dissent and
                 Thomas will say "me too."
                 \_ Why do you hate black people?  How long have you hated
                    black people?
                    \_ Clarence Thomas is black?  I thought the NAACP
                       revoked his membership.
                       \_ It's not what's on the outside, it's what's on the
                          Coke can that counts.
        \_ FOUR MORE YEARS!
2004/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30444 Activity:very high
5/26    Politically motivated threat warnings?
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27terror.html
        "' ... There's no real new intelligence, and a lot of this has been
        out there already,' said one administration official who spoke on
        the condition of anonymity."
        \_ Yet another BushCo conspiracy to destroy American credibility around
           the world for generations to come!  So, if something blew up and
           10,000 people got killed would you be the first one here screaming
           that they didn't warn us?  And then next you'll say they warn us
           too much and you're 'terrorist alert weary'.
           \_ General warnings count for shit, even if something does happen.
              What matters is that they take the right precautions to keep
              security tight.  If they know of a specific threat, then by all
              means warn us and take precautions, but just saying "something
              bad might happen" is no better than fear-mongering.
              \_ Rice got smashed for the last time when they had non specific
                 warnings and they didn't tell the world.  Now they tell the
                 world about non-specific warnings and you bitch about it.
           \_ Well, there's no new information.  They haven't raised the
              threat level.  Why all the sudden warnings?  Don't be such a
              tool.
              \_ Because Memorial Day is traditionally the kickoff for the
                 summer vacation season.  And the suspicion is that there might
                 be an attack during the summer vacation season.  Didn't you
                 see how Condi Rice got hammered for not doing anything after
                 the memo a month before 9/11 with no new or specific
                 information?
                 information? -emarkp
                 \_ But are they doing anything that they wouldn't be doing
                    anyway, besides trying to make big headlines that
                    essentially say, "WATCH OUT!  BAD MUSLIMS!  FEAR!"
                    The Condi threat memo is a nice attempt at a dodge, but
                    doesn't relate to this case at all.
                    \_ Uh, if they were doing anything different, you probably
                       wouldn't know about it.  And how is the threat memo a
                       dodge?  As I read it, the administration is getting
                       criticized for saying anything now, but would get
                       criticized later if they didn't say anything now.
                       -emarkp
                       \_ It's just the "I hate Bush no matter what" contingent
                          on the prowl.  There's no point in talking with them.
                          \_ Read the polls lately?  Looked around?  Bush isn't
                             exactly Mr. Popularity these days.
                             \_ Are you the same person who was whining about
                                lack of substance above?  Either you're here
                                to disucss things seriously or you're here to
                                fuck around, make noise, and tell us all
                                (again) how much you hate Bush.  You can't have
                                it both ways.  And you totally ducked what
                                emarkp had to say.
        \_ Bush's strongest support comes from anti-terrorism.  If there's
           a successful attack and he didn't sound some warning, that will
           take away from his #1 strength.  Can't let that happen.  Wouldn't
           be prudent.
           Raising the terror threat level costs money.  If there's no
           attack, or god-forbid the attack occurs after the threat level
           is lowered, then this again takes away from his #1 strength.
           \_ I have credible evidence that the Administration will attack
              John Kerry in the near future.
              \_ You think they'll send Ashcroft out with a bat to a Kerry
                 campaign stop and whack in his knees?
                 \_ They outsource that type of thing.
                 \_ I have no details of where or when they intend to attack,
                    but I think it's important that the American public be
                    reminded of how serious this is.
                    \_ That ice skater chick survived to get a silver medal.
                       John Kerry will ski again!
2004/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:30442 Activity:very high
5/26    Best side scroller game... EVER. http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html
        - pst
        \_ w00t!
        \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
           \_ WHY DO YOU HATE WHITE PEOPLE?
        \_ Did you miss the link yesterday about hate and politics?
        \_ not work-safe.
        \_ Wow.  A Bush bashing link on the motd.  What a shock.
           \_ Here's a nickle kid. Buy yourself a sense of humor.
        \_ Quite similar to the movie comming out today in this respect:
           goes to extremes making stuff up in order to bash right wing
           politics.
           \_ Was the game ALSO written by Art Bell?
           \_ See now, why don't you put up a website listing all of the
              made-up stuff instead of just whining about it?
              \_ obGoogle.  It's all over and you wouldn't care anyway.
                 \_ Funny, this is what I found:
                    link:csua.org/u/7hi
                    \_ Ok, and?
2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30441 Activity:nil
5/26    I assume you've all heard or seen headlines about a coming threat
        on American soil this summer or whenever "soon".  If something were
        to happen and (picking random number from thin air) 50,000 people
        were to get killed who would you blame for this?  No one?  Bush?
        Ashcroft?  Cheney?  Rumsfeld?  The admin in general?  Previous admins?
        \_ Depends on circumstances and methods used.  If it's something
           the Admin's been telling us they've planned for, damn skippy
           I'll blame them.
2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30439 Activity:high
5/26    The point:  Bush, his press secretary, his cabinet members, party
        faithful, and military leaders rely on canned answers during press
        conferences -- noticably more so than in previous administrations.
        Such answers stress loyalty, unity, and strength above independent
        thinking.  Critical thinking is actually present in printed, online,
        and broadcast right-wing media.
        \_ Yeah? When?
           \_ You can have critical thinking and still be wrong.
              \_ You can disagree with the conservative point of view, be a
                 critical thinker and still be wrong.  As far as the quotes
                 go, those aren't policy statements or debate points.  They're
                 sound bites.  It's a strawman to use sound bites meant for
                 headlines as answers to serious debate questions.  Have some
                 more respect for yourself and your philosophical opposition.
                 If we were really that stupid, you would have crushed and
                 destroyed our movement a long time ago unless you're equally
                 stupid.
                 \_ If "we" = Democrats, then your "unless" clause holds
                    tremendous weight, and I'll just add, "Who's we,
                    white man?"
2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30438 Activity:high
5/26    What Did The President Know And When Did He Know It?
        http://csua.org/u/7gz (USA Today)
        \_ The resident is an imbecile.
           \_ I think he still doesn't really know.  Ahhhbb... Abuuu...
              gerrub.
        \_ The stupider Bush appears, the more appealing his is. All that
           evil sciencey crap, who needs it! Evolution and stem cells and
           abortion, that's all it gets ya. Best support our plaintalkin'
           Christian president who cuts our taxes and kicks Arab ass.
           Be proud dubya drank and and got a C average in school instead of
           becoming some damn liberul.
           \_ Name something Bush has done wrong.  Then I'll give you the
              Republican line.  Let's play! :D
              \_ Appologized to China when our plane was knocked out of the
                 sky by a hot-rodding Chinese fighter pilot.
                 \_ Our aim was to bring home the detained pilots as soon
                    as possible.  We only said we were sorry about the death
                    of their pilot, and that we landed without clearance.
              \_ Failed to attend a *single* funeral of a US soldier killed in
                 Iraq.
              \_ He called Iran part of an "axis of evil" when they elected
                 their most western-friendly president ever.  This radicalizing
                 comment gave fresh ammunition to the die-hard mullahs.
              \_ Gave the bin Laden family special permission to fly out of the
                 country before being questioned by the FBI.
2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30436 Activity:high
5/26    - UN Convention Against Torture and implications, Cliffs Notes -
        Definition of torture:
          "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental"
        What this means:
          Everything up to this is fine for those without protection of the
          Geneva Conventions.
        Bush's case:
          GC protects Iraq, but it's okay in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan.
          \_ This is disputed. To put it mildly.
             \_ Undersecretary Cambone and Taguba both agree that GC protects
                Iraq, but not Gitmo.
                \_ And almost everyone else in the world disagrees with
                   them. Including the US Supreme Court, I will hazard to
                   guess, as soon as they start ruling on this.
                   \_ You include the SC but then say it's well maybe your
                      guess you think they might sorta maybe agree with you.
        Implication:
          Dogs are fine, simulated drowning, sexual humiliation, forced
          positions, days-long sleep deprivation with no clothes and with no
          light, blows while hooded -- Moderate pain and suffering.
        Obvious big problem:
          Non-GC treatment in Iraq.
        Big problem:
          If you are incarcerated in Gitmo or Afghanistan and you turn out to
          be innocent.
        Another big problem:
          Public relations ("They aren't convered by GC!  It isn't 'torture'!
          Everyone in there is an enemy of freedom!").
2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30435 Activity:high
5/26    Here's one for all of you politically active haters out there.
        Mayor Daley has a message for you.
        http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-daley26.html
        \_ Do you denounce Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh and all the other
           assorted "haters" on the Right? If not, shut up.
           \_ Yes, and you now have my permission to shup up.
           \_ It's a message for the left and the right.  Where do you see
              anything in the motd post or the link that says this is aimed
              at the left -or- the right?  Are you self identifying as a hater
              from the left?  I'm neither.  I'm just tired of all the mindless
              and irrational hatred from everyone.
              \_ I hate Bush. And I don't think it is irrational. I love
                 my country and I hate what Bush has done to it. I have
                 never hated anyone or anything before. Maybe "hate" is
                 too strong a word, since I don't dislike everything
                 Bush has done, so I am not so blinded by it that I
                 cannot see that. Extreme dislike and disagreement combined
                 with a strong personal revulsion? Nah.. I will stick with
                 hate, thank you.
        \_ Mayor "Vote Early, Vote Often!" Daley.  I love the number of
           ellipses in that quote.
2004/5/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30385 Activity:very high
5/24    Very Presidential, but it was "off the record" so it's ok:
        http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040523-112924-2653r.htm
        \_ you freepers are really reaching for shit now.
                \_ nice imagery, really!
           \_ The more of this silliness they post, the better I feel about
              Kerry's chances of kicking W's ass this November.
              \_ As if I don't hear enough "Bush is a dumb" propoganda
                 from the left.  Guys, this post is dumb, but it's no
                 worse than what I've been hearing from you for the last 4
                 years.
                 \_ "did the training wheels fall off?" is reasonably clever
                    if he came up with it on the spot--dubya would need a
                    committee of speechwriters
                    \_ Are you trying to prove my point?
                       \_ "Did the training wheels fall off?" is a direct
                          reference to Bush's speech a few days before about
                          the Iraq handover.  Printing this without that context
                          is pretty damn disingenuous.  Or perhaps just stupid.
                          --scotsman
                          \_ Ok, I'm not familiar with the speech, so
                             maybe the joke was fairly clever.  Basically,
                             the point still stands. That is, this article
                             is stupid, and so is all the propaganda I
                             hear from the left.  All dumb.
                             \_ on Thrusday Bush made a major speech saying
                                it was times for Iraq to take off the training
                                wheels and have a go at democracy or something.
                             \_ You think this article is propaganda from the
                                left?  Talk about stupid.
                                \_ Hello?  Can you read english?  What
                                   language should I write in so you have
                                   a hope of parsing a simple sentence?
                                   \_ Okay, I'll explain slowly.  Reporting
                                      a comment like this out of context paints
                                      Kerry as petty and mean.  In context, yes
                                      it's still petty, but it makes sense as
                                      a witty political joke and not an off-
                                      hand comment.
                                      For yet more context, check the final
                                      line at
                                      http://csua.org/u/7ff (apnews)
                                      \_ Dude, READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN!
                                         Above I say: "That is, this
                                         article is stupid, and so is all
                                         the propaganda I hear from the
                                         left."  The response is: "You
                                         think this article is propaganda
                                         from the left?"  If you can read
                                         english it is obvious that I felt
                                         this was stupid right-wing
                                         propaganda much LIKE the
                                         propaganda I hear from the left.
                                         That response to my comment MAKES
                                         NO SENSE.  Your further response
                                         AGAIN has NOTHING to do with my
                                         comment. What the CRAP do you
                                         think you're responding to?
                                         \_ Ah, so what we have here is
                                            failure to c'municate.  Your
                                            composition leaves much to be
                                            desired. "just as" instead of
                                            "and so" would have made your
                                            statement much clearer.
                                            desired.
                                            \_ Umm.. right.  Your reading
                                               comprehension could use
                                               some work too.
                                               \_ English discussions are as
                                                  boring as freeper links.
                                                  However, that plank there
                                                  is preventing you from seeing
                                                  my cornea.
                                                  \_ Just keep thinking
                                                     whatever makes you
                                                     feel the most
                                                     self-rightous pally.
2004/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30374 Activity:kinda low
5/23    Rumsfeld bans digital cameras, camcorders, and cell phones with cameras
        in military compounds in Iraq.  Yay!
        \_ Yeah, learn from the right-wing motd censors.
2004/5/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30369 Activity:insanely high
5/23    MOTD Censor fucks bush in ass with his tiny url:
        http://tinyurl.com/2d46a
        \_ Don't worry!  Bush is going to give six major speeches in the next
           six weeks.  The first one is tomorrow, Sunday!
           http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48487-2004May22.html
        \_ Here's the key quote.  It's always about money, isn't it?
                "Also Saturday, Lugar blamed the Bush and Clinton
                 administrations for not adequately funding the foreign
                 affairs budget, noting that the military's budget is more
                 than 13 times what the nation spends for diplomacy."
           \_ Is that quote a joke?  Why would we spend the same amount
              on a bunch of diplomats as we do on an entire army?  Huh?
              \_ I'm not sure, but I think he's including foreign aid and
                 other such diplomatic ventures.
2004/5/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30366 Activity:insanely high
 5/22    It wasn't a wedding and no dead children.  Better luck next time.
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/22/iraq.main/index.html
        \_ OK, if the coalition says so.
           \_ You prefer Al Jazeera's word on it?  Okey dokey!
        \_ I am sorry, but reporters from NPR said that plenty of women and
           children were among the dead.  the reporter visited the nearlest
           hospital got the number from the doctors and nurses.
           \_ Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:  "Bad people have parties too."
           \_ NPR?  Got his info from the local yokels?  People who live on
              the border who see hundreds of foreign terrorists coming through
              and are more likely to be executed as collaborators for telling
              the truth than for telling some NPR flunky a lie?  People who
              are probably in the same tribe as the terrorists who ran the
              terrorist station that got blown up?  Get serious.  He was in
              the hosipital and didn't even count bodies, just asked someone.
              This is incredibly weak.
        \_ Even if it's true, lots of people believed it, because Bush
           has destroyed American credibility for a generation. How many
           will die because of his disregard for human dignity?
           \_ Actually completely the opposite. Bush has restored
              American credibility.  If anyone thinks about standing in
              America's way, he'd better postpone his wedding indefinitely.
           \_ Nonsense.  That's the same crap you were spouting on the wall
              the other day as if repetition = truth, Stalinist style.  How
              much credibility did GWB have with you at *any* point in his
              life?  None.  So it doesn't matter what he has said and done,
              you have always thought of him as "BushCO" and his actions and
              words in any direction make no difference to you regarding his
              credibility, now, in the past or the future.  Your bit at the
              end about human dignity is really funny.  Is that how you got
              so many #1 fans?
              \- er, i didnt write the above. while i do read the NYker,
                 i would not use a comma before "because". anyway, part
                 of the reason i am so angry about this, is i accepted
                 much of the WMD analysis and spent some time defending
                 the "eventual aquisition of nuclear weapons" analysis
                 based on the ladder of escalation. See e.g. my wall of:
                 Boredcast Message from 'psb': Fri Jan 17 17:10:51 2003
                 \-which i have moved to:
                  /home/sequent/psb/MOTD/preGulfWar.commentarii
                  \_ It's really disturbing that partha gave it more thought
                     than bushco.
                     \_ Wow, you were there when the admin was meeting with
                        partha about this stuff?  You rock!
                     \_ Yeah... partha for president.  w00t!
                        \- when i am president, saying "woot" wont be covered
                           by the 1st amd. --psb
                     \- i accidentally mailed it to http://whitehouse.com instead
                        of .gov --psb
                        \_ Get any quality porn in response?
        \_ FYI, Kimmit said U.S. soldiers had seen no dead children at the
           site.  That's because they were all driven to Ramadi.  Kimmit
           notes that is where they filmed the dead children's bodies.
           Now before you go on with a theory about insurgents digging up
           children's bodies and splashing pig's blood on them or asking
           them to sacrifice their lives for Allah, please think before you
           write.  Children were very likely killed in the attack.  Kimmit's
           strongest argument, if it really was a high-level meeting of
           anti-coaliation forces, is "Bad people have parties too" at which
           there were women and children.
           \_ How the hell do you know?  This is exactly how Jenin played
              out - remember that one?  The military does not willy nilly
              attack with Cobra gun ships and AC-130s in the middle of
              the night.  Sites are scoped for several days if not weeks
              and targetting has to be approved up the chain of command.
              An official has said as much about this incident as well.
              Why the 2 million dinar, sat com equipment, foreign
              passports and weapons caches at a wedding?
           \_ "were very likely" "were driven to Ramadi" is speculative
              noise, at best.  How do you explain the barracks for 300, the
              hundreds of pre-bundled Iraqi clothing piles so foreigners can
              blend in with local styles, and all the rest?  Hey, maybe there
              were dead children.  Maybe it really was a wedding.  It was
              still a terrorist site for moving in foreign terrorists and it
              was appropriate to blow it up and kill whoever was there.  If it
              was Osama's wedding and women and children got killed would you
              cry over that?  And frankly I don't understand the problem with
              killing women and children since we've seen plenty of both who
              are doing their best to kill just like the men.  When you pick
              up a gun, wear a bomb belt or fire from a holy site you, the
              place you're standing and everyone around you become legit
              targets.  This isn't a video game or a mother goose story.
2004/5/21-22 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30357 Activity:nil
5/21    Sen. Inhofe: Taxpayer Funded Radicals Unethical
        http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/21/144238.shtml
        Federal Grants Awarded to Environmental NGOs, 1997 -2001
        http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/ngochart.shtml
2004/5/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30354 Activity:insanely high
5/21    More and more pics and videos from Iraq.  Some at the washingtonpost.
        \_ Is there some reason I'd WANT to see more gruesome pictures?
           \_ Why, as explained by a Washington Post editor:
              http://csua.org/u/7ek
              \_ Not compelling to me.
                 \_ Well, now you know, at least.
        \_ Expect ongoing politicizing of the images slowly leaked out
           by the media until the election.  And people wonder
           why the left is accused of treason.
           \_ You should raed the above URL, first.  Then you can come back
              and call the liberal left treasonous.  I don't care.
           \_ You should read the above URL, first.  Then you can come back
              and call the liberal left treasonous.  There's nothing I don't
              like more than an uninformed Bush supporter.
                \_ Uhm, I think we all know bad shit happened to some Iraqis
                   in US custody.  Is it necessary to see all 1000 photos and
                   17 videos spread out over every 3 days between now and the
                   election?  No, it is not.  I mostly support the original
                   revealing of what was going on.  I do not support the
                   politically motivated trickling we're now seeing.
                \_ Well you should care, because the media is trying to
                   recreate Vietnam all over again.  Its disgusting and
                   treasonous.  Please explain to me how I am uninformed.
                   I am waiting to be enlightened, please deign to do so!!!
                   \_ Do you agree with suspending our obligations in the
                      Geneva Conventions?
                      \_ Like this section: "..shall encourage the
                         practice of intellectual, educational, and
                         recreational pursuits, sports and games
                         amongst prisoners"?
                         A combatant is someone in the military
                         service of a country that wears a uniform with
                         a fixed distinctive insignia, openly carries a
                         weapon, obeys the laws of war and answers to a
                         chain of command. American military forces
                         diligently follow these rules. Terrorists that
                         the American military is fighting in Afghanistan
                         and Iraq do not. Even under the Geneva
                         Convention, spies, saboteurs, terrorists and
                         criminals may be tried and punished (up to death).
                         So in conclusion there are no "obligations".
                            \- fine. if there are no obligations than
                               "the media" has no obligations not to
                               publish these. in addition to looking
                               backwards toward the "obligations" how
                               about considering the "repurcussions".
                               do you think it would be better if the
                               non-american press covered this and the
                               us press was silent?
                                 \_ Yes obviously the policies should
                                    be reconsidered but that does not
                                    necessitate invoking Geneva.  What
                                    I am speaking to is the use of this
                                    by the media as a political tool
                                    to bludgeon the President and
                                    by extension the effort in Iraq.  What
                                    will happen is the media will continue
                                    to leak photos until the election in
                                    an effort to recreate Vietnam.  Its
                                    disgusting, transparent, and
                                    treasonous.  I would gladly trade a
                                    Bush loss and Iraq victory.  The Dems have
                                    decided to do anything to win, country
                                    be damned.
                                    \- arent you conflating "the dems" and
                                       "the press". let me ask you this:
                                       if corporations can take out ads
                                       and write checks to parties and
                                       congresspersons, why cant editorial
                                       boards express their opinions?
                                       what change to the status quo are
                                       you recommending. it's not like
                                       BUSH CO is saying "lets wait for the
                                       legal process to work" ... they are
                                       certainly promoting their "few bad
                                       apples" position. you know the 1st
                                       amd doesnt just apply to rep senators
                                       from oaklahoma.
                                       \_ dems = the press.  whats the problem
                                          with that statement?
                                       \_ No problem with editorial boards.
                                          To pretend the media has no
                                          left bias is patently absurd.
                                          So you trot out the totemic evil of
                                          the GOP - the corporations - igoring
                                          the largest constuencies of the Dems,
                                          trial lawyers and unions.  Unlike
                                          the left, I have no delusions about
                                          politicians who 'care' for the little
                                          guy.  I operate from simple principles
                                          extolled by the founders: government
                                          is inherentely evil.
                                          \_I hold it to be self-evident that
                                            you're a fucking idiot.
                                          \_ Lawyers gave more money to Bush
                                             than Gore, and corporations gave
                                             an order of magnitude more money
                                             to republicans than unions gave
                                             to democrats.  -tom
                                             \_ source?  I don't think you
                                                know what you are talking about.
                                                \_ http://opensecrets.org works. Labor
                                                   has given $90m in each of
                                                   the last 2 election cycles.
                                                   Add up the corporate sectors
                                                   and the order of magnitude
                                                   claim holds true.  The site
                                                   groups lawyers and lobyists,
                                                   but on
                   http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/sector/AllCands.htm
                                                   his claim again holds true.
                                                   --scotsman
                                                   \_ Then how is it that the
                                                      Bush and Kerry campaigns
                                                      have roughlt the same
                                                      amount of money when you
                                                      add in proxy groups such
                                                      as http://moveon.org?  Got math?
                                            \- making hay out of something like
                                               does BUSH go to his daughters
                                               graduation is silly and probably
                                               deperate partisanship. The AbuG
                                               Show is not a "vast leftwing
                                               conspiracy". Maybe the legit
                                               press has a leftwing bias but
                                               the right uses media as a means
                                               too, eg. the fake press reports.
                                               if you cant tell the difference
                                               between the WP and partisan
                                               hacks, you are simply not use-
                                               ful to talk to. The WP editor
                                               above is hardly Michael Moore.
                                               Why dont you also add "all the
                                               climate scientists are leftwing
                                               freaks, as are development
                                               economists and most law profs."
                                               \_ Well, yes, that would be
                                                  true.  They mostly are.
                        \_ Which is directly opposite of what Rumsfeld has
                            stated this week.  You don't keep up all that well
                            do you...
                            \_ To clarify on what this person just said,
                               Rumsfeld's subordinate said that the Geneva
                               Conventions apply to Iraq (but not Guantanomo).
                               \_ They are bowing to political
                                  expendiency. You can read it
                                  yourself, article 4 is very clear:
                                  http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
                   \_ So, have you read the URL yet?
        \_ Why don't all of you understand?  The geneva conventions applies
           to America only to the extent it protects our soldiers, because
           we are the good guys.  Why we are acting on order of God and
           punishing the bad guys, it does not apply to us.
              \_ Not hard core enough to me.
           \_ Why do you bother writing sarcastic nonsense like this?  You're
              not going to get a real response that will further debate in any
              real way.  Does it make you feel good to spit in the wind?  It's
              just you and the echos when you go off all frothy.
2004/5/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30349 Activity:high
5/21    Bravo Pelosi! You have more balls than most politicians.
        Fuck Bush!
        \_ all balls , no brains. Her answer on her way to win
           the war on terrorism: "Education"
        \_ On the left, this passes for political rumination.
           \_ On the right, this passes for terrorism.
              \_ wewt!
        \_ Also more money (richest woman in congress).  Also more plastic
           surgery (okay, that's speculation).
           \_ Wait, how many women are there in congress?  And how rich is she?
              \_ This kind of talk puts American lives at risk!
              \_ http://politicalresources.com/You_Asked/Richest.htm
                 Amend that to one of the richest people in congress.
                 \_ what does that have to do with anything?
                    \_ No less than the op.
                       \_ uh, what?
               \_ Lest we omit that 8 of the top richest congresscritters
                  are also Dem.
        \_ "The San Francisco/Boston Democrats led by John Kerry have now
           adopted 'Blame America First' as their official policy," RNC
           Chairman Ed Gillespie said..." Why does Pelosi hate America??
           I'm George Bush, and I approved this message.
2004/5/20 [Finance, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30330 Activity:high
5/20    Another amusing first for W.  First president under whom all 50 states
        run deficits simultaneously.
        \_ CARTER'S FAULT!  DUBYA NUMBER ONE!  4 M0R3 Y32RZZZZ!!!!!111!!@#!@#
        \_ Why do you hate America?
        \_ I find it really hard to believe that Wyoming is running a deficit.
           What is your source?
2004/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30328 Activity:high 60%like:30327
5/20    Kerry divorced and remarried.  Has there ever been a president who
        divorced and remarried?
        \_ Uh... Reagan.
           \_ thanks
        \_ why do you hate us divorcees?
           \_ Divorcees hate America.
           \_ I love BDG! -bdg #3 fan
              \- BUSH was arrested for Drunk Driving. Given that Ted Kennedy
                 will never be elected, has there ever been a president who
                 was arrested for DUI/DWI? --psb
                 \_ AFAIK, Bush is the first president EVER with a criminal
                    record (upon entering office).
                    \_ Bush had the strength of will to go off the bottle,
                       and the leadership to not have to apologize for it.
                       \_ Leadership means never having to say you're sorry?
                          \_ I'm just saying that's what conservatives like
                             about the guy.  What's worse than a Limbaugh /
                             Fox News fan having to apologize to a liberal?
                             With Clinton, and all his "feeling your pain" --
                             well, Republicans think this was all horseshit.
                       \_ Right. Now wonder he choked on that pretzel-- he
                          was drinking O'Doul's.
2004/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30312 Activity:insanely high
5/19    People who support Bush, Cliff notes:
        - Believe Abu Gharaib abuse was not systematic.
        - Believe Saddam needed to be put down at some point, because he had
        used WMD in the past and could supply them to terrorists in the
        future; and, because Saddam was a vile leader.
        - Fault the CIA for giving Bush the wrong intelligence on WMD.
          \_ but this is known to be false. the "mobile labs", the uranium,
             blah blah... I don't know what Bush himself has to do with
             anything but "the adminstration" definitely chose to disregard
             and fail to mention the proper caveats. all intelligence has
             varying degrees of certainty and they chose multiple items with
             laughably low probability.
        - Believe the U.S. is giving Iraqis the opportunity for freedom.
        - Believe Bush is always trying to defend the American people, and
        support his "strong leader" approach of never apologizing for mistakes
        made in the pursuit of that goal, when the enemies of America could
        perceive an apology as weakness and proof of the effectiveness of
        terror attacks.
        - Think Kerry would do a worse job as President, since they perceive
        him as "political", rather than a "strong leader".
        - Credit Bush for the absence of terrorist attacks on American soil
        since 9/11.
        - Are willing to sacrifice minor personal liberties for a safe
        homeland.
          \_ I don't believe this one, and disagree with Bush policies on this
             point.  A bunch of other ones are phrased in a very dry way
             that's hard to agree with also. -- ilyas
             \_ There, I put in "minor" personal liberties.
        - Believe in small government, lower taxes, with money saved from
        fewer handouts going toward a strong defense.
        - Believe deficit spending will force a smaller government.
          \_ I would phrase it as 'deficit spending may be a win economically,
             and occasionally deficit spending is necessary for non-economic
             reasons'. -- ilyas
        - Believe Kerry will increase taxes, handouts, and not be able to
        secure the U.S. from another terror attack.
        \_ I don't care that Bush is a Christian.
           \_ Point taken, I removed it.
        \_ The point to this whole list was to show the mindset of a typical
           Bush supporter, not saying that any of it is correct or not. -op
           \_ I don't think 'Bush supporter' is a much different animal than
              'Republican.'
2004/5/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30260 Activity:very high
5/17    Time Magazine reviews "Fahrenheit 9/11":
        http://csua.org/u/7c1
        \_ Wow, before reading this I predicted to myself, "I bet Time
           gives it a great review, while desperately trying to spin his
           sad excuse journalism.  Remember, it's not libel, it's "Hard
           Hitting Journalism."  Man, I must be a prophet or something.
           \_ Ever heard the expression "people see what they believe?"
              \_ Yep, sounds like Michel Moore to me!  But seriously, read
                 this time "review" and tell me that's not exactly what it
                 says.
           \_ I have not seen it either, but I have decided on the basis
              of no evidence whatsover that it is trash. In fact, I don't
              even need to see it, since I get all my opinions straight
              from Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I don't know why Time
              magazine is even still allowed to stay in print, it is so
              obviously run by terrorist loving America haters.
              \_ You have a village of people who only tell lies.  You ask
                 them about politics.  They make a documentory...
              \_ Ummm.. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.  Just to make it clear for
                 you, the fact that I think Michel Moore is a partisan
                 liar, doesn't mean I don't also think Rush Limbaugh is a
                 partisan idiot.  I just predicted this "review" would be
                 Time giving Moore a blow job, and I was 100% right.  Does
                 that pickle you?
                 \_ Your words scratch the backs of my eyes.
                    \_ My feet hurt... with DESTINY!
                       \_ You killed my fish!
                 \_ why do you think he's a "liar"?
                    \_ Just like Rush, he puts his personal political
                       agenda before any kind of truth.  He twists facts,
                       figures, and statments to make his "documentories."
                       \_ yawn, all of us should rent his movie, Bowling for
                          Columbine, which I still haven't seen, and form
                          our own opinions.
                          \_ Moore is a lot closer to PJ O'Rourke than
                             Rush Limbaugh.  -tom
                             \_ Moore seems to see himself as a world changing
                                moving and shaker and opinion maker of some
                                great importance.  Rush is first and foremost
                                an entertainer and sees himself as such.  You'd
                                know that if you'd ever actually listened to
                                his show.
                                \_ Moore makes movies, and has for a long time,
                                   and all of them from "Roger & Me" have tried
                                   to have a humor/satire approach, and they've
                                   all basically addressed aspects of "big
                                   greedy corporations" and their politician
                                   cronies. Rush runs a political talk show
                                   with constant commentary on everyday
                                   politics and unwavering support of Repubs
                                   and attacks of Dems. Your assessment is
                                   exactly reversed.
                                   \_ BZZZT!  I was talking about how they
                                      see and talk about themselves.  I said
                                      exactly that.  Try again.  The political
                                      talk show host primarily calls himself
                                      an entertainer.  The movie maker makes
                                      himself out to be a world changer of some
                                      importance.  (That was the recap for the
                                      semi-literate among us).
                                \_ do you have any idea what distinction I'm
                                   making?  -tom
                                   \_ tom, no one cares what you're making.
                       \_ Have you ever actually seen any of his movies?
                          \_ I was sick that day.
        \_ On an unrelated note, this is the first time I've seen a popup that
           got past both Opera and Firefox.  (Though Opera's "block all popups"
           stopped it.)
           \_ It's not a popup _window_, just a stylesheet layer.
              \_ I can't find the word "window" in my comment.  I _can_ find
                 the word "popup" in the source for the page.
        \_ I like how none of you possibly might have considered the idea that
           this is a _film review_, and thus is simply one person's subjective
           opinion about its quality as a _film_.  Even _Triumph of the Will_
           is considered a classic simply by virtue of its qualities as a film.
           Maybe if the movie was an incredibly gory retelling of the
           crucifixion, that would have occured to you?
           \_ It really burns the Right that the film has generated so
              many extremely postiive reviews from so many people already.
              \_ bah.  they're used to moore.  wait till next week when every
                 dingbat thirteen year old in middle america starts asking
                 his or her parents about catastrophic climate change.
                 then we'll hear some whinning from the motd brownshirts and
                 their ilk.
              \_ Not really.  It's standard liberal media anti-Bush rhetorical
                 self love.  We're used to it.  Why do you think we're
                 especially 'burned' by yet another example of the exact same
                 thing we get flooded with every day by your PR division?
                 \_ As usual, not a single real criticism of Moore's skill as
                    a filmmaker or polemicist, just bitching about the
                    non-existent "liberal media."
                    \_ I've posted tons of evidence of the liberal media.  The
                       better the links and the more detailed my criticism of
                       your drivel, the faster it gets deleted.  Go vote for a
                       self proclaimed war criminal and feel good about it.
                    \_ Which of course is par for the course on the motd for
                       both sides.  Moore is a lying bastard and a raving
                       nutcase, of course, but he can tell the Big Lie better
                       than most (including Franken, et al).  Conservatives
                       have the embarrassment of Rush to deal with as well as
                       others.  On the motd discourse is dead, and sound bites
                       rule.  It won't stop until it comes down to knives.
2004/5/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30243 Activity:insanely high
5/15    Prison abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan is part of a Pentagon operation
        (Copper Green) authorized by Rumsfeld. An article by Seymour M. Hersh.
        http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact
        \_ Thank God someone is taking terrorism seriously and understands you
           can't treat these psychotics with mittens and expect to get
           anything from them.  A society unwilling to defend itself doesn't
           deserve to survive and history has shown it won't.  I suppose OP
           thinks if we just change our foreign policy to whatever the Islamic
           fascists want then they'd just leave us alone.  Let's start with
           the forced conversion of all Westerners to Islam.  They've done it
           before and are still living in the past.  OBL's "speeches" still
           whine about Muslim losses from 700 years ago.  Go look up the term
           "wakf".  I know you wont so I'll explain:  "Wakf" is the very alive
           Islamic concept that any land *ever* held by Islam is always
           Islamic no matter what has happened since.  They publicly state
           they intend to retake all "wakf" land (which includes most of
           Spain, btw, think about that in relation to recent events there) and
                \_ the Spain bombings were because of Spain's occupation
                   of a tiny sliver of Morocco, I don't know why this
                   doesn't get reported more.  I don't think it was really
                   about Iraq at all.
           beyond.  They don't make any secret of their plans to keep fighting
           and killing Westerners until there aren't any.  They've been
           fighting this war for hundreds of years and aren't going to stop
           because you knuckled under or bribed them.
           \_ too bad the folks at http://dictionary.com don't share your deep
              understanding of the Arabic language and Islamic law:
              http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wakf
           \_ 1) stop cutting and pasting the same dumbass patronizing post.
              2) go look up the word "wakf" yourself; you have no idea what
                 you're talking about.
           \_ http://www.helplinelaw.com/docs/trust/23.php
              \_ Dictionaries are nice, but sometimes they're lacking context.
                 Quoting an Al Jazeerah opinion piece (csua.org/u/7by),
                 "They [hard core Hamas] consider it a foreign implantation
                 in Palestine, which in Islamic doctrine is a Muslim 'wakf'."
                 So it is in fact possible to place an entire "nation" under
                 the wakf designation.  Is Spain considered a wakf?  There
                 are some wacky people out there, so who knows.
                 \_ This sounds suspiciously like La Raza talking about Alta
                    California.
                    \_ Like I said, there are wacky people out there.  Just
                       because the concept is silly doesn't mean there aren't
                       people who will kill for it.
                 \_ Not Spain, but bin Laden is against the independence of
                    East Timor, on the grounds that it would mean the loss of
                    Muslim land.  (csua.org/u/7bz)  Is there a bin Laden
                    doctrine that says once Muslim, always Muslim?  The man
                    hasn't chosen to enlighten us yet.  Do you think he'll
                    stop with Palestine and East Timor?
                    \_ So has Deerborn, MI become "Muslim land" yet?
                    \_ Is there anyone still out there who doesn't think
                       Al Qaeda and UBL are utterly evil and need to be
                       exterminated?
                       \_ I don't support capiral punishment, so I can't
                          advocate their execution.  That's the same type of
                          thinking they have about us.  Nevertheless, I
                          wouldn't list a finger to save their lives.
        \_"Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a
           terrorist." -Richard Perle
           \_ "He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in
               pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."
              -Richard Perle
        \_ Interrogate the terrosists with cushy pillows, tea
           and crumpets.  That will work.
           \_ Nooo not the comfy chair!  -John
           \_ it's pretty far-fetched to call most of the stuff going on
              "interrogation techniques."
              \_ That's the thing, I don't really mind if they tortue
                 terrorist to get info.  What bugs me about this case is
                 there was no purpose.  It was just brutality for
                 brutality's sake.
                  \_ How do you know?
                     \_ He doesn't.  He says what he's told to feel.  The rest
                        of the claim is these guys were being shown photos of
                        themselves in humiliating sexual situations so they'd
                        break from the threat of having those photos shown to
                        their family and friends.  I trust the CIA to know how
                        to interrogate someone more than I trust some random
                        fuck motd idiot to know anything about it.
                        \_ woah! let me get this straight.  you believe that
                           in spite of the fact that the cia, your bush
                           administration(i can only assume you're a republican)
                           the army and the soldiers involved have all said that
                           the humiliation was just rogue soldiers being
                           perverse assholes that you believe that they
                           are all lying and that the CIA in their infinite
                           wisdom *ordered* this stuff to happen?  and you
                           fucks say it's *liberals* who have too much
                           blind faith in government! incredible.
                        \_ could you help me out with my talking points here?
                           I'm a bit confused.  Are these incidents just
                           soldiers having a bit of fun, like fraternity
                           hazing, and the top brass had no knowledge of what
                           was going on, or are they sophisticated
                           interrogation techniques ordered by the CIA?
                           I missed my bulletin from Rush this morning.  -tom
                        \_ The Israelis, who are experts at this sort of thing,
                           say that sexual torture does not work
                           http://csua.org/u/7bx
        \_ Stupid American move. Long term interrogation works well for
           extracting good infomation from good sources. By choosing wisely,
           you get plausible denyability (people disappear every day...) and
           keep the moral high ground. You try to mass produce this type of
           interrogation on large groups you get huge noise to signal, lose the
           denyability factor, and your formerly secret policy (torture IS
           swell) get publicized. This topic used to be the grist of free lefty
           alternative weeklies. Not anymore. Hey where did my high horse go?
           \_ I think it went looking for your soapbox and your sense of moral
              outrage, but hey, good points all around.  If you're going to
              eschew morality and ethics, _at least_ be smart about it.  Is
              that too much to ask?
2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30211 Activity:very high
5/12    The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged
        http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2004/05/04_200.html
        (why blogs suck as political force, basically)
        \_ here's a shock; masturbation sucks as a political force, also.  -tom
           \_ I disagree.  There are a ton of wankers in politics.
              \_ but outside the ASUC, it won't get you elected.  -tom
                 \_ did someone get elected to ASUC for masturbating?
                    \_ Can you prove there is no God?
                       \_ it's a reasonable question, dammit.  tom made it
                          sound like there's a story there, and i want to
                          hear it.
                          \_ I think there was a "Masturbation Party" a few
                             years back.  I don't know if they won.  -tom
                             \_ And I wasn't invited?
                                \_ You were, but you didn't come.
                                \_ You're a founding member.  We signed you
                                   up while you were "busy" pushing your
                                   "political agenda".
        \_ That is what this guy gets for spending all his time reading
           echo chambers. Blogs have already proven to be good fundraising
           tools.
2004/5/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30200 Activity:nil
5/12    The pernicious idiocy of the left epitomized
        by this thread.  http://Salon.com accuses http://freerepublic.com
        of complicity in Berg's death.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1134424/posts?page=1,50
        \_ Idiocy is synonymous with GWB. Stop trying to hijack our word.
           \_ w00t!
2004/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:30178 Activity:very high
5/12    http://www.hillnews.com/news/051204/patriot.aspx confuses me.  Are
        we supposed to like republicans for opposing the patriot act
        extension because we hate the patriot act or are we supposed to now
        like the patriot act because republicans oppose it?  Or are we supposed
        to hate republicans *and* PA no matter what they vote for or against?
        \_ I think we need to be glad that more GOP lawmakers have found their
           balls again.
           \_ Exactly. We'll see how long it goes until they cave. Besides
              it's a rollback they should be shooting for as "libertarian-
              minded Republicans". -- ulysses
              \_ So since this is just their nature its ok to keep hating them?
                 \_ Say what? -- ulysses
           \_ Well, this is just for show.  They will quietly sign on later.
              And so will the democrats.
              \_ So we should hate democrats as well?
                 \_ Hate whoever you want, gays, liberals, feminists, or
                    free thinkers.  This is a free-to-hate country.
2004/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30177 Activity:insanely high
5/12    Bush not attending his daughters' graduations because he "does
        not want to subject other families to the disruptions of a
        presidential visit".  He doesn't, however, seem concerned about
        disruptions at the 3 commencments in battleground states he'll
        speak at.
        http://csua.org/u/79o (nytimes.com)
        \_ Can you *really* not tell the difference between having the
           President Of The United States as a speaker vs. having him as a
           random there in the audience to scream "JENNA!  WHOO!  YEAH BABY!"
           when she gets her diploma?  Troll harder.
           \_ His two daughters are graduating.  He's making public excuses
              for why he's not attending their commencements.  He's, instead,
              speaking at graduations in swing states.  He can't bring himself
              to say "We have scheduling conflicts."  He has to lie.
           \_ from the persptective of turning the streets of new haven into
              a fucking circus, there's no difference between bush giving a
              speech and attending in the audience.  also, bush is really really
              hated in this town.  I think there may actually be fewer
              republicans in new haven and at Yale than at berkeley.
                                                        -new haven resident
              \_ I shall translate these posts for those of you less
                 fluent in modern "liberul speech."
                 <Bush sucks!  Hate BUSH!!! BUUUSSSSHHHH!!!  EEEVVVVIILL!
                 HATE, FEAR, KILL, HAAATTEEE BUUUSSSSHHH!!! AUGH!>
                 \_ Typical Right Wing villification of anything that might
                    challenge your way of thinking.  Chill out, son.
                 \_ It's not hate. It's terror at what our country is
                    becoming from the top down.
                    \_ A) BS. B) What I'm saying is you guys have lost all
                       touch with reality.
                       \_ dear ass monkey, "bush is hated in this town" is
                          an observation of how other people feel, not
                          necesarily my own opinion.  If you think that Bush
                          is anything but despised in ultra-liberal college
                          towns it is you who are out of touch with reality.
                          republican campaign strategists, unlike you, are
                          very aware of this reality, which is why they know
                          it's a waste of time and money to campaign in
                          an ultra-liberal college town.
                          \_ Dear Moron: I can only assume you
                             misinterpreted this on purpose.  I was not
                             responding to the statement of fact that Bush
                             is hated in said town.  I was translating the
                             posts that claimed Bush was weaving an evil
                             tapestry of lies and deceit to get out of
                             his daughter's graduation. Your assumptions
                             of understanding all the details of what went
                             on it planning behind the scenes in the Bush
                             administation are completely retarded.
                             You're all making mountains out of molehills
                             for your anti-Bush campaign.  I am not a Bush
                             fan, but even a monkey could see this.
                             \_ dear jiveass dipshit: if you were not
                                replying to that post, you shouldn't have
                                formatted your post so it looked like you
                                were.  learn to fucking format.
                                \_ Sigh, low reading comprehension scores,
                                   huh?  You notice I used the word
                                   "posts."  You see, that's a pural.  It
                                   means "more than one post."  I
                                   responding to elements of BOTH posts.
                                   Not a specific fact in ONE post.
                             \_ But why even bother throwing out bogus excuses?
                                Because "I'm on the campaign trail, so I can't
                                make my daughters' graduations" won't play well?
                                It's an epidemic with the man.  He can't appear
                                flawed so instead he lies.  That's sociopathic
                                any way you cut it.
                                \_ Try cutting it so it looks more like
                                   reality.  They probably decided the
                                   graduation thing years ago.  Now, the
                                   campaign advisor sees he has free time
                                   that day and schedules a speech.  What,
                                   did you expect him to sit home and
                                   watch Oprah just because his daughter
                                   was graduating and he couldn't go?
                       \_ I love America and am as patriotic as they come.
                          And I agree that Bush has to go for the good of
                          America. Fortunately, I am in a large and growing
                          majority. Enjoy your next four years out of power.
              \_ so if Bush is the speaker he'd attend?
              \_ Well, I doubt he got to be valedictorian at his own
                 graduation.
              \_ Yes, but wouldn't be sitting next to Random Parent in the
                 audience.  He'll be up on the stand with the rest of the
                 speakers where the attention is already focused.
2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30160 Activity:nil
5/11    New yorker article on Abu Ghraib: http://csua.org/u/792
2004/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30125 Activity:very high
5/9     What happened if Iraqi decided to file War Crime charges against
        Rumsfeld and President Bush?  That would be really fun.
        \_ That would be really stupid, unless they can prove Bush and
           Rummy directly ordered the abuse.
        \_ we had ourselves exempted from judgement by the world court
           years ago.  smart!
           \_ Almost eerily prescient....
           \_ Funny how consistent Bush seems to be about retaining sovereignty.
           \_ The US doesn't commit war crimes, so all joining the ICC would do
              is allow rogue states to drag honorable US servicemen before a
              kangaroo court.  - Model 2001 Talking Head
        \_ just nuke Iraq and get rid of the evidence
            \_ just nuke all the muslim nations and their will be peace
               \_ Kill all the godless and bring about The Rapture!
                  George W Bush is fufilling the Prophecy of Armageddon.
                  \_ Sadly, there is a big chunk of evangelicals that pretty
                     much think exactly this.  Why do you think there is so
                     much evangelical support for Israel?  Because part of
                     Armageddon described in Revelations is the tribes
                     returning to the homeland...
                     \_ I love these guys. Ask them if forcing the "Revelations
                        prophecy" isn't akin to trying to commit suicide.
        \_ Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. --Mohammed Atta
        \_ Just nuke the whole fucking world. They are all better off with
           Americans.
2004/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30123 Activity:high
5/9     Safire on Rumsfeld:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10SAFI.html?hp
        Definitely worth reading, whether you're pro or anti Rumsfeld.  I am a
        liberal Democrat, and he's certainly got me convinced Rumsfeld should
        stay.
        \_ huh huh, you are funny.
           \_ Um... you make no sense.
        \_ It makes me laugh when Safire, who has written numerous columns
           on the correct use of language and the need for an expanded
           vocabulary, makes repeated reference to the political canard,
           "the liberal establishment."
                \_ we RULE THE WORLD
           \_ he uses the term once in that article. He also used the word
              torture three times. --torture reference counter.
              \_ My bad; I meant repeatedly in numerous articles.
               \_ Safire is a fraud.  He is just a decoration NYT uses to
                  pretend it is not totally liberal.  You can read far
                  more articles in support of Rummy if you go beyond nyt.
                  \_ And this Attila the Hun guy?  Too damn liberal!
        \_ I read this last night before seeing your post.  Safire is a
           complete fucking loon.  (How's that for a divided electorate, yah?)
2004/5/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30098 Activity:very high
5/8     In response to "You sincerely believe the pictures show torture?",
        I would say "Yes," and it seems like most in the administration agree.
        Now... why is it that we are only hearing the word "abuse" and not
        "torture"?
        \_ Newspeak?
        \_ Because most people think of torture as physical pain to extract
           information.  The pictures of Iraqis being forced into sexual
           situations don't fit that mental model.  That doesn't mean it isn't
           torture, it just doesn't fit what most people think.
           \_ It's definitely humiliation.
              \_ Ok, that's it.  I've had enough of hearing about how every
                 little thing is a "humiliation" to some Arabs and thus a
                 valid reason for their irrational militarism.  Let's just nuke
                 the cities, leave a radiation-free path to the major oil
                 fields and a few key ports and be done with it.  As the
                 winners we'll be writing the history anyway.
                 \_ So Bush should have never have talked about Saddam having
                    rape rooms, because obviously rape is just humiliation,
                    not torture?  I mean that follows from your arguments.
                \_ making naked human pyramids is pretty out of control.
                   i hope they send those guards somewhere to learn some
                   sense for a very long time.
                 \_ you've HUMILIATED ME you american SATAN!
                    \_ YOU = NUKED.  ME = GOT YOUR OIL.
              \_ Oh... the... Horror! Terrible, terrible ego bruising. We need
                 a bronze monument of the naked man-stack. Never forget!!
           \_ ``When the tall man was not satisfied with my answers, he hit
                me in the face. ''
                http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/08/torture
                \_ electro-shock to the genitals, torture.  bitch slap,
                   abuse.  that's why it's called spousal abuse and not
                   spousal torture.
                   \_ Some would call marriage torture, peroid.
                      \_ BDG!
        \_ They show "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic,
           cruel and inhuman," Rumsfeld said.
           \_ Making you listen to golden oldies while on hold is also
              blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.
        \_ Semantics is a tricky business.  I don't know why some choose to
           call it whatever but I'd agree that most of what we've seen or
           heard of is "torture".  The part I think some people here are
           confused about is the PR effect this will have.  Someone has been
           writing here how "this issue will stick" and thus cause Bush to
           lose this fall.  These are two distinct issues.  It may or may not
           stick in the news cycle for more than the next week or so.  However,
           I disagree with what that means.  I don't think the typical voter
           is going to hold Bush personally responsible.  I do think the rest
           of the world will shove this in our collective faces forever which
           will only serve to make Americans less concerned about what the rest
              participating in hazing.  Hazing in this country has involved
           of the world thinks.
           \_ I agree. -dem
        \_ Rush Limbaugh said it was no worse than "frat hazing." Is being
           gang raped part of frat initiations now? Can someone who is a
           fraternity member enlighten me?
           \_ Frats are gay. Rush is right.
           \_ Quite a few people in this country went to prison for
              participating in hazing.  Hazing in this country had involved
              sodomy, murder, and other things besides.  I don't know what
              Limbaugh had in mind, but he was (sadly) spot on. -- ilyas
              \_ fun trivia fact: the first time George W. Bush was quoted
                 in the New York Times was in 1967, defending the sadistic
                 hazing rituals of the Yale DKE chapter which were under
                 attack by reform-minded yalies out side of the greek system.
                 \_ Were they stacking the fresman naked in pyramids?
              \_ I didn't realize you were a fraternity member ilyas.
                 \_ Congratulations!  You've just won the "dumbass reply of
                    the day" award!
                    \_ Why is it dumb? Did everyone already know that ilyas
                       was in a fraternity except me? How did they know that?
                       \_ Congratulations!  You've just won the "dumbass thread
                          of the day" award!
                       \_ He got banged by everyone and pulled around on a
                          leash in front of Sproul by the Hate Man, with wires
                          attached to his balls.  Where were you?
                          \_ pics?  URL?
        \_ If those pictures show torture I think they should continue
           it and even step up the intensiy a bit.
2004/5/7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30090 Activity:very high
5/7     Don't tell me people's civil liberties are not being trampled on
        in The War Against Terror:
        http://www.koin.com/webnews/20042/20040507_mayfieldb.shtml
        \_ I don't think anyone actually denys it.  Republicans just don't
           care.  Actually, I think that's an understatement.  Republicans
           such as John Ashcroft simply don't believe in civil liberties,
           and clearly demonstrate by their actions that the believe American
           due process of law to be a mistake, not a virtue.  These people
           are every bit as much enemies of the United States and everything
           it stands for as our foreign enemies.  If things in this coutry
           do not change direction, there *will* be civil war.
           \_ I think I should mention that *some* Republicans do care about
              civil liberties and dislike Ashcroft, but for whatever reason,
              they're not that vocal about it.  -motd liberal
              \_ When I say we're heading towards civil war, it's not because of
                 specific actions by Republican leadership; it's because of
                 statements and actions by ordinary citizens who happen to be
                 republicans.  Take a look at the motd.  Listen to AM talk
                 radio for an hour.   Maybe you didn't notice in 2001
                 when these people were calling for Arab Muslims to be rounded
                 up into concentration camps?  This problem won't go away
                 by Bush getting defeated in this election.  It will either
                 go away by a consistent, nation-wide cultural shift towards
                 more freedom-loving values, or, more likeley, by worsening
                 until it comes to war.
                 \_ Actually, a secession along county (rather than state)
                    lines, based on voting majority would work out nicely
                    (for me). -- ilyas
                    \_ what's wrong with state lines?
                       \_ Too much oppression of voting minorities that way.
                            -- ilyas
                          \_ There's a tradeoff. I think a little group of
                             counties like in the smaller states works
                             better. They can afford better quality gov't
                             and better share power over natural resources.
                             \_ Actually a break into two roughly equal sized
                                chunks will work ok, as long as they both
                                allow immigration, people will just move to the
                                'right' chunk after a while.  Large chunks have
                                the advantage of not getting taken over by
                                Random_Power_001. -- ilyas
                                Random_Power_001.  If the two chunks started off
                                on equal footing, it would be an interesting
                                social and political experiment. -- ilyas
                 \_ So you think they are going to break out their guns
                    if Bush loses in November?
                    \_ I had a dream last night that the Administration
                       postponed the election to "avoid sending the wrong
                       message to our enemies."  The reaction was not pretty.
                    \_ I think he's saying that liberals are going to wake
                       up and start the war.
                       \_ I sure hope not. -motd liberal
                    \_ Given the economic numbers today, that seems unlikely.
                \_ The bill of rights only protects the weak and the subversive
                   while govt regulations are stilfing us the real Americans.
                   When and if your prophecy comes true, is it hard to bet
                   which side will win?  The peacniks in lotus pose  or we who
                   will take any and every measure to defeat them?  Hmm, it
                   would be fun when we round up liberal chicks as illegal
                   combatants for interrogation.  -- neocon
           \_ Maybe so, but you do realize there's a big difference
              between traditional crime a terrorism, right?  The laws
              designed for traditional crime just don't hold for
              terrorism.  It's a different bag.
           \_ "Republicans just don't care" is a huge overstatement.  The view
              is that they'll give up some liberties so planes aren't crashing
              into buildings, nukes aren't going off, suicide bombers aren't
              exploding.  The idea is, "If the government is watching you, you
              must be doing something bad already."
              I'm not saying this is the correct view, but I believe this is
              the view held by most Republicans.
        \_ How is this any different than any other criminal federal grand jury
           case?
           \_ How long can the government hold a person in solitary without
              charging him with a crime or allowing him access to a lawyer?
              \_ in civilian courts, I believe 24 hours.
              \_ In national security cases, as long as they please.
                 (Newsflash: This is not new with Bush.)
                 \_ Basically, if you are designated an enemy combatant,
                    or a material witness
                 \_ Give us an example from the last 30 years.
                    \_ Here is a whole raft of examples post 9/11
                http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/terrorism/materialwitness.html
                       \_ I believe op mis-stated his question, and wanted
                          to know of examples between the Vietnam War and 9/11.
                          \_ Yes, exactly, thank you. -op
                             \_ here's one example:
             http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=2329
                                there are other examples.  but no clue how
                                prevalent usage of the statute was in general.
                                \_ Oh, that doesn't count.  Anti-abortion
                                   activists don't have rights.
                    \_ The "material witness statute" was enacted in 1984. I
                       don't know how often it's been invoked pre-9/11.
        \_ As usual posters on the MOTD have ZERO appreciation of history
           during wartime (or anytime for that matter).  Citizens today
           enjoy far and away more civil liberties than any time in the
           history of this country.  Learn about some of the actions
           taken by FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln to suppress dissent.
           This story sounds very similar to the Intel employee
           who was locked up for some time, all the while
                    into Afghanistan?
           screaming bloody murder about innocence, and is now serving
           a generous prison term.
           \_ As I recall, he was convicted of providing aid to a terrorist
              organization.  He claims he gave money to an Islamic charity.
              The gov't said that the charity gave money to Hamas.  Did he
              really intend to give money to Hamas?  Or is he simply guilty of
              not researching the charity's finances and being Arab?
              \_ You recall incorrectly: -jrleek
                 http://csua.org/u/77w
                 \_ OK, my bad.  There was *someone* sent up the river for
                    giving money to somebody who gave money to Hamas.
                 \_ He faces 10 years in prison for trying, and failing to get
                    into Afghanistan?
                    \_ That and material aid to the Taliban.  Think about
                       it.  He's a US citizen.  Helping out the enemy in
                       time of war is treason.  In the old days they just
                       would have shot him.
           \_ Yeah, Wen Ho Lee served a generous prison term too.
           \_ Shut up you Facsist Nazi Bad Man!  NO FREE SPEECH FOR
              FASCISTS!
           \_ I'd be really interested in a book on what the crap
              Mr. Hawash was thinking.  What convinced him to leave a good
              job, and 3 kids, to go and "die as a martyr?"
              \_ Phony spirituality.  "Making people do stupid things since
                 34AD". -- ilyas
                 \_ so what's your excuse?
                    \_ Just garden variety stupidity in my case. -- ilyas
                       P.S. Do I know you, Mr. Secret Admirer #5?
                 \_ 34AD?  It goes back a whole heck of a lot farther that
                    that, anti-christian boy.
                    \_ Note, I said 34, not 33. -- ilyas
           \_ Ah, good old Mike Hawash I thought that was dang funny.
           \_ most of those actions were deplorable. Japanese internment,
              hell the whole Civil War was an unethical disaster.
                \_ The internment was not bad.  That there property was
                   not returned afterwards was.  Other ethnic groups
                   were also detained including Italians, Germans and
                   Mexicans.
                   \_ So you'd be fine with the government locking you up for
                      a few years in the name of security?
                      \_ Of course he wouldn't. But the only lock up those
                         "other" people, not REAL Americans.
                      \_ My point is given the saboteur rhetoric widespread
                         in Japanese newspapers at the time, the caches of
                         weapons that were found, and the context of the
                         times it seems entirely reasonable to evacuate
                         coastal regions of recently arrived Japanese (not US)
                         citizens and their children (and Germans, Italians
              initially get lawyers until the copys figure out what's
                         and Mexicans).
                         The Federal government was much smaller so large
                         scale surveillance was not pluasible, a Japanese
                         invasion of the west coast was completely
                         possible, and sabotage in Europe by Axis agents had
                         done much damage.
                         They should have been given some payment based on
                         their detainment and their property returned.
              \_ Funny, I thought we were discussing the legality of the
                 action, not the ethics.  legal != ethical (and vice
                 versa)
        \_ Turns out he was one of the lawyers defending Jeffrey Battle,
           another of the Portland 7.
           \_ If that's true it's a good example of why terrorist don't
              initially get lawyers until the cops figure out what's
              going on.  Terrorists in jail can still communicate deadly
              information.
2004/5/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30084 Activity:high
5/6     867,000 new jobs created this year.  Unemployment rate down to 5.6%
        http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040507/D82DQ2IG1.html
        \_ 867k low-pay/service sector/temp jobs.  Yawn.  Besides, 2 months
           of job growth does not make a trend.  And the torture of Iraqi
           prisoners will result in a universal wave of disgust that will
           knock the Bushies out of office.
           \_ hey, Dubya didn't promise "good" jobs
           \_ Bush can still pull out of Iraq and win the election. I don't
              think he will, though.
           \_ What, you think all the jobs based on nothing from the .com era
              will come back?
        \_ Funny quote from the article: "More Americans are working today
           than at any time in our nation's history."  No shit Sherlock.
           There are also more Americans today than at any time in our
           nation's history.
           \_ That's why they're good politicians.  They say things that are
              only misleading but not wrong.
           \_ Of course critics have been saying that there are more people out
              of work now than ever for quite a while.  Soon, any economic
              statistic will favor the present.
              \_ You mean like "we currently have the highest trade deficit
                 ever"? The highest government deficit ever? The highest
                 oil prices ever? I would not call that favoring the present,
                 but I guess that is one way to look at it.
2004/5/7 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30083 Activity:high
5/7     Rumsfeld's testimony before Congress is on cspan radio right now:
        http://www.cspan.org
        free access in multiple formats
        \_ The bell tolls for thee, Rummy.
           \_ Not really.  I assume you didn't listen to the testimony?
              \_ You mean the testimony where he wouldn't answer ANY direct
                 questions?
                 \_ "Mr. Secretary, that's a very simple straightforward
                    question."
              \_ If you've been following the news for the last two years,
                 do you really need to?
        \_ Rumsfeld has served his purpose.  He gave the military structure a
           kick in the ass.  He made the comfy n cozy paper pushers do their
           fucking jobs for the first time.  He killed some useless weapons
           programs and promoted some better ones that weren't as "sexy" to
           the pentagon types.  He can do one last useful thing when he bites
           the bullet for the prisoner abuse and fades into the sunset.
           -R.B. Cheney
2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:30050 Activity:high
5/6     Now THIS is hilarious.  2000 election results ranked by average IQ:
        http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm
        \_ Assuming this is accurate... have you ever noticed how common sense
           seems to vary inversely with IQ?
           \_ No.  Your hypothesis is flawed.  That said, I mostly just thought
              this was funny and in no way illuminates any real truth.  IQ
              data is notoriously bad in all sorts of ways and shouldn't
              be a basis for any kind of policy.  --op
              \_ Though you really have to be a little challenged to vote for
                 people who back fiscal policies that directly or indirectly
                 hurt you.
              \_ yeah, it's very hard to believe that there are three states
                 with averages over 110, and five states with averages under 90
                 \_ Have you ever actually been to those states? I have,
                    and I don't find it that hard to believe.
2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/SW/SpamAssassin, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30047 Activity:high
5/6     Guys guys, PLEASE!!! 1 or 2 political posts are ok, but 8-10 posts
        on why Bush sucks, how his rating's decr, what he's doing wrong,
        that even the Rep. are losing faith, etc etc. is just too much.
        Most of the Sodans already hate eBush and are not gonna vote
        for him anyways, why not post something interesting and original?
        We have enough trash and spam to deal with already, please be nice
        and stop the motd spam.
        \_ learn to ignore shit if you don't want to read it.
        \_ Learn how to nuke the motd.
2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:30044, category id '18005#6.3475' has no name! , ] UID:30044 Activity:moderate
5/6     The Worst Ex-President
        http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265
        \_ It's too bad that the FP interviewer here comes across as so
           anti-liberal/Carter, it cheapens what are otherwise a
           set of valid points by Hayward.
        \_ at least he limits it to "ex" presidents
           \_ Since he's discussing how presidents act once they're out of
              office, it would be pretty silly to include the current
              president in the discussion.  Don't cha think?
2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30041 Activity:nil
5/6     President chastised Rumsfeld (With a paddle?)
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/06CABI.html?hp
2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30040 Activity:very high
5/6     Wow, 62% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going
        in the U.S., up from 55% in January.  53% disapprove of Bush's
        handling of foreign affairs.
        If you think these numbers will be going down, you should visit the
        news sites today.  It's worse than what the motd currently has.
        \_ 5 months from now the Saudi government will drastically lower
           the price of oil causing Bush's poll numbers to skyrocket.
           \_ nah, bush policies generating too many terrorists, and
              is destablizing saudi arabia.
        \_ In the next 6 months a shitload of them and their family/friends
           will be getting jobs and raises and the news will be reporting the
           Bush economic miracle.  It's a long time to the election.
           \_ Except prisoner abuse is going to stick.
              Economic miracle?  Greenspan wants to raise interest rates,
              although I could see Bush keeping it down to help his re-election
              prospects.
              \_ As above.  48 news cycle.  Interest rates aren't going any
                 where until after November and even if they went up a half
                 point they'd still be at 30+ year lows.  You think they'll
                 suddenly raise rates by 4 points??
                 \_ Search http://news.yahoo.com for "interest rate increase":  AP
                    May 5 - "The view of a growing number of economists that
                    the central bank's first rate increase in more than four
                    years will come this summer solidified Tuesday as Federal
                    Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his colleagues decided
                    to keep a key short-term interest rate at a 46-year low.
                    In doing so, however, the Fair Market Policy Committee
                    dropped a promise to be 'patient' before it starts raising
                    rates."  Up 4 points?  Are you so fucking stupid to think
                    I'm so fucking stupid to suggest that?  Anyway, you know
                    how investors are, the effect on the stock market, and the
                    subsequent ripple effect with even a minor increase in
                    rates.  I don't really think you need me to tell you that.
                    Okay, fuck it, I've said my piece, I'm getting back to
                    work.
                    \_ Even if they do, the market is self rationalizing.
                       Nothing will happen "because the market has already
                       taken this into account since Greenspan projected his
                       plans back in early May after the last metting".  There
                       is no logic to the market.  Only crowd following, greed
                       and lots of randomness.
                       \_ The point was weakening the "economic miracle"
                          theory you are putting forth.  I can't believe I'm
                          back here arguing.  Okay, now I'm out of here.
2004/5/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30039 Activity:insanely high
5/6     Highly anti-BushAdmin opinion piece in today's Washington Post
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5837-2004May5.html
        (Actually, almost all the editorials and opinion pieces are like that
        today.)
        \_ Yep, one day of many.  This will flush out of the news cycle in 48
           hours like everything else.
           \_ Except prisoner abuse is going to stick.
              \_ Will it?  I'll bet people who care about it are already
                 voting anti-Bush.
                 \_ The poll numbers from yesterday suggest that even
                    Republicans are losing faith.
                    \_ I'm a Republican living in an ultra leftist area of a
                       majority leftist state so I'm inundated with anti-Bush
                       noise constantly.  Keep dreaming.  --not losing anything
                       \_ Ah, I love a bunker mentality.  Execute Wing Attack
                          Plan-R!
                          \_ Ain't nobody ever got the Go code yet. And old
                             Ripper wouldn't be giving us plan R unless them
                             Russkies had already clobbered Washington and a
                             lot of other towns with a sneak attack.
              \_ 48 hours news cycle.  You can set your clock to it.  From the
                 moment the last new abuse photos hit the wires +48 hours =
                 story dead.
                 \_ So, when will the "last" photo come out?
                    \_ Depends on how many there are, doesn't it?  Do you think
                       there will be a new photo every few days between now and
                       November?
                       \_ The British investigation is just starting.  Who
                          knows how many CD-ROMs with photos are going to come
                          up?  The Arab world is completely bonkers about this.
                          The problem is, now they have something which they
                          can clearly complain about, and every American knows
                          that.
                 \_ were you the one who think disbanding the Iraqi army
                    is a smart move?  obviously you don't realize how
                    how detrimental the photos and other even more
                    serious allegations of abuse are.  This thing won't
                    go away anytime soon.  It's way beyond the silly
                    little US news media by now.  It's going to come
                    back again and again for a very long time.
                    \_ No, he wasn't.  My point was never that disbanding the
                       Iraqi army was a good idea -- you projected that
                       interpretation because it's want you wanted to see.  My
                       point was always that you're a naive, unobjective,
                       ill-informed idiot.  You've just seen what you wanted
                       to see and heard what you wanted to hear.  Have a nice
                       life.  Maybe you'll even grow up one day.  And dammit.
                       I've been trolled.
                       \_ Nice try.  I clearly explained why disbanding the
                          Iraqi army was bad when I stated it.  These were the
                          very same reasons the US administration stated when
                          they realized it was a mistake and took step to try
                          to reverse the decision.  It's a classic case of
                          overconfidence in the US military's ability to
                          defeat any opposition which led to blatant disregard
                          for alienating the most well-trained people in
                          Iraq, many of whom joined the Iraqi army for the same
                          reason people join the US army - serving one's country.
                          Your need for name-calling goes to show you are the
                          only one who has some growing up to do.
                          \_ You continue to misremember the details of the
                             first argument and project your point of view
                             onto my position.  Reread the archives and try
                             thinking OBJECTIVELY.  And learn how to post to
                             motd correctly.
                    \_ what does one have to do with the other???  I understand
                       perfectly how damaging they are.  To Bush in the current
                       polls and election cycle.  Around the world it means
                       nothing.  Everyone who hates us will continue to do so.
                       No one needs any new excuses.  When we're perfect they
                       simply fabricate reasons to hate us.  Now they have a
                       reason and they'll hate us.  I don't see a difference.
                       \_ What does one has to do with the other?  They
                          both reflect a lack of knowledge with things
                          outside the US.  Iraq is an international stage,
                          and it is also the focus of media all over the
                          world, and with our involvement there, the focus
                          of the US media.  If you don't want
                          international events to have repercussions on
                          you, stay home.
        \_ csuamotd/csuamotd does not work, what's the login?
2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30020 Activity:high
5/5     Did you catch former Ambassador Joe Wilson telling Jon Stewart that
        Karl Rove should be run out of town on a rail?  Most excellent.
        \_ Who's Karl Rove?
           \_ http://www.famoustexans.com/karlrove.htm
              AKA, the guy who leaked the identity of a CIA operative to
              punish her husband for writing an editorial critical of the
              Administration.
              \_ Well last night Wilson was intimating that he thought it was
                 Scooter Libby (Cheney's Aide) or Rove or one other guy.
              \_ Is this confirmed? Is this still in investigation?
                 \_ Sorry, not yet, if ever.  Wishful thinking on my part.
        \_ That was pretty kickass.
2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:30014 Activity:high
5/5     Man, I just don't get today's Doonesbury.  Maybe it's because I
        don't drink. http://www.ucomics.com/doonesbury/index.phtml
        \_ Wine is not a "populist" drink.  Bush has always appeared as
           "one of the regular joe".  Regular Joes drink Busch beer.
              \_ Ha, ha.  You funny man.
                 \_ No really, move to the South.  You'll understand.
                    Try Lumberton, Mississippi.
        \_ Isn't wine associated with the french?
           \_ Are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia now?
2004/5/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30010 Activity:very high
5/4     What's the probability of Bush getting reelected? Will he stage
        something like the Taiwan president did? (ie, let one terrorist
        attempt be successful the week before election?)
        \_ You mean like 9/11?
           \_ on a much smaller scale. 911 again would be bad for Bush.
              \_ Another 9/11 would be great for Bush.  It would also result
                 in a draft, large scale mobilization of industrial capacity
                 of the US, and the summary squishing of most of the Middle
                 East, in my opinion.  Bush is at his best in squishing mode.
                 Nothing's scarier than a pissed off America mobilized for war.
                 What's happening now is scary enough, and we aren't even on
                 anywhere close to war footing.  -- ilyas
                 \_ Hmm. I'm not so sure about this. If it was Bin Laden again,
                    well, it doesn't look like there would be anything in
                    particular to do about it. I don't think congress would
                    jump on board a general "war on muslims" policy. The other
                    dictators are being pussies lately. Hell, Saddam was trying
                    hard to be a pussy until the end.
                    \_ Not 'war on muslims', 'war on fundamentalist islam, and
                       middle eastern dictatorships'.
        \_ You know, Oliver Stone foretold all of this in Wild Palms
           s/911/boca raton nuke/g and it's very creepy - even to the
           part about the "Liberty Bill"
        \_ according to John Zogby it's very close to 50/50, and he makes money
           off of being right, not off of being partisan one way or the
           other.
        \_ I'd be really curious what the oddsmakers have on it.  Can you bet
           point spread on elections or is it only up/down?
           \_ The Insider has it at 9/8, tradesports at 58/42. You can
              bet on total electoral votes on tradesports. Betting on
              elections is illegal in the United States.
              http://www.campaignline.com/index.cfm
              \_ What are the odds on the US "suddenly" capturing UBL in
                 October?
                 http://csua.org/u/76q
                 \_ The odds on him being captured by Set are 30/70, by
                    the end of the year 40/60.
2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30003 Activity:nil
5/4     "There are no longer torture chambers or mass graves or rape rooms
        in Iraq." -- President Bush, 04/30/04
2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29992 Activity:high 88%like:30001
5/4     Economy up, Kerry doomed:
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/04/financial1419EDT0159.DTL&type=printable
        \_ Yeah, but Bush is a corrupt asshole.  I'd vote for an inanimate
           carbon rod over Bush.
           \_ Did you actually get to SEE the rod?
        \_ Is that why Bush's numbers keep dropping?
2017/11/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/18   
Results 451 - 600 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
.