Politics Domestic President Bush - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
Results 751 - 900 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2019/08/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/12/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35479 Activity:very high
12/29   Some called the Bush administration's early reaction to the
        disaster in Asia a missed opportunity to show leadership at a
        time when the United States has been trying to build support
        for its "war on terror."  "I think politically they've done
        poorly," said Derek Mitchell, an expert in Asian affairs at
        the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International
        \_ I felt exactly the same when I saw the 15mil initial offering.
           \_ Me too.  It should have been $0 and we should have been informed
              where to send our donations.
        \_ The 35 million pales in comparison to Steve Job's annual bonus
           of about 90 million.
           \_ Are you complaining about Steve Jobs?  What's the relevance here?
        \_ socialism: you have two cows, and you give one to your
                starving neighbor. In the process, the middle man
                (government) takes 1/2 a chuck, and your neighbor's
                probably going to sell the other 1/2 to buy booz but
           US capitalism: you have two cows, and you loan one to your
                starving neighbor for an exorbitant interest rate. Fuck
                criticism, it's every man for himself.
2004/12/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35461 Activity:insanely high
12/28   Is it me, or is $35 million the US has pledged seems rather
        small? I mean we are the fucking United States of America and
        all we can give in a tragedy of this magnitude is 15 million?
        \_ It's just you.  How many of our tax dollars should the US government
           pledge to help another nation?
           \_ Yes, help someone in need that you will have nothing to gain
              from, that's obviously a new concept to you.
              \_ It's not new at all.  But that giving should be done by
                 individual citizens, not by allocation of our tax dollars.
           \_ None. Our tax dollars should only be used to bomb them.
        \_ I agree that it is rather small, compared to the amount
           we have spent so far to invade another country.
           \_ like Darfur, this is another opportunity which we can use
              to counter Osma Bin Laden's propaganda.  We should of dragged
              those Arab satellite TV stations along with us, show them that
              we do help out people, including those Muslim as well.
        \_ the USA is not socialist!  We have low taxes so that people can
           keep most of their money from wasteful bureaucracy, and more
           efficiently and voluntarily give to charities people can
           individually select! -New Republican l0ser who STILL p0wn5 4ll u
           dem0cr4tic l0s3r5!
           (sarcasm aside, the problem is that Democrats intuitively know
           there is a problem with the above argument, but just sit there
           and fume about rich/ignorant freeper bastards instead of giving a
           persuasive counter-argument)
           \_ 0mgz!  n3rf tr0015!!!!``111!!~@!
           \_ I d like to hear some.  I became a libertarian because someone
              changed my mind.  It could certainly be changed again. -- ilyas
              \_ The problem is that, left to their own devices, people will
                 donate inefficiently.  We need a coordinating authority to
                 make sure the money is spent wisely.  Of course, the
                 government also seems to do a bad job of steering money to
                 projects that have the greatest positive impact.
                 \_ I agree that given perfect information, and given
                    incorruptibility, a central planning agency will do better
                    than a set of independent agents.  However, since those
                    assumptions are both incorrect when applied to governments,
                    and since independent agents have shown to be more effective
                    in resource allocation for investment, for instance, than
                    a central agency, what makes you say the same is not true
                    for charity? -- ilyas
                    \_ fyi, "The problem is that ..." guy is not the same guy
                       as the "sarcasm aside, ..." guy.
                    \_ Note that I agreed that the government seems to do an
                       inefficient job of allocating charity money.  So my
                       argument is not so much individual vs. the governemtn,
                       but rather the individual vs. a "charity planner".
                       Individual investers often (usually?) do a bad job of
                       managing their own investment strategy and they would be
                       smart to leave the job up to professinoals (mutual
                       funds managers, financial planners, etc.)  Why not use
                       the analog for charity giving?  Instead of individual
                       persons making donations based on personal whim or
                       public appeals, why not use follow the recommendation
                       offered by a charity expert?  Why not donate money to a
                       mutual fund of charities, just as a person would
                       investment in a mutual fund of stocks?  This is likely
                       not the optimal strategy (for both charitable giving
                       and investment), but it'll probably yield better long
                       term results than going it on your own.
                       \_ I see no problem with this, as long as people, just
                          as with mutual funds, have a choice of where to
                          donate, or whether to go at it alone.  In fact, isn't
                          this how charity works now? -- ilyas
                          \_ Do I get a choice to opt-out of paying for
                             the war in Iraq?
                             \_ There are a few possibilities here:
                                (a) You are an anarcho-capitalist.  Then I
                                sympathize with your plight.
                                (b) You don't believe in democracy as a form
                                of government.  Then I sympathize with your
                                plight and agree.
                                (c) You are a liberal troll.  Then I advice you
                                to go stick your head in a pig. -- ilyas
                                \_ Dude, you just said "Why do you hate
                                   America?" and you didn't even realize it.
                             \_ Hahahaha, you are my hero!
                                \_ You two both took the choice of not
                                   volunteering for the citizen-soldier armed
                                   forces!  Freedom is not free!!  Now get back
                                   to work traitors!@1! -Troll
                             \_ So long as the rest of us also get to opt out
                                of paying for the things we disagree with, sure.
                       \_ Um, you do realize that >90% of managed mutual funds
                          perform worse than the market as measured by major
                          indices (e.g. DOW, S&P 500, etc.), and that's

                          *before* deducting commissions, management fees, and
                          other overhead.
                          \_ 1.  Do you think Moses came down from Mount Sinai
                             with the lists of stocks that comprise the Dow
                             (not an initial, BTW, unless you say DJIA),
                             S&P, etc.?  2.  Asset allocation is everything.
                             The effect of selecting particular securities
                             is secondary.
        \_ How much did you donate? How does the $35 million compare to
           what other nations contributed? How much do they donate to us
           when we have a disaster?
        \_ $35 million is a lot of money for countries like Sri Lanka.
           Anyway, we've donated enough money to 3rd world countries over
           the years, and we've bailed them out countless times.
        \_ you have to put things in perspective.  Taiwan donated whopping
           $50k USD to Thailand for the relief effort :p
           \_ I'm sorry to say this but the wealthy Taiwanese people are one
              of the most self-indulging people in this world. They drive
              nice cars and eat expensive Chinese seafood yet do not
              understand the meaning of charity. They don't seem to care
              about anything other than keeping their blood and money in
              their own circles.        -dated an X-gf who was Taiwanese
              \_ What about reallocating a week's worth of aid to Israel
                 to this earthquake/tsunami relief fund.  That will be at
                 least $50million.
              \_ Yea, but that's because they have to pay US$18 billion
                 (multiple times what other countries pay for them)
                 to the US for its outdated older generation weapons.
                 Generally speaking I agree with you.  Part of the
                 reason is that Taiwan has too few Christians (2%).
                 \_ Hello, are you a conservative? Are you a Republican?
                    Do you think the war has made the world safer? Do you
                    think the world will be a better place when everyone
                    is converted to a Christian?                -moderate
                 \_ "have to pay"?
                    \_ Yes, or surrender to commie China.
        \_ Some one asked how much other countries have donated. Here:
           The United States is offering a total of $35 million, followed
           by Japan with $30 million. Australia has now pledged $27
           million, Saudi Arabia $10 million and Germany $2.7 million.
           \_ Australia and Japan have more incentive to contribute,
              being the major players there. What about France, Russia,
              and so on?
2004/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:35460 Activity:low
12/28   http://tinyurl.com/4agjg
        (SI/cnn.com article regarding swimsuit model who survived)
        Is it me or is this a very arrogant article, considering how many
        thousands have died? Or is it in fact appropriate because it's
        sports illustrated reporting it?
        \_ I don't really think so.  Two reasons, A) It's really difficult
           to empathize with 50,000 people you never knew existed, and B)
           people always want to read about the survivor.  It's a
           pretty crazy story, she clung to a palm tree for 8 hours with a
           broken pelvis and internal injuries.
        \_ In SEA people are hearing all kinds of harrowing tales. I think
           it is just SI choosing one for its market. Everyone who survived
           either was lucky enough to be on high "ground" or went through
           the wringer and somehow came out w/o a broken neck, smashed
           head, impalement, etc.  80% of stories I read pivot around
           "luckily, the wave tossed me into a tree/window/roof" such that
           the survivor avoided the churn and under currents.  Quite a few
           were swept to sea and rescued, as well.
2004/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35457 Activity:moderate
12/28   http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-3/talk_of_the_town_susan_sontag.htm
        "In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be
        said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not
        cowards." -Susan Sontag, Sep 24 2001 issue of the New Yorker
        Goddamnit, I hate stupid liberals, especially those who are "smart".
        We're on the same team, but these people make us look like idiots.
        \_ Courage cannot be a morally neutral virtue in Platonian ethics,
           for obvious reasons.  Plato is so influential in ethical
           philosophy, I am surprised this point isn't addressed more.
           Unless, of course, she's just a demagogue. -- ilyas
        \_ With what do you disagree?  That courage can be evaluated in
           moral-neutral terms?  What was "cowardly" about the attacks?
           They were horrendous, shocking, unthinkable.  But cowardly?
           Calling them cowardly may be a salve for us here, but it's not
           necessarily true.
           \_ Killing civilians, where the idea is to kill as many as possible,
              is almost the purest definition of cowardice.  It's discouraging
              that someone as "smart" as Sontag couldn't recognize this.
              This is no "salve" -- this is the truth, long and short of it.
              \_ They went after US symbols of monetary and governmental
                 power.  If they wanted to kill as many civilians as possible,
                 they could have flown the planes into any of the nuclear
                 plants along the route.  I'm not trying to make light of the
                 deaths, but you've forgotten what the target was.
                 \_ Actually, the nuclear plants probably would have
                    killed less people and would have been much harder to
                    \_ Says you and who else?
                       \_ Read up on dirty bombs, and nuclear materials in
                          general.  As for harder to hit, are you an
                 \_ I think Osama thought it was great to kill two birds with
                    one stone:  (1) "Spectacular" attack from killing so
                    many innocents, and (2) the financial repercussions from
                    taking out the WTC.  I haven't forgotten anything, hombre.
        \_ She wasn't exactly a "liberal", more like a "rabble rouser", like
           just write/say crap that's total nonsense and dress it up with
           high-brow veneer and make it look like someone intelligent
           wrote it. I never liked her novels.
        \_ Terrorists are all cowards.
           \_ It's pretty courageous to drive your car into a crowd of
              innocent and unarmed people, which is basically what the
              WTC attackers did. If that's not courage then what is?!
              \_ how many troll points is this worth?
                 \_ Your sarcasm meter is on the blink.
                    \_ you needed more "?!!!"
           \_ "Cowards are cruel, but the brave Love mercy, and delight to
               save." -- John Gay
              "When all the blandishments of life are gone, The coward
               sneaks to death, the brave live on." -- Dr. George Swewll
              "To wish for death is a coward's part. [Lat., Timidi est
               optare necem.] -- Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso)
                \_ Those last two quotes miss the point entirely.  But
                   agree with Sontag, willfully piloting a plane into a
                   buildings is a lot of despicable things, but cowardly
                   it is not.
                   \_ I believe Sontag and you are both missing a key point.
                      The term "cowardly" is NOT morality-neutral.  http://m-w.com:
                      "cowardice":  lack of courage or resolution
                      "courage":  mental or moral strength to venture,
                      persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty
                      Now, if there were a morality-neutral term to use
                      for piloting a plane into a building, killing yourself,
                      then use that term.
                      This is where you say:  "Oh, but it says 'mental' OR
                      'moral' strength, and I meant mental courage, and that's
                      morality-neutral, so there!"
                      Then here is where I say:  "The moral connotation trumps
                      in this case; use a clear, morality-neutral term."
        \_ "Well, I believe [...] that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-
           indulgent, overrated crap."  - Crash Davis, "Bull Durham"
2004/12/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35431 Activity:nil 62%like:35432
12/24   Evidence that there are some sane minds in the Islamic
2004/12/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35426 Activity:high
12/24   Today I saw a few protesters on union square handing out flyers
        reading something like "stop Bush's Pinochet social programs."  They
        looked like reasonably educated, intelligent kids, but I couldn't help
        but think that, regardless of whether or not I agree with their points
        (which I could sort of infer) there seemed to be a pretty hilariously
        bad interpretation of politics, history, and reality in general there.
        So just as a general observation, if you're going to argue about a
        particularly emotionally or ideologically charged topic, no matter
        which side you take, it helps to do some _basic_ research first, or
        you look like an idiot.  This has been a public service announcement,
        Happy whatever.  -John
        \_ maybe they're being ironic?  pinochet had lots of great
           social programs involving tossing people out of helicopters.
           in other news, that "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE! NO SEX ! NO SEX!
           NO SEX!!!!!!!!" guy who sits on a fire hydrant all day
           outside of the cable car turnaround on powell in a suit is
           still there - danh
        \_ union square in... Switzerland? Wait, where are you really?
        \_ Sorry, you are siply misinformed:
           You *do* know that the Republicans pushing for Social
           Security privitization hold up the Pinochet example, right? -ausman
           \_ No, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the information.  Mea
              culpa, I should have done more research myself, but it seemed
              like a pretty absurd connection.  Anyway, Hitler built nice
              highways... :-)  -John
              \_ Stop the Mussolini BART reform!  The flyer guys are still
                 dumbasses.  Well, either dumbasses or cynics of the worst
                 kind. -- ilyas
        \_ better than sitting on their welfare state public univeristy
           grad school ass.
              \_ Yeah, well calling it the "Pinochet" plan is kind of over
                 the top and stupid, imho, but at least it got your
                 attention, right? I really don't know if this kind
                 of grandstanding works in American politics, but it
                 appears to have worked pretty well most of the time.
                 American politics is laughably stupid. -ausman
                 \_ It got my attention, got me to (indirectly) find out
                    about it, and (a) dismiss these particular guys as kooks,
                    and (b) dismiss their points as invalid.  So, net effect
                    of kookish presentation is negative... -John
                    \_ In my experience, most protest signs about something
                       more complicated than "NO WAR!" are so badly written
                       as to be worse than useless.  If I wanted to stand on
                       the side of a road all day telling people about my
                       oddball political position, I'd just buy an easy to
                       remember domain name, post a clear statement of my
                       position at the website, and hold up a sign with
                       the url on it.  I've pointed this out to protesters
                       who had crappy looking, cryptic signs before and they
                       never seemed to appreciate the advice.  I'd read
                       a url if I saw it on a sign.
                       \_ It's obvious you've never done anything like
                          campaign or run for office or try to get something
                          voted on a ballot. Probably only 1% of the people
                          who would read your URL sign would actually go
                          to the stupid website. The point of protests
                          is to get attention, preferrably media attention.
                          People aren't going to pay attention to you if all
                          you've got is a hard to remember URL. If your URL
                          is easy to remember (which is quite difficult nowadays
                          with all these URLs being taken) you wouldn't
                          need the URL anyway since your message would
                          be short enough to put on a sign.
                          \_ I had a long reply that got deleted.  Your
                             sentence is to live in darkness forever.
2004/12/23-25 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35418 Activity:kinda low
12/23   Does the US president need to get a visa, like normal
        tourists, to countries that require visas?
        \_ No, because they're heads of state. Heads of state are
           invited to other countries, so visas don't generally apply.
           You need a visa if you're not invited specifically to a country.
           That's like 99% of us.
        \_ It was said that Bush would have to get special permission to
           visit Canada, thanks to his prior DUI.  But we'd probably invade
           if they actually made him do it.
        \_ I would assume he gets a diplomatic passport from
           the US State Department. Diplopats are above the law.
                \_ Do you think the reverse situation works the
                   same (i.e. foreign president visiting the US)?
2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35405 Activity:very high
12/22   The Confederate flag is fighting back, the Red is the latest fashion!
        In other news, rural area is expanding and the Conservatives are
        way out-reproducing the Hippies:
        \_ The Latinos are way outproducing both.
          \_ true, and they are Conservatives who hate you Hippies.
             \_ Why do they vote overwhelmingly Democratic then?
                \_ Depends on their income and generation. They vote more
                   and more Republican the more money they make.
                   Middle-class Latinos tend to be Republican and all
                   are conservative by virtue of their religion.
                \_ overwhelming? In 2000, they were 25% Rep 74% Dem.
                   In 2004, the were 44% Rep 54% Dem. Go figure.
                   \_ That 44% is a Republican fantasy. Bush got
                      about 40% and that is far better than your
                      average Republican. He also got 35% in 2000,
                      not 25% as you imply. Been listening to Rush
                      Limbaugh again? You really should fact check
                      that guy before repeating his falsehoods.
                      Latinos are over 3:1 currently Democratic.
                      Latinos are currently over 3:1 Democratic.
2004/12/22 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35404 Activity:nil
12/22   "Time Magazine - Hitler - Man of 1938 (January 2, 1939)"
        on eBay, for $71.00. The seller says "(It is not often we
        have the privilege to have a leader like our current President
        Bush ...thank you Mr. President..thank you God!)"
2004/12/22 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35394 Activity:nil
12/22   Just realize Bush's big political gamble.  His State of Union address
        is about a week after Iraqi election...
        \_ What political gamble? It's his second and final term. He can
           basically do whatever he wants without worrying about
           repercussions. It's not like anyone can even recall him.
2004/12/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35384 Activity:moderate
12/21   Protest GWB's inauguration, please join and help out, YOU
        can make a difference!
        Orig story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142235,00.html
        \_ you know there was a time in history when protestors would
           gather at say, Woodstock or Berkeley and make big noise
           with songs, dances, drugs, and riots, and they would be on
           prime-time news. I'm sad to say this but the new apathetic
           materialistic and often ignorant student body of Gen Y at
           Cal is failing to live up to traditions.
2004/12/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35382 Activity:high
12/21   Funny how my mind works.  NYTimes headline "Blast Kills at Least 24 at
        U.S. Base in Iraq" I read as "Bush Kills at Least 24..."
        \_ omgwtfw00t!
        \_ Yeah!!
        \_ Bush killed over 1000+ servicement, 15000 Iraqis, and the world
           credibility and trust of US.
2004/12/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35377 Activity:low
12/21   News coverage polls from pollingpoint:
        Computer programmers get some deal of respect from people:
        \_ The hell is with this sudden respect for farmers?  Is this some
           strange retro thing?
           \_ same people who voted for George W. Bush. 51% of them. Go figure
           \_ What the hell is this sentence fragment?
2004/12/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35367 Activity:nil
12/20   Three cheers for Dubya!  http://CNN.com today:
        As for Bush, 49 percent of respondents said they approved of the job
        the president is doing. That number is down from his November approval
        rating of 55 percent. Bush is the first incumbent president to have an
        approval rating below 50 percent one month after winning re-election.
        The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage
        [Gallup poll.  Washington Post poll says the same thing.]
        \_ Not that I love Dubya, but didn't we all just learn how much you
           can really trust polls?
           \_ Actually, I think the Gallup poll matched the election results.
              It was Zogby that fucked it up.
2004/12/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35358 Activity:insanely high
12/19   In case some of you haven't heard, W is the man of the year:
        \_ That makes it official, the time man of the year means
           absolutely nothing.
                \_ Time's Man of the Year has never been an honor,
                   just a recognition that good or bad, that person
                   made the biggest impact in the news.
                        \_ I know, but in recent years, the MOY hasn't
                           even accomplished that. Take for instance,
                           "the whistleblowers", or Jeff Bezos, or
                           the best example yet: Rudy Giuliani. None
                           of those people made a huge impact on domestic
                           or global affairs. Most of those people were
                           clearly chosen because there wasn't a single
                           person that made a great accomplishment (in
                           other words, a slow news year), so they just
                           chose someone that was semi-prominent.
           \_ That makes it official, you have no idea what you're
              talking about.
                \_ why?
        \_ You know how last year they selected the American soldier?  This
           year they should have picked the American voter.  He definitely
           wins out over Dubya in terms of stupidity.
           \_ I agree. I can't believe something like 5.8x10e7 people voted
              for John Kerry. Where did all these idiots come from?
              for Dubya. Where did all these idiots come from?
           \_ I agree. I can't believe something like 5.5x10e7 people voted
              for Kerry. Where did all these idiots come from?
                \_ wow when you state it that way, I realize how wrong I was.
                   \_ I said Kerry, some ass keeps changing it to Dubya.
                      Personally I can't believe there are people in America
                      dumb enough to vote for the "global test". Fortunately
                      enough sane people went to the polls in Ohio.
                \- http://www.cafepress.com/ipa_politics.15527178
        \_ Wasn't Hitler Man of The Year in 1938?
           \_ Hitler, Stalin, Khomeni, Castro.. pretty good company.
              \_ I'm glad you neglect to ignore the above about the American
                 soldier who you owe your very right to say such ignorant
                 things. Demonstrates your supreme grasp of MOY award.
                 \_ we wouldn't be in this war if there weren't so many
                    _voluntary_ American soldiers.  Conscription woulda
                    nixed it.
                 \_ that's right, because the american soldiers who were
                    honored as MOY that year are really helping to
                    provide our current freedom. you sure sound like one
                    of the many geniuses who seem to confuse who we're
                    fighting in this war and why.
                    \-I think they should have picked K. ROVE. --psb
                        \_ Yeah, I read they were considering him. If
                           they wanted someone in the Bush camp as MOY,
                           Rove should have been picked, since he was
                           responsible for Bush's victory.
2004/12/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35342 Activity:high
12/17   For the person who didn't believe me on the armor production,
        do a google news search for "Armor Holdings", the company that
        supplies the armoring for those vehicles.  After Rummy said his
        "It's a matter of physics", they came out and said "We can boost
        production by 22% with no extra investment, but we haven't heard
        anything from the military about doing so."  Fuck you. You're
        apologizing for people who truly do not support our troups.
        \_ Uhm, if you knew anything armor you'd realize that you typically
           don't get something for nothing. Sure, you can put more armor
           on a vehicle, but the vehicle gets heavier, uses more gas,
           and is less manueverable. Anyway, the world isn't perfect,
           neither is the U.S. Army. There are tradeoffs. Deal with it.
                \_ Um, are you Rumsfeld? That was the biggest non-answer
                   on this thread.
        \_ 1000 fatalities isn't enough to make the American public
           care.  How many people on here actually know someone
           who died in Iraq?
           \_ Again, fuck you.  --scotsman (i know two.)
                \_ with how many degrees of separation?
                   \_ Seriously.  Fuck you.
                     \_ why do you hate America?
           \_ I don't actually know any black people who have been
              lynched either.  Or Jews killed by the Nazis.
              \_ I know people who have lost family members to the Nazis.
                 I would have to be pretty freakin old to actually know
                 someone who was killed before 1945.
                 \_ So you get the point then?
                    \_ That in 60 years no one will be left to remember
                       what a dumbass Bush was? We will have history books
                       to remind us. And oh, look! Their children will
                       still be around to remind people of the stupidity
                       of starting a war for no good reason:
                       \_ That's the point!  You don't have to personally
                          know someone that was effected to care about it.
        \_ I didn't believe YOUR ASSERTION dumbass.  I still haven't seen any
           sourcing for your claim.  Do you believe everything everyone tells
           you without question?
           \_ What claim?  Isn't it enough that Rumsfeld was pretty directly
              grilled by a bunch of combat troops about why they're not
              getting enough armor?  With 1,000+ fatalities, you'd think the
              military-industrial complex would go into overdrive.  I don't
              care if the war is right or wrong, it's being run by a bunch of
              sad amateurs.  -John
              \_ John, don't be a fucking moron. ~1100 fatalities in 1.5 years
                 of combat is nothing. In order to achieve the same numbers
                 that we lost in 'Nam we'd have to fight for 50 years, five
                 times longer than 'Nam. 1100 fatalities equals about 1% of
                 our ground forces in Iraq. That's like a fucking unheard of
                 fatality rate for a war. If it WERE run by morons like JFK
                 and LBJ in 'Nam, we'd have 10000+ casualties by now.
                 \_ I wrote a long rant in response to this, but deleted it,
                    as it's pointless to clog the motd with basic historical
                    concepts.  You can look it up in the archive if you want.
                    Upshot:  You are completely off, your premises are wrong,
                    your Vietnam comparison is a straw man, and I encourage
                    you to go to the Cal ROTC office and ask any of their
                    (generally) very friendly military history instructors to
                    explain why you are wrong--they'll probably lay out more
                    eloquently and succinctly your fallacies.  You're at Cal,
                    dialectical process and all that.  And kindly have the
                    courtesy to sign your name if you insult me.  -John
              \_ 'sad amateurs'?  I think you mean 'politicians'
                 \_ Wolfowitz has never been elected, and Rumsfeld was last in
                    office in '69.  They're the NeoCon version of Ivory Tower
                    professors, and their experiment has resulted in the
                    the current Mess-O'Potamia.
                    \_ But that's kind of my point-o-potamia, isn't it?
                       \_ If you're making some comparison between the two,
                          I'd agree.  If you're saying they're not sad
                          amateurs, I'd have to ask you to step outside for
                          reeducation by fisticuffs.
           \_ What part of SEARCH ON FUCKING GOOGLE do you NOT UNDERSTAND. It's
              been reported by the entire media.  Fuck you.
              \_ I did a search, first few links I clicked on didn't have any
                 info.  Do you understand the difference between  SEARCH ON
                 GOOGLE and a fucking source you dumbfuck?!?
                 \_ Boy, you're angry.  Read below.  -John
                    \_ I'm irritated when someone makes an inflammatory claim
                       and backs it up with "stfw".  My answer is a big fat
                       FUCK YOU.  If you don't think it's worth your time to
                       source your claims, it's not worth mine to take them
                       \_ Sourced below.  Put up or shut up.
                       \_ I'm annoyed with both of you.  Yeah, he should've
                          put up a link, but you should have looked harder.
                          Two wrongs don't make a right, even on the motd.
           \_ God, you're both lazy pricks.  Here's a recent Bloomberg article:
              http://csua.org/u/ael  Here's a Google Cache of the original
              article: http://csua.org/u/aen
        \_ You know, I'm having a hard time actually finding the full text for
           Rumsfeld's response.  I wonder why that is?  You do know that the
           vehicle supplier is only part of the chain, right?
           \_ http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html
           \_ Yes, the supplier is part of the chain.  I would argue they
              are the start of the chain.  They were never asked to increase
              production, even when they had told the pentagon they could.
              That's a military leadership failure.
              \_ No, that may mean that the rest of the chain can't handle
                 faster production.
                 \_ They are _the single provider_ of up-armored humvees
                    according to the article.  They say they could increase
                    production immediately with no new investment.  You're
                    being unreasonably apologistic.
                    \_ So you're saying there's no limit on transport and
                       deployment?  Apparently the rest of the supply chain is
                       handled by Santa Claus.
                       \_ This is before transport.  They didn't set anything
                          in motion.  They failed.
                          \_ If the rest of the chain couldn't handle that
                             supply it would be pointless to "set anything
                             in motion" you moron.  They'd just be humvees
                             sitting in a warehouse in the states.
                       \_ "It's a matter of production and capability of doing
                           it." SecDef apparently disagrees with you, soldier.
              \_ This is called 'passing the buck'. It's like when your
                 boss asks you why something isn't done that should've
                 been done by now and you blame someone else, even though
                 you could've done your part of the job without that
                 person having done theirs. This company is trying to
                 avoid taking blame by saying 'We weren't specifically
                 asked!'. I am sure they were not going out of their way
                 to tell the military they could produce more for free.
                 \_ Uhh, why wouldn't they want to produce more?  They
                    get paid by the piece sold you know.
                    \_ I guess you've never worked in/for government.
                 \_ "I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that."
                    This is just not your day for reading, is it?
                    \_ What do you expect them to say? Don't take
                       everything at face value. I am not saying the
                       company should produce more when it is not asked
                       to, but they are painting it to make themselves
                       look better.
                       \_ To look better to whom? Apart from you, who's calling
                          them liars?  Not the military, and they're the ones
                          who would gain most from being able to pin this
                          on the company. Face it, SecDef dropped the ball.
                          No amount of signed letters is going to fix that.
              Also of note, Rumsfeld was asked basically the same question
              8 months ago at a similar town-hall meeting.  He bullshat on
              them then, and did so again.
              (Oops.  It was general meyers who took the question.)
              \_ Huh? Wha?  meyers is in this thread?  Uh oh -- time to ilyas
                 \_ No, it was General Myers.  -meyers, no relation
                    \_ Hi, you are both dipshits.  Have a good weekend.
                         -- ilyas
2019/08/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/12/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35322 Activity:high
12/16   GW Bush shutting down GPS    http://tinyurl.com/6dtb3
        \_ You fucking liar.
           \_ Do you mean liar as in "There Are WMD in Iraq, I Guarantee It!"
              kind of liar or "No Honey, I never think about your sister
              when we are having sex" kind of liar?
              \_ Look at the headline in the link and then at what the OP
                 \_ So more like a Bush, totally exaggerating but from
                    a germ of truth.
        \_ Wow.  What a completely misleading title.
        \_ Assume for a second that you don't trust GWB's big brother tactics.
           That they wantonly label anyone they don't like a terrorist sez,
           yes, he could shut down GPS for any stupid reason he chooses to.
           Welcome to the future of the past.
           \_ Welcome to the sanitorium. Would you like coco-puffs with your
              anti-psychosis medicine today?
        \_ Kind of depends on whether he intends to jam Galileo signals
           outside of the US when someone decides it's terror alert time
           again.  If not, who cares.  -John
2004/12/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35304 Activity:nil 66%like:30894
12/15   Do it for Dubya!
2004/12/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35303 Activity:nil
12/14   So Paul Bremer, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet were awarded the
        Presidential Medal of Freedom today.  Can someone else think of any
        other semi-competent jackasses that have won this, or has Bush set
        a new precedent here?
        \_ Mr. Rogers.  Always hated that bastard.
        \_ Seriously lowers the bar.  Fucking assholes.
        \_ I have to wonder what Tenet has on Bush.
           \_ It's Dubya's loyalty reward.
              "Stick with me, I'll take care of ya".
              He's trying to recruit for his administration.
              Lieberman reportedly already won't take the Homeland Security
              job or the UN ambassadorship.
              \_ "Come with me if you want to live!"
2004/12/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35221 Activity:very high
12/8    Is it known who would replace Rehnquist when he dies? Would
        a current justice become chief and a new justice appointed,
        or would they appoint a new chief justice directly?
        \- the president could do either. rhenquist would probably resign
           before dying. even thurgood marshall resigned inspite of saying
           "i was appointed to a life sentence and i intend to serve it".
           if the chief is out of comission for a while, the senior justice,
           john paul stevens, would assume some responsibilities. oconnor
           would be a fine chief but is probably too close to retiring herself.
           people keep talking about scalia being elevated, which seems crazy
           to me, but that certainly hasnt stopped bushco. even worse would
           be putting ashcroft on the supct. the other people being discussed
           you would probably not be familiar with unless you follow this
           closely. --psb
           \_ http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4049
        \_ Bush will probably nominate Posner (7th Circuit) for the the
           vacancy rather than promote any of the existing justices.
           \- Posner would be cool. Easterbrook would be ok. But the names
              I've been hearing more are nutjobs. Where did you hear the
              Posner rumor? Posner wrote some well publicized stuff on
              intelligence reform and is very much the opposite of a
              stealth justice, so that may alienate some right wing
              support. i think the democrats may go for him because
              he is not totally crazy, and in this climate he looks
              pretty good. --psb
                \_ Not sure where I heard the Posner rumor, but he
                   seems like the best overall choice to take over
                   as CJ b/c (1) he is widely regarded as the
                   smartest judge in the federal judiciary (sort of
                   like a modern Cardozo or Holmes), (2) he would
                   face the least opposition in the senate, (3) the
                   rest of the USSC would likely accept him as CJ
                   w/o reservations.
                   Easterbrook (also 7th Circuit) would probably
                   not be as easy a nomination b/c he has made
                   some crazy decisions in the past.
                   \-i was suggesting resistance to posner would come
                       from the right, not the left. "best choice" !=
                       "likely bush nominee"...q.v. bush41 & "clarence thomas,
                       the best qualified man for the job" --psb
                        \_ Just to keep the record straight, C.T. was chosen
                           only after a qualified justice was rejected by the
                           \_ Who?
        \_ just chedked out the bios of the justices online, they all either
           went to harvard law or stanford law. what, are those schools
           that much better than all other law schools? or is this also a
           good ol' boys club?
           \_ Yes, we need one from Boalt.  And I know the perfect guy:
              (future) Supreme Court Chief Justice John C. Yoo!
              (and Dubya's future new favorite justice)
              Both Yoo and Thomas strictly interpret the Constitution, not
              legislate from the bench! </troll>
           \_ You are not seriously this naive, are you?
                \_ I realize its kind of a naive question but it is an
                   interesting observation still to me. and I wasn't
                   implying that someone from boalt should be chosen.
2004/12/7-8 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35198 Activity:high
12/7   Economist article on the slide of the dollar
        \_ What I got out of it:
           (1) Dollar falls too far
           (2) Foreign banks which keep a lot of dollars (as a currency which
               retains value) will convert to Euro / yen
             (3) Dollar falls even farther
           (4) The U.S. government and consumers just can't buy as much with a
                 dollar == Inflation
           The unmentioned kicker:
           The U.S. will beat the shit out of any foreign government which
           wants to sell its dollars.
           \_ Much as I'd like to see it happen, I don't think the US is going
              to start nailing most of Asia and Europe.  The countries we are
              capable of "beating the shit out of" are most likely not the
              ones holding a lot of dollars, or are they?  -John
               \_ Are Dubya and friends working on ways to make it economically/
                  politically painful for foreign governments to sell their US$?
                  \_ what for?  dubya and friends want the US dollar to fall,
                     just not in an uncontrolled panicky way.  foreign governments
                     all want the US dollar not to fall too much, but they also
                     don't want to be the one left holding the bag.
            \_ Isn't low Dollar good for our exports?
               \_ insofar as imported stuff getting more expensive in the U.S.
                  is good and domestic stuff getting more expensive at a
                  smaller rate -obviously not an economist
               \_ Yes, but our exports are way out of whack vis a vis imports.
                  \_ true, so what happens to the 90 pct of consumer goods
                     we buy that are made in china when the renminbi increases
                     50-100 pct over the value of the dollar?
                       \_ at most 20 pct.  prc government won't let it float
                          freely but just increase the range where the yuan
                          is allowed to trade.
                  \_ That will not be true if the dollar falls a lot,
                     though. The other plus of a weak dollar is that it
                     makes it less expensive to pay back the debt we are
                     borrowing. The US will raise the dollar once Iraq
                     stabilizes. Right now, we want it weak since we are
                     borrowing a lot for the war.
                     \_ It creates pain for holders of our treasuries,
                        but does it make it less expensive for us?
                        The debt is still in dollars and dollars are
                        what we have.  No?  It only becomes less
                        expensive for us if there's inflation?
                        \_ If we borrow Euros then we have to borrow fewer
                           of them. A falling dollar is much the same as
                           \_ don't understand what you are saying.
                              all our debt are denominated in dollars.
                  \_ Yes, US don't export much anyway.  The main effect
                     would be inflation since we buy lots and lots of
                    stuff from overseas.
                     stuff from overseas.  I mean, what does US export?
                     Mainly like food stuff.  But yes, letting dollar
                     slide is the least painful way for US to get out
                     of its fiscal and economic mess.
                     \_ Uhm, the U.S. is the single largest exporting country
                        in terms of dollar value. We are basically the
                        bread basket to the world. We are also the largest
                        importing country in the world. We just simply
                        import more than we export in terms of dollars.
                         \_ the difference isn't that much either, only
                            about 500 billion a year.  US economy is
                            like 10 trillion.
                            \_ Try spending 5% more than you make every
                               year and see how long you can get away
                               with it. Then again, the average American
                               consumer is probably doing just that right
                               now. Oh a cold rain is gonna fall!
                               \_ Well, we could just not repay the debt.
                                  It's not like this is the first time an
                                  industrialized country just reniged on
                                  it's debt. Since we're the proverbial
                                  300lb gorilla in the room, you think
                                  anyone is really going to mess with us
                                  if we just say "sorry, we're just not going
                                  to honor all those treasury bonds"?
                                  Sure, there would be economic repercussions,
                                  but it isn't like we'll be invaded and I
                                  doubt that other countries will just stop
                                  investing in us. After all, we are the
                                  largest market in the world.
                                    \_ Do we do that against US based holders
                                       of those bonds?  If not, how do you tell
                                       who is who?  In any case, as dire as
                                     the current situation is, I don't
                                     think we're at the stage where such
                                     a drastic and disastrous measure
                                     needs to be taken.
                                  \_ Nobody invaded Argentina when they
                                     defaulted on their debt either, they
                                     just suffered mightily economically.
                                     As we will if we defualt on our debt.
                     \_ How about software exports?  Is it big $ in the big
                        picture of things?
             \_ what you missed in the last paragraph:
                "American bond yields (long-term interest rates) would soar,
                 quite likely causing a deep recession."
                Another article quoted that 50 pct of new mortgages are
                variable interest rates.  In fact, Greenspan himself urged
                consumers to borrow @ variable interest rates.  When bond
                interest rates start to soar, mortgage interest will soar,
                and the number of defaults and bankruptcies will be epic.
                Don't be a home-owner when that happens.  Oh, not to
                mention interest rates for all other debts: equity lines,
                credit cards, etc.  The US consumer is deeply deeply in
                debt, and when interest rates start to rise, the picture
                won't be pretty.

                Oh, the other thing you missed.  the US will not do anything
                to the Asian countries which will do the majority of the
                dollar reserve sell-off.  China which has $515 bn in reserve
                has already announced a planned sell-off that will likely
                accelerate as the dollar fars further.
                \_ Oh look, Mr. Housing Bubble Is Going To Pop is back
                 with a better argument. Are you still bitter that
                 you didn't buy a house in the Bay Area back when
                 you could still afford it?
                 \_ Hmmmm, if nobody can afford to buy a house in the bay
                    area in the future, wouldn't that mean that house prices
                    will FALL in the future?!?!?!
                 \_ This has nothing to do with the housing bubble.  This
                    is about overall massive recession of the US economy,
                    which will take housing prices with it.  If you have
                    a house, and you're making 5 pct 30 yr fixed mortgage
                    payments on it, more power to you.  Just hold on to
                    your job, and weather the storm.
              \_ US is stuck in Iraq.  All our allies hate our guts.
                 Nobody will give a damn about us "beating the shit out of"
               \_ Troll. Has the US announced war on China?
            \_ I like US dollar falling.  It makes my parents very rich
                 when they move to the US.
2004/12/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35177 Activity:nil
12/5    So we know nothing good has come out of Texas since before the
        JFK shooting. What was the last good thing to come from Texas?
        \_ Liberal talk radio!
           "...from the liberal and progressive capital of the world: Dallas,
        \_ Troll
2004/12/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35168 Activity:nil
12/3    Cobra comman.. i mean Cobra Hands stays.. muwhhwa
2004/11/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35105 Activity:nil
11/28   The first post-election analysis that makes sense:
        \_ Let's do a Stalin on the Reddies!
2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35093 Activity:nil
11/27   http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/27/bush.radio/index.html
        If drafting can't be possible, let's try a bit of advertisement,
        guilt trip, and peer pressure.
        \_ And this is different from Clinton's praise of the military
           while he sent them to Kosovo and godknows where because?
           This only after he realized they could win votes did he decide to
           stop kicking them out of the White House.
2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35089 Activity:nil
11/27   http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/11/27/bush-plot/index.html
        Cheney almost became the President. The rebels DO hate America!!!
        \_ A.. D'uh
2004/11/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:35042 Activity:high
11/23   Jeb Bush for 2008! Long Live the Bush Dynasty!     -religious guy
        \_ Fuck you. Seriously. Fuck you, fuck bush, and fuck jesus.
           fuck all of you assholes.  If you like jihad, why don't you
           convert to islam, and move to Iran where you belong?
           \_ jihad is already upon you.
           \_ Congratulations, you've been trolled.
        \_ Who censored the fuck jesus guy?
           \_ restored.
        \_ http://bushislord.com
           \_ republican: good, democrat: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil
2004/11/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35034 Activity:high
11/23   http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/23/hunters.killed/index.html
        the 6th shooter dies from the hunting incident. That's
        6 less Republicans voting for Jeb Bush in 2008.
        \_ Wow, you're really funny. Do you enjoy hearing about the
           death of people and making off-topic jokes like that?
           Oh wait, anyone who doesn't conform to your concept
           of normality HAS to be a Republican. I forgot about that.
        \_ Turns out shooter is Hmong, arrrived in US at age of 16, and is
           a US Army Vet (possibly Desert Storm).  It's almost certainly
           going to end up a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder case.
           \- Did Vang have an Vang barrel on his gun? --psb
           \_ Army of One
                \_ I'm glad you liberals like to compare Bush to Hitler
                   When I see that count fly past the population of
                   Britain, I wonder if the UK would like doubling its
                   populuation with all you blue nuts.
2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35022 Activity:high 50%like:35088
11/22   Hey script people, did he "ilyas" the motd again?
        \_ Basically, we've determined ilyas' Kryptonite: just mention how
           he's a hypocrite for being a libertarian who lives for free
           off of the UC system.
           \_ This is as moronic as blaming wall socialists for not moving
              to Cuba.  Rather than sitting in CA, and reaping the benefits
              of the evil, worker exploiting capitalist society with
              BushCo at the helm. -- ilyas
              \_ I don't know of anyone on wall advocating socialism.
                 \_ Heh.  Then I am not a libertarian, but a Queen of
                 \_ Heh.  Then I am not a libertarian, but the Queen of
                    England. -- ilyas
           \_ I thought you could always make ilyas look like an idiot just by
              deleting one of his posts or signing his name to something he
              wrote.  It never fails.  He always does something stupid in
              \_ Since he insists on strict ordering, and prefers everyone
                 sign their posts, why doesn't he wall instead of posting
                 on the motd?  Is it because he can't nuke the wall log??
                 \_ Because on wall he can't pretend to be 5 different people.
2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35007 Activity:insanely high
11/22   So the hunting shooter turns out to be Asian. I hear
        a race card getting ready to be brought out. BTW, I hunt
        and I'm Asian. Hunting has far fewer accidents and far
        more participants than most people know.
        \_ The "hunting shooter?"  What the crap are you talking about?
        \_ Who's pulling out the race card?  I only just saw this story, but it
           looks pretty straightforward to me.
        \_ RACIST!!!
        \_ I dunno about the race card, but if he's a displaced Hmong, expect
           to hear the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder defense soon.
        \_ The most charitable explanation I can think of goes like this:
           Redneck: Git offa my property!  <BLAM>
           Asian guy: Oh shit!  <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM>
           Redneck 2:  What was that?  He shot pa!
           Asian guy: On no!  More rednecks!  <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM>
           \_ There was only 1 gun found amoung the 8 shot.
              \_ The dialog above only has one redneck shooting. So what's
                 your point?
              \_ But let's not let facts get in a way of good ol' fashioned
                 redneck bashing.
              \_ One gun among 8 hunters?  During a 9-day hunting season?
                 This is suspicious.
                 \_ Only one gun was found amoung the 8 shot.
                 \_ Haven't read the article, have you?
           \_ This is Wisconsin, not Kentucky.  Wisconsin has a large number
              of Hmong refugees.  It's possible that the victims used racial
              epithets and heated language, but it's not likely they shot
        \_ More likely, as a member of a Dem. mascot group, he feels a
           sense of entitlement.
2004/11/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35005 Activity:nil
11/21   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139211,00.html
        Gun loving Republicans hunters got into an argument and
        shot each other. 5 Republicans dead.
        \_ The guy was Hmong trespassing on private property.  Hmong
           have become a Dem. mascot group in this area.
2004/11/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:34995 Activity:very high
11/19   What is the political slant of the following people?
   1. William H Gates III
   2. Warren E Buffett
   3. Karl & Theo Albrecht
   4. Paul G Allen
   5. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud
   6. Lawrence J Ellison
   7. Alice L Walton
   8. Helen R Walton
   9. Jim C Walton
  10. John T Walton
  11. Theodore Leanord
  12. Robert Wainright
  13. Agnes P Johanson
  14. John C. Dvorak
  15. Miles F. Chancery
  16. Henry Mulborough
        \_ walton, walmart, hick states, very very red. Buffet, Bush's buddy,
           should also be very red. I'm guessing that Gates is very blue
           because he's in Washington, but that's kind of far fetched.
           \_ Buffet's a liberal.  Gates is an Ayn Rand fan, apparently.
           \_ Buffett's a liberal.  Gates is an Ayn Rand fan, apparently.
                -- ilyas
              \_ Buffett is a Democrat, but he's hardly a liberal.  -tom
                 \_ I ve heard enough from Buffett to know he is only not
                    a 'real liberal' to a Berkeley kook like you. -- ilyas
                 \_ Probably the best description of Buffett is
                    "Fiscal Conservative Democrat".
              \_ Ayn Rand, objectivism, self reliant, etc etc etc.
                 \_ Objectivists range from (moderate) conservative to
                    libertarian.  They don't like government very much.
                      -- ilyas
        \_ Larry Ellison. The bastard is the most conceited, selfish
           dickhead who cares about nothing except beating Gates.
           You know I've never seen him at work the 5 years I was at
           Oracle, a company that makes *1* great [overpriced] product
           and 99 other shitty products, like apps, tools, ERP, CRM.
           Anyways, Ellison reminds me of Bush with his "fuck everyone
           else" attitude, so if I had to make a guess, I'd say he's
           a Republican. In fact I'd say most of the people on the
           list are probably Republicans.
2004/11/19 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34980 Activity:nil
11/19   Hey angry voter fraud guy, Bush received more votes than the number
        of registered voters in several Ohio counties.  Where's your
2004/11/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34976 Activity:high
11/19   The motd readership seems to have an excess of free time and
        mathematical education.  Why doesn't someone here analyze the
        election data themselves to look for anomalies and put it in
        /csu/tmp? I'll bet if one of you conservatives can use the numbers
        to show convincingly that there was *not* a problem, you'll be
        on a foxnews talkshow faster than you can say "spin."  Why not?
        \_ on a related note, anyone wanna play nettrek later?
        \_ I think the burden of proof is on folks who say there _is_ a
           problem.  (Who do stupid things like observe some things, and
           \_ And the right wing ignores evidence such as a county in
              ohio where only 600 votes were cast, yet Bush received
              over 4000 votes.  Nothing wrong there.
              \_ url-p.  Evidence-p.  -- evil right-winger fact-checker
                 \_ http://csua.org/u/a1a (Washington Dispatch)
                 \_ More evidence at http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp
              \_ Would you like some cheese with that whine? Give it up.
                 You lefties lost this year and you are going to go on
                 loosing because people are finally realizing that you
                 losing because people are finally realizing that you
                 guys have never had a good idea and that its time to
                 take our country back from the New Deal and the Great
                 Society or this great nation will end up a hell hole
                 like Europe.
2004/11/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34969 Activity:high
11/18   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138985,00.html
        Scroll down. Republicans are going to take the 2008/2012/2016
        elections too. The Democrats are screwed. The Dark Age has begun.
        \_ For heaven's sake! Start working on finding someone decent to
           nominate!  I mean, come on, Edwards?  Who thinks THAT'S a good
           idea?  Hillary?  Yeah right.  Suddenly it's clear how Kerry got
           \_ Michael Moore for president!
2004/11/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34966 Activity:very high
11/18   UC Berkeley sociology prof reports Florida statistical anomalies
        "According to the study, counties with electronic voting machines were
        significantly more likely to show increases in support for Bush
        between 2000 and 2004 compared to counties with paper ballots or
        optical scan equipment. This change cannot be explained by differences
        between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout,
        or size of the Hispanic/Latino population, said Hout."
        Again, I say how THE FUCK did we end up with voting machines without a
        paper trail in the 2004 election?
        \_ How the fuck are you stupid enough to believe in statistics?
           There are competing studies at three other universities, including
           one from MIT and Harvard, all of which refute one another. Before
           you present something as factual try to read up on competing
           papers before you jump to conclusions.
           \_ Interesting, where can I find the competeing papers?
        \_ This is serious. Hout is among the leading quantitative
           social scientists.
        \_ Because HAVA intentionally sucked.
        \_ Hey! I went to Berkeley!
        \_ Hout will die of a mysterious disease soon.
        \_ But the feds and everything is under the republican's control.
           By the time the truth comes out, Bush will be long dead and it
           won't make a difference.
        \_ Hehe, I like how the study is called the _effect_ of the voting
           machines on blahblah. -- ilyas
        \_ The election equipment is purchased by local county election
           boards, all Democrat in these questionable districts.
        \_ You guys do realize that these machines are made in Omaha,
           Nebraska, home of the most red and devout church going
           people? Secondly, there is no system in place that checks
           or audits the machines. There no accountability whatsoever.
           Thirdly, the report coming out from a school known for its ultra
           leftism, will make sure that most of the right wingers will ignore
           this report.
           \_ This comment reminds me of Lakoff's work on metaphors.  It's
              good work and all, but he couldn't resist making some jibes
              at the conservative world view at the end there.  Kind of
              spoiled the whole thing for me, his biases oozing through
              otherwise good work like pus from a boil. -- ilyas
              \_ oh my, you are so smart and we're all eager to know what
                 you think, ol great one ilya.
              \_ thank you! we are all eager to hear the important stuff
                 you have to say, ol great wise ilya s. Share your
                 wisdom and we shall worship you!
              \_ This metaphor (pus from a boil) doesn't work in context.
                 You just said it's otherwise good work. So to be consistent
                 the biases would have to be oozing from something otherwise
                 good, which a boil is clearly not.
                 \_ Eh, you are right.  Meh.  Maybe I can beg off on my
                    poor-russian-immigrant-boy status, or something.  I guess
                    I should have said it was like seeing an otherwise
                    beautiful face with an ugly ass witch mole.  -- ilyas
                    \_ or, it's like seeing an Ayran but only to find out he's
                       just a Russian Joo.    -conservative
                        \_ Hey, I'm a Russian Jew.  -John
                       \_ That sounds pretty damn ironic. - a. morissette
2004/11/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34946 Activity:nil
11/17   Interesting.  A blog dedicated to a group strategizing on how to
        push the Democratic party in a libertarian direction.
        \_ what. ever. Conservatism is in, everything else is out. Get
           on with the program.         -liberal converting to conservative
2004/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34926 Activity:very high 66%like:37533
11/16   Today is 11/16
        \_ The subsequent sentence is true.
        \_ The previous sentence is false.
        \_ This sentence is true.
           \_ This sentence is provable.
              \_ No it isn't.
              \_ This sentence is provable under axiom S.
        \_ None of the above are true.
           \_ It's all lies spread by the liberal media.
                \_ Bush won!
2004/11/16 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34916 Activity:nil
11/16   Gee, I'm reading Yahoo News and I've never seen that many photos of
        Powell and Rice together before.
2004/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34913 Activity:very high
11/15   I've read the Republicans in Congress will repeal the 22nd
        Amendment so Bush can run again in 2008.  What do you guys think?
        \_ I think, "troll".
        \_ I think 55 < 66.
        \_ Bill Clinton vs Bush.  Gee, who do you think would win?
           \_ Well let's see. In 1992 Clinton got about 43% of the popular
              vote. In 1996 he got 49%...
2004/11/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34901 Activity:high
11/15   If Rice gets the Secretary of State position, it will be the one where
        she can do the least damage.  Dubya really wants to keep her on, but
        my guess is she's gonna get out.
        \_ oh well, the freepers are saying Peter Jennings just scooped Condi
           for State.  It would be funny if Rice said, "hey, I said I was
           still THINKING about it" -op
        \_ Of what alternatives is this "the one where she can do the
           least damage"?  As National Security Advisor, her only
           power was her (apparently considerable) influence on Bush.
           Presumably, Bush will still listen to her whatever her
           title is, so wouldn't giving her a position with actual
           executive powers to boot strictly *increase* the amount of
           damage she can do?
           \_  Why do you guys particularly hate Rice?  Is this just general
               hatred of Bush and neocon wingnuts in general, or is there
               something particularly evil about Rice?  She seems to me to
               be one of the less crazy members of the first term Bush
               administration (although that's not saying much.)
               \_ Who said anything about hating Rice?
                  She just strikes me as having been incompetent in her role
                  in Dubya term 1.
               \_ I personlly don't hate Rice at all. Of all the members of
                  Bush's inner circle, I think she is the most reasonable.
                  I won't go on about the rest. She deserves Secretary
                  of State. -liberal
        \_ Is Condoleeza Rice a perfect example of why Stanford is evil?
2004/11/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34873 Activity:moderate
11/12   Bush up to 60 million votes!
        \_ and Bush only wins Iowa by 13498 votes.
           \_ how is that even closer that Bush's win in NM in 2000?
              \_ It's not.  My bad.
2004/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34863 Activity:nil
11/12   List people who you don't mind die by natural cause or what not:
        Michael Moore: .........................................................\
        Mel Gibson: .
        Van Gogh: .
        Dick Cheney: ..........................
        GWB: ...................................................................\
        \_ So you like Dick Cheney as President? At least Moore dies there's
           one less fat person driving up the cost of airfare.
           \_ and the cost of healthcare.
        \_ Thank you.  Your responses have been recorded with the
           Department of Homeland Security.
        OBL: ..
        My mom: .
        AMC: .
        Kim Jong Il: ..
        \_ *sigh* -- ilyas
        ilias: .
        \_ these above motd posters.
        \_ You know, I think it kind of says something about you people that
           there are no Kim Jong Ils, Robert Mugabes, Viktor Kuchmas,
           Turkmenbashis, Pinochets or their ilk in this list (aside from
           the obligatory OBL.)  Pretty fucking sad.  -John
           \_ GWB killed more Iraqis than they killed the Americans.
              GWB killed more Afghans than they killed the Americans.
              In the Bible, it says "Praise thy leader who leads without
              violence, without bloodshed." I shall not praise GWB.
                \_ GWB is a closed-minded idiot, but (a) he didn't kill
                   anyone, (b) I doubt he said "yee haw let's go whack them
                   towelheads", and (c) fuck what it says in the bible.
                   No one's asking you to not loathe the guy, but wishing
                   someone dead is pretty pathetic.  -John
        John: .
        Anonymous Coward with closet ass link issues: .
        Sharon: .
        Bud Day: .
        Michelle Malkin: .
        \_ is she hot?
           \_ yes.
              \_ If you have APF. Okay, even if you don't have APF...
2004/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34856 Activity:insanely high
11/11   What will the Euro/Dollar ratio be in four years?
        1/1: ..
        1.8/1: .
        \_ if there is a general perception that the dollar is falling,
           would that cause a mass movement of the dollar (many people
           moving their money), which would cause the actual change?
           \_ In general, that is how a market works. People pay for
              what they percieve the value of something is.
              \- while this may be trivially true [like buy low sell high]
                 it's not a theoretically meaningful statement. the "theory"
                 of FX appaches the question either by modeling supply and
                 demand ... like say "portfolio balance theory"or my looking
                 at boundary condition/equillibria [see say uncovered interest
                 parity, purchasing power parity etc]. --psb
           \_ If I wantto invest in Eruos what would be the best way?
              \_ http://www.everbank.com
        \_ Dollar will strengthen
           \_ Can I have some of that crack you're smoking?
              \_ Interest rates will rise and bring the dollar up with
                 \_ Interest rate is cyclical.  This dollar correction
                    is a structural correction.
                    is a structural correction.  Lately, the focus has
                    been on the structural need for the dollar to
                    depreciate.  Your quarter point interest rate
                    increases would likely not be enough to convince
                    people not to dump the dollar if they are
                    convinced the dollar is going to drop by another 20 or
                    30 percent.
                    \_ This is rather circular. It's going to drop because
                       people think it will drop. Yes, it plays to how the
                       market works but WHY would people think it is going
                       to drop? It will rise when it again becomes a
                       good investment, which will be when interest rates
                       \_ No it isn't circular.  I was just pointing
                          out that interest rate as a cause of fluctuation of
                          the dollar is cyclical.  And that there are
                          other structural reasons that would likely cause
                          the dollar to fall.  The most important of these
                          is the continuing trade deficit.  Another reason
                          is that China's economy is overheating and
                          they are raising interest rate for the RMB,
                          and thinking hard about letting the RMB
                          appreciate, which would likely lead to other
                          asian currencies appreciating.
                          \_ The structural reasons *have* caused the
                             dollar to fall. The question is: Where will
                             it be in 4 years? I predict up.
                          \_ The structural reasons *have* caused the
                             dollar to fall. The question is: Where will
                             it be in 4 years? I predict up.
                       \_ We are running massive budget and trade deficits.
                          \_ Was the dollar low or high in the 1980s
                             when Reagan was doing the same thing?
                          Bush says "deficits don't matter" and intends
                          to pile up even deeper deficits. This is all
                          hard on the dollar.
                          \_ Was the dollar low or high in the 1980s
                             when Reagan was doing the same thing?
2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34850 Activity:very high 61%like:34847
11/11   Here's one for the Arafat trolls to chew on for a while:
        http://tinyurl.com/4sljz (boston.com)
        \_ Hell NO! We won't think!
        \_ You are right. It was so much easier when the Palestinians
           peacefully accepted their ethnic cleansing. I hate that bastard
           for daring to fight back.
           \_ Wow.  Revisionist history makes yet another appearance on the
              \_ What's revisionist about it?
                 \_ Um, 'ethnic cleansing'?
                    \_ The Palestinians just all left their own homes
                       and farms on their own accord? Right-o.
        \_ What's to chew on? Palestinians have used terrorism. Is this news?
           Shall we chew on that while ignoring Israeli occupation? How does
           that make sense?
        \_ wait a minute, so suicide bombing is evil, but killing civilans
           blindly using American donated Apache gunship, missiles,
           and tanks is perfectly ok?                   -peacenik
           \_ I think there's a substantial difference between thugs that
              TARGET civillians with carbombs and suicide bombers and
              beheadings as a tactic to control the people vs trying to
              kill the people that are doing this TO THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN
              (mostly, anyhow).  The US is doing everything it can to
              minimize civillian deaths, but the remorseless insurgents
              must be eliminated.  I suspect that if the US just ... left
              ... that the people stepping forward to fill the vacuum would
              create a legacy hideous beyond describing.  It's rather sad
              that someone getting a Berkeley education would need this
              explained to them.  If you think the use of these weapons is
              blind, then honestly, you're saying you can't tell the
              difference between random violence against innocents and
              violence targeted against inherently violent people that have
              no respect for life.
              \_ in war, there's no such a thing as good civilians vs. evil
                 militants. The militants are the civilians, and at times
                 the civilians are the militants. The civilians give birth
                 for new militants, and they feed and shelter
                 each other, period. And by the way there's no such a
                 thing as Berkeley educated people having homogeneous
                 opinions, and in fact, not everyone on motd is educated
                 let along having a Berkeley degree. The idea that the
                 world is so black and white, is so Bush.
                 \_ Holy shit, you've missed the point so completely it makes
                    my teeth ache!  The point is a matter of intent b/t the
                    US military vs the intent of the terrorists.  Likening
                    them is dumb.  Jesus H Christ, are you even posting in the
                    correct thread?  I'm honestly baffled.
                 \_ It's not entirely binary, but there really are normal
                    civilians and thugs.  Civilians mostly just want to be
                    left alone.  Thugs terrorize them into giving them shelter,
                    etc.  You = m0r0n (the dangerous moral relativist kind)
                    \_ Come on, don't be so harsh.  Where would this world
                       be without Lenin's "useful idiots?"
2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34849 Activity:nil
11/11   ""Midwesterners don't really relate to Democrats," Carol Kolb,
        editor-in-chief of satirical newspaper The Onion and a Wisconsin
        native, told http://FOXNews.com. "Especially Kerry, he was much more
        intellectual than Bush, and that's not what someone in Middle
        America relates to."
2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34844 Activity:nil
11/11   http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
        Pro-life wing nuts all pissy at Bush because of Gonzales, who
        is pro-choice. That's for electing Bush you dumb fuck right
        wing Christians!!!
        \_ thank you for the rant, left winger
        \_ Bush is actually pretty centrist.  He may be trying to reign in
           the far right parts of his administration.
           \_ OMG you made a funny!
           \_ Supreme Court nominee will be liked by the more conservative
              in the party.
2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34838 Activity:high
11/11   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/01247/557
        Excellent discussion of the reality of Bin Laden and where we're headed.
        \_ Thank you.  I go to dailykos for all my unbiased political
        \_ What does "dailykos" mean, any how?  Daily Kooks on S***?
           \_ I never read the site; got the link off a KDE developer's blog.
              It doesn't seem biased actually... more about the futility of
              waging a public opinion war with guns and bombs. -op
                \_ dailykos doesn't seem biased? WOW!
           \_ The guy who started it is nicknamed "kos," pronounced with a
              long "o."  Hence "dailykos."  It is a left-wing echo chamber,
              similar to Freerepublic but just a hair less loony and obviously
              on the other side of the political spectrum.  Occasionally they
              have some good top level links.
                \_ dailykos has some good stuff sometimes.  most of the
                   freerepublic people have net personas of dangerous
                   \_ Do you lean conservative or liberal?
                        \_ lib.  i read and have read the free republic
                           urls, a lot of them have "let's go shoot
                           some libs!" tangents.  dailykos does not.
                           \_ What?!?  The right is NEVER violent!!
              \_ Kos himself is not looney at all, in fact he is pretty
                 much a mainstream Democrat. He is about as "looney" as
                 say, John Kerry. Some of his posters are nuts though.
                 \_ The posters are mostly what I was referring to.  I like
                    kos, but his site has been almost completely taken over
                    by the fruit loops.  He doesn't even write most of the
                    entries any more.
        \_ Read "Guerilla Warfare" by Che Guavara. He describes fighting
           a superior force using exactly those tactics.
2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34816 Activity:high
11/10   Too bad Bork was Borked
        Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion
        \_ why's that?  Bork is almost universally agreed to be
           way more conservative than any member of the supreme court.
           i'm glad someone that extreme isn't on the court!  no matter
           how much he prides himself on his faithful interpretation
           of the constitution.  just because he's brilliant
           doesn't mean he belongs up there.
           \_ he's a strict constructionist!  Dubya would LOOOVE him!
              \_ Bork's too old.  Dubya wants to destroy USSC credibility for
                 generations to come!
                 \_ Dubya's too late.  Earl Warren did that already.
           \_ 'agreed' - by who?  Did you even bother to read his
               article in the link?
                \_ agreed on by the entire planet.
                   \_ Yes, but *which* planet?
                \_ are you seriously going to debate with me whether most
                   of the world does not agree Bork is the meanist orniest
                   strict constructionist ever put forth before the
                   nomination process?
                   \_ We've just had an election where most of the voters
                      thought Dubya would make a better president.  Do you
                      really want to argue whether what "most of the world"
                      thinks has any connection to reality?
           \_ "Strict constructionist" == interprets the way I like
              "Activist judge" == interprets the way I don't like
              \_ strict, as in thomas, scalia, and bork = if no
                 constitutional mandate defer to the people and their
                 legislative representatives.
                 activist = I know whats best for the unwashed masses.
2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34811 Activity:high
11/9    Bush appoints Gonzales to replace Ashcroft. The majority of the
        Latinos are expected to switch to Republicans. News at 11.
        \_ Bush is a racsist!  He's just waiting to stuff the supreme
           court before he reinacts Jim Crow Laws!!1!!11
           \_ bush is not a racist but he is more than willing to
              play racial politics to enforce his agenda and to leave
              a legacy.
              \_ Did Bush create the concept of reserving <minotiry> seats
                 on the Supreme Court?
                 \_ Are you Chinese?  Do you understand the effects the opium
                    trade had on China?
        \_ Are there any good (leftist or rightist, I don't care) summaries
           of AG's positions/policies? Abortion, Patriot Act, religion, etc.
                \_ there are excellent summaries of his views on torture
                   all over the net. - danh
                   \_ I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!
2004/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34806 Activity:kinda low
11/11   Why do unbleached coffee filters cost MORE than the bleached ones?
        Is the price of bleach negative?
        \_ Just a guess: economy of scale + higher quailty materials
        \_ Just like brown rice costing more than white rice: no idea why.
           \_ Well, if rice bran is worth more than the endosperm, that could
              do it.  Also, brown rice spoils more easily than white, so you're
              also paying for the brown rice that spoiled before it got sold.
              \_ I see.  Why does brown rice spoil more easily?
                 \_ The bran contains fat and protein, which go rancid.  Fat
                    and protein make it a good component of animal feed.
        \_ Maybe the cost is lower, but only the price is higher because of
           higher demand?
           \_ It could also be a case of lower supply. Maybe only one
              factory makes the unbleached ones while twelve factories
              make the bleached ones.
        \_ feelgood markup
        \_ I wonder if unbleached paper products are made by dyeing bleached
           paper brown.  Else how come the brown color is so consistent.
           \_ Must be a conspiracy.  Oooooh aaaaaah.
2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34805 Activity:very high
11/10   Bush to appoint Alberto Gonzalez as AG:
        http://csua.org/u/9w8 (Yahoo News)
        \_ I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
        \_ Heh!
           "Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy -
           essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought
           out in the lower courts - of detaining certain terrorism suspects
           for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.
           He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush
           claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international
           treaties providing protections to prisoners of war."
           [This article is also wrong.  It's not "certain terror suspects";
           Dubya claimed the right to detain any person, citizen or not,
           indefinitely, he deemed a threat to national security.]
           \_ I think he's a lot less evil than Ashcroft.  Obviously
              I dissagree with the Administrtions detainee policy, but
              I spent some time researching Gonzales yesterday when his
              name was being mentioned as a possible AG, and he really
              seems much more balanced than Ashcroft.  He seems to make
              single issue pressure groups on both the left and the right
              nervous, which is a good thing for a supreme court judge to
              do (and let's face it that's where this is heading.)  In contrast,
              I think  Ashcroft was both incopetent and an actually evil man.
              \_ Can you give me a good URL which describes just how bad
                 Ashcroft is?  It seems to me that the Patriot Act, although
                 giving the government just too many powers, has not been
                 seriously abused, yet, and that Ashcroft has just been
                 the convenient pincushion for all the Bush-haters.  Mainly,
                 I want actions which show his incompetence and evilness,
                 not attitudes. -liberal
                 \_ Suspension of Habeas Corpus.  That should be sufficient.
                    \_ Not to disagree, but do you also think Gonzalez (and
                       even Dubya) are MORE responsible than Ashcroft for
                       habeas corpus suspensions?
                 \_ There was a great segment on CSPAN to this effect a
                    week or so ago.
        \_ Powell:   "Who's the new AG, Don?"
           Rumsfeld: "AG."
           Powell:   "Yeah, AG."
           Rumsfeld: "Yeah."
           Powell:   "......"
           Powell:   "So, who is he?"
           Rumsfeld: "Who's who?"
           Powell:   "The new AG."
           Rumsfeld: "Like I said, AG."
           Powell:   "Yeah, AG.  Who's he?"
           Rumsfeld: "The new AG."
           Powell:   "Yeah, the new AG.  How many times do I have to ask?"
           Rumsfeld: "I just told you.  AG, Powell."
           Powell:   "Don't call me pal.  I'm no pal. Just answer my question."
           Rumsfeld: "Alright.  It's AG, Colin".
           Powell:   "How dare you call me asshole?  You're fired."
           \_ Our Secretary of State is Colon Powell:
2004/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34798 Activity:moderate
11/9    For williamc and for the rest of us:
        \_ Is there *any* major Canadian city more than a 4 hour drive from
           the U.S. border?
           \_ Yes there are many major cities more than a 4-hour drive from the
              U.S. of C. border.
        \_ Are you making this happen?
2004/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34795 Activity:nil
11/9    Conspiracy Theories Abound After Bush Victory:
        \_ Like I am going to waste my time with liberal ABC News.
           Why don't you just post a link to Democratic Underground?
           \_ Actually, I watched this over dinner.  They debunk three of the
              common theories about the election.  Worth looking at.
              \_ Hmm. I found only the first "debunking" compelling and
                 finishing off with "don't worry your little head" from the
                 American Enterprise Institute hardly sets my mind at ease. I
                 am still waiting for more rigorous analysis than this.
2004/11/9 [ERROR, uid:34793, category id '18005#5.62793' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34793 Activity:moderate
11/9    DEATH TO MICHAEL MOORE!!! He didn't donate money to the Democrats
        and ripped us off. Now he's 200 million richer and all we have
        now is a dumb president. DEATH TO MICHAEL MOORE!!!
        \_ What, you're realizing just now that MM is anathema to Dems?  He's a
           raving loon socialist.
2004/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34773 Activity:high
11/8    Why aren't the media/liberals capitalizing on the man who committed
        suicide because Bush got re-elected? I mean, they should use that
        to make a point that Bush sucks, like "the first man who commit
        suicide because of the presidency."
        \_ troll. I'll bite. because the guy Was CRAZY
        \_ Maybe because you've had too much of the partisan kool aid and
           the media is actually less liberal than you think.
        \_ I think you were intended to see "LAME" below.
        \_ Actually it highlights the mental state of Kerry followers.
2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34763 Activity:low
11/7    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/watson.policy/index.html
        Alright since when did CNN switch to the right side? Frigging
        traitor, I'm going back to the good 'ol CBS liberal news.
        \_ The behind-the-scene look at the campaign by the Newsweek embeds
           is a pretty good read.  Not terribly flattering to the Kerry camp.
           \_ Nice of them to fail to report any of this until after the
              \_ I assume holding off reporting till after the election is
                 part of the deal that got the campaigns to allow the embeds
                 access in the first place.
                 \_ If the press has real news that would make a difference
                    to the way people vote we should know about it.  If the
                    reporters in the Bush campaign saw the same things, they'd
                    be leaked all over the place.  I want everything from both
                    campaigns equally.  I want the truth.  If you can't get
                    the truth from the media in a timely manner that would
                    make a differnce what the hell good are they?
2004/11/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34755 Activity:moderate
11/8    So Powell wants to go, Condi wants the position of Defense secretary,
        and Rumsfeld still ain't finished yet.  What is Dubya, Moron-in-Chief,
        going to do?  The only decisions he makes -- as ultimate delegator --
        are appointments.  (He actually doesn't make any decisions himself, he
        follows the advice of the person in charge, and blames them if
        something goes wrong.  The only mistakes he's made are in who he has
        appointed, according to him.)
        \_ that's what a good president does, you want a dictator?
           \_ See, just add in the great speechwriters, and any good American
              can be President!
              - Iraq WMDs:  Blame and fire CIA Director "Slam Dunk" Tenet
              - Iraq post-war:  Blame "catastrophic success"!
              - Abu Ghraib:  Blame Rumsfeld!
        \_ Wait!  I thought he was this manipulative evil genius?  I'm so
           confused!  What are the ABB talking points today?!  -confused lefty
           \_ Dummy!!  Karl Rove is the evil genius.  Dubya is the slack-jawed
              idiot.  Get your evil org-chart straight!
              \_ If Cheney were to die, Bush might become President.
        \_ that's what a good president does, like Reagan.
           \_ See, just add in ...
          \_ "The buck stops here." -H. Truman.
        \_ Dubya will have to ask Cheney for permission about any cabinet
2004/11/7-8 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34735 Activity:kinda low
11/7    Man commits suicide at ground zero:
        \- Does anybody find it odd these people dont er "take some people
           with them" ... or i guess the peopel inclined to do this kind of
           thing dont have that kind of personality.
           \_ They're an Army Of One
           \_ What about that Japanese guy who cut a bunch of people with
              a samurai sword in a supermarket in Irvine before he was shot?
              \_ liberals are crazy           -patriotic conservative troll
                \_ This was a patriotic conservative crazy Japanese samurai
                   sword Irvine supermarket suicide warrior.  -John
        \_ How many more to go?
2004/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34731 Activity:high
11/5    http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html
        Everyone here who isn't a moronic bible thumping pig fucking red neck
        should read this.  Most of you won't "get it" but I still have hope
        for a few of you.
        \_ The party of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter
           claims that the Democrats are full of hate. Pretty amusing.
           \_ So... you've been in a cave for the last week?
              \_ No, did Rush Limbaugh agree to stop calling his
                 political opponents Nazi's or something? Have
                 The Republicans announced that they distance
                 themselves from the hate speech coming from
                 the above and Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson
                 and the rest of the Religious Right? Have
                 they decided that gays are human beings yet?
        \_ She missed one important component, as described by Zell Miller.
           There is nothing as treacherous as committing, as political
           party, to a war and then, later, actively campaigning against it
           for political gain.  Completely disgusting and unforgivable.
           Lieberman seemed to be the only prominent candidate that
           appreciated this - congrats to him.
        \_ Stop arguing about all those reasons you have lost!  Many who
           voted for Kerry can tell you they would have voted for Bush if
           only ....  There are moments in history, like the fall of Memphis,
           the conquest of Syracuse, the defeat of Maxentius, or the burning
           of the Forbidden City, when destiny is supreme and everything
           else is inconsequential.  The new Genghis Khan is on his way.
           Be wise and get on good terms with your new overlords for the
           safety of yourself or your descendents.  You may only keep your
           ideas of enlightenment to your heart, or transmit them on scripts
           to some future mythical future generation, who will live through
           the same cycle of renaissance and ruin.
2004/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34729 Activity:high
11/5    I had a beautiful dream.  Bush comitted suicide, and I was like
        "No way.  It must have been the CIA."  Then I woke up.
        \_ go read www.exile.ru
        \_ I had a weird dream in which Bush dreamed that you committed
           suicide. Dream within a dream within a dream.
        \_ Then you're stuck with Cheney. I think that's worse. Then the
           (R) Speaker of the House, who knows what he'd do.
           \_ is that Hastert?  that guy is crazy!
        \_ I had a dream where the left got over it, "moved on".org and
           stopped thrashing, whining, and stopped acting out their drama
           queen fantasies.  You lost.  It isn't the end of the world.  It's a
           4 year term for 1 man in a single branch of the 3 in our
           government.  Your incessant whining has gone way beyond the usual
           post-election boo-hoo and is now verging on obsession and low grade
           \_ Riiiight.  So, you're hoping we're all too young to remember
              the 90's, huh?  Keep dreaming, motherfucker.
           \_ has any president ever been in a position to appoint
              3 or 4 supreme court justices ?  -danh
              \- are you kidding? this has happened tons of times.
                 better question: who was the last president to get 4
                 (successful) nominations (nixon). i think FDR got 9 ...
                 and that wasnt good enough for him! ike 5 i think. --psb
2004/11/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34714 Activity:nil
11/4    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0102-04.htm
        Brazil, yes BRAZIL to start their own nuclear program.
        What would happen if all the other countries simultaneously
        do so?
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34708 Activity:high
11/4    Glitch gave Bush 3893 extra votes in Ohio. A technician from
        the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election
        Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the
        \_ Assuming the election was by and large fair, as liberals and
           conservatives have asserted, such glitches would on average affect
           both Kerry and Dubya votes, such that a > 130,000-vote win would
           be well outside the margin of error.
           Anyways, IMO, WHY THE FUCK do we have voting machines which don't
           leave a paper trail?  Liberals are just standing around scratching
           their heads trying to figure out whether THEY were fucking with
           the exit polls; or that the original exit polls were right and they
           GOT FUCKED by e-voting machines, with no real evidence either way.
           \_ I think the simple answer is that politicians of all stripes
              are retarded about technology.  They think that more expensive
              and complicated is always better.  And since the folks who make
              expensive machines pay for their campaigns, they tend to listen
              to them.  That's why NIST needs to start a division to deal
              with the problem of voting device accuracy.   If we had formal
              standards for what constitutes an accurate, reliable voting
              machine, then politicans, companies and the public could
              actually talk about this rationally instead of all the shouting
              we have today.
                \_ The reasons are numerous (listened to a program about it)
                   but I think the primary reason is the revolving door between
                   the makers of the voting machines and the voting
                   commissions, and that the opinions of the companies selling
                   the equipment are crowding out common sense.  And why oh
                   why should there be any laws that make it difficult to
                   verify election results?  There can be no reason for it
                   unless you wanted to hide fraud!
        \_ Omaha, Nebraska is a godamn redneck place.
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34705 Activity:very high
11/5    Why do we care about politics so much?  Why can't we go
        back to being apathetic?
        \_ Because we're educated people and this is a very interesting
           topic to discuss.  -John
        \_ because those pesky politicians have this nasty annoying habit of
           creating laws that interfere with our lives, and making taxes
           that take away our money!
        \_ Cause Dubya is a polarizing figure, duh.
           In the same way Clinton made waves by having an intern on his cock,
           Dubya is leading this country as the most inarticulate President
           of the 20th century.
           of the last 100 years.
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34704 Activity:high
11/5    A somewhat different reaction to the election by some Iranian
        activist types.
        \_ A more normal reaction from America's lefties
        \_ The liberal media doesn't want to cover the millions of Iranians
           who expressed their satisfaction of Dubya's victory by calling and
           congratulating each other, many of whom were seen walking in the
           streets shaking hands and showing discreet V signs!
           I haven't seen a single article from the liberal media on this,
           including the AP and Reuters!  WTF??!?
2004/11/5 [Recreation/Humor, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34702 Activity:very high
11/5    Loyal Bush supporter attempts to save the lions:
        \_ Loyal Kerry supporter posts misleading headline.  Oh and he's an
           idiot too.
           \_ Loyal Bush supporter can't take a joke.
              \_ That was a joke?
                 \_ heh, that's funny, in a 2004 Bush mandate sort of way -!op
                 \_ Of course.  Given a choice between "misleading idiot"
                    and "jokester", which would you choose to be?
        \_ more reasons to nuke the uneducated country folks! -neo-liberal
           \_ My link was funny.  You are not.  --op
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34700 Activity:moderate
11/5    http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/47785163.html
        Hahahaha... I want to see sissy liberal vs. a gun-toting, redneck.
        \_ I want, to grammar unnecessary, commas.
2004/11/5 [Finance, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34699 Activity:nil
11/5    At least one sector of the economy will always do well under Bush:
2004/11/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34698 Activity:high
11/5    What left-to-center EU newspapers would the motd recommend? The
        ascendancy of the BUsh theocracy has me orienting myself towards
        the EU, whose community-oriented policies and multilateralism
        speak to my progressive/liberal values. I have reading proficiency
        in French and Spanish, and presently I'm learning Italian. My
        Tagalog & Ilokano blow chunks. Thanks. --elizp
        \_ Yeah the EU really has a spine.
        \_ To be honest, it's a bit sad if you only want to read stuff that
           echoes what you believe in.  The left-wing Euro papers are just as
           dogmatic, biased and repetitive as anything you'll find on the
           other side of the spectrum.  Just because it comes out of
           Europe doesn't magically make it politically more insightful.  Why
           don't you just go for a broad sampling of editorial opinion? -John
           \_ Between the NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes, and ChiTribune, I have
              a lot on my plate; I already subscribe to The Economist for
              a smart conservative perspective; and I asked for left-of-center
              b/c the EU press has a longer tradition of papers affiliated
              explicitly with political parties. ANd if I want a Libertarian
              opinion, I can just turn to my husband @ <DEAD>marginalrevolution.com<DEAD>
                \_ The Economist is not a 'smart conservative opinion'.  I
                \_ The Economist is not a 'smart conservative perspective'.  I
                   think you are misled.
                   \_ Understand, liberals think that's an oxymoron anyway.
                   \_ What perspective is it?
                      \_ globalist agitprop
                \_ Look, if you want to build an independent, viable,
                   intelligent view of what's happening in the world, you
                   could start by getting away from the whole "liberal/
                   conservative" black & white stuff.  The economist is
                   decidedly not what I would call "conservative" along the
                   lines of what conservatives in the US seem to call
                   "conservative".  You're also not going to get a good
                   representative sampling of the European (or any) press
                   if you don't differentiate between viewpoints in various
                   areas (economy, social issues, environment, diplomacy,
                   etc.) or even more detailed nuances there.  Start by
                   leafing through all the big name ones (no one's suggesting
                   you read the FT cover to cover) and you'll get there. -John
                   \_ OK, then help me out: what big name ones should I
                      start with? If all you wish to do at this moment is
                      berate me for my all-round myopia, rest your case:
                      my shock at the outcome of this election has already
                      unmasked it. --elizp
                      \_ OK, for the classic 'leftie' ones start with the
                         Guardian (UK) and Liberation (FR).  FAZ (DE) and
                         Times (UK) tend to be very sober in terms of
                         presentation (both optical and with their editorials)
                         The big ones in Spain are El Mundo / El Pais, and
                         in Italy one of the more widely read ones is Corriere
                         della Sera.  Also check out Le Temps in France.
                         I doubt you're interested in Dutch/Scandinavian
                         papers, but to get a fairly complete overview have
                         a look at http://www.onlinenewspapers.com .
                         To be honest, I prefer the IHT.  -John
           \_ BTW reading freerepublic and democraticunderground doesn't
              count as a broad sampling. -jrleek
        \_ Le Monde is a nyt partner.  But if you are really more interested
           in facts than fictions and lies, you should try to read a lot of
           sources (which can take some time).  The number one job of any
           journalist, whatever his political orientation is, is to lie.  But
           if you sample widely AND have a GOOD processor, you might be able to
           average the lies out and get some truth.  Keep this in mind: they
           ALL lie.
               \_ But there's bias, and there's intellectual honesty. Those
                  qualities are distinct from each other, but not always
                  easily identifiable in any range of arguments. That's
                  why I came to the motd for some recommendations, and
                  so far no one has been helpful. --elizp
                        \_ Uh... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I listed at least two papers
                           that fit your initial criterion, along with a good
                           sampling of major papers from which you can draw
                           your own confusions.  And once again, it is my view
                           that most "left of center" editors and columnists
                           here tend to be as demagogic and undifferentiated
                           as the "right of center" media that seems to annoy
                           you in the US.  Intellectually honest, maybe, but
                           definitely sanctimonious.  I will gladly let you
                           know when I find one that isn't so holier than thou
                           as to be really really tiresome.  -John
           \_ but anonymous cowards on the MOTD always tell the truth.  -tom
              \_ That's uncalled for.
                 \_ Not necessarily.  The AC just slagged off all journos
                    with his needlessly nasty review.  Tom responded in kind.
                    Status quo preserved. --erikred (nice try, AMC)
                    \_ Tom is unable to respond in any other way.  It's
                       misleading to say a constant function is responding to
                       anything, it just sort of stays constant.
                       \_ hey, it's NERFAMC!  -tom
        \_ The Guardian is pretty good and in English:
           Right after 9/11, when the entire American media turned itself
           into a cheering section for Bush, I read it for an alternative
           perspective. Now I can find that in the American media, so
           my reading of it has dropped off quite a bit. -ausman
        \_ try the Al Jazeera. Halaalalalahahahalala.
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34695 Activity:low
11/5    All you kids planning on moving your money out of the dollar should go
        check the jobs report today.  I wish you well betting your money on
        a cynical and pessimistic view painted by your politics.
        \_ I'm not sure what you mean. -!moving money out of $ guy
        \_ Well, Dubya and friends are incompetent.
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34690 Activity:kinda low
11/5    Do people think Rumsfeld/Ashcroft will resign for "personal"/"health"
        reasons?  If anyone in the administration has half a brain, that'd be
        a pretty easy way to sacrifice two of the bigger fuckups as a bit
        of a sop to the opposition.  -John
        \_ Ashcroft is going to resign because he's not well.  He's publicly
           known to have already had at least 1 surgery recently.  I forget
           exactly for what but I remember it wasn't some minor BS.  I don't
           think Rumsfeld is going anywhere too soon.
        \_ Best Ashcroft poster ever, seen in a co-op:  8x10 glossy of Ashcroft
           with a speach bubble "I'm watching you" beneath which someone else
           has written "POOP!"
        \_ Why would Ashcroft resign?  I thought Bush likes Jesus-freak
           big-brother types?  He certainly wouldn't need to throw a bone to
           \_ Once again, that careful wording bit.  Note the part about
              anyone with half a brain.  -John
        \_ I don't believe any of the chatter from media punditoids.  They
           all said some shit about Bush dropping Cheney from the ticket,
           also.  But that's just not Bush's style.  No matter how much of
           a fuck up someone is, if they're loyal, they're in 100%.  Conversely,
           no matter how good someone is, if they don't toe the line, they're
           out.  I predict Powell gets fired, and they call it resignation.
           Everyone else stays.  If you think Bush sees Ashcroft as a failure,
           I think you overestimate Bush's quality as a human being.
        \_ Ashcroft is going to resign, and Dubya will say he did a great job.
           Rumsfeld?  He probably wants to finish up Iraq first.  If he
           resigns, he'll have a trusted lieutenant take up the reins to
           finish his second goal of transforming the force.
           \_ people say Condi will take over for him. Also dont forget about
              Powell, seems certain he will step down as well. -rory
                \_ Yeah but I think Powell's seen more as sort of a tragic
                   figure who didn't do enough, rather than a blithering
                   failure.  CNN intl. this morning seemed to think that Rice
                   was also going to quit.  -John
                   \_ well then its anybody's guess I suppose. I barely
                      remember as I was hitting snooze on NPR this morning
                      a correspondent reporting that W found her too valuable
                      to let her leave. whatever that means. -rory
        \_ Dubya won the election.  Having done so, he has no reason whatsoever
           to change his style, his cabinet, or his direction.  Expect four
           more years of the same, only now with more arrogance and swagger.
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34682 Activity:nil
11/4    jesus fucking batshit on a burning stick!  you won!  get over kerry
        already.  He's not ever going to be president, and he's not even
        a senator anymore, so just fucking get over it.
        \_ Seconded.
        \_ No. It is not sufficient to win elections. We must utterly
           destroy any Democrat stupid enough to try and stand against us.
           Then the Enemy will know to not try and stop our Christian
        \_ Who said he is no longer a Senator?
           \_ Ok, I was wrong about that, but this is still absurd.  He's
              not a California senator.  Why can't you jackasses say something
              positive about your guy who just won instead of launching negative
              attacks against someone who has ALREADY lost?!  What the hell
              is the matter with you people?
              \_ yeah, at least they can complain about how the liberal media
                 and the left in general are going to make everything Dubya
                 does in his 2nd term look stupid, as they are complaining
                 about right now on http://freerepublic.com.
                 \_ I wonder if there are more leftists on the motd reading the
                    freeper crap than any other group here.  I tried reading
                    the site when it first went online.  I haven't been back
                    since then so I have to trust what you say is posted there.
                    I don't understand why you keep dragging the freepers to
                    the motd as if there's some huge block of motd conservatives
                    that are also ardently pro-freeper.  There's just that one
                    freeperboy who I really wish would grow up because he makes
                    us all look bad in the same way the tinfoilers at dailykos
                    and democraticunderground (which I do regularly read) make
                    leftists look bad but I don't come here trying to pin those
                    two crap sites on motd leftists.  I just read them because
                    it amuses me.
        \_ Seriously, just delete the crap.  It's worthless.  (Although,
           as far as dividing America goes, I don't think all the "Bush is
           the most evil president ever!!!1!1" stuff is too helpful
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34678 Activity:nil
11/4    http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2522316
        BUSH: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going
        to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions.
        BUSH: Yes. Again, you violated the one-question rule right off the
        bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people.
        -- Was Dubya kidding or not?  I take this as some light-hearted joking,
        or did he look irritated and say it seriously?
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34676 Activity:nil
11/4    See, there are reasonable people in government:
        Vice President Dick Cheney went a step further, calling [the election
        results] a "mandate." Moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter cautioned
        Wednesday that President Bush did not earn "a mandate" in his election
        victory and said the president should be "mindful" of potential
        confirmation problems should he have the opportunity to nominate a
        justice to the Supreme Court. "If you have a race which is decided by
        a percent or two, if you have a very narrowly divided country -- that
        does not qualify for the traditional mandate and ... to govern, we
        have to bring the country together," he said. "I believe that
        President Bush will have that very much in mind." ... "We start off
        with the basic fact that the Democrats have filibustered and you can
        expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad
        range of acceptability," Specter said. "And I think there is a very
        broad range of presidential discretion. But there is a range."
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34666 Activity:kinda low
11/4    Should Democrats Get Religion? CBS special:
        \_ CBS is great. While all the other news corps are starting
           to align to Fox News because that's where the money is
           (majority has spoken), CBS seems to be tilting more to the
           left. It is great.
        \_ To take this seriously, I think no.  At least, I think the
           Democrats should stop treating religion so contemptously, but I
           don't think they need to become bible thumpers.  Bush came
           accross well because he actually believes his religion and acts
           accordingly.  Kerry looks silly on religion because he makes a
           big deal about his relgion, but obviously doesn't belive it
           personally.  Regan, Clinton, and Bush Sr. were all fairly
           non-religious, but they didn't try to pretend to be religious
           \_ Hmm. You and I have different memories of Ronald Reagan.
                -- ulysses
              \_ I admit, Regan is probably the biggest stretch in that
                 group.  He certainly ditched pleantly of church though.
                 \_ Reagan used religious rhetoric, but I am fairly certain
                    he was not a religious man. -- ilyas
           \_ Al Gore was a fairly religious man. Not only was Tipper
              absurdly conservative, but I know for a fact that Al
              attended church often, because my gf went to the same
              church. It didn't really help him win.
              \_ I'm pretty sure it hurt him.   I would have voted
                 for Gore had it not been for the tipper/lieberman
                 religious asshole axis.
2004/11/4 [ERROR, uid:34652, category id '18005#9.16625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34652 Activity:nil
11/3    "In the crucial swing state of Florida, which Mr. Bush won, blacks
        accounted for 12 percent of all voters, down from 15 percent in
        2000. In Ohio, blacks were 10 percent of the electorate, up by
        only one percentage point from 2000."
        \_ so the free crack did not work, oh well.
          \_ you can never count on dem niggas
        \_ Maybe because more "other" voters showed up?
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34647 Activity:nil
11/4    Here's one for the could'a, should'a, didn't file:
        Dubya:  "If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the
                 world will drift toward tragedy."
        Kerry:  "Our current President, Mr. Bush, shows moral weakness.  He
                 shows the moral weakness of not being able to admit to
                 America that the primary reason we went into Iraq was because
                 of an imminent danger of WMDs, of which his vice president
                 said we had no doubt Saddam possessed.  He shows the moral
                 weakness of not being able to admit he was wrong, when he
                 was clearly wrong.  Instead, the world views Americans as
                 arrogant bullies, more intent on saving their own lives --
                 saying t'hell with the rest of the world.
                 If America chooses to re-elect President Bush, we will be
                 putting our moral, yes, moral stamp of approval on a man
                 whose incompetence has directly led to the deaths of tens of
                 thousands of innocent Iraqi bystanders, and the
                 condemnation of most freedom-loving individuals of the
                 world, while most Americans sit safely at home in the
                 richest nation in the world.  It is the moral weakness of
                 our current President, one who can simply not admit that he
                 was wrong and perhaps never learn from his enormous
                 mistakes, that will surely lead the world toward tragedy."
2004/11/3 [Recreation/Celebrity, Computer/SW/Apps/Media, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34645 Activity:nil
11/3    So after all that political advertisements, guess who the real
        winner is? MEDIA COMPANIES. They are like the arms dealer, getting
        rich from both sides. And now that Bush wins a second term, all
        the media corporations will be aligned to the current admin.
        My guess is that the Democratic party will bicker and disintegrate
        in a few years while the one party US will just get bigger and
        bigger. Maybe it'll implode, but that'll not happen for
        many years to come.                     -troll rant dude
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34644 Activity:nil
11/3    We underestimated rednecks. Now what?
        \_ No -- we chose a candidate that no R or conservative would EVER
           vote for.  Time to start playing a smarter game in the primaries.
           \_ I pray the Dems put up someone reasonable next time, and I
              pray the Republicans can get someone better than Bush.
              But they probably learned the wrong lesson. -voted for Bush.
              \_ I suspect the R can't put up Cheney in 08, so who then?
                 McCain or Powell, I'd vote for (as a D/I).  Frist?  Lord,
                 I hope not.  If all D can put forward is Obama or La Clinta,
                 then it's going to be a pretty one sided race.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34635 Activity:high
11/3    Bush and Cheney are probably laughing right now and thinking,
        "Those idiots, we fucked them and they still voted for us, god
        bless America! Is this a great country or what?"
              \-Eh Eh Eh
        \_ you know this is not the case.
           \_ How so? They really fucked America for good during the
              last 4 years. Pocketed most of the billions of surplus
              into their own and supporter's hands. Dragged us into a
              war that was based on a proven lie which they knew from
              the beginning. But hey, once you are in war, what can
              you do?  Created far more potential terrorists than any
              president in history. Alienated us from the rest of the
              world (use the UN when it fit our agenda, fuck them when
              they don't. Heck, why do we even have laws, why don't we
              all just take justice into our own hands. Fuck the
              police). And the best part is, they successfully
              convince the average American that getting a blow job is
              a far worst crime than killing thousands of innocent
              lives for greed and money. But hey, Bush is dumb and
              strongly believes what he's doing (unlike the
              flip-flopper), just like your typical dumb Republican
              rednecks. It's sad but Bin Ladin really does have a good
              cause, because people that run a country like a greedy
              blood sucking company need to be killed, period.
              \_ I think you just contradicted yourself.  If Bush really
                 believes in what he's doing, and believes his rhetoric,
                 then he's not laughing at us.
              \_ And I was called a ranty bigot in the motd -eric
              \_ What, Nooo... No elitism here...
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34634 Activity:high
11/3    GW Bush gives one to all you liberals: -troll
        \_ This was in the media a while ago.
           \_ Yeah, and I'm the one who posted it to motd several months ago.
              I thought it was relevant to today's result. -op/troll
              \_ Yeah that's true.
        \_ This is great! This is exactly what I walled about, let's make
           it happen!
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34632 Activity:moderate
11/3    Hello, fellow liberals. We have been defeated. I guess we
        might as well as embrace all the things that our conquerers
        would like us embrace.  What's the best way to go about learning
        Christianity, country dancing, guns, Southern food, dating
        hot Southern belles, and other good stuff? -ok thx
        \_ I know you're trying to be funny but there are quite a bit
           of Democrats who are Christian, do country dancing, have a
           hobby in guns, etc... Not all of those things are Republican-
           only things.
              \_ yes and there are good Muslims and bad Christians,
                 that stereotype sucks, blah blah blah. Who cares. The
                 exit poll numbers speak for themselves. If 91% of the
                 Bush supporters value Bush's religion and faith while
                 only 9% of the Kerry supporters value the same thing,
                 then the majority has spoken to us what they really
        \_ Learn proper anal intercourse technique.  Southern Belles seem to
           love that shit.
           \_ Hello German John. No Hail for you.
                \_ I would have (a) signed it, and (b) provided an ass link
                   for your convenience.  Bad.  Down.  -John
                   \- south western belle ass link: link:csua.org/u/9rg
        \_ I, for one, welcome our old Republican overlords.
        \_ All us liberals really want now is another Bill Clinton, less
           the hobby of getting blow jobs from interns.
           the predisposition of getting blow jobs from interns.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34630 Activity:low
11/3    Why did Kerry have a strong, early exit poll lead?
        - Because while the Democrats were voting during the day, the
        Republicans were working. (bahrump bump)
        \_ Dick Morris (who predicted a Bush win) says it was liberals
           attempting to depress conservative turnout - says it's very hard
           to get an exit poll wrong - you have to work very hard to do it.
        \_ Bush either won for one of 4 different reasons:
           1) Electronic voting machines were rigged (hence the exit poll
                inconsistency in states with EVs)
           2) People really like Bush's policies.
           3) People don't like Bush's policies, but like his "moral compass"
              or whatever
           4) People don't like Bush's policies, but where more scared by
              John Kerry's potential policies.
           For me, order of scariness worst to best: 1,3,2,4
2004/11/3 [Politics/Foreign/Canada, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34628 Activity:high
11/3    So there was a lot of griping about the BushCo victory on the
        motd and on wall with people threatening to leave the country
        for "friendlier" shores. I was thinking of setting up a fund
        to help our disenfranchised liberals reach that goal, kind of
        like the HELP-US fund a couple years ago to help defray the cost
        of moving people like Alec Baldwin out of the country. Anyone
        interested in helping out? Perhaps we could call it the
        "Alec Baldwin Pledge" fund. Email if interested. I already
        have one person willing to donate. -williamc
        \_ Pretty huffy stuff for somebody who has a Smiths quote in their
           finger file.
        \_ I could find a high-paying job in Canada without your help if
           I wanted, motherfucker. Instead I choose to stay and fight.
           You will fucking taste defeat, and I'll be there to kick sand
           right into the bleeding wounds of your party's dying body
           when it happens.
                \_ Bring It On!
        \_ mmm, I'm going to laugh at anyone that even SUGGESTS that BushCo
           is the Great Uniter.  Here's prime counter example of the sort of
           uniting in action that BushCo instills....
        \_ Ah yes, it's nice to see 'tit-for-tat' schoolyard mentality
           in our nation's scholars.  Well done!
        \_ Ha ha. It's nice to see that the decline of our once great
           country is such a joke to you. Enjoy the tax cuts.
                \_ it's not a joke to him, which is why he's probably
                   setting up such a fund. and it's not that easy
                   to enjoy the tax cut when it's going to bite us in
                   the ass in the future.
                   \_ My kids and grandkids won't be paying for the taxcuts
                      cuz I don't have any.
        \_ Leaving the country now would be like leaving a loved one in the
           presence of a serial rapist because you don't approve of rape.
           I'm here for the long haul, and I'll stop your corporate plunder
           by any means necessary, bitch. --erikred
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34623 Activity:moderate
11/3    If the deficit continues at the current rate, what would it imply?
        I mean, what does all the deficit really means?
        \_ Deficit/surplus as a percentage of GDP:
           1976, -4.2%
           1983, -6%
           1992, -4.7%
           2003, -3.5%
           \_ Any figures for national debt as % of GDP?
           \_ Looks like we'll have to raise taxes to get out it.
              \_ Taxes were coming regardless of who won the election.  The
                 question is who is going to get taxed.  Kerry would have taxed
                 the rich.  Bush will likely gut the EITC among other things.
                 \_ One of the problems with taxing the rich that
                    raising taxes often just makes them put their money
                    in shelters, which doesn't help the economy OR tax
                    revenues.  Notice how Kerry's wife only pays 15% of
                    her income in taxes?
                    \_ Shhh... We're not supposed to talk about Teresa.
              \_ Raise taxes or pray for the economy to get hot, but
                 unfortunately the current bunch in Washington is religious.
                 However, we've clearly been here before, and the chicken
                 littles are likely overstating their case.
              \_ Nah, we'll just keep borrowing until total collapse.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34621 Activity:high
11/3    Hillary in '08...
        \_ Do you really think she'll win the nomination?
        \_ I assume McCain '08, which is how they got him to play ball.
           \_ Do you mean on a republican or democrat platform?
              \_ Actually I mean the presidency.  The economy is likely to
                 improve during Bush's 2nd term, and if Iraq didn't stop
                 Bush '04, I don't see what will stop McCain in '08.
                 \_ Rudy G!
        \_ Hillary is not a serious candidate.  Edwards is more likely.  -tom
           \_ Can you elaborate? I would vote for her in 08 if she does.
              \_ She has a lot of baggage around her already, and she's
                 female.  You really think any of the redneck states are
                 going to vote for a Democratic woman from New York?  -tom
                 \_ The rednecks will not vote for her, but the woman in
                    those states will right?
                    \_ Very unlikely.  They might vote for Laura Bush.  -tom
              \_ She gets a lot of play in the exact same places that voted
                 for Kerry, and she gets bagged on in the exact same places
                 that voted for Bush.  I love Hillary, but this is a non-
        \_ To take that a step further, I think it'll be
                Bush vs. Clinton
           in '08. Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush. The Bush Dynasty should last
           a good 20-30 more years.
                \_ You really think America could survive 20-30 years of
                   continuous "leadership" from the Bush clan? Look at the
                   state we are in today with just 4 years under our belt!
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34616 Activity:kinda low
11/3    Bush first president since Bush Sr. to win > 50% of popular vote:
        (article written in 2000)
        \_ uh, so it was Bush Sr. > 50%, then Clinton < 50%, then Bush Jr.
           Term 1 < 50%, now Bush Jr Term 2 > 50%?
           \_ yes
              \_ What about Clinton Term 2?
                 \_ Clinton got < 50% of popular.  See infoplease link below.
        \_ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34610 Activity:kinda low
11/3    Dear Mr. Osama Bin Laden, please continue your cause. Please
        don't target your friends in big cities like New York, Los
        Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, etc. Do please target ultra right
        Christian gun-owning rednecks in the red states like Ohio
        and Florida. Thank you.
        \_ And if you target Indiana, pretty-please spare Bloomington.
           The Demos won all but one of the county and city races last night.
        \_ I guess the end of the election hasn't made the trolls go away for
           even a second.
           \_ Hello?  This is the motd?
           \_ How is this a troll? In 10+ years, when the orphaned Iraqi's
              grow up, what do you think the first thing on their mind is?
              Do you really think terriorism can be solved by killing more
              innocent people? Kill first, ask questions later? If BushCo
              wants to fuck the rest of the world as they pleases, then
              they have every right to strike us back however they can.
              And idiots who vote for Bush and think Bush will make them
              safer just don't see it.
              \_ That's why we have to round up and kill all of the Iraqi
                 orphans! Duh! You liberals are too soft!
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34602 Activity:nil
11/3    On the other hand, if most Americans believes an idiot like
        BushCo will bring peace and prosperity to the US in the long run
        then they probably deserve to be bombed in the future. Only time
        will tell.
        \_ Unfortunately, if some place gets bombed, it's probably going
           to be somewhere in North Eeast again or CA.
           \_ Those idiot bombers, strike where it hurts, the red states.
              They are the fuckers who draw up the US foreign policy that
              makes the middle east what it is today.
              \_ *cough* *cough*
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34597 Activity:low
11/3    Bush gets 4 more years.  What does that mean for the US?
        Gas price will continue to go up.  Four more years of war in the
        middel east.  Bin laden will likely live four more years.  More tax
        cuts for rich.  Possible Alaska drilling.  Quest for alterative fuel
        will be held back.
        \_ Bah!  I hate Bush, but some of this is a little silly.  How exactly
           would Kerry bring down gas prices?  ANWR drilling will probably
           continue to be stopped by republicans who cross the aisle to vote
           against it for economic reasons (it's more about corporate
           welfare than energy security), and as for alternative fuels
           Bush has poured money into hydrogen vehicles and even without the
           government, the economic incentive to invent something that
           really kicks the ass of the gasoline engine will always be there.
                \_ Oil prices would trend upwards with either President but
                   with Bush there is a huge premium due to the various
                   instabilities in oil producing areas of the world, which
                   is guaranteed to continue or worsen with his reelection.
        \_ I shudder to think of some of the evil shit the Bush admin has
           been holding back due to worries of losing the election/impeachment,
           that can now be unleashed.  Don't forget a tilt of the Supreme
           court to the right, endangering abortion in the South.  Oh, and
           the twin deficits going even higher.
           that can now be unleashed since neither of those can happen now.
           Don't forget a tilt of the Supreme court to the right, endangering
           abortion in the South.  Oh, and the twin deficits going even higher.
           \_ That's what I worry most. -- op
        \_ What is this? Continuously nuke the motd so only "Bush is
           EEVVVILLL" can be read here?
        \_ I am more concerned with supreme court justice appointments...
           three of them had enough radiation that they probably glow
           in the dark (O'Connor, Renquist, and Ginsberg... sp?)
           \_ I don't get this.
                \_ Investigate cancer treatments.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34587 Activity:nil
11/2    Bush=president, Daschle=losing seat, Edwards' seat=gone.
        Liberal ideas=pwned at the polls.
        \- daschle falling doesnt really matter except for rep++
           i suppose. you disagree?
           \_ daschle's fall is largely symbolic though.  He was a powerful
              man once.  Now he exits stage left, and with a whimper to boot.
           \_ It's not. Look at '94 when Foley got booted. Leaders of parties
              don't get voted out unless there's a shift.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34586 Activity:nil 60%like:34642
11/2    Anyone have a http://democraticunderground.com user ID so I can
        lurk? Thanks.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34580 Activity:low
11/2    Someone please tell me the consequences of Bush 4 more years?
        So he'll appoint judges and make abortion illegal, fine.
        Privatizing social security, fine. National deficit stays
        the same or worse, fine. What else?
        \_ My prediction is that the worst, from your point of view, that
           will happen is more tax cuts. -- ilyas
        \_ Abortion will never be outlawed, get over yourself.
           \_ It will be outlawed on a state level.
        \_ He will continue to lead the country such that we alienate _every_
           other country on Earth.  Terrorist factions receive increasing
           support (indrectly) from those nations who were once our staunch
           allies.  The World is a More Dangerous Place, and we're back in an
           arms race, but this time it's only a defensive one to protect our
           borders, because we can't attack everyone and we'll find no allies
           on any future targets, no matter how deserving.
        \_ Dubya bombs Iran.  Iran builds nukes with hidden centrifuges our
           CIA couldn't find.  Iran loses nukes.  Oops!  U.S. city nuked
           with fission nuclear bomb.  In the mean time, world continues to
           hate us.
           \_ Exactly like the 1980s, right?
              \_ You talking about Osiraq?
           \- abortion will be avail for upper middle class people. they are
              also unlikely to be significantly affected by say a poorly
              designed school voucher program ... the schools in a place
              like saratoga will be fine, and in a place like SF, the white
              people already send their kids to private school [sf pub sch dist
              is <20% white?] ... poor people will be given things like $100
              tax cut and told they can create some kind of health savings
              account, but will probably shaft them in the long run. hopefully
              dumb programs like going to mars or a moonbase wont happen from
              science hacks the admin listens to. the plutocratization partly
              under the guise of the "ownership society" will be one of the
              worst effects, and the other is brown people getting the big
              shaft via the patriot act and other auxilliary "enabling"
              legislation for war on islam. there are a few other bad things,
              but those would probably ocurr under the dems too. it would be
              nice to image we would intervene in darfur, but i dont think
              nice to imagine we would intervene in darfur, but i dont think
              these guys care about something like that. at least cliton and
              albright appear to feel some shame over usa non-action in
              rwanda. i agree, iran gets nukes. but at this point that
              probably happens under kerry too. will be interesting to see
              if EU picks a fight with USA. i mean who is going to take the
              first step or reconciliation? --psb
              \_ Are you drunk?
2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34577 Activity:nil
11/2    "Yeehaw! Bush is re-elected!"
        look at the Union/Confederate states:
        Don't they resemble the current Democrat/Republican states?
2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34573 Activity:moderate
11/2    "If Bush wins, this country is filled with a lot more pigfucking
        inbred moronic loser bible-thumping assholes than I originally
        Mmm.  Tolerance.
        \_ That's just dumb anyway.  Sure, Bush is about to win solidly, but
           it's still within the margin of error of the polls we've all been
           watching for weeks, so where's the suprise?
        \_ The Dems will continue to struggle until they realize why some
           people see this as unjustified elitist bullshit. 'Know your
           enemy and keep him close.' --Kerry voter
           \_ Yeah I agree.  Watching wall tonight was both fun and revealing
              for me.  -- ilyas
              \_ 'Rednecks' in Louisiana voted for their first Republican
                 senator since Recontruction. Think about that next time
                 you call them 'pigfuckers'. California is the state that
                 voted for Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan!
                 \_ The 'Southern Democrat' isn't what you conceptualize as a
                    California or New York Democrat.  This statement shows that
                    you really don't much understand the South.
                    \_ The fact that Pete Wilson was a Republican senator
                       and later governor (who went to UC Berkeley!) shows
                       you don't understand anything at all. The very fact
                       that a Southern Democrat is different is the point
                       I am illustrating! Likewise, so is a California
                       Republican (see: Arnold). No one wants a New England
                       liberal! GWB is *soooo* much better than a Southern
                       Democrat, huh?
                 \- yes, i suppose in the edwin edwards vs david duke
                    they made the "right choice". however, a state that
                    nominates duke ...
        \_ Fuck you.  We will have 4 more years of this country going down
           the toilet that's why I walled that.  If seeing massive deficits
           with no end in sight, universal hatred of our country, erosion
           of civil liberties, weakening of environment protections, crony
           capitalism running amok, chaos and instability in the world, etc.,
           makes me "elitist" then you can call me that.  At least all the
           bad shit Bush is going to put into motion the next 4 years won't
           make me feel guilty since I didn't vote for him.  Plus I've got
           another country to move to if this whole deck of cards known as
           the US economy collapses. - eric
           the US economy collapses.   Oh BTWM, just for the record, I'm
           equally annoyed at the extremists on the other side, you know,
           the pseudo-intellectual surrender monkey pussies who think that
           the proper reaction to 9/11 was to send a basket of flowers to
           bin Laden and that we should give communism just one more chance
           ... It's just that there are a lot more of the former than the
           latter in this country, you know it's true - eric
           \_ Eric, don't take this the wrong way, but you come across as a
              ranty, intolerant, close-minded bigot.  That the liberal
              movement has come to be defined by people like you is why you
              lost at the polls yesterday, and why you will lose again and
                \_ Hey, I know I'm way out of the American mainstream, and
                   you can attack me personally if you wish.  But at least
                   give me some credit for caring about the state of the
                   \_ You may care about the country, but if you insult its
                      majority in the way you do, your care seems a little
                      cold and distant and abstract.  It's the people, not the
                      country, that are important.
                        \_ I never said the majority of the country were
                           "pigfucking inbred moronic loser bible-thumping
                            assholes" ... Although I do believe that group
                            is much more likely to vote Bush than Kerry.
                            is much more likely to vote Bush than Kerry. -eric
2004/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34569 Activity:high
11/2    with 95% reporting in florida, how come it hasn't been called yet?
        bush is up like 300k votes.
        \_ Where are you guys seeing this stuff?  URL?
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34566 Activity:high
1/2     Oh fuck, Bush is ahead with 102, ^%@$#^%@#@Q!!
        \_ Rural places tend to vote Bush. Rural places also have less
           votes to count so they'll report early. Things might tip as
           the night progress.
        \_ get a clue.  did you really expect Kerry to win Alabama?
           \_ Makes you wish we had let the Confederates secede, huh?
              \_ Daily Bruin editorial today:
                 "If Kerry cannot succeed, CA must secede."  For once,
                 I agree. -- ilyas
        \_ If you have TX for Bush and CA for Kerry then it is almost even.
           \_ but Bush is ahead in FL with over 50% reporting, and may
              get OH.
              \_ Independents are breaking 3-2 for kerry in FL.  It's gonna
                 be tight.  In OH, kerry's leading in exits.
                 \_ Dubya is leading in Florida by 270,000 votes, with
                    67% of precincts reporting.  May not be that tight.
                    Democrats may have gotten margin-of-error'd in the exit
                    polls there.
                    \_ Populist precincts in FL report last though. -- ilyas
                       \_ It's now 76% of precincts reporting, and the
                          lead is now 264,000 votes, you know what I'm saying?
                          If I were Fox News, I'd call FL now.
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34564 Activity:high
11/2    Wouldn't it be funny if Bush won the popular vote but lost the
        electoral vote?  How would the Right Wing Spin Machine handle that?
        \_ With wailing an gnashing of teeth?  I don't know, I wouldn't
           mind. -voted for Bush
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34555 Activity:high
11/2    I've never followed the election this closely. But apparently
        Bush is pretty ahead. Does that mean Bush will win in a landslide?
        \_ hey, it's Bush Landslide Guy!
           \_ Bush, Kaleeforneeyah, Landslide!
        \_ What you are seeing are results from states that are "Red".
           Wait until some of the "battle ground" states start to report
        \_ Current results are based on exit polls (4:55 pm CA).  Nothing so
           far has disagreed with the latest on http://electoral-vote.com (which had
           Kerry 262, Bush 261).
           \_ True, but that's not saying much since we've mostly tallied in
              states that are HEAVILY bush and offered little chance of
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34550 Activity:kinda low
11/02   OK, someone has to talk politics.  I'll start:  The Bush futures
        contracts have dropped 12 points today to 40.
        \_ What's the URL?
           \_ http://tinyurl.com/3p7w7
        \_ Not that it matters now, all motd and wall chatter is even more
           meaningless than usual (if that's even possible) but you might want
           to know that the better markets have been manipulated heavily
           before.  A 12 point drop based on no new information is rather
           remarkable.  Don't bet your house on it.
2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34539 Activity:nil
11/2    Man, http://freerepublic.com is slow today!
        \_ My heart bleeds.
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34517 Activity:moderate
11/01   if i put in Chimp for pres, does GWB get the vote?
        \_ In florida? Probably.
           \_ Not if they're black or not smart enuff to use a butterfly ballot
2004/11/1 [ERROR, uid:34512, category id '18005#6.4775' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34512 Activity:high
11/1    OMG!  I know this is Rush and he's a shill and a liar but are his
        numbers real?  Can someone help me to refute this stuff?  Someone
        sent me this and I'm raelly worried now.
        \_ He's completely full of shit.
        \_ Election day is tomorrow!  Just forget about the stupid polls!
        \_ how much right is Rush? Ultra right, slightly right, ???
           \_ The important thing about Rush is that Rush is an idiot.
              His actual political leanings are much less important. -- ilyas
              \_ Rush is a radio guy first, an idiot second, and a right-winger
                 third, IMHO.  By that I mean that you shouldn't compare him
                 to, say Ann Coulter,  but rather to Howard Stern or Adam
                 Corolla.  His job is to entertain people who are stuck in
                 their cars with nothing to do but listen to the radio.
                 Being an idiot and a nut comes second, and frankly as a guy
                 who used to commute over an hour in a car with only AM radio,
                 I have to admit he's pretty good at what he does.
                 \_ Of course, just as Michael Moore is good at what he does.
                    I compare him to Moore, though their media of expression
                    are different.  They are both 'dangerous' for the same
                    reason.  People like Rush or Moore have a way of defining
                    discourse far beyond what is their legidimate due as
                    entertainers.  Actually, I take back my earlier comment,
                    Rush may not actually be an idiot, he may merely have a
                    certain radio persona.  He is sort of in a Turing test
                    equivalence class with idiots. -- ilyas
                    \_ This may be the first time an ilyas sentence made me
                       laugh out loud.
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34510 Activity:nil
11/1    "A Failed Presidency", LA Times editorial (no endorsement for Kerry)
        "If elections were solely a job performance review, President George W.
        Bush would lose in a landslide. He has been a reckless steward of the
        nation's finances and its environment, a divisive figure at home and
        abroad. It's fair to say that Bush has devalued the American brand in
        the global marketplace. What keeps this a close race is voter
        discomfort with Sen. John F. Kerry and the success of Republicans in
        stoking concerns about Kerry's fitness for office. But the thrust of
        the Bush campaign message -- essentially, you are stuck with me in
        this frightful time because the other guy is too unreliable -- is a
        tacit acknowledgment that he can't allow the election to be a
        referendum on his record."
        \-i think framing this in personal terms, i.e. you are not just
          voting for bundle of policies A or B, is good. however evaluating
          BUSHCO with sort of a "wall street journal metric" i dont think
          is adequate ... i think he deserves moral condemnation as well.
          presiding over something like abu graib goes beyond he didnt deliver
          enough shareholder value. and delivering shareholder value doenst
          make up for allowing something like that to happen ... we hopefully
          have higher standards for heads of state than for pro-athletes.--psb
          \_ It'd be like if Michael Eisner let some low-level Disney animation
             department create a Mickey Mouse  hentai film.
             \-it would be like if michael eisner kept a japanese schoolgirl
               in his basement. us presidents:bush :: musicians:r_kelly --psb
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34508 Activity:nil
11/1    A Failed Presidency
        LA Times editorial criticizing Bush (no endorsement for Kerry)
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34503 Activity:very high
11/1    Wow, one more day til Election. By Wed we'll know who's the next
        president, how exciting!
        \_ According to the highly-accurate slashdot poll, Kerry will win by
           about a 5:2 margin
           \_ I am going to be really pissed if Bush wins again.
              \_ Don't you mean...for the FIRST TIME?!?!?!? HA HA HA HA HA
                 *cough* *hack* *wheeze*
        \_ What is the CSUA motd opinion on some of the CA measures?
           \_ if a h07 42n ch1x supports it, so do I!
              \_ hot asian chicks don't vote. hence http://www.leastlikely.com
                 \_ Oh I want to have sex with a hot asian chick!!
        \- by Wed there will be riots. If Bush wins ppl will get mad and send
           out lawyers. If Kerry wins the Fox news network will distort more
           views and Bush will send out troops, impose martial order, and
           scare the minorities to not cheer for Kerry.
2004/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34494 Activity:nil
11/1    rory, I don't care about the election. Just post pictures of hot
        conservative chicks and a video of you infiltrating into their right
        wing conservative ultra Christian organization. And post a
        3-some video of you and the 2 other dumb but hot religious
        right wing chicks who think that you're also voting for the
        Christian values. -don't care about the election, BushCo will
                           just pull out another dirty trick like 2000
2004/11/1 [ERROR, uid:34492, category id '18005#16.2225' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34492 Activity:high
11/01   It turns out that http://www.electoral-vote.com is being run by Andrew
        Tanenbaum. Yes, that very Andrew Tanenbaum. Who could have possibly
        thought it was him?
        \_ Jesus fucking christ.  I kept telling myself that this guy didn't
           understand anything about statistics because he's just some
           poly sci guy who's trying to figure it out on his own.  As a
           fellow physics major, I'm embarrased on his behalf now.
           \_ Partisan much?  He say something that doesn't toe your party
              line so he's a moron?  Uh huh.  Grow up.
           \_ Context clue for those of us who have none?
                \_ Tanenbaum's the Linux-vs-monolithic kernel anno 1991
                   flamefest guy, right?  -John
                   \_ yes, that guy.
           \_ Sheesh. Give him a break. This is, bar none, the most informative
              poll summary site out there, and it's free.
        \_ so... what is his political slant?
           \_ see the URL above
           \_ He thinks the BBC and the Guardian are neutral, fair, unbiased,
              and don't have an axe to grind.
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34486 Activity:very high 50%like:34333
10/31   How man here will emigrate from America if Bush wins?
        \_ Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger promised to leave America if Bush
           won. In 2000. Unfortunately, they didn't.
           \_ Not really.  http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/leave.htm.
           \_ "Alec is the biggest moralist that I know. He stands
               completely behind what he says. I can very well imagine
               that Alec makes good on his threat. And then I'd
               probably have to go too."
              Wish they had left. What the heck do celebrities know about
              politics? Why do they think anyone cares?
              \_ obviously you do.
                 \_ I don't care what they say; I do care that it's somehow
                    newsworthy what they say. There's more than enough real
                    issues out there that we shouldn't be wasting reporter
                    time talking to actors about their political views or
                    sending dozens of reporters to cover the trial of a
                    fertilizer salesman from Fresno which will never have the
                    slightest impact on our lives whatsoever.
                        \_ I just saw Alec on Dinner for Five responding
                           to this. He said: "15% of people agree with you,
                           15% of people hate you and want you to die. The
                           rest don't care." I doubt too many reporters
                           seek out popular media figures for their political
                           opinions, just the usual hype machines spewing
                           stuff out that the news channels pick up from
                           time to time. Blame Hollywood if you must,
                           but really you need to lighten up.
                           \_ Not Hollywood's fault - you stick a microphone
                              in someone's face, they're going to answer. I
                              think it's amusing that celebrities think being
                              a celebrity automatically makes them an authority
                              on politics, but that's a side point. It's media
                              that says they don't have the resources to cover
                              issues in the depth they'd like, instead
                              parroting the spin of the mouthpieces of
                              political parties and figures, and then spends
                              time and money covering crap like this.
                              \ s/celebrities/motd pundits/  Honestly, I don't
                                see the problem.  If you disagree, let it be.
                                Most of us, if we had a strong belief about
                                something and were given a platform to
                                pontificate about it, would probably go for
                                it.  -John
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34480 Activity:kinda low
10/31   It appears that news on Iraq, OBL, healthcare, education, etc have
        very little effect on the public perception of the candidates, esp
        those that are protected in the religious belt region of the US.
        How about dirt on the candidates? Let's say someone finds a
        video footage of GWB in drag/makeup, or an intern sucking his
        dick, or something to that effect. Do you think the people in the
        religious belt regions would finally change their mind?
        \_ Yes, they should all play Dubya flicking the bird 24/7 on
           Fox News Channel
        \_ Yes, they should play Dubya flicking the bird on Fox News Channel
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34474 Activity:high
10/31   You guys still remember the Rodney King case? When the verdict
        came, people were so pissed that they started a riot? Well
                          \_ No, the mayor gave them the OK to riot. B4
                             that news conference LAPD had no calls.
        me thinks the election will trigger 10X the resentment between
        people of very different beliefs, each side genuinely feeling
        that it is right and the other side is wrong, causing mayhem
        we have not seen since the Civil Rights riots. Your opinion on
        me opinion?
        \_ Not likely.  It's not a question of how mad people are, it's a
           question of *which* people are mad.  The people who rioted over
           the King verdict probably mostly don't vote, or see Kerry as
           just as much "the man" as Bush.  Conversely, the people who think
           the sky is falling are mostly professionals and intelectuals who
           have never even participated in a riot and wouldn't know how to
           start one.
        \_ I don't think Republicans will riot if they lose.
          \_ why not Democrats?
             \_ you live/school in berkeley and wonder about the left
                rioting?  "To the Gap!"
2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34467 Activity:nil
10/30   Prediction for the week of November 3-- there will be riots, lots of
        riots and we will not know who the president is until next year.
        \_ dude, just let Bush win. Let him handle 4 more years of mess.
           Let him fuck up so that there will be less ultra
           right wing religiously close minded fanatics in 2008.
           \_ I really doubt 4 more years of a bush administration will lead
              to fewer religiously closed-minded right-wingnuts.  What are you
              \_ A useful question to ask is what *would* lead to fewer people
                 following extremist religious ideology?  We need to solve this
                 problem in more than one country right now.  Electing leaders
                 that the wingnuts hate does not help.  So what does?
                 \_ Electing muslim wingnuts would help.  You are framing
                    the problem incorrectly. -- ilyas
2004/10/30 [Health/Men, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34465 Activity:nil
10/30   Dear Secret Service Men who monitors motd, aaron@csua.berkeley
        says bad things about Bush and talks about killing and sodomizing
        him. Please visit aaron ASAP before something really happens.
        Thanks.                    -a concenred Patriotic conservative
        \_ hi ilyas
           \_ bullshit.  "men who monitors?" Ilyas at least speaks English.
2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34461 Activity:high
10/30   http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=73550
        ilyas, I guess next time just report aaron to the FBI.
        \_ Why does this story get so much milage?  The girl didn't just
           say "some things."  She said she wished someone would kill
           president Bush. ANY THREAT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS
           INVESTIGATED BY THE SECRET SERVICE. This has been true since it
           was made law in 1917!  Get over it!
           PS. and yes, if aaron says he wants to kill the president, he
           should be visited by the Secret Service as well.
           \_ No Bush = Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all rolled into one
                \_ You forgot Genghis Kahn, Lenin, George III,
                   Dr. Claw and Cobra Commander!
              \_ Yeah, Bush has killed 60 million people (that's the lowest
                 estimate for those 3 combined) Keep thinking this way,
                 it'll help with your therapy.
2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34458 Activity:high
10/29   More BushCo incompetence.  Enough other unsecured high explosives
        left sitting around to be looted to make 10s of thousands of roadside
        bombs.  How many more smoking guns will it take to get this chimp out
        of office?  4 more days!
        \_ Oh yeah, it was far more important to get these french,
           russian explosives than it was to look for WMDs.
           \_ This is what I don't get.  HDX/RMX can be used as the compressor
              in a nuclear device.  The IAEA told us those stocks were still
              there under their seal.  Why wouldn't al qa qaa be one of the
              first locations secured?  This really seems like the highest of
              incompetencies.  How can you excuse it away?
2004/10/30 [ERROR, uid:34456, category id '18005#3.65625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34456 Activity:nil
10/29   Well, so much for the OBL tape having any big effect on the polls.
        \_ The tape only came out yesterday afternoon.  The effect of anything
           on the polls takes more than 8 hours in either direction.  The tape
           is also not the only thing going on.  Be realistic.
        \_ it has very little effect on the Christians because they do not
           listen to what's going on in the world (killing in Iraq, OBL,
           etc). They'll vote for the God chosen GWB no matter what.
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34445 Activity:moderate
10/29   Bin Laden speaks out right before the election. Is that going
        to help or hurt our great President of the United States?
        This can't help, but I'm not an pigfucking inbred moronic loser:
        "It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat
         and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting
         of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to
         carry out the operations, thank God," he said.
        \_ Hurts Dubya.  He didn't nail Osama and Osama is laughing at him.
        \_ you guys realize that the Democrats are sheltering Bin Laden
           for the purpose of winning the election right?  -conservative
           \_ How's that koolaid tonight?
           \_ Are you serious?  Who is the "Commander in Chief" right now?
        \_ Bin Laden is taunting Bush, but also trying to persuade
           Americans to vote for Kerry. So the question is: Why would
           bin Laden want Kerry as President?
           \_ http://andrewsullivan.com
              But why release a tape just before the elections? The obvious
              impact will be to help Bush. Any reminder of the 9/11 attacks
              will provoke a national rallying to the commander-in-chief. The
              deep emotional bond so many of us formed with the president back
              then is Bush's strongest weapon in this election, and OBL has
              just revived it. The real October Surprise turned out not to be
              OBL's capture (sorry, Teresa!) but OBL's resilience. I have a
              feeling that this will tip the election decisively toward the
              incumbent. A few hours ago, I thought Kerry was headed for
              victory. Now I think the opposite. I also have a sinking feeling
              that that was entirely bin Laden's objective.
              \_ I don't think criticism of Bush is meant to help Bush
                 win. How the heck do you draw that conclusion?
                 \_ Let's see... "Any reminder of the 9/11 attacks
                    will provoke a national rallying to the commander-in-chief.
                    The deep emotional bond so many of us formed with the
                    president back then is Bush's strongest weapon in this
                    election, and OBL has just revived it."  Just a random
                    guess of Andrew Sullivan's thinking, of course.
                    \_ There is a good rebuttal to this ridiculous line of
                       thinking right on his own web site.
                    \_ It's total bs-- up til now Bush could probably claim that
                       Osama was buried in a cave somehow.  It's not good for
                       Kerry, but it's definitely bad for Bush.
              \_ He might be right, but Osama is pretty nuts, and his
                 understanding of American phychology is sketchy at best.
                 Who can tell what he's thinking?
                 \_ Derka Derka Derka?
        \_ So much for the tin-foil-hat brigade saying we had him in custody
           and Bush was saving him for the Oct. surprise.
           \_ "Bin Laden" is a computer program in a pakistani movie
              studio.  The kurds will release Bin Laden (in a daring US
              Army Raid) on monday.
           \_ There's still 3 days.
2004/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34426 Activity:moderate
10/28   http://bakedbeaver.com/bushfighterpilot.html
        Bush wants to be a fighter pilot again for Halloween.
        \_ Lame
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34417 Activity:very high
10/28   Mostly serious inquiry for BUSHCO supporters: If Bush were revealed to
        have a catamite back at the Crawford Ranch, would you still vote for
        him? If you are supporting him so that your dividends arent taxed,
        is it still about the money? On the flip side, would you Clintonistas
        have had a "problem" if Monica were say 15 ... I have to think the
        people who defended the Mark Rich pardon would stick with him through
        thick [monica] and thin. --psb
        \_ This is why I think there should be a mechanism in place to
           rescind the nomination and renominate on a dime.  Or have a
           succession plan, like the VP-hopeful becomes P-hopeful.  It seems
           silly to suddenly become a liberal for an election because a
           conservative ended up being unusually slimy this election season.
             -- ilyas
        \_ Pardons cannot be defended, as there is no offense.  The power
           of pardon, as abused as it might be is at the discretion of the
           President.  Some people are more discrete than others.  Personally,
           I'm a good deal more bothered by Bush I's pardons than Clinton's.
           \- is it not obvious i am not accusing him of doing something
              illegal but hypocritical, sleazy etc w.r.t. to the marc rich
              pardon. yes, this is not a great issue of state like the
              nixon pardon, but i think it significant for its egregiousness
              not its significance, if you see what i mean. --psb
        \_ Well, I'm male, so I'm not a Clitonista, though I was a stolid
                     \- You know, not all the Sandinistas were women.
           supporter of Clinton.  But to answer your question, if he'd been
           caught with a 15 year old, I'd have very sadly, and with much
           grief in my heart howled for his blood.
        \_ I don't think I count as a Clintonista, since I voted for Nader,
           but I supported him through the impeachment hearings. But if
           Monica had been 15, yes, I would have called for his hide.
        \_ What is catamite and why should I care? I vote republican
           not b/c of Bush. I vote for GOP candidates b/c I think
           that in the long run only republicans can return us
           to a "wise and frugal government" that restrains men
           from injurying one another, but otherwise leaves them
           free to regulate their own affairs.
           \_ example: invasion of Iraq :p
           I also feel that the major problems stem from stupid
           socialist policies brought about by democrats (New Deal,
           Great Society, &c.). Also Democrats will likely bring
           about crappy social policy like abortion on demand,
           legal pot, condoms for jr kids and garraige. I'm also
           appalled at the prospect of a more liberal judiciary
           that doesn't understand the fundamentals of federalism
           and willy nilly makes law.
           The last democrat I would have considered voting for is
           Truman (the only bad thing I can say about Truman is
           that he didn't let MacArthur win in Korea).
           \_ MacArthur wanted to use *WMD* on China.  Then again,
              if MacArthur can open fire upon USA's own WWI veterans,
              nuking civilians shouldn't be much of a moral challenge
              for him.
           \_ There's nothing frugal about Bush's government. The problem
              with your thinking is that you're voting based on a predetermined
              partisan mindset regardless of the actual candidate. You are also
              falling prey to GOP scare tactics on the garriage thing which is
           \_ MacArthur wanted to use *WMD* on China.  Then
              again, if MacArthur can open fire upon USA's own WWI
              veterans, nuking civilians shouldn't be much of a
              moral challenge for him.
              \_ MacArthur would have solved the China problem.
                 The Bonus March was probably not the smartest
                 thing to do, but I agree w/ MacArthur's view
                 that "we fought for our country, not for money".
           \_ There's nothing frugal about Bush's government. The
              problem with your thinking is that you're voting based
              on a predetermined partisan mindset regardless of the
              actual candidate. You are also falling prey to GOP
              scare tactics on the garriage thing which is
                                  \_ BUSH = DRAFT!!!!!```11one~uno!!!
                \_ Can you seriously tell me that any Democrat
                   will roll back the progressive income tax?
                   Can you honestly tell me that any Democrat
                   will reduce social programs? Which Democrat
                   will tell kids to stop taking drugs and
                   having sex and stay in school and study?
                   How many Democrats really advocate personal
                   responsibility? Also which Democrats truly
                   will put America first and go against world
                   stupidity (need I remind you that Democrats
                   were opposed to Zero Option and were pro
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34408 Activity:low
10/28   Bush campaign admits doctoring campaign ad image:
        http://csua.org/u/9p5 (yahoo! news)

Please don't nuke.
        \- as has been established, i'm no fan of BUSHCO, but why
           is this interesting/disturbing/bad? --psb

Please don't nuke.
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:34407 Activity:nil
10/28   This is funny.  And I do agree that Bush is an effective leader.
        Lead us to wrong directions, but an effective leader never the less:
        username / pw = bobbob
        \_ obLongUnproductiveThreadAboutWhatEffectiveLeaderWrongDirectionMeans
        \_ America, fuck yeah!!!!
        \_ That is funny. Thank you.
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34403 Activity:moderate
10/28   Here you go, Partha.  Actual Economist endorsement of Kerry:
        http://csua.org/u/9oz (economist.com)
        \_ The editor, Bill Emmott, put it this way: "It was a difficult
           call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the
           war in Iraq. But in the end we felt he has been too incompetent to
           deserve re-election."
        \_ Summary:  Guantanamo bad!!! Waaaaaa!!!  Nothing to recommend for
           Kerry.  And apperently they haven't actually read the Geneva
           Convention resolutions.
           \_ where does it say "parade people around naked and make
              them masturbate into the mouths of the prisoner over there
              and have some dumbass from virginia take photos of them"?
              \_ Um, that didn't happen in Guantanamo you idiot.  That was Abu
                 Ghraib in Iraq.
                \_ That's what you think! - seymour
           \_ Why do people keep forgetting that in a two-candidate system,
              any refutation of one candidate automatically recommends the
              other candidate?
              \_ "You're either with us or against us in the fight against
                 terror." -GW Bush
                 America, Fuck Yeah!!!!1!
              \_ Which is why you should always vote *for* someone instead of
                 *against* someone.
                 \_ If your choice is between handing a loaded gun to the guy
                    who just shot you in the foot and some guy who hasn't shot
                    you in the foot yet, go with the guy who hasn't shot you
                    yet.  He *might* shoot you, but the other guy *will* shoot
                    \_ I'm voting for the guy who isn't George W. Bush!
                 \_ Hint: it's not "instead of". You do both, unless you don't
                    vote at all, which would accomplish nothing.
           \_ Holding people indefinitely without trial or right to council
              or right to defend themselves or even know what the charges
              or right to defend themselves or even to know what the charges
              against them are seems fundamentally unamerican to me. -ausman
              \_ Yeah, at least Dubya could have done what the JAGs
                 argued very strenuously for:  some way to vet all the
                 detainees and some kind of a process.
              \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34401 Activity:high
10/28   Smoking gun on the explosives issue:
        \_ Liberal media consipracy.  Jason Blair.  CBS.  NANANANANA
        \_ This isn't anything like a smoking gun for anyone seeking a real
           answer.  Your link says that they don't know what they were
           looking at.  It says the place was looted but it would have been
           "unlikely" anyone could haul 380 tons of anything away while the
           streets were "jammed with American armor".  This is a very serious
           issue and you're making a big fucking joke of it.  If the stuff was
           gone before we got there, we need to know that.  If it was somehow
           looted (all 380 tons) by the guys with the pickup truck mentioned
           in your link, then we need to know that.  If it was moved to Syria
           or just other places inside the country which had 1 *million tons
           of other crap all over the place, we need to know that.  Your link
           is speculation, not fact and certainly not a smoking gun.  No one
           needs to cry out "liberal bias!" to see your link doesn't say what
           you say it says.  Your link isn't biased.  It reports facts.  You
           are spinning the facts presented by the media into biased and
           unsubstantiated conclusions.
           \_ see first comment
           \_ http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1
              Couldn't be clearer.
              Yahoo News on the analysis:
              \_ The second URL doesn't go anywhere.
        \_ There has been no smoking gun.  It's STILL not clear what happened
           to the 380 tons of RDX/HMX between March and May 2003.  Securing
           this facility was not a priority for Dubya -- finding bio,
           chemical, and more significant nuclear components was his priority.
                 \_ No it wasn't.  This was one of the biggest friggin
                    NUCLEAR sites in Iraq!
                    \_ What else besides RDX/HMX was nuclear-related at
                       Al-Qaqaa in March, 2003?
                       \_ A huge amount of dual use manufacturing and
                          research equipment.  Also all looted.
                          \_ Are you sure this was at Al-Qaqaa?
           What is clear?  The general problem of not having enough troops,
           widespread looting of explosives from arms sites and from every
           public institution that began immediately after Baghdad fell (if
           not earlier), and the post-war plan being botched in general.
        \_ What are "proximity fuses" made out of? This is a serious
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34395 Activity:high
10/27   Economist endorses Kerry.  Come on, someone be snarky!
        \_ GIRLY MAN ECONOMICS!!1!!1!!!
        \_ let's see the URL
           \_ It's in their subscriber only content for now.  But here's
              someone who was kind enough to transcribe the print for you:
              http://csua.org/u/9ou (foreigndispatches.typepad.com)
              If you do happen to have a subscription, the article is here:
              http://csua.org/u/9ov (economist.com)
              \-I think the E'ist will endorse Kerry if they do endorse
                somebody [and I'd be surprised if they didnt ... they
                live for this kind of thing]. The E'ist was really angry
                about AbuG and Guantanamo, they are not religious fanatics,
                the dont get nervous when the hear the "dont change horses
                midstream" rhetoric ... they know Kerry wont give Manhattan
                to the UN, the Louisiana Purchase back to France and TX back
                to Mexico. The may be slightly worried about some of Kerry's
                tax plans and protectionism and I think Kerry's recent semi-
                disingenuous claims may have slightly tainited his position
                in academic terms, but it's a nasty election and BUSHCO made
                it that way. We'll find out in the next 24 hrs. The trajectory
                of my thinking at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP  --psb
                of my wondering at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP  --psb
                \_ Wow. Check out the big brain on psb. After reading a
                   magazine for how many years? he finaly picks up on how
                   they think. Way to go,psb. And thanks for sharing. -saarp
                        \-you've been alive for how many yrs and have yet
                          to pick up how to think? [is this really you?] --psb
                          \_ I see. So by inference, since you supposedly
                             have picked up this skill, you have free license
                             brag about it? One thing I have picked up:
                             those who boast usually have little to boast
                             about. And for the record, it is I. -saarp
                                        \- i guess we'll have to recalibrate.
                                           this is like finding out absolute
                                           zero is lower than you thought it
                                           was. --psb
                \_ Bush made this election season nasty?  Bush was dead silent
                   through the entire Democratic primary season where they
                   spent their time trying to out-smear the man.  Sheesh, how
                   much more deluded or self blind can a guy get?  For a guy
                   who claims to know so much and be so informed, you come
                   across as very ignorant and biased.
             \_ Why is the free link dated in January?
                \_ Sorry, I linked to the wrong article.  Sully mentions the
                   new article here and quotes a paragraph of it:
                   http://csua.org/u/9oy (andrewsullivan.com)
                   I will try to find a link to the real article.
                   Here it is, for free from the Economist itself.
                   I'm going to delete the old links above:
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34391 Activity:moderate
10/27   "There was another election season, back in 1952, when a presidential
        contest seemed too close to call, America worried it was vulnerable to
        attack, and a single company dominated computing."
        \_ Univac predicts landslide victory for Bush in CA!!11!1!!
           \_ Univac's polling completely ignores circuits which use
              transistors and no longer have a conventional vacuum tube.
              \_ Thanks Captain Obvious.  And your point?
                 \_ It's a joke on people criticizing the Gallup poll
        \_ The Univac I used mercury delay line memory.  Very cool technology.
           \_ Looks like a jet engine.
           It appears that the delay line was only used as a stack.  Had they
           implemented a time-slot-based memory system, they could have used
           the delay line for random access, and this would have presaged the
           later Rambus architecture.  Of course, a time-slot based system
           would have been too complicated to implement given 1950 technology.
        \_ The Univac I use cleans my carpet well.  I'm waiting to upgrade to
           Multivac which can clean two rooms in parallel.
        \_ Which single company dominates computing today?  Microsoft?  Intel?
           \_ Actually, it's Apple
           \_ Microsoft is only small stuff.  Intel is small and mid-sized.
              IBM has their finger in everything.  But I don't think there is
              one single company that owns computing in that sense anymore.
              \_ Uhhh...  Yeah, sure.  Whatever.
2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34388 Activity:moderate
10/27   Form 180.  Bush signed it.  Kerry did not.  Where is the media?
        \_ It was probably there when Bush announced that he signed it.
        \_ Bush did not sign it: 'At the White House, press secretary
           Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether
           Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did
           request and release his own military records in February.
           "I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize
           making his military records available publicly," Mr. McClellan
           said.' Why do you and Rush Limbaugh keep lying about this?
           \_ He ordered the release of his records as an Executive Order as
              some flashy PR stunt.  What has Kerry done?
              \_ So, has Dubya signed Form 180, as op has written?
                 \_ Nope.  Do you think an Executive Order is less than F180?
                    What has Kerry done?
                    \_ Do you think just repeating Executive Order actually
                       defines what the order actually specified?
                    \_ You tell me which of these EOs applies and I might
                       be able to answer your question:
               \_ So I am still waiting for the number of the executive
                  order that Bush supposedly signed to release his records.
                  I went through all of them and could not find one that
                  could possibly be it. I think the Bush campaign is lying.
                  \_ No, a random Bush supporter was wrong.  Some of us Bush
                     supporters are just as hacked-off at Bush for not signing
                     form 180 as we are at Kerry for the same thing.
2004/10/27 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34375 Activity:high
10/26   Vote Bush!  Let's not repeat 2000 again.
        \_ You so funny!
           \_ Not really.  If your single issue is the importance of the
              voting process and the long term health of our nation's most
              basic principlesm then voting for the guy ahead in the polls
              is the most likely way to lopside them enough to avoid further
              lawsuits and post-election uncertainty.
              \_ ...by that logic, giving all your money to people who look
                 threatening is a great way to avoid getting mugged. It's true,
                 but it's missing the point.
                 \_ Well, it's more like if you're going to get raped anyway,
                    you might as well supply your assailant with a condom.
                 \_ no, it is saying that there is a greater issue at stake
                    than which guy will fuck up the country for 4 years.
                    \_ Whereas the point is that one guy is definitely going to
                       fuck up the country, while the other guy stands a good
                       chance of _not_ fucking up the country.
                       \_ Wheew!  Another Bush supporter on the motd!
                       \_ The trick is to figure out which guy is which.
                          That's why there's a horse race.
                          \_ Right, I'm having difficulty deciding between the
                             guy who's been lying to me and shooting the
                             country in the foot for the last four years and
                             the guy who wants a chance to try something new.
                             \_ I'm sure you think you're on the right.  I'm
                                also as sure there are just as many people on
                                the opposite side who think they're on the
                                right.  That's why there's a horse race.
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34372 Activity:very high
10/26   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html
        (username / pw = bobbob)
        Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22
        again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in
        about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer.
        Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to
        Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer
        Qualification Test.
        \_ The difference is that Kerry didn't spend his 20s and 30s doing
           \_ That explains a lot. :-P
        \_ Boy, it sure is a good thing that IQ tests and ratings are such a
           meaningful and credible measure of an individual's intelligence.
           I'm glad I can estimate either candidate's intellectual fiber
           based on this decisive piece of information.  -John
        \_ Whoops, there's a small problem here.  Gottfredson, the psych. prof.
           who made the correlation, took the candidates' rankings on their
           respective Officer Qualifying Tests and directly correlated those
           ranks to IQ tests.  Since Bush was in the 95th percentile of his
           class for the AFQT, Gottfredson extrapolated that he had an IQ
           of corresponding rank.  However, the 1960s AFQT, like the ASVAB,
           was an aptitude test, not an IQ test. Drawing correlations between
           the two is more like comparing Fujis to Grannies than apples to
           oranges, but it's still prone to significant errors.  What the AFQT
           does tell us, however, is that GWB is not a moron, but Bush-watchers
           already knew that; he's much too cunning to misunderestimate.
           \_ psb said Bush was a ChimpBrain.  Surely, the great psb was not
              wrong.  You have a fault in your reasoning somewhere.
                      \- When Bush first emerged on the scene, I thought he
                         looked like Alfred E. Newman. I have since decided
                         he looks more like a Chimp. I do not believe he is
                         an especially bright fellow, but I also dont believe
                         most people are especially bright. I agree that he is
                         smarter than a lot of the people who call him an
                         idiot ... same goes for Rush Limbaugh. Most of the
                         people calling them idiots could not give a 30min
                         talk and a fair number of them probably could not
                         tell you who Francois Mitterand was. Of the presidents
                         since 1980, Bill Clinton is the only one I would
                         call "really smart". BUSH's and RUSH have serious
                         character defects but they arent idiots [which doesnt
                         make them geniuses either]. It's actually fun to ask
                         people ranting about how dumb Bush is "do you think
                         he is dumber than <name some dull acquaintance>".
                         As I asked on wall previously, "who would you rather
                         have as president: bush or saarp?" --psb
                         \-BTW, I also think intellectual curiosity counts
                           for a lot. A friend of mine at Berkeley who used
                           to get A+ in upper div physics classes [including
                           from people like Steiner, if that means anything
                           to you] once said "I thought Cambodia was in
                           Africa ... because that is where all the starving
                           people are." This guy was a genius when it came
                           to physics problem sets but you dont want him
                           running the world. I am not sure I want somebody
                           who says "jesus is my favorite philosopher" or
                           "sovereignty is sovereignty" running much of the
                           planet. Yes, I know Bush understand legislative
                           nuance and is being disingenuous with comments
                           like "he voted for/against it". Yes I agree not
                           one person in 50 who laughed at the sovereignty
                           comment could have defined sovereignty. --psb
              \_ Wait, not being a moron somehow equates to not being a chimp-
                 brain?  Being smart is no defense against being wrong and
                 morally bankrupt (cf. Richard Cheney).
           \_ I'm confused.  I keep hearing Bush is stupid and incompetent.
              If so, how did he get the Whitehouse, is ahead in polls for a
              second term, foll John Kerry and others into voting for the war,
              fool millions of Americans and the media on a continuous basis
              and pack the supreme court with right wing partisans?
              \_ You *are* confused, but it has nothing to do with the
                 fallacious "points" you bring up.
                 \_ Could you please explain?  Thank you.
                    \_ Sure.  You believe that getting into the White House,
                       maintaining a good approval rating, and lying to a bunch
                       of Senators about how he's only going to use war as
                       a last resort somehow requires intelligence and the
                       ability to be a good President.  It doesn't.  You can
                       do much the same with a well-oiled political machine,
                       a popular tough-guy image, and a heaping serving of
                       arrogance and bravado.  That's where you're confused.
                       You're welcome.
              \_ Hey confused boy:  Dubya delivered his GOP convention speech
                 very well, spreading the gap as much as 51% Dubya, 39% Kerry.
                 Yet, he looked like a total d00f during the debates,
                 especially debate 1.  Therein will you find your answer.
                 \_ Who would win in a debate between W and PSB?
                    \_ That's easy, PSB would just get thrown in Gitmo.
                 As for "foll [sic] Kerry ... into voting for the war", Kerry
                 voted for war authority, not for war.  Purportedly only the
                 President has the best intelligence and perspective to make
                 the final call to take the country to war.  Let me remind
                 you that the Senate never saw conflicting reports on aluminum
                 tubes from the Energy department, unlike the President.
                 \_ Kerry wouldn't have seen any reports anyway since he
                    hardly ever showed at any Senate Intelligence meetings.
                 \_ Now I'm reaaaally confused.  Since the polls you're
                    implicitly citing changed their voter mix calculations
                    at the same time as the debates and I keep reading that
                    the polls don't mean anything anyway, at least when GWB
                    is up.  Please help!
                    \_ Where do you keep reading this? Certainly not on the
                       motd. Wherever you keep going to read misinformation,
                       stop it.
                       \_ It's standard (D) spin.  I watch the news shows, I
                          see the Kerry people saying the polls don't matter.
                          The Kerry campaign is my source of misinformation.
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34371 Activity:moderate
10/26   Majority of Bush supporters believe things that simply
        are not true:
        \_ http://Pipa.org?
        \_ Being a Bush supported would have to mean you at least partially
           believe that "Bush is a good President", so you're already in a
           world of make-believe!
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34365 Activity:very high
10/26   So now that almost every major newspaper has endorsed Kerry does
        this prove the notion of a liberal media? Why would newspapers
        controlled by mega-national corporations throw in with Kerry?
        \_ No, and because Bush is a radical.
           \_ Dude! I totally agree!  Bush is gnarly!
              \_ If you're not trolling, you may wish to look up the word
                 \_ Try googling "define:joke"
        \_ This will be only the 3rd time that the democrat presidential
           candidate has had more endorsements from newspapers than the
           republican, since Editor and Publisher magazine started tracking
           them in 1940 (the other two were Johnson in 1964 and Clinton in
           1992). At least 35 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 are endorsing
           Kerry this time, while only four who endorsed Gore are endorsing
           Bush. And this is despite a tendency of papers to endorse sticking
           with incumbents. So no, it doesn't "prove the notion of a liberal
           media," it helps demonstrate just how terrible Bush has been.
           \_ Nooo!  Do not you bring your facts here!  They are not
              compatible with my blind partisan indoctrination!!!     -op
           \_ Question:  if Bush wins, does that mean the print media is out of
              the mainstream?  Shouldn't the paper endorsements roughly follow
              the country's nearly-even split?
              \_ Yes. No, unless you want the papers to tell the people
                 what they already think.
                 \_ BZZZT! on point 2.  These are editorial opinions.  If the
                    newspaper people are "just like the rest of us" then they
                    should have roughly the same opinion split.  Unless of
                    course you feel newspaper people are somehow more
                    enlightened and posses superior intellect and moral
                    status.  If you believe that you haven't met enough
                    newspaper people.
                    \_ newspaper editors have significantly more education
                       than the general population, and also pay more
                       attention to the news; therefore they should, on
                       average, have "better" opinions than the median
                       American.  -tom
                       \_ Am I the only one who sees a certain circularity
                          to this argument?
                          \_ No, it's just a tom thing.  At least he's honest
                             about his mistaken belief that newspaper people
                             are better than the rest of us.
                             \_ What is mistaken about my belief? Specifically,
                                I think newspaper editors have more education
                                and pay more attention to the news than the
                                median American.  I think they are more likely
                                to know Kerry's and Bush's positions on the
                                issues, for example.  I don't think they are
                                "better"; they just have a more educated and
                                informed opinion than the general population.
                                The same is probably true of computer
                                programmers.  -tom
                                \_ Here tom, let me spell it out for you.
                                   Newspaper editors help create the news we
                                   see.  Therefore, when the editors 'pay
                                   attention to the news' as you say, they
                                   are paying attention to something
                                   that other newspaper editors helped create.
                                   There is a circularity in this system.
                                   \_ I gave a specific example; I think
                                      newspaper editors are more likely
                                      to know what Bush and Kerry's positions
                                      on the issues really are.  I don't have
                                      a poll of newspaper editors to show you,
                                      but there are a number which show that
                                      the American public has no fucking clue.
                                   \_ You guys should be arguing specifics,
                                      say, the Washington Post.
                                      I don't think you'll get anywhere talking
                                      about "newspaper editors" and "the
                                      median American", apart from irritating
                                      each other.
           \_ Link? Which papers? I don't care about the Podunk Review in
              Lincoln, Nebraska. I disagree with the definition of 'major'
              below but certainly it is not so wide as to have 35 papers
              flipflop. I am not sure the universe includes 35 papers.
              \_ You should care about the Podunk Review.  Millions of people
                 read the PR across America and take it seriously.
              \_ http://csua.org/u/9nv [editorandpublisher]
                 \_ Thanks. So what do you think a reasonable cut-off for
                    circulation is?
                    \_ Since the circulation numbers are being rigged (they're
                       outright fabrivations to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
                       outright fabrications to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
                       make sense to have a circulation based cut-off.
                       \_ The alternative? I imagine they are 'rigged'
                          equally. Only relative size matters, not
                          \_ Why do you imagine all newspapers are equally
                             criminal?  But let's follow your reasoning
                             anyway: a newspaper with a real 100,000 readers
                             inflates by 10%, another one with 1,000,000
                             readers inflates by 10%.  The first has created
                             10k non-existing people, the second has created
                             \_ Uh, so? The idea is to identify the
                                largest papers, not to guess at their
                                actual circulation.
              \_ Your "universe" is small and tiny, as yermom described among
                 other things.
                                      \_ Even if we grant that newspaper people
                                         may know better what each candidate's
                                         beliefs and policies are (which I
                                         still dispute but enough on that), to
                                         know more about a topic is not the
                                         same as being correct about ones
                                         conclusions on that topic.  Having
                                         knowledge does not make one's opinion
                                         more "right".  Don't confuse raw fact
                                         oriented knowledge with wisdom.
        \_ The major newspapers are:
           The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
           USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. (the latter three have not
           made an endorsement)
           \_ Don't forget The San Francisco Examiner and the Washington Times.
              \_ These are tier 2 or lower, along with:
                 the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, and all the other
                 \_ Tribune owns the LA Times.
              \_ These aren't even second tier. Neither one is in the top 100
                 papers in the country by circulation.
              \_ The Washington *Times* has endorsed Kerry?  Seriously?
                 \_ Follow the sub-thread, please!  The topic is:
                    Identifying the major newspapers.
           \_ funny, how most of these majors also called Kerry a crackpot
              for making a link between Iran/Contra and CIA cocaine trading,
              and after the CIA said it was true years later, put the news
              well behind the front page.  irony.
              \_ What are you talking about?  The CIA has never admitted
                 links to cocaine trafficking.
                 \_ CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz admitted that "there are
                    instances where the CIA did not, in an expeditious or
                    consistent fashion, cut off relations with individuals
                    supporting the contra program who were alleged to have
                    engaged in drug trafficking activity."
                    \_ Which is nothing like, "The CIA engaged in the cocaine
                       trade to fund secret off-book programs" which is what
                       the original accusation is about.  The Cold War was a
                       dirty fight for survival.  The CIA existed to do
                       exactly that sort of dirty work and deal with those
                       sorts of people.  Lesser of two evils and all that.
                       \_ Shrug.  The original thread was about how Kerry
                          was not off his rocker about there being a link.
                          It also directs evidence against the guy who wrote
                          "What are you talking about?  The CIA has never
                          admitted links to cocaine trafficking".
                          \_ A "link"?  Of course there was "a link".  That
                             is who the CIA was created to deal with, duh.
                             Did you really prefer the Carter version of
                             Cold War intel where the CIA wasn't supposed to
                             talk to "bad people"?  You're still mixing two
                             different issues: a "link" vs "selling" cocaine.
                             A "link" is meaningless FUD.
                             \_ You're off-topic, sodan.  The comment was
                                directed toward the "CIA never admitted" guy.
        \_ Isn't it obvious by now... based on Sandy Berger, Jayson Blair,
           ANG Memos, SVFT, Kerry's post war activities and now this
           'missing explosives' fraud??
           \_ I can't see all that through the bottom of my kool aid glass.
        \_ When the media pushes Kerry as hard to sign Form 180 as they
           beat up Bush over his military records, I'll believe they're
           something other than partisan left wing hacks.  When they tell us
           about Kerry meeting Madame Binh in Paris while still an active
           duty officer for the US military, I'll believe.  When they say
           they're sorry and they fucked up with the bogus Bush documents
           instead of spinning it into some bullshit "false but accurate"
           which only an extreme leftish partisan finds acceptable, I'll
           believe.  When they stop write large print headlines in response
           to positive Bush admin job news that say, "BONDS DROP ON JOBS
           REPORT!", I'll believe.  The list goes on, but my fingers are
           getting sore.  You get the idea.
           \_ It's hard work.  I know how hard it is.
              \_ Yes, being an honest and unbiased media person is hard
                 work.  Our mainstream media has failed miserably.  Mostly,
                 because they're not even trying.
           \_ Bush still has not signed his form 180 and Bush documents
              are still leaking out.
              \_ Thank you for making my point.  The media has bashed the shit
                 out of Bush on this issue but has completely ignored it in
                 Kerry's case.  In trying to attack Bush you have made my
                 point on this thread's topic which is about the biased Media.
              \- Does anybody know how many papers that endorsed BUSH2000 are
                 endorsing KERRY04. Are there any papers that endorsed ALGOR
                 who are now endorsing BUSH? Even 1? [chicago?] --psb
                 \_ There are about 37 switches for kerry.  i can't remember
                    how many for bush.  one of the links above has the totals.
                    http://csua.org/u/9nv --scotsman
                    Better: http://csua.org/u/9o7
                 \_ The Denver Post endorsed Gore and is endorsing Bush.
                    There are two others.
                 \_ Fortunately, the people decide, not newspaper editors in
                    this country.  Endorsements will carry little weight as
                    most papers have a bias which leads to readship which
                    shares that bias.  The SF Chron wouldn't survive in OC,
                    for example.  The OC Register wouldn't make it in SF.
                    \_ you don't think nazi sympathizing and union busting
                       would play in OC?  The SF Chron recently fired a
                       reporter for attending an anti-war rally; they are
                       not any kind of liberal bastion.   -tom
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34359 Activity:nil
10/26   Media Watchdog: 'October Surprise' Blows Up in Faces of
        NY Times
        NyTimes pulls a CBS
        \_ "Cybercast News Service"? Whoizzat?
           \_ right-wing news outlet.  Media Research Center is a right-wing
              source as well.  You better believe the right-wing is spinning
              this as much as they can:  Dubya lost 380 tons of HMX and RDX
              (not just artillery shells and general-use explosives) at a site
              we knew about and that the IAEA explicitly warned the U.S. about
              before the invasion ("hey dumbshits, don't forget about the
              Al-Qaqaa site with the stuff that can start a fissile reaction").
        \_ Uhh, it is becoming increasingly clear that the NBC story
           was wrong.  The troops were jsut there for a resting stop
           and no inspections were done.  If there were 380 TONS of high
           explosives taken from the facility in the month leading up to
           the start of the war don't you think people would have known?
           I mean shit you don't think we had every single satalite we could
           looking at places like MAJOR AMMO DUMPS.  you can spin away but
           it might be better if you jsut faced facts for once.  There was
           NO postwar planning.  Bush and co really thought that the iraqis
           would rush to love us and everythin would be wonderful.  The fact
           that they are still refusing to admit their mistakes is leading
           to disaster after disaster in Iraq.
           \_ Like the Bush ANG memos eh?  I should just believe the 'facts',
              as in whatever the Jayson Blair says is a fact.
              \_ NBC pulled the story.  Get a grip.
        \_ Uh, hardly any of the oil refineries were affected during the same
           time period, unlike Al-Qaqaa; the "it was gone before we got there"
           excuse is incredibly stupid.
        \_ Of course it was gone before we got there.  If you take your sweet
           ass time guarding sites other than the oil ministry it gives the
           bad guys plenty of time to steal explosives.  The only alternative
           "It was stolen right under our noses" makes no sense because if you
           actually assigned people to guard the stuff nobody could have simply
           waltzed off for it.  Saying "It was gone before we got there" is a
           bit like saying "Things are always in the last place you look".
           \_ Uh, it was last seen before the war, like 5 years before.  Do you
              have any clue about this story at all?  Let's blame Bush for
              the missing gas Saddam used on the Kurds.  After all, it could
              have been there JUST before the Americans got there...
              \_ What was last seen before the war, like 5 years before?
                 Are you talking about the RDX and HMX at Al-Qaqaa?
              \_ No it was last seen shortly before gulf war 2.  There were
                 inspectors in iraq shortly before the US told them to bug
                 out because war was coming.  This was one of the sites they
                 had under inspection.
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34355 Activity:high
10/26   Why are you a Democrat?  Why are you a Republican?  What is the
        top reason you belong to either party?
        \_ I am independent but I hate Democrats because they want to decide
           everything for you, except what happens in the bedroom.
        \_ I am a democrat for exactly one reason: George W. Bush.  I was always
           an independent before.
           \_ Yes, I am precisely democrat for the same reason. I was pretty
              neutral before, but GWB truely showed me what Republicans
              are made of.
              \_ I wouldn't go that far.  If anything, i've become much more
                 willing to listen to moderate republicans over the last
                 four years, and  I have in fact found that I have far more
                 in common with them than I would have thought.  It's
                 just that one man, and some of his more wingnut cabinet
                 \_ You are right, it is also men like Tom Delay and Bill
                    First.  The moderates are totally cowed by the extreme
                    wing of the party, and until that changes there is no
                    moderate republican party.
        \_ I'm a Democrat because I want to work within the system to improve
           it.  The Republican Party is full of assholes who justify their
           beliefs and actions with survival of the fittest - and who wants to
           party with people like that?  If Republicans were just about smaller
           government and having a safety net for the poor without this asshole
           attitude and the derived characteristics, I'd probably be a
           Republican.  Why not just be an independent?  You can always vote
           for the other guy or criticize other Democrats as a Democrat.
           \_ Independents get no say in the primaries.
        \_ I grew up poor, and I believe in the "democrat" policies that helped
           poor families like mine and now my family is pretty well off.
           I don't mind paying more taxes to paybackk for the government
           services I received in school like financial aid.  I am democrat.
        \_ I am democrat because I hate Republicans.  They tend to be arrogant
           and have no respect for other people.
           \_ Nice troll!
           \_ http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
           \_ I am a Republican because I am stupid and evil.  Once, a long
              time ago, I was smart and good and a Democrat just like you.
        \_ I was ignorant and blandly neutral until I came to Cal.  After a
           few years of seeing the left completely unfiltered, I found them
           deeply intellectually dishonest, hostile, angry, mean, bitter,
           and unworthy of serious consideration.  I vote Republican because
           they're the other major party and I've never met Republicans as
           vicious and mean spirited as the left I met at Cal.
           \_ I didn't have this experience when I attended 92-97, but I would
              say (like Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary) they're
              just stupid liberals, and stupidity is common to both parties,
              and to independents as well.  I would actually say my experience
              (during Cal and since Cal) has actually been the opposite of
              yours. -liberal
        \_ I have the impression that states tend to be more strongly
           polarized Repulican or Democratic.  What are the top R and D
           states?  Do R or D states tend to do better (not in the fun-to-
           live-in sense, but in the fiscal/crime/social services/education
           sense)?  CA is pretty screwed up.  Is the equivalent Republican
           state (TX?) equally screwed up?  Does anyone know of relevant
           \_ I realize this is not exactly what you're talking about, but
              it's interesting:
              Blue states have higher per capita state domestic product.
              If you broke it down by county, I think you'd see something
              much more dramatic.  When you actually look at the numbers,
              it's the republicans who are the non-productive welfare
              whores.  Just look at the water projects in the western
           \_ Do you really need to ask motd?
           \_ Most D states are along the coasts.  R states are anywhere in
              between.  You be the judge.
              \_ You don't know either, huh?
           \_ What you have to understand is that there are really three
              American political parties, the Republicans, Democrats
              and Appropriators (to quote Dick Armey and Trent Lott).  Most
              Dems are Appropriators, and alot of Repubs (RINOs) are also.
              The fiscal discipline (and other successes) of the 1990s
              resulted when the small government conservative contingent
              of Congress was able briefly take control in the 1994 elections,
              aka the Contract with America.  After Newt left, Congress
              slowly returned to normal, although with a different letter in
              \_ Fine.  The question remains though.  Which states are doing
                 better?  Is TX as screwed up as CA?  Is NY as screwed up as
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34354 Activity:high
10/26   BoingBoing has a list of news organizations that typically stay away
        from political endorsements (or otherwise would predictably be in the
        Bush camp) that are currently endorsing Kerry:
        \_ My favorite are when they advertise articles from anti-Bush
           conservatives but when you read closely and look up the authors
           they're all card carrying libertarians.  I got a big kick out of
           the Cato Institutate article that Salon posted in full for free
           because they felt the message was "so important".
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34351 Activity:low
10/26   Creepy.  Rat brain cells + computer control F-22 simulation
        \- ChimpBrain controls world's largest economy and military. --psb
           \_ You're one post too high troll boy.
           \_ Is this the real psb?  I didn't think he was this brain dead, and
              he's supposed to end with "ok. tnx".
              \_ Don't you know, psb is a 'kantian.'
                 \-IAJS,YSTL. --psb
                 \-Hello, ok tnx.
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34348 Activity:kinda low
10/26   Insufficient trolling.  Please insert troll to continue.
        \_ I think all illegal aliens should be shot.  What do you think?
           \_ Would you raise taxes to buy the bullets?
        \_ Here's a good one from OSC
2004/10/26-27 [ERROR, uid:34344, category id '18005#2.7' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34344 Activity:low
10/26   "Stolen Honor" uploaded to /tmp for all those interested. You
        may have silenced Sinclair but not the motd.
        \_ All extremist trolling aside, the reason for not showing SH on
           Sinclair just before the election was that it's propaganda on
           public airwaves; there's nothing wrong with (and indeed much that's
           laudable in) giving the general public the option of viewing the
           film at some private venue (or online).  Political speech is well
           and truly a good thing; it was the time and place that marred the
           Sinclair plan.
           \_ I thought they might have been able to get away with it if
              they at least showed advertising during the showing.  With
              no immediate profit motive, it looked really wierd.
           \_ Does it bother you at all that Kitty Kelly got 3 full days of
              free air time to push her anti-Bush book on TV?  Was that wrong?
              \_ Two things. 1) Your whine boils down to "The FACTS are
                 partisan!" and 2) Kitty Kelly is credible, and you'll
                 note her "anti-Bush" factual book has not gotten her sued.
                 Contrast with Carltoon Sherwood left to you, bitch. --aaron
2004/10/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34340 Activity:very high
10/25   Is it true that you have to sign a loyalty oath before being
        admitted to a Bush campaign rally?
        \-_ and rat out a jew
            \_ I thought you had to infect him with ebola and collect money
               to have him raped?  (not necessarily in that order) -- ilyas
               P.S. Your jokes are in bad taste and on strict reading are
               a solicitation of violence.  Maybe if I say I feel threatened
               and sleep with the current CSUA president, I could get wall
               shut down!
                \_ why do you automatically think the above was about
                   you? - danh
                \_ for someone who isn't interested in what wall has to say
                   you sure pay a lot of attention to it.
                   \_ I grep for my name in the logs.  I started doing it more
                      since my name started popping up more. -- ilyas
                      \_ for someone who isn't interesting in what wall has
                         to say you sure pat a lot of attention to it.
                         \_ Oh, how wrong I was.  It was very revealing indeed.
                               -- ilyas
               \_ Whine whine whine.
        \_ is this the motd version of a push poll? - danh
2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34337 Activity:low
10/25   The New Yorker magazine endorses a presidential candidate for the
        first time in its 80-year history.  Who?  George W. Bush!  Not!
        "As a variety of memoirs and journalistic accounts have made plain,
        Bush seldom entertains contrary opinion. He boasts that he listens to
        no outside advisers, and inside advisers who dare to express unwelcome
        views are met with anger or disdain. He lives and works within a
        self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation. Nowhere has his
        solipsism been more damaging than in the case of Iraq. The arguments
        and warnings of analysts in the State Department, in the Central
        Intelligence Agency, in the uniformed military services, and in the
        chanceries of sympathetic foreign governments had no more effect than
        the chants of millions of marchers."
        \_ has any major media outlet endorsed bush except
           the new york post and the washington times?
        \_ I was stunned that The New Yorker would would endorse Kerry.
           Stunned, I tell you.  And I was so sure that they were pro-Bush too.
           \_ The American Conservative magazine endorses Kerry:
              "Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing
              president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office
              will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations."
              \_ which part of "major media outlet" did you not understand?
                 \_ you funny guy!  that comment posted OUTSIDE this thread,
                    and AFTERWARDS.  Americans so fucking illiterate!
              \_ Right.  This is a mucher stronger endorsement.  I would lead
                 with this and mention The New Yorker in an OBTW.
                 \_ The take-home message is that Dubya is perceived to be so
                    bad (IMO, he is that bad) that sources that have
                    traditionally sat it out or endorsed the Republican are
                    endorsing Kerry or not endorsing any candidate.
              \_ Now, if only we can get David Duke or some other Klan guy
                 to endorse Kerry because Bush has behaved like the caricature
                 of a racist...
2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34333 Activity:low 50%like:34486
10/25   Can we have a riot if Bush wins?
             \_ Only if you'd like to have your rights stripped away and
                spend a lot of time in Guantanamo.  Oh wait, our rights've
                already been eroded.
        \_ We had one for 2000!  Dubya's limo was pelted with eggs from an
           angry mob on inauguration day!
        \_ This is Berkeley.  You don't need a reason to riot.
           \_ Ooh!  Ooh!  I got first dibs on The Gap!
2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34331 Activity:low
10/25   Strong soviet leader prefers Bush.  (yahoo news)
        \_ NASCAR supports Bush, which is much more important.
           "I'm not an issue guy," Waltrip said. "I know the man."
           I really think that's what it comes down to for most people. Most
           people aren't geeks or political junkies, so for them all the
           discussion of this and that policy detail is irrelevant. The only
           things that resonate are the guy's general charisma and the
           play-on-emotion stuff like gay/god/gun/abortion shit. And Bush
           kicked the ass of them terrists.
        \_ Al Qaeda supports Bush, too.  With Bush, they have an easier time
           recruiting suicide bombers.
           \_ No, they're still using the same idiots as before.
              \_ "their" is possessive.  "they're" is the contraction of
                 "they are".
                 \_ uh, and he is saying "they are."  -tom
           \_ To replace the ones Bush killed.  I'm sure Al Qaeda is really
              happy about losing an entire country to use as their own personal
              training facility and play ground and is really happy to see
              American tanks rolling through Falluja.  It has all become so
              clear to me now.
              \_ They don't care how many Bush killed (since they can recruit
                 same number that are killed).  They are enjoying how
                 many US soldiers they are killing each day.
                 \_ They who?  The AlQ leaders who are dead or captured?  Could
                    you please cite something, anything, even from Al Jazeera
                    that says they want Bush in office because it helps them
                    recruit instead of claiming your own opinion as fact.  Do
                    you actually hang out with AlQ leadership?
                 \_ So I guess the only reasonable response to AlQ in your
                    opinion is to cave to their demans?
                    \_ Trying to fight them by sending tons of troops out to
                       roam the countryside is stupid.  It makes our guys an
                       easy target and causes lots of innocents deaths, which
                       undermines our support among the moderate population.
                       If we attacked them using good intelligence, making
                       friends with the locals, and only using our troops in
                       small targeted raids, we'd have fewer US casualties,
                       a more friendly populace, and we'd be killing enemy
                       leaders, not just their cannon fodder. -!pp
              \_ Nice insertion of the laughable Al Quada/Saddam connection
2004/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34330 Activity:high
10/25   Can this be? Will Bush really win again? I hope that http://CNN.com
        poll is not accurate of the american public's true opinion..
        \_ The poll results are diverging; there's too much noise in the
           system.  -tom
           \_ What is your source for diverging polls?  Try this:
                \_ http://pollingreport.com but they have the same data.
                   Try plotting the polls against each other; they were
                   much closer to converged in August and September. -tom
        \_ http://pollingreport2.com/#bars
           http://csua.org/u/9n5 (Post graphic)
           CNN uses Gallup.  Zogby said Gallup sucks.
           \_ "My competitor sucks!  Buy my product instead!"
              \_ http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/050971.php
                 "While being diplomatic, Zogby basically said Gallup's numbers
                 are junk. They use different methodologies but Gallup's
                 variations from poll to poll are too big to be creditable.
                 In Zogby's polling Kerry and Bush both bounce between 44 an
                 48, and haven't deviated from that range."
                 blah, blah, you can read the rest.
                 \_ Translation, "Buy my election reports!  I can only make
                    real money every 4 years with a small bonus lump during
                    \_ You're supposed to also check both URLs to see how
                       Gallup compares to other polls.  The Post also has
                       Kerry over Dubya today by 1% (yes, statistical tie, but
                       the trend is up).
                       IMO, Zogby is trying to make an honest analysis of
                       why the other guy sucks - but the only vindication will
                       come the day after the election (and it would be really
                       funny if the numbers came out exactly half-way between
                       Zogby and Gallup).
           \_ So?  Zogby has Bush up 48%-45%.  The 3% spread is within the MOE,
              but it's still hardly cheery news.
           \_ Zogby's poll has 6% Unsure, and that number has consistently been
              in the 6% to 9% range since July.  That is very odd, since almost
              every other poll has the unsure number in the 1% to 3% range.
              \_ Traditionally you get the Not Sure number down by nagging the
                 respondent for an answer "which way do you lean" until they
                 break down.  This suggests that Zogby's people didn't nag
                 that hard.
        \_ It's a possibility/nightmare.  My big hope is that the huge turnout
           combined with cell phone only young crowd will prove the pollsters
           \_ Sheesh, you guys put up a hugh douchebag as your canidate,
              and then you're surprised when he has a hard time beating
              the opposing idiot?
              \_ Can you coherently explain why Kerry is a douchebag?  Or are
                 you just a right wing troll trying to assuage your unease by
                 tossing around ad hominem nonsense?  If you can explain
                 coherently, then please -- I'd welcome the post.
              \_ Dubya has never lost a debate! (until this year)
              \_ They are both douchebags. Don't kid yourself.
                 \_ That's my point.  When you're whole campaign is "Don't
                    vote for that douchebag, vote for THIS douchebag!"
                    Don't be surprised when it's hard to get a majority of
                    the vote.
              \_ obhttp://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com
                 \_ Don't let the wrong lizard get elected.
        \_ The poll numbers are way off.  They don't take into account a
           sizable number of people who vote for Democrats every election
           but don't have land lines: dead people.
           \_ Do you have any evidence at all for this endlessly repeated
              assertion, other than the Cook County, Illinois allegations
              from 1960?
              \_ What happened in Cook County, Illinois in 1960?
                 \_ There was some evidence that Richard Daley's machine was
                    using the names of dead people in Cook County to cast
                    votes for John F. Kennedy.  Nixon decided not to pursue it,
                    perhaps because he thought that even if a lot of votes
                    were invalidated, he still would have lost.
                    \_ JFK would have won even without Illinois.
                       \_ And the battleground states in this election don't
                          have dead people.  So even if the dead do determine
                          the winner in IL, it still won't matter.  Right.
                          \_ Wow.  You never responded to my question.
                             You have absolutely no evidence of any of this,
                             do you?  You need to stop blathering.
                             \_ I'm not the original Cook County poster.  I'm
                                merely questioning the logic of the poster that
                                implied that dead people voting in this
                                election is immaterial since the dead votes
                                didn't affect the outcome of the 1960
                                election.  -pp
                                \_ Of course you have no evidence of dead
                                   people voting in this election either.
                                   So you are either paranoid, or just
                                   making shit up. Or both.
                                   \_ You do realize that claiming that there
                                      is no evidence of a huge turn-out amongst
                                      the dead in this election (what you just
                                      claimed) is quite different than claiming
                                      that a turn-out by the dead would be
                                      irrelevant (which is what a poster tried
                                      to imply earlier).  I have no problem
                                      with the no evidence claim, especially
                                      since I'm not the dead-voter guy to start
                                      with.  I do have a problem with the
                                      irrelevant claim, since I am somewhat
                                      fond of logic.
                                      \_ You cannot make that claim until
                                         *after* the election is over. I
                                         think that one side or the other
                                         will win pretty handily.
2004/10/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34325 Activity:high
10/25   Bush Bulge Meme getting more mainstream:
        \_ Please.  Doonesbury is about as mainstream as Michael Moore's movies
           \_ yep no one reads doonsebury.
            \_ Well the guy above you seems to think no one saw F9/11
2004/10/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:34322, category id '18005#7.95375' has no name! , ] UID:34322 Activity:very high
10/24   Comments on the election from a Doctor of Gonzo Journalism. --psb
          Nixon ... I despised everything he stood for -- but if he
          were running for president this year against the evil
          Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him ... Some
          people say that George Bush should be run down and
          sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would
          be a lot easier to just vote the bastard out of office on
          November 2nd. --HST
          \_ Another good quote from the article:
             "I told him that Bush's vicious goons in the White House are
             perfectly capable of assassinating Nader and blaming it on him.
             His staff laughed, but the Secret Service men didn't."
          \_ Were you even alive when Nixon was president? Man...
             Anyway, Nixon opened up China and started SALT and got us
             out of Vietnam. He also abused his presidential powers
             and certainly would have been convicted if Ford hadn't
             pardoned him. A very flawed presidency, but aren't they all?
             Reagan got Iran-Contra, Clinton had more scandals than you
             can shake a stick at. Politics, as you will discover when you
             grow out of your adolescent mentalities, is hardly ever
             black-and-white. The realities of power are much more complex
             than your little diatribe would indicate.
                  \- Er, I think you are probably the confused one here ...
                     1. Who do you mean by "you" in "were you even alive"?
                     2. Did you read the article pointed to? I think you
                        may also be unaware of the "special relationship"
                        between RMN and HST. [see http://csua.org/u/9mn]
                     Speaking for myself: I actually kind of liked Tricky
                     Dick Nixon ... in a horrible kind of way, except for
                     his being a bit racist [although so was JFK, something
                     not well known, or at least well-forgetten].
                     And yes, I agree the "American Monster" is was far better
                     than this curent crop. --psb
                \_ i sometimes think just about every president would come
                   off as a weird paranoid freak if they had the foresight
                   to record every single conversation in the oval
                   office like Nixon! - danh
                \_ Vote for "less worse".  -John
                   \_ "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford,
                      "the wrong lizard might get in." -- ilyas
2004/10/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34295 Activity:high
10/22   Diversity, tolerance, and all that good liberal vibe in LA.
        \_ This pretty much matches my expectations.
        \_ Actually, this matches the soda experience pretty well also.
        \_ I thought the article was rather funny and well-written, but as
           far as the social phenomenon it's not really fair.  Ignoring the
           strong geography aspect (people in California are either democratic,
           apathetic, or too rich to care; things might be different in Texas)
           I think the scorn for Bush/Cheney is appropriate-- these men have
           proven themselves to be whatever people see them as, while Kerry
           remains a wildcard.  You can't hate a man for thinking he can do
           better, but you can hate a man for needlessly taking your country
           to war.  See the difference?
           \_ Right.  Thanks for the confirmation.
              \_ Right.  Thanks for the confirmation.
              \_ Presuming you're op: being angry with people for proven
                 reasons is not an indication that liberals are hypocrites,
                 or whatever it is you're trying to imply.
                 \_ Just a bit sensitive, aren't you?
                    \_ Only my nipples.  Or were you not being sarcastic?
           \_ So a guy wore a Bush/Cheney t-shirt in a liberal area, and
              the worst thing that happened was a couple of people muttered
              "asshole" under their breath? "Help Help I'm being oppressed!"
              \_ Compare that to people attacked and beaten for being
                 Kerry supporters in Texas.
                 \_ Link please?
                  \_ If this is true, fucking Nazi bastards.  They should
                     go live under Hitler, Hussein, or some such.
                     \_ And if it isn't?  And if there are Republicans
                        out there getting attacked and beaten is that ok?
                 \_ I've been looking, but I can't find anything from the
                    news on this.  All I found was a blog report where
                    some Bush supporters were assulted at a Kerry rally in
                    Milwaukee.  Which I take with a grain of salt...
                    \_ Kerry supporters are all peaceful victims.  Bush
                       supporters are all evil and we can't trust them not
                       to lie about this.  Not even that woman at the (R)
                       campaign office that got her wrist broken by some
                       piece of shit union thugs.
                       \_ Link?
                           What happened to that guy who was claiming a
                           month or so ago that only the American right
                           wing has a history of violence, and the left
                           wing is never violent?
                           \_ This always amuses me; the notion that because
                              people ascribe to one philosophy or another that
                              it somehow magically makes all its devotees
                              special and somehow superhuman.  They always
                              seem to ignore that these are aspects of basic
                              human nature, and in any large enough group,
                              there will ALWAYS be vile, violent and unethical
                              people...and that this doesn't necessarily
                              reflect anything on the philosophy or group
2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34291 Activity:high
10/22   Watch Fahrenhite 9/11 for free.  http://csua.org/u/9lq
        \_ Huh?  Is this the right URL?
           \_ Fixed.  Sorry.
        \_ What for?  It was discredited.
           \_ If the right-wing tells you F9/11 is left-wing propaganda,
              then you're saving time by not seeing it.  Yay!
              \_ If it's left-wing propaganda then you're saving time by not
                 seeing it.  Yay!
                 \_ Right-wing Wins!  Yay!
                    \_ Gay!
        \_ Is there a refund for the first time viewers who had to pay?
           Where's your link to Celcius411?  How about some fair n balanced?
2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34289 Activity:insanely high
10/22   NY Times editorial:  Iran's nuclear threat
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/opinion/22fri1.html (user/pw: bobbob)
        This is my prediction of what will happen:
        - Iran suspends enrichment, but says it will never renounce right
        - Iran accepts reactor-grade uranium from Russia
        - Iran operates reactor
        - Iran retains knowledge of weapons-grade enrichment
        - Israel, U.S. do nothing
        - IAEA maintains inspections
        "Nightmare" scenario:
        - As previous scenario, but ...
        - GW Bush re-elected
        - Joint U.S./Israel attack destroys reactor, 1/2 enrichment facilities
        - 2-3 years pass
        - Iran successfully detonates nuke, announces nuclear stockpile
        - Israel responds with first public nuclear test
        - U.S. stalled in UN by Security Council vetoes
        - U.S. rapidly deploys primarily air-based systems near Iran's borders
        - Iran blows up some nearby U.S. airbases with nukes before attack
        - New Republican administration elected
        - U.S. nukes Iran, destroying entire population
        - Draft receives Congressional approval, including special skills draft
        \_ Okay, and the bad part?
        \_ So in your worst case scenario the ultimate bad thing that is going
           to come from a nuclear war is the special skills draft?  Okey dokey!
           That was quite the stretch to get the geek draft in there.  Anyway,
           we've been over this before.  The military is different now.  The
           draft would be worse than useless.  It takes roughly 2 years to
           take an off the street slacker and turn them into a soldier.  WTF
           good is a draft when the conflict will be long over before the first
           draftee has a uniform on?  FUD.
           \_ Two years? Pshaw. It just takes 10 weeks of basic and 12 weeks
              of infantry school. -Vet
           \_ no you idiot. it's Us nukes iran, destroying entire population.
              get your head out of your ass. i hope you're not allowed to vote.
           \_ I don't think it's quite true that a _Special Skills_ draft
              would be useless.  It might take 2 years to train a guy
              you want on the ground in Iraq, but support roles probably
              aren't that hard.  A special skills draft would allow the
              military to stuff the support roles with draftees and put
              the volunteers in the field.
                \_ What about all the discipline, standards, and shit that
                   militaries want from their goons, support roles or
                   frontline grunts?  You'll never get someone unmotivated
                   to be a usable combat grunt;  rear-area support type will
                   simply be a tremendous waste of a lot of time.  Your best
                   bet is shooting them on arrival, pre-body-bagging them and
                   using them as human sandbags.  -John
                   \_ I think you're over-estimating the difficulty of
                      something.  I'm not sure if it's "hearding
                      sysadmins" or what.  Support roles aren't that
                      hard, and they don't require much discipline.  It's
                      just like coders and sysadmins at IBM, you don't
                      show 'em to the public, you hide 'em in some back
                      room, while the marketers (soldiers) do the front
                      line stuff.
                        \_ Yes, you know that and I know that, but we don't
                           run an army.  Now find me one of those which
                           follows this sort of sensible philosophy.
                           \_ Nah, you just need to transfer out the company
                              commander once the reservists don't show up
                              for their contaminated helicopter fuel run.
           \_ Drafted sysadmins, coders are cheap.  Anyways, I'm just showing
              how Dubya keeps his "no-draft" promise - it's for the President
              *after* Dubya.  Also, anyone can come up with a worst-case
              scenario.  I'm painting a *realistic* "nightmare" scenario. -op
              \_ You're showing nothing but your lack of understanding of the
                 modern American military.  The realistic nightmare scenario
                 is that Iran is allowed to continue developing nukes, gets
                 nukes and has a nuclear exchange with Israel.  The so-called
                 skills draft wouldn't make the list even if such a silly did
                 thing happen.  What skills do you think you have they'd want
                 anyway?  Surfing and restarting apache servers aren't
                 critical military needs.
                 \_ My scenario (the U.S. and Iran lobbing nukes at each other)
                    is not far off from Iran and Israel lobbing nukes at each
                    other.  This second scenario is far more obvious, which
                    is why I didn't mention it.  You missed my point on that
                    part - which is to argue how the U.S. realistically decides
                    to do some nuking itself.
                    Now, if the skills draft isn't that important, then why did
                    the military decide to plan for one, just like adding
                    a plan for a draft of Middle Eastern language experts?
                    My basic argument is that engineers are cheap when you
                    draft them.  I'm also participating in FCS design, so I
                    know what I'm talking about. -op
                    \_ The Pentagon has a plan for everything.  If they didn't
                       have a plan for everything collecting dust on a shelf
                       somewhere and getting updated every 10-15 years someone
                       would scream, "WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE A PLAN FOR A SKILLS
                       DRAFT!  YOU MORONS!".  The US won't be nuking Iran
                       because Iran won't be nuking anything American.  They
                       would hit Israel first.  Once Israel is in ashes, they
                       "win", no matter what else happens afterwards.  By
                       "they" I mean Muslims across the ME who want every
                       Israeli dead and Israel destroyed utterly.  As far as
                       language experts go, were you upset they didn't have
                       enough Pashtun speakers when we went into southern
                       Afghanistan?  They're making sure that sort of thing
                       never happens again.  As an aside, my English instructor
                       at Cal was also a Baltic languages expert.  The CIA was
                       paying his entire way and then some so long as he
                       continued to keep up his language skills and promised
                       to be available as needed.  Was that a bad thing?  Are
                       you opposed to that?
                       \_ Baltic?!! You mean Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian?!
                          Are you sure you don't mean Balkin?  Why does the
                          CIA want Baltic language experts?  I've been to
                          Estonia, and it seems odd that the CIA would go
                          to so much effort to spy one a very small country
                          of extremely peaceful people who mostly speak
                          english anyway.
                          \_ It might seem odd to you, but they do.
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34278 Activity:nil
10/21   CNN still manages to spin Laura Bush's comments
        http://cnn.com:  "Laura Bush brushes aside Heinz Kerry's remarks"
2004/10/21 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:34275 Activity:kinda low
10/21   Does someone have a link to the Daily Show clip with the "weapons of
        mass destruction program related activities" and Dubya using words to
        save the day?  I accidentally deleted my copy.  I notice there are no
        more clips in /csua/tmp/dailyshow.
        \_ if you email me the date i can help you out - danh
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34273 Activity:very high
10/21   Some asswipe turbo-deleted the thread, so I ll resurrect something
        from it.  Ben, are you saying about 30% of the country actually
        agrees with what Bush et al are doing?  I am not sure where you get
        this number from, but even if you are right, do you think it's any
        different from any other president?  Clinton himself said something
        about the 4 years being necessary so the POTUS has the leeway to
        make unpopular decisions.  Are you saying popularity is the yardstick
        of the Presidency?  Do you think all presidents had a 50%+ mandate
        on their work (or should)?  I don't really see WHAT you are saying
        (other than "I REALLY disagree with this Bush guy, I wish he would
        just fuck off and die!").  I STILL don't see what his policies have to
        do with royalty, it sounds like some sort of liberal figure of speech,
        like me calling liberal policies 'communism' in jest.  Even the
        most venal pro-corp anti-everything else folks don't want Feudalism
        back, it will cut into the profits. -- ilyas
        \_ I was talking about election turnout/civic involvement. -scotsman
        \_ Bush is the most authoritarian President the US has had in
           at least 125 years, probably ever. I am sorry that you are
           so biased that you cannot see that. When you add that to his
           personal arrogance, there is a reasonable cause for concern.
                 \_ I'll spell it out slowly.  I'm not talking about the
                    popular conception of individual families.  I'm talking
                    about ceding our wealth and civic power over to wealthy
                    individuals and corporations (which for some damned
                    reason are people too...).  By cutting or eliminating
                    taxes on unearned or inherited wealth, the burden shifts
                    to income taxes and other revenue streams.  It also allows
                    massive wealth consolidation which means massive power
                    consolidation.  At the same time, deregulation takes away
                    our (the people's) recourse against bad actions by
                    these increasingly wealthy entities.  The reason we have
                    regulations are to keep meat safe to eat, drugs safe to
                    take, planes safe to fly on.  To keep the air breathable,
                    the water drinkable, and our economic markets running
                    smoothly.  The end of this slide would be feudalism, which,
                    as ilyas correctly says, will "cut into profits".  He seems
                    to say that people aren't that shortsighted, and that these
                    philosopher-kings of industry will be able to hold this
                    together.  I'm scared our society will break before that.
                    \_ If taxes worked so well on inherited wealth, how
                       come the Kennedys are all still liveing off
                       inherited wealth? (This question is only sort of
                       Trollish, I am sort of curious about what the
                       Kennedys do to make money.)
                       \_ The Kennedys live off a trust, and therefore do
                          not pay "inheritance taxes."  Only poor people
                          pay inheritence taxes, rich people all have
                          \_ Yeah, all those poor people with estates >$1.5m
                             \_ You mean scotsman is worried about all those
                                schmucks with houses in Palo Alto?
                             \_ I think that number is wrong.  It says
                                here that, before Bush's change, estates
                                over $1mil were charged at the "top
                                rate." This suggests that estates smaller
                                than that would still be taxed.  Also,
                                $1mil isn't that hard to hit if you're
                                running a small business.
                    \_ I'll try to summarize your two concerns firat.  You
                       are worried that 1. the change in tax code will
                       cause a concentration of wealth and power in the
                       elite classes, and 2. deregulation will offer the
                       common people less protection against the whims of
                       the elite.  I have good news for you, my friend.
                       Trivially googling found the following paper from
                       the Urban Institute (http://csua.org/u/91e  From
                       its conclusion, the study finds that "the evidence
                       suggests that the playing field is becoming more level
                       in the United States.  Socioeconomic origins today
                       are less important than they used to be.  Further, such
                       origins have lttle or no impact for individuals with
                       a college degree, and the ranks of such individuals
                       continue to increase."  So evidence suggests that,
                       contrary to your worries, the upper classes are becoming
                       less stratified and not more.  I recall reading that
                       most of the people on the first Forbes wealthiest list
                       are no longer there, and most of the members of that
                       list earned there money instead of inheriting it.
                       list earned their money instead of inheriting it.
                       I'd like to see evidence that there is the formation
                       of a calcified layer of feudal lords.
                       of a calcified layer of feudal lords.  On the
                       \_ It's actually http://csua.org/u/9le
                          and it was published in 1997.  Dumbass.  We're
                          talking about the absurd extremism of the last 3
                          years. --scotsman
                          \_ Well, I am sure you can come up with contrary
                             research that says the socioeconomic mobility
                             is decreasing, especially due to the tax policies
                             of the last few years.  Well?  How about research
                             that shows the increase of SE mobility after the
                             imposition of the tax?  Since that was adopted
                             in 1916, surely there has been enough time for
                             researchers to study the matter?  If the imposition
                             of the tax did not improve mobility, then would
                             the removal of the tax decrease it?  I wonder how
                             much the super-rich used to pay in inheritance
                             under the previous tax regime.  Have they already
                             been successful in avoiding those taxes?  You
                             made a lot of claims, how about some data?
                       deregulation side, I will take the less common
                       argument that fewer regulations making it easier for
                       new players to enter a particular field, and therefore
                       creates even more opportunity for socioeconomic
                       mobility.  Fewer rules makes it more difficult for
                       the entrench players to use government regulationis
                       to fend off new challengers, which in turns contributes
                       to the churn of players at the top.
           \_ Oh come on.  Is Bush as bad as Tricky Dick?  Or FDR (to be
              fair about picking authoritarian presidents)?  Bush hasn't
              been caught yet, and he hasn't had the chance to pack the
              Supreme Court either.
              \_ Yeah, he is.  Nixon, contrary to popular belief, made a solid
                 go at adhering to the Freedom of Information Act at the
                 beginning of his term; FDR never lied to get us into war.
                 \_ Ahem... lend-lease... ahem...
                    \_ ...waiting for relevance vis-a-vis lying to get us into
                    \_ While lend-lease may have been a lie, it didn't get us
                       into war.  The Japan Embargo did, and that was done for
                       honest, if questionable reasons.
                    \_ I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam war...woops,
                       sorry, I don't!
                       \_ Don't take the Paris Peace Accords deal!  I'll make
                          you a better offer later!
           \_ And you base this authoritarian accusation on what?  Personal
              experience?  You have studied the history and in context
              background of every President?  I find this... unlikely.  If
              you just hate the guy, just say so.  You don't have to make
              outrageous, unsupported and unsupportable claims in a useless
              attempt to make it appear that your hatred is based on some
              false intellectual premise instead of personal animosity.
           \_ Who was the president 126 years ago, and why is Bush not as
              bad as he was?  Was it even an election year 126 years ago?
              Did you just pull the 125 year number out of your ass?
              \_ Rutherford B. Hayes was the evilest man to ever darken God's
                 green Earth.  On a more serious note, he lost the popular
                 vote but came out ahead in a 8-7 partisan split in a Senate
                 commitee to decide the election.  One of the 3 states whose
                 EVs were in dispute was... Florida. -!pp
           \_ I wouldn't say "Bush is the most authoritarian President" --
              without backup, you sound like a dumb liberal.  At least, you
              were an easy target for above posters.
              The argument is much sharper to describe the most important and
              obvious event instead of just applying a label.
              E.g.:  "The primary reason for invading Iraq was to eliminate a
              regime possessing WMD stockpiles, from which it could dole WMD
              kits out to terrorists who would without question use them.
              Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past, viewed them also
              as his trump card, and could believably distribute them to exact
              his vengeance against the U.S., which would be under the watch of
              Bush Sr.'s son.  President George W. Bush, having seen the
              stockpile reason vanish, instead insists that, had he known
              everything he knows today, would still have directed the U.S.
              to invade Iraq.  This is absurd."
        \_ ilyas complaining about a thead being deleted..  Welcome back to
           BIZARRO WORLD!!  In other news, the Red Sox are in the world
           series!  -meyers
           \_ Yeah, right.
        \_ It'd be hypocritical for Democrats to decry royalty in American
           politics.  (ref. the Kennedy clan and Camelot)
           \_ Democrats don't choose to get rid of dividend/capital gains/
              estate taxes.  Democrats don't vote for massive deregulation/
              reduced corporate oversight/stripping tort powers.  -scotsman
              \_ You do realize that many people think that cutting taxes
                 and deregulating industry are good things.  And none of
                 this have anything to do with claims of royalty.  Are the
                 Bushes more royal than the Kennedies?
                 \_ Bush: evil.  Kennedy: good.  You need to be sent to the
                    Martin Luther King Reeducation Kamp immediately!
                    \_ You're not very intelligent, are you?  It's okay, I'm
                       sure your parents still love you.
              \_ Yeah Ben, "no progressive taxation -> feudalism" is a new
                 'line of attack' for me.  I am sorry, it's really off the
                 wall. -- ilyas
                 \_ That's not "no progressive taxation".  It's tax the poor
                    and middle class, and give the rich a pass.
                    \_ Which isn't happening, but it makes a good scare
                    \_ Counting all the tax cuts (including captital gains,
                       dividends, and estate), people in the 2nd-lowest
                       quintile got a 17.6% tax cut.  The middle quintile
                       was cut 12.6%, the 2nd-highest quintile 9.9%, and
                       the top quintile 11%.
                       \_ Ah, short term vs. long term.  Numbers are funny
                          \_ Data please.  Or are you just making
                             unsubstantiated claims?
                             \_ estate tax exemption will increase for next,
                                what, 7-8 years until no tax at the 10 year
                                mark.  dividend tax was halved in 2003, gone
                                in 2004. running the numbers for the last
                                2 years is patently dishonest.
                       \_ I don't have a problem with regressive _tax cuts_
                          as long as they result in a system which is closer
                          to a flat tax system, which I believe is fair.
                          (Regressive _tax_ is bad of course).  If you
                          think a flat tax system will lead to feudalism,
                          you are at the fringes of political discourse,
                          sorry. -- ilyas
                          \_ I posted the data to counter the claim that
                             the tax system is now less regressive.  It is
                             if anything more regressive.
           \_ The Kennedys are really great people so its ok.
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34270 Activity:high
10/21   http://csua.org/u/9l8 (Yahoo!)
        Laura Bush proves herself not to be a cog in the Dubya machine:
        "She [Teresa Heinz-Kerry] apologized but she didn't even really need
        to apologize," Mrs. Bush told reporters at a coffee shop ... "I know
        how tough it is and actually I know those trick questions."
           SCREAMING IS THE STANDARD!!!1!!! MARY CHENEY!!!1!!! BUD DAY!!!!!!1
        \_ In other news, expect no apology from Karen Hughes.
        \_ A cog is the Dubya machine?  It was the most mild rebuke of the
           most clownishly stupid woman to ever set foot on a political stage.
           This must be a troll.  Please tell me you don't really believe what
           you're saying.
           \_ Who are you talking about?
2019/08/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 751 - 900 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush: