Politics Domestic President Bush - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
Results 901 - 1050 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/12/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/16   

2005/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38286 Activity:nil
6/24    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/veterans.budget.ap/index.html
        With support like this...
        \_ What the hell?  So they increase the budget to make up for the
           shortfall.
2005/6/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38278 Activity:nil
6/24    Sen. Kennedy: "There have been a series of gross errors and mistakes.
        Those were on your watch. Isn't it time for you to resign?"
        Rumsfeld: "Senator, I've offered my resignation to the president
        twice, and he has decided that he would prefer that he not accept it,
        and that's his call." June 23, 2005
        \_ Did Mcnamara ever try to resign?  Just wondering.
2005/6/23-25 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38275 Activity:high
6/23    I blame all you liberals for this Eminent Domain fuckup.  Hang your
        heads in shame. -- ilyas
        \_ I thought all liberals would think this decision was stupid and
           wrong since I am a liberal and that's what I think.  The motd has
           proven me wrong, and I do indeed hang my head in shame for my
           fellow liberals.
        \_ It's not liberals, ilyas, it's corrupt and stupid government, aided
           by lack of transparency and control.  Happens on both sides of the
           spectrum.  -John
        \_ fuck you.  there is nothing on the liberal docket to justify
           Eminent Domain.
        \_ Finally, we actually found an issue on the motd where the far-right,
           far-left, moderate liberals and moderate conservatives all agree.
           Leave it to you to turn that into a anti-liberal flame war.
           \_ What flame war?  Are we reading the same motd?  You think
              _this_ is a flame war?  And as for everyone agreeing, apparently
              the more 'liberal' justices didn't agree.  I mean my original
              comment was sort of tongue-in-cheek, but as the russian proverb
              goes, in every joke there's a grain of a joke. -- ilyas
        \_ Uh, why? How exactly would your typical liberal favor eminent
           domain for a private developer? Most liberals I know don't even
           favor eminent domain for storm drains. The politics of redevelop-
           ment don't fall along the lines you might imagine. I will admit that
           the voting over the recent SC case mystifies me. -- ulysses
           \_ We had a rather heated discussion about this just now on irc.
              My view is that liberals favor more conventional uses of ED,
              while it tends to be a 'hot button' issue for conservatives.
              Furthermore, liberals in my view tend to favor 'public good' at
              the expense of 'private property' if these come in conflict.
              Also, you can take the private developer out of the equation here,
              the government can take full initiative here (or not even involve
              a business at all). -- ilyas
              \_ I think this view is a rather ingenuous application of a
                 stereotype.  I know very very few liberals that are
                 comfortable with this development, or would have actively
                 campaigned for it.  Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but no
                 less so than your blanket assertion about 'all liberals
                 are bad, etc'.
                 \_ I don't think liberals are 'bad,' nor have I asserted this
                    as you claim.  I happen to disagree with their moral
                    framework though.  Some of them are fine people, really.
                    They are well behaved in public and everything.
                    Some of my best friends are liberals!  -- ilyas
                    \_ Okay, my bad -- that was phrased very poorly...
                       But I think you're confusing the clout of big
                       business and their poilitcal alliances with rabid
                       Berkeley students fresh from HS.
                       business and their politcal alliances with rabid
                       Berkeley students fresh from HS.  While the liberals
                       have some big philosophical weaknesses, I don't think
                       it's reasonable to blame them for the actions and power
                       of big wealthy, powerful, connected business interests.
                       it's reasonable to blame them for the actions  of big,
                       wealthy, powerful, connected business interests.  As
                       someone points out below, the simplification of this
                       issue into liberal vs conservative is, at best, naive
                       and at worst, a smoke screen to distract the people
                       from the not-very-subtle shift of power.
                       \_ This has nothing to do with big, powerful, connected
                          business interests.  This is the supreme court
                          approving this and all future money grabs by the
                          government through increased tax revenue at the
                          expense of individuals.
                          Getting 'business interests' involved is a red
                          herring.  Though they may be involved, they are not
                          necessary for application of ED, especially this
                          shiny expanded "I am gonna kick your ass" ED.
                          I hope you don't think the actions of the scotus
                          were the direct result of 'big business' interference.
                          You can't buy off the scotus that easily.  They are
                          old and set for life. -- ilyas
                       \_ Ok I'll bite. What are the "big philosophical
                          weaknesses"?
                    \_ ^liberals^homosexuals
           \_ I think it's enough for all the "liberal" SCOTUS judges to
              have voted for expanding ED powers, and all the pricks
              to have voted the other way, I mean, conservative judges.
              \_ That too.  I was sort of trying to explain why scotus voted
                 as it did.  Frankly there are plenty of reasons to dislike
                 this ruling for almost every point of the politial
                 spectrum except perhaps some full-on hivemind
                 utilitarian/authoritarian.  -- ilyas
                 \_ did you read the full opinion below?  It explains why
                    the majority voted as it did.  Additionally, Kennedy's
                    op. also illustrates it.  For the record, I'm liberal,
                    and I think I'm hesitantly in favor of the ruling.  But,
                    it's very borderline.  I am not comfortable with what they
                    did to Kelo, nor the other home-owners.  I'm also not
                    comfortable with the future resale of the land to Pfizer.
                    However, I am sympathetic to the logic of the ruling,
                    given current interpretation of law.  You're right about
                    the sociological generalization of liberals favoring
                    "public good" over "private property,"  and if it weren't
                    for my philosophical leanings towards principle, I would
                    have no problem with this ruling.  However, there's another
                    generalization about liberal principles that should be
                    noted: a favoring of individuals' privacy and rights over
                    that of corporations.  These two liberal principles are
                    at odds in the Kelo case, which is why I'm very borderline
                    in my support for it.  I would be amenable to an amendment
                    limiting eminent domain to cases like Hawaii or extreme
                    blight.  But current law supports "economic development."
                          -nivra
                    \_ Out of curiousity, assume there was no private business

                       involvement at all.  The gvt bulldozed over some
                       buildings to build a government business, like a post
                       office or a lottery.  What would your feelings be
                       in this scenario? -- ilyas
                       \_ I'll be your token liberal. Neither of those qualify
                          as far as my "feelings" go. An eminent domain seizure
                          should serve a function beyond simply grabbing land
                          for a public (or private) project. Storm drains and
                          transportation corridors are a good example since
                          both are large scale systems that require continuity.
                          Landowners are rarely willing or able to properly
                          maintain drainage corridors they happen to own, for
                          instance, which can cause widespread flood damage.
                          The funny thing is, as I said, there is little
                          support for such an eminent domain act while
                          apparently grabbing land to build a gamepark is OK.
                          Whatever I might "feel" about particular eminent
                          domain applications has little bearing on how to
                          interpret the eminent domains clause.  -- ulysses
                          \_ I agree with the last sentiment, as well.  The law
                             and my perceived interpretation of it(favoring the
                             majority) are two different things.  I feel like
                             Kelo was treated unfairly, but as the law cur-
                             rently stands, I support the majority interpreta-
                             tion.  -nivra
                       \_ the usage of eminent domain needs to be demonstrated
                          as necessary.  For instance, in Berman v. Parker,
                          the dept. store wasn't blighted, but was part of the
                          blighted community fixed to undergo wholesale
                          redevelopment.  In this case, eminent domain
                          condemnation of the dept store can be seen as a
                          necessary portion of the "public good" over "private
                          property" as it is necessary to implement the grand
                          plan.  In your example, the questions that need to
                          be asked are: 1) why this location? 2) why a post
                          office? 3) what is the public use/good of the
                          proposed development? 4) are there any alternatives.
                          For something as small as a post-office, I think the
                          answers will reveal that there are other options
                          available than eminent domain condemnation of an
                          un-blighted property.  I can't off-the-top-of-my-head
                          imagine a scenario where that wouldn't be the
                          conclusion.  Btw, this is also the prevailing
                          reasoning behind why Kelo v. New London makes sense.
                               -nivra
        \_ stupid troll. The life of a few can and should be sacraficed for
           the benefit of the mass. If you can tear down a few insignificant
           houses for a huge Walmart that everyone can benefit from, then
           you've done a great service for the community. Eminent domain is
           a good thing.
        \_ Don't blame me.  I'm a moderate! -moderate
           (Psst.  So is Hillary.  Pass it on.)
        \_ well you can also blame Bush I and John Sununu, in part anyways.
        \_ I agree this time around, the liberals have fucked it up. -eric
        \_ Who is on the side of Wal-Mart? Hint: it ain't the "liberals."
           This is classic big business conservatism, where government
           dances the tune sung by corporations. Real liberals have been
           fighting this drift for at least a generation.
           http://www.corporateering.org
           Get the book and read it. It is interesting stuff. -ausman
2005/6/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38254 Activity:high
6/23    Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts?page=1,50
        \_ More like "SC upholds ED as is."
        \_ Can we get a non freeper link about the same subject? I'll start:
           http://tinyurl.com/bepw2 (forbes.com)
           \_ Here is the opinion:
              http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
              \_ anyone find a url for the dissent?
                 \_ It's all here: link:csua.org/u/chm (pdf file)
                 \_ The cornell page has links to the dissents as well.
        \_ what's so new about imminent domain?
           \_ When eminent domain is used to acquire land for private
              development, the potential for abuse is large.  A politically
              conected businessman can 'suggest' that the city use eminent
              domain to help build a new retail or office development.  The
              city uses its power to acquire the land for a value which is
              much less than if the developer had to sweet-talk homeowners to
              sell.  -dgies, !op
           \_ Because this isn't eminent domain.  This is a greatly expanded
              and never seen before abuse of the power.  Any developer can
              now come into any area and tell the city council how much more
              tax revenue they'll get from a new Walmart and it is now legal
              to tear down any homes in the way.  This is entirely new which
              is why the SC had to rule on it.  You're just trolling, right?
              \- While I see the potential for abuse, I find it odd to see
                 STEVENS as a corporate tool and THOMAS and RHENQUIST as the
                 defender of the "little guy", so I think some closer reading
                 on this case may be in order.
                 \_ Ok, you tell us what you find that says this isn't a new
                    huge expansion of ED and isn't easily abused.  We both
                    read the same article.  Go see O'Connors quote in the text.
                    She has it right on the money.  It's about the money.  Mr.
                    Developer promises new tax renevue from flattening a bunch
                    of homes and it's legal.  Period.  Please link to the
                    further reading you find that says this isn't the case.
                    \_ 1981: Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit:
                       http://csua.org/u/chd (law.berkeley.edu). It's not
                       "new." It's re-establishing something old. key grafs:
                       MAJORITY: "The power of eminent domain is to be used
                       in this instance primarily to accomplish the essential
                       public purposes of alleviating unemployment and revi-
                       talizing the economic base of the community. The bene-
                       fit to a private interest is merely incidental. If the
                       public benefit was not so clear and significant, we
                       would hesitate to sanction approval of such a project."
                       DISSENT: "With regard to highways, railroads, canals,
                       and other instrumentalities of commerce, it takes little
                       imagination to recognize that without eminent domain
                       these essential improvements, all of which require
                       particular configurations of property - narrow and
                       generally straight ribbons of land -would be "otherwise
                       impracticable"; they would not exist at all... [I]t
                       could hardly be contended that the existence of the
                       automotive industry or the construction of a new [GM]
                       assembly plant requires the use of eminent domain." -!pp
                       \_ Ok, did you miss below where someone posted this was
                          over turned later?  Maybe you have something else to
                          link to that shows this isn't a new and dangerous
                          ruling expanding ED to places it has never been?
                    \_ A PDF version of the Connecticut State Supreme Court's
                       decision on the appeal:
                       link:csua.org/u/che (300k)
                       This is LONG, and I'm not going to summarize. It bears
                       reading, as the appellants' challenge has a lot to do
                       with interpretation of the phrasing of state law.
                       A large number of documents were filed on this case:
                       http://csua.org/u/chf (Findlaw.com)
                       Hope that helps. --erikred
                       \_ very interesting (che link).  Thanks. -nivra
           \_ Precedent for this application of eminent domain was established
              in 1981 in Poletown, MI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown
              Detroit seized 1300 homes & 140 businesses to build a GM plant.
              The 1981 decision was overturned in 2004: http://csua.org/u/chc.
              What I don't understand is wtf was going on in the intervening
              23 years?  Didn't houses get razed for the GM plant? Was the
              plant never built?  The overturn happened in MI SC by 4 very
              conservative judges.  In this case, conservatives are arguing
              for private property rights, and liberals are arguing for
              "public good," including economic development.  The public good
              for economic development policy's glaring drawback is the
              vulnerability to corruption: city planners can easily be bought
              by greedy developers. Wiki link on eminent domain:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
              \_ The solution to government corruption is to stop the corruption
                 not try to stop government from functioning.
        \_ I'm pretty liberal, why oh why does the Supreme court keep making
           rulings that make me agree with the rightwing of the court?
           \_ Yup, all the liberal justices are fighting for the little guy!
           \_ yah... I think my principles also steer me towards preferring
              the conservative side of this one.  If the corporations want to
              the dissent on this one.  If the corporations want to
              develop the land, make the tenants 2x or 3x fair market price
              for the land. -nivra
              for the land. -nivra [edit: I misused cons/lib labels]
              [Note: On 2nd reading, I agree with majority, see below]
              \_ See, this shouln't be a conservative/liberal issue.  It's
                 about private property.  This ruling basically says there's no
                 such thing as private property.  A free society shouldn't
                 accept this. -emarkp
                 \_ This is a conservative/liberal issue. It is an issue
                    of who decides what is best - the state or the people?
                    Liberals generally want to take things out of the hands
                    of the people and stick them in the hands of the state.
                    Look at the opinion - it basically says the state said
                    this was a good idea, who are we to second guess the
                    state.
                    Conservatives (real ones) would prefer to leave things
                    in the hands of the people - Let the developer PAY Ms.
                    Kelo the amt of money she wants in order for her to
                    willingly sell.
                    \_ This is simplistic and ridiculous. I'm a liberal who
                       believes in private property, individual responsibility,
                       freedom of religion, and government non-interference
                       in reproductive rights. Liberal and conservative are
                       labels that do not accurately reflect the level of
                       complexity needed here. --erikred
                 \_ Eh, it doesn't say there's no such thing as private
                    property.  The City still had to pay compensation, so
                    it still falls under Eminent domain.  I don't agree
                    with the ruling (as i currently see it), but I
                    wouldn't go so far as the above. -jrleek
                    \_ If I can't determing the selling price for my property
                       (whether anyone wants to buy at that price or not), how
                       is it that it's mine? -emarkp
                       \_ Uh..  You can determine an asking price.  A selling
                          price, no.  Now, if you lose bargaining rights, that
                          sucks.
                       \_ By that reasoning the constitution never
                          protected your property rights at all.
                          "nor shall private property be taken for public
                          use, without just compensation." Doesn't say you
                          get to decide what is just compensation. -jrleek
                          \_ And if you think it's not just, you petition for
                             redress.
                             \_ The fact that the onus is on you in the first
                                place is evil and fucked up.  -John
                    \_ Compensation doesn't take into account things like
                       subjective value in the property. In this particular
                       case Ms. Kelo family has lived in the same house for
                       many years, the house has a very nice view of the
                       Thames river, &c. The assessed value of the house
                       isn't that high and no where near enough for her to
                       afford to buy another river front home.
                       What give some rich ass yuppie who works for Pfizer
                       more rights to that river view than Ms. Kelo? If he
                       wants Ms. Kelo's home he should be prepared to pay
                       what SHE feels is a proper price for the property,
                       not what the assessor thinks.
                       Under the Kelo regime it seems that the only way
                       to have private property is to be willing to lay
                       down your life to defend it. (At least they won't
                       be able to take your home while you are alive).
                       \_ this is a totally different issue:  ie.
                          how to determine "fair market value" or "fair
                          compensation."  The issue at hand is one of
                          viable use of eminent domain clause and what
                          constitutes "public use."  -nivra
                          \_ I was just pointing out that compensation
                             in this case will likely not be adequate.
                             BUT, if anything can qualify as a public
                             use (and anything the city says is a pub
                             use seems to qualify under the Kelo view)
                             compensation becomes VERY important. If
                             the city can just walk up to a perfectly
                             good home and say that it is taking it
                             b/c some yuppie is willing to pay more
                             for it and just pay some pittance where
                             is the justice?
                       \_ Re: the ad-absurdia claim that "there is no private
                          property." The Conn. SC said: "This claim, while
                          somewhat incalescent, affords us the opportunity to
                          reiterate that an exercise of the eminent domain
                          power is unreasonable, in violation of the public
                          use clause, if the facts and circumstances of the
                          particular case reveal that the taking specifically
                          is intended to benefit a private party. Thus, we
                          emphasize that our decision is not a license for
                          the unchecked use of the eminent domain power as a
                          tax revenue raising measure; rather, our holding is
                          that rationally considered municipal economic
                          development projects such as the development plan
                          in the present case pass constitutional muster."
                          -nivra
                    \- again it does sound like there have been some iffy
                       uses of eminent domain recently, but i havent read
                       about them in depth. but the world is a complicated
                       place. see again something like the pruneyard v robins
                       case. property rights arent absolute or always trumps.
                       similarly, simple "common sense" principles like
                       "coming to a nuisance" dont always make the most
                       sense. see e.g. spur v. del webb, and Guido Calabresi
                       and Melamed: Property rules, liability rules and
                       inalenability: one view of the cathedral, from the
                       harvard law rev. --psb
                       \_ There are two underlying principles to this
                          decision:
                          1. Property should be put to the best possible
                             use
                          2. The law should be allow rsrcs to be allocated
                             in the manner that maximizes their use
                          From a certain pov Ms. Kelo's use of the prop.
                          was not the most profitable (ie best possible
                          use) of the land; the property could be put to
                          better use by Pfizer (or their proxies).
                          Once the city decided that Pfizer could make
                          better use of the land than Ms. Kelo, the duty
                          of the cts is to see that this decision is
                          implemented UNLESS it can be shown that the
                          decision will not maximize the use of the
                          property.
                          If this is the view then Ms. Kelo bore the
                          b/p to show that her use was as good or better
                          than the proposed use - she could not show
                          this, so her b/p was not met, so the city's
                          wins. Case closed. Everyone go home - except
                          Ms. Kelo, she doesn't have a home.
                          \_ What?  You actually believe those 'principles'
                             and what follows from them?
                             \_ Absolutely not, but that is the only
                                way that I can make sense of this
                                garbage.
        \_ This may need a Constitional amendment, from a first reading.
           -moderate
           \_ Yes, the majority ruling is constitutional and I agree insofar
              as this is correct within what's currently legislated. But, law
              doesn't provide for what's "ample and reasonable compensation."
              An amendment should probably address that to favor excessive
              recompense for the "condemned properties."  After perusing the
              pdf opinion from the Conn. SC erikred posted, I agree that
              (1) public use for economic development should be allowed.
              (2) limits on this are a flexible and changing issue, and
              need to be determined case-by-case via the legislative and
              judicial system.  In this case, the economic development in
              question was planned by the city for a large economic develop-
              ment zone, which happened to include Pfizer offices.  There's
              also a marina, park, etc.  Eventhough some of the specific land
              in question may be sold to a private entity(Pfizer), the plan,
              in whole, is justified under "public use."  -nivra
              \_ You want case-by-case.  I think raising the bar higher via
                 Constitutional amendment is something which should be
                 seriously considered. -moderate
                 \_ I think recompense should be increased, but the correctness
                    of interpreting "public use" --> "public purpose" is valid.
                    case-by-case allows the correct judgment to be made in
                    borderline public good/private benefit situations.  If
                    the recompense to the existing property owners is aug-
                    mented, I don't see why "raising the bar" is needed. -nivra
                    \_ Like I wrote before, a Constitutional amendment is
                       something which should be seriously /considered/.
                       I'm not sure the American people believe being paid
                       "more" is sufficient for an interpretation of eminent
                       domain that goes beyond transportation and military
                       bases. -moderate
                       \_ I parse "raising the bar" and "wider interpretation
                          of eminent domain" as two different issues.
                          Raising the bar is increasing the burden of proof
                          that the economic development is public use.
                          "wider interpretation" is changing the definition
                          of "public use" -nivra
                          \_ Let's just change the Constitution so it qualifies
                             "for public use" with "limited to improving
                             transportation infrastructure or in the interests
                             of national security". -moderate
        \_ Opinion: This is bullshit.  Eminent domain is one of those issues
           where I set the bar REALLY REALLY high for the government to even
           have a right to get involved directly. -- ilyas
           \_ In your opinion, which side is more strict constructionist --
              interpreting the Constitution as it is written, as opposed to
              following the spirit of it as a loose constructionist?
              \_ Is this a joke? -- ilyas
                 \_ No.
                    \_ Your question is a tautology. -- ilyas
        \_ This discussion reminds me of something a guy I knew from the
           Caribbean said.  He asked, "How come Americans can't own land?"
           Huh? "Well, do Americans have to rent the land from the
           government or something?"  Uhhh.. no.  "But you pay property
           tax.  How can you say you own something when you have to pay
           someone to keep them from taking it from you?" Uhhhh...
        \_ This ruling is a disaster.  Now any tract of land anywhere in the
           country is up for development, all a wealthy developer has to do
           is to pay off a city council, and the city council can make a case
           that the development will benefit the public by creating jobs or
           whatever, and you can kiss your house and your neighborhood
           goodbye!
           \_ Realistically speaking, I wonder how much an average Joe would
              have to spend to fight a dubious eminent domain claim in the
              courts?  Could be a lot, I think.  I'd just sell and forgo my
              rights, unless nice GOP people gave me money.
           \_ see ad-absurdia claim above. -nivra
2005/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38243 Activity:nil
6/22    Every year the House approves one of these idiotic flag burning
        amendments, and every year the Senate lets it die.  Is this the
        most important thing that they could be doing?
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning
        \_ Was the Terry bill?  They love looking like they're doing something.
        \_ What's more important than rallying the base?
        \_ they should attach it to one of the annual fund the troops
           bills
           \_ Amendments take a bit more than that to pass.
2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38218 Activity:nil
6/21    Tim Russert interviews VP Cheney on his predictions on post-war Iraq
        prior to the invasion http://csua.org/u/cg6 (Post)
        \_ It's amusing how quiet the motd conservatives are now that they've
           been shown to be wrong in so many ways.
           \_ We've learned that there's no point trying to discuss things
              rationally with crazy wing-nut lefties who don't give a shit
              about facts. -conservative
              \_ Facts that are verifiably untrue don't help in a rational
                 discussion.
              \_ "Ah.  I'll have to think about that more carefully.  That
                  does suggest a problem in my reasoning." -emarkp
                  (From yesterday's thread)
                  \_ w00+! +5 points for using someone's desire to learn
                     and be rational as an insult!
                     \_ hey, it's not a crack @ emarkp. At least he gives
                        "a shit about facts," unlike the previous nutjob
                        conservative above. -nivra
                        \_ Yeah, you could scarcely conceal your glee on
                           wall though.  You are pathetic.
                           \_ Wow. anonymous ad-hominem attacks. I'm honored.
                              -nivra
                     \_ There was no attempt to insult.  I will spoon-feed it
                        to you:
                        "there's no point to discuss things rationally with
                        crazy wing-nut lefties" conservative guy wrote.
                        Yesterday, emarkp (another conservative guy) was
                        discussing the Lancet article with nivra (lefty).
                        They had a rational conversation, and emarkp
                        (conservative) left saying nivra (lefty) had a point.
                        This contradicts the idea that "there's no point to
                        discuss things rationally with crazy wing-nut lefties".
                        Got it?
                        \_ Are you implying that nivra is a "crazy wing-nut
                           lefty"?  I'd guess that the "It's amusing" guy is
                           (but have no knowledge of nivra's political
                           leanings).
                           \_ I'm liberal.  And yes, conservativeguy(TM)
                              will probably view me as a "crazy wing-nut
                              liberal" as long as he's stuck in his warped,
                              faith-based right wing echo chamber. -nivra
                              \_  http://csua.org/u/cg9 (kchang's archive)
2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38216 Activity:moderate
6/21    Boy, it's a good thing Bush knows how to support the troops!
        "Marine Units Found To Lack Equipment"
        http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/21/marine_units_found_to_lack_equipment
        \_ I'm glad you rely on the fourth estate for all your military
           information. You'll make a fine draftee because you buy into
           the lies much easier than way. Don't let reality get in the
           way and believe that under a Republican President the military
           has more supplies and more of what they want.
           \_ Yeah, it pisses me off when the press goes to people who know
              nothing about the situation for their information.  I mean,
              c'mon..  The Marine Corps Inspector General...  What a liar.
           \_ So you think missing Humvees and tanks that don't work while
              hundreds of billions are siphoned from the taxpayers wallets
              is normal and acceptable?
              \_ Um.. there's a war going on. But even before that, ask
                 any soldier serving under Clinton, things were scarce.
                 \_ How many soldiers were killed in their un-armored
                    humvees by roadside bombs under Clinton?
                    \_ How many engagements did Clinton start w/o UN
                       approval also? Don't know? Ever wonder?
                       Your argument is like gun control.  Blame anyone
                       else but the crook.
                       \_ Other than kosovo?  dunno.
                       \_ Bush has gotten every cent he's asked for on Iraq.
                          It doesn't take 5 yrs to backorder flak jackets
                          and humvees.  Hell, it doesn't even take 2 years.
                          If supplies were low at the start of the war, why
                          not send up an appropriations bill to pay for them?
                          Don't pass the buck.  It stops @ Bush.
                          \_ Actually, it's probably more accurate to say it
                             stops at Rumsfeld.  Rumsfeld is the highest up
                             guy who is a believer in the 'leaner military.'
                             I would be interested if anybody did any homework
                             on WHY on earth there would be shortages in the
                             military.  It might well not be a money issue at
                             all.  Blaming Bush might be satisfying, but it
                             doesn't really explain anything. -- ilyas
                             \_ Didn't we already have this discussion?  The
                                suppliers of vehicle armor came out after
                                Rumsfeld said they were producing armor at
                                full capacity and said "Uh, no.  We could
                                boost output if the Pentagon ordered it."
                                They tried to do this on the cheap and have
                                failed because of it.  In WWII domestic car
                                sales were stopped so the factories could be
                                repurposed to provide new war vehicles.
                                Have we been asked to sacrifice?  At all?
                                No.  We were told to go out and shop.
                                They don't want us to notice that there's a
                                war.
                                \_ So I don't understand.  The
                                \_ This article does not imply the shortages
                                   the Marines are experiencing has anything
                                   to do with fundamental industrial capacity
                                   issues, but with poor planning regarding
                                   replacements.  Is there actually an
                                   insufficient production problem, or a money
                                   problem? -- ilyas
                                   \_ Sorry, I sort of talked against myself
                                      there.  I believe it's poor planning,
                                      period.  I don't think it's a production
                                      capacity problem, and for money, Congress
                                      has been more than willing to loosen the
                                      purse strings.  I think it's the civilian
                                      authority not listening to their military
                                      which I think stems from political
                                      concerns.
                                      \_ I agree that it's a poor planning
                                         problem, and I am interested to learn
                                         where the problem actually lies.
                                         I wouldn't be surprised if a part of
                                         it was just large bureaucracy overhead
                                         the military always seems to incur.
                                         I think the military just has the
                                         same kinds of horrendous inefficiency
                                         issues which plague NASA, for much the
                                         same reasons.  I am not sure if this
                                         can explain all shortages though.
                                         I would be interested if there was,
                                         indeed, the tradeoff between sacrifices
                                         the civilian population makes and
                                         sufficient stuff for the military.
                                         I am guessing not -- the US isn't
                                         that poorly off. -- ilyas
                                         \_ But it's all systemic.  I think
                                            the administration under-requested
                                            because they're trying to keep the
                                            costs low.  I think they're trying
                                            to have their cake and eat it too,
                                            what with taxcuts in wartime and
                                            big pushes of war dollars to
                                            private contractors.  If the war
                                            had been necessary, we could have
                                            accomplished it without going
                                            far deeper into debt, by asking
                                            the people to tighten their belts
                                            for the good of the nation. Instead
                                            we're heading for a point where we
                                            can only afford paying interest
                                            on our debt.
                                            I wouldn't be surprised at the
                                            level of inefficiency in the
                                            military.  But I think looking at
                                            the troops as a bottom-line item
                                            that can be squeezed is disgusting.
                                            \_ As I said, I am not at all sure
                                               this is a real tradeoff (troop
                                               supply vs belt-squeezing).  We
                                               aren't Russia, we have mind
                                               boggling industrial capacity.
                                                 -- ilyas
                                               \_ What do you suspect is the
                                                  problem then?
                                                  \_ I think the real problem
                                                     is inefficiency and
                                                     corruption, not any
                                                     particular conscious
                                                     evil ploy. -- ilyas
                                                     \_ What would you say
                                                        to a Truman-like
                                                        commission
                                                        \_ Creating oversight
                                                           is good, but I would
                                                           be more interested
                                                           in what is it about
                                                           the military
                                                           structure that caused
                                                           this sort of thing
                                                           to happen.
                                                           Commissions might be
                                                           a good short term
                                                           solution, but I am
                                                           more interested in
                                                           building a government
                                                           robust to corruption
                                                           and inefficinecy
                                                           is good. -- ilyas
                                               \_ You're correct, but what pp
                                                  is saying is that it's a
                                                  politically motivated trade-
                                                  off, not an economically
                                                  motivated one. -!pp
                                   \_ So we agree there's a planning problem.
                                      That makes it Rumsfeld's problem. I hold
                                      the view that Bush should be held
                                      accountable for poor planning that's
                                      been ongoing for 2 years.
                                      which I think stems from political
                                      concerns.
                                      been ongoing for 2 years. -!pp
                                      \_ Bush? Naw! He's a good guy. He can't
                                         help it if some hardworking Americans
                                         under him make mistakes now and again.
                                         What's important is that they're good
                                         people working hard for America.
                                         \_ You can blame Bush for almost
                                            any given thing that went wrong
                                            during his tenure, and be right.
                                            But, again, it's not a helpful
                                            thing to point out because you don't
                                            explain any particular failure --
                                            usually a complex affair. -- ilyas
                             \_ Bush changed 80% of his cabinet for his
                                second term.  He declined to change Rumsfeld.
                                You're argument is like blaming the Director
                                of IT for a 5 year IT systems debacle while
                                exculpating the CEO.
                 \_ Nice diversion.  Now let's talk about "support the troops"
                    Bush.  -tom
                 \_ God, that was classic Bushie: if you haven't got a point,
                    blame Clinton.
2005/6/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38159 Activity:low
6/16    The Man Behind the Attack on Guantanamo -jblack
        http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18446
        \_ Any publication that has Horowitz in its nav bar...
        \_ Typical Republican smear job. I am surprised they didn't
           accuse him of murdering Vince Foster.
           \- I killed Vince Foster ... just to watch him die. --bclinton
              \_ I think that should be -hclinton
        \_ mmmmmm, I can taste the bias.  Delicious. -mrauser
        \_ I love the Lawyer's Guild is a Communist Front
           charge. Even McCarthy didn' go that far.
2005/6/15-17 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38149 Activity:nil
6/15    George Bush bust/sculpture on eBay for only $4300. "...the artist
        commenced sculpting on September 14, 2001 in order to capture the
        strength and determination that are required to lead our nation.":
        http://tinyurl.com/8l7ez
2005/6/15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38140 Activity:nil
6/15    If I buy or rent movies like Control Room, Outfoxed, Bush Family
        Fortunes, Fahrenheit 911, The Corporation, Rebels With a Cause, and
        other similar DVDs from Amazon or Netflix will I eventually get on
        the Republican black list database that they use so successfully
        against their enemies from the Nixon "dirty tricks" era?
2005/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38126 Activity:high
6/14    Gotta love the House
        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH
        \_ Sponsored by 4 democrats and one republican.
           \_ Well, it makes sense.  The only President to serve more than
              two terms was a Democrat.
              \_ Who?
                 \_ FDR.  Elected to four terms.  Died in the first year of his
                    fourth term.  Learn some history.
                    \_ Thx.  When did we start limiting presidents to serving
                       two terms?  And something bad triggered it?
                       \_ I think FDR triggered it
                       \_ Washington started it as a policy in order to
                          avoid autocracy or personal dynasty in the office
                          of president.  FDR was just the first president to
                          break with the policy, after which it was legislated.
                          \_ ^policy^tradition
                       \_ The 22nd Amendment limits people to 2 terms as
                          president. The fact that FDR kept getting elected
                          was the motivation. Truman was exempt from the 2
                          term limit but voluntarily chose to forgo a 3d
                          term (he probably wouldn't have won one anyway).
                        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22
                 \_ Wow.  You WENT to Berkeley?
                    \_ As a foreign student I never took any American History
                       class.
                       \_ Again, you WENT to Berkeley?  Well, I guess if you
                          were in CoE, you might have slipped by without AmHist
        \_ WTF are they smoking? Term limits are really important for the
           President.
           \_ Not for President For Life George W Bush!
              \_ What about President For Choice John Kerry?
              \_ Does anyone serious believe this?
2005/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38120 Activity:nil
6/14    Bolton's first defeat
        http://csua.org/u/cd0 (LA Times editorial)
        "ElBaradei's return might be Bolton's first major diplomatic defeat
        since President Bush nominated him, but if he's confirmed, it won't be
        his last."
2017/12/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/16   

2005/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38076 Activity:nil
6/10    A top congressional Democratic supporter of U.S. action in Iraq said
        Thursday that President Bush should make a nationally televised speech
        and "level with the American people" about the long road ahead there.
        Faced with declining public support, Bush needs to tell Americans "it's
        going to take a lot more time ... at least through the end of 2006"
        ... after finding "a total disconnect" between the situation in Iraq
        and optimistic statements by Bush and his top aides. ...
        Premature withdrawal "in my view would be a disaster ..."
        http://csua.org/u/cbj (Dallas Morning News)
        \_ With Bush's approval rating at 43 percent, is it time for a Carter
           style "crisis of confidence" speech?  Anyone wanna start a pool?
           \_ Time to start another war!
           \_ Hey, Gallup says he's been 48 +/- 2 percent since April!
              And Gallup was right on the money for the 2004 election.
              Don't forget this is a country where 67% say religion is very,
              extremely, or the most important thing in their lives.
              \_ I'm not sure this is as bad as you think.  Even if you're just
                 an "Easter Sunday Christian", you know in your guilty heart
                 because it's been drilled into you that it's the MOST important
                 thing in your life.  So if someone asks you directly in a
                 survey, I think you might be likely to say it is, even if you
                 don't live accordingly or even particularly agree with most
                 of its tenets.
                 because it's been drilled into you that it's the MOST
                 important thing in your life.  So if someone asks you
                 directly in a survey, I think you might be likely to say it
                 is, even if you don't live accordingly or even particularly
                 agree with most of its tenets.
              \_ Um, no. Gallup had Bush at 45% in April, the lowest for
                 any second term President ever.
                 \_ Curiously, Chirac's approval rating is at 20+%. -- ilyas
2005/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38074 Activity:low
6/10    http://csua.org/u/cbk (wapo)
        Finally, we drive that final nail in the coffin of the
        libidinous, treasonous PBS.
        \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PSB.
        \_ Oh, I read that as  libidinous, treasonous PSB.
        \_ Less PBS funding, less children's shows that promote diversity.
           Translation: Less PBS funding, less toxic exposure to my kids on
           topics such as faggots and AIDS. This is definitely good news for
           the Religious Right. All Heil GWB, bring them on, and God Bless.
           \_ Yeah, because Sesame Street was the prime target.  Sure.  Please
              apply for the job below, because you seem to be qualified.
              \_ Would it make it better if SS _were_ the prime target?
                 \_ No.  Though SS has declined dramatically in quality in the
                    last 5+ years, it's not exactly leftwing drivel.
        \_ Oh, I read that as treasonous PBS.
                    \_ So to what, other than Bill Moyers (who may be leftwing
                       but to call drivel is your own failing), would you
                       object?
                       \_ There is too much left wing drivel on public
                          broadcasting. They got all these brit shows like
                          Red Dwarf, HG2G, Antiques Roadshow, etc. They
                          need to put on more quality programming like
                          the 700 Club. I mean, Dr. Who is definitely
                          gay and that whole Tardis thing is just obviously
                          phallic.
                          \_ I want to think this is a troll, but since it's
                             williamc, i'm never quite sure.
                             \_ No, it's not a flame, we're all serious here.
                                Especially you. Down with Wall Street Weekly!
                                \_ It's cute when you try to be funny. :-P
        \_ Wasn't this just about the dumbest thing the Republicans could have
           done, politically?  I mean, what with all this hugely wasteful
           billion-dollar pork everywhere and a trillion-dollar war that nobody
           wants, they decide to kill a very popular and very visible $500M
           program in the name of "cutting costs."  Way to go guys, I hope
           you enjoy President Hillary.
           \_ Hillary is unelectable. Come on, after the previous election,
              it's clear that this kind of stuff doesn't sway enough votes.
              They vote on gay marriage and stuff, and how the candidates
              look. I guess it all depends on what candidate the pubs come
              up with next time.
              \_ Rudy?
              \_ Powell?
                 \_ jeah right!
              \_ McCain
                 \_ Destroyer of the 1st amendment.
                    \_ Could you give a reference or some context for that?
                       I'm not as savvy about McCain as I'd like to be. -mice
                       \_ Think "McCain-Feingold" restrictions on political
                          speech.  As in "congress shall make no law..."
                    \_ Huh?
        \_ The votes of the republicans on that sub-committee do not reflect
           the opinions of many republicans.  Personally I feel that PBS is
           the most unbiased source of information currently available (I'm
           mainly speaking of things like the NewsHour, Nova and Frontline)
           on television.
           \- for the cockroaches in power, "fiat lux" is not especially
              desirable ... like televised hearings on judges, john bolton
              etc. and when they want to be on TV, its easy enough for them
              to get airtime. --treasonous psb
2005/6/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38072 Activity:moderate
6/10    A case made of fans (from /., in case you're not reading that):
        http://www.peteredge.orcon.net.nz/casepics.htm
        \_ What is it with /. and their obsession with running Linux on
           unusual devices and stuffing cheap PCs into unusual cases?
           \_ In the world of honda civics and other run of the mill cars
              it's called "ricing".  as in riceboy.
              \_ Is it just me, or does this whole "rice burner" term smack of
                 racism?
                 \_ Vin Diesel in The Fast and the Furious is not Asian.
                 \_ Only if you think the fact that asians consume lots of rice
                    is racist.
                    \_ Don't be stupid.
                 \_ It does.  So?  -John
2005/6/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:38046 Activity:high
6/8     Janice Brown: Liberalism --> Slavery
        http://csua.org/u/cb0 (nytimes.com)
        \_ WAR IS PEACE
           FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
           IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
        \_ GOP is brilliant. By hiring minorities who align with their agenda
           they attract other minorities who are ignorant of Republican agendas
           \_ Would you care to enlighten us poor benighted savages about
              the real Republican agenda?
              \_ In my opinion... in theory, their ideology is good for the
                 society. But in practice, it is flawed. That is not to say
                 that Dem ideologies are in practice flawed as well. However,
                 it's not hard to see that in the past decade or two that
                 the Rep ideology is being abused much more, by the religious
                 right, the homophobes, big Corporate sponsors, and the
                 NeoCons. Lastly I simply have a lot of problems with Rep's
                 fundamental idea of using personal responsibility to solve
                 most of life's problems. In many cases, people are not born
                 with the ability to solve their own problems, but would be
                 ok if given a second or third chance. We talk about
                 equality, but in reality the world is not equal. Regardless
                 of abilities and merits, the rich still get better education
                 and the minorities are still getting a shorter end of the
                 stick. Personal responsibility-- great in theory, unfair in
                 practice. That is why I am opposed to Rep agendas: tax
                 reduction, flat tax, completely personal responsible social
                 security, reduction of welfare, reduction of public
                 education, reduction of public/gov owned entities. A more
                 balanced approach is personal responsibility AND social
                 responsiblity.                         -pp, a Moderate
                 \_ You realize that poor == minorities is a false
                    equality, right?
                    \_ There's a remarkable correlation.  one of the sins
                       of our society.
                    http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032004/pov/new01_100.htm
                       Do your homework.
                       \_ correlation != causality && correlation !=
                          equality.  Do your homework.
                          \_ I didn't say it was equality, but just to throw
                             that statement out was disingenuous of you.  To
                             speak of poverty and try to gloss over ethnic
                             disparity is dishonest. And who said anything
                             about causality?
                             \_ I just threw it out because "-pp, a
                                Moderate" seemed to be implying it.  I
                                didn't think it really warrented
                                discussion.  I figured causality in
                                because I figured that was what you
                                must be thinking, since you brought up
                                the numbers.  ie, from these numbers it
                                seems that being a minority causes one to
                                be poor.  Furthermore, why is glossing
                                over the ethnic disparity dishonest?
                                Including the figures is often used to
                                suggest that the disparity is caused by
                                racism, which I think it dishonest.  Any
                                culture that discourages education will
                                produce more poor, on average, than one
                                that encourages it.  It doesn't matter if
                                you're white, black, brown, or any other
                                race.  Many poor families in the
                                states exhibit this characteristic.
                 \_ All ideologies are open to manipulation, not just
                    Republican ones. However, I disagree that Republican
                    ideas unfair in practice.
                    ideas are unfair in practice.
                    In my experience the Liberal Democrat pov is one that
                    emphasizes the importance of the elites and what they
                    think is best for us "masses."  They decide the agenda
                    and tell us what it important and we have to go along
                    and tell us what is important and we have to go along
                    with it. It doesn't not allow us to think and decide
                    what is best for ourselves.  In the guise of "fairness"
                    they suppresses creativity and ingenuity and rob people
                    of the incentive to work hard and make their lives
                    better.
                    The Republican pov is that there should be a minimum
                    level of restrictions on the activities of people and
                    that people ought to be left along to decide how they
                    that people ought to be left alone to decide how they
                    want to live their lives.  (Some GOP administrations
                    are worse at this than others, but one the whole they
                    are much better than Democratic administrations).
                    are worse at this than others, but on the whole they
                    are better than Democratic administrations).
                    Re: Education - I completely disagree that the rich
                    get or have access to a better education than the
                    "poor."  My family came to this country w/ ~ $10.
                    My mom managed to put both of her sons through
                    engineering at Cal, one of the finest institutions of
                    education in the whole world. In no way would I
                    characterize my education as lesser than what some
                    rich guy who went to Yale and couldn't even manage A's
                    in humanities classes got.
                    rich guy got at Yale (he got 5 D's and not even one
                    A in a humanities major, give me a break).
                    A in a humanities major, give me a break). -scotsman
                    \_ Is that why the Republicans keep trying to outlaw
                       sodomy and marijuana and stuff the prisons full?
                       Republicans are in favor of big government just
                       as much as Democrats, they just prefer the kind
                       that wields a truncheon.
                       that wields a truncheon instead of a welfare check.
                       \_ I don't really care about sodomy laws but as
                          far as pot (and other drugs) are concerned,
                          they are a legitimate arena for government
                          control b/c drug abuse leads to costs for
                          all of society.  When you smoke out and
                          crash your car into mine, I'm stuck having
                          to deal w/ it and I shouldn't have to.
                          Anyway, at least the GOP *tries* to get
                          rid of gov controls in many aspects (esp.
                          economic) vs. the Democrats who want to
                          control everything from Washington.
                          I wouldn't characterize Bush II as the
                          best GOP administration but they are
                          better than any Democratic administration
                          would have been.
                          \_ I don't see evidence that the GOP tries to do
                             this at all. I see lip service, but no action.
                             Name one action that the current administration
                             has done that has either diminished federal power
                             or devolved any to the states. I follow the news
                             pretty closely and I cannot think of anything.
                             Incarceration rates in the US are ten *times*
                             what they are in Western European countries,
                             but there does not seem to be an abundance
                             of drug fueled crime in Europe. It is all
                             about fear and control, and using government
                             to enforce these values, not public safety.
                    \_ Anecdotal evidence it not proof. Study after study
                       has shown that children in wealthier neighborhoods
                       get a better education. Do you honestly believe that
                       Oakland schools are as good as the ones in Orinda?
                    \_ scotsman, you are smart and special. But you are simply
                       ONE data point, which does not accurately represent
                       poor people as a whole. Put it another way, if the
                       criteria to get into Ivy League schools were based on
                       nothing but merits, by throwing out external factors
                       such as connection and money, do you think the mostly
                       [Caucasian] student demographic representation would
                       still be the same?
                       \_ Wow.  Someone signed my name to someone else's post.
                          cute. --scotsman  (to future forgers, I use 2 -'s)
                          Btw, I was fortunate enough to be born to a 3rd/4th
                          generation family, with highly educated parents.
                          And I agree with you.
                          Oh, and even cuter, you're the one who signed my
                          name.
                       \_ So what if a big name gets you into a Ivy League
                          school? It doesn't matter - there are plenty of
                          equal or better opportunities in this country.
                          There is a proven path to the middle class in
                          this country - it involves frugality, education
                          and hardwork.  Yes you can't buy all the things
                          that rich people have, yes you have to study
                          harder than the rich kids and yes you have to
                          go to work early and stay late and put up w/
                          crazy bosses, but that is the price you have
                          to pay. If you aren't willing to do that, why
                          should the gov fix it all up for you?
           \_ Appointing minorities with conservative opinions exposes the true
              Democrat belief:  only minorities that toe the Dem. line are
              acceptable.  The others aren't "real" minorities.
              \_ Democrats want minorities and they want liberals.  Given a
                 choice between a conservative minority and a liberal white,
                 idealogical correctness trumps political correctness.
                 The only people I ever hear say conservative minorities aren't
                 "real" minorities are conservatives attempting to impugn
                 liberals
                 \_ http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021010.asp#6
2005/6/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38034 Activity:low
6/8     "A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against
        limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate
        reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global
        warming, according to internal documents. In handwritten notes on
        drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip
        A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that
        government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior
        Bush administration officials, had already approved."
        http://csua.org/u/cai (nytimes.com)
        \_ Thanks anon. W/o I would believe the Bush administration
           is filled with honest, non-partisan ex-industry officials
           here for our own good and not out to make money in life.
           \_ Kind of sad that we're so jaded that this kind of Orwellian
              document editing isn't even surprising or worth mentioning any
              more.
                \_ "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
                    becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
                    \- "The quality of many who people our public
                       life--that is not democracy, it is disarray, it
                       is free-fall."  ...  "Governance", [Arun
                       Shourie] argues, "is not golf: that we are a
                       democracy does not entitle us to a handicap."
                    \_ "In a room where people unanimously maintain a
                        conspiracy of silence, a single
                        word of truth sounds like a pistol shot."
                                -- Czeslaw  Milosz
        \_ was this written by Jayson Blair?
           \_ Mmm, straw man.  You can get this particular piece of news
              from whichever source you like.  It's pretty cut and dried.
2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38023 Activity:nil
6/7     http://csua.org/u/ca6 (Post)
        The Bush administration, having found no alternate candidate or
        support from any allies, has given up on its attempt to force out
        Mohamed ElBaradei as director general of the International Atomic
        Energy Agency, according to two U.S. officials.
2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38015 Activity:kinda low
6/7     Poll on your perception of Mark Felt. Put "d" if you're a Democrat,
        "r" if you're a Republican, and "i" if you're Independent, "." if
        you're not sure:
        Hero: .ddid
        Traitor: .r
        \_ Why is he a traitor? They say Veritas vos liberabit, the truth
           will set you free. Mark Felt was honest and told the truth,
           freeing America from lies and deceptions.
           \_ The poll is a false dichotomy anyway.  !Hero != Traitor.  It
              looks like what he did was motivated not by doing the right thing
              but by being passed over for promotion. -emarkp
              \_ Damn you and your sensible observations.  They have no place
                 here in my senseless invective!!
                 \_ I love the old crank conservatives coming out of the
                    woodwork with their long essays about how Nixon
                    wasn't so bad.
                    \_ Compared to Bush, Nixon was a choirboy.
           \_ He divulged information that was protected and broke the
              law and his oath as an FBI agent in doing so. This to me
              is treason.
              \_ to me this falls under the same heading as civil disobedience.
                 sometimes in order to make change for the better, one has to
                 question the letter of the law.  If the intention of the law
                 is to make the world safer for individuals of our nation,
                 what do you do when living by that law allows others in power
                 to threaten the rights of individuals in our nation?
              \_ ah, yes, one shall not tell a lie, ANY lie, even if it does
                 greater good.
                 \_ What greater good? Personally I don't think that
                    what Nixon did was wrong. He was trying to run
                    cover for some stupid idiots. While the right
                    cover for some stupid flunkies. While the right
                    thing to do would have been to not get involved,
                    its not like his actions were all that bad.
                    \_ B&E, plans for arson, blackmail, use of Federal
                       Agencies for political vengeance-- these do not
                       constitute wrong? Physician, heal thyself.
              \_ And when are we having Robert Novak's public execution by
                 firing squad? You can't eat your cake and have it too.
              \_ You need a dictionary.
        \_ It's clear to me that the Republican party of today hasn't
           changed much from the Republican party of The Crook 3 decades
           ago. They still keep dirt on all of their enemies. The real only
           difference is that the Republican party of today conceals
           activities a lot better.
           \_ It shits me to tears to hear the so-called liberal press fall
              over themselves to tell us what great presidents Nixon and
              Reagan were. Mao never had it this good. Kim Il Sung is turning
              over in his grave with envy.
2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38009 Activity:nil
6/7     When will the Chimp admit that he dodged service?
        \_ When will all the people who call Bush dumb realize he's no dumber
           than Kerry?
           \_ Can't speak for them; never thought it myself. As for honesty and
              integrity, however, Bush has shown over and over that he has
              none.
              \_ Make your own Bush-Bashing thread.  Here, I'll help you.
2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37989 Activity:nil
6/6     Hilarious shit.  Ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries.
        The entry under Das Kapital is particularly funny.
        http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
        \_ Hmm, now I know how the left feels when they start to imagine a
           vast right wing consipiracy.  These guys must be being manipulated
           by some liberal power.  Why else would they do something so
           obviously contrary to their agenda. -not in earnest.
        \_ I find it highly amusing that the ads are for "The Ultimate Fitness
           Program" and "electron machines" (some sort of water purifier, I'm
           guessing). More push-ups, and prevent the defiling of those
           precious bodily fluids, young conservative!
        \_ Hahahaha!
           "FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now
            has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt."
           That's right, ignore those huge fans of Keynes, Reagan and Bush Jr.
2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37977 Activity:kinda low
6/6     "In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block
        the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use":
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana
        So what are you faggot-loving drug-using tree-hugging protesting
        LIBERALS gonna have to say about this? Ha ha ha ha
              \_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
                 this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
                 want you on our side.  This tramples on state's rights.
                 -emarkp
                    \_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
                       at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
                       marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
                       to deal with these issues.  -John
                  \_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
                     marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
                     the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
                     \_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
                     \_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
                        at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
                        marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
                        to deal with these issues.  -John
                     \_ I don't want to think about how you would get
                        sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
                        \_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
                           would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
                           \_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
                              than any other city in America.
                           2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
                           old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
                           \_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
                              could avoid them. -emarkp
                              \_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
                                 case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
                                 be disruptive to interstate commerce through
                                 the area with respect to gas stations, public
                                 accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
                                 falls under the "provide for defense" and
                                 provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
                                 perhaps we might instead expand the National
                                 Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
                                 Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
                                 locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
        \_ Since when did the motd become /.?  You must have missed the
           "Medical Marijuana, RIP" post.
           \_ Yeah I did, thanks                -op, conservative
              \_ If you're a real conservative, we don't want you on our side.
                 This tramples on state's rights. -emarkp
              \_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
                 this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
                 want you on our side.  This tramples on state's rights.
                 -emarkp
                 \_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
                    marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
                    the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
                    \_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
                    \_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
                       at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
                       marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
                       to deal with these issues.  -John
                    \_ I don't want to think about how you would get
                       sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
                       \_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
                          would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
                          \_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
                             than any other city in America.
                          2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
                          old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
                          \_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
                             could avoid them. -emarkp
                             \_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
                                case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
                                be disruptive to interstate commerce through
                                the area with respect to gas stations, public
                                accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
                                falls under the "provide for defense" and
                                provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
                                perhaps we might instead expand the National
                                Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
                                Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
                                locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
        [ threads merged ]
        \_ O'Connor complaining that it's not repsecting state rights?  I'm so
           confused.  Is this the Bizarro SCOTUS?
           \_ States rights are only good if we like what the right is, like
              citizens owning anti-tank weaponry and the government not knowing
              who those owners are.
        \_ Interesting that Justice Thomas dissented.
                \_ Along with O'Conner and Rehnquist (he's still alive I
                   guess)
                        \_ Is this in line with Rehnquist's record? Does
                           anyone think he's changed his priorities because
                           of his health?
                           \_ They're voting as "state's-rights" ideologs.
                              O'Connor also wants to be perceived as the
                              compassionate/sensible conservative.
                              Scalia is not a buffoon so will judge according
                              to law, along with the other 5 in the majority
                              opinion, even though it hurts people.
        \_ There's that all-inclusive "interstate commerce" line again. Just
           like "provide for the general Welfare", it's broken.
                \_ The reasoning in the opinion seems really weak.
                   \_ I read the opinion last night and I think that
                      Scalia's concurrence probably is more illuminating
                      than the majority opinion.
                      The way that I understand it is that the decision
                      is based on the 'necessary and proper' clause that
                      allows congress to regulate intrastate activities
                      to the extent that they affect interstate commerce.
                      As Scalia states the test is whether the means used
                      by congress are "'reasoanbly adapted' to the ...
                      legitimate end[s] under the commerce power."
                      Since Pot is a Schedule I drug (you may dispute
                      classification, but that was not at issue) and
                      Congress's desire to eliminate Schedule I drugs
                      from interstate commerce is legitimate (again
                      you may dispute this, but it was not at issue),
                      the question is whether it is possible to distin-
                      guish local pot from "imported" pot. Since it is
                      not, Congress's desire to restrict pot growing
                      preempts state law.
                      Notes:
                      (1) I have not taken Con Law yet, so my understa-
                          nding of the commerce power and the necessary
                          and proper clause is a bit weak.
                      (2) The real problem is that pot is misclassifed
                          as a Schedule I drug. If pot is reclassified,
                          then the outcome should be different and these
                          people can go about their business.
                      (3) My agreement of w/ the outcome is colored by
                          my general dislike for things like pot,
                          cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, &c.
        \_ If nothing else I enjoyed hearing "The evil left-wing liberals
           are trying to steal our pot" on right-wing talk radio this
           morning.
2005/6/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37971 Activity:nil
6/4     Protests in Azerbaijan!  (interesting pictures)
        http://csua.org/u/c99
        \_ A Neocon Republican's dream come true.
           A Moderate Republican's nightmare.
           \_ Depends.  Guess what leads through there since May 25?  -John
              \_ It couldn't be a pipeline, because motd told me they weren't
                 working on one.
2005/6/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37969 Activity:high
6/4     FUCK http://cnn.com!  Every single news site has a different take on it than
        toeing-the-fucking-Administration-line http://cnn.com.  Even http://foxnews.com!
        \_ O.o    you're weird.
        \_ Um, what exactly is it? -dans
           \_ Well, they changed it this morning.
           \_ They changed it this morning.
              Good thing they woke up to their fucking senses.
              \_ Right, but what is it?  Were they stating that modern bombs
                 do, in fact, tick not vibrate?  Did they have it backwards,
                 do they vibrate?  Must we not imply ownership and refer to it
                 as ``a dildo,'' not ``your dildo?'' -dans
2005/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:37965 Activity:high
6/3     I once read an article that says 70% of the Jews vote Democrat. Now,
        I kind of understand why 90% of the Blacks vote Democrat because it
        probably has something to do with Civil Liberty, but why Jews? I mean,
        don't they have the most [financial incentive] by voting Republican?
        \_ A large fraction of the Jews in my family are Trotskyist athiests.
           They typically hold their nose and vote Democrat, though.  I have
           seen no correlation between their income and their political
           positions.  One of the most dogmatic Trotskyists is a multi
           millionaire.
        \_ Plus religious incentive.
           \_ Actually, in a recent article, the Economist argued that
              the process of defection of religious Jews from the Dem. to
              republican party has started during the 2004 election. In fact,
              one major thing that delayed this process was the fact that Joe
              Lieberman was running for vice pres. on the democratic ticket in
              2000.  They argued that these days people are starting to vote
              for one or another party not based on which religion they follow
              but based on the intensity of their faith. Given that, I wonder
              if this is also going to apply to blacks many of whom are
              religious and socially conservative.
              \_ Hello? Where have you been? Many Latinos and Blacks already
                 switched to Bush in 2004. California Latinos are much more
                 likely to go for Bush for whatever the reason. Even Asians,
                 \_ I think you pulled this from your ass.  in fact the one
                    report of an exit poll i just found had CA latinos voting
                    almost 3-1 for kerry.
                    \_ used to be 7-1 for Democrat 10 years ago. ?Que Paso?
                       \_ determined media campaigns.
                 esp. greedy Asian immigrants favor Bush for obvious reasons--
                 they fall into certain tax brackets that Kerry promised to
                 raise. Even Taiwanese people favor Bush because they believe
                 that Bush has the guts to stand up to China (which is totally
                 bullshit). Back in 2004 I saw quite a few Bush commercials
                 on channel 18, foreign channel, and none from Kerry. It's sad
                 to say this but Bush did a much better job appealing to
                 minority voters than his predecessors. As a result of double
                 fuckups from Gore and Kerry, we'll most likely see similar
                 voting patterns in 2008.           -Pissed Off Asian Liberal
        \_ What party was Lincoln?
        \_ Wow, that's one of the more racist comments I've seen.  All Jews are
           rich, eh?
           \_ You're mixing up the word racist and stereotype. I've always
              thought racist remarks are derogatory stereotypes. For example,
              the statement "all Asians are smart" is a stereotype but not
              racist. The statement "all Asians are sneaky" is a racist remark.
              \_ Wrong.  Both comments are racist stereotypical remarks.
              \_ You're an idiot.
                 \_ From Merriam Webster: "a belief that some races are by
                    nature superior to others." You're right, I'm an idiot.
                    \_ Yup, and you won't even realize it..
                       \_ Wow, you're a jerk. -!pp
              \_ No, I'm pretty sure racist just means "race based
                 stereotype."
                 \_ I think it's important to distinguish illegal acts inspired
                    by racism (such as discrimination, or racial violence)
                    and race-based stereotypes themselves.  I, personally, have
                    no problems with valid stereotypes, race-based or not.  If
                    that's racism, then I have no problem with that form of
                    racism. -- ilyas
                    \_ Russians are always drinking Vodka and drive like
                       they're drunk. It's a miracle that during the cold war
                       they didn't accidentally launch a nuke.
              \_ No, it's a fact.
           \_ No offense if you're a white trailer Joe, but on average, Jews
              have 2X the income and more than 2X the likelihood of going to
              college. In another word, Jews are smarter and more wealthy than
              your average trailer trash Joe that voted for Georgy.
              http://www.jbuff.com/c052302.htm
              \_ I guess I have elaborated more:  all Jews are rich and that's
                 the only thing they care about?
        \_ I find it worrisome that the plebes are beginning to accept the
           idea of talking about "the jews" as some monolithic social body.
           It showcases a pretty spectacular decline in the level of
           civilization of the lower classes.  -John
           \_ I find it worrisome that John is beginning to accept the idea of
              talking about "the plebes" as some monolithic social body.
                -- ilyas
           \_ Hooookay....
           \_ Ever heard the saying "Ask 2 Jews, get 3 opinions"?
              \_ No, but I've heard from a self deprecating Jew that to be a
                 Jew, you need to have a lot of money and a nose job.
2005/6/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:37956 Activity:nil
6/3     Every once in a while, Feinstein shows herself as worthy.
        (re: filibusters)
        http://feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/cr-judicial-nom0510.htm
2005/6/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37936 Activity:kinda low
6/2     After 1950, 5 Presidents have been Democrats and 9 presidents
        have been Republicans. What does that say about Democrats, that
        they've sucked not just in the past 10 years but in the past
        5 decades? That they just can't seem to get their acts together?
                                -Disillusioned Democrat, now Independent
        \_ They controlled Congress for most of that 5 decades.  You know
           that Congress thing, I'm sure you've taken Civics.  I'm assuming
           you're familiar with the separation of powers thing?
        \_ yeah, they should make sure their brother is the governor of
           a key swing state.  -tom
           \_ Please don't tell me that you believe Jeb Bush rigged Florida.  I
              know you're obnoxious and rude and sometimes stupid, but I didn't
              figure you for a conspiracy nut too.
              \_ I am sure that if Al Gore Sr. were governor of Florida,
                 the election would have gone differently; voter rolls
                 wouldn't have been purged of black-sounding names, for
                 one thing.
                 In any case, what's so special about 1950?  If you look at
                 1960, or 1945 (end of WWII), Democrats and Republicans
                 have held the presidency about an equal amount of time.  -tom
                 \_ Because numbers are fun to fuck around with.  The question
                    itself is deliberately misleading, and was posted by one
                    of our stealth motd posters.  I simply assumed it was a
                    troll --scotsman
                    \- a pretty smart observation about election 2000 was
                    \- a pretty astute observation about election 2000 was
                       "when an election is that close, all theories are
                        true" ... i mean you can claim it was a sunny day
                        true" ... you can plausibly claim it was a sunny day
                        and the young hedonist democrats and homosexuals all
                        went to the beach.
        \_ The DNC in Chicago was the site of one of the most heinous cases
           of police brutality in the nation's history. The Dems of today are
           not the Dems of 1950-1974. Get used to it.
2005/6/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37925 Activity:nil
6/1     http://csua.org/u/c8l (Reuters)
        "The Pentagon on Wednesday postponed [to June 10, a Friday] the release
        of military recruiting figures for May ... The military services had
        routinely provided most recruiting statistics for a given month on the
        first business day of the next month. ...
        'Military recruiting is instrumental to our readiness and merits the
        earliest release of data. But at the same time, this information must
        be reasonably scrutinized and explained to the public, which deserves
        the fullest insight into military performance in this important area,'
        [a Pentagon spokeswoman said]."
        \_ Is there an election coming up?
           \_ Nah - if they were thinking about elections, they'd be covering
              up football hero deaths.  Oh wait!
2005/6/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37917 Activity:nil
6/1     Who was the first female Secretary of State?  Thx.
        \_ Duh. Madeline Albright. Her dad inspired Condi Rice to switch
           from music to politics.
           \_ BTW, "Albright" doesn't sound like a foreign lastname.
              \_ Uh, what are you talking about?
              \_ She made up that name herself and changed it.
           \_ I like the pic of her toasting Kim Jong-Il:
              http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Madeleine-Albright
2005/5/31-6/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37902 Activity:nil
5/31    Woodward and Bernstein confirm that W. Mark Felt was "Deep Throat."
        See washington post.
        \_ Linda Lovelace is turning over in her grave!
           \_ She didn't die.  In fact, she was born again.
           \_ Which came first?
              \_ I don't think LL ever came for real.
        \_ "On several occasions he confided to me, 'I'm the guy they used to
           call "Deep Throat,"' ... [Felt] still has qualms about his actions,
           but he also knows that historic events compelled him to behave as
           he did: standing up to an executive branch intent on obstructing
           his agency's pursuit of the truth. ...
           Felt, having long harbored the ambivalent emotions of pride and
           self-reproach, has lived for more than 30 years in a prison of his
           own making, a prison built upon his strong moral principles and his
           unwavering loyalty to country and cause. But now, buoyed by his
           family's revelations and support, he need feel imprisoned no
           longer."
        \_ I'm waiting for a Deep Throat equivalent for GWB. Let's pray for it.
           \_ Deep Fist is actually our own Tom Holub! You heard it here first!
              \_ And he failed to change GWB's Regime of Incompetency.
                 Homeland Security begins with regime change, at our homeland.
           \_ Not going to happen. Loyalty to GWB is paramount to those in
              a position close enough to affect the administration. The
              American public has accepted that the current admin engaged in
              Operation Iraqi Freedom with less than solid proof. Mr Bush's
              Splendid Little War will fall through the same cracks as Reagan's
              Iran-Contra dealings. History will judge in another 50 years.
              \_ Actually, a majority of Americans still thinks that Saddam
                 had WMDs.
                 \_ They also can't find Canada on a map, can't tell you when
                    WWII happened, can't identify when Jesus lived to within
                    a hundred years, and can't solve a quadratic equation.
                    My mom teaches college freshman, and started giving them
                    a quiz sometimes to see if these things you hear about
                    Americans' ignorance are true.  They are.
                 \_ And most still think SH had terrorist ties. GWB has
                    reached teflon levels with this.
2005/5/31-6/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37899 Activity:nil
5/31    Yearbook picture of boy voted "most whipped" features boy wearing
        leash.
        http://csua.org/u/c86
        Angry editorial (includes picture)
        http://csua.org/u/c87
        \_ did you mean to post the same URL twice?
        \_ Those same people probably have no problem seeing Jet Li wearing a
           leash held by Morgan Freeman.
        \_ That girlfriend looks like Jenna Bush.  Ah, it's all Dubya's fault!
        \_ "School officials will use stickers to cover the offending photo.
            They want the 240 students who already received their books to
            return them for alteration." -bwwwwaaaaaahahahha.
        \_ I wish I had a girlfriend in high school.
           \_ If she's underaged then it's not legal.
2005/5/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37881 Activity:nil
5/28    williamc, while many of us accept that you're ugly, you're also
        pretty dumb [for an Asian]. We suggest that you give a hard look at
        yourself before you decide to flame back. We wish you well.
        \_ Dumb? I think not.  I think the appropriate label for him is "bad
           person", and "bad citizen".  The "love it or leave it" crowd are one
           of the more loathesome components of the American political scene.
           Just by fouling our country with their bullshit attitude, they
           make America a worse place to live.  I suppose he thinks America
           would be a better place if everyone who has fought to improve
           something that was wrong with our country for the last 200 years had
           just picked up and left instead of fighting for change?
        \_ Yes, your ad hominem attacks are indeed very intelligent of you.
           As for your political views, why are you so defensive when
           someone disagrees with you? After all, isn't the point of political
           debate to foster discussion? As for "love it or leave it," instead
           of complaining about it why don't you actually try to come up
           with some real solutions instead of whining about it? As for your
           political views, I would urge you to closely examine all issues
           on both sides of the fence before coming down to conclusions that
           "bush is bad" or "we have to kill all the terrorists". Unfortunately
           the world is much more nuanced than the political propogandists
           would lead you to believe. As for idiotic proposals that we've
           seen recently, they include:
           1. Suggesting that everyone ride a bike (very smart).
           2. We begin protesting just for protests sake (save your energy).
           3. There actually needs to be a discussion on evolution (save
              your breath).
           4. We should support a people who celebrated 9/11 (the Palestinians)
           Now, whether you are a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, etc.
           if you went to Berkeley and had an iota of common sense you'd realize
           that any of these ideas are pretty dumb. If you don't like people
           responding to your political views, then don't post them.
           Anyway, send me an email if you really want to debate any of these
           topics. We can pick a forum and we can have at it. -williamc
           \_ You've been trolled. Yes, you're very smart.
        \_ While I don't like your personal attack, I do agree that it's
           important to keep an open mind. This country was founded by
           immigrants and visionaries who continually shaped America a
           better place to live. Our fathers have done a lot of good things
           from Emancipation, Women's Sufferage, all the way to Civil Rights.
           I've lived in US most of my life and have been taught that
           America's the best place in the world. I think that may be true,
           but as I get older and have more opportunities to travel abroad
           I also see a lot of good things in other countries like Canada
           and Denmark. Just because our country is the greatest doesn't
           mean we should stop making it even better. Our fathers have done a
           lot of good things, and we should too. I love America, and I
           also have some things I think could be improved. That is why I
           refuse to leave America. I will stay here, and fight for things
           that matter to people, like more tolerance, more compassion,
           better city planning/transportation, and more accountability in
           both the government and corporations. If anyone tells you to "get
           the fuck out of US", that person is narrow minded to a point that
           he/she is unable to take any criticism and should be the one to
           get the fuck out of US. So do us a favor and stay. Continue the
           tradition our fathers have made by continually making America a
           better place to live.
2005/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37856 Activity:nil
5/27    Not all republicans are anti-stem-cell...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25stem.html?pagewanted=all
2005/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37835 Activity:nil
5/25    Haha, it's about time:
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/25/wilbanks/index.html
        \_ It's about time people stopped caring about bullshit non-news items
           that are none of their business.
                \_ True, but with the big deal ALL the news sources made about
                   that bitch, it was hard not to get suckered into showing
                   some interest.
                   \_ Not really.  Do you also consider the Michael Jackson
                      trial to be important news?
                        \_ Right now, no. I'll probably show some interest
                           once a verdict is reached though. Same thing
                           with that runaway bride. I didn't care about the
                           updates, but once she was caught and no charges
                           were filed against her, then I started caring some.
                   \_ You're really that flaccid?
        \_ It's about time people stop posting un-descriptive URLs without a
           brief description of what the page is about.
        \_ Hey stop it, she seems like a very nice typical all American girl.
           \_ A very typical all American Bush voter from Georgia.
2005/5/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37820 Activity:nil
5/23    LucasFilm reminds me of how everyone says that one should avoid excess
        alcohol, tobacco, and donuts because they're not good for you, yet
        almost everyone goes on drinking, smoking, and "Jenny Craiging". You
        know, for every $9 you waste on LucasFilm, 1/2 of that is going into
        the next huge crappy LucasFilm. It's like... people say they hate
        George Bush but keep on donating to the RNC. Dumme Amerikaner. Dumme.
2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37817 Activity:nil
5/23    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050523/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_139
        "Centrists from both parties reached a compromise Monday night to
        avoid a showdown on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees and the
        Senate's own filibuster rules ..."
        \_ Watch freepers scream and rant
           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408993/posts
           \_ Bill Frist got pwnd.
              \- how do you figure this isnt a 95% republican victory? --psb
                 \_ It's a delay of game penalty. When a Supreme steps down
                    and Demos try the same thing, the filibuster will fall.
                    In fact, I doubt it will be that close.
                    \_ So you're saying the 7 Democratic senators in on the
                       compromise will filibuster the next SCOTUS nominee,
                       and for that nominee, there won't be 6 Republican
                       senators to vote to prevent use of the nuclear option?
                       In any case, I could see use of the nuclear option for
                       SCOTUS nominees by both parties (initiated by the GOP
                       and tit-for-tat by Dems in 2008-2012), but a general
                       reluctance for appeals court and other judges.
                       I also give it a 50% chance that Dubya will nominate
                       a non-wacko SCOTUS candidate as the first one, obviating
                       the need for a filibuster.
                       \- without taking a stand on what that probability p
                          will be [and it may depend whether it is the CJ or
                          and AJ] i think the probability certainly is
                          affected by how bruised he is ... over Bolton,
                          over Social Security etc. This is obvious but the
                          point being you can score points that have an affect
                          down the road even if you lose early on.
2005/5/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:37814 Activity:nil
5/23    Fox's angle on Star Wars vs. Republicans:
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157229,00.html
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157229,00.html
        \_ I see everything twice!
        \_ "By and large, the rebellion's supporters were ordinary people who
            wanted self-determination, republican government, and free
            enterprise in place of the Galactic Empire's oppression, economic
            controls, and high taxes."
           Typical Fox handwaving, to imply that republican government is
           the equivalent of Republican-dominated government.
2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37809 Activity:kinda low
5/23    http://csua.org/u/c5y (Post)
        A certain and clear pattern has emerged when a damaging accusation or
        claim against the Bush administration or the Republican-led Congress
        is publicized: Bush supporters laser in on a weakness, fallacy or
        inaccuracy in the story's sourcing while diverting all attention from
        the issue at hand to the source or the accuser in the story. ...
        Some will argue that such questions are irrelevant or miss the point
        because Bush's bold action in Iraq got rid of a tyrant who was abusing
        his own people and because it will eventually lead to the spread of
        democracy in the area. Both may be true. But the case for war was
        built neither on humanitarianism nor on spreading democracy. Those
        arguments were, at most, used to bolster the main case, which was that
        Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction and presented an
        imminent threat to America and its allies.
        \_ Bud Day doesn't appreciate your tone of voice.
           \_ If you really respected BUD DAY you would always capitalize
              His name.
              \_ You've obviously never served.
                 \_ If he did, it would destablize the middle east for
                    generations!
                    \_ Are you Chinese?  Do you understand the effect BUD
                       DAY had on the American War effort in China?
                    \_ Heh, I missed this one.
2005/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37792 Activity:nil
5/20    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/politics/main697013.shtml
        Bush says "the way to honor [Pope JP] is to continue to build a
        culture of life where the strong protect the weak."
        Is that why we're torturing Iraqis and bombing civilians, so that
        they will not terrorize other people?
        \_ No, dumbass, it's the reason why we keep brain-dead people
           alive against the wishes of those with the power-of-attorney
           and also why we are defunding stem-cell research so that we'll
           be behind every other industrialized country in biotech in the
           near future. The torturing Iraqis and bombing civilians has to
           do with this nation being good Evangelical Christians in
           general. Your propoganda fu is weak.
2005/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37790 Activity:nil
5/20    Headline of the day: "Bush promises probe into Saddam underwear
        pictures" (on Yahoo! news)
        Sadly now amended:
        http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/canderson/2005/05/20#23a505
2005/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37766 Activity:kinda low
5/19    Ha ha. http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180008
        Media Matters cracks me up.  Glenn Beck's motto is "half the politics,
        twice the comedy".  The quote they have from him is during a bit about
        "what you would do for 50 million dollars" because of Dave Chapelle's
        problems.  The quote was entirely tongue-in-cheek.  I've put an mp3 of
        the whole thing in /csua/tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3. -emarkp
        \_ Hahahaha, those whacky conservatives, always threatining to
        \_ Hahahaha, those whacky conservatives, always threatening to
           kill judges or beat up liberals or blow up the New York Times.
           What a great sense of humor you guys have. Hahahaha.
           \_ Whatever.  Listen to the clip.  http://MediaMatters.org did *not* put it
              in context, and it proves how ful of crap the site is. -emarkp
              \_ Threatening to kill your political opponents is just not
                 funny. Does Jon Stewart ever do this?
                 \_ Listen to the clip.  Heaven forbid you judge someone in
                    context.
                    \_ I will listen to it later, when I am not at work.
        \_ soda {158}% ls -l /csua/tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3
                       -rw-------  1 emarkp  wheel  13222106 May 19 13:56 /csua/\
tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3
           \_ Permissions fixed.  Sorry 'bout that. -emarkp
        \_ Not having researched this, it appears to me that you are looking
           very hard to find problems with http://mediamatters.org, when in contrast,
           it's not very hard to find serious problems with Dubya.
           \_ No, Beck mentioned it on his show, and I checked their site to
              verify it.
        \_ Oh, and the http://mediamatters.org article says he has 6 million
           listeners.  That's incorrect--he has 8 million.
        \_ Check out the Conservative "Accuracy In Media" crowd for
           fun sometime.
           \_ Oh, I'm sure there are partisan R's twisting the truth like crazy
              too. -emarkp
              \_ It doesn't pretend to be an unbiased sorce, just a liberal
                 media watchdog, like all the Conservative media watchdog
                 groups out there. It is better than the vast majority
                 of them, if you ask me. But then again, I am liberal,
                 so I would say that.
2005/5/18 [Recreation/Pets, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37755 Activity:nil 80%like:37753
5/18    Bush Attacking People in Texas:
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/18/birds.attack.ap/index.html
2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37731 Activity:moderate
5/18    Hand grenade thrown at Dubya during Georgia stop was live, but
        landed bad and didn't explode:
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/18/bush.georgia/index.html
        \_ This is pretty old news. It's been around for the past couple
           of days. Where have you been, poster, under a rock?
           \_ Old news == Grenade was fake or inert; there was no grenade
              New news == Grenade was live and may have exploded
              Where have you been poster, crying while masturbating in bed?
              \_ <YAWN> Whatever was tossed didn't explode. Who the fuck
                 cares anymore.
                 \_ Wouldn't have killed him anyhow, would've just killed
                    some random people in the crowd.
        \_ <vague threat against the president removed>
        \_ Damn the Georgians are stupid!
           \_ perfect example where the Americans interpret this statement as
              "Damn they're stupid for trying to kill our great leader" and
              everyone else interpret this statement as "Damn they're stupid
              for not successfully killing the world's biggest living tyrant."
              \_ Bias I sense here.                   -Yoda
2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37729 Activity:moderate
5/18    Yes yes yes! Enough with racial fighting, violence, and failing
        educational system in the second largest city in the US. DOWN with
        wealthy, out of touch white male politicians and in with a new
        minority mayor! It is about time. It's a huge victory for diversity,
        minorities, and average Americans       -white male politician hater
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4554873.stm
        \_ Why am I reading about a US mayor on the BBC?
           \_ uh, because your sense of perception is usually better when
              you're far away, whereas when you're closer things tend to be
              over-magnified or distorted? Or if you're asking why a foreign
              news cares about a sucky US city, is it because most of the
              world is well in tune with what goes on in the US, whereas the
              other way is untrue? This is, perhaps we are the most self
              indulgent species in the entire planet and we don't care about
              the world, or our perception by the world? Or maybe this is
              because unlike Europeans, we don't travel as much for
              whatever reason? Take your pick.
              \_ The Euros as a whole (massive overgeneralization) tend to
                 look at US politics as a pretty monolithic affair.  I
                 remember my gf watching Rumsfeld get the bitchsmack laid
                 on him at some Senate hearings and being extremely astounded
                 at how aggressively they were treating him.  You don't often
                 get that sort of depth of detail in most countries about
                 other countries' politics.  Who here heard of George
                 Galloway before he appeared in the Senate?  (You didn't miss
                 much) -John
              \_ What did BBC have to say about the District 2 special
                 election in Oakland? 'Cos I'm never heard of any of these
                 people, and I've been living here for six years and
                 worked for the City of Oakland for 3.5 years. --erikred
                 \_ Oakland is not the biggest 5 cities in the US, so it's
                    not really a city :)
                    not really a REAL city :)
                    \_ Damn you and your logic! :)
                    \_ I thought Oakland is the biggest US city by area,
                       although not by population.
                       \_ Not a chance, but you would be forgiven for thinking
                          so if you've ever driven down San Pablo and then
                          moved over to International all the way to San
                          Leandro. Speaking of which, are there any movie
                          theaters south/east of the Parkway?
                          \_ Follow-up: Oakland ranks 98th in area among
                             cities with pop > 100k.
                             http://www.demographia.com/db-us90city100karea.htm
                             \_ I love how the state of California is more
                                densely populated than the city of Anchorage.
        \_ This is not the first time LA has a non-white mayor, racist.
2005/5/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37714 Activity:low
5/16    "But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that
        somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of
        America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't
        think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to
        continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should
        not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my
        advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't
        appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution
        of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I
        am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying."
        -Sen Adams (R) NH on his filibuster of Clinton appointee Richard Perez
        \_ Where is that in the senate record?
        \_ You know, when googling this, it appears to be a quote from Senator
           Robert Smith on March 7, 2000, not Senator "Adams".  Where did you
           get this quote from?
           \_ I got it from a discussion forum I am on. I guess the guy
              got the author wrong, but Sen Robert Smith is a
              (R) from NH, right?
        \_ "Mr. President, this is just one year of the Presidency I am
           talking about. I have only dealt with 1992 when circuit court
           nominees were blocked in committee. I could have gone back
           further into the Bush Presidency. I could have gone back
           into other Presidencies. I didn't do that, but these are
           filibusters. When you don't allow a nomination to get to
           the Senate floor--it may not be under the technical term
           ``filibuster,'' but when you block it, that is a filibuster.
           You are not getting it here and you can't talk about it if
           it isn't up here. If it is languishing in committee, then
           we are not going to be able to debate it, approve it, or
           reject it. No matter how you shake it, they were filibusters
           led by committee chairmen rather than the majority leader
           on the floor."  From the same speech, Mr. Smith goes to
           washington and redefines the filibuster to include blocking
           in committee.  His speech starts on page S1209, and this
           quote is on page S1212, March 7 2000.
2005/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37689 Activity:low
5/15    Star Wars anti-Bush?
        http://csua.org/u/c2r (Yahoo Movies)
        \_ "Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations
           from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel
           trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his
           space fantasy."
           Let's see, Bush=Dark side, storm troopers=Marines, and US=facsist?
           If that's what Lucas is trying to convey (consciously or
           subconciously), I totally endorse him. GO LUCAS!
           \_ Cue Empire / Darth Vader music.  You should all play Kotor 2:
              "With all that talk about standing up on your own two feet, I
              shoulda known she was with the Dark Side!"
        \_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20050511
           \_ I think it is pretty clear "turning to the dark side" is a
              reference to homosexuality and sodomy.
                \_ The more seductive side of the force?
              \_ And here I thought it was a reference to stouts.  "Once
                 you go black, you'll never go back."
        \_ I actually think Star Wars I (the very first one) favors
           conservative/religious thinking. In the end, when Skywalker flys
           the X-plane and disengages his computerized scope in favor of
           using the "force", it is like a subtle way saying that science
           and engineering is no match for the almighty super-natural force.
           It's not clear what that force is, but one can easily interpret it
           as the force of Jesus, Allah, or whatever you want it to be.
              \- mysticism != organized/dogmatic religion. i think it is more
                 a case of romantic anti-rationalism. although "ironically"
                 the man in metal perhaps puts this best: "Don't be too proud
                 of this technological terror ... insignificant next to the
                 power of the Force." ... That's part of the reason it seemed
                 leem when the whole midichlorlian thing came up. ok tnx.--psb
2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37668 Activity:moderate
5/13    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050513/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/base_closings
        When was the last major closure of bases? Clinton? Kennedy? Does
        this mean there will be a lot of pissed off military men, with
        rifles and sniper guns and no jobs?
        \_ I REALLY hope pissed off jobless military men get militant and
           start throwing pies at Bush.
        \_ People from closed bases need to move to other bases.
           \_ yeah like bases in... Iraq.
           \_ so the cut-back is just savings from operational costs
              associated with geography?
              \_ Well there are the buildings on top of the geography and
                 the resources to keep them running.
        \_ Clinton closed a bunch of bases.  As I recall Republicans
           complained.  I bet the Dems do this time.
           \_ Mmm... a little history might give you a FUCKING CLUE.
              Dick Armey's legislation under Reagan created the commission
              so that Congress would be in on base closings.  Over the last
              17 years through 4 different presidents, there have been sporadic
              base closings.
              In 2002, Bush said he would veto the defense spending bill if
              they didn't include a provision for another commission for 2005.
           \_ Who cut more? Clinton closed down Treasure Island right?
              \_ Most of the moderately-recent Bay Area military base closures
                 were under Clinton -- NAS Alameda, Treasure Island, Mare
                 Island, Moffett, Fort Ord, maybe a few others. I seem to
                 recall a lot of military resource consolidation stuff under
                 Clinton's administration, much of which was (in my opinion)
                 fairly justified given the post-Cold-War reduction in
                 military forces. -gm
                 \_ Although the last round of closures did hit the bay area,
                    Dellums' clout as the ranking member of the armed
                    services committee protected us somewhat.
                    services committee protected us somewhat. Things
                    could be much worse this time around.
                    \_ Hang on a second.  Bases exist as tools for the
                       military to better protect the United States from
                       foreign aggression.  They are meant to be neither the
                       TVA nor the CCC nor any other make-work economic
                       stimulus.  When you start talking about being
                       "protected" from base closings, you get into dangerous
                       pork territory.  There are better and more efficient
                       ways of spending federal money than by suckling
                       communities on the teat of the military, such as on
                       Homeland Defense in threatened Iowa.  -John
                       \_ That is just the way politics works John and
                          it is somewhat naive to think otherwise. -ausman
                          \_ Of course it is, I'd assume you know I'm aware
                             of this :)  However, even if "it's just the way
                             it is", it's stupid and wrong and I'll certainly
                             point it out.  -John
                    \_ This is simply not true. The bay area was hit
                       disprportionately hard and this was a deliberate
                       disproportionately hard and this was a deliberate
                       sacrifice on the part of Dellums (and by extension
                       the Bay Area) to lead by example. Personally, I
                       I think we are better off with the Presidio being
                       converted to civilian use, for example.
                       \_ Bay area was hit hard because they couldn't get
                          enough gays/lesbians/peace-loving-liberals to sign

                          up and they couldn't take the heat from protestors :)
2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37660 Activity:kinda low
5/13    Listen to Bolton in his own voice (proof that he's not a nutjob):
        link:csua.org/u/c17
        \_ Wow, I didn't know anything about this till now. He seems to have
           a lot of Bush's qualities. Go America!
        \_ I was expecting beautiful voices of Michael Bolton but... nevermind
        \_ I was expecting beautiful voice of Michael Bolton but... nevermind
        \_ Our future UN Ambassador is so BIG and TAX FREE, and Condi Rice is
           behind him 100%!  Thanks for the URL, but I also think the spot
           would be much more effective without the text cues and the credit.
           behind him 100%!  Thanks for the URL.
           behind him 100%!
        \_ Okay I have a video without the text cues
           http://www.moveamericaforward.org/images/uploads/Bolton-UN.wmv
        \_ Gee, I don't know about this Bolton thing. I think it's just a
           setup. The conservatives want to put in a conservative candidate but
           know that he/she'll get rejected, so they put in an obvious radical
           nutcase (Bolton) that they know will get rejected. And while the
           Democrats declare victory for turning Bolton down, Republican's
           will put in the candidate they intended in the first place--
           conservative. It's kind of like a store where the merchant raises
           his price by 50%, then offer a 25% discount to buyers who think
           they're getting a deal. The merchant still get the better
           deal, but at least both sides are happy.
           \_ I don't think so.  I think the Bolton nomination was a total
              overreach, and when Voinivich put the breaks on a few weeks
              back, the WH had a big "oh crap" moment.  They could play the
              obstructionist card when it was just the opposition working to
              stop their nominations.  When R's start to break ranks on you,
              especially in today's party, you've seriously fucked up.
2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37657 Activity:nil
5/12    http://www.fair.org
        http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=2
        Search for Fox WMD. 85% of the Fox viewers think that there's WMD
        and only 16% of the other news think so. That is just one small
        example. FYI, it also reports that CNN and other liberal media
        are unfair as well. Basically, ALL news source suck, some more than
        the other.
        \_ And what do you conclude from those numbers?
        \_ And in other news, CBS has apparently hacked up an interview to
           make the interviewee say what they want.
           http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010443.php
        \_ The world is not about United States. The world is about...
           THE WORLD. That's why I balance spotty and biased U.S. News
           sources such as liberal LA/NY Times and red neck Fox News
           with other news source, such as European Daily, Japan Times,
           and Al Jazeera. I'm serious about the last one. To really
           understand the world, one needs to temporarily detach oneself
           from his/her cultural roots and try to understand and even
           empathize from all perspectives. I don't mean you should
           become a suicide bomber or burn American flags, but at least
           try to think the way they think. Unfortunately, this is too
           much to ask from your average Yankees (with IQ below 90).
           \_ Average IQ is less than 90?
            \_ Average IQ is 100, although in the past few decades it's been
               rising steadily. And I don't think average American necessarily
               have average IQ. More tests are needed, obviously.
               http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
               \_ First off, the average IQ is just that, the measure of
                  the average IQ of a cohort. Therefore, the average American
                  has an average IQ by definition. If you mean that the
                  average American has a lower IQ than the average XYZ
                  country, then that's another story. You can't say that
                  the average American doesn't have an average IQ, that's
                  like saying the average American doesn't make an average
                  income. Second, IQ only measures a very finite quantitative
                  subset of reasoning skills. Just because you have a
                  high IQ doesn't mean that you have a high EQ or that you
                  are more intelligent in things which the test does not
                  measure for. Trying to correlate IQ with politics is one of
                  the dumbest exercises around. You might as well correlate
                  favorite colors with politics or favorite foods with
                  politics.
        \_ Who are these people? They even have problems w/ the Newshour.
2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37628 Activity:nil
5/11    Die liberals die! Nuke all Muslims and cure all homosexuals!

I'm George Bush, and I approved this message.
2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37627 Activity:nil
5/11    I have a tribute to our great President, George W. Bush.
      .--.   |V|      HAIL
     /    \ _| / GEORGE W BUSH
     q .. p \ /     FREEDOM
      \--/  //      LIBERTY
     __||__//     AND JUSTICE
    /.    _/     FOR THE WORLD
   // \  /
        \_ How people did Bubba Clinton free from oppressive leaders?
2005/5/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37609 Activity:kinda low
5/10    http://csua.org/u/c02 (ifilm.com - wear headphones)
        Chris Rock in:  How Not to Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police
        Courtesy of http://freerepublic.com and "Police used Taser on pregnant driver"
        link on http://drudgereport.com.
        \_ Okay, that was great.  Where was that from?  Is there more?
           \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400021/posts
                \_ And on Fox News today, "Taser Guns Used As Abortion Device"
              \_ No no no.  I mean more Chris Rock, and is there more video
                 where that came from?
        \_ that's really old. freerepublic my ass.
2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37591 Activity:nil
5/9     Bush spying on terriorist communications!
        http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050509/photos_pl/mdf555296
2005/5/9-11 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37586 Activity:nil
5/9     Moonbats on parade!
        http://csua.org/u/bzs
        \_ Ungrateful Europeans! Let's nuke them all!   -Conservative Red Neck
2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37582 Activity:nil
5/9     So when is the draft coming?
        \_ "The last thing we need is a draft!" -D. Rumsfeld, Apr 27 2005
           \_ Are they preparing for the next "Bush big lie (tm)"?
2005/5/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37538 Activity:nil
5/5     Libertarians rejoice: President Bush has presided over the largest
        overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon
        B. Johnson.
        http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750
2005/5/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37488 Activity:nil
5/3     See, I am not the only one who thought it was a "smoking gun."
        http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/001795.html
        Will Bunch is the senior political writer for the Philadelphia
        Daily News.
        \_ You can never trust a Philadelphian.  Goddamn "brotherly love".
        \_ Perhaps the mainstream media felt stung by CBS/Rather memo-gate
           and thought a new memo with text like this was definitely forged
           and/or easily dismissed by right-wing commentators as the biased
           perspective of a Labour Party staffer.
           "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a
           perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as
           inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
           justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
           But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
           policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no
           enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.
           There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after
           military action."
2005/5/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37441 Activity:high
5/2     Can someone please tell me this memo is fake before the freepers do?
        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html
        \_ My UK minions assure me that it's real.  Quote: "Death's too good
           for him.  They need to invent the Pit of Sysiphus for him.." -John
           \_ Doesn't the Conservative Party practically run the Times? - danh
           \_ Who's quote is that and who is it referring to?  Blair's in
              reference to Saddam?  Your friend in reference to Blair? -dans
              \_ I believe John is quoting his UK minion, who feels that
                 Blair should be in the Pit of Sisyphus.
                 \_ Okay, that was pretty much the only reading that made
                    sense to me.  That said, my memory of the Myth of Sisyphus
                    is hazy... I know he was condemned to roll a boulder up a
                    hill in Hades for eternity, and every time he rolled it to
                    the hilltop it would roll back down and crush him.
                    Where's the pit come into the picture?
                    \_ Maybe he's wishing Blair an eternity of answering
                       silly, pedantic questions :-) -John
        \_ This is it: the smoking gun. Proof that Bush lied. Good work.
           \_ WTF are you talking about?  You don't score too well on reading
              comprehension tests, do you?  This is proof that Tony Blair
              lied, but it's quite a stretch to try to pin internal minutes
              from an UK government meeting on the US president.  Don't get me
              wrong, I loathe Bush at least as much as you do, it's just that
              you don't improve our collective credibility much by crying,
              ``smoking gun, smoking gun!'' every time some marginally
              incriminating document pops up.  Unless of course you're a
              troll, in which case, way to go, Mission Accomplished! -dans
              \_ You a dullard. Here, in the simplest possible terms for
                 you:
                 "AS a civil service briefing paper specifically prepared
                  for the July meeting reveals, Blair had made his
                  fundamental decision on Saddam when he met President
                  George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

                  When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President
                  Bush at Crawford in April, states the paper, he said
                  that the UK would support military action to bring
                  about regime change."

                  I will find the quote from after that were Bush
                  contradicts that in a second. Are you sure you aren't
                  really a Republican pretending to be a Democrat?
                 " Straw warned that, though Bush had made up his mind
                   on military action..." -Aug 2002
                 " THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I have told the
                   Prime Minister that my hope is, is that we could
                   achieve a disarmament of the Iraqi regime peacefully.
                   I haven't given up on the fact that we can achieve
                   it peacefully. We have no plans to use our military
                   until -- unless we need to. I explained to the
                   Prime Minister, just like I explain to every citizen
                   who is interested in this, the military is my last
                   choice, not my first choice." -Oct 2002
                 Do you see how Bush claims that no decision to use
                 military force has been made, even though the decision
                 was made months before?
                 \_ And you are the bloody boy who cried wolf.  I see how you
                    can make a case for your point, but what you're so-called
                    smoking gun lacks (aside from the smoke and the gun) is a
                    bullet-proof piece of evidence that the decision was,
                    indeed, made months before.  Keep in mind that I *believe*
                    this to be the case, but it's one thing to believe that
                    events happened a certain way, and an entirely different
                    matter to have unassailable evidence (cf. The Pentagon
                    Papers) of what took place. -dans
                 \_ Did Straw meet with Bush or did just Blair?  If Straw
                    didn't hear it from Bush directly, then it's all just
                    hearsay and not admissible.
              \_ you've been trolled. that sentence is dripping w/sarcasm.
                 \_ you're stupid.
        \_ I think there maybe an error. Jack Straw was not the foreign
           minister at the time. Robin Cook was - he resigned in protest
           over the invasion.
           \_ From Wikipedia:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Cook
              "After the 2001 general election he was moved from the
              Foreign Office to be Leader of the House of Commons.
              This was widely seen as a demotion, but Cook welcomed
              the chance to spend more time on his favourite stage.
              As Leader of the House he was responsible for reforming
              the hours and practices of the House."
              Jack Straw was indeed Foreign secretary from 2001 on.
2005/4/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37419 Activity:nil
4/29    Rumsfeld, Spider-Man, and Captain America (work-safe)
        http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/29/snap6_gallery__550x391.jpg
        The Washington Post was good enough to crop the image.
2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37390 Activity:high
4/28    http://csua.org/u/bw0
        Dubya asks networks and cable to show prime-time 8:30 EDT news
        conference, the first prime-time conference since last year.
        The topic last year:  Iraq.
        The topic this year:  Social Security.
        Yes, reporters will probably ask about the Duelfer report, and I
        predict Dubya will say "Removing Saddam was the right thing to do.
        The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.  The people of Iraq no
        longer suffer under the rule of a ruthless dictator."  If reporters
        persist, Dubya will say, "By removing Saddam, we have given the people
        of Iraq a taste of freedom.  Freedom is on the march.  Freedom has
        spread to the Ukraine ... to the people of Lebanon ... and Libya saw
        the example we made out of Saddam and gave up their nukular program."
        If asked specifically about the lack of WMDs, Dubya will say,
        "I always supported reforms to our intelligence services, and I have
        informed members of Congress to take the recommendations of the 9/11
        Commission seriously, so that the events of that day will never replay
        again."
        "Was it worth it?  Sure it was worth it.  Ask the person who got his
        hands cut off because he opposed Saddam.  Ask the Kurds who were gassed
        to death because they wanted freedom.  Of course it was worth it, and
        if I had to do it all over again, I would."
        I'm sure you can think of more.
        \_ What is your fucking point. Yes he'll say things that you predicted.
           And that is the appeal to an average American-- a President who
           sticks to his guns, a President who is repetitive, a President
           with whom he can relate more to [than an intellect]. The fact
           of the matter is, most academics think he sucks, but the average
           Joe doesn't think so. The average Joe selects the President, and
           the average Joe prefers George W Bush, not some uncharming
           intellectual dweeb.
           \_ You haven't seen any polls in the last three months.  This
              president being popular is a myth.
                 \_ So where are the Vietnam-like protestors? Where are the
                    tomato throwers? Bush may not be popular but he is a lot
                    more popular than say, Nixon.
                    \_ There have been tons of protestors.  If you haven't
                       seen them, you're watching too much tv news and not
                       enough newspapers.  Also, the protestors in vietnam-era
                       were probably a similar proportion of the population.
                       Minds are changing.  Majorities don't build in protest.
                       They build alongside them.
                    \_ whoah there, nellie.   Here comes the "at least we're
                       not as bad as Saddam" argument again.
                       \_ The whole reason we have Dubya is "at least he's
                          not as bad as Kerry" although a lot of people are
                          having second thoughts
           \_ The average Joe still thinks there were WMDs in Iraq.
              \_ The average Joe probably couldn't point to Iraq on a fucking
                 map or tell you what the difference between Iran and Iraq is
                 aside from a letter of the alphabet.
                 \_ Wait, there's a difference?
        \_ Keep laughing. The Average Joe selects our Idiot In Chief, and will
           continue to do so until you stop making fun of his low intelligence
           and until you DO something about it, like education and awareness.
           \_ You think I'm laughing?
              Once again, the Average Joe still thinks there were WMDs in
              Iraq.  That Dubya hasn't been loud and clear on the facts of
              the primary reason we went to Iraq is the greatest tragedy of
              his presidency.
        \_ None of the reporters asked about the lack of WMDs.  Why didn't
           some brave reporter ask:
           "Mr. President, you are known as a plainspoken man, who prides
           directness and honesty over long-winded explanations.
           From what your intelligence people are telling you now, did Saddam
           have weapons of mass destruction or not?  Please don't give me a
           long-winded explanation:  Please answer with a Yes or No.  If the
           intelligence folks are not sure, please tell me which they think is
           more likely.
           In a Washington Post / ABC News poll take March 13 this year, 56% of
           Americans say they think Saddam did have WMDs." -op
           \_ According to Tenet it was a "slam dunk" so there you go.
2005/4/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37368 Activity:nil
4/26    Happy Chernobyl day!
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1469597,00.html?=rss
        http://www.chernobyl.info - danh
2005/4/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37358 Activity:kinda low 52%like:36226
4/25    So what was the gay male prostitute doing at the White House
        on those overnight stays? Why is the press not reporting this?
        http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm
        \_ Because this is old news that Jon Stewart covered weeks ago.
           \_ Weeks ago we hadn't heard that he bypassed usual sign in/out
              procedures...
        \_ Because the press is owned by Fox, Bush, and affiliates.
        \_ Because no one cares?
        \_ Because the Gannon was performing his day job on various "members"
        \_ Because Gannon was performing his day job on various "members"
           of the press at those times?
           \_ A couple of the instances, there were no press conferences.
2005/4/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37351 Activity:kinda low
4/25    Is Bush and the Crown Prince actually holding hands in this
        photo?
        http://csua.org/u/bue
        \_ Looks like it.  That doesn't bother me.  You realize that's
           totally normal in a lot of countries, right?
           \_ I've been to a lot of different countries, but i've yet been to
              one where it's normal to be close personal friends
              with an evil theocratic dictator.
              one where it's normal to be close personal friends with an evil
              theocratic dictator.
                \_ Bush would drop down and blow him if it would drop oil
                   prices by $10/barrel.
                   \_ Actually, he wouldn't.  Bush is the man who blew $300B
                      and thousands of lives to "get saddam".
                        \_ The Iraqi resistance didn't go along with the
                           oil price reduction plan like they were supposed
                           to.
               \_ I heard it's normal for many Arab nations.  I presume when
                  you said you've been to a lot of different countries,
                  Arab nations are included, no?
        \_ They are merely exchanging long protein strings.  If you can think
           of a better way I'd like to hear it.
2005/4/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37337 Activity:nil
4/24    Battle for control of the Democratic party
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390299/posts?page=1,50
        [ip address replaced;  fuck you.]
         \_ doesn't everyone know it's http://freerepublic.com by now?
2005/4/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37295 Activity:nil
4/21    Yay!
        "Republicans on Thursday moved closer to a showdown with Democrats
        over filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees, sending two
        judges under dispute to the full Senate. ... Conservatives during the
        last Congress accused Democrats of being anti-minority for blocking
        Brown, who is black; anti-women for blocking Owen, and anti-Catholic
        for blocking Pryor."
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/filibuster.fight.ap/index.html
        \_ Because it couldn't be that they're anti-psycho..
2005/4/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37282 Activity:nil
4/20    http://csua.org/u/brv
        LA Times editorial staff says Bolton should voluntarily withdraw from
        consideration for UN ambassadorship - saving Dubya the embarrassment of
        yanking him - and instead take an ambassadorship to France.
        \_ oh, they'll love him in France
        \_ Interesting, but I thought he had every vote he needs thanks to a
           Rep senator who is, by his own admission, voting against the wishes
           of his consituency. Then again, that was yesterday morning.
           \_ Ooh, you missed a good one.  Voinovich (of all people) threw
              in a monkey wrench.  They put off the committee vote for 3 weeks
              or something.  But it doesn't look good for bolton.
              \_ Go to http://freerepublic.com, do a search for Voinovich, and guess
                 how fast this guy's going to buckle.
2005/4/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37278 Activity:nil
4/20    Today in History: Jimmy Carter Attacked by Killer Rabbit (Apr 20, 1979)
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387141/posts
        \- well in a weird version of Godwin's Law, also Hitler bday. --psb
           \_ EOT
2005/4/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37248 Activity:high
4/18    Here's a fun one.  If you could pick any historical era to have lived
        during, what would it be?  I would choose Enlightenment era Europe.
        \_ If you mean other than the current era, I would choose Ancient
           Greece, around the time of Socrates.
           \- you mean during the peloponnesian war and plague of athens
              which kills +25% of the population? what are your second and
              3rd choices? the black death and london 1666? --psb
              \_ To see Socrates deliver the Apology would be
                 worth it. The only thing that even comes close
                 would be to see Lincoln at Gettysburg.
                 \- Socrates was ugly and smelled bad. --fwn
                    \_ Yeah, but he was honest about it. -socrates #1 fan
                       \- i think it is pretty tough to pick an "old time"
                          to actually live in [no antibiotics,anesthetics etc],
                          but if i had to pick single day, I would rather go
                          hear Homer the singer of songs tell of the Wrath of
                          Achilleus. Not only would it be an amazing and
                          unique performance, but you could answer the great
                          "Homer Question". If I had to pick from from 5th
                          Century Athens, tough call between Apology and
                          something like the Pericles Funeral Oration. However,
                          speading the day with Socrates in Pireaus beats
                          both of those [and certainly beats Symposium] ...
                          "I went down yesterday to Pireaus with Glaucon
                          some of Ariston and PSB son of NGB ... Polemarchus
                          some of Cephalus, noticed us in the distance and
                          son of Ariston and PSB son of NGB ... Polemarchus
                          son of Cephalus, noticed us in the distance and
                          sent his slave to tell us to wait for him ...".
                          If I had to spend 5 min somewhere, it's temping
                          to be a "fly on the wall" at the meeting of Attila
                          Hun and Leo I [one of the two "Great" Popes] to
                          figure out what the hell he said to get Attila that
                          figure out what the hell he said to Attila that
                          got him to turn around and go home. There is also a
                          story about Scipio and Hannibal meeting [in Plutarch,
                          I believe] but I am not sure that really happened.
                          \_ Ah but would you understand anything these people
                             were saying?
                             \- It would be greek to me.
                                --pater andron te theon te
       \_ If I get to keep all the knowledge that I know now then take me
          back to 1995.
       \_ Only the modern era has the three most important inventions:
          Hot running water, air conditioning, and dentistry.
        \_ Just a few years back so I could take advantage of well known
           stock price fluctuations.
           \_ Sheesh, don't you guys understand the term "era"?
        \_ Early 1930s or late 1940s if I got a boatload of cash.  -John
        \_ This really depends on WHAT I'm going to be. Do I get to choose
           to be a peasant or a war lord?
           \_ Let's say you keep your current relative level of wealth and
              power.  So, if you're in the 80th percentile for wealth now,
              you'd be in the 80th percentile then.  Bush would get to be a
              warlord; maybe you can be a successful merchant. -!op
              \_ So how do I find out what percentile I'm in? Am I above 80%
                 by the simple virtue of having a degree from Cal?
                 \_ In 2003, the 80th percentile U.S. household made $86,860.
                    http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032004/hhinc/new05_000.htm
        \_ If I can keep prior knowledge, I would pick the 40s. In fact,
           I'd pick 1945. I'd study to be a nurse, and then work at New Haven
           Hospital in Connecticut. I'd wait for a new born, Georgy, on
           7/6/1946. And then I'd "take care of him". By doing so, I will
           have saved a lot of innocent blood and revived our Great Nation.
           \_ Such a deep sense of patriotism, and you served when?
              List other government offices you've served in:
           \_ oh, I dunno, offing stalin might have done us better.
              \_ Stalin affected Russians, and I don't really care about
                 them. I care about how US economy and US policy is fucked
                 up, because I'm an American, and I'm here. Now. 21st century.
                 \_ you are reason #1 why we should go back and start offing.
        \_ unless it is a holiday you experience relative to your real life,
           only a romantic fool would prefer to live in the past. born there,
           you will miss the context within which it seems so nice to
           modern daydreamers... i'd consider the future but not without
           some reasonable travel guides so i can pick the utopian or livable
           parts and avoid some b-movie post-apocalyptic cannibal feast.
           \_ Soylent green is PEOPLE!!!
2005/4/18-19 [ERROR, uid:37243, category id '18005#6.34125' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37243 Activity:nil
4/18    It Can Happen Here:
        http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-15.htm
        \_ Reasonable point.  Problem with the presentation, though; such a
           phaenomenon in a "western democracy" would be unlikely to take the
           shape of Hitlerism.  Conjuring up images of Nazism immediately
           makes Joe Average think "oh, a kook" and look away.  -John
2005/4/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Canada] UID:37231 Activity:nil
4/17    Who is Maurice Strong? - international political player
        http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v49/ai_19722906/print
2005/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37220 Activity:nil
4/16    Evil Democrats are 'against people of faith':
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/15/republicans.filibusters.ap
        May conservatism be strong in the US, and GOD BLESS.
2005/4/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37150 Activity:nil
4/12    It is easy to dismiss this guy as a crackpot, but he is
        a Senior Fellow for EPIC, a retired NSA analyst and
        was an intelligence officer in the Marine Corp:
        http://csua.org/u/bnk (onlinejournal)
2005/4/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37122 Activity:low
4/8     Evil AP:   "The Republican president's job approval is at 44 percent,
                   with 54 percent disapproving."
        Holy CNN:  "In the poll taken Friday and Saturday, Bush's job-approval
         /Gallup   rating is 48%, 3 percentage points higher than in mid-March.
                   His standing on personal characteristics such as
                   trustworthiness remains above 50%."
        \_ Regarding AP, only 1% is neutral or has no opinion?  Hard to
           believe.
           \_ Evil AP:
              "Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings
              about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
              If "mixed feelings" or not sure: "If you had to choose, do you
              lean more toward approve or disapprove?"
              Holy CNN/Gallup:
              "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is
              handling his job as president?"
              \_ So AP forces people to make choices.
                 \_ The idea is to get the guy a higher approval rate.
                    Doesn't that make sense?
                    Independent of this, it is natural to assume (without
                    any evidence, usually) that the AP has liberal leaning
                    staffers, and CNN has pro-administration leaning staffers.
                    Following this reasoning, the true approval rating is
                    between 44 and 48%.
2005/4/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37100 Activity:moderate
4/7     Why does Laura Bush get to go to Rome as part of the official
        delegation but Jimmy Carter doesn't?  Is a current First Lady, which is
        not an official, more important than a former president?
            \_ one word:  BJ. Sleeping with the CIC does have perks.
        \_ Idiot, Carter didn't want to go. He was offered but he
           declined, ergo the First Lady/Rice took his spot.
           \_ I heard dubya denied brook berry too!
           \_ 'Former President Carter had hoped to go as well, but backed off
              when told the Vatican had limited the official delegation to
              five"  (http://csua.org/u/blv
              five "and there were also others who were eager to attend,"'
              http://csua.org/u/blv
              \_ "eager to attend" doesn't show up in that story.  The version
                 I was told was that Jimmy wanted to take his wife, but that
                 would have made 6 people.  Should he have been able to take
                 his wife while Laura Bush stayed home?
                 \_ We should be ecstatic that Bush actually went, dressed the
                    part, and didn't pull a Cheney.
                    \_ The pope is part of old christianity.  We're allies with
                       new up-and-coming denominations like born-again
                       evangelicals, yadda yadda...
                       \_ And Poland, and Italy, and (we wish) a ton of
                          S. America, and and and... -John
           \_ link:www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2005/04/07/news/nation/11332763.htm
2005/4/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37081 Activity:moderate
4/5     Watch total moron write about how "we were ALL wrong!" on WMDs:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28418-2005Apr5.html
        (Yes, you can be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and be an idiot.)
        \- Richard Posner has been called a lot of things for sure, but
           nobody ever calls him an idiot. The same is said for Scalia, but
           Posner >> Scalia. --psb
           \_ OK, he has a lot of poorly founded assumptions in there, and
              neglects a lot of very compelling arguments that counter his
              article's points.  -John (!op)
              \- He's writing in the WaPo. He writes more substantially
                 but still to the general informed reader at:
                   http://www.becker-posner-blog.com
                 You can also follow Poser via "Article iii groupie". --psb
                 \- This is a good article about Posner, by Alan Ryan, who
                    is well-regarded philosopher. --psb
                    http://csua.org/u/blb
                 \_ OK, I wasn't commenting on Posner per se, as I know he
                    can be a smart guy, but even smart guys write shit
                    articles occasionally.  And this one is not worthy.  -John
                    \-  Posner does "skip steps" a lot. You have to have some
                        insight into the Giant Hedgehog World View to follow
                        what he is saying often. Also, sometimes he is
                        making a narrow technical point and should do a little
                        more to circumscribe his comments and clearly indicate
                        certain generalizations should not be drawn. He really
                        is somebody who weighs in on everything (see google).
                        One reason he probably wont be nominated to USSC. --psb
                        \_ If there is an opening, many feel that Posner
                           will be nominated b/c he is universally recognized
                           as one of the finest minds in the judiciary, the
                           Cardozo or Holmes of our generation if you will.
                           \- you mean you dont think BUSH I was correct when
                              he said THOMAS was the best man for the job?
                              while i think he'd be a good chief [would be
                              respected by current justices, is a machine
                              when it comes to productivity] i would be
                              surprise to see ROVECO nominate him, --psb
                              \- You know if by some miracle posner became
                                 chief justice, he might bag on THOMAS some,
                                 which would be really awesome. here is the
                                 hatchet job on DOUGLAS. --psb
                         http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/posner-antihero.html
                              \_ I think Posner is better than Thomas,
                                    \- gee, really?
                                 (which does not imply that Thomas is
                                 a bad justice, I would be overjoyed
                                 to be as "bad" as Thomas.)
           \_ Is Posner being a devious asshole, by ignoring his higher
              intellectual faculties?  Is Posner helping his good friends /
              associates while consciously ignoring the obvious truth of the
              matter?
              Perhaps.  Until then, he's an idiot.
              His reputation for non-idiocy may have gotten him on the Post
              opinions page for this article, but his non-idiot cachet just
              took a big hit.
        \_ He's not an idiot. He is a very smart and clever propagandist.
           Note his use of "nearly every competent observer." Anyone who
           disagrees with the Establishment line, is by definition,
           incompetent and not worth listening to. It is this kind of
           self-sustaining insular world view that has put Washington DC
           on such a collision course with the rest of the world. These
           people are like Michael Jackson: they are nuts, but so wealthy
           and powerful that they can just fire anyone who tells them
           anything they don't want to hear.
           \_ Competent observer means those who have invested sufficient
              time and resources into investigating and observing the
              situation. This does not mean anyone who disagrees w/ the
              establishment's line is incompetent. In this case there were
              no parties who had invested as much time and effort as MI-6,
              CIA, &c. into investigating the situation and had reached a
              dissenting opinion.
              When it comes down to it, who are you going to trust, the
              spooks or a bunch of loony tie-dye pot smoking kooks w/
              purple hair and body piercings shouting free mumia, free pot
              and no blood for oil? I'd go w/ the spooks everytime, they
              have a much better track record than the kooks.
              \_ The kooks knew about COINTELPRO before anyone else.
2005/4/1-3 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37040 Activity:nil
4/1     I don't get it.  How is the Schiavo case going to lead to more
        restrictive laws?  The vast majority of the public was against
        all the last-minute theatrics and interventions.  Or is this the
        New York Times being a bunch of hacks again? (not the liberal use
        of the phrase "may be")
        http://csua.org/u/bk2 (nytimes.com)
2005/4/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37021 Activity:nil
4/1     Seriously, the last post on the Schiavo Circus:
        http://csua.org/u/bjt (St. Petersberg Times)
        \_ It can't be the last one.  I declared a 5 day discussion period
           before we can forget about it forever.
2005/3/31 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37005 Activity:nil
3/31    I have no problem trusting my life to my other-half. But I DO
        have a problem if he/she is fucking someone else, not to
        mention have 2 kids with them. In that situation, I trust my
        parents more. Think about that for a sec, would you trust your
        'loved' one if they were fucking someone else for so many
        years and then all of a sudden decided that you should
        probably die? The probability of your parents want you dead is
        a lot lower than the probability of your partner want you dead
        for whatever reason there might be. I do agree with Dubya, in
        a situation like this, we should error on the side of life.
        Even if she has no chance of recovery, what's wrong with just
        keeping her alive? How different is this from stopping
        medication to cancer patients because after all, they WILL
        die? Is it because the cancer patients says "oh I want to
        live" and she can't??  If both the parents and the husband
           \_ Your brain has been classified as small.
        believe the tube should be removed to end suffering, then I
        have no problem with that, but if there's a disagreement, then
        there's a disagreement, and I really have a problem with the
        fact the husband have more 'power' than the parents. If he
        wasn't fucking someone else then my position would be neutral.
        But he IS. If he's practically married to the other person,
        then he loses all credibility to decide her life. And why
        doesn't the husband come out and say anything himself?
        Everything is said through the Lawyer, yeah, sure, that really
        helps to show his sincerity. At least the parents have the
        guts to say things to the media themselves and for that I gave
        them credit and was one of the things that swing me from
        neutral to their side. May her rest in peace.
                        -someone who hates GWB
        \_ If I have no brain response, and have no hope of recovery, and
           deteriorate over time, I hope to GOD my spouse would move on with
           her life.  If I told her I didn't want to live that way, I would
           hope she would be my guardian until I was dead.  After the shit
           that was this case, I would be CERTAIN to make a living will.  But
           I sure as hell would not want my parents challenging my own
           decision.  BTW, just how long would you want your spouse to wait
           before moving on with their life?  If doctors told them you would
           not recover?
        \_ Dude, the bitch is dead.  You and your little pro-life freaks
           lost.  Get over it.
        \_ I trust the three out of four neurologists who have conducted a
           neurological exam and deemed her to have been in a persistent
           vegetative state for 11+ years.
        \_ Quit flogging a dead ...    Oh never mind, too easy.
2005/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37001 Activity:nil
3/31    You'd think a "liberal" media would be all over this.  As it is
        you have to do your own searching of various Texas newspapers to
        learn about Sun Hudson, the six month old boy who was put to
        death by a hospital, despite his mother pleading for his life.
        Sun Hudson had a fatal disease, but was alive and conscious when
        the hospital staff, following a law signed by George W Bush,
        killed him.
        And Bush says: I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue
        to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and
        valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of
        others.
        Unless "others" excludes hospitals in Texas, and "all Americans"
        excludes six month old boys from poor families.
        \_ Well, don't forget: They were black and not Christian.  So others
           also excludes non-white pagans or atheists.
        \_ What law signed by Bush ordered the hospital staff to kill the boy?
           \_ The Futile Care Law.  It didn't order them to.  It allowed them
              to make the decision, without recourse.  I'm not so much bothered
              by the law, but by the hypocrisy in having signed such a law,
              then sweeping in to the aid of Ms. Schiavo.
        \_ I saw it here:
           http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43311
           but of course people dismiss worldnetdaily because it's full of
           right-wing nuts, right?
           \_ It seems like it would at least be worth mentioning that the law
              this action was taken under was signed by the President.
              \- i think this episode does show the republican controlled
                 legislature has gone nuts ... considering they were repeatedly
                 chastised by multiple judges with solid conservative but
                 not populist credentials. As John Dryden wrote:
                      The moderate sort of men, thus qualifi'd,
                      Inclin'd the balance to the better side:
                          ...
                      But when the chosen people grew more strong,
                      The rightful cause at length became the wrong.
                 --psb
2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36998 Activity:nil
3/31    Yay!  Wolfowitz elected as World Bank president!
        When you're on the right team, Dubya takes care of you!
        \_ May actually be a good thing.  Wait and see.  At least he's not
           afraid of pissing people off who can use a good pissing off.
           Problem is, he might just piss off everyone else too.  -John
2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36994 Activity:high
3/31    "We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost
        all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"
        -Bi-partisan Commision on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
         U.S. Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, in letter to Pres. Bush
        \_ What fucking difference does it make? "The world is better
           without Saddam", no shit!
        \_ I wonder if this will significantly change the 56% of those polled
           in mid-March that still think Saddam had WMDs.
           \_ That would require people actually paying attention.
                \_ you misspelled "with brains".
                   \_ You don't need brains.  All you need are conservative
                      talk show hosts talking about how "EVERYBODY was wrong"
                      how Dubya ain't a liar, EVERYBODY thought Saddam had
                      them.  Instead, they're all talking about a vegetable,
                      but that's life, uh, the culture of life.
        \_ "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
           doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of
           the most lethal weapons ever devised. ... The United States and
           other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we
           will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward
           tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of
           horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be
           removed. ... Recognizing the threat to our country, the United
           States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use
           of force against Iraq." Pres. Bush, 3/17/03
        \_ "The commission said it was ``not authorized to investigate
           how policy makers used the intelligence assessments.''"
           I thought that's what this one was supposed to be...
           \_ Nonono ... they were authorized to investigate whether policy
              makers PRESSURED the intelligence analysts / agencies while the
              intelligence was being analyzed.
              If you were right, then Condi "centrifugue tube" Rice would be
              out as the moronic Stanford Provost that she was.
              \_ Listening to NPR's freshair made me really depressed
              to hear how  many morons are in the State Department and how
              good they are at squashing people who actually come up with
              good ideas. Damn depressing.
        \_ I told you so. -motd thought leader
        \_ So it was for oil right? Yeah prices are at record lows.
           So it was a distraction right? Yeah Iran is going to nuke Israel
           A narrow vision
           \_ It was to assert America's military strength, and change US
              policy to one of aggressive intervention, per PNAC.  -tom
              \_ which is yet more proof that republican men have bad
                 sex lifes  and take it out elsewhere just like the famous
                 quote from Good Morning Vietnam  ... The world would be a
                 safer place if there was alot more sex (and the condoms to go
                 with it)
                 \_ say WHAT? tom holub is a hard core left wing socialistic
                    dweeb and he's not getting any.
                    \_ wrong, kchang.  -tom
                       \_ Tom does seem to take the MotD awfully seriously.
                          Tom, do insults here keep you up at night?
                          \_ No, but yermom does.
        \_ It is not George's fault he trusted the most important decision
           of his life to a guy code named "Curveball."
           http://csua.org/u/bjl
2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36992 Activity:high
3/31    Terry Schiavo dies.
        http://www.cnn.com
        \_ Any guesses on coverage ratio of this vs. the scathing WMD report
           that came out today?
           \_ Well, on the major news sites, it's in big print, but it's
              invariably #2 to the Schiavo story.
        \_ is it over now or do we have to put up with weeks of bickering over
           who has burial/disposal rights?
           \_ I give it about 5 days of additional bickering, and then everyone
              will totally forget about it.
        \_ Her name was Terri.  Short for Theresa.  If you don't give a damn
           about it, please don't comment on it.
           \_ woke up on the wrong side of the bed, did we?
              \_ I've been following this case for 2 years.  I never saw it as
                 a "right-to-life" or "right-to-die" issue.  It was a "can a
                 husband kill a wife" issue.  I'm sad that a single judge was
                 able to order her to be killed.  I "woke up" to find out that
                 Terri was dead and all our futures are in danger.
                 \_ can a husband kill his wife and get away with it?
                        \_ ask oj
                 \_ If you could exchange places with someone terminal in
                    excruciating pain in the last few weeks life for an hour
                    I'll bet your entire viewpoint of the situation would
                    change.  All our futures are in danger -- what is the
                    % chance of ending up on life support for 15 years while
                    in a PVS?
                 \_ Of four neurologists who have done a neurological exam on
                    Terri, three said she was in a persistent vegetative state.
                    That's how it is.
                    \_ Actually, it was 8 doctors, 7 concurring.
                      \_ I'd read from CNN or AP (can't remember which) that
                         evidence from 5 doctors was used, 2 from husband,
                         2 from the parents, and one appointed by the court.
                         Unsurprisingly, 2 from parents said she could recover,
                         2 from husband as she wouldn't, and the court
                         appointed doctor said she wouldn't.  So, bascially
                         3/5 with 4/5 giving largely meaningless testimony.
                 \_ How about letting a hospital kill a six month old boy,
                    following a law signed by then governor George W Bush?
                    Um, right, that's somehow different.
                 \_ "a single judge"? the u.s. supreme court refused to hear
                    the case multiple times. 9 judges there. an appeal went
                    to a 3-judge panel on the 11th circuit court. 2 ruled
                    against the schindlers, one for. the full 11th circuit
                    court later upheld that ruling. of the 12 judges, only 2
                    dissented. and lest you argue the "evil liberal judge"
                    tack, the majority of these judges are republican.
                 \_ "can a husband kill a wife"? please. are you one of those
                    religious zealots who relies on the bible for the law
                    (as opposed to the constitution), who doesn't believe in
                    the multiple clinicans who thoroughly evaluated her, who
                    doesn't believe that she made a living will...who, when
                    all those failed you, resorted to a smear campaign
                    against the husband? it sure sounds like it. don't worry
                    about our future so much, it'll be ok.
            \_ Theresa? Can they still make her a saint? Since there's already
               Mother Theresa on the saint track. How do they deal with
               ambiguously named saints?
                           \- there is already a famous st. theresa [of avila].
                              theresa isnt mother therasa's orgiginal name.
                              you are a doofus. --psb
                                        \_ I take pride in not knowing
                                           about saints.  --dufus, patron
                                                              st. of MOTD
                                                \-it's not a matter of being
                                                  versed in the history of
                                                  the church. do you really
                                                  think they turn down people
                                                  because there already is
                                                  somebody with the same
                                                  name canonized? ... "you
                                                  should have considered
                                                  thomas beckett, before you
                                                  started writing summa
                                                  theological, thomas aquinas".
                                                  you have never heard of them
                                                  or st. thomas more? there are
                                                  like 50 or a 100 st. marys.
                                                  what is sort of weird are the
                                                  nuns who pick a man's name
                                                  after taking holy orders.
                                                                   --psb
                                                  \_ I was being facetious
                                                     with the saint question
                                                     and asked about the names
                                                     since it came to mind and
                                                     I'd never considered it.
                                                     I was thinking in type, so
                                                     to speak.
                                                     After that I went to
                                                     http://catholic.org/saints and
                                                     saw the multiplicities of
                                                     certain saint names, many
                                                     don't even have "of Rome"
                                                     or anything else to
                                                     disambiguate. I guess they
                                                     divinely know to which one
                                                     the prayers are directed.
                                           \_ Wait...St Dufus of MOTD or of
                                              CSUA?  Which?  Or are they the
                                              same?  Shit...now I'm all
                                              confused.
                                              \_ It's "Dufus of the CSUA,
                                                 patron saint of MOTDs and
                                                 trolls".
               \_ You shall be named:  St. Dufus of the CSUA
                  \_ Surely there is already a St. Dufus of CSUA? what's the
                     next level of disambiguation?

                     Almighty and eternal God,
                     grant we beseech Thee that,
                     through the intercession of Saint Dufus the lesser of CSUA
                     troller and nuker,
                     during our journeys through the MOTD we will direct our
                     hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee
                     and treat with charity and patience all those trolls whom
                     we encounter.
                     Through Christ our Lord.
                     Amen
2005/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36964 Activity:low
3/30    Pat Buchanan on democracies killing themselves:
        http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_28/buchanan.html  -John
        \_ Nice essay by Pat.  Wonder what he thinks of the power grab
           by the White House?  --PeterM
           \_ Good question--I don't recall PB being much of a statist, yet
              this article article seems to have a bit of a contradiction
              between "government must safeguard liberties" and be restricted
              by the constitution (the Jefferson quote) and "don't let the
              people decide anything".  Hmm.  -John
              \_ PB is a statist of the Old School.  I think "Conservative"
                 had a much different meaning in his day.  My favorite bit
                 from HST "The Great Shark Hunt" is where Pat talks about
                 how Chuck Colson wasn't a "real" conservative.
        \_ "the U.S. is a Republic not a democracy!!1!"
           Yes, yes, we know.
2005/3/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36956 Activity:nil
3/29    Leno:  "Well, they had the annual Easter egg roll today at the
        White House.  That was kind of fun.  And President Bush did not miss an
        opportunity.  He told the kids that the Easter Bunny would be out of
        eggs by the year 2030. ... And that 4% of all their eggs should be
        put in a private account, so they can later ... they can use it, yeah."
        Letterman:  "But at the White House Easter egg hunt, no eggs were
        actually found but President Bush continues to claim that they are
        there."
        \_ Hahahahaha
2005/3/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36898 Activity:insanely high
3/26    I think it's pretty clear the American public is being intentionally
        distracted from something right now by all this bullshit.  But what
        is it?
        \_ Maybe the fact that we haven't got any sort of contingency plan
           for when oil prodcction can no longer meet the rate of increasing
           consumption? Just a thought.
        \_ Yer right.  Michael Schiavo made a deal with Dick Cheney to pull
           out the tube while the VP was busy dealing with some unexpected
           tapes of Condi-Dubya "69" action.
           \_ more like DeLay and Frist and all the rest have been watching
              and waiting for the perfect case with which to bring this
              issue to the forefront of public discourse. I'm more skeptical
              about this being some kind of "cover up" ... and rather just
              a way for Bush Dick et al to throw a bone to the christian
              nut jobs who he's pissing off by letting them down on the
              marriage amendment, etc etc.
        \_ Let's bomb Iran!
        \_ Massive protests in Taiwan: http://tinyurl.com/6vtmv
        \_ euthansia and killing mentally handicapped people is not an
           issue worth your attention, eh?  Well, I hope in the future
           you are put down when you get old or are mentally incapicated,
           and leave no living will.
           \_ Go fuck yourself.
              \_ go euthansize yourself.  Here's your logic, someone
                 is a murderer, kills a cop for example like Mumia,
                 give him 30 years to go through the Fed courts and
                 deify him as a victim.  A woman is mentally incapicated
                 and her husband remembers she wants to die 7 years
                 later after receiving 1 million in money that
                 is deemed to be spent on recuperation but isn't,
                 starve her to death.  I hope you and your children
                 embrace and enjoy the culture of death you are creating.
                 \_ Hi, motherfucker.  So I guess you figure that once the
                    constitution and the rule of law have been suspended,
                    everything will be fine as long as your little club
                    happens to be in charge.  Fuck you.  I hope the next
                    federal abuse of power is you getting executed with no
                    trial...because that's exactly where the present abuses
                    of federal power are heading.
                    \_ the Constitution grants to right to starve the
                       mentaly incapacitated on the sole basis of compromised
                       testimony from someone who may inflicted the injury
                       in the first place?.  That was summarized in
                       Federalist 12, right?  This was one of most heated
                       points of discussion at the Constitutional Conv.,
                       right? Honestly, have you ever even read the
                       Constitution?  I suspect you are ignorant of the
                       facts surrounding this case and are projecting your
                       irrational vitrol towards anyone who is not a
                       Communist on this poor women. It's ok to starve a
                       mentally incapacitated woman who has not received
                       due process but god forbid we disturb a few elk on
                       a barren tundra.
                       \_ I am not pp, but your argument re this poor
                          woman's constitutional rights are flawed.
                          There is something more important at stake
                          here than whether this woman lives/dies:
                          Are we a nation of laws or men?
                          \_ Law, but the law is not an end in and of itself.
                             I can't take a side in this gigantic tragic
                             clusterfuck of a personal and legal travesty, as
                             I really don't know what I would do (this sort of
                             reminds me of the "would you use torture even
                             though it violates your laws and principles if
                             innocent life is at stake?") but it's pretty
                             clear to me that, either way, some part of the
                             judicial and democratic processes has failed
                             pretty horribly.  -John
                             \_ Laws are instituted among men so that
                                we may order and plan our affairs better.
                                Whether or not you like the result in
                                this case, the laws have served their
                                proper purpose.  Simply b/c the result
                                is not palatable to some, is not a
                                reason to throw out the laws and
                                take an opinion poll to decide what
                                should be done.
                                BTW, the only way that you can say
                                the judicial process has failed is
                                if you think that the trial ct judge
                                hugely screwed up in the original
                                \_ As I recall there was some discussion
                                   about various expert opinions, some video
                                   tape that wasn't used, etc.  I don't know
                                   the specifics, honestly, but the whole
                                   thing just reeks of "fuckup".  -John

                                   \_ Actually, the stuff that the
                                      media is making a big deal
                                      about (experts, video,
                                      hearsay, &c.) are things
                                      that frequently get messed
                                      up at trial but are generally
                                      not grounds for a new trial.
                                proceedings.  This is not likely
                                given that the record has now been
                                reviewed by the FL Appellate Ct,
                                the FL Supreme Ct, a FL Fed Dist Ct,
                                and the 11th Cir Ct of Appeals.
                                I somewhat agree that the democratic
                                process has failed, b/c congress
                                clearly overstepped its bounds.
                          Yes the constitution does not grant the
                          right to starve a mentally incapacitated
                          woman. However, the constitution does
                          limit the power of the fed gov/judiciary
                          (see Art. 3 Sec 2).
                          This is a dispute about whether her husband
                          or her parents have the right to decided
                          when to end her life.  The dispute is
                          governed by state law.
                          In creating original jx for a particular
                          fed ct to rehear her claim from scratch
                          congress has extended the power of the
                          fed cts beyond what the constitution
                          allows: the fed cts cannot hear state law
                          claims w/o diversity, which does not exist
                          here. [Yes Art 3 allows congress to enact
                          legislation that delineates the powers of
                          the fed cts, but that power must be w/in
                          the limits set by Sec 2.]
                          WRT 14th amd due process claims, due process
                          means that her rights are adjudicated in
                          ct w/o being subject to material errors.
                          In this case there is no evid that the cts
                          of FL have screwed up and have violated any
                          state or fed statutory or constitutional
                          right this woman has. Thus due process
                          has not been violated.
                          WRT 8th amd cruel and unusual punishment,
                          this is not applicable to her case.
                          Re ANWR, I have no opinion. Drilling may
                          be a good short term soln, but long term
                          soln are needed as well.
                 \_ As long as you and yours are first in line, we will.
              \_ The "facts" your screed is based on are lies and half truths.
                 You need to educate yourself before spreading this
                 propaganda further. What is your purpose in doing this?
           \_ As a resident of FL, that poor lady is subject to the
              laws of FL. Her rights have been properly adjudicated
              under that law. There is no reason for me or for the
              feds to get involved in what is essentially a private
              matter covered under state law.
              \_ Can they move her to another state or country? Will
                 her rights then change?
                 \_ If she was in a different forum, her rights may
                    be different (state law/constitution can give
                    you all sorts of rights beyond what the fed
                    versions do, same goes for foreign countries).
                    One of the compromises that we make in order to
                    live in a given part of the world is that we are
                    sub to the laws of that part of the world.
                    \_ Could she be moved? Who determines that?
                       \_ Her primary caregiver.
                \_ Your whole line of argument is based on a bunch of outrighT
                   lies and misinformation. Either you are deliberately
                   misinforming people or you are passing on falsehoods.
                   You need to educate yourself before spreading this
                   propaganda further.
        \_ Tom DeLay is a disgusting hypocrite. What a surprise:
           http://csua.org/u/bi5 (LA Times)
           \_ The cases aren't even remotely similar.  If Terri had been on the
              same equipment as DeLay's father, there wouldn't be an outcry.
              Terri's "life support" consists of food and water.  Can we
              disconnect your life support too? -emarkp
              \_ Unlike Terri, I feed myself and drink on my own.
                 \_ So Christopher Reeve should have been put down?  How about
                    infants? -emarkp
                    \_ you're very good at coming up with new red herrings.
                         -tom
        \_ ANWR just got opened up. Bankruptcy bill just got passed, making
           it safe for CEOs to continue running companies into the ground.
2005/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36882 Activity:kinda low
3/25    Why is it that the pro-life crowd is so worked up over the
        Schivao case, but can't be bothered with what happened in
        Texas because of a law signed by Mr Pro Life himself, Bush
        Jr?  Despite the pleas of his mother, a hospital pulled the
        plug on a six month old boy because they were unable to pay
        for treatment, a move made possible by the law Bush signed
        while governor of Texas.
        \_ Because they're hypocrites.  Yes, it's that simple.
        \_ Those so-called pro-life people should concentrate their energy on
           children in this world who are really dying from hunger, rather
           on one individual who has less than 1% chance of recovery.
              \- add "malaria, cholera, TB". Amen. --psb
                      \_ Malaria would be largely solved if we simply used DDT
                         in developing nations.
                         \- Fair enough. Significant progress can be made on
                            each of the above for modest policy reforms and
                            financial outlays. In contrast to AIDS, which
                            appears to be a hard problem. --psb
           \_ Sheesh.  You all know, just like the ACLU, they're
              really interested in precedent.
           \_ I guess technically "less than 1%" is correct. The correct
              number is 0. Large parts of her cortex are gone.
              \_ Eh, even so, it's not quite 0.  People have gotten along
                 with very low percentages of their brains.  There are a
                 few recorded "miracle" cases.
                 \_ And yet, with Bush's plan for Medicaid, more people
                    will be denied life support based on a corporate profit
                    assessment, instead of a medical one.  Life is important,
                    but the dollar is fucking *sacred*!
              \_ I work with medical images all the time, and I have seen no
                 serious proof of this.  Certainly not lately.  Furthremore,
                 the more I work with doctors, the more I distrust them.  They
                 can be sloppy and capricious when lives other than their own
                 are one the line. -emarkp
                 \_ http://csua.org/u/bi0
                    Some commentary on the medical issues, and a link to
                    another site that has actual cat scans. There are large
                    portions of her head filled with fluid where her brain
                    used to be. It isn't a question of interpretation.
                    \_ Not very useful.  It's just a reassertion.  A CT (CAT)
                       scan is almost unusable for distinguishing structure in
                       the brain.  An MRI is far far better.  Furthermore, the
                       one tiny CT image I've seen is from years ago, and we
                       don't actually know the state of her brain today.
                       -emarkp
                       \_ Clearly you did not read anything from that link,
                          since it addresses precisely the red herrings that
                          you are spouting.
                          \_ No, it doesn't.  It simply reasserts that the
                             cerebral cortex is gone.  I disagree with that
                             assertion (that is, I haven't seen enough evidence
                             to conclude the same thing).  How much time have
                             you spent looking at medical images of the brain?
                             -emarkp
                             \_ OK Dr. Ping, what is the alternative
                                explanation for what appears to be a large
                                fluid-filled area where her cerebral cortex
                                used to be?
                                \_ Without seeing the entire data set, I can't
                                   answer that.  The single small grainy image
                                   I've seen isn't enough determine the
                                   condition of the entire cerebral cortex.
                                   I've worked with enough doctors that I don't
                                   trust one analysis when others have
                                   disagreed.  Oh, and sign your name. -emarkp
                                   \_ Hey guys, I think emarkp's point is that
                                      not all of the cerebral cortex may be
                                      gone, and what's left may be sufficient
                                      to qualify as "life", especially if the
                                      leftover brain takes on a heavy load.
                                      \_ If that's his point, he should say so.
                                         So far all he's provided is red
                                         herrings that avoid the central point.
                                   \_ You failed to answer the question or
                                      provide any useful insight. Oh, and fuck
                                      you.
2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36840 Activity:low
3/23    My my...
        CBS News. 3/21-22. MoE 4%. (February results)

        Congress Job Approval
                Approve 34 (41)
                Disapprove 49 (44)
        Bush Approval Ratings
                Approve 43 (49)
        Should Congress and the President be involved in the Schiavo matter?
                Yes 13
                No 82
        \_ Does anyone care about Bush's approval ratings now? Bush won't be
           running again.
           \_ I just think it's amusing that he is likely the least popular
              second-term president in the history of the Union. -op
        \_ So? PEople hate him but he's still your president.
           \_ It's more like, "We told him Iraq should be our #1 priority,
              so wtf is he doing spending his 'political capital' trying to
              cut our social security?"
2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36837 Activity:high
3/23    Modern Conservatism has truly become the party of Big Government.
        Now Jeb Bush wants to "take custody" of Terri Shiavo, away from
        her husband and away from her family. How can anyone who calls
        themself a Conservative really be in favor of this kind of thing?
        http://csua.org/u/bh5
        \_ I don't think that they do.  The polls I saw had 58% of self
           described conservatives opposing the federal intervention.
           This is a direct consequence of the religious right hijacking the
           Republican party.
        \_ "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts
           and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the
           process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the
           social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a
           violation of federalism."
           -(Conservative) Hoover Institute member
           "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate
           your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this
           country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."
           -Sen. John Warner (GOP), Virginia
           \_ Now it's around 32 different judges
              \_ every one of them is a tyrant!
                 \_ You misspelled "activist"
           \_ None of the judges other than Greer have ever looked at the
              findings of fact.  That's why they're trying to have his findings
              of fact reviewed 'de novo'
              \_ The standard for appeal is that findings of facts by
                 the trial ct are accepted as true unless there is a
                 showing of abuse.  There was no showing of abuse in
                 this case b/c Greer did nothing wrong.
                 While a de novo review may turn up something different,
                 this is unlikely. Absent some huge new revelation, the
                 facts found by the dist ct judge will be roughly the
                 same and if he applies state substantive law the tube
                 will stay out. Unless she finds some fed statute to
                 sue under (maybe disabled persons), she is SOL.
        \_ Personally I hope the USSC takes this case and lays down the
           law. Under Art. 3 congress cannot create subject matter jx
           over a particular state law claim in favor of a single citizen.
           What congress did was ridiculous and I hope that many of them
           lose their jobs over it and are replaced by true conservatives.
           \_ Please quote the section ofArticle 3 you are referring to.
           \_ Please quote the section of Article 3 you are referring to.
              \_ Art 3 Sec 2.
                 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03
                 The original jx of the fed cts is limited to admiralty,
                 international disputes, federal question (arising under
                 the constitution/fed statues), or diversity (btwn two
                 or more states, citizens of different states, citizens
                 of the same state claims lands under grants of different
                 states, btwn a states/citizen of a state and a foreign
                 country).
                 Congress cannot create more jx for the fed cts than
                 the constitution provides w/o an amendment. In the
                 Schiavo case, congress has created jx for the Dist
                 Ct in the Middle District of FL to hear a suit on
                 behalf of Schavio for violations of her rights arising
                 under the constitution.
                 While one might argue that providing a specific dist
                 ct w/ jx over constitutional claims is still w/in Art
                 3 Sec 2, what congress is really doing is creating
                 jx for a fed ct to hear claims that are already
                 subject to res judicata under state law. This is not
                 allowed.
           \_ The SC will refuse to hear the case and send it back down with
              no comment. This is modis operadi. Shiavo will die and social
              conservatives will have a new face for an old issue to play
              with next election. Ooooo. Shiny.
              \_ I'm hoping the USSC has a vested interest in telling
                 congress that they can't overstep their bounds.
        \_ http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.03.22.GrandOldPragma-X.gif
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367722/posts
2005/3/21 [Computer/SW/Apps/Media, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36801 Activity:high
3/21    http://CNN.com = liberal trash media. The front page has a poll that
        asks "Who would you want to make the decision about pulling the plug
        if you were in a vegetative state? Spouse:78%, Parents:15%, Somebody
        else:%7. http://CNN.com, trashy, unfair & unbalanced liberal media. Go Fox!
        \_ Your troll is limp and flaccid.
        \_ Did they cancel your Free Republic account for trolling too?
        \_ Who would you trust, Jesus?
2005/3/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36788 Activity:moderate
3/21    Nurse: Terri Can Eat Normally
        http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/20/102601.shtml
        http://www.zimp.org/stuff/06%20-%20CindyShookDepo.htm
        \_ "'When is that bitch gonna die?'"  Do you really buy this?
           \_ I really don't care about this case one way or the other,
              but, do you this the Nurse is lying?  How do you know?
              \_ I think there's a lot of shit being piled on a guy who
                 has gone through a horrible ordeal.  As he has no political
                 gain in the matter, and others do, I tend to give him more
                 benefit of the doubt than newsmax.
                 \_ You may very well be right, but it seems like there's
                    enough evidence of douchiness that it makes sense to at
                    least try feeding her by mouth.  I mean, this sort of
                    decision is supposed to happen with full support of all
                    involved.
                 \_ Ordeal?  1.5 years after she collapsed he was screwing
                    another woman.  At the same time he was telling a court
                    that he loved Terri!  And only needed $1M to take care of
                    her.  Then he got the money and hasn't stopped trying to
                    kill her.
                    \_ The money went directly to her care.  He has declined
                       an offer of $1M from some loony businessman to walk
                       away.  If he were trying to kill his wife for personal
                       gain, as you seem to think, would he have done that?
                       You suck.
                    \_ This case is not about the husband being a jerk.  And
                       1.5 years is not short.  Most people would have pulled
                       the tube within 6-months and move on with their lives.
                       \_ Um, yes it is.  He's the one who decides whether she
                          lives or dies and he's fucking someone else.  1.5
                          years after her collapse he WAS IN COURT ASKING FOR
                          MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF HER, WHILE FUCKING ANOTHER
                          WOMAN.
                          \_ You do not know this person.  You would never
                             have known about this person in a sane world.
                             You spout anger as though Terri was your sister.
                             Check yourself.  When you can translate rage
                             at something like this (which is truly a false
                             rage perpetuated by selected facts and rumors)
                             into empathy, you might learn to get your point
                             across.
                    \_ Her parents encouraged him to get on with his life.
                       Look into it.

        \_ I have no problem with keeping her alive as long as the medical
           bills don't go to the taxpayers.
           \_ What do you think happens when an insurance company pays for
              medical care?  They do it out of the goodness of their hearts?
                \_ Insurance companies have no hearts.  They're out there to
                   maximize profits.
                   \_ which is why they pass on their costs to their policy
                      holders; that is, taxpayers.
           \_ She's on Medicaid, which Bush is in the process of trying to
              cut.
        \_ The congress should be focusing on the real problems.
        \_ 70% of Americans think Congress is wasting time on this circus:
           http://csua.org/u/bg1
        \_ arbiter says she had no awareness
           link:www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2005/03/20/news/nation/11185214.htm
           link:tinyurl.com/4vnsh
           (mercurynews.com/noway1@nohow.com/nopassword1)
        \_ Terri is practically Einstein according to some of the more fundie
           websites.  Let's see, she can talk, swallow, communicate, and her
           husband tried to kill her.  The big questions are, why did 7 years
           worth of court trials and doctor examinations not uncover any of
           this (are they all idiots or in a conspiracy), and why did the
           husband not accept the multiple $1M+ offers to let his wife go?
           \_ Her husband can't stop it now even if he wanted to. As for
              medical care, you will see when you are very sick and/or old
              that doctors stop caring as much when they think you are not
              worth the effort. I watched my 86 y.o. grandfather die because of
              this kind of nonchalance. "Well, we *could* do xyz, but he's
              so old that..." I am sure the doctors think she's not worth
              their time at this point. My neighbor is a neurologist and
              one time he ordered an MRI for a boy who had severe
              neurological problems. He was diagnosed with a stroke, I
              think. Anyway, the insurance refused to pay.
              one time he ordered an MRI for a boy who had severe neurological
              problems. He was diagnosed with a stroke, I think, by the
              previous doctor. Anyway, the insurance refused to pay for an MRI
              on a 'stroke victim'. My neighbor resigned as the boy's doctor.
              Later on, it was discovered the boy had a brain tumor. It was
              removed and the boy is fine now. The MRI would have caught it.
              There are a lot of doctors who don't care enough to fight
              the bureaucracy and you can't really blame them.
                \_ This is obviously not the case here since she's lived for
                   15 years despite having little brain function.  Why can't
                   her husband stop now even if he wanted to? Take the money
                   and run!
                   \_ He can't stop, because it is the court's decision to
                      make now. My point was that maybe Terri would be
                      better now or would be improving if she had had
                      better medical care. However, lots of doctors see
                      'vegetative state' and 'Medicare' and don't do
                      anything for her. For many of those years she was in
                      a home with no specialized therapy or care. She has
                      had nursing, but not good physicians. Most of the
                      doctors around her now are trying to determine if
                      she is a vegetable, not what the best treatment
                      might be. Frankly, they hold out little hope and
                      project that lack of hope onto her.
                \_ it's in the hands of the courts.  congress is trying
                   to take the decision out of the hands of the state courts
                   right now.  at this point it's out of the husbands control.
        \_ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/opinion/22tue1.html?hp
           Republicans take a dump on the Constitution then wipe up
           with the Bill of Rights.
           \_ There is a strong possibility that the fed ct judge
              or the 11th cir ct of appeals will rule that article
              3 does not give congress the power to authorize a
              new c/a wrt to a previously adjudicated state law
              claim. The parents seem to have hedged their bets
              and are claiming that the procedural errors by the
              judge amount to a depravation due process rights
              under the color of law, which is actionable in fed
              ct. If this claim works out, the case may be remanded
              to state ct to fix the procedural errors, assuming
              that they were prejudicial.
2005/3/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36761 Activity:very high
3/19    Congress is being run on motd-logic - they subpoenaed a brain dead
        person today!
        \_ I remember when the GOP was the states-rights party.  What the
           hell happened?
           \_ Like most Christians, they are raging hypocrites and do
              the expedient thing at the time.  When they're not in power,
              they're all for devolving power to the states.  Now that
              they have control of the federal gov't, it's all about using
              its power to shove their agenda down everyone's throat.
        \_ they subpoenaed George W. Bush?
        \_ you are all disgusting individuals. Does the phrase "deprived of
           life, liberty, or proerty..." mean anything to you.  You want to
           starve to death a woman who is not brain dead.
           \_ And of course the wishes of the woman (while she was still
              capable of making decisions for herself) are no longer relevant
              in the face of your righteous religious agenda.  And so the
              religious hegemony settles in.
              \_ her wishes have never been established.  There is no living
                 will, only hearsay from her husband and his family, whose
                 motives may be compromised.  Her wishes were "revealed"
                 after 3 years into her ordeal.  Don't you think someone
                 on her side of the family, her brother, father, mother,
                 anyone, would also have had known about this "wish"?
                 This is not a right to die case, it is a euthenasia.
                 \_ Apparently the Florida courts have felt that her husband
                    and witnesses testifying on his behalf (yes witnesses --
                    as in more than one person heard those sentiments
                    expressed) have the truth of the matter.  And no, the
                    fact that she didn't explicitly express those wishes to
                    her family means almost nothing; there are a lot of things
                    a woman is more likely to discuss with her husband than
                    with her family.
                \_ She's not brain dead? If so, then her brain is not getting
                   much exercise, what by just sitting there all day, not letting
                   her speak, eat, move in a coordinated fashion, or do other
                   activities that involve higher intelligence. For 10+
                   years, mind you.
           \_ I bet it means alot to BUD DAY!
              \_ you are pitiful excuse for a human being.  Consider this:
                 Michael Schiavo: Loving Husband or Monster?
                 http://opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/brogoff_20050222.html
                 \_ Are you Chinese?  Do you understand the effect Monsters
                    had on China?
                    \_ Don't you mean Japan?
                       \_ Obviously you've never served in China.
2005/3/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36641 Activity:insanely high
3/10    Polls for alumni: what big companies do you guys work at? No name
        start-ups need not respond:
        Intel:
        Microsoft:
        Google:
        Yahoo
        LLNL: .
        Ask Jeeves: .
        Enron:
        Pan American Airways:
        \_ Is this random or you want to know what it is like to work at
           each of these companies so you can compare offers?
        \_ What about no-name decade-old companies?
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36634 Activity:very high 66%like:36625
3/10    Violent Dems!
        http://sptimes.com/2005/03/10/Hillsborough/Bumper_sticker_evokes.shtml
        \_ Gosh this sucks. I wished the man had actually run down the woman
           and have gotten away. That damn bitch supported an illegal war
           that killed a lot of innocent lives. Fuck her.
        More Violent Dems!
        http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
        \_ Republicans do this kind of shit every day.
           \_ Every day? Do tell!
              \_ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#bias
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36625 Activity:moderate 66%like:36634
3/10    Violent Dems!
        http://sptimes.com/2005/03/10/Hillsborough/Bumper_sticker_evokes.shtml
        More Violent Dems!
        http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
        \_ Republicans do this kind of shit every day.
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36608 Activity:high
        Blogger Sheds No Tears For Rather
        http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1359777/posts
        \_ IP address replaced with hostname.
           \_ oh, we all know it's http://freerepublic.com anyway by now, it's ok
2005/3/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36601 Activity:moderate
3/9     some thoughts on why Bush is so obsessed with paving
        over Social Security:
        http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18684
        -danh
        \_ Flat tax, no government social services people
             == It's fair; the huge liberating effect on the economy will
                be felt by everyone; and even if an even larger gap does form
                between the wealthy and non-wealthy, it's a fair system;
                progressive taxes and social services keep lazy people lazy
           Progressive tax, government social services people
             == It takes money to make money (rich have a much easier time and
                can make money at a much higher rate); extreme wealth-gap is
                bad; progressive taxation and government social services as
                they exist today are cheap for what you get -- no revolutions
        \_ I was unable to find any thought there. YMMV
           \_ I was unable to find any thought here. YMMV
              \- A fine paper to read is "The Procedural Republic and
                 the Unencumbered Self" by Michael J. Sandel. Available
                 most easily from JSTOR.
        \_ Ultral Left-Wing Liberal Troll Alert. If you really want good
           info, you should check out fair and balanced sources:
           http://federalist.com, http://newsmax.com, http://taemag.com, http://tysknews.com,
           http://worldnetdaily.com
                \_ you forgot http://www.jeffgannon.com - danh
           \_ I hate that it's impossible to talk about Bush's plans without
              sounding like an absolute conspiracy nut.
           \_ Way to be a total idiot.  Your first paper says its a farsical
              comedy making fun of the left.  How about you take your
              rediculous conservative propaganda elsewhere. -mrauser
              \_ Mmm...  better check your sarcasm detector.
                 \_ Be nice to him, he's a bit new around here.
2005/3/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36585 Activity:nil 66%like:35387
3/8     Bush announces exit strategy from Iraq: http://csua.org/u/bb2
2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:36573 Activity:moderate Cat_by:auto
3/7     Wouldn't it be funny if you type Republican on google and out comes
        anti-Republican sites? YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN! On your homepage, insert
        the following "<a href=http://www.bushin30seconds.orgRepublican</a>"
        If you get enough friends to do this and if they can do the same, it
        will happen! Now go and spread the word!!!
        \_ Eh.  Googlebombing is so 2002.  Try starting a blog, they're much
           more effective at googlebombing than static web sites. -dans
2005/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:36521 Activity:moderate
3/4     North Korean diplomat talks about what NK things of the US.  There
        are some great quotes here.  BTW everything is Bush's fault.
        http://csua.org/u/b9d
         \_ Listen. Bush is a great president because he stands by his
            belief. Bush ousted Saddam who was personally financing
            Palestinian suicide bombers and was making ties to Al Qaeda.
            I don't care much about world and overal liberal perception of
            the US. The right thing to do is sometimes unpopular. Now go
            ahead and mock me with immature liberal insults.
            \_ This has got to be a liberal trolling, but on the off
               chance that it isn't: the "BTW everything is Bush's fault,"
               is a joke on the contents of the article.  Read it and come
               back.  Sheesh. -op
               \_ Sorry. I didn't read it at first because I thought it was
                  another liberal drivel. Thanks for sharing the article.
                  \_ First rule of motd: Do not respond to link
                     descriptions with out reading the link.
        \_ Story quotes:
           He believes that Americans have the wrongheaded notion that North
           Koreas are unhappy with the system of government under Kim Jong Il.
           "We Asians are traditional people," he said. "We prefer to have a
           benevolent father leader." ...
           The North Korean criticized some Japanese politicians' efforts to
           link the nuclear talks to the question of Japanese citizens
           kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s.
           "This was something done by a few overly enthusiastic people long
           ago," he said. "We tried to make amends.
           [Okay, between his being an idiot, or trying to sell us, I'm going
           to say the latter.]
           \_ Is it that hard to just let the kidnapped go home if they are
              really trying to make amends?
              \_ The big deal was that N. Korea sent over a body, said it was
                 so-and-so who was kidnapped and their papers.  Then testing
                 of the body showed it was someone else, and review of
                 documentation showed it was forged.  Japanese officials said
                 "What the fuck?!?"  And N. Koreans said, "Did you say
                 something?" and has been pretending not to hear.
                 This is why most of Japan is currently super-pissed.
                 \_ Lying commies.
        \_ I like this one:
           The declaration [of nuclear weapons possesion], which jarred
           U.S. officials, was not intended as a threat, he said, but
           merely a way to advance negotiations..."We were hoping for
           change from the U.S. administration. We expected some clear-cut
           positive change."
           Riiiighhht.
        \_ Highlights:
           "There is a question of what is a political prisoner. Maybe these
            people are not political prisoners but social agitators."
           "We should have food, shelter, security rather than chaos and
            vandalism."
           Yeah, food would be nice. When were they planning to provide that?
           Typical schizophrenic North Korean-speak.
           \_ I'm still trying to figure out the difference between a
              political crime and social agitation.
2005/2/28-3/2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36466 Activity:kinda low
2/28    Making of a 9/11 Republican:
        http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/02/24/cstillwell.DTL
        \_ Was this supposed to be enlightening?  Just because she's a
           conservative, don't assume she can actually write.
           \_ Huh?  Just because you disagree with her, doesn't mean she
              can't write. -!op
        \_ "Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing
            school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all
            evil in the world."
           I'm really not trying to make an ad hominem attack or wave a red
           herring, but I've read and heard similar statements made by white
           supremacists.
           \_ If this isn't a red herring, I'm really wondering why you
              posted it.
              \_ Good question. What I'm trying to say is that the expression
                 of former solidarity followed by an example of redemptive
                 eye-opening is often used to excuse a following diatribe
                 of vindictive railing against the school of thought once
                 held. In both cases, however, what's being demonstrated is
                 not a logical progression from one carefully thought out
                 position to another but a wild swing from one radically
                 deficient position to another predicated (mostly) on the
                 rancour generated by a philosophical falling out with the
                 former. In other words, from one extreme to the other still
                 makes you an extremist.
                 \_ You are right.  You often see this pattern.  However, you
                    haven't really demonstrated why such a wild swing must be
                    unreasonable, you just used 'negative words': 'wild swing,'
                    'radically deficient,' 'extremist,' etc.  You are
                    complaining about rhetoric using rhetorical means.
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ It's not such a wild swing.  It _is_ a failure of logic.
                       To reject the existence of problems in society under the
                       duress of grief is as bad as rejecting grief under the
                       duress of principles.  In making such a switch, she is
                       as disgusting as her coworker who seemed completely
                       insensitive to the victims of the attacks.  Also, this
                       insensitivity is nothing more than her perception of the
                       guy.  If she took the time to talk to him, she'd probably
                       find grief under the arrogance.
                    \_ It's clear to me that poster was NOT making the general
                       claim, which would be obviously wrong.  Of course there
                       are people who switch sides who remain rational
                       throughout. -someone else
                 \_ It also doesn't make her a decent writer.
                 \_ I liked how she talked about "small government"
                    conveniently neglecting to mention what's currently
                    happening -- Let's face it, when either party totally
                    controls government it goes to hell.
2005/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36461 Activity:nil
2/28    Regarding Putin accusing Dubya of firing Rather and friends:
        Is Putin trying to outstupid Stupid?
        \_ He is trying to deflect criticism about his censorship of
           the press by implying that the US does some of the same stuff.
           I agree that this is silly, but it probably plays well in Russia.
        \_ Link?
           \_ http://csua.org/u/b7f (Post news summary)
2005/2/28-3/2 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36457 Activity:moderate
2/28    Alexf, Can you please answer this?  Condemning the whole organization
        over Mumia seems ... overzealous:

        (from yesterday)
        \_ Hey, I got no problem with the concept, but once they start
           defending terrorists and cop killers, the implementation is,
           in my book, obviously hopeless. -pp
           \_ To what are you refering?  You're claiming something I
              can't find any reference for.  Please give some context.
        </yesterday>
              \_ (FWIW, I don't check the motd nearly often enough to have
                 time to respond before these threads get purged). Anyway,
                 how's this quick selection for a start:
                 Re Mumia:
                    http://www.danielfaulkner.com/Pages/amnesty.html
                 AI supporting the Jenin myths:
                    http://csua.org/u/b7d (honestreporting.com)
                 AI promoting ludicrous notions of moral equivalence:
                    http://csua.org/u/b7e (ibid.)
                 As far as what the rest of the thread brought up -- I
                 don't think them particularly in the wrong on Abu
                 Ghraib (the media has, though, blown it far out of
                 proportion IMHO), and am rather ambivalent in regard
                 to their involvement in the Gitmo stuff. I'll readily
                 admit that they've done a lot of good work in the
                 past, but many of the things they do now, and, yes,
                 the Mumia case is the most disgusting behavior of
                 theirs in my book, color my perception to the point
                 that I definitely think the world would be better off
                 without them (or with a monumental change in their
                 leadership and culture). I don't intend to continue
                 this debate on the motd. If you really want further
                 responses from me, email or better yet come to Soda
                 in person. -alexf
                 \_ ob group masturbation of hooded prisoners at abu ghraib
                    video; also: "I went down to Tier 1 (the cellblock where
                    much of the abuse is said to have occurred) and when I
                    looked down the corridor, I saw two naked detainees, one
                    masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open," he
                    is quoted as saying. "I thought I should just get out of
                    there. I didn't think it was right, as it seemed like the
                    wrong thing to do. I saw Staff Sergeant Frederick walking
                    towards me, and he said, `Look what these animals do when
                    you leave them alone for two seconds.'"
                 \_ AlexF, I understand you want to provide a more balanced
                    view of the cases cited, but do you really think citing
                    a website devoted to avenging Daniel Faulkner and a
                    website devoted to denigrating any criticism of Israel
                    balances things in any meaningful way?
                    \_ Maybe they were the first things up on Google.  In
                       any case, I hope we can all agree that the far left
                       has been taken for a ride on the whole Mumia thing,
                       and should really just let it go.
                       \_ "Mumia probably killed that guy. There, I said it.
                          ...the efforts to defend him may have overlooked the
                          fact that he did indeed kill that cop. ...He probably
                          did kill that guy." -Michael Moore, from "Dude,
                          Where's My Country"(2003), page 189.
                       \_ I don't know about that. You have to remember
                          that the Philly police bombed a whole city block
                          and killed something like a dozen people to
                          eliminate the MOVE crowd. It was the Waco of the
                          80s but since it was a bunch of black people, not
                          that many people got upset about it. Mumia
                          was a good spokesperson for their efforts. This
                          is all tangential to his actual guilt or innocence
                          I know, but in the real world, this is the way
                          politics works.
        \_ Repost the link, some ass deleted it.
           \_ There was no link.  Mumia is the only thing I could think of
              that he could have been talking about.
        \_ Amnesty International = Evil, Torturing Innocents At Gitmo = Good
           \_ There are no innocents in Gitmo!  They're all very bad people,
              and we're not cutting off people's fingers or feeding them into
              the woodchipper feet-first like Saddam.
              Anyway, even if there's 1 or 2 people in Gitmo who weren't
              planning an attack on the U.S., they were at least doing
              something that they shouldn't have been; otherwise, they wouldn't
              be in Gitmo!
              If a Democrat were in charge the terrorists would be blowing us
              all up by now! -typical Dubya voter who p0wn3d u liberals
              \_ You forgot at least one reference to God, and your faith in
                 His wisdom, etc, etc.
2005/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36453 Activity:very high
2/28    Baby Gap - How birthrates color the electoral map
        http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_20/cover.html
        [anonymous reference to me deleted] -emarkp
           -disillusioned liberal still pissed off at the 2000/2004 campaign
        \_ So what's your excuse?  Are you busy making liberal babies, or are
           you part of the problem?
        \_ Don't worry, mexican immigration should help.
           \_ except they are leaning conservative thanks to the increasing
              huge Latino military population in San Diego bases.
              \_ Yes, and we all know that all Latinos live in San Diego.
        \_ Haven't you heard of youthful rebellion?  Parental politics !=
           politics of children.
        \_ "The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get."
           That's odd, I thought causality went the other way. The more
           actively pro-bush you are, the more babies pop out. That's what they
           taught us in health class in middle school...
           \_ Conservatives sleep in double beds, Liberals sleep together.
              This is why there are far more liberals than conservatives.
              \_ But two liberal men sleeping together don't produce babies.
                 \_ they can sure have fun trying, though.
        \_ I've found it funny for a few years that:
           Birth rate varies inversely with income and education.
           Evolution acceptance rate varies with income and education.
           Those who believe in evolution are evolving away.
           \_ The stupid shall inherit the earth.
              \_ No no no.  You don't understand.  The 'stupid' are those who
                 accept evolution but are choosing to have fewer children.
                 \_ This seems like where darin should step in.  He's the
                    only person I've met to decide to have lots of babies
                    because he believes in evolution and is smarter than
                    average.
                    \_ [troll deleted]
                 \_ What? Why is it smart to have a lot of children? You take
                    care of a bunch of kids for years. Be my guest. You can't
                    win that game anyway and it doesn't benefit you either.
                    You're gonna be dead.
                    \_ Having many kids means that your genes are more likely
                       to be propogated.  That's why it's smart.
                       \_ You'd be smarter to learn to spell propagate. How
                          do you benefit by having your genes propagated?
                          Answer: you don't. Hey you know what? You'd have a
                          better chance if you went around killing other males!
                          Give that a try, let me know how it works out.
                          \_ Why are there still stupid people who think
                             that what's good for the propagation of their
                             genes is good for them.  Please, you are not
                             your genes!  Don't let your genes be your
                             master.
                             \_ Because historically, the genes for smart
                                people who don't care about propagating their
                                genes don't last very long.
                                \_ What's your point?
                    \_ So does that mean there is a evolutionary
                       counter-pressure on intelligence?
                       \_ Which is why humanity is doomed.
        \_ At first glance I thought it was about the fashion company. :-)
        \_ Apparently, at some subconscious level, liberals understand that
           their genes are not worth passing on.
        \_ This much chatter over an American Conservative article? Holy
           moley, are we bored or what? Read this instead:
           http://csua.org/u/b78 (SF Weekly, punking white supremacists)
        \_ I thought the gun control part was incisive.
2005/2/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36450 Activity:high
2/28    Baby Gap - How birthrates color the electoral map
        http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_20/cover.html
        From American Conservative. It says that fertile conservatives (like
        emarkp's friends and family from Utah) are wayyyy out-reproducing
        liberals. Come on you dumb fuck stupid lazy liberals, stop playing
        EverQuest 2, stop using condoms and start reproducing kids.
           -disillusioned liberal still pissed off at the 2000/2004 campaign
        \_ Don't worry, mexican immigration should help.
          \_ except they are leaning conservative thanks to the increasing
             huge Latino military population in San Diego bases.
              \_Me gustan los aviones, me gusta viajar, me gusta el atentado,
                me gustan los muertos, me gusta soar, me gusta Air Force One,
                me gustan los cazas, me gusta el western, me gusta la lluvia,
                me gusta los misiles, me gusta George W. Bush.
        \_ Haven't you heard of youthful rebellion?  Parental politics !=
           politics of children.
        \_ "The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get."
           That's odd, I thought causality went the other way. The more
           actively pro-bush you are, the more babies pop out. That's what they
           taught us in health class in middle school...
2005/2/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36390 Activity:high
2/23    Survey, do you still remember what you did the day before 9/11,
        and if do you what were you doing?
        \_ On 9/10, I posted 2 questions on motd, the Accuvue question and
           the Java == and equals(...) question. I didn't get to see the
           responses till now, how funny.
        \_ Working.  had a rehearsal that night (and the next night as well).
           Did Iolanthe with San Jose Lyric Theatre.  You wouldn't believe
           the outporing of appreciation for the performances (couple weeks
           later).  Everyone wanted something they could enjoy.
        \_ working.  I remember this old polish guy who lived through WWII
           running into the room and telling us not to panic, that we should
           listen to the news and just keep working as normal, which is
           exactly what we did(after making a couple phone calls).
           \_ What was on the news on 9/10/2001?
              \_ Gary Condit all day and night.
              \_ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/10/ED226834.DTL
              \_ http://tinyurl.com/6olqm (sfgate.com)
        \_ Remembering what I was doing when Kennedy was shot.
        \_ yes I do and I feel sad just thinking about it. I don't want to
           talk about it.
        \_ No, I don't particularly recall the day before 9/11, but I do
           vividly recall the morning of.  I remember waking up to NPR on the
           clock radio next to my then girlfriend's bed, hearing something
           about the World Trade Center being attacked, and
           thinking to myself ``Oh, it must be the anniversary of the World
           Trade Center bombing.''  I think the relationship was beginning to
           come to a close, though I didn't realize it at the time.  What's a
           little strange to me is that much of my memory that time period
           hazy, but I vivdly remember many of the little details from that
           morning, e.g. the smell of the sheets, the light coming through
           the window. -dans
           \_ WOW that's exactly how I felt! The little things... Also...
              my gf and I were woken up by a call, my gf's mom in Taiwan was on
              the other side telling us that both WTC towers had been attacked.
              I turned on CNN and it said only 1 tower was on fire. I thought
              it was just an accident, like the Empire State Building accident
              they had many decades ago and given that Taiwanese
              news were mostly trashy sensationalist news I thought they were
              just exaggerating. 30 min later CNN finally broadcasted the 2nd
              tower footage. A while later her mom called again and said one
              of the towers collapsed. I didn't believe it because I had never
              heard such a thing in my life, and because CNN didn't broadcast
              it. Surely enough 30 min later, CNN finally broadcasted the
              collapse. Then she called again about the 2nd tower collapse, and
              30 min later, CNN broadcasted that. It's weird how we get our own
              news later than people outside the US.
              \_ I first heard about the first plane a couple minutes after
                 it happened when Cmndr. Taco posted it to slashdot.  Slashdot
                 was pretty much the closest thing to real time all morning.
                 There were posts on slashdot from people who could see what
                 was happening outside their windows the whole time.
              \_ Same here.  My dad called me from Hong Kong to tell me to
                 turn on the TV when I was getting ready to go to work without
                 realizing that something was happening.
        \_ I was getting a demo system prep'ed for a customer were were
        \_ I was getting a demo system prep'ed for a customer we were
           visiting the next day. I was on a plane 1/2 way to my destination
           when the first wtc attack happened on 9/11. --ranga
        \_ Busting my ass to put together a report for City Council. Stayed up
           all night, went to sleep just as the first plane hit, then got told
           the report wasn't necessary.
        \_ Clearly Sodans have reading comprehension issues. As for me, I have
           no idea what I was doing on 9/10.
           \_ Quite a few got it right.  Read above.
              \_ Why is 9/10 interesting? It was a day like any other day.
                 May as well ask about 9/9, 9/1, and 7/29.
                 \_ Do you really need this explained to you, or are you just
                    being willfully obtuse?
        \_ I remember I was sitting at home, unemployed, feeling sorry for
           myself because I couldn't find a job. I spent most of the day
           playing WoW and applying for jobs.
2005/2/23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36379 Activity:high
2/23    So, the Supreme court is going to examine the Oregon euthanasia laws.
        170 people have used since it became legal in 1997 to end their lives
        prematurely, mostly cancer patients, who I assume were in horrendous
        pain or discomfort.  I can sympathize with the arguments of the
        prolifer, even if I don't agree.  I am totally baffled by the Bush
        administration's meddling with the Oregon law -- I thought Republicans
        were for states rights (or is that states rights only if we agree
        with those rights?).  This law is not being abused (20/year?),
        doctors are not "killing off their patients" -- Is the Bush
        administration in favor of suffering? Or is their religious zeal
        clouding their judgement?
        \_ The latter.  Suicide is a sin and this law opens the door to stuff
           like late-term abortions of severely abnormal fetuses.
           \_ "opens the door"?  Abortion is a legal choice (thankfully) for
              women with severely abnormal or terminally ill fetuses.  At least
              for now.  In my eyes, legally forcing someone and their loved ones
              to endure a painful illness that can only end in death is about
              as un-loving as you can get.
              \_ Bush and company want to live in a black-and-white world
                 with clear delineation of good and evil, no gray areas,
                 no exceptions, (and also little room for thought,
                 compassion, and mercy).
        \_ The bottom line is that doctors will help patients end their
           lives no matter what the law says.  Doctors have always helped
           their patients with this and they always will.
2005/2/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36367 Activity:high 66%like:36017
2/22    What is your career?
        \_ Manager
        \_ Software Engineer: .....
        \_ Design Verification Engineer
        \_ SysAdmin .
        \_ Teacher .
        \_ Consultant ..
           \_ that's not a career. you have to say what you consult on.
              \_ Actually, I agree.  Maybe the original poster should delete
                 the Consultant line, and I'll move my dot somewhere else.
              \_ Don't be dense.  I get hired as Victor-Nettoyeur by
                 companies with annoying problems that they can't or don't
                 want to deal with by themselves, and which can't be
                 classified as purely "engineering" or "management" or
                 "astronaut" or whatever, even though it's usually something
                 to do with IT security.  If it makes you happy I'll change
                 it to "Professionally adaptible tech whore".  -John
                 \_ Well, "IT security consultant" would be a career I guess
                    but "consultant" says nothing. There are all kinds of
                    consultants even outside tech.
        \_ Professionally adaptible tech whore .
        \_ White male oppressor .
        \_ Student .
        \_ I'm a graduate student who takes YOUR tax money to advance my own
           education while spending ~15hr/wk reading and writing motd. What
           category do I fall into?
                \_ I'd say the Not Funny category.
                \_ It can't be the !psb category
           \_ Might it be our favorite government funded "libertarian"?
              -meyers
             \_ And if you try to do something about it, your government
                will punish you!
             \_ your tax dollar (NSF, grant, DARPA, etc) soon to be gone:
                http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/21/bush.science.ap
                DAMN IT! Maybe We need to get real jobs soon.    -grad student
                \_ Bad troll.  If you're just interested in number one,
                   our present totally broken visa system is in your best
                   interest, since it cuts down on competition from talented
                   foreign students. Bush's moronic, politically driven
                   science policy is bad for the nation, but it really
                   doesn't hurt you as a grad student.
                   \_ Actually, the NY Times last week printed an editorial
                      saying that the visa system for international students
                      and scientists has recently been greatly streamlined.
                      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/opinion/16wed3.html
                      \_ Whatever. I'll believe it when I see it.  I work in
                         a lab where about half of the scientists are non-U.S.
                         citizens, and dealing with the U.S. visa system
                         continues to be a total fucking nightmare.
                      \- The Economist says the opposite.
                         \_ Assuming you're talking about the article
                            "On the turning away", you need to re-read the
                            article.  These two articles are talking in
                            different time frames. -jrleek
                   \_ Very true, thanks for pointing this out. By cutting down
                      savages and foreign competition, Manifest Destiny shall
                      be reborn. GWB is proclaiming a message of hope and
                      deliverance for White Christian America. God Bless GWB
                      and John Ashcroft.                     -conservative
                \_ Are you a citizen?  The military-industrial complex is in
                   dire need of software engineers, not as if you're probably
                   not already funded by it:
                   http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=541
                   The funniest part is that this is true.
                   \_ Yeah, my PC hippie grad student tenant, who is married
                      to the peace activist grad school drop-out hippie wife,
                      just took a job with a CIA funded corp because they were
                      the only ones willing to hire a linguist in his field
                      of expertise.
        \_ Scientist: ...
        \_ Slacker: .
        \_ Tax Payer:
        \_ Music Industry: .
        \_ Help Desk Specialist and Unix SysAdmin
        \_ Help Desk  pecialist and Unix SysAdmin
        \_ Our company is the leading provider of ircII scripts for
           Fortune 500 executives.
        \- Gigolo -ok, thnk
        \_ Househusband: .
2005/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36362 Activity:high
2/22    See if you can spot the loaded questions and false dichotomies on this
        "moral politics" test.
        http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home
        \_ Apparently I'm a socialist!  I never knew. -jrleek
           \_ That's "terrorist" to you, young man.  Get with the new
              terminology.
        \_ Looks like a ripoff of http://www.politicalcompass.org
           including the bad questions.  -emarkp
           \_ "These so-called ill-treatments and torturing in
              concentration camps, stories of which were spread
              everywhere amongst the people, and particularly by
              detainees who were liberated by the occupying armies,
              were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but by
              individual leaders, sub-leaders , and men who laid violent
              hands on them." -- Rudolf Hss, Commandant of Auschwitz
              hands on them." -- Rudolf HM-vss, Commandant of Auschwitz
              until 1943, in his post-war testimony
              http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.php
              \_ "The problem is, this kind of thing occurs in
                 prisons across the country and across the world. And
                 you have to know it's going to be a possibility. And
                 therefore the training and the discipline and the
                 doctrine has to be such that you anticipate that
                 risk. And clearly, that wasn't done to the extent it
                 should." -Don Rumsfeld, Feb 3 2005
           \_ I consider myself liberal and I got:Economic Left/Right: -6.38
              Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59
        \_ I am a moderate social democrat. No American party represents
           me. But I already knew that!
2005/2/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36336 Activity:nil
2/20    Bush and Doug Wead?? Dug Weed, are you kidding me???
2005/2/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36226 Activity:high 52%like:37358
2/18    Latest news on the Gay Male Prostitute at the White House story:
        http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=92
        \_ Real title: "Washington reporters skeptical of photograph
           purporting to show hard pass; 'Inconclusive'
        \_ Actually, the latest is that he was in the press room before
           his "employer," Talon "News," was in existence.
           \_ http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005127.php
        \_ Why is this such a big deal? Other than lofting a few
           puffballs at Bush, what did he do that was so wrong?
           \_ After all, Pravda is always true!
           \_ How am I going to explain to my children that the President
              had a gay male prostitute working for him?
              \_ How was this guy "working" for the President?
                 \_ He was planted by the administration to ask softball
                    questions.
2005/2/17 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36213 Activity:high
2/17    Bush warned 52 times before 9/11 attacks:
        http://csua.org/u/b3f
        \_ we are constantly warned of an attack from Al Qaeeda,
           it's going to happen, what are you doing about it?
           \_ Heed the warnings and order up a full complement of armed air
              marshals.  Oh wait, we only did that after 9/11, right?
              \_ You missed the point. There is no way to know which method
                 Al Qaeda will use to attack us. They might not use planes
                 at all. They have just threatened attack. So how do you
                 stop them?
                 \_ did you read the URL?  yes, the whole thing.
                    \_ Did you read my post? Yes, the whole thing. I'm
                       Al Qaeda. I tell you I am going to "attack the USA".
                       What will you do about it? The point here is that
                       Bush would get the blame in that instance, but what
                       can he do about it, really? The instance in the
                       article is specific. I am talking about a general case.
                       \_ You increase security and alert law enforcement.  You
                          take it as an actual problem and work to increase
                          human intelligence.  You look at the outgoing
                          administration's thoughts on the matter and develop
                          a strategy.  You don't go back to crawford to "clear
                          brush".  If it had been a priority issue, maybe the
                          FAA would have said yes when NORAD asked them if they
                          wanted an intercept on the off-course flights.
                       \_ Yes, I read your post, the whole thing.
                          I got your point, a long time ago.
                          You missed my point.
                          Your point is obvious to everyone.
                          My point, the same one in the article, is not.
                          That's why I asked you if you read the whole URL.
                          Had we heeded the warnings and ordered up a full
                          complement of armed air marshalls prior to 9/11,
                          we might not have had a 9/11, or at least had
                          competently placed security to afford a chance.
                          And, you still haven't said whether or not you've
                          read the entire URL, which was my question.
                          -- If you really did, maybe you wouldn't have wasted
                          your words on me.
                       \_ You are talking about a general case that did
                          not exist.
                          \_ It exists at this very moment and as such is
                             more pertinent than what someone did or did
                             not do 5 years ago.
2005/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36203 Activity:very high
2/16    How do the Republicans on the motd think about this?
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4805078,00.html
        Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security
        \_ What bullshit.  Bush'll raise taxes for Social Security, but
           the money will actually go to fund the Iraq war and other
           budget needs, just like the current Social Security surplus.
           Yes, that's right:  SS tax brings in more money than SS
           beneficiaries receive, and Congress spends the rest and gives
           the SS system an IOU--which will never be paid because when
           the IOU comes due, we won't have enough tax base to pay it.
           Spending has to be cut.  Period.  --PeterM
           \_ The SS surplus by law is used to buy T-bonds. Currently the
              SS program has trillions in t-bonds and will continue to accumulate
              more until 2018 or so. After that the SS program will start cashing
              in the t-bonds to pay benifits.
           \_ I don't think you are a republican, but thanks for your
              input anyway. -op
              \_ Didn't I sound like a Republican? --PeterM
                 \_ No, a loyal Republican would support private accounts and
                    be opposed to any across the board increase in the
                    payroll tax.
           \_ You sure about that?  If what you were saying were true, "IOU
              ... will never be paid ... enough tax base", don't you think
              Dubya would be saying it would be a lot EARLIER than 2042 when
              we'd be in trouble?  I believe we start drawing on the "IOUs"
              as early as 2010.
              as early as 2018.
              \_ He is: "Some in our country think that Social Security is a
                 trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being
                 accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll
                 taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent
                 on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is
                 no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what
                 goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in
                 -- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says
                 we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now.
                 The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem."
                 - Bush 2/9/2005  http://csua.org/u/b3g  (whitehouse.gov)
                 \_ Thanks.  Okay, Dubya does mention 2018 in saying "we've
                    got a problem".  And from what you posted, Dubya is
                    saying the trust fund does not have "a pile of money being
                    accumulated".
                    So I ask you, peterm, and Dubya, will those government
                    bonds "never be paid" -- never be redeemed?
                    Someone please answer question below:
              Question:  Has the U.S. ever redeemed any of the government bonds
              that surpluses have been used to purchase?
              \_ have you ever redeemed IOUs you wrote to yourself?  SS is
                 a fraud ponzi scheme.  If I, as an individual, tried to
                 sell this kind 'insurance' plan I would be put in jail.
                 \_ "The validity of the public debt of the United
                    States, authorized by law, including debts incurred
                    for payment of pensions and bounties for services
                    in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall
                    not be questioned."
                    Why do you hate America?
                 \_ You would also be put in jail if you overthrew a foreign
                    government.  This is a stupid argument.
                 \_ You and peterm are saying:
                    U.S. economy + U.S. government bonds
                      == Your personal finances + IOUs you write yourself
                    ... when in fact the above equation is a myth.
                    Since this is an important topic, I'll start a new motd
                    thread on another day (sorry, got a lot of work - can't
                    monitor the motd today). -the "You sure about that?" guy
              \_ Bush is the one spending all the damned money.  Of course
                 he doesn't want to come clean.
        \_ Bush is brilliant!   -conservative
           \_ You misspelled 'Republican'.
        \_ Will benefits also be raised? I doubt the plan is for high
           income to pay more in and get the same back out.
        \_ How is this different than what Kerry proposed, which is pretty
           much distributing wealth from the wealthy to the poor?
           \_ Republicans aren't supposed to be raising taxes, at all,
              especially since this is Bush Jr.
              ... Read my lips!
           \_ FUCK POOR PEOPLE!  Maybe if we cut their benefits enough of
              them will FUCKING STARVE and not hold our mighty economy back!
              \_ if there are not poor people, then the middle class becomes
                 the poor people.
           \_ I am not really interested in hearing what Republicans think
              about Kerry. I already know that. -op
        \_ I'm irritated at this.  I'd rather see bigger cuts to the federal
           budget.  But then I'd also like to see the borders secured.  Those
           are the two things that make conservatives scratch their collective
           heads about GW.  -emarkp
           \_ you can't fight a war and then cut taxes and balance the budget,
              something has got to give, and in this case his rich friends
              (ppl making over 90K) are getting fucked. Now they can only
              afford to buy BMW 500s for their kids instead of BMW 740is.
              \_ 90K/year is rich?  Are you a troll?  No one making 90k/year
                 can afford a 740is, kids, mortgage, etc.  Try some math.
                 \_ 90K/year anywhere other than SFBA, LA, or NYC puts you
                    nicely well off, able to afford a house, save for
                    retirement, and leverage into real estate/entrepreneurship.
                    It's not rich, but for most of the nation is upper middle
                    class.
              \_ The rich friends aren't worried about payroll taxes.  They're
                 sitting pretty with dividend and capital gains cuts, not to
                 mention lower attention on tax avoidance.
              \_ Your assumption is that cutting tax rates reduces revenue.
                 That is not necessarily theoretically true, and isn't actually
                 true in GWB's case.  I've charted the last 100 months of
                 income/expense (from cbo.gov) and while revenue dropped
                 dramatically post-9/11, we've increased year-to-year for the
                 past 2 years.  Tax revenue is actually above 1997/1998 levels.
                 -emarkp
                 \_ This is silly.  Tax revenue _should_ increase year to
                    year.  Why? Because the economy grows year to year.  It is
                    rare for the economy to not have a net gain over the whole
                    year, and even rarer for it to not have a net gain over
                    two years.  The 2004 economy _should_ be larger than the
                    1997 economy.  That's 7 years.  On average the economy has
                    grown ~3 pct(iirc) per year.  That's 21 pct growth since
                    1997, assuming the boom/bust years even out.
                    \_ Except the predictions were that the Bush's economic
                       policy would destroy the economy, 9/11 was a serious
                       blow, and the tax cuts lowered the revenue in theory.
                       -emarkp
                       \_ Not destroy the economy right away, duh. Def-i-cit.
                          \_ Deficit/GDP is lower than 1990-1993 years.
                             \_ It is true that it is lower than the worst
                                period since WWII. It is the second worst.
                       \_ Tax cuts did lower the revenue, look at the numbers
                          below.  The economy was not destroyed.  Yes, it
                          entered recession, but overall, growth occurred from
                          2000-2004.  The key is that _despite_ economic
                          growth almost equal to the Clinton boom years, gvmt
                          tax revenue dropped SUBSTANTIALLY.  Ergo, in
                          actuality, tax cuts reduce tax revenue.
                 \_  "From 1996 to 2000 GDP grew by $2 trillion, and tax
                      revenues grew by $550 billion. From 2000 to 2004 GDP
                      grew by $1.9 trillion, but tax revenues declined by
                      $143 billion. What changed? We had roughly the same
                      level of economic activity. If tax cuts lead to more
                      federal revenue, shouldn't $1.9 trillion in growth
                      have yielded more than $550 billion in new tax revenue,
                      and not a $143 billion decline?"  -Former conservative,
                      now liberal economist.  All numbers from  Chamber of
                      Commerce and CBO.
                      \_ Good reference, and thanks for pointing it out:
                         http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html
                         Includes tax revenue as percentage of GDP.  I had no
                         idea it has been hovering near 20% since WW2.  That's
                         amazing and horrifying.  -emarkp
                         \_ Add in state taxes and the total government take
                            is more like 30%. But still lower than every other
                            member of the OECD. -ausman
                      \_ So you have discovered tax revenues fall when
                         the economy enters a cyclical downturn after a
                         bubble market, and after the World Trade centers
                         are destroyed which send the economy reeling,
                         and that tax revenues fall in a war based economy.
                         Congratulations for this perspicacious revelation.
                         You should rename yourself former conservative
                         liberal economist who is also stupid.
                         \_ Can you even read?  4 year period. Same economic
                            growth: ~1.9-2 trillion dollars.  Cyclical economy,
                            bubble economy, 9/11 should have _nothing_ to
                            do with it.  If the economy grows the exact same
                            amount, why in the world would any of your factors
                            affect tax revenue?  The _only_ thing affecting
                            tax revenue, after economic growth is the Bush
                            tax cut.
                            \_ Well, it's simple.  Bush's morals inspired more
                               ppl to take him as a role model and cheat on
                               their taxes.
                            \_ three words you may have heard of and were
                               alluded to in my post: capital gains, bubble
                               \_ The shortfall has to do with capital gains,
                                  but only because GW Bush cut cap. gains and
                                  dividend taxes.  If you think the difference
                                  in capital gains taxes(at an equal level of
                                  taxation) comes out to $700 billion, you're
                                  crazy.  Prove it.  Meanwhile, I'll say that
                                  the bulk of that $700 billion tax revenue
                                  shortfall is due to Dubya's tax cut.
                 \_ Tax revenue is up, but interest rates are still abnormally
                    loose, and the tax cuts have not fully hit yet.  Also, the
                    promise of yet more money into military action and cutting
                    meat rather than fat is going to make continuing these
                    trends difficult if not impossible.  State and local
                    governments are trying to pick up the slack while already
                    bankrupt.  I can't remember which agency (maybe gao)
                    governments are trying to pick up the slack while heading
                    for bankruptcy.  I can't remember which agency (maybe gao)
                    reported that if the tax cuts were made permanent, by 2024
                    the only thing the fed gov could afford would be debt
                    interest.
                 \_ this is nice, but would be much better and more convincing
                    to us stupid liberals if it came from someone other than
                    religious right conservatives.
                    \_ Then track it yourself.  sheesh. -!pp
                    \_ All the data is at:
                       http://www.cbo.gov/byclasscat.cfm?cat=35
                       Where I couldn't find a simple line-item for monthly
                       income or expense, I used the estimated value.
                       I've uploaded the data to /csua/tmp in OpenOffice and MS
                       Excel format.  Check it yourself.  Let me know if there
                       I've uploaded the data to /csua/tmp in OpenOffice
                       format.  Check it yourself.  Let me know if there
                       are errors.
                       /csua/tmp/bud_1997_to_Present.sxc
                       /csua/tmp/bud_1997_to_Present.xls
                       -emarkp
                       \- Can you do this back to 1990? Also, are these
                          inflation adujusted? ok thx.
                          \_ Historical data:
                          http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
                          I don't think any of the numbers are inflation
                          adjusted.  Do you have a handy inflation table?
                          [Found one.  I included inflation and remove the .xls
                          file.  Use OpenOffice.]
                          -emarkp
                    \_ Haha, this remark made my day. -- ilyas
2005/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36186 Activity:moderate
2/15    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147731,00.html
        Bush is going to cut education as promised. I bet this is going
        to help with the military recruitment, hence killing 2 birds
        with 1 stone. Bush is brilliant, simply brilliant   -conservative
        \_ You are about as conservative as Howard Dean.
           \_ RAAWWWWRRRRGGGHH!!
2005/2/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36129 Activity:very high
2/10    http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html
        Heil Bush.  Article by conservative writer about the birth of
        fascism in Germany and present-day US.
        \_ Does it use the word 'neocon'?  (okay, I checked--what a surprise it
           does.)
           \_ I know you guys are upset because we came up with a word
              that pisses you off as much as us being called liberals pisses
              us off.  Payback's a b****.
              \_ I don't get pissed off by "liberal".  I'm liberal and proud.
                 --scotsman
              \_ Except conservatives didn't come up with 'liberal'.  The whole
                 'neocon' usage has been a too-thinly-veiled attempt to
                 associate conservatives with neo-nazis IMO.  That fact that no
                 one can define 'neocon' doesn't help.
                 \_ Wrong:
                    http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
                    Here is another (similar) definition:
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States
                    What is the definition of a liberal?
                    \_ Hehe.  There is no way me and Cheney can belong to the
                       same ideological group.  We disagree on almost
                       everything.  -- ilyas
                       \_ I don't believe you and I'm not trolling. If this is
                          so, I would like to see it elucidated. Near as I can
                          tell from reading your stuff here for the past
                          couple of years, you've been a consistent apologist
                          for Cheney and his ilk the entire time. That might
                          not, I suppose, mean you *agree* with him. That's
                          fine. On a great number of things I didn't agree with
                          Kerry or Dean. -- ulysses
                          \_ Oh, I just go by the issue quiz I took during the
                             2000 election, where I agreed with him the least,
                             and with Lieberman the most (omg j00!).  I don't
                             think I am an 'apologist' for the Bush
                             administration policies -- I don't like a number
                             of things they did; the war in Iraq is not one
                             of them.  (I also liked how you framing me as an
                             'apologist' also neatly frames their entire
                             tenure as something that needs an apology).
                             Bush admin != Cheney.  Near as I can
                             tell the only remotely controversial thing about
                             Cheney was the Halliburton thing, which I have
                             no problems with for reasons unrelated to my
                             disagreements with Cheney himself.  One thing
                             I really like about Cheney is that he's really
                             smart. -- ilyas
                       \_ I suspect you and Cheney can both agree that Tom is
                          a twink.
                          \_ Touche. -- ilyas
                       \_ There is one obvious solution: you are not a neocon.
                          \_ A fair number of people on soda will disagree
                             with you.  Which is sort of my point.  It's a
                             non-concept. -- ilyas
                             \_ How about "signatories to PNAC"?
                    \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
              \_ What pisses me off is the neo-liberals hijacking the
                 "liberal" name.
        \_ Thanks for the article.  I realize that Nazis are often used to
           criticize political opponents who are nothing of the sort, but I
           this is a valid comparison.  I used to wonder how the Nazi party
           could come to power in a democracy, but after living through the
           first Bush administration I can now imagine it.  When the leaders
           of a country are so convinced that they are right that they will
           repeatedly deceive everyone else about their policies, disaster
           can't be far behind.  Unfortunately, I think that our country is
           so polarized that people can no longer have a rational discussion
           about this.
           \_ You are actually comparing Bush's first term to Nazi Germany?
              WTF?  How tight is your tin-foil hat?
              \_ Did you read the article?  It compares the rise of fascist
                 tendencies in Germany pre-WW2 to a similar rise in post-9/11
                 America.  There is no direct comparison between Bush's first
                 term to Nazi Germany, but rather a comparison between the
                 term and the factors existing in Germany that _preceeded_
                 fascism. -op
                 \_ I think you are just needlessly confusing things by
                    your repeated referencing of Nazi Germany. There were
                    many many countries that have been fascist that were
                    not racialist, the way the Nazis were. Franco or
                    Mussolini are better examples to use because they
                    less emotion laden.
                    \_ point taken. edited accordingly. -op
                    \_ Dude, you said racialist.
                 \_ No, I have not read the article and have no intention of
                    doing so.  I'm worn out from so many stupid attempts to
                    call Bush Hitler.  It was done in that UCB study last year,
                    and it's been done elsewhere.  Here's an idea.  Read the
                    essay again and try to match anyplace else to Nazi Germany.
                    I'm confident you'll be able to compare Clinton or anyone
                    else as well as Bush.
                    \_ The article doesn't call Bush Hitler.  In fact, it
                       doesn't even call Bush fascist:  "I don't think there
                       are yet real fascists in the administration ..."  As
                       mentioned in prior posts, the article is about the
                       populace more than the leadership. -op
                    \_ The magazine it is written is The American Conservative,
                       not some lefty rag. For that reason at least, you
                       should be willing to read it.
                       \_ Meh.  I've never read the mag before, why should I
                          read it now?  This paragraph grabbed my attention and
                          made me realize it's full of crap:
                "But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing
                attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least
                latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website
                that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as
                .hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass
                bloodshed for more than a year now.. One of the biggest
                right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass
                destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine
                from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would
                welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it.s not just
                us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column
                suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather
                than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo
                Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood,
                Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold
                War. .It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a
                maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state
                bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God
                marching on earth.not just godlike, but really serving as a
                proxy for God himself.."
                \_ You're missing quotation marks.  The last two sentences are
                   a quote from Rockwell, and not the author of the article.
                   The rest of the paragraph describes facts, except for the
                   one statement that the mood described in these facts is
                   "latently fascist."  So why was it full-of-crap?  Because
                   you don't agree that those facts are latently fascist, or
                   because he quoted another author's wording to illustrate
                   the other author's point?
                   \_ The Free Republic is not hate filled!
                        \_ And it isn't free either ... Any post that doesn't
                           toe the party line is instantly nuked.
                           \_ And this is different from motd and DUmmies (aka
                              "democratic"underground) how?
                \_ Rockwell and Raimondo were former, and maybe current,
                   Free Republic posters.  Raimondo has been driven from/left the
                   site too many times to count.
2005/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36083 Activity:nil
2/6     One of those "programs" that must be "redundant"
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/politics/07budget.html
2005/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36070 Activity:high
2/4     Proof Enron turned off the lights in California:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/national/04energy.html
        \_ uh DUH, everyone already knows that, what good is proof gonna
           do for Californians now? It's like the Clinton scandal, everyone
           knows that the dress has his sperm, what good is the DNA test
           gonna do? It's like the Bush war scandal, everyone knows that the
           war's a dumb & hasty decision, but what good is it to prove that
           it's bad via all the numbers? Shit. You're pissing me off.
        \_ what exactly do you expect companies to do when the PUC buys
           daily all of their energy on the spot market and even anounces their
           intentions?  It is called a free market for a reason.  This game
           sure had a big effect on LA, not.  You might as well
           rename the article "Company acts in a manner to maximize
           shareholder profit that is legal under existing system".
           \_ Except it wasn't legal.
              \_ it was unethical, but sadly, legal at the time.
                 \_ You are an idiot.
                 \_ It was illegal. Hence the billion dollar judgements
                    against them. Do you understand the difference between
                    criminal law and civil law?
                 \_ the government is the law and can change the law
                    as it sees necessary, including to retroactively
                    sue companies such as the tobacco industry.  Its funny
                    that none of the california legislature members never
                    returned the hundreds of thousands given by Enron during
                    the '90s, nor did Davis ever return the hundreds of
                    thousands he received.  The California taxpayer was
                    in fact screwed by its government.
                    \_ Which is why we recalled Davis.
2005/2/4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36063 Activity:high
2/4     What do you sodans think if an Alien race came and claims that our
        democracy is inferior than their whatever system. Does that
        give them the right to attack us? Will any of you be working
        for the "Alien" for a "better America"?
        \_ definitely. i'd embrace their culture and worship their kind
        \_ let me be the first to welcome our new alien overlords.
           \_ damn, you beat me to it!
        \_ What would you sodans do if a stupid troll was posted on the
           motd?
           \_ ilyas wrote the question so it's not a troll. anyways, yes,
              they will have the right to attack us, as long as it's done
              in the name of Jesus Christ. God Bless.
              \_ Actually ilyas wrote one of the replies.  But don't let me
                 get in the way of the infallibility of your spy script.
                 P.S. You are an idiot.  -- ilyas
        \_ Well.  That would depend on whether it is _actually_ better.
           \_ this is a matter of opinion, and if the Alien race used their
            \_ No, it's not.  Some forms of government are better than
               others.  You = Lenin's useful idiot.
              super media power to convince us, YES, so be it. But if the
              alien race failed to convince us at first and then attacked us,
              then it's their fault. Case in point:
              http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/web.us
              The point is that information warfare is just as important as
              traditional warfare, and in this case, the US failed to win
              information battles and has a hard time catching up
              \_ No, it's not.  Some forms of government are better than
                 others.  You = Lenin's useful idiot.
                 \_ Better in terms of what? Freedom? Economics? Military
                    Power? Control? And better for whom? Your brain has been
                    classified as: American, self-centered and self-righteous
                             \- you must pay me 5cents
                    \_ American!  Now that stings!  Your brain has been
                       classified as: European, relativist, and morally
                       bankrupt.  This game is fun.
                       \_ Your brain has been classified as: Russian Jew,
                                             \- you must pay me 5cents
                          sarcastic, not funny, and attention whore.
                          (seeking attention on motd. how pathetic)
                          \_ Wasn't my brain American a second ago?  Make up
                            your mind!  And yes, I stand suitably humbled
                             your brain!  And yes, I stand suitably humbled
                             by a fellow motd poster, who clearly is not
                             limited by any kind of whoring himself.
           \_ But is democracy _actually_ better than what was in Iraq
              before?
                \_ your brain has been classified as: small.
                   \_ wait... whose brain?
                      \_ The brain of anyone who disagrees with ilyas on any
                         subject.
        \_ We are the Americans.  You will be democratized.  Resistance is
           terrorism.
           \_ Hahahahaha, you've made my day! This about sums it up!!
              \_ ARe you Chinese?  Do you understand the impact of the opium
                 trade on Cnina?
        \_ I think that you fail to understand something fundamental
           about how the world works. Behind the protective wall of
           civilization people are free to argue about this right or
           that, but outside of those walls, a man's rights are based
           on his ability to defeat and destroy all those that oppose
           him. If the Aliens are stronger than we are, then we may
           have no choice but to live by their rules.
           Personally, given a choice between American and the Alien,
           I would fight and die for this nation b/c I believe that
           no better alternative can exist in this life.
           \_ My country right or wrong!  -John
2005/2/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36050 Activity:very high
2/3     Obama for Pres.
        \_ Obama lin Saden!
        \_ Obama for Pres... in 20 years.
        \_ Seriously guys, he only just got in the Senate.  Let him
           actually do something before you make him a saint.
           \_ Saint, schmaint. I just want a Pres.
        \_ I really don't know much about the guy, what makes him so
           popular?
           \_ Charismatic, young, liberal, good public speaker.  The
              overachieving son of an overachieving immigrant father.
              \_ And yet, somehow not Republican. What's not to love?
              \_ Not to mention true believer
                 \_ What does he believe in? Democracy? America?
                    \_ Spiderman!
           \_ I don't understand it either.  Although I'm proud to see
              fellow Mixed person get so much press, it seems
              underdeserved.  If he does something like craft a balanced
              budget, or start a successful initiative I would take
              more notice.
        \_ The first black president (if we ever elect one) will not be
           a Democrat.  -tom
           \_ To quote you, "you're an idiot."
           \_ He's not Black, he's Bi-racial, which means you could call
              him as much White as Black.  But electing even a Mixed
              person would be an achievement for America as long as he was
              qualified.
              \_ He was raised in Hawaii by his white mother and grandmother,
                 so I don't think he's "black" in any way that really matters.
                 But that's not the way people in the red states see it.  -tom
              \_ Don't you know the one-drop rule?
                 \_ My bad, thought we were in the 21st century.
              \_ The Democrats would never allow Bush to get a non-White
                 elected; I mean, just look at Gonzalez, right?
                 \_ That's because any non-white Republican is a traitor
                    to their race.  They even have special racial epithets
                    for them, like "Uncle Tom" or "House Nigger."
                    \_ It's funny, but these are the horrifying words
                       that black people give to Condoleeza Rice and
                       Colin Powell. Bush has so many 'token' minorities
                       in his cabinet that I think they outnumber white
                       folks.
                       \_ Not even close, fella:
                          http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html
                          Two blacks, two asians and 11 whites.
                          \_ This is the current cabinet excluding Powell.
                             I was exaggerating, but the point is the
                             same. If 1/3 of the cabinet is 'token'
                             minorities are they really tokens? I find
                             that notion in itself to be offensive.
                             \_ Aren't minorities overrepresented (given
                                population proportions) in the Bush
                                cabinet? -- ilyas
        \_ the next president will be Jeb Bush, not some lame ass Democrat
           who has no connection, no clout, nothing, like our dumb ass
           losers like Gore and Kerry.          -disillusioned Democrat
           \_ Man, I sure hope the Republicans can come up with someone
              better than Jeb.  I really think the whole elcet Jeb thing
              is just democrat whining anyway.  I sure do wish the dems
              could come up with a reasonable canidate though. Is it
              really THAT hard?  --republican
              \_ Funny.  My view of the republican noise about Hillary is
                 similar to your view of the Jeb fears.  I guess because the
                 hatred is so visceral on both sides. Just thinking about
                 Jeb raises my blood pressure, and my impression is that
                 a lot of republicans feel that way about Hillary.  I'm
                 actually planning to register republican just so I can vote
                 against Jeb in the primary.  That's how much I fucking
                 hate that guy.  Call me irrational, but when a political
                 leader comes out in favor of voter fraud, I consider that
                 to be simply un-American, and worth fighting against.
                 \_ I agree with you on the Hillary thing.  The dems would
                    have to be nuts to field Hillary.
        \_ Obama is a marxist.  In case you motd people who don't get out
           much haven't noticed, Communism is dead.
           Even worse, he is a muslim.
           \_ It is funny to me that I can't tell the difference between
              the trolls and the Real Bush Republicans anymore.
              \_ yea, make the most powerful man in the world a marxist
                 muslim.  The left's wet dream.
                 \_ Troll harder, young master.
                    \_ trite idiocy is not going to change his politics
                       or heritage.
           \_ Link?
2005/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35936 Activity:high
1/27    3rd journalist now busted for being on the take from Bush administration
        without disclosing it:
        http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/27/mcmanus/index.html
        How soon before we get to refer to Bush as "Comrade President?"
        \_ It's Presidente.  Like Potatoe.
        \_ what about PBS, Sierra Club, Nature Conservatory, NOW,
           Bill Moyers....
           \_ uh, what about them?
              \_ the context of the thread is receiving government
                 funds, so take a wild guess.
           let us be intellectually honest here and not give money
           to any of them.
           \_ If you can't see the difference between the Sierra Club and the
              government secretely paying journalists to promote its agenda,
              umm... you're probably a troll.
              \_ Don't you think that guy really is that stupid?
              \_ Effectively what is the distinction between an advocacy
                 organization and a journalist?  I would argue the
                 organizations, which receive millions, are more insidious.
                 PBS, NPR, and Moyers are not journalists?
2005/1/27 [Uncategorized/Profanity, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35933 Activity:high
1/27    I hate Bush.
        \_ why did you put him up against Lurch?
        \_ Culturally illiterate moron vwapped.
        \_ fuck old people!
        \_ Dubya is a nice guy, but he's dumb and surrounded by smart people
           who all have something seriously wrong with them.
           Dubya's smirk and asshole looks come from being dumb.
        \_ That's okay. He cares not one whit what you think, either.
        \_ I like bush, but don't rule out anal until you've tried it.
           \_ ... or oral.
2005/1/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35917 Activity:moderate
1/26    Why do you guys like to post politics on motd? What does motd have
        that http://freerepublic.com, http://cnn.com discussions, http://fox.com groups,
        Air America forums, etc don't have? I'm just trying to understand
        the motivations, thanks.
        \_ There's one person (it's all it takes) who keeps posting
           \_ Don't be rediculous.  There must be a dozen or more people in
              this forum that post political stuff.
           this shit up here. We've asked him/her a number of times
           on what the motivation was, response was some irrational
           belief that they're making a difference, etc. etc. The one
           poster puts up the most provactive unfounded bullshit and you
           get the avalanche effect. I think a number of people have
           started just screening and deleting this shit already.
           Anyway, it was really bad after the election, I think some
           guy was posting threats to kill the president, etc., stuff
           that would no doubt have gotten us into hot water. -williamc
           \_ You're part of the problem, Mr. Deport-Liberals-to-Canada.
           \_ What makes you think it is only one person?
        \_ When you're a nutjob, it's better to not have to sign your
           posts.  Trolls from nutjobs stop working once people realize
           who they're dealing with.  -tom
           \_ Soda has a pretty busy nutjob contingent--sometimes I'm
              \_ Surprised?  Impressed?  Enraged?  Aroused?  What?!?  The
                 suspese is killin' me here!!            -mice
                 \_ My mission is to make yourself interesting.  If I _told_
                    you what I am, it wouldn't be very suspeseful, would it?
                    \_ NOOOOO!  HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!1!  WHY THIS
                       ALWAYS HAPPEN TO MEEEEEEEE????!?!!?
              by how many simultaneous freeper troll threads they can keep
              going.  -John
        \_ Much higher signal to noise ratio.
        \_ As above, but also you get rational people from both sides.
        \_ The format of the motd suits itself to political trolls. It's
           anonymous, and the threads are compact with replies following a
           natural tree-like structure. Certain online forum software can
           achieve a similar effect, but most of them don't, and often
           crack down on political trolls. Political trolls should really
           have their own motd file but that would defeat the purpose...
           trolls need a large lake in which to cast.
2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:35896 Activity:kinda low
1/26    Awesome.  MOTD full of 5 most important subjects:  Bush, Abortion,
        Death Penalty, Iraq, and lesbians.  -John
        \_ dude, it's boring. How about posting something interesting or
           funny or odd? For example your Black German link was pretty funny.
        \_ But where are the Swift Boats?!
2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35889 Activity:high
1/25    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145330,00.html
        Your pro-Bush fanatic Bill says "The truth is the Bush
        administration has made mistakes in Iraq and in defining the
        new rules in the terror war."
        Fox is becoming more and more Fair and Balanced.
        \_ If you think O'Reilly is pro-Bush fanatic, you didn't see his
           interview with Bush (which is the only thing I've seen of him in 2
           years). -emarkp
           \_ Is that something I might be able to find on the web?  When was
              that?
              \_ Your google fu is weak:
                 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133712,00.html
                 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133854,00.html
                 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133993,00.html
        \_ Dubya needs to clarify to Americans and the world that we were wrong
           about WMDs.  He can open reconstruction bids to other countries.
           Then he can say, regardless of the U.S.'s mistake in presenting
           its case on WMDs to the UN, the people of Iraq don't deserve to
           Then he can say, regardless of the U.S.'s incorrect conclusions on
           WMDs as presented to the UN, the people of Iraq don't deserve to
           suffer because of one nation's faulty intelligence.
           Then he can ask for help from Americans and the rest of the world.
           Dubya has had the ball in his court since Kay and Duelfer's
           findings, and arguably, since his re-election.
           It has been fully Dubya's decision to not make the clarification on
           WMDs to the world, and all the consequences follow naturally and
           deservingly.
           WMDs to the world, and all the consequences of people not wanting
           to ally with him follow naturally and deservingly.
           \_ Dubya has made no mistakes that he can recall. Didn't you
              watch the debates? He has a mandate from God. He doesn't
              need to admit to error.
        \_ O'Reilly is neither Pro Bush nor Anti anything.  He is merely
           Pro-Ratings and Pro-Publicity and Pro-OReilly
           \_ Pro-O'Reilly is closest, but I also say he's anti-liberal.
              Hard to defend Dubya's mistakes, but in the context of
              "liberals", O'Reilly says Dubya is still better than them.
2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35886 Activity:very high
1/25    Budget deficit of $368b predicted for this year, plus whatever Bush
        gets for Iraq. How does that compare to Reagan?
        \_ Here's a graph from 1960-2002.  Sadly can't find one including
           the last two years.   Not sure if the projected '03 and '04
           numbers include projected Iraq expenses.  [thanks for stomping
           my change, asshat]
           http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
           \_ Great resource, thanks! More specifically, how do these deficits
              compare in terms of real dollar value at the time (i.e., Reagan's
              deficits in 1980 dollars vs. Bush's deficits in same)?
              \_ http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
                 The tables are not in constant dollar, but they also give
                 the amounts in percentage of GDP, which is really what you
                 should be looking at anyway.  The Reagan and the early
                 Clinton years were both worse for the deficit.
                 \_ Uh.  When do you think the "Clinton years" started?
                    Starting in 93 (The start of the clinton years), the
                    deficit headed DOWN.  It's Reagan and Bush I that were
                    "worse for the deficit".
                    \_ Clinton had the good fortune to enjoy the benefits
                       of the heavy lifting Bush I did on raising taxes.
                       Bush II won't repeat the same mistake of doing the
                       hard work so a Democrat can take the credit.
                       \_ Or you could say that Bush I took the brunt of
                          trying to keep the country solvent because of the
                          excesses of the 80's, and people realized that
                          cutting taxes while increasing spending ... doesn't
                          work.
                          \_ The 2 views are not contradictory.
                       \_ Have you heard of "The Pledge?"  No Republican will
                          ever raise taxes again, ever.
                          \_ Why do Republicans hate America?
                          \_ "Read my lips" notwithstanding, Bush I might well
                             have won the re-election if he had another year
                             in his first term and the country started
                             enjoying the fruits of his tax increases.
                             \_ Maybe, but the lesson the Republicans learned
                                from Bush I was "Raise taxes and die."
                   \_ Much credit goes to Newt Gingrich, for keeping down
                      spending from 96 onwards. -liberal
                      \_ And for championing "family values" while in the
                         midst of a 7 year affair with one of his employees!
        \_ $368 + $100B for war + ??? for SS "reform"
           It could easily be over $600B.
        \_ How the hell did Clinton get +523 while all the rest get negatives?
           He didn't do anything that was so radical from the other
           presidents. Talking about radical, Bush=radical conservative.
           \_ Between 91 and 95, they fixed a number of structural budget
              problems.  From that, the discussion was able to move from
              "how to balance the budget" to "how much do we use to pay
              down the debt and how much to cut taxes".
2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35879 Activity:high
1/20    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/20/rollling.stone.ap/index.html
        What happened to the First Amendment? We will fight back and
        we will not rest until we get our messages across on every
        single newspaper ads, magazine ads, and commercials.
        \_ I know this is a troll, but advertising is not free speech.
           \_ Well, not quite.  If Rolling Stone ran the ad, and the state
              banned the issue, that would be a violation of free speech/press.
              In contrast, Rolling Stone refusing to run the ad is not
              a violation.
              If I posted logical, persuasive anti-freeper statements on
              http://FreeRepublic.com and they were all wiped by admins, that would
              not technically be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
              \_ Plus, your account would be shut off.
           \_ Still, it's always kinda funny to see the shoe on the other
              foot.
2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35839 Activity:moderate
1/21    Turn Your Back on Bush is ineffective. What a bunch of stupid hippies.
        Why didn't they just do Throw-Eggs-And-Tomatos on Bush? That would
        have been more interesting.
        \_ Because they'll then get arrested.
        \_ All the tomato-throwers moved to Canada, duh!
2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35837 Activity:nil
1/21    Inauguration marred by cultural misunderstanding:
        http://csua.org/u/as8 (Yahoo News)
2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35834 Activity:very high
1/20    NY Times opinion        username/pw:  nty42322
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/opinion/21herbert.html
        "In January 1945, with World War II still raging, Franklin Roosevelt
        insisted on a low-key inauguration. Already gravely ill, he began his
        address by saying, "Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends,
        you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form
        of this inauguration be simple and its words brief." Times have
        changed. President Bush and his equally tone-deaf supporters spent the
        past few days partying hard while Americans, Iraqis and others
        continued to suffer and die in the Iraq conflagration. Nothing was too
        good for the princes and princesses of the new American plutocracy.
        ... As the well-heeled Bush crowd was laughing and dancing in tuxedos
        and designer gowns, the situation in Iraq was deteriorating to new
        levels of horror. The Black Tie and Boots Ball was held on the same
        day that 26 people were killed in five powerful car and truck bombs in
        Baghdad."
        \_ I don't know if I agree with your point, but I think it's pretty
           darn cool and considerate that you posted a user/pass.  -John
        \_ As if you cared when sanctions were killing Iraqis. C'mon
           you won't admit it but if Kerry won, there'd be just as many
           balls, just as big of a parade, and with Kerry's tone - even
           longer speeches.
        \_ It's obvious that the NYT and you, the poster, obviously know
           nothing about history. May I remind you that William Henry Harrison
           died from pneumonia due to giving out a 2 hour speech in bad
           weather and having attended no less than half a dozen balls
           commencing that night? This kind of commentary is the usual
           leftist drivel is the sort of crap that just plain undermines
           the Democrats. Before you believe in something, or before you
           post, try actually doing some research on the history of
           inaugration. And lest you be too ignorant to forget, LBJ's
           inaugration was hardly a small affair. The point, for the denser
           of the crowd, is that there is nothing different about
           this inaugral that is different from those performed since
           the beginning of this country. Attempting to dredge up
           one which actually IS and attempting to discredit the current
           one, however, is just really bad journalism. (William Henry Harrison,
           for the clueless on the MOTD, was our 9th president and served
           for some 30 odd days before dying).
           \_ So your point is that it's OK for Bush to have an extravagant
              inauguration while Americans and Iraqis are dying in his
              mistaken war because most other presidents are just as bad?
              Or is your point that Harrison was stupid and so its OK for
              Bush to be stupid too?  Why shouldn't people who have
              loved ones in Iraq be upset with the president for celebrating
              while people are dying?  -!op
              \_ I don't think that's his point.  Not that I particularly like
                 the idea of any Bush inauguration, low key or not, I think
                 his point is that you're being hysterical.  -John
           \_ You're right.  They do have the right to party it up while
              Iraq is turning to shit.
        \_ FDR was Stalin's best friend.  In fact FDR was jealous
           of Stalin because he was a more effective collectivist.
           So perhaps if FDR spent more time reflecting on his
           objectives rather than worrying about appearances,
           Eastern Europe would have not been subject to 50 years
           of Soviet rule, who were equivalent if not worse
           than the Nazis, and the Cold War may have been averted.
           Let's not forget the NYTimes glorified, almost deified,
           Uncle Joe during the '30s and '40s.
           \_ And the Republicans used to be for the little guys, and the
              Dems were the party of choice for crypto-Klansmen. So what?
              You think the same guys who were writing those glowing reviews
              of Uncle Joe are still writing the OpEd page for the NYTimes?
              \_ In spirit yes... except they are secular Jews and
                 gays.
                 \_ +5 self troll!
                    \_ have you ever seen any of the board of NYTimes
                       editors?  It is not a troll just a simple
                       fact of life.
                       \_ Is William Safire a gay Jewish man?
                          \_ you leftists are fed this propaganda from
                             the NYTimes and you don't even know who
                             ths source is.  Yes Safire
                             is Jewish.
                             \_ This thread has really diverged.  If you
                                wish, you may start another thread about
                                your argument, since it's hard to tell how
                                serious you're even taking yourself.
                                \_ Does anyone know when the motd anti-semite
                                   came on board?  I don't remember all these
                                   weird tinfoil hat-ish rants about Jews
                                   starting until very recently...
                                   \_ How do you know I'm not Jewish?
                                      I am moderately pro-Isreal...
                                      But I am not going to ignore
                                      obvious constructs of our society.
                                      Do you really think AIPAC is
                                      larger than any other lobby
                                      except AARP for fun?
2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35828 Activity:very high
1/20    What happened to the egg & tomato throwers? And what happened
        to the Turn-Your-Back protestors? I don't see it on news.
        \_ Yeah, I watch Fox News, too.
          \_ actually Fox News has a section on protestors.
        \_ "The procession of cars sped up as President Bush neared the
           designated location for protesters on Pennsylvania Avenue. Two rows
           of police lined the street in front of the main protest site.
           Officers stationed atop buildings along the route kept close watch
           on the crowd." -AP
        \_ you know, the President probably didn't even get to see them
           and even if he did, SO WHAT? You liberals are wasting your
           time. You lost, get over it.
           \_ Dubya now has the opportunity to fix his administration's
              mistakes for the next four years.
              \_ mistakes in the eyes of hippies and tree-huggers.
                 \_ "If I could just say one thing, though, about lessons
                    learned, and that is that I spoke yesterday about the
                    important work that we've been doing on the Office of
                    Reconstruction and Stabilization. I think that's a lesson
                    learned.  We didn't have the right skills, the right
                    capacity, to deal with a reconstruction effort of this
                    kind." -Hippie / Tree Hugger Condi Rice
        \_ Just a snowball!  http://csua.org/u/as4 (Yahoo! News photo)
2005/1/20 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35820 Activity:high
1/20    CNN: "Bush vows to spread democracy" seems more like "Bush vows
        to spread White-man disease", haha.
        \__ Democracy IS a white-man's disease.
        \_ world's largest democracy is India, where many brown
           people live. - danh
2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35810 Activity:very high
1/20    How true is this "Trixter" thing, 20 somethings who live off
        their parents, change jobs often, and change SOs often?:
        http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050124/story.html
        \_ It's a widely reported phenom in Japan, too, where they're called
           "Furita" (from the the Japanese transliteration of "free time").
        \_ The "changing jobs often" is a direct result of the destruction
           of pensions in this country.  As to the not getting married until
           later, I think this is a definitely good change.  I think in the
           next generation you'll see a lower divorce rate because of it.
           People have realized "I don't need to enter a world-without-end
           bargain with this person I don't even know", and so they find
           their own way in the world while looking for someone they can
           go along with.  I think these trends started with women's lib,
           and are for the best.  My mom married a horrible guy, got out
           when my sister was born, met my dad, and has been married to
           him for 25 years.  My sisters and I learned from that. --scotsman
                \_ ah that's because you're born in a hippie family. Look at
                   all the evil things in media-- violence, first person shooter
                   games, reality shows based on cheating and lying, etc. You
                   liberals don't know anything about family values and faith.
                   Have you been to your local church lately? You may find
                   peace and stability there. God bless.
                   \_ Hardly.  Why would you say that?  Because my mom
                      divorced?  Because she's a churchgoer and school
                      teacher?  Because my dad served in Vietnam and is
                      a retired LtC?  Get your head out of your ass.
                      You prefer someone getting married right out of
                      high school and being miserable for years in a
                      bad marriage?  I weep for your children.
                      Are you the same person that complained about the
                      guys who weren't allowed to "defend" the kid from
                      the empty water bottle?  --scotsman
                      \_ Heh, I know the guy that posted the water bottle
                         link; it's not the same guy as the one you're
                         responding to above.              -mice
                      \_ With all due respect to your veteran status (you're
                         almost as old as me) please don't feed the trolls.
                      \_ to the other guy: I'm a conservative, but in this
                         case, lay off scotsman even if he may be a hippie
                      \_ you are probably being trolled
                         \_ duh.
                   \_ Your brain is so small...I am so sad for you, so sad.
        \_ Damn, what a bunch of horseshit.  If faculty outside of the
           technical fields are not going to spend their time teaching,
           we should just fire their asses so they don't pollute the world
           with their moronic ideas.  Yes, these kids exist in massive
           numbers, and yes, they're lazy.
        \_ "Twixter" and this sounds exactly like my 25 year old brother
           and his friends. I hear from older acquaintances that many of
           their kids are the same way. In spite of what the article says,
           I do think they are lazy.
        \_ Anyone got the full article?  Also, I agree with the poster
           above.  Most twixters I know are that way because they are
           allowed to mooch.
        \_ I was like that until I was 35, but I didn't live off my
           parents. -ausman
        \_ Here in Texas, we don't have Twixters:
           http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/kdaly/2005/krd_0118.shtml
           \_ what are the Liberal Parenting Mantras?  What are the
              Conservative Parenting Mantras?
              \_ Conservative:
                 Spare The Rod, Spoil The Child
                 Children Should Be Seen And Not Heard
                 A Family That Prays Together, Stays Together
                 Liberal:
                 Bitch Betta Have My Money
                 It Depends On What The Meaning Of "Is" Is
        \_ It is a worldwide phenomena, no doubt the fault of the Lib Media:
           http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050124/sotwixter_chart.html
        \_ I see teenage moms on the bus everyday. Is this what Conservatives
           mean by "family values"?
           \_ funny, I've always thought they're liberal single parents
              like the ones you see in liberal media. Have you
              people ever wondered why conservatives are dominating
              politics? It's because they listen to people.
                Many people in America are pissed. People are sick and
              tired of liberal TV media that glorify late-20s/early-30s
              jobless comedians, minority ganstas, and gays & lesbians in
              NYC and Los Angeles. People are tired of seeing them
              sleeping with and/or shooting at each other. Call it
              evil media, bad influence, or liberal view, I don't care,
              but that is not America is about. Look, people want safety,
              security, stability, and family values, all of which
              conservatives have provided many decades ago.
                I know this thread is going to get a lot of flames.
              Typical liberal response.
              \_ The only thing in your list that any liberal would balk
                 at is "family values," and that's simply because of the
                 way social conservatives define it.  Of late (read last
                 2 decades), conservatives have not provided safety or
                 stability.  And many of the "family values" they offer are
                 not what I will try to instill in my family.
        \_ I'm not sure about in general, but in the south bay I think
           that more and more college grads are returning home after
           college. About 1/2 of my friends still live at home (we
           graduated 5-6 yrs ago). Some of us (including myself) still
           live at home b/c we are working on PhD or LS/Med school and
           don't want to pay rent in addition to tuition. Those who
           are working have taken over things like house payments or
           tuition payments for younger siblings.
2005/1/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:35794 Activity:moderate
1/19    "Bush begins his new term with the lowest approval rating at that
        point of any recent two-term president -- 49 percent in an Associated
        Press poll this month." (CNN.com)
        So, how effective do you think authorities will be at confiscating
        eggs prior to tomorrow's inauguration?
        \_ They will just shoot any dissenters.
        \_ Yawn.  Wasn't there a thread about the same thing two days ago?
           Please check motd archive.
           \_ This reminds me of that old joke about the guys in prison
              who've told the same jokes so many times that they just
              say a number and everyone laughs.  We could do that for some
              of these trolls.  Someone posts "221342353", and the usual
              suspects all chime in with numerical responses, meaning things
              like "you're an idiot" and long rants about guns. Thanks to
              the motd web archive this is actually practical (and has now
              happened a couple of times).
                \_ uh, whatever. what number is this motd and what are other
                   numbers that are similar to this one?
              \_ Yermom!
              \_ Is there a commandline interface to kais motd? i.e.
                 "kais 23431" spits out that motd post, or "-d 2005.1.14"
                 spits out the motd for that day. Via lynx I guess.
                 \_ you got your wish, at your CSUA command line, type:
                    "~kchang/bin/kais 35794" for entry 35794 (THIS ONE)
                    "~kchang/bin/kais 1day" for today's entries
                    "~kchang/bin/kais 2005/1/1" for new year's entries
                    There are many other commands as well but you need an
                    account. For a preview of account capabilities you can
                    look at http://csua.com/?login=1
                                                                -kchang
                    \_ um, I think I'll wait until I can see the source first.
                       not that I don't trust you or anything...
        Dear anal untrusty person, this is the source  -------------/
        {soda}/home/apollo/kchang/bin> cat kais
        #!/bin/sh
        lynx --dump 'http://csua.com/?text='$*
                  \_ oh, ok. nifty. now we can argue back and forth using only
                     backreferences. since all the politics have already been
                     discussed, according to popular belief.
                     suggestion: allow just "1/1" for the date (default to
                     2004) and allow 1/1/2004. ok thanks.
              \_ It's how you tell it.
           \_ Yeah, but that was in the Washington Post.  Now CNN is reporting
              Dubya's approval rating is even lower than Nixon's around his 2nd
              inauguration.
              Anyways, I'm asking about eggs.
              \_ Eggs won't be a problem, because they are only inviting
                 the ideologically pure to the inauguration. Unless some
                 wounded soldier from Iraq goes ballistic. And I bet
                 they have those guys under close observation.
                 \_ The first sentence, after the comma, is not correct:
                    http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-inaug29.html
                    This is why you had eggs and a leadfoot limo driver in
                    Inauguration 2001.
                 \_ s/observation/sedation/
2005/1/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35777 Activity:high
1/18    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/18/opinion/main667553.shtml
        An alternative inaugural speech.
        \_ Wow, I remember when PJ O'Rourke wasn't a raving ass.
           \_ when was that? I'm not fucking with you, I'm just curious, since
              I haven't really read much of his stuff.
        \_ That was a lot funnier than I expected.
        \_ I agree with the ass guy.
2005/1/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35753 Activity:nil
1/17    Yay, Dubya!
        "The president's overall job approval rating stands at 52 percent,
        unchanged in the past month. Of all presidents in the post-war era who
        won reelection, only Richard M. Nixon had a lower job approval rating
        at the start of his second term while the other chief executives began
        their second term with job ratings of 60 percent or higher." -Wash Post
        \_ Just wait till he starts his war with Iran and starts drafting
           college students.
           \_ AAAAGHH!  The draft rumor was false last time, why would you
              believe it now?
              \_ What made it "false"? I still think Bush is going to have
                 to start drafting people. The National Guard has not met
                 their recruiting quota for six months running now, and
                 they are half of the troops in Iraq! Where is he going
                 to get the soldiers for this third front of his???
                 \_ !!!!?????`111`11one!!111eleven!!!!!
           \_ Wasn't there a "Read My Lips:  No Draft" moment?
              Isn't Rummy anti-draft?
           \_ Just a WAG, but IF there's a draft, I think they'd structure it
              to be easy to get postponements for college.  You want to draft
              kids of those least likely to raise a stink.
        \_ And Nixon also faced a press with a hard-on to publish anything bad
           about him.  Hmm...
         \_ Dude, the press has rolled over for Dubya.  Keep dreaming your
            paranoid fantasies if you want, but please remember there is a
            real world out there.
2005/1/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:35718 Activity:high
1/14    Dubya interview tonight emphasizing the failure to find WMDs and
        colossal CIA mistakes, where he says war was "absolutely" worth
        it even if there were no WMDs.
        Interview buried by Titan coverage and also Dubya's press
        conference today admitting his plainspokenness may have "unintended
        consequences".
        Intentional?  Who cares!  Even if it wasn't, this is exactly how
        the administration would have liked to have planned it.  Burying
        bad news on Friday has become a time-honored tradition for Dubya
        and friends, the rationale being:  The bad guys are the terrorists,
        if the Dems are ever elected they'll unwittingly let the terrorists
        destroy America; therefore, many actions are fine, and even heroic!
        \_ Unwittingly? You must not be familiar with Ann Coulter's corpus.
        \_ The interview is the "buried" news/  That's on 20/20 which is always
           on Fridays.
        \_ It is kind of hard to figure out exactly what you are trying to
           say here, but the gist of it seems to be that you believe that
           Bush traveled back in time and made sure that the Cassini probe
           was launched in such a fashion as to ensure that it passed Titan
           at the precise moment that scandal was erupting. I hope you
           don't really believe that. And if you do believe it, please
           join the other side. -Bush basher/American patriot
           \_ No I don't believe that, and this was said explicitly in the
              deleted thread.  To sum up:  "Bad news buried on Friday --
              sometimes it's intentional, sometimes not, but Dubya's
              people don't care either way, because they feel that they
              are doing it for the greater good."
              \_ Okay, then why drag poor Titan into it? And while I am sure
                 that Bush massages the news cycle, so has every President
                 since Nixon (maybe before, I dunno).
2005/1/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35684 Activity:insanely high
1/12    All political stuff where the Bush supporters were schooled
        has been wiped in the name of national security.
        \_ You still lost ! Get over it!
           \_ And you are still a cowardly anonymous censor.
                \_ I didn't do any censoring. In fact, I never have.
                   You can't handle the truth.
                   \_ Well, someone sure as hell keeps doing it.
                      Which makes you an apologist for an anonymous
                      cowardly censor, which is probably even lower.
2005/1/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:35682, category id '18005#9.54947' has no name! , ] UID:35682 Activity:moderate 66%like:33439
1/12    Where did the wall love go?
        \_ I have backups as of 12/17, but that's missing the last 3 weeks.
           Maybe another root knows.  Personally, I have no damned clue about
           how all the wall stuff works (maybe the script borked itself).
           *shrug* - jvarga
           \_ If you could restore to /csua/lib/wall, with the owner as
              someone other than aaron, it would be much appreciated. jon
              has a log of the last couple months of wall in his home dir,
              which could easily be split into logs for each day if anyone
              is so inclined.
              \_ Happy birthday. - jvarga
                 \_ Really? I don't see anything new at /csua/lib/wall
                    \_ backup is from 17 December.
        \_ ask aaron
           \_ aaron, where did the wall logs go?
              \_ I don't think aaron logs on anymore
                 \_ why, did he have an aneurysm after realizing he's one of
                    the people he hates so much?  -tom
                    \- he is fileld with recursive hate
           \_ Did aaron wipe the wall log or something? -clueless
              \_ He was probably embarrassed about his meltdown
                 (even by aaron standards) yesterday.  So he is cleaning up
                 the tracks.
                 \_ Ooo! Details please!
                    \_ Wall-spamming.
                 \_ Has he been squished yet?
                    \_ This is the frist thing I've seen in a while that
                       might actually require squishing.  He's been a
                       real bung hole.
                       \_ Awww.  I miss 'squish ilyas' threads.
                          If we squish aaron, there would be one less person
                          to point and laugh at, at least for me. -- ilyas
                          \_ If anyone really tries to get you squished, I
                             think you might be suprised how many people that
                             would piss off.  No one can say you don't
                             contribute to making the motd what it is.
                             \_ I am not entirely sure that's a compliment.
                                -- ilyas
                                \_ It is and it isn't.  Let me put it this
                                   way: I continue to disagree with you on
                                   almost everything, and you've really pissed
                                   me off with some of your posts, but they've
                                   caused me to think quite a bit about things
                                   I never would have thought about otherwise,
                                   and to reconsider some things.  What more
                                   can someone who writes about ideas ask than
                                   that they cause other people to re-think
                                   their own ideas?  That's what I read the
                                   motd for.
                                   \_ Hmmm.. I was going to say I had a
                                      similar feeling about aaron, that
                                      is, the motd just wouldn't be the
                                      same without his mad ranting.
                                      However, unlike ilyas, as far as I
                                      know aaron has never actually
                                      contributed anything other than
                                      bile to a conversation.
                                      \_ You know, I think you're confusing
                                         motd with wall.  I'm a total motd
                                         addict, but I don't do wall, and I
                                         still don't really know who this aaron
                                         guy everyone keeps talking about is.
                                         Can you point to a aaron/bile post
                                         in the motd archives?
                                         \_ I actually don't wall either.
                                            I know aaron exclusively
                                            through the motd.  Just search
                                            "--aaron" on KAIS motd.
                                            Although, I have to admit,
                                            after looking through the
                                            archives, that aaron does
                                            occasionaly post something
                                            useful.
           Some bile fresh from the archives _/
           http://csua.com/?entry=33982
           http://csua.com/?entry=33404
           \_ I assumed this was a parody when I saw it.
           http://csua.com/?entry=33330
           http://csua.com/?entry=33214
           It's not hard to find examples really.
           \_ I was disappointed because I couldn't find any of aarons
              enlightened postings on religion.
              \_ I don't think he signed any of them on the motd.  There are
                 plenty in wall.
        \_ aaron   ttyEJ    64.62.161.106    Mon Jan 10 15:14 - 15:25  (00:10)
           drwxrwsr-t  9 root  contrib  512 Jan 10 15:16 /csua/lib
2005/1/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35664 Activity:high
1/11    What's the libertarian/conservative repsonse to the mudslide
        in SoCal?  Should be be forcing Ilya, at gunpoint, to pay to
        try to rescue people who *choose* to live downhill from, um,
        anything?  Should surivors be able to sue the owner of the
        mud for damages?
        \_ I am no libertarian or conservative, but I think aid for people
           who built million dollar houses in obviously idiotic places is
           bullshit.  When a once in a hundred years tsunami floods your whole
           town, you can call it an act of God, but when you build your
           house in a fucking flood plane and it gets flooded you deserve
           what you get.
           \_ I don't mean extra aid, I mean digging bodies out of the
              mud.  And suppose the mudslide was caused because the owner
              of the land uphill cleared out the vegetation?  Lastly, calling
              the little bit of rain they're getting a tsunami is a stretch,
              given the widespread destruction of the real one.
              \_ [ bitch. ]
           \_ La Chonchita was hardly a place of million dollar homes, fyi.
        \_ If I remember correctly from yesterday's hate fest, ilyas would
           deny such basic assistance as food stamps to poor people.  Why
           would he want to waste money rescuing anyone?
           \_ It's not a waste to spend money to rescue people, but if I were
              in charge of the country, I wouldn't consider it my money to
              spend.  I would encourage people to not be fucktards and help,
              but I will not be a fucktard in return and make them help if
              they do not wish. -- ilyas
              \_ And while you're taking your time gathering support, real
                 people are dying buried beneath the mud.
                 \_ I think the libertarian solution would be to have people
                    donate in advance to a relief group which would help out
                    when necessary. --not libertarian, but trying to understand
                    \_ Or it could work kind of how home owner associations
                       work. Places have their own local organisations
                       responsible for providing or contracting private
                       emergency services. --also non-libertarian
                 \_ I will not force people to do good.  If you want to go
                    down that path, why have free will at all?  Just lobotomize
                    them into some sort of drone-saint and be done with it.
                    Of course, drone-saints are not moral agents, but that
                    probably doesn't bother you.  If you ever wondered why
                    Christians tend to not be liberal, it might be because
                    they have this intuitive notion that God considered free
                    will important as far as doing good.  Otherwise, he wouldn't
                    have bothered with it, and just made everyone act as they
                    should act.  Liberals ignore the issue of human goodness
                    entirely using the machine of government. -- ilyas
                    \_ Hmm, libertarians seem to take the notion of human
                       goodness for granted, and conveniently ignore the fact
                       that expensive life saving equipment and training is
                       usually outside of the range of affordability for me
                       and neighbor Joe.  That money's gotta come from
                       somewhere, and if that means through taxes, then so
                       be it.  Saying that this 'ignoring the issue of human
                       goodness' seems, at best, non sequitur.  Perhaps you can
                       give clarification.
                       \_ Eh, rescue stuff is sort of a gray area.  In
                          principle libertarians tend to not fund stuff other
                          than police/army.  On the other hand, rescue
                          operations are often done _by_ the army, since they
                          tend to be very qualified for this kind of work
                          (see the tsunami thing for example).  Personally,
                          I don't consider rescue efforts, and general
                          'good samaritan' stuff to be the province of the
                          government, though I recognize government agencies,
                          even in limited government, tend to be good at it.
                          Anyways lifesaving equipment/training maybe outside
                          the scope of the average Joe, but so are blood
                          transfusions, or AIDS research.  This does not mean
                          average Joe would not contribute, and that effective,
                          fast acting charity based rescue orgs cannot exist
                          (in fact they exist now).
                          I ll modify my original claim somewhat, and say that
                          short term crises of any kind can be reasonably
                          claimed to be the province of the army/law
                          enforcement agencies, which are tax-funded.
                          Or they may not (also reasonable).
                          The 'human goodness' comment is more of a general
                          comment on how libertarians view acts of charity
                          and decency.  -- ilyas
                    \_ Eh, rescuing people in need of immediate disaster
                       response is part of the reason IMO we have government.
                       Long-term aid should be through private groups, etc.
                       Rebuilding should be done (if at all) via funds from
                       private insurance. -emarkp
                       \_ This mostly makes sense to me.  I don't understand
                          why this would be 'ignoring the issue of human
                          goodness', though.           -mice (a moderate)
                 \_ Haven't you been keeping up with motd?  God punishes the
                    unworthy (esp if they're poor and ideologically unsound).
                    It's their fault, so sit back and enjoy yer stuff and feel
                    no conscience about (or need to participate in) society.
           \_ Dig them out and then mail them a bill.
        \_ Rescuing people is a reasonable government action.  Paying them
           relief money so they can rebuild in the same spot isn't.  Morons who
           drive around barricades to cross a river which was a road should be
           charged the cost of the rescue.
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35639 Activity:very high
1/10    This is so fucking childish. What's next, they going to register
        the potential democratic presidential candidates?
        http://csua.org/u/anp (Yahoo News, link substituted, http://csua.org=good)
        \_ Bah! Both sides do this.  Realistically, if I had any kind of
           polical aspirations, I would have registered mynameforoffice.uld
           five years ago.  His dumbass fault for not doing it.
           As long as the Forces of Good have  http://www.whitehouse.org
           I'm not going to complaign.
        \_ Oh the horror! A Republican might win in MA! Last time that
           happened was Weld, but he was a RINO.
        \_ This will be deleted by one of the censor happy conservatives.
           \_ I agree with the op (that it's childish).  Why do you think
              conservatives will censor it? -emarkp
              \_ Because they censor anything that criticizes the Republican
                 Party. I get at least one motd post censored every day.
                 \_ I think you might be wrong in assuming that everything
                    critical of the Republicans which is censored is censored
                    by conservatives.  Think about it. -emarkp
                    \_ Well I considered the possibility that it is just
                       someone who hates politics in general, but stuff like
                       the CBS firings entry stays up for at least a day.
                       \_ And yet I had to restore the John Fund reference.  I
                          suspect the majority of deleted posts are simple
                          mistakes. -emarkp
                          \_ by dipwads like you who don't use motdedit?  -tom
                             \_ Fuck motdedit.  In the ear.
                             \_ Possibly by others who don't use motdedit.
                                However, I don't value people by whether they
                                use 'motdedit' or not.  My editor complains if
                                the motd has changed while I was editing.  I
                                copy my changes, reload the motd and paste the
                                changes back in. -emarkp
                             \_ who died and made motdedit the standard?
                          \_ Since this mostly happens late at night when
                             there is little editing activity going on, I
                             doubt it. But you might be right.
                       \_ Where is outcry on the DDOS attacks on the
                          littlegreenfootballs blog that helped bring down
                          Rather going on at the moment?
                          \_ http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com
                             What part of "stop it guys" don't you
                             understand?
                             \_ HA! A blog to "watch" a blog. Police ur own.
                                Esp. with the suggestion the writer killed
                                himself.
                                \_ Obviously a joke.
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35636 Activity:high
1/10    No mention of the CBS firings here? Well here:
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml
        Read it for yourself. Find out on page 153 they cite Freerepublic!
        Woohoo! At least the Democrats can say they are winning at the
        box office as a consolation.
        \_ Actually, they can't even say that, unless you consider Shrek2
           or Spiderman 2 to be Democrat movies.
           http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/2004/top-grossing
           \_ I am talking about NOW. Meet the Fockers, Streisand and
              the so-called People's Choice Awards for Moore F9/11.
              \_ Please, "Mett the Fockers" is a sequel to a very funny movie.
              \_ Please, "Meet the Fockers" is a sequel to a very funny movie.
                 It has absolutely zero competition.  I won't see it because I
                 can't stand Streisand.  Oh, and because reviews of it suck (a
                 whopping 39% on rottentomatoes).  Did they miss The Passion at
                 the awards?
                 \_ Mmm.. why don't you do a little research.  they gave it
                    the best drama award.
                    \_ Um...that was the point.  How did the lefties miss that
                       one and claim the lead?
        \_ This is how a professional organization deals with mistakes.
           Too bad the White House promotes people and gives them
           medals when they screw up.
           \_ Tenet was what?
              \_ Already on his way out.
                 \_ So who was given medals? General Franks screwed up?
                    \_ All right, Tenet and Bremer screwed up.  Franks was
                       smart enough to get out of TMTA^H^H^H^HDubya's
                       administration while the getting was good.
                       \_ Actually, Franks was replaced for offering a candid
                          assessment of the situation on the ground.
                          \_ That was Shinseki. Franks retired because he
                             promised his wife he would. He was offered
                             Shinseki's job as CoS of the Army. Get it right!
                          \_ URL please.  Everything I read was that he got
                             out while the getting was good.
              \_ Didn't he and the proconsul get a Medal Of Freedom?
2005/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35628 Activity:nil
1/10    http://www.columbian.com/01072005/clark_co/230560.html
2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35624 Activity:nil
1/9     I thought I'd post this seperately.  Here is the breakdown of
        the Jooish vote in U.S. presidential elections going back to 1916.
        Hell, even Mondale and McGovern managed to clean up in this demographic.
        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
        And in case anyone cares, I'm both a Democrat and a (secular)Joo.
2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35615 Activity:kinda low
1/8     With-It Sanford The free-market South Carolina governor.
        http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200406280927.asp
        \_ Now why can't you republicans put guys like this up for national
           office instead of porkbarrelling weasels like Bush or his asshole
           brother?
           \_ Dang if I know, why can't the Dems come up with someone
              better than Hillary, Kerry, or Edwards?
              \_ *sigh*
           \_ because the party is full of RINOs
2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35587 Activity:moderate
1/6     Why Republicans rule-- they have clout and money:
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/bush.journalist.ap/index.html
        (synopsis: The Bush administration paid a prominent black
        journalist to promote Bush and give Education Secretary media
        time, records show)
        \_ And this somehow surprises you? That's the nature of politics.
           \_ That's the nature of American (or western) politics.  In China
              it's the other way around: "Why did he become rich?  Because he
              has political power."
              \_ Well, it's actually the same. One becomes rich and one
                 attains political power which results in one becoming even
                 richer and attaining even more political power, ad naseum.
                 Whether one first attains political power or becomes rich
                 is somewhat immaterial. The bottom line is the powerful
                 are rich and the rich are powerful.
                 \_ In other words, the US is no better than China.
                    \_ Ohmygosh, you mean power corrupts, irrespective of
                       nation, race, or creed?  Say it ain't so!!
        \_ Yeah.  Poor John Kerry.  No clout and no money.
2005/1/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:35551 Activity:high
1/4     [WARNING: Libertarian love-fest below]
         \_ Warning: communist dumbass above
            \_ thanks for the case in point, false dichotomy, and needless
               invective
               \_ What makes you think there was any dichotomy?  Or that the
                  invective was needless?  Here's another question:  which of
                  the following responses are "libertarian love-fests"?
        Updated govt. aid figures:
        Australia:      $765m
        Germany:        $680m
        Australia:      $810m
        Germany:        $674m
        Japan:          $500m
        US:             $350m
        \_ Australia's up to $1b now.  The bidding is amazing.
        \_ Politicizing disaster relief is sickening.
           \_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20050105
              \_ What?  Isn't Sri Lanka a Buddhist country instead of Muslim?
              \_ *cringe* Given Sri Lanka's history of "disappearing" rebels
                 and collaborators (i.e., from both sides), the second thought
                 that crossed my mind on hearing of the disaster was "Will
                 either side take advantage of the confusion to get rid of
                 rivals?" The same thought could well be applied to Aceh in
                 Indonesia.
           \_ Egeland, the UN Humanitarian Chief, calls this "competitive
              compassion".
        \_ How much has been given privately?  How much does it cost for our
           carrier group and soldiers to be over there helping?
           \_ ssshhhh!
              \_ Sorry, didn't mean to feed the trolls.
           \_ Yeah, but do the Indonesian people think that way?
              \_ Who cares?
        \_ Americans give privately, not through their government. (As it
           should be.) Why don't you add up the contributions to, say, the
           International Red Cross by country?
           \_ Huh, well, personally I believe that forced charity is the
              only real charity.
2005/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:35538 Activity:high
1/4     If Washington wants to boost America's image in the Muslim world, why
        didn't Powell go directly to Indonesia instead of Thailand?  Better
        yet, why didn't Bush send someone higher like Chaney or even go there
        himself?  That would've been a big boost if Bush show himself there
        even if he leaves the real work to someone else.  (The prime minister
        of Singapore went to Indonesia himself, for example, not that
        Singapore has an image problem.)
        \_ Powell got sent because they're building him up for something big
           later on-- it's pretty much the same reason he presided over the
           NYC New Year's Eve apple-dropping.  Thailand is a strong US ally,
           and BushCo have a pattern of recognizing allies first, potential
           allies second; it's their way of rewarding loyalty.
           \_ OK.  I'll bite.  What are they building Powell up big for
              later on?  Is he running for U.S. President in 08?  Or the
              U.N. Secretary General in 06?  I thought Clinton wanted that
              position?
           \_ I'll bite too. What could they build him up for, since he
              has vowed to leave politics?
              \_ Pope.
        \_ Because our image can't be changed in the Muslim world until the
           Mullahs stop preaching hatred of the USA, or the people have enough
           freedom to learn for themselves that we're not the great Satan.
        \_ If Washington wants to change their image in the middle east,
           they should simply not overthrow any more mossadeghs, not
           support israel, and not invade any more iraqs.
           \_ You've never spent much time with Arabs have you?
              \_ You mean "crazed, fundamentalist Arabs". Lots of Arabs
                 are perfectly rational people.
                 \_ In my small experiance, most of the ones who come to
                    the states are perectly rational people.  The ones
                    stuck in fascist hellholes are nuts because all they
                    hear is propoganda 24-7.  It's hard to be rational
                    when your whole life experiance is insane.  That's
                    what I was trying to get at above.
        \_ you forgot that 53% of the Americans don't really care about what
           the world thinks about U.S. Only sissy peacenik gay liberals
           care what other people think about themselves.       -conservative
2005/1/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35529 Activity:high
1/3     Where does all the money go that people donate? Who distributes it and
        who buys stuff with it? Does it go directly to the area governments?
        \_ Short answer: it depends on where people donate the money.
           \_ ok assume Red Cross since that seems to be the big thing here.
        \_ similar question (I'm not the op), what % of the money I donate
           to Red Cross/Salvation/Good Will goes to admins and what % actually
           gets distributed to the needy?
           \_ Heh.  Good question. -- ilyas
              \_ How much research funding for ilyas' group goes to support to
                 his motd habbit?
                 \_ None.  I work far more hours than I am paid for.
                    There is also the notion that certain kinds of work
                    cannot be adequately measured by hourly rates anyways.
                    Like, say, programming or research.  There is also
                    the matter that you are an idiot. -- ilyas
                    \_ I see.  You're underpaid, so that's the justification
                       for a libertarian living off the taxpayers' nickel.
                       \_ Are you dense?  Didn't we have this conversation
                          already?  Do you not understand that the only people
                          on whom this complaint does NOT work are those who
                          are perfectly happy with the way our current society
                          is.  Because you know, if you happened to NOT like
                          something about society, you almost certainly
                          are benefitting from this feature you don't like in
                          some way, somewhere.  You hypocrite bastard.
                          Too little taxation = more business investment,
                          too much taxation = more public good, etc. etc.
                          Do you think people who conceived of western
                          secular liberalism did not benefit from the
                          fucked up societies they had the misfortune
                          to be born into?  Were they hypocrites to believe
                          in what they did?  You are a pretty sad case even
                          for the motd. -- ilyas
                          \_ I think op is just saying you should practice
                             what you preach.
                             \_ I d be happy to, if ever I am elected into
                                public office.  Wouldn't everybody?  And at
                                any rate, where are the complaints against
                                environmentalists taking advantage of the
                                benefits provided by the evil soulless oil
                                companies?  Liberals pocketing Bush tax cuts?
                                Practice what you preach, bitch!  -- ilyas
                                \_ http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/comics.php
                                   \_ Stop bothering me, can't you see I have
                                      a deadline! -- ilyas
                                      \_ My tax cut went straight back to the
                                         DNC.  Stick to talking about things
                                         you know something about, hypocrite.
                                         \_ Except it shouldn't go to the DNC,
                                            Aaron.  It should go back to the
                                            state.  I _wish_ I could spend my
                                            taxes how I want politically.
                                            Dumbass.  -- ilyas
                                            \_ It's about reinvesting the money
                                               into the state rather than
                                               actually spending the money on
                                               myself.  Get a clue, doofus.
                                               \_ So the DNC = the State now?
                                                  Wtf?  Also, who says
                                                  libertarians spend money
                                                  on themselves? -- ilyas
                                                  \_ Who cares if they spend
                                                     money on themselves?  What
                                                     are you babbling about?
                                                     The issue is your willing
                                                     use of state money to
                                                     coast along, despite your
                                                     prolific and long winded
                                                     posts about your
                                                     libertarian Utopian
                                                     ideals.  Hello?  Earth to
                                                     ilyas?
                                I'm not libertarian but you're being dumb. _/
                                He was pointing out that a libertarian can
                                choose to invest in the state if he wants,
                                rather than being taxed for it (in theory).
                                \_ He's also being dumb by not answering the
                                   other objections: DNC != State,
                                   environmentalists driving cars,
                                   shopping at republican donor businesses,
                                   etc.  Probably not actually dumb, but
                                   playing dumb for trolling purposes.
                                     -- ilyas
                                   \_ heh, 3 ilyas points, but I still lost the
                                      bet.  well, shucks.
                                      \_ What were the terms of the bet?
                                           -- ilyas
                                         Would you prefer my default reaction
                                         to motd posts be outright dismissal
                                         and derision?  -- ilyas
                \_ don't you think it's amusing to be a hardcore
                   libertarian AND a grad student at the largest public
                   university in the world?  i see a lot of humor in that.\
                   i think you belong at Pepperdine with ben stein. - danh
                   university in the world?  i see a lot of humor in that.
                   i think you belong at Pepperdine with ben stein. - danh
                   \_ I find it no more amusing than seeing you employed
                      at some soul-sucking corp you probably hate.  Actually,
                      I find it quite sad.  And I am not a 'hardcore'
                      libertarian.  I am actually fairly moderate.  Unless
                      it's one of those obligatory adjectives, like
                      'cold-blooded killer.' -- ilyas
                      \_ 'Cold-blooded libertarian' has a nice ring to it,
                         though.
                         \_ That was the insinuation, yes. -- ilyas
           \_ I remember the Red Cross ranks #1 in this regard.  I don't
              remember the actual numbers though.
              \_ $0.19 to raise $1.00.  9.9% overhead, 91.9% goes to programs.
                 http://csua.org/u/ak9
                 \_ Dont donate to the United Way.  They are terrible.
        \_ On a more positive note, I read in the Economist that each dollar
           spent on charity results in a > 1 dollar net economic benefit.
           That is, 1 dollar spent in helping someone get back to her feet,
           etc. eventually results in a > 1 dollar return (eg. she starts
           contributing to society again).  Don't ask me how the Economist
           did its calculations.
           \-why does this come as a surprise? it is more or less axiomatic.
             charity goes to those with very little and it is just the law
             of diminishing marginal returns. if you want to spend your
             money to go from having no fishing net to having a finshing net
             obviously that has a bigger return than going from gold to
             platinum jewelry. --psb
             \_ Fishing nets won't get you laid; platinum jewelry will.
                \_ Fishing nets catch fish which can be sold for money which
                   can be used to buy platinum which can get you laid.
                \- suffering from amoebic dysentary probably wont either --psb
2005/1/3 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35528 Activity:very high
1/3     New (substantiated?) rumor that the bulge on Bush's back is a LifeVest
        defibrillator.  Apparently has atrial fibrillation, and suffered a
        mini-stroke (2002 Pretzel incident).  Any thoughts?
        \_ More detailed discussion of the defibrillator theory:
           http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/20636.php
           \_ You know, it's crap usage like this that makes people talk about
              "theory" vs. fact.  It's not a theory, it's a steaming pile of
              random speculation.
              \_ "Conspiracy theory" is a pretty commonly used term, and most
                 conspiracy theories are pretty much exactly what you describe.
                 I am using the word "theory" in an identical context here.
                 If you don't like the way the English language has developed,
                 please fuck off and cry to someone else about it.
        \_ Go read "Interface" by Stephen Bury (a pen name for Neal Stephenson)
           at once.
        \_ Sometimes a suit is just a suit.
        \_ I doubt it. If he does in fact have a heart problem that
           requires a defibrillator, he'd have an implantable one like
           every patient with the problem.
                    \_ you're an idiot.   -tom
                       \_ Almost by definition, you have shown that he is not.
2005/1/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35516 Activity:very high
1/2     Sean Penn says bad things about Bush and it gets published, how did it
        happen, on *FOX*??? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143079,00.html
        \_ because fox viewer's estimation of actors opinions are the same as
           tom's evident opinion of published author's opinions.  When some
           hollywood celeb says somthing bad about Bush, it is probably taken
           as a sure sign he's doing the right thing.
           \_ crebbs, if you're going to personally insult me, have the balls
              to sign your name.
              Oh, and you're also an idiot.  -tom
              \_ Not really a personal insult as much as a slight. -crebbs
                 \_ now there's a fine hair to split.  -tom
                    \_ <shrug>, You said something I thought idiotic, I
                       simply referred to it, that is a slight.  If I
                       said, "you said this, you are an idiot" that would
                       be a personal insult.  I see a significant distinction
                       there, but whatever.  Whether or not that distinction
                       has any bearing on whether or not I should sign my name
                       is another question. -crebbs
                       \_ "Slight: The act of slighting; the manifestation of a
                          moderate degree of contempt, as by neglect or
                          oversight."
                          So, you're wrong.  And it is clearly pathetic to
                          insult (or "slight" or "diss" or whatever term you
                          wish to use) someone by name while trying to
                          remain anonymous.  -tom
                          \_ Words fail me.
                             \_ It is clearly pathetic to have words fail
                                you while trying to remain anonymous.
              \_ tom, you're a crank.  sometimes you're a lovable crank, but
                 in general you're just a crank.  of course, I only know you
                 through the motd, so your Real Life persona may be entirely
                 different. --erikred
                 \_ Not the word I would use. -- ilyas
                         \_ YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE THE BALL LICKERS...
                            -Silent Bob and Jay
2005/1/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35508 Activity:insanely high
1/1     Randoids go berserk, disagree with tsunami aid.
        http://csua.org/u/ajf (Ayn Rand Institute)
        Money sentence is the one about how "most" of the victims were hurt
        through "no fault of their own."
        \_ Ah, yes, the age old question of governmental aid. The fallacy of
           the article, like most of Objectivism, is its failure to acknowledge
           interdependency, much like the failure of it's diametric opposite,
           Communism, albeit in a different manner. Complex social systems
           rarely break down into over-arching theories of what should and
           should not be done. But it does raise an interesting issue, when
           should aid be given and when should it not? If someone disagrees
           with an agenda and questions its efficacy, shouldn't we take time
           to consider it rather than outright rejecting it? It appears
           that the left and the right are both ramming things down their
           respective throats without evern considering the other side...
        \_ Like all libertarians, they are right wing shills: take a look
           at their essays on Iraq from the 90's when Clinton was in power, and
           then what they have to say when Bush is in power.  They use the
           same rhetoric about how "our leaders lack moral certainty," but
           the message is clear: Republican good, Democrat bad.
           Libertarians: Republicans, only more pompous, and with more lies.
           \_ This is flat wrong, which explains why you don't provide URLs.
              Among libertarians many faults is a tendendcy to be overly
              isolationist (politically).  As with the vast majority of the
              libertarian ideal, it is absolutely wrong in theory, but since
              society is so far gone in the opposite direction, the policy
              implications are mostly correct.
              Libertarians, particularly the libertarian party, have been among
              the most outspoken opponents of the war in IRAQ and this Bush
              administration in general.  I don't know what The Ayn Rand Inst.
              has to say and don't care.  She is an idiot and her followers are
              worse.  All groups have their fanatic/moronic fringe, and when
              you are a fringe group to begin with, well ...
              \_ The URL to back up what I said is simply the OP's URL.  I
                 clicked around and read their essays on various subjects.
                 They sounded exactly identical to our loudest local
                 libertarian here on the motd.  I hope I am wrong about
                 libertarians at large.  Do you want to point me to what
                 you consider to be a representative libertarian
                 website/book/article?
                 \-For "respectable" academic Libertarianism, see
                   R. Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia. --psb
                   \_ Thanks! I'll check that out.
           \_ 1st, The left-right dichotomy is lame (see other threads).
              2nd, going with it anyway, the greens are shills for the left
              much more than libertarians are shills for the right.  As i've
              said before: Libertarians gloat when they take votes away from
              Republicans.  Contrast this to Nader supporters.  Libs under-
              stand that one corporate bought, pandering, fear-mongering
              aristocrat from one faction of The Party is effectively the same
              as the other.
           \_ While Randroids are libertarians, they represent libertarianism
              about as well as the PETA folk represent Evironmentalism.
                I.e. not at all.
        \- As with racist and bigots, this seems to be one of those cases
           where I want to see them "talk more" and undermine themselves and
           reveal themselves for what the are. A good essay is "The Procedural
           Republic and the Unencumbered Self". It is avail from JSTOR. BTW,
           "randoid" has been deprecated in favor of "Randroid".
                     \- re: "all libertarians ..." i think there is a
                        respectable academic argument to be made by
                        libertaianism.  however i think many libertarians
                        outside academia are "accidental libertarians"
                        ... meaning they are really not interested in where
                        the philosophical arguments take them, but the cleve
                        to a philosophy which seems more respectable than
                        simple Hedonism to justify [sic] being the way they
                        are [selfish hedonists]. i think the philosophical
                        sophistication totem pole looks something like this:
                        hedonists [people who say things like "i need to be
                        true to myself"], then randroids ["altruism is
                        corrupting"], then libertarians ["contractualism" is
                        a pretty powerful argument]. there are a few
                        reasonable libertarians ... like by best friend, who
                        is one of the most considerate persons i know ... but
                        they are generally not "libertarians unius libri".
                        This is sort of a funny story about the Academic
                        Libertarian-in-Chief: http://csua.org/u/ajg ... one
                        Berkeley people can relate to. ok tnx.
                        \_ I am a little confused by the (lack of) distinction.
                           Hedonism is a moral commitment, libertarianism a
                           political one.  Related to be sure, but not the
                           same.  Are you saying it's unsophisticated to be
                           concerned with political philosophy?  I think
                           adopting a position to see where it takes you
                           is quite a bit more phony than adopting one you
                           actually believe in (because of how you are).
                           Life is not a rhetoric class.  -- ilyas
                           \-what is phony is shopping around for a
                             justification that sounds better than
                             "do whatever you want and take whatever you
                             can get" whent that is what you believe.
                             some people answer the question "what do we owe
                             one another?" with "whatever!" [in the sarcastic
                             sense of "i dont care to talk about this"], some
                             with "nothing." and still other with "nothing,
                             because...". what i am saying is the reasoning
                             in many people's case is an appendage adopted
                             for the sake of form, not truly to explain why
                             you have arrived at a particular place. BUSHCO
                             didnt invade iraq to free the iraqi people,
                             although it's convenient to trot out. on the
                             flip side, meaning you dont get moral credit
                             for someting done out of inclination rather than
                             duty, as sondheim writes "nice is different than
                             good".
                             \_ Partha, you are projecting.  People who are
                                hedonists tend to view selfishness as a
                                virtue, not a vice in need of justification.
                                Whether you get credit for something done
                                out of inclination or out of dity depends on
                                your ethics.  Not everyone's a Kantian.
                                  -- ilyas
                             \_ I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I'm just
                                curious: why *do* you think BUSHCO invaded
                                Iraq, exactly?
                                \- i think they believed in WMD. I think they
                                   were wrong. i think they should have been
                                   fired for being wrong. i think they are
                                   incapable of admitting it. i think thier
                                   reputation in history should have been in
                                   tatters.
                                   \_ No, believing in WMD (which i agree they
                                      did) is just like believing that tax cuts
                                      for the wealthy are the right thing for
                                      the economy.  They believe it because it
                                      justifies what they want to do.  WHY they
                                      wanted to invade IRAQ is because it was
                                      an untennable situation with a leader who
                                      hated america growing in power while his
                                      country(and the world) suffered due to
                                      sanctions that we couldn't/wouldn't lift.
                                      The only people benifiting from the sitch
                                      was the UN and
                                      thoze embezzling from their program(s).
                                      It was a bad situation and many leaders
                                      in the bush admin felt it was a giant
                                      loose end that they wanted to tie up.
                                      They just grossly underestimated the
                                      aftermath of occupation (as historically
                                      countries have). -phuqm
                                      \- another value of non-anon posting is
                                         it's either to figure out who is
                                         not worth talking to. you cant compare
                                         facts [existence of WMDs] and values
                                         [progressive taxation] and theories
                                         [what econ effects of policy X will
                                         be]. --psb
                                          \_ I wasn't comparing facts with
                                            values, i was comparing MOTIVATIONS
                                            and rationalization.  Politicians
                                            wanted to cut taxes on those that
                                            contributed to their campaigns, so
                                            when some Academics came along and
                                            told them that was what was good for
                                            the country, they were quickly able
                                            to believe that.  When (other) pols
                                            wanted to invade Iraq and the intel.
                                            community said Iraq had, or soon
                                            would have WMD, they found it very
                                            easy to believe. -phuqm
                                            easy to believe. To paraphrase and
                                            distort: "The facticity of a
                                            proposition has little to do with
                                            it's believability." -phuqm
                                            \_ Apostrophe abuse! Three demerits!
                                                \_ ugg, fixed. -phuqm
                                                   \_ Demerits retracted.
                                      \_ I somehow doubt that last bit.
                                         Everyone else was talking about the
                                         aftermath problems. They chose to
                                         simply ignore that because it would
                                         provide support for opposition. The
                                         whole war was done this way: build up
                                         troops without a war, oh now we have
                                         to fight, it would look stupid to
                                         withdraw all those troops, oh look
                                         things are fucked up, well we can't
                                         cut and run, you have to give us a lot
                                         more money, sorry bout that, support
                                         our troops and all, etc.
                                \_ http://www.newamericancentury.org  -tom
2017/12/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/16   
Results 901 - 1050 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
.