Politics Domestic President Bush - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
Results 1201 - 1350 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/
2017/10/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/18   

2006/1/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41256 Activity:nil
1/5     Falling Bush on Bubbles:
        http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm   -scottyg
        \_ Strangely, this is much less difficult for me to watch than the
           original falling woman/mannequin.
        \_ scottyg, can I have the .fla for this? --erikred
          \_Not my work...just passing on the link cuz I thought it was
            funny. -scottyg
2006/1/5-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41251 Activity:nil
1/5     Wow, this is the first time in a long time (years?) I've seen the U.S.
        admit to a bombing error.  Previously it was always, "known safe house"
        "insurgents making false statements about civilian deaths" etc.
        http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iraq.target/index.html
        \_ So what?  USA never get punished for it.  US military can do
           everything they want, and call it "mistake." and continue to
           do what they are doing.
        \_ Ever consider the possibility that this is the first bombing error
           in years?  I'm sure not.
2006/1/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41247 Activity:nil
1/5     http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/05.html#a6586
        Former National Mine Academy director blames Bush administration's lax
        policy on mine safety (leading to failure to close mine) for men's
        deaths
        "Hannity:  You want to turn this into a political thing ...
        Spadaro:  No, I'm telling you what the truth is."
        \_ We don't want to play the "blame game".  Let's move forward!
           \_ I thought we established that the miners died because Sharon
              divided God's land? Was it something else?
                \_ Let's move forward also means "let's make all the
                   regulations strictly voluntary because corporations always
                   do the right thing"
2006/1/4-6 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41230 Activity:nil
1/4     12 miners reported alive actually dead. God works in mysterious ways...
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551516/posts
        \_ And coal mining deregulation works in pretty damn mysterious ways
           too.
           \_ I like how the LA Times reported today the Clinton-era guy
              saying mine citations were way down in the Dubya era, yet that
              particular mine had citations up the wazoo recently.  The logic
              here is that the mine owner must have really neglected safety
              issues to do so poorly with even relaxed inspections.
        \_ That's beautiful.  god, God, GOD did it!  He's all powerful, he
           controls everything he... oh, wait, what?  <no more mention of God
           being involved in, you know, death>  It's media-bashing time!
           \_ The media is obviously a tool of the devil!
           \_ The best part was back when there was a mine flood, but the 9
              trapped miners were rescued.  Bush vowed to himself never to let
              mining companies be burdened by survivors, and promptly cut
              funding for enforcing mine safety laws.  Pro-life!!
2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41224 Activity:kinda low
1/4     Hey, why pass laws at all when you have a king?
        http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF
        \_ What's the big deal? He's only going to ignore the law if he wants
           to ...
        \_ Another reason to block alito.
        \_ URL tinyfied to please annoying, anal retentive motd block warden:
           http://tinyurl.com/bdj8g  -John
        \_ I would like to hear Bush supporter's point of view on this one.
           Please enlighten us.
           \_ I'm not a Bush supporter but I can guess: Protecting the American
              People! War on Terror! Liberty! Freedom! 9/11! Liberty!
              Freedom! Terrorists! Freedom! Liberty!
           \_ If you believe in an strong executive then it follows that
              the inherent emergency power of the executive is subject
              only to those limits explicit in the constitution. As there
              are no applicable limits (the eighth arguably does not apply
              as torture is not used as a punishment in this context), it
              is within the executive's discretion to employ torture. This
              view also implies that the executive's decisions are above
              court review except in cases where there is direct conflict
              with the text of the constitution.
              [ Note that there is a "fifth freedom" view which says that
                even the constitution is not a limit on the executive's
                power when the survival of the republic is threatened.
                BUSHCO does not seem to publically adhere to this view. ]
              \_ Who does adhere to that view? (There is nobody to
                 review if said survival is sufficiently threatened.
                 By some accounts, sodomy threatens the republic...)
                 \_ While I do not know of any prominent figures
                    who publicly endorse the fifth freedom view,
                    I would argue that people like Amd. Poindexter
                    implicitly accept it.
                    For the sake of argument I will say that the
                    majority of America has implicitly acquiesced
                    to the fifth freedom view. I think that the
                    framers conception of the CinC power or other
                    limits on the executive power cannot be reco-
                    nciled w/ the fact that 1st strike is basically
                    entrusted solely to the President's discretion.
                    If the President chooses to exercise this cap-
                    ability, there will realistically be no review.
                    This to me suggests that the modern Presidency
                    has practically unlimited powers.
                    In day to day terms, it probably means the
                    while the President can't shoot you in broad
                    daylight for being a democrat, he probably
                    can deploy any covert means against you for
                    the same w/o any real review.
                    \_ "Stroke of the pen, law of the land.  Cool!"
                    \_ First strike and other military defense issues
                       I think fall under the general head-of-military
                       designation. For Iraq, Bush was sort of pre-authorized
                       to decide on war, and the same situation exists for
                       the nukes I guess. Some of the smaller operations
                       might be weaseled around by questioning the
                       definition "war". Anyway, I don't think we
                       are at a point where the Constitution does not
                       at least in theory grant US citizens protection
                       versus military operations, covert or not.
                       I suppose if they did their job well enough then
                       practically the question would not come up.
                       \_ I agree that the modern interpretation
                          is that the CinC power encompasses the
                          ability to deploy the nuclear arsenal.
                          but my point is that the framers prob.
                          did not intend to vest a single man w/
                          the power to unilaterally decide the
                          fate of every living thing on the
                          planet.
                          What if the President exercises this
                          power in circumstances (objectively)
                          not constituting a threat to the repu-
                          blic? Who really will be left to reve-
                          iew the decision? What remedial action
                          can really be taken? I think that the
                          answer is that no one will review and
                          no remedial action is available. This
                          to me means the President possess uni-
                          lateral discretion to wield almost abs.
                          power as the CinC.
                          From this one could argue that under
                          this power, the President could deploy
                          less than abs. force against arbitrary
                          targets w/o any limits on his power.
                          From this one could argue that the Pres.
                          could deploy less than abs. force w/o
                          limits on his discretion under the same
                          power.
                          Re Pre-authorized: If the President has
                          been preauthorized to act under certain
                          conditions, what happens when he acts
                          outside of those conditions? Will there
                          really be a Congressional hearing? If
                          not, then Congress has basically given
                          him unlimited discretion.
                          \_ Why wouldn't there be a hearing? They can
                             impeach the president. He could mess things
                             up pretty royally before then, perhaps
                             irrevocably, but it doesn't really nullify the
                             separation of powers except in the apocalyptic
                             sense. Basically he could destroy the other
                             branches of government. Maybe Nixon, instead of
                             resigning, could have started WWIII instead. But
                             outside of war, I can't see that the distinction
                             is noteworthy. The power to destroy isn't the
                             same as absolute power.
                          no remedial action is available.
                          If the President possess unilateral
                          discretion to wield almost absolute
                          power via the CinC power, is it real-
                          istic to say that there are limits on
                          his ability to deploy less than this?
                          not, then the President has been pre-
                          authorized to act in any situation and
                          Congress has implicitly given him abs.
                          power (one wonders if Congress can do
                          this).
2006/1/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41197 Activity:moderate
1/2     Hey, I thought we were having a draft in 2005.  What happened?  Will
        there be a military draft in 2006?
        \_ Whoever said there was going to be a draft way back when was
           overreaching almost as bad as the greeted as liberators person.
        \_ Only if Charles Rangel (D - http://www.house.gov/rangel gets his way.
           \_ Damn warmongering Democrats.
              \_ It's funny, but the reasons he gives for it are as a social
                 program (like busing) and a way to make people not want war
                 (they won't vote for war if their kids are in the service).
           \_ I remember the reason why Rangel draft the bill is he wants
              to make sure the process of draft is relatively equal, and
              wealthy kids have their chances to see actions.
              \_ Wealthy kids volunteer for service so they can be officers
                 or protect the homeland as part of the NG.
        \_ There will be no draft because Dubya said so.  Read his lips.
           \_ There was one MOTD poster who swore there would be a draft.
              Silly me, I thought he would be more credible than Dubya.
              \_ that guy was saying that if we need to do this Iraq business
                 right, we need to have a draft to fill the gap in man power.
                 In that regard, he is still right.  The reason why we don't
                 have a draft is because Dubya decided it is ok if Iraq really
                 fells apart, and he can always divert our attention to
                 somewhere else by, let say, bombing Iran.
                 \_ Nice revisionist history.
                 \_ Perhaps you can point us to the thread?  Things like the
                    following seem more prevalent:
                    \_ ohh yeah?  what happened to the "beacon of democracy
                       in the middle east?"  are you saying that we've
                       accomplished this and this is why Rummy pulls out
                       5000 troops?
                       \_ Good job trying to switch the subject.  Try to focus
                          on the draft here.  You want to talk about Rummy?
                          Start your own thread about your pretty nicknames.
                 \_ Reference please.  Things like the following seem more
                    prevalent:
                    http://csua.com/?entry=37623
                    At that point (5/05), someone claimed there would be
                    a draft within the next 18 months.  Does that person
                    (-vet?) still stand by the claim?
                 \_ Are you claiming that the US will bomb Iran?  Care to put
                    a time frame on that prediction and sign your name to it,
                    so you can be properly celebrated when your prediction
                    comes true?
                    \_ http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10415
                       \_ So?  Are *you* claiming that the US will bomb Iran?
                          Time frame and name please, if you're willing to
                          stand behind your prediction.
2005/12/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41147 Activity:nil
12/26   Another Bush's Middleeast Democracy successful story:
        http://tinyurl.com/9sgtb (SFGate.com)
2005/12/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41143 Activity:nil
12/27   Freedom of speech at its best:  Bush versus newspaper editors.
        http://tinyurl.com/bjdzw
2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41119 Activity:high
12/22   Okay, we know Bush isn't going to be impeached. It's Reagan and the
        Contra arms deal all over again, but with Bush saying he did it instead
        of "I don't know/recall." But is the unauthorized wiretapping of
        American citizens in these times an impeachable offense? Discuss.
        \_ Absolutely.  And I think he _will_ be impeached, but not removed.
           \_ you think a (R) controlled congress is going to impeach him?
              you're totally off your rocker.
              \_ Elections coming up here in 2006, and Repubs just unplugged
                 Grandma. It wouldn't even take a strong wind to swing this.
                 \_ While I share the general sentiment to a degree, I think
                    this is overly optimistic.  Honestly, I doubt 06 will be
                    much affected by the budget cuts.
                    \_ The last time congressional approval rates were this
                       low was 1994.  Granted, D now is _not_ R then, but
                       R's are rightly scared.
                       \_ Well, the GOP is certainly vulnerable right now --
                          a succession of scandals coupled with a general
                          decay of gung-ho support for our involvement in
                          Iraq has opened the door for change (not to mention
                          the bumbling efforts of FEMA during Katrina).  Sadly,
                          as long as the economy is reasonably sound and
                          unemployment doesn't change significantly, there's
                          very little likelihood of any big shift from R to D.
                          It's a pleasant fantasy to imagine the Budget cuts
                          having a massive unintended impact, but I think the
                          reality is that it's not going to have any impact
                          *at all* when all considerations are taken into
                          account.
                          \_ Yep.  If we had a recession, everything would be
                             perfect.
                             \_ Your reading comprehension is lacking.  I said
                                "Sadly, as long as the economy is sound, change
                                will not happen".  It is sad because one with
                                a reasonable ethical viewpoint would hope that
                                the succession of scandals would be sufficient
                                to bring about change without any other
                                external forces.  Alas, this is not the case.
        \_ neither.  complete waste of time.
        \_ Warrantless wiretapping is likely not an impeachable offense b/c
           the Pres. has inherent emergency powers to authorize any means he
           feels are necessary to protect the nation from its enemies in a
           crisis. Consider that Lincoln suspended habeas on his own authority
           despite a strong implication that only Congress had the right to
           do this. If the suspension of habeas in direct violation of separ-
           ation of powers is not impeachable, by no measure can one consider
           warrantless wiretapping impeachable. Unlike your ave. motd poster,
           most Dem. Congressmen and Senators understand that warrantless wire-
           tapping is a common practice in intelligence gathering and they will
           be reluctant to take this tool away.
           Even if BUSHCO's assertion that an emergency is present is deemed
           incorrect, there is a plausible argument that they were mistaken
           and simply overreacted. In light of 9/11, Spain, London, &c. better
           to overreact than underreact is a winning argument.
           \_ It's sad that you believe that.  Unchecked secret power grabs
              are a terrible road to go down.  Not in my country...
              \_ Regardless of whether it is a terrible road to go down, it
                 is not an impeachable offense under Art 2 Sec 4. Given the
                 pressure to act in a crisis, it is not unforeseeable that
                 a Pres. might authorize these means. Given that these means
                 have been SOP for decades, BUSHCO is at most guilty of
                 expanding their use.  Should they have resisted the tempt-
                 ation? Probably, but that doesn't mean it is impeachable.
                 It is our fault as voters that we did not select someone
                 better suited to resist the temptation. Fortunately, this
                 mistake can be corrected in a few years. Consider that the
                 A&S acts were repealed by Jefferson. There is nothing to
                 indicate that the next Pres. will be unwilling to restrict
                 the power that this Pres. has "acquired."
                 \_ "Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil
                     officers of the United States, shall be removed from
                     office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
                     bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
                    High crimes and misdemeanors would certainly cover
                        \_ certainly?  what web site told you that it is
                           "certainly" a "high crime and misdemeanor" to
                           order wiretaps like this?
                           \
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
                           \_ http://tinyurl.com/bzaz4 (findlaw.com,
                              50 USC Ch 36) [ Same as the cornell url,
                              but you don't have to click through ]
                    warrantless wiretaps, especially if the use thereof
                    violates the current federal procedures. Although it is
                    SOP to begin wiretapping before asking for (and, in all
                    but 4 cases, receiving) a warrant to do so, it is
                    illegal to wiretap and NOT ask for a warrant within 72
                    hours; the latter has NOT been SOP for any administration
                    since the procedures were put in place except for this
                    administration. The legal requirement for impeachment
                    has been met; it now depends on the will of the Congress.
                    \_ In your studied constitutional expert legal opinion the
                       requirements for impeachment have been met?  I'm glad
                       we don't need to discuss it further.
                       \_ We could say something equally as fatuous about
                          your comments.  In fact, I will.  Grow a set.
                       \_ It is certainly more serious than lying about a
                          blowjob, which is what brought the last President
                          down. As I said before, impeachment is primarily
                          a political process, not a legal one. If enough
                          Americans think he should be impeached, he will be.
                       \_ You want to discuss this further, bring something
                          more than "No, he won't be impeached!" to the
                          discussion.
                          \_ I was replying to someone who did nothing but
                             rant and make grand sweeping statements and
                             put forth partisan agenda driven opinion as
                             fact.  Excuse me for daring to question the
                             brilliant legal minds on the motd.
                    \_ You misunderstand the argument completely. I agree
                       that there are procedures re wiretapping and that
                       these procedures have been violated.  I even agree
                       that authorizing these wiretaps in violations of
                       the USC is a crime UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
                       These are not normal circumstances. In an emergency
                       the Pres. has inherent powers to take any action
                       that he deems necessary to protect the republic and
                       its citizens.  His inherent power trumps the requi-
                       rements of the USC, thus no crime has been committed.
                       [ I also disagree that this is the first admin. that
                         has explicitly or implicitly authorized wiretaps
                         in violation of the USC; I think that this type of
                         thing has been going on since the start of the Cold
                         War. It has only become more extensive under BUSHCO ]
                       \_ Yes, we know, the John Yoo argument.  It doesn't
                          hold water.  Even under non-normal circumstances
                          checks and balances must have a place.  Otherwise
                          we are not the nation we claim we are.  Are you
                          going to hold your tongue if nationwide elections
                          in 2008 are suspended because "we're in an emergency
                          situation"?
                          \_ If normal checks and balances must have a place
                             during emergencies then why was Lincoln able to
                             suspend Habeas? The constitution strongly implies
                             that only Congress has this power. If violating
                             horizontal separation of powers is not sufficient
                             for impeachment, what make you so sure that some
                             wiretaps in violation of a federal statute (not
                             the constitution) is sufficient?
                             wiretaps in violation of a federal statute is
                             enough?
                             If nat'l elections were to be suspended wouldn't
                             it have made more sense to do so last year when
                             there was the very real possibility that BUSHCO
                             would be sent home?
                             \_ Show me a declaration of war.
                                \_ The Pres. emergency powers are not depen-
                                   dent on a declaration of war. If we use
                                   the habeas clause as a reference, it is
                                   possible to interpret "invasion" as any
                                   attack on American soil, thus confering
                                   authority to act. Note that the habeas
                                   clause does not require a declaration of
                                   war under Art I Sec 8.
                                   \_ ITYM Sec. 9.  Btw, Lincoln's suspension
                                      of habeas was ruled unconstitutional.
                                      \_ That is why the Star Chamber had him
                                         assassinated. No man is above the law!
                                      \_ No I mean Sec 8 (yes habeas clause is
                                         in Art 1 Sec 9, but it does not requ-
                                         ire Congress to declare war pursuant
                                         to its power to do so under Sec 8).
                                         While I agree that in Ex Parte Merry-
                                         man the USSC found Lincoln's actions
                                         to be unconstitutional, Lincoln was
                                         able to ignore that decision and no
                                         habeas relief was granted until after
                                         the war (iirc USSC restored habeas
                                         in Ex Parte Milligan). This suggests
                                         that the President's emergency power
                                         is so extensive that even the USSC
                                         lacks significant power to limit it.
                                         to me that the President's emergency
                                         power is so extensive that even the
                                         USSC lacks the ability to limit it.
                                         If the defiance of the USSC was not
                                         enough to impeach, please explain
                                         to me why ignoring a wire tapping
                                         provision is? [ Note: I do not think
                                         that "perjury" was enough ]
                                         Re Elections: I'm not sure what I
                                         would do. My family lived through
                                         a similar situation in the 70s and
                                         everything worked out fine in the
                                         end (elections/civil rights rest-
                                         ored, &c.) so I might just go
                                         along w/ it.
                                         \_ With "enough to impeach", you
                                            seem to be ignoring the political
                                            dimension.  Impeachment, as you
                                            well know, isn't triggered by
                                            the act of the impeached.  It's
                                            triggered by the political machine
                                            of the Congress.  "Enough to
                                            impeach" is determined by the house
                                            when it votes on articles.  "Enough
                                            to remove" is determined by the
                                            senate when it votes to convict.
                                            Lincoln's actions, whether or not
                                            a sufficient violation, did not
                                            trigger impeachment because his
                                            case was strong enough for Congress
                                            not to bring it.  In fact, Congress
                                            passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1863
                                            which voiced their approval of his
                                            act.  Here and now, Bush is sitting
                                            at a point comparable to some time
                                            before ex parte milligan.  To claim
                                            before ex parte merryman.  To claim
                                            Bush has an inherent right because
                                            of Lincoln is claiming stare decisis
                                            in congressional acts.  i.e. that
                                            today's congress will do what
                                            lincoln's did.  It's optimistic at
                                            best to hope that congress will
                                            be so tied to precedent, especially
                                            when the situations are so
                                            drastically different.
                       \_ Right, and since we're fighting perpetual war
                          with Eurasia, Big Brother can do whatever he
                          feels is best for us.
                          \_ While there are some parallels between 1984
                             and the present situtation, I personally
                             find that the Alien and Sedition acts and
                             their repeal is a far better parallel.
           \_ Isn't warrantless wiretapping what brought Nixon down?
              \_ Only indirectly. It was Nixon using his office to stop the
                 wiretapping investigation that led to his resignation. In
                 this case, there is no cover-up, just the wiretapping.
                 \_ Bush is already trying to obstruct the investigation in
                    this case, but admittedly nothing has come out to the
                    degree as did in the Haldeman case. But it is probably
                    only a matter of time.
                    \- maybe there will be another SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE
                       when ALBERTO is ordered to fire FITZGERALD and resigns
                       the HARRIET is ordered to fire him and resigns and then
                       JOHNYOO fires him and becomes AG/SG/CF in one!
2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41117 Activity:nil
12/22   These colors don't run, says Rumsfeld, they walk away slowly, not
        making eye contact.
        http://csua.org/u/eet (Seattle Times)
        \_ A troop reduction does not constitute a full pullback. Some of the
           moves makes sense. Iraquification continues onward...
           \_ It makes absolute sense. It also contradicts everything
              Rumsfeld and Cheney have said up to now.
              \_ "depending on conditions on the ground" is pretty vague,
                 translates to, "whatever the hell I feel like"
2005/12/22-23 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41114 Activity:kinda low
12/21   Liberty is dead.  All voice, email and most likely fax and data are
        being monitored:  http://csua.org/u/eeq
        \_ Thank you peterl. You're now on my watch list.  -Big Bro
           \_  Hmm, maybe you should use the NSA's technology so you
               will get the right username next time. --peterl
               \_ Very well. Thank you peterl. You're on my watch list now -NSA
        \_ Ever hear of Echelon? Liberty has been dead for a long time.
        \_ God damn, what is the login you use for the post?
           \_ http://bugmenot.com
           \_ You don't need a login.  Is this a ploy to prevent people
              from reading the article?
2005/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41105 Activity:nil
12/21   Does Santa work for BUSHCO?
        http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/765.gif
        \_ Santa only pawn in game of Life:
       http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/21/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL
2005/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41103 Activity:moderate
12/21   Republicans declare political suicide, demand elderly and poor
        run them out of office:
        http://csua.org/u/ee6 (Washington Post)
        (Actual title:  With Cheney's Vote, Senate Passes Budget Bill)
        \_ This is the most bizarre bill I've seen from congress in a long
           time.  It's practically a caricature of the Evil Republicans.  I
           don't understand why congress didn't chop out $40B in pork instead
           of this. -emarkp
           \_ Probably because pork fights back.
        \_ The poor are religious.  They'll vote with their faith.
           \_ Troll harder.  This one is pathetic.  Young Troll, you are FIRED!
              \_ Eh, while there is a heavy element of trollishness to the
                 post, there is still a kernel of truth in what he said.
                 \_ More than a kernel.  Poor white southerners overwelmingly
                    vote GOP.  This may be partly a racism thing, but I think
                    that's much less a factor than the bible shit.  Maybe pp
                    thinks all those scare tactics about gay marriage were
                    targeted at college educated, middle class people?
                    Convincing the powerless to support the powerful of their
                    own free will has been the main purpose of organized
                    relgion for thousands of years, and the GOP happens to
                    be better at this game and evil enough to exploit it
                    shamelessly right now.
                    \_ 'a racism thing'?  Do you mean 'racial' or 'ethnic' or
                       am I misreading what you're saying?
                       \_ Have you ever been to the south?
                          \_ Yes.  I'm not disputing that there's racism in
                             in the South -- I'm just having trouble parsing
                             the PP's use of the word in that context.  Is
                             PP calling himself a racist?  It just seems like
                             a different word seems to fit the context better.
                             \_ Yes, bad choice of words, sorry.  I meant the
                                GOP's "southern strategy", in general.
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
                                If Nixon had not figured out how to use
                                "states rights" as a
                                code word for opposition to civil rights
                                reforms, those worthless fucks would all
                                still be voting Democrat because Abe
                                Lincoln started the "war of northern agression".
                                \_ Ah, I see -- thanks for clarifying!
                    \_ I would agree with you on this if the current bill
                       didn't make severe cuts to Medica[id|re]. That's a
                       sacred cow for a whole lot of poor white folks, race
                       and sexual orientation issues aside.
                       \_ Bullshit.  Let's see what happens in 2008, and how
                          many of these deep south states leave the GOP.
                          Maybe in the north, you're right.  But the demographic
                          we're talking about here believes the Earth was
                          created 6000 years ago and that homosexuals should
                          be jailed for crimes against God.  As far as I'm
                          concerned, they're not even Americans, and there's
                          no way they'll stop thumping their bibles for long
                          enough to change parties over some nerdy policy
                          issue that doesn't involve the Old Testament.
                          \_ Whatever you may think of them, they'll squeal
                             when they realize their holy entitlements have
                             finally been fucked with. Cf. the Pres. inability
                             to shitcan Social Security. You won't have to
                             wait for '08; a number of Senators are up for
                             re-election in '06.
                             \_ Bush and his cronies fear middle class
                                mid-western swing voters, who will switch
                                parties over social security.  It's not
                                the poor southern white trash that they
                                were afraid of with the social security
                                debacle.
                          \_ Yes, remember, all people who vote or think
                             differently than you are utterly comtemptible
                             hateful trogs.  You have private access to the
                             only one true way of clear thought.  All others
                             are darkly evil or just plain stupid.  You are
                             my hero.  You represent all that is good and
                             pure and clean in this country!
           \_ Young Troll, the Young Troll Hiring & De-Hiring Committee has
              received updated notice from the Sub-Committee On Young Troll
              Quality Control and as per their advice has determined you shall
              continue in your present role as Young Troll at current rate.
              You do not need to report to the Young Troll Food Vat for
              Additional Services.  You're doing a fine job!  Carry on!
        \_ I believe now that the voting majority is now cut off from
           actual policy feedback. They vote on sloganeering and perceived
           cultural ideology. Some parts of this bill are sickening.
        \_ Repubs are the party of the middle class.  Screwing the poor
           shouldn't be a surprise.
           \_ Voting Dem is better somehow?
           \_ Bull. Republicans are the party of the filthy rich. Middle
              class Americans identify with the GOP because they hope to be
              filthy rich themselves some day. Hopefully, mucking about with
              Medicare/Medicaid will wake some of these people up.
              \_ Most of the truly wealthy in this country are the ultra
                 rich.  Who else can afford to be a Democrat?
                 \_ MOst of working-class Boston.
2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41093 Activity:nil
12/20   Sigint specialists respond to extra-legal NSA orders.
        http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html
2005/12/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41086 Activity:very high
12/20   Suspicious motd silence on Bush's "It's good to be the king" argument
        for his NSA decision^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawbreaking.
        \_ I thought we covered this a few days ago.  Who exactly are you
           suspicious of anyway?
           \_ Well, remember that TIA project? Well, #$@#$#$@#132323 NO CARRIER
           \_ Ask Bork about his video rentals..
        \_ MSNBC covered it. That makes it a lot more mainstream:
           http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek
        \_ Hah hah.  There's been suspicious silence on the motd on any good
         news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while.  There was no mention of
         the Iraqi election for instance.
         \_ having an election is insignificant.  It is mainly for the show
            for USA domestic audience anyway.  It is just another one of
            those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with "transfer
            of soverignty," etc, etc.
           news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while.  There was no mention
           of the Iraqi election for instance.
           \_ having an election is insignificant.  It is mainly for the
              show for USA domestic audience anyway.  It is just another one
              of those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with
              "transfer of soverignty," etc, etc.
              \_ A free election of a parliment, with roughly 70% turnout is
                 insignificant.  Okay.  Thanks for letting us know where you
                 stand.  Please sign your posts in the future so I can know
                 which ones to ignore. -emarkp
                 \_ Please don't derail this with an Iraq flamewar.  ok tnx.
               \_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a dubious
                  claim.  Iraq is still under occupation.  I think that any
                  civil structure that comes to form while we are there will
                  be, by design, fragile.  What Iraq ultimately becomes will
                  not take shape until/unless we leave. --scotsman
                  \_ Free as in speech.  There were real elections with real
                     candidates, and the people turned out in droves.  The
                     kind of thing people were saying would never happen.
                     Yes, the final state of the country won't be known until
                     they stand on their own, but it is a huge thing that
                     happened and a great beginning for the newest democracy
                     on the planet. -emarkp
                 \_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a
                    dubious claim.  Iraq is still under occupation.  I think
                    that any civil structure that comes to form while we are
                    there will be, by design, fragile.  What Iraq ultimately
                    becomes will not take shape until/unless we leave.
                    --scotsman
                    \_ Free as in speech.  There were real elections with
                       real candidates, and the people turned out in droves.
                       The kind of thing people were saying would never
                       happen. Yes, the final state of the country won't be
                       known until they stand on their own, but it is a huge
                       thing that happened and a great beginning for the
                       newest democracy on the planet. -emarkp
                       \_ Elections are easy. Governing is hard. -ausman
        \_ I don't know... I just think this is so blatent that I am just
           want to see how Bush is going to get out of this one.
         \_ So blatant?  Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of the
            US who are associated with Al Qaeda?  That's your definition of
            blatant?
           \_ So blatant?  Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of
              the US who are associated with Al Qaeda?  That's your
              definition of blatant?
              \_ With people outside of the US that Bush et al have said are
                 associated with Al Qaeda..  Do you know the 4th amendment?
                 Do you know what FISA is?  There are legal mechanisms to do
                 what they wanted to do.  They have decided those legal
                 mechanisms don't apply to them.
                 Adding to this:
                 http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58437
                 Dem gays is a "credible terrorist threat"..  mmhmm...
              \_ Between US citizens, in violation of both the Constitution
                 and the law Congress passed to cover it. Bolton using the
                 NSA to spy on political opponents inside the State Dept.
                 The DIA spying on anti-war groups, including The Quakers
                 and the Catholic Worker. And this is just the stuff that
                 has come out so far. I am sure there is more.
               \_ Oh come off it.  This is no worse than having ~500 of your
                  political opponent's FBI files.
                 \_ Oh come off it.  This is no worse than having ~500 of
                    your political opponent's FBI files.
                    \_ You mean that "scandal" that was investigated by an
                       independent prosecutor that resulted in no charges...
                       Okay, fine.  Join me in a call for an independent
                       prosecutor here.
                     \_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated" is
                       \_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated"
                          is
                    \_ Yeah, because that's precisely the same as trying to
                       stop terrorism.
                       \_ Wow.  Way to miss the sarcasm.  You must be _this_
                          tall to post to this thread.
                    \_ They are both despicable, yes.
      \_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants as
         Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.  Go Dubya!
        \_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants
           as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.  Go Dubya!
           \_ You're talking about this? http://csua.org/u/edz (LATimes)
              "Neither presidents nor Congress have ever acted under the
               belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war
               before the U.S. can engage in military hostilities abroad."
              Prof. Yoo, just because no Congress has taken a President to
              task for abusing the War Powers does not grant every Pres. the
              right to do so. It's a pretty justification, but it's still not
              borne out by the Constitution, which means it's only as good as
              your ability to stay ahead of the Congressional lynch mob.
              Also, your speculation on the idea of Congress becoming the
              initiator of wars is disingenuous-- no one's suggesting that
              the Pres. doesn't have the authority to start conflicts, just
              that he then must continue to obey the laws of the US even
              after the start of conflict. We do not have a military
              dictatorship.
        \_ http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000328.htm
           Congressmen calls for investigation and censure.
           \- Where is Karl Rove in all this? [re: presidential summons
              of nyt editors etc]
2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41078 Activity:moderate
12/19   Bush approval rating at 47%
        http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1421748
        \_ Bush approval rating unchanged at 41%
           http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html
           \_ I guess the +/- of these polls sucks.
        \_ Bush approval rating unchanged at 41%
           http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html
           \_ I guess the +/- of these polls sucks.
        \_ So when is the impeachment?  Where is Motd Poll Guy?  We haven't
           had an official update in weeks.
           \_ He's been a lot more contrite lately and in fact the Iraq
              election was pretty calm. The number of suicide bombing
              have gone done drastically in the past few months and
              things are in fact improving. I don't like Bush but I'm
              glad to see things starting to improve. Who knows, maybe
              we'll have a lot of troop reduction by next year. One can
              only hope so.
              \_ "The number of suicide bombing have gone down drastically"?
                 I thought it was:  More attacks, less areas.
                 \_ Only limited data points, but 23 suicide bombings in
                    11/05, 50+ in 10/05, ~35 in 8/05, 70 in 5/05.  So it is
                    true that the number dropped drastically in 11/05, and
                    that drop may be part of a trend.  But the article doesn't
                    provide enough information to be certain.  The number of
                    car bombings are also lower (from 130 in 2/05 to 68 in
                    car bombings is also lower (from 130 in 2/05 to 68 in
                    11/05), but again the article doesn't provide enough
                    information to know if that's a trend or an aberration.
                    In general, I again find it discouraging how *little*
                    useful information is provided by news sources.
                    http://csua.org/u/edg
                    \_ Isn't there supposed to be a quarterly report to
                       Congress measuring progress?
                       Oh goodie, I answered my own question, it's the first
                       google hit for "congressional report iraq progress".
                       I see, the report is only up to October.
2005/12/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41044 Activity:high
12/16   Bush uses NSA to spy on US Citizens:
        http://csua.org/u/ebv
        \_ Engage spin cycle:
           "Those aren't citizens, they're enemy combatants"
           "These are dangerous people.  Do you want another 9/11?"
           "We wouldn't be spying on them if they weren't bad guys"
           "It's not spying, it's routine surveillance"  -tom
           \_ "Tom Holub is an unpatriotic hippy, let's spy on him" -Echelon
        \_ I'm unable to find the word "citizen" in the article or headline.
           Can you point it out?
           \_ Gee, would we be as worked up if the headline said "Bush uses
              NSA to monitor foreign nationals inside the US"?  Of course
              these must be citizens.
              \_ Of course you would.  You've been worked up over all sorts
                 of things that wouldn't bother you if the previous admin
                 did them.
                 \_ I call bullshit.  Many people were worked up about
                    project Echelon.
                    \_ Dude.  It's reiffin.  Bullshit is self evident.
                    \_ No, I meant the wider issues of admin vs admin and the
                       typical political nonsense of "my guy is always right
                       and yours is always wrong" which is seen from people
                       on both sides of the isle.
                    \_ Well, let's see.  According to kchang's MOTD archive,
                       there has been 4 Echelon threads.  How good is that
                       archive's coverage back to 2001?  Let's see how much
                       MOTD coverage this current story is worth.  OBTW,
                       reading about Echelon coverage on MOTD, there did not
                       seem to be a lot of outrage as you claimed.  Perhaps
                       you can substantiate your claim?
                       seem to be a lot of outrage as you claimed.
                       \_ Please, this is the motd, no facts.
                       \_ You think "Jam Echelon" day is a statement
                          in favor of Echelon?
                          \_ Boy, it must be nice to live in a binary world.
                             Someone said "worked up", someone else said
                             "outrage".  To my mind, a 2 line "jam echelon"
                             thread doesn't count for either.
                       \_ And there have been no discussions about
                          whether watching paint drying is interesting,
                          therefore it *must* be interesting.
                          \_ Now, you really should be better at logic than
                             this.
                \_ Do I have to do everything for you? Do you dispute
                   that citizens were being spied on?
                   http://tinyurl.com/ahlo5
        \_ Tips balance on Patriot Act:
           http://csua.org/u/ec8 (NYT)
           \_ 'Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, called the
              disclosure "shocking" and said it had impelled him to vote "no"
              today.'  Oh blow it out your ass, Chuck.  Like you were going to
              vote "yes" under any circumstances.  -independent
              \_ Hmmm..  I wonder how Schumer voted on the Patriot act in 2001.
                 Actually, I don't have to wonder.  I know.  Do you?  Blow it
                 out your own.
                 \_ I do know, but that doesn't change the fact that if Chuck's
                    brand of reactionary blustering is the best face the
                    Democrats can put forward (and he's one of the ones I see
                    most often), they're in as sad a state as the Republicans.
                    -pp
              \_ And look up "impelled" in the dictionary.
                 \_ Hey, this guy can't even bother to look up "lie" in the
                    dictionary and avoid looking like an ass.
2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41032 Activity:high
12/15   Yeah, Congress has the same access to intelligence as the President...
        Except for the fact that they don't.
        http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
        \_ Why would you expect them to have the same access?  The
           intelligence agencies are part of the executive branch, which
           has a responsibility at very least to restrict access to primary
           material which may identify the source of that material.  I can
           understand arguing about whether the President restricts access
           to intelligence too much or too little, but asserting that
           Congress should have exactly the same level of access as the
           President seems misguided.
           \_ I wouldn't "expect them to have the same access".  But that's
              exactly what the president has used recently to defend his war.
              He said that they had the same information on Iraq that he did
              for their debate on authorizing war in some highly misguided
              effort to create some large scale mea culpa.  It's what he's
              hinged every speech this week on.  He's a liar.
              \_ Did he hinge that on congress *always* having the same access
                 or having the same access before the war?
                 \_ "One of the blessings of our free society is
                    that we can debate these issues openly, even in a
                    time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit
                    to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible
                    charges. They say that we act because of oil, that
                    we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we
                    misled the American people. Some of the most
                    irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence
                    have come from politicians who saw the same
                    intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize
                    the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These
                    charges are pure politics."
                    \_ Right, so we're talking about pre-war intelligence
                       there, not current intelligence.
                       \_ I don't see what you're getting at.  Do you?
                       \_ Which we know was not distributed equally before
                          the war.
                          \_ We do?
                             \_ Of course.  We know now, therfore we must have
                                known before.
                                \_ Not to mention that Bush is personally
                                   knowledgeable of everything known and done
                                   by people in the executive branch.
                                   \_ He may not be knowlegable, but, whether
                                      he likes it or not, he is responsible.
                                      it's his fucking administration.
                                      \_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
                                      \_ No, I agree completely.  Bush should
                                         be held accountable for the actions
                                         of his administration.  However, I am
                                         a little confused.  I thought here
                                         we're taking him to task for claiming
                                         Congress had the same access to
                                         intelligence.  So is he at fault for
                                         making a claim when he didn't know
                                         the facts, making a claim when he
                                         should have known otherwise, or making
                                         a claim when he did know otherwise.
                                         And how do we decide which one that is
                                         from the available information?
                                      \_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
                                         \_ Ah, the old "is he a liar, or is
                                            he just incompetent" question. I
                                            posit it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
                                            And How do we decide?  We tell
                                            Congress (who is the only party
                                            with the ability, not to mention
                                            the DUTY to do so) to find out.
                                            \_ You mean we shouldn't just hang
                                               him first?  I'm pretty sure
                                               we're going to hang him first
                                               and determine the facts later.
                                               \_ He's not a carjacker, son.
                                                  He's the president, and the
                                                  only body qualified to
                                                  investigate is sitting on
                                                  their hands.  In such an
                                                  event, saying "wait for
                                                  the facts" is unpatriotic.
                                                  \_ Wow.  Maybe the truth *is*
                                                     out there!  Have you been
                                                     talking to jblack about
                                                     the black helicopters
                                                     circling overhead?  You
                                                     think that's part of the
                                                     Congressional plot to
                                                     sit on the impeachment too?
                                \_ Yes we do. The PDB for example, is not
                                   shared with Congress. Are you really this
                                   ignorant or are you playing faux naif?
                                   The President knows he has access to
                                   information that Congress does not have,
                                   too, so he just lying his ass off now.
                                   \_ You know, I'm pretty sure Bush isn't
                                      telling the Congress what he's getting
                                      the wife and family for Christmas too.
                                      So the question is not whether Bush knows
                                      something the Congress doesn't, it's
                                      1. whether Bush knows something material
                                      that the Congress doesn't, and 2. whether
                                      Bush knows that the Congress doesn't
                                      have access to that material information.
                                      In the case of the daily briefing that
                                      you specifically mentioned, you will
                                      have to show that the relevant bits in
                                      the briefing do not eventually reach
                                      the Congress.
                                      \_ http://tinyurl.com/94otb
                                         \_ So you have one website quoting
                                            another website plus some
                                            conjecture.  Wow.  You have me
                                            totally convinced now.  Do you
                                            information reguarding black
                                            helicopters that are equally
                                            helicopters that is equally
                                            persuasive?
                                            \_ http://csua.org/u/eco
                                               Second paragraph. Look this is
                                               shooting fish in a barrel.
                                               \_ OK, by abandoning your first
                                                  website I assume you agree
                                                  that your first reference is
                                                  silly.  Great.  We're making
                                                  progress.  Now let's look
                                                  at this one.  On 9/5/02,
                                                  Graham & Co demanded to
                                                  see the National Intelligence
                                                  Estimate.  3 weeks later
                                                  (I assume that's 9/26/02),
                                                  Tenet produced one.  One
                                                  10/10/02, Congress voted
                                                  to approve the use of force.
                                                  What's your point again?
                                                  \_ There is overwhelming
                                                     evidence that you are
                                                     wrong. I am just posting
                                                     it as fast as I can
                                                     google it:
                                                     http://csua.org/u/ecp
                                                     \_ To quote your reference,
                                                        "The report does not
                                                        cite examples of
                                                        intelligence Bush
                                                        reviewed that differed
                                                        from what Congress saw.
                                                        If such information is
                                                        available, it would not
                                                        be accessible to the
                                                        report's authors."
                                                        That Bush had
                                                        information unavailable
                                                        to Congress is a given.
                                                        The question is whether
                                                        the information was
                                                        material, and you
                                                        have yet shown nothing
                                                        to substantiate that
                                                        claim.
                                                        \_ You are trying to
                                                           use the fact that
                                                           the White House
                                                           classifies any
                                                           information that
                                                           proves that it is
                                                           lying as evidence
                                                           in *favor* of their
                                                           claim? Bizarre.
                                                        \_ At least you are
                                                           admitting that Bush
                                                           lied about this.
                                                           Now we are getting
                                                           somewhere.
                                                           \_ I think I agreed
                                                              half a page up
                                                              that Bush must
                                                              know something
                                                              the Congress
                                                              doesn't.  The
                                                              question is
                                                              whether it's
                                                              material, and so
                                                              far claims of
                                                              "overwhelming
                                                              evidence" have
                                                              been under-
                                                              whelming.  All
                                                              you have shown
                                                              are unreferenced
                                                              claims and
                                                              innuendoes.
                                                  \_ Did you even bother to
                                                     read the second paragraph
                                                     in the above cite?
                                                     "However, this
                                                     declassified version was
                                                     more like a marketing
                                                     brochure: 20 pages in
                                                     length, slickly produced
                                                     with splashy grahics and
                                                     maps, and with none of
                                                     the caveats contained in
                                                     the original...The
                                                     intelligence material
                                                     Congress had was what the
                                                     administration was willing
                                                     to give them, namely a
                                                     promotional piece whose
                                                     lies of omission outweighed\
                                                     what was included."
                                                     \_ [Sorry, broke up your
                                                        post to respond to
                                                        your points separately.
                                                        Hope you don't mind.]
                                                        The full classified
                                                        version was available
                                                        to House and Senate
                                                        intelligence committee
                                                        members.
                                                        \_ Right, but that
                                                           is not Bush's claim.
                                                           He claims "all 100
                                                           Democratic members
                                                           of Congress" had
                                                           He claims "more than
                                                           100 Democrats"
                                                           in Congress had
                                                           access to the same
                                                           material he did.
                                                           http://csua.org/u/ecq
                                                           \_ Boy, do you even
                                                              read your own
                                                              references?
                                                              1.  Your quote
                                                              is completely
                                                              misleading and
                                                              *invented*.
                                                              Please use
                                                              quotations
                                                              correctly.
                                                              2.  I assume
                                                              you mean "more
                                                              than 100 Democrats
                                                              in the House and
                                                              Senate".  OBTW,
                                                              *that* is a
                                                              correct and non-
                                                              misleading quote.
                                                              3.  Next
                                                              paragraph from
                                                              that quote, the
                                                              article article
                                                              specifically
                                                              mentioned the
                                                              daily briefing,
                                                              but it's not
                                                              clear if relevant
                                                              info from that
                                                              made it into
                                                              reports in other
                                                              forms, and the
                                                              National Intel
                                                              Estimate, which
                                                              even the artcile
                                                              agreed were
                                                              available to
                                                              the Congress
                                                              before the vote.
                                                              4.  Given that
                                                              you have proven
                                                              to be dishonest
                                                              by inventing
                                                              quotes on the fly,
                                                              why should I even
                                                              waste my time with
                                                              you?  Please addr
                                                              point 4 before
                                                              more arguments.
                                                              5.  I see that
                                                              you've now gone
                                                              back to "fix"
                                                              your quote.  Again
                                                              why should I waste
                                                              my time with some-
                                                              one shown to be
                                                              dishonest and
                                                              without honor?
                                                              \_ Blow it out
                                                                 your ass. I
                                                                 was trying
                                                                 to quickly
                                                                 summarize my
                                                                 points. I did
                                                                 not sub-
                                                                 stantially
                                                                 change any
                                                                 meaning
                                                                 (Congressmen
                                                                 for members of
                                                                 The House and
                                                                 Senate). Why
                                                                 should I waste
                                                                 my time with
                                                                 a crybaby?
                                                                 \_ Right.  You
                                                                    made up a
                                                                    quote (and
                                                                    there is a
                                                                    substantive
                                                                    difference
                                                                    between
                                                                    "all 100"
                                                                    and "more
                                                                    than 100"),
                                                                    got caught.
                                                                    You went
                                                                    back to fix
                                                                    it without
                                                                    admitting
                                                                    responsi-
                                                                    bility, and
                                                                    got caught
                                                                    again.  Now
                                                                    you're
                                                                    indignant.
                                                                    Do you have
                                                                    *any* honor?
                                          That was a typo that I corrected _/
                                          before you even finished with
                                          your counter to it. Your argument
                                          on the facts has failed, so you
                                          have resorted to ad hominem, I
                                          understand. Another nail in the
                                          coffin of your claims that the
                                          Congress had all the same intel
                                          as the White House:
                                       http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
                                          \_ This is getting *so* tiresome.
                                             I agreed a page up that Bush has
                                             info the Congress doesn't.  Now
                                             show that this info is material.
                                             You still have nothing.  How about
                                             a quote from Feinstein's website?
                                             Have you learned how to quote now?
                                             Something like "Bush knew X, but
                                             this was not known to the Congress
                                             at the time.  If this were known,
                                             the vote might have been
                                             different."  That would show that
                                             the info was material.  You picked
                                             the Feinstein site.  Don't you
                                             have *anything*?
                                             \_ The "material" bit is your
                                                trip, not mine. I don't know
                                                if it would have changed enough
                                                votes to stop the war or not.
                                                But I do know Bush lied when
                                                he claimed that Congress had
                                                access to the same info (on
                                                Iraq, to be pedantic) as he did.
                                                \_ I take it that this means you
                                                   *can't* find a reference
                                                   that Congress is missing
                                                   material information.  If
                                                   you don't limit yourself
                                                   to material information, then
                                                   the statement is silly.  Of
                                                   course Bush knows stuff the
                                                   Congress does not.  I mean,
                                                   did Bush tell the Congreess
                                                   when or with whom he lost
                                                   his virginity?  So you are
                                                   limiting the info to info
                                                   on Iraq.  Isn't that a
                                                   material test?  Should Bush
                                                   tell Congress what his fav.
                                                   Bagdhad restaurant is?  If
                                                   he didn't, would you hang
                                                   him for lying?  You keep
                                                   saying you know Bush lied.
                                                   How?  On what?  You made a
                                                   specific claim.  Now please
                                                   make specific charges.  Some-
                                                   thing like "Bush knew X, but
                                                   Congress didn't or didn't in
                                                   time".
                                                   \_ Reread the Washington
                                                      Post article. Basically
                                                      anything that contradicted
                                                      the case that the WH
                                                      was trying to make was
                                                      withheld. There is
                                                      literally hundreds of
                                                      pages of it (far too
                                                      much to try and post
                                                      here). One example
                                                      noted in the WaPo article:
                                       "For example, the NIE view that
                                        Hussein would not use weapons of mass
                                        destruction against the United States
                                        or turn them over to terrorists unless
                                        backed into a corner was cleared for
                                        public use only a day before the
                                        Senate vote."
                                                      \_ To address your quote
                                                         specifically, note
                                                         that NIE info was not
                                                         available for "public
                                                         use".  Meaning the
                                                         info was available to
                                                         the Congress, but the
                                                         Congressman was not
                                                         allowed to release
                                                         it to the public.  Now
                                                         how does that prove
                                                         your point?  Re the
                                                         rest of the article,
                                                         it was either the
                                                         Congress did not have
                                                         enough time to review
                                                         the NIE (from your
                                                         earlier time line I
                                                         would guess the
                                                         Congress had 2 weeks),
                                                         or there must have
                                                         been *something*
                                                         missing.  What
                                                         something?  Specific
                                                         charges please.  I'll
                                                         keep trying to help
                                                         you.  Something like
                                                         "Bush knew X, but the
                                                         Congress didn't or
                                                         didn't in time."  When
                                                         you have X, then you
                                                         have something.  Until
                                                         then, your claim is
                                                         worthless.
                                      \_ Bush didn't say "something material"
                                         he said Congress had the same
                                         information we did. We know the PDB
                                         had information on Iraq. Q.E.D.
                                         \_ Now you're being silly.  Yes, I
                                            am certain Bush isn't telling
                                            the Congress what he's getting
                                            the family for Christmas.  I bet
                                            he didn't even tell the Congress
                                            when and with whom he lost his
                                            virginity!  Impeach the bum.  How
                                            are those black helicopters coming?
                                            \_ You are grasping at straws here
                                               and I think you know it. We
                                               are talking about Iraq here,
                                               not Christmas lists.
                                               \_ Hey, you're the one who said
                                                  "Bush didn't say 'something
                                                  material'".  I was just
                                                  follwing your when I started
                                                  on Christmas lists and
                                                  virginity.  Now show me
                                                  that the daily briefing
                                                  information didn't eventually
                                                  reach Congress.
                                                  \_ Believe it or not, I do
                                                     not have the security
                                                     clearance to track this
                                                     kind of thing. Your blind
                                                     faith in the White House
                                                     is kind of touching.
                                                     \_ No, not blind faith in
                                                        the white house at all.
                                                        If I am guilty, I am
                                                        guilty of blind faith
                                                        that you could not
                                                        possibly prove what you
                                                        are trying to claim.
                                                        \_ I think you are
                                                           saying the opposite
                                                           of what you intend.
                                                           \_ You know, you're
                                                              right.  Mea culpa.
2017/10/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/18   

2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41024 Activity:moderate
12/14   I'm a Republican but switched to I after the Iraq War. However,
        Bush has since then grown up and admitted mistakes and took all
        responsibilities, and in doing so he gained my faith in the
        party again.  It's good to be back.             -Republican 2008
        \_ After watching a recent interview with Bush, I have to admit that
           he seems like less of a complete retard.  He is actually admitting
           that he has made mistakes.  Of course, this still doesn't alliviate
           the fact that he IS still a retard.
        \_ So the unprecedented expansion of the size and power of the
           government doesn't bother you?  Endless deficits and total
           fiscal irresponsibility doesn't bother you?  The lack of any
           realistic longterm plan to deal with America's energy problems
           doesn't bother you?  And I suppose you're probably proud to have
           a president who is either so fucking stupid he actually believes
           there is a real scientific controversy over "intelligent design"
           or so craven that he's willing to lie about it to score points
           with the theocratic wing of your party.  Yep.  You sound like a
           typical republican to me.  I'm sure your fellow bible thumping
           pigfuckers are glad to have you back.
           \_ They have a great plan:
                1 - Get control of the white house
                2 - Manipulate the "free" market
                3 - PROFIT!!
        \_ Is this a troll?
           \_ Eh... could be. Why not be safe and throw rhetoric back?
        \_ Dubya is channelling hillary, who "took responsibility" for her vote
           for the war a few weeks earlier.
           But don't worry, there's still three more years of the country
           being run by a frat house president.
           \_ Reagan showed the way to "accept" responsibility without having
              to worry about consequences.  It also worked for Rumsfeld.
           \_ So you voted for his distant cousin in the last election who,
              oh nevermind, don't let facts bother you.
              \_ why so angry at a fellow sodan?
                 \_ Disappointed.  Not angry.
        \_ "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence
            agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of
            mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence
            agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove
            Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out
            to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go
            into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong
            by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just
            that." -GWB, 12/14/05
           In other words, like Tookie, he did no wrong, and anyway it wasn't
           his fault if he did.
        \_ I bet you are much less tolerant to those who lied about his sex
           life.  15,000 US casuaties,  30,000+ Iraqi casualties, versus
           a blow job... hmm...
           \_ Don't forget the cigar stuff. That has to be worth maybe a
              squad of Marines and a small Iraqi village.
        \_ Interesting.  I was an R, I supported (and still support) the Iraq
           War, but switched to I because of Bush + congress' ineptitude at the
           border and at spending.  I have no interest in returning to the R
           party anytime soon. -emarkp
2005/12/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41012 Activity:nil
12/14   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/orleans/program.html
        Video Expert (James?), which of the three, quicktime, real, or
        WindowsMedia tend to have best quality in the above URL link? thx
        \_ Beats me.  Watch them and judge for yourself. --jameslin
2005/12/14-15 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41009 Activity:moderate
12/13   Haha.  McCain no-torture amendment says "Follow the Army Field Manual."
        Pentagon changes field manual.  Go Dubya!
        \_ So do we have to have a three screen long flame war about the
           definition of the word "lie" to say Rice was lying now?  Or can
           we just agree that she was lying right through her teeth by
           any definition?
           \_ ObThatDependsOnWhatTheDefinitionOfIsIs.
           \_ It's a lie whatever we say is a lie.
        \_ url?
           \_ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/politics/14detain.html
2005/12/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40980 Activity:nil
12/12   U.S. Soldiers bring wheels to Iraqi man without legs
        http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=8328
        \_ Yes jblack, the US Army is great, GWB is great, and whining
           liberals should shut their mouths. I gotcha.
        \_ "We killed 30,000 Iraqis but by giving wheels to one Iraqi man
            without legs, we sure feel heck a lot better!"    !gwb
        \_ Hmmm... I wonder about how practical that is.  Is it better for
           him than a wheelchair?
           \_ Obviously no, but a real customized American wheelchair costs
              well over $5000, and the US government can't afford to pay
              such an exorbitant price especially when it needs to
              finance the War on Terror.
                \_ ^War on Terror^tax cuts
                   \_ I'm glad you think we're paying for the tax cuts
                      for the rich. I bet you even thought Clinton was
                      right to intervene in Serbia.
              \_ So, don't get a "real customized American wheelchair."
                 There are much cheaper/easier designs.  Since the army
                 guy build it from scratch, he may have investigated other
                 designs.
                 \_ And now this guy has no incentive to better his life!
                    -libertarian
2005/12/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40951 Activity:insanely high
12/9    "Use democracy to DEFEAT LIBERTY.

        Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that
        liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety,
        leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of
        wedlock, and family breakdown.

        And worst of all, LIBERALISM is soft on communism or terrorism - (or
        WHATEVER happens to be the enemy of the moment.)

        And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their
        SECURITY, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they
        will gladly renounce it." -Irvine Kristol, father of Neoconservatism
        \_ This is really dishonest.  This is not a quote of Kristol as you
           claimed.  This is actually a quote of Shadia Drury from her essay
           "Saving America--Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives".  This is
           not what Kristol said; this is Drury's spin on what Kristol said.
           And then on top of misrepresenting the quote, you threw in some
           extra capitalizations that were not in the source.  Advocacy is one
           thing, outright lying is quite another.  You should be ashamed.
           (http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html has the original
           Drury essay.)
           \_ I am not sure if I am ashamed, but I am glad to be set straight.
              Serves me right for using a random partisan blog as a source.
              \_ What?  A partisan blog lied and misrepresented an opposing
                 view?  I'm *SHOCKED*!  Nay, I'm *SHOCKED*!  *laugh*  When you
                 get your info from shitty biased sources, of course you'll get
                 propaganda and be misled as to what other people have said
                 and think and you'll end up hating them.  The motd is a great
                 example of this.  BushCo lied, People died!  Halliburton!
                 Damn, this is funny.  I'm busting up.
                 \_ Actually, the motd is much better at correcting errors
                    than most media sources.
                 \_ You are right, Bush told the truth and no one has died
                    in Iraq. And Halliburton has not many any money from
                    War Profiteering. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan.
                    \_ BushCo lied, people died implies that Bush knew the
                       the true situtation in Iraq and chose to act anyway.
                       His knowledge of the true situation has not been
                       convincingly demonstrated.
                       \_ We know that he has lied about Congress having
                          "the same intelligence" that he did.  We know that
                          he fired generals who told him planning requirements
                          that he didn't like, whose predictions have turned
                          out to come true.  If Bush didn't lie, he was simply
                          incompetent.  I don't know which is worse.
                          \_ Gee, isn't this pretty disingenuous?  The fact
                             that the slogan is "BushCo lied..." says pretty
                             much that lying is worse.
                       \_ The word "lie" has more than one meaning, as anyone
                          with even a casual knowledge of the English language
                          knows. You have chosen, for entirely partisan reasons,\
                          to pick the meaning that makes the people that use
                          knows. You have chosen, for entirely partisan reasons,
                          to pick the meaning that makes the people that use
                          it look the most extreme. You are being disingenous
                          yourself, to put it charitably.

                          \_ I'm surprised _your_ lie has been allow to sit
                             here unquestioned for so long.  The common and
                             primary usage of the word "lie" is the one that
                             involves intentional and knowing deception.  This
                             is *not* the "extreme" definition of the word
                             "lie".  It is *the* definition of the word "lie".
                             Any other definitions you might like to use would
                             not only be uncommon but would lead to confusing
                             your audience if you didn't mean "intentional and
                             knowing deception".  You are being extremely
                             intellectually dishonest.  A 2 second dictionary
                             check would have shown that.  So would asking any
                             normal human being on the street or any 5 year
                             old what they thought the word "lie" means.
                             You're just struggling to save the "Bush Lied,
                             People Died" rhetoric and doing a bad job of it.
                             Bush, the CIA, several other western intelligence
                             agencies, the Russians, and the entire Clinton
                             administration were wrong about WMD in Iraq.
                             None of these people lied, as we found out later
                             Saddam's own people were lying to him telling him
                             he had weapons and capabilities he didn't have.
                             The upper tiers of Iraqi government thought they
                             had WMD.  Come play again anytime and bring a
                             dictionary or a 5 year old next time.
                             \_   Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to
                                  D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
                                  G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. &
                                  Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
                                  See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
                                2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
                                [1913 Webster]
                                Quite seriously, your English skills, as well
                                as your ability to use simple research tools,
                                such as a dictionary, must be seriously
                                deficient. In the English language, words
                                   \_ You are an idiot.  "dict lie" and look
                                      for the definition that covers truth
                                      and not physical position.  You'll see
                                      quite clearly that to lie means to
                                      intentionally deceive.  If this wasn't
                                      the motd I'd be stunned that someone
                                      would have the balls to present some
                                      random fuck #2 definition from some
                                      unknown place they've carefully chosen
                                      to cover their first lie and then
                                      falsely accuse someone else of having
                                      poor research skills or English language
                                      ability.  If this was something as
                                      low level as Rhetoric 1A you'd get an
                                      "F" for an argument like that.  But
                                      since this is the motd, I expect lies
                                      (intentional knowing falsehood) as a
                                      weak attempt to bolster a weak partisan
                                      position.
                                      \_ The most amusing thing about your
                                         diatribe is that this definition above
                                         comes from using "dict lie" on soda.
                                         Are you trolling in a deliberate
                                         effort to look stupid?
                                often have multiple meanings and it is not
                                incorrect to use an alternate meaning, though
                                perhaps confusing to some people. I talked to
                                a linguist about this, and he says it is an
                                example of a "contested case" where some
                                people believe their definition is correct
                                and the other definitions are incorrect, but
                                a simple use of the dictionary will show you
                                to be wrong. The word "lie" is used both
                                ways in the English language. You also
                                (deliberately?) misread my simple statement
                                about your picking the definition that allowed
                                you to paint the users of it as political
                                extremists. I said nothing about the "extreme
                                definition" of the word, you either twisted
                                or misunderstood what I meant.
                                or misunderstood what I meant. Five year
                                olds don't define the language.
                                \_ So, in your opinion, did the OP of this
                                   thread lie?  Should he be ashamed of having
                                   lied?
                                   \_ Sure, he (me actually) lied, by some
                                      definitions of the word. He should be
                                      ashamed of doing only casual fact
                                      checking, which in this case was
                                      a Google search of the quote, which
                                      turns up many other examples of people
                                      spreading this falsehood.
                                      \_ So you are ashamed for not having
                                         fact checked, but not ashamed for
                                         having lied.  So in your mind, the
                                         lie was morally neutral?  Afterall,
                                         if the lie were morally reprehensible,
                                         shouldn't you feel shame?  Would you
                                         say that in your case, "you lied" is
                                         equivalent to "you said something
                                         incorrect because you believed in the
                                         wrong source"?
                                         \_ Yes. If it makes you feel any better
                                            I personally have stopped using the
                                            construct "Bush lied" because of the
                                            confusion it engenders. I prefer
                                            the phrase "Bush is a bullshitter"
                                            because I think it more accurately
                                            describes the relationship that
                                            the Bush White House has with
                                            veracity.
                                            \_ Great!  I must tell you (and I
                                               assure you that I do so without
                                               any sarcasm whatsoever) that I
                                               admire your honesty and integrity
                                               in this discussion.  I think Bush
                                               was wrong, premature, lacked
                                               planning and foresight, and a
                                               whole host of other unpleasant
                                               things.  However, I do not think
                                               he lied (in the sense of the word
                                               that is morally reprehensible and
                                               requires an intent to deceive).
                             \_ Here are some examples of the second use of
                                the word:
                                http://csua.org/u/e96 (Kerry lied)
                                http://www.techcentralstation.com/101405D.html
                                http://csua.org/u/e97 (Bush lied about attack)
                                Now all of these are politically charged
                                debates, but they all accuse the other of
                                "lies" when falsehoods would have been a
                                more clear statement. But nonetheless,
                                they used the word "lie" as many many
                                speakers of the English language do in
                                this situation.
                                \_ Sure!  In the sense that 'Bush lied' ==
                                   'Bush was incorrect in a morally neutral
                                   way because he believed in the wrong
                                   source".  I'm ok with that.  However,
                                   'BushCo was incorrect in a morally neutral
                                   way because he believed in the wrong source,
                                   people died' doesn't have that nice ring
                                   to it.  OBTW, at least in your first 2
                                   references there is a sense that the "lie"
                                   were told with the intent to deceive.  In
                                   the Kerry case, one could reasonably assume
                                   that Kerry knew what he did during and after
                                   the Vietnam war, and the website claimed that
                                   that Kerry knew he did during and after the
                                   Vietnam war, and the website claimed that
                                   Kerry gave a "scrubbed" version of his
                                   activities later.  The 2nd reference claimed
                                   the media was "inventing" stories.  I think
                                   by definition invention requires on the part
                                   of the inventor knowledge that the story is
                                   not true.  In the last case, the question
                                   hinges on whether Bush knew he was wrong
                                   when he claimed that the Irqais were in
                                   charge.  This was not addressed in the
                                   link (though honestly I have not read
                                   through all the comments), and therefore it
                                   is not clear where the article and the
                                   claim of "Bush lied" falls.  Thanks for
                                   proving my point, BTW.
                                   activities during his presidential campaign.
                                   The 2nd reference claimed the media was
                                   "inventing" stories.  I think by definition
                                   invention requires on the part of the
                                   inventor the story is not based on actual
                                   truth.
                                   inventor knowledge that the story is not
                                   true.
                                   \_ Waitasec. Are you saying that you believe
                                      that Bush looked at all the information
                                      and drew an impartial and logical
                                      conclusion? 'Cos looking at the intel
                                      now, I don't see how he drew the
                                      conclusions he did without having a
                                      distinct bias. It is clear now that he
                                      had already made up his mind and he was
                                      only looking for intel that supported
                                      his ideas, and the rest could go hang.
                                      In this regard, he intentionally withheld
                                      the truth of the matter from the
                                      American people, which, by your own
                                      definition, constitutes lying.
                                      \_ Nope.  I think Bush looked at the
                                         information he had and drew a
                                         conclusion.  Did he look at all the
                                         evidence impartially, dispassionately,
                                         whatever?  Not likely.  Still he
                                         reached a conclusion.  He believed
                                         that his conclusion was correct, and
                                         he led the country into war based on
                                         that.  Which means he may have been
                                         stupid, premature, illogical,
                                         emotional, short-sided, etc., but he
                                         emotional, short-sighted, etc., but he
                                         did not lie.  Did he withhold "the
                                         truth"?  What truth?  There's his
                                         truth, your truth, my truth.  Maybe
                                         there's even *the* truth.  Who knows?
                                         He told us what he believed was true.
                                         If a child who just learned addition
                                         told you earnestly that 7+8=13, did
                                         the child lie?  Or was he just honestly
                                         wrong?  If you write down the wrong
                                         answer on a mid-term, did you lie?
                                         Or were you just wrong?
                                         \_ Do you think Bush told the truth?
                                            \_ I think he told what he thought
                                               was the truth.
                                               \_ It is a yes or no question.
                                                  \_ Whose truth?  Bush told
                                                     the truth as he understood
                                                     it.
                                                     \_ Bullshit.
                                                        "Iraq has weapons of
                                                         mass destruction" was
                                                         not a lie.  "We have
                                                         evidence that Iraq
                                                         has weapons of mass
                                                         destruction" was, in
                                                         fact, a deliberate lie.
                                                         I think that Bush could
                                                         have stuck with the
                                                         first of these and
                                                         justified the war
                                                         (which I supported),
                                                         but he chose to lie
                                                         about the evidence,
                                                         and that is important
                                                         (impeachable, IMO).
                                                        \_ I take it that you
                                                           agree with my propo-
                                                           sition that if Bush
                                                           merely told the
                                                           truth as he under-
                                                           stood it, he did not
                                                           lie.
                                   \_ Nope. Kerry repeated what he had been
                                      told by other sources, that he believed.
                                      It turned out that these guys weren't
                                      even Vets, but Kerry had no way of
                                      knowing that. The Kerry lied crowd knows
                                      this but still accuse him of lying.
                                      \_ If I may read between the lines, are
                                         you saying the "Kerry lied" crowd
                                         should not have accused him of lying?
                                         If so, thanks for making my point for
                                         me.
                                         \_ I don't hold an opinion one way
                                            or another on the morality of
                                            accusing a politician of lying.
                                            I am just pointing out to you how
                                            the English language is used. I am
                                            sure I could come up with hundreds
                                            of examples, given enough time.
                                            You could, too.
                                            \_ Well, I am perfectly happy with
                                               2 kinds of lie: one that is
                                               honest mistake with no intent
                                               to deceive, and the other that
                                               is deliberately untrue with an
                                               aim to deceive.  I think there
                                               is no moral stigma associated
                                               with the first, and the second
                                               is morally reprehensible.  I
                                               also think that, given these
                                               two definitions of lie, Bush's
                                               belong to the first category.
                                               And, given there is no intent
                                               to deceive, there is also no
                                               moral probihition against it.
                                               Like I said, I'm ok with the
                                               formulation 'Bush lied' == 'Bush
                                               was incorrect in a morally
                                               neutral way because he believed
                                               in the wrong source".
                          \_ I'd be more comfortable w/ 'Bush misled, people
                             bled' b/c lie specifically requires knowledge of
                             the truth. In this case, knowledge of the truth
                             has not, and likely cannot be, demonstrated.
                             bled.' To me lie specifically implies a knowledge
                             of the truth, which I do not think can be shown
                             in this context.
                             \_ 'misled'? What is this if not a euphemism
                                for 'lied'?
                                \_ Actually, no.  "lied" requires the liar to
                                   have knowledge of the truth, or at least
                                   knowledge of the lack of the truth.
                                   "misled" allows for mistake or ignorance
                                   on the part of the misleading person. - !pp
                                   "misled" allows for mistake on the part of
                                   the misleading person. - !pp
                                   \_ That would be 'mistaken.'
                                      \_ Ummm no.  Use 'misled' in a sentence.
                                         Then use 'mistaken' in its place in
                                         the same sentence.
                                         \_ Clever, but not a direct substi-
                                            tution. Instead of saying that the
                                            President misled the people into
                                            believing that the war was just,
                                            I would say that the President was
                                            mistaken in believing that the war
                                            was just, and he therefore led us
                                            into war while laboring under this
                                            mistake. He misled us; in order to
                                            do so, he engaged in deceit, also
                                            called lying.
                                            \_ No, you are wrong.  A lie
                                               is an untruth given with the
                                               intent to deceive.  Note that
                                               it requires an intent.  I would
                                               not be lying to you if I told
                                               you the sun rises in the west,
                                               so long as I believe that to be
                                               true.  I may have been wrong
                                               when I said the sun rises in
                                               the west, but I did not lie,
                                               because I did not intend to
                                               deceive you with that untruth.
                                               deceive you.
                                               \_ And in that regard you
                                                  would have been *mistaken*,
                                                  and you would not have
                                                  _misled_ me so much as
                                                  _mistakenly led me to
                                                  believe_. Regardless of
                                                  which, Bush *chose* to
                                                  ignore every sign that his
                                                  intel and sources were not
                                                  correct and created an
                                                  environment in which any
                                                  evidence for an opposing view
                                                  was discarded out of hand.
                                                  When he said we had no choice
                                                  but to invade, he was imply-
                                                  ing that he had explored all
                                                  possibilities; that was a
                                                  lie. From that complexity
                                                  to "Bush lied, peoplde died"
                                                  is an unfortunate simplifi-
                                                  cation, I agree, but no
                                                  less true.
                                                  \_ An "unfortunate
                                                     siimplification"?  Who's
                                                     into carefully chosen
                                                     euphemisms now?
                                                     \_ Pray tell, what is
                                                        "unfortunate simplifi-
                                                        cation" a carefully
                                                        chosen euphemism for?
                                                        \_ "Inaccurate"?
                                                           "Wrong"?
                                                \_ If you look just one
                                                   paragraph down you will
                                                   see someone accused of
                                                   lying, who had no knowledge
                                                   that what he was saying was
                                                   false before he uttered it.
                                                   How can you ignore the
                                                   evidence right in front
                                                   of your eyes?
                                                  \_ An "unfortunate
                                                     siimplificatoin"?  Who's
                                                     into carefully chosen
                                                     euphemisms now?
                                                   \_ Actually, this exactly
                                                      proves my point (and
                                                      it should, since I also
                                                      wrote that post).  Since
                                                      the originator of the
                                                      thread posted in error
                                                      (or he was misled by his
                                                      partisan website, to use
                                                      the language of this
                                                      subthread), I did not
                                                      castigate him for "not
                                                      [being] ashamaed for
                                                      lying".  I so stipulated
                                                      because to my mind, and
                                                      I assume to his (since
                                                      he is not ashamed) he
                                                      did not lie, since he
                                                      thought he posted a
                                                      truth.  The OP was
                                                      merely mistaken.  That is
                                                      why I took him to task
                                                      for not exercising his
                                                      critical judgement
                                                      instead.
              \_ If you believed Kristol (or anyone in this media age) would
                 be stupid enough to have actually said this, then you should
                 be too stupid to be admitted to Cal.  If you're not ashamed
                 for lying, then you should be ashamed for not exercising
                 your critical judgement.
                 \_ If Bush can say dumbass things like "What an impressive
                    crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call
                    you the elite, I call you my base" and get away with it,
                    it is not that unreasonable to think someone like Kristol
                    might say something like that. Especially many years
                    ago, before the Internet, when people tended to speak
                    more freely in front of crowds. Or maybe I am just
                    a dumbass.
                    \_ I actually found it very reasuring when Bush said that,
                       since that crowd will never allow the Religious Right
                       to totally destroy American science and turn America
                       into a theocracy.  The rich bastard section of the GOP
                       seems like the least loathesome faction, and they keep
                       the real fuckers at bay.
                    \_ You are just a dumbass.
                 \_ I assume you are not the same fellow criticizing
                    the anti-war crowd for saying that Bush lied, right?
                    If so, it would be pretty ironic.
            \_ There are many ways to make money other than real estate.
               I made more than 100k in the stock market since 2002,
               with about 30% annual return.  And the PE ratio of S&P500
               is actually lower now than in 2002, unlike the ridiculous
               Price/Rent ratio of homes in the Bay Area.
2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40902 Activity:high
12/7    http://CNN.com:  "Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat"
        Oh oh, you know the guy probably wasn't a genuine terrorist if they
        lead with a line like that.  Just compare the lead to the other
        major web sites' (foxnews.com too) if you don't know what I'm
        talking about. -jctwu
        \_ You're kidding me, right?
        \_ You're kidding me, right? --scotsman
           \_ Did you check the other web sites yet?
           \_ Did you check the other web sites yet? -jctwu
              \_ Uh, yes.  Plus a news.google check.  If anything, fox's is
                 less descriptive of the actual circumstance than all the rest.
                 I think, perhaps, I don't know what exactly you're complaining
                 about.
                 about. --scotsman
                 \_ Re-read the original post.
                 \_ Re-read the original post. -jctwu
                    \_ Comparing CNN's leed to
                       http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1517646/20051207/index.jhtml%3Fheadlines%3Dtrue&hl=en
                       http://tinyurl.com/79ebc (news.google)
                       makes them look in pretty good company.  There seem
                       to me to be three classes of headlines here:
                       "Man made bomb threat, shot dead by air marshalls"
                       "Shots fired on Miami Plane"
                       "Air Marshalls kill crazy person"
                       CNN and many others are in the first group, International
                       feeds are in the second, and Fox and a number of other
                       papers are in the third.
                       papers are in the third. --scotsman
                       \_ Okay, here it is, for the largest web sites:
                          Man Shot Dead at Miami Airport (WP)
                          Air Marshal Shoots Passenger (NYT)
                          Marshal Shoots Suspect After Jet Lands in Miami (LAT)
                          Deadly Confrontation (MSNBC)
                          Air Marshals Kill Erratic Passenger (Fox)
                          Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat (CNN)
                          4 of 6 make factual statements
                          2 of 6 also make claims which assign responsibility
                          in addition to factual statements
                          \_ Uh.  You're insane.
                          in addition to factual statements -jctwu
                          \_ Uh.  You're insane. --scotsman
                             \_ Uh.  I don't think so.
                             \_ Uh.  I don't think so. -jctwu
                                \_ Okay, who do you think is being "assigned
                                   responsibility"?
                                   responsibility"? --scotsman
                                   \_ "It's the crazy dude's fault he got
                                      himself killed."
                                      himself killed. -jctwu
                                      \_ "Erratic" is accurate and does not
                                         imply blame.
                                         \_ Okay, that one I had trouble with.
                                            I'll revise that from 4 of 6
                                            and 2 of 6 to 4.5 of 6 and 1.5 of 6
                                             -jctwu
                                   \_ "Air Marshals Kill Erratic Passenger"
                                      assigns blaim to the air marshal, while
                                      assigns blame to the air marshal, while
                                      "Air marshal kills man who made bomb
                                      threat" assigns blaim to the passenger.
                                      \_ Uh..  No.  No it doesn't.
                                      threat" assigns blame to the passenger.
                                      \_ Uh..  No.  No it doesn't. --scotsman
                                      \_ As pp wrote, I had trouble with
                                         "erratic" since it can be interpreted
                                         as factual, so I'll give it a half
                                         point.
                                         point. -jctwu
                                      \_ I interpret them the completely
                                         opposite way. (And it's spelled
                                         "blame".)
                          \_ You missed this one:
                             http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598
                             "Air marshal guns down man at Miami airport"
                             \_ That's "Deadly Confrontation".  If you went
                                to all the sites earlier (now some of the
                                stories have moved/etc.), you would have seen
                                they're all the lead titles on the front-page
                                of those web sites.
                                of those web sites. -jctwu
        \_ Lessons learned: always do what armed law inforcement tells you
           to do.
           \_ ^law enforcement^*  (box cutters don't count as "armed")
              \_ The air marshals are law enforcement, and are armed.
                 \_ Someone doesn't know csh syntax. -pp
           \_ it didn't really help that Brazilian dude on the London subway
               -jctwu
              \_ It's not law enforcement's fault that the Brazillian
                 dude didn't look white. - magneto
        \_ "his wife tried to explain that he was mentally ill and had
            not taken his medication."
            \_ A female accomplice of a suicidal bomber can very well say the
               same thing in that situation.
               \_ I agree.  It's a tragedy if everything unfolded as Homeland
                  Security is claiming.  It's fucked up if HS or one of the
                  air marshals isn't telling it quite like it is.
                  air marshals isn't telling it quite like it is. -jctwu
                  \_ Okay, http://CNN.com is now /not/ reporting that crazy dude
                     reached into his bag, but that he approached the air
                     marshals aggressively after refusing to put his bag
                     down.  Yippee, 0-day newz p0wnz m3.
                     harhar, since then, the http://CNN.com story has changed
                     from the original, to no bomb found, to now his luggage
                     was exploded (implying there may have been a bomb but
                     we'll never know), and back to the original story that
                     he reached into his bag.
                     he reached into his bag. -jctwu
                     \_ Uh, dude.  Exploding the luggage in question is standard
                        procedure for suspected explosives.  Whether there
                        were or weren't explosive present isn't in doubt
                        afterward.  They know what they explode it with and
                        can tell whether other/more explosive material was
                        present.  Take a nap.
                        present.  Take a nap. --scotsman
                        \_ I know all that, "Take a nap"-dude.
                           In terms of spin, "No bomb found" has a much
                           different connotation than "luggage exploded" with
                           a cool picture of a bag exploding.
                           The former is also much more relevant.
                           The former is also much more relevant. -jctwu
                           \_ You're throwing a lot of epithets at CNN et al
                              over things that are endemic to the 24 hour
                              news cycle.  If you're just discovering this,
                              then more power to you, but seriously it's not
                              a big deal.  If you take issue with it, take note
                              that <random event> happened and read about it
                              the next morning. --scotsman
                              \_ Do you know what an epithet is? -jctwu
                                 \_ You're calling them out on their
                                    journalistic cred, and sounding
                                    like an idiot in doing so.  You've
                                    called them spinners and compared
                                    them unfavorably to Fox.  What
                                    would you like me to use instead
                                    of "epithet"? --scotsman
                                    \_ Just say I called them out on their
                                       journalistic cred, not "throwing a
                                       lot of epithets".  Congratulations
                                       you found the words. -jctwu
                                       \_ Because you're such the journalism
                                          critic...  I called them epithets
                                          because they don't rise to the
                                          level of "criticism" or "allegations"
                                          --scotsman
                                          \_ So, did you bother to look up
                                             the word yet? -jctwu
                                             \_ Jeff, I know what "epithet"
                                                means.  This ceased being
                                                amusing long ago.  Goodbye.
                                                --scotsman
                                                \_ Ben, why did you name me?
                                                   There's a reason why
                                                   I didn't sign.
                                                   This became an issue for me
                                                   the moment you said "Take
                                                   a nap", and then continued
                                                   with "throwing a lot of
                                                   epithets" and then "sounding
                                                   like an idiot".  I'm not
                                                   the one who started with
                                                   the personal attacks, and
                                                   I'm not the one who broke
                                                   the anonymity.
                                                   For those following this
                                                   thread, please note that
                                                   scotsman and I did not
                                                   sign our names until after
                                                   after the "Jeff, ..." post.
                                                   the "Ben, ..." post.
                                                   -jctwu
                                                   \- i personally also think
                                                      that is a peculiar use
                                                      of "epithet". --psb,
                                                      pater andron te theon te
                                                      \_ shrug, I'm sure
                                                         scotsman is a good guy
                                                         but we may have both
                                                         gotten a little
                                                         carried away, and
                                                         probably just wasted
                                                         our time more than
                                                         anything -jctwu
                                                         \- so no DUEL?
2005/12/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40823 Activity:nil
12/2    Zombie soldiers come back to vote Bush out of office... or
        something.
        http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0548,lim,70455,20.html
        \_ Here's Showtime's site about the show, along with some clips:
           http://www.sho.com/site/mastersofhorror/movie.do?content=homecoming
2005/12/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40814 Activity:moderate
12/2    Can you find all 74 bands?
        http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4530/1777/1600/bands.jpg - danh
        \_ Warning: The picture is incomplete. To the left is Cake, Pet Shop
           Boys, and oddly enough, a scorpion.
        \_ Official Game W/ Zoom in Functionality:
                http://www.heavy.com/heavy.php?channel=virginGame
        \_ Neat! Got a larger image? --erikred
           \_ http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/2808/74bands2ej.jpg - danh
              \_ Perfect! Thanks. --erikred
        \_ are there answers anywhere? I have
           scissor sisters, guns n roses, smashing pumpkins, matchbox 20
           rolling stones(?) ... what else
           \_ Pixies, Zombies, Blur, Sex Pistols, Blues Brothers, B52, Led
                      \_ White zombie?
              Zeppelin, Black Flag, U2, Eagles, Beach Boys, Seal, Dead
              Kennedies(?), Radiohead, Talking Heads, Blind Melon, Red Hot
              Chili Peppers, Alice in Chains...
              Chili Peppers, Alice in Chains, Whitesnake, Monkees(?), Queen,
              Ratt, Hole, Cowboy Junkies, Garbage, Black Crows...
              \_ where are the talking heads? and dead kennedies?
              \_ where are the talking heads?
                 \_ on the tv's under u2
              \_ oh also Spoon. is that stegasaurus Dinosaur Jr? Where is
                 Seal? What's the guy in yellow? the making out chicks?
                 \_ Seal is on the poster at mid-lower left corner, next to
                    the zombie.
                 \_ Seal is on the poster at mid-left edge, next to the zombie.
                 the gymnists? the purple building?
              \_ Oh.  Iron Maiden.
                 \_ gymnists are twisted sister.
              \_ Oh.  Iron Maiden, Scorpions...
                 \_ where are scorpions?
              \_ postal service, nine inch nails, prince, the police, the
                 cranberries (dried, under fruit stand?)
                    \_ On the grill, below the 50c.
                       \_ they look more like tentacles or tree roots
                                              \_ ew!
                          \_ Vines
              \_ postal service, nine inch nails, prince, the police, 50 cent,
                 the doors, the cranberries (dried, under fruit stand?), korn?,
                 cypress hill, lemonheads, phish
              \_ crosswalk = white stripes
              \_ wonder if they intended Pavement ... also, are those
                 the monkees or the gorillas
              \_ could be 10,000 maniacs in the windows under the eagles.
                 \_ I figured they were Crowded House
              \_ 50 cent
              \_ Green day (Calendar underneath veggie cart in bottom right
                 corner) -eric
              \_ Madonna (pic right above guns & roses) -eric
              \_ how could they miss spinal tap?
              \_ Sex Pistols
        \_ running count: 47 so far (including 1 of monkees/gorillas)
           \_ I've got 53 plus three others I'm not 100% convinced on
        \_ who are the chicks making out?
           \_ Tatu? -vadim
           \_ Kiss!
        \_ bee gees (next to talking heads)
           \_ I can't locate Bee Gees.  Where in the picute is the talking
              head?  (E.g. 20% from the left, 30% down from the top.)  Thx.
              \_ look for the letters: B G G
                 \_ Got it!  Thanks.
        \_ The Cars, The Eels, Great White
        \_ Cornershop, Manic Street Preachers.
        \_ Current list: 50 Cent, Alice in Chains, B52s, Beach Boys,
           Bee Gees, Black Crows, Black Flag, Blind Melon, Blues Brothers,
           Blur, Cars, Cornershop, Cowboy Junkies, Cranberries, Crowded
           House, Cypress Hill, Dead Kennedys, Doors, Eagles, Eels, Garbage,
           Great White, Green Day, Guns N Roses, Hole, Iron Maiden, Kiss,
           Korn, Led Zepplin, Lemonheads, Madonna, Matchbox 20,
           Monkees/Gorillaz(?), Pavement, Pixies, Police, Postal Service,
           Prince, Queen, Radiohead, Ratt, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rolling
           Stones, Roots, Scissor Sisters, Seal, Sex Pistols, Smashing
           Pumpkins, Spoon, Talking Heads, Twisted Sister, U2, White
           Stripes, White Zombie, Whitesnake
           \_ Add: Bush, Deep Purple.
                         \_ where's this?
                            \_ The purple building.
           \_ Carpenters, Blondie(?), the Dolls(?)
           \_ Are those Nine Inch Nails just NW of MB20?
              \_ yes.
        \_ Flash version: http://www.heavy.com/heavy.php?channel=virginGame
           Adds Pet Shop Boys, Cake, Scorpions, and something to do with a
           little black chihuaha to the left, features a magnifying glass
           that did nothing for me. --erikred
           \_ the chihuahua is Skinny Puppy
        \_ Phish, eminem(both on the ground in the foreground)
           \_ I think the fish is more accurately Reel Big Fish
        \_ my "questionable" list is: alarm, deep purple, jane's additions,
           pink, twisted sister
           \_ What are the surfers? butthole surfers?
        \_ Traffic, Subway (Subway Sect?), Swing Out Sister(?)
2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40794 Activity:kinda low
11/30   NYT on Bush speech:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/opinion/01thur1.html?hp
        "But after watching the president, we couldn't resist reading Richard
        Nixon's 1969 Vietnamization speech. Substitute the Iraqi constitutional
        process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr. Bush's ideas about the Iraqi
        Army are not much different from Nixon's plans - except Nixon admitted
        the war was going very badly (which was easier for him to do because
        he didn't start it), and he was very clear about the risks and huge
        sacrifices ahead.
        A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon
        needs to get out more."
        \_ yeah, but our military commander (pace), iraq ambassador (khalilzad)
           and our troops (non-draft) are all better than nixon's analogs,
           so we might actually win despite the dumbass at the top (dubya)
           and his lying cronies (rove, dick)
           \_ what exactly are we winning? where is osama bin laden?
              \_ winning means iraq not destabilizing the region and restoring
                 it back to its non-terrorist-training state
                 \_ huh?  what happened to this 'beacon of democracy in the
                    middle east?'   If we are shooting for non-terrorist-
                    training state, why we topple Saddam at first place?
                 \_ what happened to "beacon of democracy in the middle east"
                    again?  and if victor == non-terrorist training state,
                    why we topple Saddam at first place?
                    \_ democracy is dubya's defn of "winning", not mine
                       anyways, like I said, it didn't train terrorists before
                       we invaded, unlike now, but returning it to that state
                       is part of my defn of "winning"
                       the best realistic outcome in my view is a buncha shiite
                       militias running the place with periodic sunni suicide
                       bombings and regular intervention of the shiite death
                       squads, token U.S. withdrawal in 2005, near-complete
                       U.S. withdrawal by end-2006, and the U.S. retaining
                       squads, token U.S. withdrawal in 2006, near-complete
                       U.S. withdrawal by end-2007, and the U.S. retaining
                       overflight and bombing permissions
                       U.S. withdrawal by end-2006, and the U.S. having full
                       permission to bomb the heck out of anything we verify as
                       a concentrated terrorist training camp
                       of course, none of this precludes the fact that dubya is
                       and will always remain a dumbass
                       \_ oops, I understated by one year.  anyways, another
                          thing to keep in mind is that these dates satisfy
                          the military and the political overseers.
2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40785 Activity:high
11/30   Lieberman has visited Iraq four times in 17 months. He said there are
        signs life is returning to normal, including a profusion of cell phones
        and satellite TV dishes on rooftops.

        "About two-thirds of the country is in really pretty good shape," he
        said, noting most attacks are in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" region.
        "Overall, I came back encouraged."
        http://csua.org/u/e4m
        \_ Lieberman's editorial:
           http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
        \_ Wow, if you only look at vast swaths of empty desert, the country
           is doing fine!
        \_ It is encouraging to hear about how well the Kurdish north... which
           was already free and prosperous under Saddam... is doing.
           \_ Except for the occasional spell of mustard gas before some
              random kind people laid down the whoopass on anything airborne
              there.  Nothing serious, though.  -John
              \_ I think the poster meant post '91
        \_ why do you listen to anything this scumbag says?  --liberal
           \_ Agreed.  He's a tool.
              \_ Why is he a tool?  -uninformed moderate
                     \_ "Bottom line, I think Bush has it right." When
                        I asked if he was becoming a neoconservative,
                        Lieberman smiled and said, "No, but some of my
                        best friends are neocons."
                 \_ b/c he might actually be smart enough to know that
                    socialist big government programs are a dumb idea.
                    \_ if anything Dubya has increase the size of government
                       to an blowed level.  why don't you vote him out of
                       office?
                       \_ Lesser of two evils. The Democrats don't
                          believe in liberal economic policies,
                          limited government or conservative/trad-
                          itional social policies. At least the GOP
                          pretends to believe in liberal economics,
                          limited govnerment and conservative social
                          policies. I feel less revulsion voting for
                          such candidates.
                          \_ The GOP stopped pretending to believe in limited
                             government.  Well, unless you've got an Inc. or
                             an LLC after your name.
                             \_ My take is that many in the party still
                                believe in less government, but the
                                current administration does not. I was
                                never hot on either Bush, but I liked
                                the alternatives even less.
                    \_ Are you really that much of an ignorant fuck or are
                       you just pretending?  Liebermann is *owned* by
                       the insurance companies.  Saying that Liebermann's
                       position on health care reform are based on
                        \_ he is also owned by Accounting industry and
                           fanatically oppose to any of accounting reform
                           after Enron scandle...
                       position on health care reform is based on
                       principle is like saying that a senator from
                       a tobacco state's position on tobacco regulations
                       or Ted Stevens's position on drilling ANWR is based
                       on principle.  Fuck you, and fuck Liebermann.
                       \_ I'm not talking about any particular issue.
                          I'm just saying overall he is reasonable in
                          comparison to many of his scum bag colleagues.
                    \_ Lieberman's loyalties are to Israel, not America.
                       \_ Yeah you just can't trust a Jew.  They own the
                          banks, Hollywood, send our jobs overseas, they
                          steal our tech, and ZOG has been intentionally
                          destroying the environment since 1889 for their
                          own negarious purposes.  Kill the Jews!  Oh btw,
                          you overpaid your Klan membership fees, so you'll
                          get the difference back in the mail next week.
                          get the difference back in the mail next week. -lior
                          \_ You'd probably enjoy some of the requests for
                             email accounts or "membership" I get at http://zog.net.
                             Probably doesn't help that it's hosted on <DEAD>88.net<DEAD>
                             (no it's not what you think)  -John
                          \_ I know you wrote this as a joke, but my dad
                             and *many* of his hard core democrat friends
                             (all asian) refused to vote for Gore b/c his
                             running mate was "JEW" Lieberman.
                             The best reason I've heard for not voting for
                             Lieberman is that he looks exactly like the
                             Emperor :-)
                             \_ I'm a Jew, and Liebermann was one of the main
                                reasons I didn't vote for Gore (along with
                                my deep loathing of Tipper.)  I can think
                                of several Jewish friends who also veered
                                over to Nader becauese of how much they hate
                                Liebermann.  In fact, when I think of all
                                my Jewish friends, I can only think of a couple
                                who *don't* hate Liebermann, and I live in
                                his home state.
                                \_ You voted against him *because* he's a Jew
                                   like the above poster's racist family
                                   friends?  I wouldn't vote for or against
                                   anyone based on their membership in a
                                   mainstream (ie: we don't sacrifice goats
                                   and virgins) religion.  Voting against him
                                   because you think he's an ass or an
                                   insurance company shill or whatever makes
                                   sense. -lior
                                   \_ he is a scumbag, and happened to be a
                                      Jew.  Rather he is a Jew or not is
                                      not important.    -- liberal Asian
                                   \_ Of course I didn't vote against him
                                      because he's a Jew.  For me it was 60%
                                      his relationship with the insurance
                                      companies, 30% his involvement with
                                      music censorship(which is why I hate
                                      Tipper), and 10% general hatred of his
                                      idiotic positions on local pork issues.
                                      There are a lot of defense contractors
                                      in Ct., and I think Liebermann clearly
                                      puts their interests above the overall
                                      interests of national defense.  Yes,
                                      I realize everyone does that, but that's
                                      no excuse, and I still hate the guy for
                                      it.  Also, what the hell is wrong with
                                      sacraficing goats?
                                      \_ You're anti-goat?
                                         \_ I'm not a pro-goat zealot. That's
                                            all.
                             \_ No, I didn't write it as a joke.  I think the
                                guy I was responding to saying Lieberman is an
                                Israeli shill is a POS racist.  When exactly
                                did Asians decide they hated Jews?  They're not
                                did Asians decide they hate Jews?  They're not
                                on the traditional list of anti-semite racist
                                types.
                                   \_ Maybe joke was the wrong word. I was
                                      just trying to point out that there
                                      are democrat voters out there who
                                      actually believe all that stuff that
                                      wrote.
                                      I don't know when Asians decided to
                                      start hating jews, but anti-semitism
                                      and racism are fairly common in asian
                                      circles.
                                \_ Asians dont have guilt complex over the
                                   Holocaust and dont feel beholden to Israel
                                   over that issue nor their "stewardship"
                                   over the Holy Land.
                                   PP: you are overreacting.  I think Judaism
                                   is a bit snobbish but I don't like the Pope
                                   either.  I do respect the importance of law
                                   to the Jews and respect the Israeli courts
                                   have taken a number of wildly unpopular but
                                   principled decisions.
                                   \_ Guilt?  So by that you're saying that
                                      guilt over the holocaust is the only
                                      reason to not hate Jews.  And how exactly
                                      is Judaism "snobbish"?  Not only am I not
                                      over reacting but I find your "it's ok
                                      to hate Jews because my people didn't
                                      take part in the holocaust" line quite
                                      shocking.  I'm used to racism, especially
                                      on the motd, but not at this level.  You
                                      need to take a serious step back and
                                      really look at what you're saying.  Also,
                                      Israeli != Jew.  You can be a Jew and not
                                      be Israeli and you can be a full voting
                                      tax paying Israeli citizen and not be a
                                      Jew.
                                      Jew. -lior
                                      \_ Dummy, you are running rabid.  Just
                                         because I am not a big supporter of
                                         Israel doesnt mean I want to see them
                                         driven into the sea.  I think
                                         Lieberman's advice to attack Iraq,
                                         Syria, and Iran is suspect.  On the
                                         other hand I repect his not being an
                                         other hand I respect his not being an
                                         apologist for Pollard.  Are you a
                                         Pollard supporter?  Are you also an
                                         apologist for Israel over the USS
                                         Liberty affair?  I am laughing at you.
                                         \_ Liberty affair?
                                            \_ http://www.ussliberty.org
                                         \_ Re-read the whole thread.  Trying
                                            to paint me as rabid but ignoring
                                            everything I said when I directly
                                            responded to your posts isn't
                                            scoring you any points.  You are
                                            falling back on the age-old racist
                                            debate tactics and I'm not going
                                            to bite.  Failure to stay on topic
                                            and bouncing to a zillion new
                                            things that have nothing to do
                                            with your personal racism aren't
                                            going to help you any.  This has
                                            *nothing* to do with Israel and
                                            you know it.  Bye. -lior
                                            \_ You have a persection complex.
                                               And you have been trolled.
                                               Ha ha ha.  Does it make you feel
                                               better to think someone out
                                               there is hating you?
                                               \_ 1) no. 2) its the motd, its
                                                  all trolls, 3) whatever, 4)
                                                  why would you say someone
                                                  out there hates me?  shrug.
                                                  you're still a racist.
                                                  \_ "I dont like Lieberman"->
                                                     "You hate Jews!"
                                                     \_ Never said that. Read
                                                        the thread.  Thanks.
                                                        /
                                                       /
                                                      /
                                                      "Lieberman's loyalty is
                                                      to Israel" -> "Yeah
                                                      you just can't trust a
                                                      Jew."
        \_ I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the
           conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the
           Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the
           Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which
           required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to
           Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and
           security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am
           disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil
           production and energy production are below pre-war levels.
           Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security
           situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for
           reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about
           60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the
           $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent.
           And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from
           about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of
           attacks going down over time and with the addition of more
           troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations
           at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual
           State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in
           global terrorism. - Rep. Murtha
                \_ I don't know who to believe, the guy who is an expert
                   on the military or the other guy!
2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40783 Activity:nil
11/30   Video of Pace clarifying to Rumsfeld that U.S. soldiers need to
        physically stop inhumane treatment (not just report it) if in its
        presence:  http://pentagonchannel.feedroom.com
        Click on Pentagon Briefing:  Rumsfeld / Pace
        Then drag the slider to about 60%.  You can download the source .wmv's,
        but for some reason you can't move around in time, I tried it.
        I can't tell whether the exchange was pre-planned, or Rummy really
        didn't know.
        \_ Feel the shift of blame swing to the Iraqis on Rummy's part.
2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40779 Activity:nil
11/30   Why does Dubya look like der Kommandant in all these photos I'm
        seeing of him today?
        http://www.foxnews.com/images/185152/4_2_113005_bush3.jpg
        link:csua.org/u/e4k (cnn.com)
        http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp11-30-05b.jpg
        \_ Because you've got Bush=Hitler on the brain?
        \_ It's the liberal media trying to make him look bad.
           \_ oh goodie, the http://foxnews.com active photo changed, must'a been
              a liberal intern who put up the original!
2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40772 Activity:nil
11/29   Freedom of speech at best:  you are allow to say anything you want,
        as long as the stuff you say is something we like:
        http://tinyurl.com/7men3
        \_ I don't see how what you put connects to the article.  AJ reported
           things, the US claims they're lying.  How is that not free speech?
           \_ I think op is talking about the UK Official Secrets Act, in
              which Section 5 has been invoked to threaten newspapers for the
              first time with legal action if they publish more details on
              the memo recording the conversation between Dubya and Blair ...
        \_ Just like on the Berkeley campus!
2005/11/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40759 Activity:nil
11/28   The long march of Dick Cheney, from http://salon.com.
        http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/11/24/cheney/index.html
        \_ cool article!
        \_ If Lucas ever makes another Star Wars, "Darth Cheneyius" sounds
           like a cool villain.
2005/11/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40754 Activity:nil
11/28   http://CNN.com lead story
        "The government of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin fell Monday
        evening when opposition parties united to topple him with a
        no-confidence vote. Martin's center-left Liberal Party has been dogged
        by a corruption scandal, in which it paid advertising firms with
        Liberal links more than $1 million with little or no work done in
        exchange. An election -- probably in January -- could now end 12 years
        of Liberal rule in America's largest trading partner."
        \_ I don't know much about Canadian politics.  What does this
           translates to?  Lower taxes?  Welfare cuts?
           \_ I doubt it.  I don't know much either, but there are quite a
              few parties in Canada.  I would assume there will be a lot
              of confusion, and then a different liberal party will be in
              charge.
2005/11/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40711 Activity:nil
11/23   I remember I read on the motd that Cindy Sheehan was crazy
        and her family all hated her. How come her sister just
        got arrested protesting outside the Bush Ranch? Is she
        crazy, too?
        http://csua.org/u/e2m
        \_ Have a cookie, troll.  This one is chocolate.
           \_ You don't seem to understand what troll means
              \_ Can one be guilty of trolling if intent-to-troll cannot be
                 shown?
                 \_ You may wish to read up on the legal doctrine of
                    'mens trolla'
        \_ She is crazy, and it was "many in her family" not all of them.
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan#Sheehan.27s_sister-in-law
2005/11/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40658 Activity:high
11/20   http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
        If this is true, then who shall lead the heroic anti-BushCo forces now?
        [good idea: censoring important news because you don't like it]
        [funny that you keep deleting it because it's >80 columns but if it
        was anything else you'd leave it, hypocrite.  why do you hate
        potentially good news?  if you're truly upset at the line length,
        you'd tinyurl it instead of censoring it.  you cant kill truth]
2005/11/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40649 Activity:nil
11/18   Bush's exit strategy for Iraq:
        2005: We Must Stay the Course
        2006: We Must Keep Our Resolve
        2007: The Fight for Freedom Continues
        2008: We Will Not Let the Terrorists Win
        late in 2008: Well it's Been Fun, Good Luck Cleaning up the
        Mess I Left You With!
        \_ You're cruel. Stop it. Don't you know you're making jblack
           mad? Therapy is getting expensive these days.
        \_ Just like how Clinton had fun with a bubble for years and then left
           a bursted one to Dubya.
           \_ I thought the bubble is the good work of Mr. Greenspan.
        \_ Hi there anonymous partisan!  Thanks for playing! -emarkp
           \_ What evidence to the contrary is out there? --erikred, !OP
              \_ Contrary?  The above barely qualifies as a bumper sticker.
                 "Staying the course" etc. includes things like free elections
                 (check), ratifiying a constitution (check), etc. -emarkp
                 \- i think bush only cares about his historical reputation.
                    i think his goal is to avoid major disasters and then
                    leave it to the next admin and is going to start working
                    on blaming the next admin for fucking things up. i think
                    the real question is the role iraq policy will play in
                    the next presidential election.
                    \_ nah, bush doesn't care about historical reputation.
                       he cares more about the reputation of America, as in,
                       if you're with the terrorists, America will never give
                       in regardless of how many citizens Dubya has to
                       sacrifice.
        \_ glad you people were not around during WWII or the Korean war.
           History tells us what you did to the Vietnam war, and let's
           hope the country has the prescience not to let that type
           of debacle happen again.
           \_ You don't think there's a slight difference between fighting
              back against a power interested in world conquest, that took
              over Paris and was bombing London, and overthrowing a podunk
              dictator with no army and no weapons?  -tom
2005/11/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40646 Activity:nil
11/18   http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_rep_murtha_end_iraq_051117b.wmv
        http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_rep_murtha_end_iraq_051117b.mov
        Murtha speech, transcript:
        http://csua.org/u/e1a (Washington Post)
        House GOP does a bait-and-switch and puts forward GOP version of
        Murtha resolution to vote
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/18/163220/03
        \_ A dailykos post from someone watching the C-SPAN debate:
           "Soms [sic] Republican jackass just referred to it as the 'Democrat
           resolution.' Jim McGovern then made a parliamentary inquiry--'The
           gentleman stated that this is a Democratic proposal. Could you tell
           me who introduced this resolution.' So Republican Jackass starts
           yelling for McGovern to yield and McGovern says, 'No, I have a
           parlimentary [sic] inquiry.' And the chair tells him Mr. Hunter
           introduced it.  'Mr. Hunter? The Republican?' says McGovern.
           That was great." -op
        \_ How is this a "bait-and-switch"?
           \_ Do http://cnn.com and http://foxnews.com think people are voting on Murtha's
              or the GOP resolution?
              \_ ??? How does the reporting mean GOP is doing a
                 bait-and-switch?
                 \_ As characterized by one poster:  "Republican Jackass starts
                    yelling for McGovern to yield"
                    It's not "classic" bait-and-switch, let's call it
                    Republican variation #69.
                    \_ Let's call it "you don't know what you're talking about"
                       \_ Nah, I think you don't.  Okay, I got it.  You want
                          me to call it a "strawman", right?  Okay, it's
                          a strawman as well.
           \_ yeah, yer right, it's a strawman
2005/11/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40631 Activity:low
11/17   "I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political
        environment ... people sometimes lose their cool, and yet ... you can
        ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith
        ... the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the
        President of the United States or any member of this administration
        purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of
        the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
        -VP Cheney (Nov 16, 2005)
        "Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to
        disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say
        that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's
        irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did ...
        patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn't bother
        me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their
        positions and playing politics."
        -President Bush (Nov 17, 2005)
        \_ I'm looking for the interest here.
           \_ ok ok, I took out Dubya.  shorter now.
        \_ He added "I am not a crook"
        \_ Dude, isn't the like "how can we use this to hit iraq" post-9/11
           meeting like on record?
           \_ I don't know, can you produce it?
              \_ "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on
                 September 11, we had a choice to make.  We could decide that
                 the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those
                 planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after
                 al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would
                 be done ... Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to
                 say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of
                 terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different
                 kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have
                 imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein
                 still in power." -Sec State Rice (Oct 16, 2005)
                 \_ How is this the "'how can we use this to hit iraq'
                    post-9/11 meeting"?
                    \_ Okay, what's the meaning of "this" in "how can we
                       use this"?
                 \_ We hit the trifecta! -GWB
\
2005/11/16-18 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40626 Activity:moderate
11/16   So, it was Hadley who was Woodward's source.
        He was Deputy Natl Security Advisor at the time (NSA was Rice), and is
        NSA now.
        \_ url?
           \_ http://news.google.com/news?q=hadley+woodward
        \_ "In his book, Plan of Attack, Woodward says he was given access to
            classified minutes of National Security Council meetings. Both
            Rice and Hadley were major players in these meetings."
           Okay, so he was given access to classified minutes and info. If he
           was aware that the information was classified and he revealed it,
           then he's guilty of revealing classified info. If he did not
           reveal it, then Woodward's a dead-end in this investigation,
           except perhaps to point out that the Administration tried to leak
           the info from multiple sources.
           \_ Are you suggesting that Woodward had some sort of s00perd00per
              sekr!t clearance, and thus revealing classified info to him
              would not be a crime?
              \_ If not, then yes, it's a crime, and Hadley should be charged.
                 If he _was_ given clearance, then no. Either way, Scooter's
                 still in the fryer.
        \_ NYT has hinted the Senior administration official might be Cheney.
           \_ but the NYT is a proven fraud, many times over.
              \_ You don't know what the word "fraud" means. It has not
                 been 100% correct, nothing is, but it has won many
                 Pulitzers for fine reporting. It has certainly got
                 more integrity than the Bush Administration. At least
                 they fire the liars in house, instead of promoting them
                 and giving them Freedom medals.
2005/11/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40619 Activity:nil
11/16   The Dilbert 2005 Weasel Awards   http://csua.org/u/e0x
        \_ Stupid.  As usual.
2005/11/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40612 Activity:nil
11/16   How long will it take before Bush's approval rating is as
        high/low as Nixon?
        \_ If he applies himself, I'm sure he can make it by groundhog's day.
2005/11/15-17 [Health/Sleeping, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40600 Activity:nil
11/15   9/11 is Sacred.  Except when it's not:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051115/ap_on_go_co/sept11_aid
        \_ I can almost hear the House saying "What? You still here?"
        \_ I can actually agree with the Congress on this one.  The money
           was only meant to treat "long-term lung and mental health problems"
           I mean, do you really need 125 million to treat lung and mental
           health problems for the workers on site?  I don't think so.
           \_ Um.  wow.  How many people do you think were expose to the dust
              there?  How much do you think medical care actually costs?
              How much do you think $125 million actually gets you?
2005/11/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40591 Activity:nil
11/15   buy EMRG .. at 30 cents.. might go up when Bush visits
        japan for opening beef market..
        \_ Might go down when Bush fails.
        \_ Hey, are you the same guy who was pimping EMRG as providing
           big returns compared to soething like PEP, back when EMRG was at
           2.00 and PEP was at 48?  (PEP is now at 58.59).   -tom
           \_ i made a nice profit on it.. then it went back down
             again.. it's a pure speculative play so PEP and all
                that stuff doesnt mean a thing..
             \_ Right...http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EMRG&t=2y
                I'm sure you sold it on one of the two days when it reached
                2.50, and that's why you're here trying to pump it again. -tom
           \_ EMGR is for pure speculation (stay away), and PEP is a solid
              company.
2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40580 Activity:nil
11/14   Gallup poll shows 60% disapprove of Dubya's handling of job as
        president.  For the first time, more than half of Americans do not
        think the description "honest and trustworthy" applies to Dubya:
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll/index.html
        \_ 71% disapprove of the way Dubya is handling controlling federal
           spending!
           http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-11-14-poll.htm
           \_ The other 29% are "fiscal conservatives"?
2005/11/13-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:40568, category id '18005#13' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40568 Activity:nil
11/11   http://nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200511110833.asp
        If Bush lied, it stands to reason that Democrats who followed
        are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan. -jblack
2005/11/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40567 Activity:nil
11/11   http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Veterans%20Day.htm
        78% Have Favorable Opinion of U.S. Military             -jblack
2005/11/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40536 Activity:nil
11/10   Pat Buchanan, who was always against the invasion of Iraq, rubs it in
        http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210
        \_ This is funny, because "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives"
           were opposed by Partisans of both sides.
        \_ Uhm, Pat was never on the Dubya bandwagon.  Pat has always been an
           isolationist.  He is opposed to US membership in the UN and most
           other forms of non-trade involvement with the rest of the world.
           \_ uh, yerright about his being anti-neocon the whole time
              http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
              \_ Yeah, weird how some people on the motd actually know wtf
                 they're talking about and are beyond the black/white "h8t
                 u awl!!1" political 'philosophy' espoused by too many here.
                 Pat has been consistent in his isolationist views going back
                 to GWB's pre-politics days.  Too many people around here find
                 some random tidbit and post it thinking they're making some
                 big point or there's some giant earth shaking change going on,
                 but who have essentially zero real knowledge of history.
                 It's mostly the silly "gotcha!" and "we're winning!" stuff
                 which is no better than dailykos or freepers.
                 \_ shrug, it was random enough to be first on http://drudgereport.com
                    \_ exactly.  I read drudge for the "man bitten by >insert
                       name of dangerous animal<" links.  He also posts some
                       oddball stuff you won't find else where which is fun.
                       The rest is pre-posts of NYT editorials, political
                       sniping, various forms of rabble rousing to keep his
                       hit rates up, and the inevitable cross links to other
                       sites in what looks like an ad/link swap deal, mostly
                       recently with breitbart(sp?) news.  I don't read drudge
                       for in depth and meaningful political commentary.
                    I honestly was completely oblivious to the notion that
                    there was a real conservative group (other than the
                    Scowcroft, etc. old-hands assoc w/ Bush Sr.) that opposed
                    the invasion pre-invasion -op
                    \_ That's why they're called "neo" cons.  There are still
                       plenty (I'd guess a majority) of conservatives who are
                       in favor of not invading other countries, lower taxes,
                       less spending, smaller government, and all the other
                       traditional conservative agenda items.  Thus it makes
                       me laugh and sad at the same time to see the various
                       motd personalities posting as if the freepers are the
                       sole representatives of the conservative movement.
                       Laughter from how ignorant a belief that is and sadness
                       at how closely otherwise intelligent people hold such
                       a belief.
                       \_ Okay, I'll update the link to reflect that.
                       \_ Isolationists are far right, not "non-neo".
                       \_ Those "agenda items" are far too vague and
                          meaningless. Anybody agrees with that. A politician
                          can go up and talk about that kind of general shit
                          just like they talk about helping the poor and
                          with prescription drugs and etc. and everybody
                          goes "yay!" to anything and everything except
                          actual tax raising or program cuts, at which
                          point both parties are looking exactly the same.
                          And the political discourse in this country is
                          more concerned about stuff like religion and
                          whether somebody "flip-flops".
                          \_ They're not vague at all.  What is vague about
                             smaller government, less spending, lower taxes,
                             local control, and an isolationist leaning
                             international policy?  These are policy platforms
                             for the ages, not specific laws, but you knew
                             the difference between policy and philosophy and
                             were just being silly.
2005/11/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40534 Activity:kinda low
11/10   Faux News shows 36% approve of Dubya's job performance
        http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
        \_ Didn't we already go over this whole thing?  What happens if his
           ratings drop to 0?  Nothing.  What does it mean?  Nothing.  I guess
           if it amuses you, whatever, it's harmless but you seem really hung
           up on it.
           \_ yes, we did, but it appears that you didn't actually learn
              anything.
              \_ I learned too many people are obsessed with the wrong things
                 and think random numbers on a lame duck president matter.
                 Politics is local.  GWB didn't brain wash half the country.
                 When he's out of office and forgotten those 51% will still
                 vote the same way.
           \_ I'm hoping the 20% of people who apparently changed their minds
              since Bush's second election won't vote in another nation-
              wrecking idiot.  --PeterM
              \_ Fat chance. their attention spans are too short to remember
                 any of this stuff in 2008. Especially if it's vs. Hillary.
                 \_ Yup in a few years Katrina, Plamegate, etc., will be
                    drowned out by the usual God, Guns & Gays.
                    \_ There's no "there" there.
           \_ If the president has a low approval rating it becomes a lot
              harder for him to convince modertate congresscritters to take
              his side.  That matters a lot.
              \_ It also makes it potentially harder to keep a decisive
                 edge in the interim elections.
                 \_ Politics is local.  If politics were national, then the
                    whole country would be (R) since we've had more (R) years
                    at the top level in the last 30 years than (D).
2005/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40531 Activity:insanely high
11/10   Pat Buchanan, who was always against the invasion of Iraq, rubs it in
        "Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder
        in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did
        not want war with us, and did not threaten us--to strip it of weapons
        we now know it did not have. Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated
        from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new
        base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been
        radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida
        have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East:
        Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans
        are dead and Walter Reed is filling up."
        http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210
        \_ Uhm, Pat was never on the Dubya bandwagon.  Pat has always been an
           isolationist.  He is opposed to US membership in the UN and most
           other forms of non-trade involvement with the rest of the world.
           \_ uh, yerright about his being anti-neocon the whole time
              http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
              \_ Yeah, weird how some people on the motd actually know wtf
                 they're talking about and are beyond the black/white "h8t
                 u awl!!1" political 'philosophy' espoused by too many here.
                 Pat has been consistent in his isolationist views going back
                 to GWB's pre-politics days.  Too many people around here find
                 some random tidbit and post it thinking they're making some
                 big point or there's some giant earth shaking change going on,
                 but who have essentially zero real knowledge of history.
                 It's mostly the silly "gotcha!" and "we're winning!" stuff
                 which is no better than dailykos or freepers.
                 \_ shrug, it was random enough to be first on http://drudgereport.com
                    \_ exactly.  I read drudge for the "man bitten by >insert
                       name of dangerous animal<" links.  He also posts some
                       oddball stuff you won't find else where which is fun.
                       The rest is pre-posts of NYT editorials, political
                       sniping, various forms of rabble rousing to keep his
                       hit rates up, and the inevitable cross links to other
                       sites in what looks like an ad/link swap deal, mostly
                       recently with breitbart(sp?) news.  I don't read drudge
                       for in depth and meaningful political commentary.
                    I honestly was completely oblivious to the notion that
                    there was a real conservative group (other than the
                    Scowcroft, etc. old-hands assoc w/ Bush Sr.) that opposed
                    the invasion pre-invasion -op
                    \_ That's why they're called "neo" cons.  There are still
                       plenty (I'd guess a majority) of conservatives who are
                       in favor of not invading other countries, lower taxes,
                       less spending, smaller government, and all the other
                       traditional conservative agenda items.  Thus it makes
                       me laugh and sad at the same time to see the various
                       motd personalities posting as if the freepers are the
                       sole representatives of the conservative movement.
                       Laughter from how ignorant a belief that is and sadness
                       at how closely otherwise intelligent people hold such
                       a belief.
                       \_ Okay, I'll update the link to reflect that.
2005/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40529 Activity:nil
11/9    LA school district provided buses to send students to political
        protests.  http://csua.org/u/dz5
        \_ It's okay to sponsor political activities with taxpayers' money, as
           long as it's Democratic activities.
           long as it's Democratic political activities.
2005/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40504 Activity:nil
11/8    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_an/election_analysis
        GWB is a political toxin in Virginia. Dems victory in your
        beloved state. How do you like that Justin Black?
        \_ I love the motd.  From your own link, "Democrats said ... politcal
           toxin".  Why did you feel the need to take your own link out of
           meaningful context?  "Mice say, 'cats are the devil's spawn!'".
           If you were serious you'd be reading and posting something from
           someone more like Sabato who notes that historically there is no
           real evidence either way that an off-term election has any
           predictive value for future elections in any direction.  Looking
           at the CA initiatives which as of *this* moment are all losing,
           one could claim the state is clearly swinging to the right but
           no it is clearly swinging left!  But the reality is the voters
           are much more astute than analysts and party hacks give them
           credit for and mostly actually understand what and who they're
           voting on, case by case.  I know you're just a troll but I was
           hoping to start a worth while discussion.  And what does any of
           this have to do with Justin?  He's just some guy.  He isn't
           channeling GWB or Cheney.
        \_ The party of victimization, group identity politics, and
           government dependency.  What can I say - congratulations on
           trashing the republic?
           \_ Which party is that?  -John
              \_ you'd be a perfect fit.
                 \_ That's what yermom said.  What is this, "I have a
                    secret and won't tell you"?  -John
2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40481 Activity:nil
11/7    Realism and this Administration:
        http://tinyurl.com/d3s3q (boston.com)
2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:40476 Activity:moderate
11/07   So psb and all other experts in Constitutional law, I just
        read Section 2 of the Constitution and it seems pretty
        clear that everyone in the American legal system is entitled
        to a trail by jury. How did this get overturned? When did
        the Executive gain the right to run its own alternative (kangaroo?)
        court system?
        Section. 2.

        Clause 1:

        The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
        arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
        Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ...
        and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
        Citizens or Subjects.

        Clause 3:

        The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
        Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said
        Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any
        State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress
        may by Law have directed.
        -ausman
        \_ Just about the same time the supreme court has refused to hear
           and/or sent back down the cases to lower courts where in the cases
           where American citizens are being held without trial.  The exec-
           utive and judicial branches of the government are both at fault
           here.  Unfortunately, we are in danger of loosing our most basic
                                                        \_ "losing"
           and fundamental civil rights if the supreme court chooses to ignore
           logic and support the bush regime on this.  If so, its only a matter
           of time before we have American citizens who are "suspected terror-
           ists" being held without council, trial, or indictment and with
                                        \_ "counsel"
           the new position on torture, they will be tortured too. -mrauser
        \_ SCOTUS will be considering the constitutionality of military
           tribunals (vs. application to be tried in the U.S. court system) for
           terror suspects who are not U.S. citizens.
           SCOTUS has already decided that all U.S. citizens (including those
           designated terror suspects by Dubya) can be tried in the U.S. court
           system.  (Previously, the Bush administration had asserted the right
           to indefinitely bar a U.S. citizen from accessing the U.S. court
           system, if designated by Dubya as a terror suspect.)
           \_ How does this explain Jose Padilla who is a US citizen "captured"
              on US soil, but has not been officially processed via the courts?
              \_ See: http://www.chargepadilla.org
              \_ I made a mistake actually.  For U.S. citizens, SCOTUS decided
                 that /some judge/ (even just a judge on a military tribunal)
                 needs to look at the case of a U.S. citizen designated as a
                 terrorist / enemy combatant.  I was wrong when I said U.S.
                 court system.  My bad.
                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
              \_ I made a mistake actually.  For U.S. citizens, SCOTUS has
                 already decided that /some judge/ needs to look at the case
                 of a U.S. citizen designated as a terrorist / enemy combatant.
                 I was wrong when I said U.S. court system.
                 I was wrong when I said U.S. court system.  My bad.
                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
        \_ Art 3 Sec 1 and Sec 2 cl 2 may answer your question. The original
           and appellate jx of the Fed Cts is determined by Congress as per
           Art 3 Sec 1 - it can refuse to set up Fed Cts or to give them any
           jx over cases involving terrorists and choose instead to vest this
           jx in Military Cts setup by the Exec, which I believe is the case
           presently.
           Although the USSC's original jx is determined by Art 3 Sec 2 cl 2,
           notice that Congress can regulate and strip the USSC's appellate
           jx. Congress has not restricted the USSC from hearing appeals by
           terrorists yet, but conceivably it could.
           As it relates to the jury trial right, a terrorist probably has
           the right to trial by jury, but note this may not be the same
           trial by jury right as in regular fed ct (12 ppl, unanimous ver-
           dict may not be a requirement) and it is not clear to what level
           the fifth and sixth amend. protections would apply.
           I think the BIGGER issue is whether the writ of habeas corpus
           can be used by non-citizens to challenge their detentions - note
           that Hamdi does not answer this b/c he was a citizen. The other
           problem is whether the writ can reach those held in Afghanistan
           or somewhere else that is more than 100 miles from the nearest
           Fed Dist. Ct. This is the bigger issue to me b/c under certain
           circumstances the Exec. may have the pwr to strip a person of
           US citizenship w/o following due process.
           Fed Dist. Ct.
           \- in addition to PADILLA and HAMDI, you may wish to follow HAMDAN
              v RUMSFELD [which the USSC just agreed to look at, and ROBERTS
              has just recused himself ... that is the OSAMA CHAUFFER CASE].
              an older case [ww2] is Ex parte Quirin. in re: the checks and
              balanaces issue, YMWTGF: "constitutional trifecta".
2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40470 Activity:low
11/7    "We do not torture." -GW Bush (Nov 7 2005)
        It depends on what the meaning of "torture" is.
        \_ It depends more on what the meaning of "we" is. Much of
           the torture has been outsourced to private corporations or
           foreign governments.
           \_ But the foreign governments promised us they wouldn't torture!
        \_ http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
           Bush says we do not torture, yet he opposes a law banning torture.
           Does this make sense to anyone?
           \_ Of course, this is bush we're talking about, remember?
           \_ It helps if you visualize a lying sack of shit.
           \_ It depends on what the meaning of "torture" is.
           \_ If you have the freedom to do something, you then have
              the choice to not do that something. If that something
              is banned, you can never do it legally. Surely this
              makes sense to you pro-choice ppl.
              \_ Gee, why have any laws at all?
        \_ "We do not torture, and the video evidence hates America."
2005/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:40459 Activity:high
11/4    Washington Post is caught campaiging for Maryland
        Democrats and perpetrating fraud.  This is the
        Dan Rather episode all over again.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=md4bush
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401908_pf.html
        \_ posted by jblack
2005/11/5-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40458 Activity:moderate
11/15   http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4714.html
        Bad news for the left is good news for America. And, once again,
        Bush makes lemonade out of liberal sour grapes.
        \_ 36% approval rating is lemonade?
2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40437 Activity:high
11/4    New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;
        ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates

        By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach
        President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a
        new poll commissioned by http://AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots
        coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President
        Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

        The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded
        non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S.
        adults October 29 through November 2.

        The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

        "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for
        going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him
        accountable through impeachment."
        \_ My copy of the constitution seems to require "treason, bribery,
           or other high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment. Unless
           you have proof that haliburton (or whoever) bribed the chimp
           into going to war, I fail to see how the threshold for removal
           from office has been met. He is no worse than many who have
           held the office. [I think that the threshold for removal was
           not met wrt Clinton either, I do not know enough re Johnson
           to comment]
           \_ I'm with Bill Maher on this one: We need a California-style
              recall election on Dubya, complete with Arnold Schwarzenegger,
              Gary Coleman, and Mary Carey as candidates.
           \_ You don't consider it a high crime to send troops into
              battle for your own personal agenda?
              \_ What personal agenda is that?
                 \_ http://www.newamericancentury.org  -tom
                 \_ "I really don't like Saddam, so I'm itching to find a
                     reason to invade his country."
                    \_ "He tried to kill my daddy!"
              \_ That didn't happen, and your repeated assertions don't make it
                 true. -emarkp
                 \_ emarkp, I've always wondered how the strict war
                    mongering Republican saddam toppling sending home
                    thousands of US soldiers with missing limbs just
                    so George W Bush has some sort of legacy side Right
                    Side of your brain coexists with the Left Side we
                    will bring the miracle of eternal progression to
                    all of god's children one love Mormon side of your brain.
                    \_ Hi anonymous troll!  For one thing, I'm not R.  When did
                       you stop beating your wife by the way? -emarkp
                       \_ If the anonymous troll is also a mormon, you might
                          need to specify which wife.
                          \_ Ah, but then he'd be a member of a splinter group,
                             not the SLC-based church.  So your "also" is
                             wrong. -emarkp
                             \_ OTOH, there are plenty of religions that allow
                                polygamy besides these mormon splinter groups.
                                It's not at all clear to me that any religion
                                based on the Bible should prohibit polygamy.
                 \_ Your assertion that it didn't happen doesn't make it so
                    either. However, I wasn't asserting it, as in fact I don't
                    know. I suggest only that it is impeachable if true. But
                    what is being investigated now if you're so sure this is
                    untrue?
                    \_ Apologies.  I didn't connect the logic to the parent
                       posts.  However, "If President Bush did not tell the
                       truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq" is
                       not the same as "send troops into battle for your own
                       personal agenda". -emarkp
                       \_ Unless "the truth about his reasons for going to war
                          with Iraq" is the same as "his own personal agenda",
                          aren't the two accusations the same? -gm
                          \_ Okay, I amend my comments to "not /necessesarily/
                             the same". -emarkp
              \_ No. I do not. Art 2 Sec 1 cl 1 gives the Pres. sole executive
                 pwr of the entire US. Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1 gives the Pres. complete
                 control of the Army and Navy (Yes, I know Congress has to give
                 the Pres. the pwr under Art 1 Sec 8, but they did give him the
                 pwr in this case - a sufficient showing of false pretenses has
                 not yet been made; please make one if you believe otherwise -
                 M. Moore video inanity is insufficient, I'm asking for real
                 proof).
                 The Pres. can use his discretion in deploying these forces into
                 action under the authority conferred by Congress.
                 I am even willing to say that the principle of "what is good
                 for GM is good for America" could be applied even it was shown
                     \_ Works for me. -gm
                 that he was motivated by a purely personal economic interest
                 (other than a direct bribe) as many US companies and thier
                 employees have prospered as a result of this engagement.
                 [I do not believe that the decision to depoly in Iraq was
                  correct, nor do I believe that the civilians have handled
                  the operation properly.  But I do not consider the admin.
                  failures to be impeachable.]
           \_ Treason is, by secondary and tertiary definition, a betrayal
              of trust or disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior. The
              standard can be as high or as low as one wishes to put it.
              That said, if Clinton is the bar, I fear Bush has cleared it.
              \_ Treason is a legal term.  You can make up any definition
                 you want but it means nothing.  And Clinton was not convicted
                 of anything.  Impeachment is just a trial phase.  He was
                 found 'not guilty' by the Senate so there is no 'Clinton bar
                 for treason' since he didn't get convicted of it and wasn't
                 on trial for it in the first place.  WTF are you talking
                 about?
                 \_ Exactly.  Bush should be put on trial: impeachment.
                    \_ Please point out an offense committed by the Pres.
                       which qualifies under Art 2 Sec 4.
                       \_ He violated the Geneva Convention by authorizing
                          torture and other War Crimes against the detainees
                          in Gitmo and elsewhere. That is a high crime and
                          a bunch of people at Nurenberg were hung for it.
                          \_ As much as you would like the Geneva Convention
                             to apply, it most likely doesn't therefore no
                             "high crime" has been committed by the Pres.
                             [For the present purposes I will ignore the
                              fact that Geneva is not self-executing thus
                              cannot be used directly to gain relief or
                              indict.]
                             The 3d convention applies to the treatment of
                             prisoners of war and you are correct that as
                             a contracting party the US is bound to follow
                             the convention wrt pows even though the
                             terrorist do not (Art 2).
                             But, Art 4 specifies prerequisites for prot-
                             ection and arguably no terrorist qualifies.
                             Furthermore, Art 5 only provides protection
                             to those whose status is in question until a
                             competent tribunal, such as a US military
                             tribunal, makes a determination re status.
                             Once a non-protection determination is made
                             by the tribunal any means may be used.
                             If a non-citizen is held outside of the jx
                             of a fed dist ct, then that person would not
                             have standing for habeas or 8th amend. relief
                             either so they could be treated in any manner.
                             [I think that is is stupid to authorize
                              torture, &c. but in relation to non-
                              citizens who are non-state actors and
                              are held beyond the reach of fed dist
                              cts, there is no legal bar to the Pres.
                              authorizing any and all means be used.
                              If you can point to authorization to use
                              torture, &c. PRIOR to the Art 5 status
                              determination I will agree that the Pres.
                              has acted beyond his authority; however
                              you will need to show an actual instance
                              of torture, &c. being used PRIOR to an
                              Art 5 determination under authorization
                              of the Pres. to make out an indictable
                              "high crime"]
                              \_ Almost none of the detainees have had
                                 their military tribunals yet. Are you
                                 talking about the hearings where they
                                 determine the detainees guilt or in-
                                 nocence, or some other hearing where
                                 they determine their POW status? I do
                                 not know about the latter. In any case,
                                 I am sure there are some violations in
                                 the sense that some people were tortured
                                 before their hearings. I do not know of
                                 any specific cases, but could find some
                                 easily. The point being, there are ple-
                                 nty of crimes out there that Bush has
                                 committed that he could be impeached
                                 for if he became politically unpopular
                                 enough. I think we learned during the
                                 Whitewater investigation, impeachment
                                 is not really a legal process, it is a
                                 political one.
                                 \_ I am specifically talking about a
                                    process to determine Art 4 status.
                                    Until the cessation of hostilities,
                                    a trial on the merits is not requ-
                                    ired (for non-US citizens) only a
                                    process to determine Art 4 status
                                    is required. Given the realities
                                    of war, almost any determination
                                    (even a 5 min summary process by
                                    a jag officer) will satisfy this
                                    requirement.
                                    In order to find a "high crime"
                                    you need to show (1) that someone
                                    was tortured PRIOR to an Art 4
                                    determination and (2) this was
                                    authorized. I'm almost certain
                                    you will not find proof of (2)
                                    b/c any memos/eo/er written by
                                    the Pres., &c. will have enough
                                    ambiguity to suggest that torture
                                    was authorized ONLY if the person
                                    was not protected under Art 4.
                                    Please also note that the conven-
                                    tion may not cover the practice
                                    of handing pows over to non-sig-
                                    natories.
                              \_ well said, many posters don't understand
                                 that impeachment is purely a political process
                                 the Senate can impeach the president on
                                 whatever reason (see def. of "high crime").
                                 and unlike a criminal process, there's no
                                 appeal.
                                 \_ Given that "high crime" are
                                    specified in context of treason
                                    and bribery, if the "crime" is
                                    not of that magnitude, there may
                                    be a separation of pwrs argument
                                    to enjoin use of the impeachment
                                    pwr. [If a "war crime" can be
                                    shown, I think the Pres. has no
                                    leg to stand on.]
                                    \_ You honestly think that the USSC would
                                       step in and tell the House that they
                                       did not have the authority to impeach?
                                       It would precipitate a Constitutional
                                       crises. I think the USSC would step back
                                       from that.
                                       \_ Given that they interfered
                                          in FL, I'm not entirely sure
                                          that the USSC would stay out
                                          wrt the current Pres.
                                     \_ http://csua.org/u/dy7
                                        \_ Please see above, one
                                           can adhere to Geneva
                                           and torture terrorists
                                           b/c Geneva does not
                                           cover them.
              \_ http://www.answers.com/topic/high-crime
              \_ Maybe they cut out Art 3 Sec 3 cl 1 in your copy of the
                 the const. but my copy says "Treason against the US shall
                 consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to
                 their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort."
                 Unless you can point out to me how Bush II conducted war
                 against the US or gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the
                 US, the threshold has not been met. (The argument that
                 Bush united the Islamic world against the US and thus
                 gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the US is far too
                 strained.)
                 [Note, I said that I do not think the bar was met w/
                  Clinton. This is one reason I chose not to vote for
                  Tom Campbell when he ran for re-election. As a law
                  prof. he should have known better than to vote for
                  impeachment regardless of the political pressure.]
                  \_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort to our
                     enemies, especially KHAN.
                  \_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort
                     to our enemies, especially KHAN.
                     \_ Can you prove that this was done under either
                        explict or implicit approval of the Pres.?
2005/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40432 Activity:nil
11/4    Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514509/posts           -jblack
        \_ http://zapatopi.net/afdb
2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40424 Activity:moderate
11/3    Anyone wonder why NYTimes circulation is down?
        http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/11/02/173917.html
        \_ because Michelle Malkin is an idiot?
           \_ wow, that was pithy and useful commentary!  thanks!
           \_ don't confuse "idiot" with "evil"
        \_ Malkin is right in this case.  The NY Times reporter should have
           included more of the letter.  I also do not disagree with the
           general assessment that Malkin is an idiot. -moderate/liberal
           \_ except this is status quo for the NYT.  go see 'manufacturing
              consent'.
              \_ You think so, and I think George HW Bush thinks so, too, and
                 Bush Sr. is a very smart man.  I think both of you are wrong
                 though.
                 \_ Come back when you have some idea what you're talking
                    about.  This has zippo to do with Bush.  WTF did that
                    come from?  You have no clue what I was even talking
                    about.  Go look up what 'manufacturing consent' even is
                    and then go see it.
                    \_ Come back after you've re-read my post and think about
                       what exactly I wrote.  Okay, now tell me what exactly
                       my position is.  (fyi, I happen to agree that the
                       mechanisms described in that book you mentioned are
                       accurately described)
                       mechanisms in that book you mentioned are accurately
                       described)
                       \_ Obviously I'm too dumb to get whatever your clearly
                          made point was.  I still don't think you have one.
                          You agree that the mechanisms are described
                          accruately but you duck the point of who uses them.
                          Since he was specifically talking about the NYT,
                          how about we agree this sort of thing is status quo
                          for the NYT and this has nothing to do with Malkin,
                          Bush or wtf.
           \_ you agree with the author of "In Defense of Internment:
               The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II" but you are
               a "moderate/liberal"?  I think not!  We had a word for people
               like Malkin in the 1930s- it's "fascist."  Look it up kiddo.
               \_ Wow, what a poorly thought out troll.
        \_ It sounds like the reporter got a little heated in his reply to
           the reader, but even Malkin admits:
           "Dao apologized to Valois for the tone of his snippy e-mail,"
           Of course, she can't pass up the opportunity to flame him
           anyway:
           "but apparently feels no shame or sorrow for distorting a dead
            Marine's thoughts and feelings about war, sacrifice and freedom."
           Scumbaggery will out.
2005/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40422 Activity:nil
11/3    Okay, as I survey all the major (TV/print) news web sites, I see
        all of them feature Libby/Rove as a main story (usu with photo),
        except http://cnn.com.  Even http://cnn.com International Edition shows Libby.
        Even http://foxnews.com covers it prominently.
2005/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40411 Activity:kinda low
11/2    Wow, has only Nixon been more unpopular than Dubya in the 2nd term?
        http://csua.org/u/dws (cbsnews.com)
        \_ Heh, I got as for as "Dubya" before I realized that you weren't
           talking about World of warcraft.
        \_ But Dubya is the Great Uniter!  He said so himself!!1!
           \_ He's united everyone against him
              \- the people who voted for BUSHCO in 2004 were:
                 1. single issue fanatics [abort,keep down assmastery,gunnuts]
                 2. NPV voters
                 3. stupid [bubba, cletus an me hate dem DEATH TAXES]
                 some single issue people got nervous with HARRIET THE JUDGE,
                 NPV people may be getting nervous about macro factors,
                 but i suppse he still has his "base" ... #3.
                 \_ 4. Flip-flopper haters.
                    \- 5. and people who SERVED ... oh wait ... and people who
                          *serve* the EVIL CYBORG.
                          \_ BUD DAY doesn't like your CYBORG.
                             \_ Are you human?  Do you understand the effect
                                cybernetics had on humanity?
                 \_ what does NPV stand for?
                    \- "net present value". i.e. voters who say "ok maybe
                       bush is soft on torture, has tarnished our international
                       reputation etc, but i expect to have $130,456 more
                       if i vote for BUSHCO, so that's what i'll do. when i
                       travel abroad i can tell people i am from canada."
                       of course some of these NPV people probably dont care
                       at all about other issues [Halliburton executives]
                       or are being compensated via other means [Brownie ...
                       crony is a sub class of NPV]
        \_ Maybe we can get this scumbag brought up on War Crime charges
           afterall. At this rate, he will have no defenders left in three
           years.
2005/11/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40386 Activity:nil
11/1    http://csua.org/u/dw5 (Wash Post)
        Fitzgerald appeared prepared to indict Rove heading into last week for
        making false statements, according to three people close to the probe.
        But that changed during a private meeting last Tuesday between
        Fitzgerald and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. ...
        [Matthew] Cooper's attorney ... said ... "that [Fitzgerald] is going
        through each of those things [that Rove presented] and seeing if they
        can be verified or not" ...
\_ this has been posted like the 100th time. Search the f*** archiver
2005/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40348 Activity:nil
10/31   From <DEAD>dcbar.org<DEAD> via the intrepid Wonkette:
        I L Libby Jr
        Cheif of Staff, Room 276
        Eisenhower Exec Office Bldg.
        Washington DC 20501

        Email: Not available
        Phone: 202-456-9000
        Fax: 202-456-6212
        Membership Status: Suspended
        Reason for suspension: Non-payment of dues.
        Disciplinary history: None
        Date of admission: May 19, 1978
        \_ So you're going to call him?  What is the importance of this?
           \_ It's amusing how many of these lawyers around bush and company
              manage to get their licenses suspended.
              \_ Because he didn't pay his dues?
                 \_ Miers had a suspended license as well.  It's just something
                    that seems to come up with remarkable frequency around Bush.
                    Mediocrity in all things...
                    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1018051miers1.html
                    \_ Wow, talk about trying to make a mountain out of a
                       mole hill.
                       \_ You seem to think I'm saying more about this than
                          I am.
                          \_ http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41917
        \_ Cheif of Staff != Chief of Staff  (!!)
2005/10/30-11/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40342 Activity:moderate
10/30   Remember when they told you Valerie Plame was not really undercover?
        http://csua.org/u/dvj
        \_ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Plame-Profile.html
           "She was 22 and very young coming into the CIA, but she was very
           mature, very professional." Other fellow trainees remember her as a
           head-turning blonde who did well wielding an AK-47.
           http://csua.org/u/dvl (Wash Post)
           In 2006, she will have 20 years with the agency. As such she
           qualifies for retirement but would not receive full benefits unless
           she stays with the agency until age 50. ...
           After she was named in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, Plame
           had no chance of working again in her chosen field ...
           "There are a variety of things she could have done at the agency.
           She could have become a station chief overseas and run espionage
           operations. It has destroyed her life on that front."
           operations. It has desroyed her life on that front."
           \_ typical Bush Administration's tactic.  Destroy those who oppose
              his political view.  Another fine example of 'conservative'
              virtue who cares more about 'personal behavior' eventhough his
              policies may be completely out of whack.
           \_ Naive question: what are CIA trainees doing wielding AKs?
              Shouldn't they be handling non-commie firearms?
              \_ dumbass
              \_ they should wear all Made-in-USA clothes and only knows
                 how to operate American-made equipment. Toyota? that is
                 equipment for Japanese Spys.
        \_ Valerie and Joe Wilson are partisan hacks who, at the behest of
           their party, tried to fabricate a scandal, national security
           be damned, in order to sway a presidential election.  They were
           caught and now both have been exposed as frauds and liars.
           Valeria Plame was outed by Aldrich Ames in 1997.  The notion that
           once comprimised she would subsequently continue as a covert agent
           is stupid.
           That said, Fitzgerald has spent 2 years and 70+ million dollars to
           find out who first released Plame's name.  Why is no one asking the
           answer to this question?  It is clear Libby didn't do it.
           Rove is not Novak's source.  So who was it?                 -jblack
           Rove is not Novak's source.  So who was it?
           \_ Aldrich Ames? To whom? To the public? When? Show, don't tell!
              Bad troll, no cookie.
           \_ What Libby did do was lie, over and over, under oath.  Coverups
              and perjury are illegal.  Conspiracy and all that.  But hey
              feel free to ignore that all.  Oh and as to the first paragraph
              you are totally insane yes.  Fabricating a scandal?  Did they
              LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC about WMDs in Iraq and
              convince America to go to a WAR OF CHOICE under known false
              pretenses.  Did they burn a covert operative and her cover
              company when some of those lies came out?  Did they participate
              in a coverup to hide this fact?  If it was a made up scanal why
              did Bush come out and say anyone involved woudl be fired (a
              promise he rescinded later when it became clear that many people
              in his administration were involved, imagine that.  Why did
              Libby tell Miller that hey, that thing he signed saying she
              was released from confidentiality wasn't really a realease
              cause see it was made under duress (ha!  does that mean he was
              lieing to his president as well?  Or was Bush lieing to the
              public once again...)  Why the lies and coverup if it was
              just something madeup?  Why keep your head in the sand about
              an administration that lies over and over again?  That lied
              its way into a war and will keep on lieing as long as it can
              get away with it.
              \_ you really expect someone to read or reply to your
                 jibberish?  Based on your 1st sentence (as far as
                 I got) Libby has yet to be convicted, the US
                 does not have Napoleonic law.  The accusations in the indictment
                 relate ONLY to inconsistencies between the memory of
                 Libby and two reporters, Miller and Russert, while testifying
                 to FBI agents.
              \_ you really expect someone to read or reply to your jibberish?
                 Based on your 1st sentence (as far as I got) Libby has yet to
                 be convicted, the US does not have Napoleonic law.  The
                 accusations in the indictment relate ONLY to inconsistencies
                 between the memory of Libby and two reporters, Miller and
                 Russert, while testifying to FBI agents.
                 \- "Now listen. Did you ever hear of the Napoleonic
                    code, Stella?...Now just let me enlighten you on a
                    point or two...Now we got here in the state of
                    Louisiana what's known as the Napoleonic code. You
                    see, now according to that, what belongs to the wife
                    belongs to the husband also, and vice versa...It
                    looks to me like you've been swindled baby. And when
                    you get swindled under Napoleonic code, I get
                    swindled too and I don't like to get swindled..."
                    oh, BTW, the ACT CoaHTR is NOT BAD. yes, i know they
                    dont really have the NC.
              \_ You have been successfully trolled.  -John
              \_ "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" --
                 http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary15.html
           \_ urlP
              \_ #f
           \_ There's a difference between exposing the truth, and being a
              traitor to your country.
        \_ But but but but the washington post said that she would tell all
           her neighbors every morning she was an undercover agent for the
           CIA ... I'm so confused!
2005/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40332 Activity:nil
10/28   Liberal CIA trying to bring down Heroic American President:
        http://csua.org/u/dv3
2005/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40322 Activity:nil
10/28   Libby indicted, Rove not.
        http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/28/D8DH5FOG0.html
        \_ yet.
        \_ Note no one's been indicted for the actual leak yet.
           \_ The leak law is very narrowly written.  It's entirely possible
              that the leaking was done with malice and violates the spirit of
              the law, but it will be too hard to get a conviction to they
              don't indict for that.  Perjury is somewhat easier to prove.
              \_ Note, though, that the investigation is not over.  The people
                 named in the indictment is an impressive list.  If any one of
                 them end up indicted as well, this will be the story for the
                 rest of Bush's presidency.
                 \- i guess it takes more than invading a country on false
                    pretenses, torturing people, letting osama get away,
                    not really caring about well connected companies looting
                    the public coffers.
        \_ Let's be clear on what he was indicted for.  If you read the
           document only real two charges stand up and they are based on
           hearsay. 1)  Libby said Russert "asked" him about Plame, Russert
           in his testimony said this never happened.  In fact, Russert
           himself disputes the facts as they are laid out in the indictment,
           saying publicly he never received any information on Plame at
           all from Libby.
           2) Libby testified he qualified to Miller his statement about
           Plame with the phrase "that's what reporters are telling us".
           Miller disagreed in her testimony.
           Just he said she said, all pretty underwhelming.
           in his testimony said this never happened. 2) Libby testified he
           qualified to her his statement about Plame with the phrase "that's
           what reporters are telling us".  Miller disagreed in her
           testimony.  Just he said she said, all pretty underwhelming. -jblack
2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40312 Activity:nil
10/16   Black people advocating the final solution against white people. -jblack
        http://tinyurl.com/czq24
2005/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40306 Activity:nil
10/28   An Act of Federal Piracy
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508617/posts?page=26#26
        \_  Freeper quote:
            "Lock and Load...and wear a copy of the Constitution pinned to your
            shirt! It's gonna get UGLY for the next few years....
            I am now 100% convinced that Bush is now doing all he can to ensure
            Hillary is elected in 2008...hmm...Bush, Clinton...Bush, Clinton....
            could another Bush be far behind?!
            NO! Never again! "
            Ha! So much for the base.
        \_ "The gaia high priests were deeply offended that they and their
            collectivist comrades weren.t offered bent knee respect by a
            commoner, and he didn.t pay out a $270,000 tribute to study,
            admire and appease their wetland god."
           I thought there was some law requiring this sort of purple prose
           to be preceded by a disclaimer-- oh, right, it's a freeper link.
2005/10/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40301 Activity:high
10/27   Looks like the Fitzgerald indictments might not turn out the
        way the Democrats had hoped:
        http://www.csua.org/u/cached/dua (redstate.org)
        \_ http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/cia.leak/index.html
           "Sources: Prosecutor focusing on Rove in CIA leak probe"
        \_ "This sounds fishy   By: Buckland"
        \_ "Pobable indictments for Vallerie Plame, Joseph Wilson and one as
            yet unknown high ranking Congressional Democrat."
           LOL. This is a classic pipedream from the party faithful. It
           only gets better if the Scooby team foils the Dems' evil schemes.
           \_ More likely a troll.  Whatever it is, it gave me a laugh.
              \_ Hey, rightwingers can have a sense of humor -- who knew?
                 \_ Erm, I'd expect more a lefty going undercover...  Do you
                    understand what a troll is?
                        \_ Yes but trolls usually aren't that funny.  The
                           original article is.
2005/10/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40299 Activity:low
10/27   Does anyone else believe this BULLSHIT that Miers withdrew?
        A much more likely sequence of events is Dubya's people hinting they
        would no longer mind, and actually prefer it.  Miers, ever loyal,
        obliges, and they spin it as Miers withdrawing to Dubya's opposition.
        \_ Well duh, were you born yesterday?
           \_ sorry, reading too much freerepublic
              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510152/posts
              "Withdrew herself?"
              "Yes.  Letter from her." ...
              "It was the right decision, and I respect her greatly for making
              it." ...
              "Miers took one for the team"
                \_ The surgeon general has determined that reading too much
                   freerepublic may be hazardous to your comprehension of
                   reality.
        \_ Actually I think Bush is stubborn enough to have kept her at least
           through the senate hearings.  Did you read Krauthammer's column?  He
           pretty much presented the scenario that happened:
           http://csua.org/u/dum -emarkp
           \- just out of curiosity why does it matter if she jumped or
              was pushed? i mean i can understand curious speculation but
              you seem to be OUTRAGED.
              \_ ??? It'd be better if she was pushed, i.e. GWB came to his
                 senses.  How do I appear to be OUTRAGED? -emarkp
                 \- I am referring to the OP. I dont know if you are the OP
                    or not.
                    \_ Odd.  I was responding to the OP--you responded to me.
                       I don't know why I'd respond to myself. -emarkp
              you (mr "BULLSHIT" OP) seem to be OUTRAGED.
              \_ Odd.  I was responding to the OP--you responded to me.  I
                 don't know why I'd respond to myself. [and why you keep
                 deleting this instead of fixing your followup to be to the OP
                 is a mystery] -emarkp
2005/10/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40289 Activity:moderate
10/27   Miers has WITHDRAWN!
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4382370.stm
        \- But the CSUA Politburo is asking her to reconsider!
        \_ I have to admit I am suprised by this. I thought the WH could make
           the Congress roll over. The next nominee ought to be interesting...
                \_ Apparently Republicans basically told Bush that unless there
                   is some good proof that she has a grasp of constitutional
                   issues there was no way she was getting confirmed.  Imagine
                   that, requiring someone interpreting the constitution to
                   be an expert on the constitution.
                   \_ CJ John Marshall only had about a month of legal edu
                      but is widely regarded as one of the finest justices
                      to serve on the ussc.
                      Personally I think that we should have *fewer* judges
                      and lawyers on the ussc and more intelligent regular
                      people in the ussc.
                      I opposed the Miers nomination not b/c she wasn't a
                      judge or a constitutional expert, but b/c she just
                      didn't seem bright enough to serve on the ussc.
                      Personally, I think they should nominate posner (if
                      partha is unavailable). - #10 psb fan
                      partha is unavailable).
                        \_ I have no problem with the "brain the size of
                           a planet" exception.
        \_ Nice quote on dailykos:
                It is a sad day when your choices for Supreme Court
                Justice appear to be 'unqualified hack who may do some
                damage' and 'qualified nutcase who will reap destruction a
                cross the land'
                \_ WHo's the nutcase?  Roberts?
                   \_ The Scalia clone to come.
                      \- the comment about JM's legal educ is misleading.
                         it was quite common for lawyers "back then" to
                         have more of an apprentice style of legal educ.
                         i think law is sort of different from say biology.
                         today a bio prof has bs/ms/phd/postdoc ... which
                         can easily be a decade of post-grad educ. while a
                         newly minted law prof may be 3 yrs of law school
                         and maybe two 1yr clerkships.
                   \_ The Thomas/Scalia clone to come.
                      \_ Interesting that you chose Scalia and not
                         Thomas (the argument that Thomas is a Scalia
                         clone does not hold water, ex. Scalia concu-
                         red in Raich but Thomas dissent).
                         \- this is somewhat interesting:
                      http://voteview.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm
                         \- i dont believe SCALIA and THOMAS had the highest
                            percentage of voting the same way. Although it
                            is possible of the 7-2 decisions, they are most
                            likely to be S+T vs everbody else.
                         \_ Emphasis on the "QUALIFIED" in qualified nutcase
2005/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40272 Activity:low
10/25   What Congress Did Is Disgusting
        http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_26_05_JS.html
        \_ Google maps image of where the bridge would go:
           http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ketchikan,+ak&ll=55.355648,-131.711569&spn=0.041162,0.147749&t=h&hl=en
           http://tinyurl.com/bqr2f (maps.google.com)
           More info on the Gravina bridge
           http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm
        \_ Something liberals and conservatives can agree on. -emarkp
        \_ This seems made up:  "Last week, Alaska's other senator,
           Lisa Murkowski, said it would be "offensive" not to spend your
           money on her bridge.  When she first became a senator, I asked
           her if Republicans believed in smaller government. She was
           unusually candid: 'We want smaller government. But, boy, I sure
           want more highways and more stuff, whatever the stuff is.'"
           \_ It's john stossel.  don't expect too much.
              http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/09/07/155361.html
              http://csua.org/u/du4
              Price gouging saves lives!
              \_ Soo soo sook!
2005/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40236 Activity:nil
10/23   The Katrina rape and murder myth:
        http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/24/katrina_horror/index.html
        \_ I guess the writer saw the latest episode of South Park
2005/10/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40231 Activity:nil
10/23   http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/international/asia/23rumsfeld.html
        Rumsfeld visited Mongolia.  I wonder if he flew through Russian or
        Chinese airspace.
2005/10/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40199 Activity:nil
10/20   Powell fucks Dick
        http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002492.html#002492
        "a plea bargain process has evidently been opened with Vice President
        Cheney's lawyer ... Powell ... showed that memo only to two people--
        president and vice president. ... Powell testified about this exchange
        in great length to the grand jury ... Powell appeared convinced that
        the vice president played a focal role in disclosing plame's undercover
        status."
        \_ Is it possible to overdose on schadenfreude?
           \_ On the contrary, my mom is convinced that when my grandmother
              was dying of a degenerative brain disease back in the 70's,
              that Watergate-related shadenfreude added months to her life.
              She was a Trotskyist, and of course loathed Nixon.
           \_ Could the "schadenfreude" guy please give it a rest? The only
              reason any of us gain any bit of enjoyment in what's happening
              is in the possibly naive hope that America will wake up and
              vote these corrupt, incompetent and treasonous clowns out of
              power.
2005/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40193 Activity:nil
10/19   Freepers pile on Dubya
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505696/posts
        \_ Naahhh, looks like the usual ass-licking of the GOP power brokers
           to me.  Sometimes this stuff is so over the top it almost reads
           like parody, or even Bush slashfic:
           "Whether it's the mass media or the obstructionist Democrat
           Senators, the Islamic terrorists or natural disasters, the leaders
           of the various 'minority' groups or the homosexual lobby, the
           abortionist fanatics or the RINOs, even leftover Clintonites in the
           Pentagon, FBI and CIA, there is always something standing there,
           furiously attacking or opposing the President at every turn. Yet he
           stands up and faces it all with courage and tenacity. Where will
           anyone find a better man out there?"
           \_ I hate the freeper whining so much. "We only control TWO branches
              of the government. Daddy promised us THREEEEE." Internally I
              translate everything that "stands in their way" (liberals,
              democrats, Clinton, etc.) to variations of "the Man" just so I
              can listen to it without slapping them upside the head. The
              above quote slightly translated for my sanity: "Whether it's the
              corporate Man or the obstructionist Man, the Bible thumping Man,
              or natural disasters, the leaders of the various 'majority'
              groups or the Missionary Position Only lobby, the anti-abortion-
              ist or the Oreos, even the leftover Man in the Pentagon, FBI and
              CIA, there is always something standing there, furiously attack-
              ing or opposing the President at every turn. Yet he stands up
              and faces it all with courage and tenacity. Where will anyone
              find a better brother out there? Slap mah fro!" Yeah it doesn't
              work. I still wanna slap a freeper around.
              groups or the Missionary Position Only lobby, the anti-abortionist
              or the Oreos, even the leftover Man in the Pentagon, FBI and CIA,
              there is always something standing there, furiously attacking or
              opposing the President at every turn. Yet he stands up and faces
              it all with courage and tenacity. Where will anyone find a better
              brother out there? Slap mah fro!" Yeah it doesn't work. I still
              wanna slap a freeper around.
                \_ They will only be happy once we live in the Christian
                   feudal corporate state, with 90% of the population slaving
                   away in vast polluting factories or off fighting in endless
                   wars, while they enjoy the most sinful pleasures on top.
                   We're not there yet, so they whine.
                   \_ Not slaving away in factories.  Serving the upperclass
                      on their enormous estates/ranches, and in their shopping
                      centers.  And those that serve the rich will be the
                      lucky ones.  The rest will live in 3rd world conditions
                      without health care, public services, police protection,
                      public education, or hope, in places where the
                      upperclass never has to see or deal with them.  And the
                      upperclass will say:  "They deserve that, because they
                      don't work hard enough.  They're stupid and lazy.  In
                      this country, Under God, you get what you deserve!"
                      That is when the freepers will be happy.
                      \_ I don't know why you put no healthcare in the future
                         tense.  Most of the people I know from highschool have
                         no health insurance now, and I went to an upper middle
                         no healthe insurance now, and I went to an upper middle
                         class highschool.
2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40184 Activity:nil
10/19   Original article on "Bush rebuked Rove about Plame affair"
        http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html
        I'm confused, though, how does this make sense with this timeline?
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/08/national/main577086.shtml
        http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031010-6.html
        \_ Apparently not being under oath is not a "get out of jail free"
           card for lying to investigators...
2005/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40177 Activity:nil
10/19   Thomas DeFrank at NY Daily News: Bush knew about Plame leak all along,
        only got angry because it was done clumsily.
        http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006782.php
        \_ Maybe Bush will be included on the indictment. Has he talked
           to the Grand Jury?
2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40171 Activity:nil
10/18   22 indictments? Is it really possible?
        http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012630.html
        \- if this is true, i may start beliving in intelligent design.
           but that post is from oct 5?
2005/10/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:40152 Activity:nil
10/18   Funny daily show clip on the staged telcon.  2nd half is good too.
        http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/18.html#a5429
2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40146 Activity:kinda low
10/17   Great new graph, showing Bush's approval rating:
        http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall
        \_ Ok, just curious... let's say his approval rating fell to zero.
           So what?
           \_ chance of people rebel against him within his own party
              would increase and thus, chance of Bush successfully push
              his agenda will drastically decreased :p
              \_ possibly true, but a closer look shows that his approval
                 among his Republican base remains at 84%.  These people
                 are innured to facts.
                \_ The lower the approval goes, the crazier the stuff they
                   will try to do/get away with.  Admitting fault and changing
                   are less likely.
                   \_ Oh, yeah?  What happened to Bush's social security
                      agenda?  He's playing defense.  Thanks to Bush being
                      put on the defensive there might actually be a glimmer of
                      hope for social security.  Neutering that fucker will
                      have real, notocable positive effects on peoples lives,
                      have real, noticeable positive effects on peoples lives,
                      and his present popularity disaster is doing exactly
                      that.  Why do you think he nominated Meiers and
                      Robertson instead of some drooling fascist fuck like
                      Roberts instead of some drooling fascist fuck like
                      his base wanted?
                      \_ That's Roberts, not Robertson. And he nominated both
                         \_ That's what I love about MOTD.  We never let the
                            ignorance of basic facts stop us from spouting
                            from our soapbox.  BTW, isn't it Miers?
                         of them on the strength of his administration over
                         the GOP. I haven't heard one Republican senator say
                         they would vote no. They mumble about doubts and
                         concerns, but in the end they will nearly all swallow
                         their bile and vote "aye."
                      \_ I'm glad there will be notocable positive effects.
              \_ Bush has indeed changed somewhat from his 1st term.  After
                 9/11, he basically sought to unilaterally do everything,
                 regardless of public opinion.  Since the 2004 re-election,
                 he at least seems to have moderated himself
2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40140 Activity:nil
10/17   Bush refuses to discuss CIA leak probe. Go Bush!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051017/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation
        \_ "I refuse to comment on any investigation that might make my
            administration look like it's full of crooks, liars and traitors"
2005/10/13-14 [Science/Disaster, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40073 Activity:low
10/13   Hi motd, while the press releases are saying shit like "Katrina
        floodwaters not as toxic as thought", I'm going to quote from the ACS-
        sponsored journal article:
        "What distinguishes Katrina floodwaters are their large volume and the
        human exposure to these pollutants that accompanied the flood rather
        than extremely elevated concentrations of toxic pollutants."
        http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/html/es0518631.html
        In other words, the floodwaters were as shitty and bacteria-laden as
        "typical" storm run-off, but this time it's up to your neck as opposed
        to something you can hop over at the curb. -Former Chem 1A/B TA
        \_ After a month of toxic flood talk, it's just hard to get too
           excited over the more realistic appraisal.
2005/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40071 Activity:kinda low
10/13   Polls don't matter!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/pl_nm/bush_politics_dc
        \_ I can't remember where I saw this, but apparently one of these
           polls give Bush a 2 percent approval rating among blacks.
           2 percent!
           \_ WSJ/NBC News poll.  89 blacks surveyed.  I guess that means
              2 out of 89 said "do approve".  A Pew poll showed 12%.
              \_ Yeah, obviously, margin of error is high.  Still, 2 percent!
                 \_ That's within a margin of error of being zero. Neat!
2005/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40070 Activity:kinda low
10/13   http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/pl/081201presidentbush
        Photo op where soldiers read to Dubya only good news
        \_ Great headline: "Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged"
           http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration
           \_ "We're an empire now, we create our own reality"
              http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2004-10-16b.html
2005/10/13 [Computer/SW/Unix, Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40060 Activity:nil
10/12   root, please do not squish me for posting this treasonous
        url anonymously.  also the picture is wrong, p bush
        was funding them until 1951.
        http://www.indybay.org/uploads/p1090147a.jpg - danh
        \_ It's been nice knowing you danh, I shall miss you after your
           mysterious disappearance.
        \_ Huh, I didn't realize we were into punishing the sons for the
           sins of the fathers.
2005/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40057 Activity:low
10/12   link:tinyurl.com/e3uvg (nytimes.com)
        FEMA paying avg $59/night to put 600,000 post-Katrina/Rita victims
        in hotels, because conservative ideology kept FEMA from giving vouchers
        to families for much cheaper apartments, like in pre-Dubya days.
        \_ why do you hate black people?
        \_ Do you think FEMA pays for room service and the mini bar too?  How
           about pay per view porn?
           \_ In the name of social justice and equal access, they
              certainly should!
2005/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40056 Activity:nil
10/12   http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers1.html
        I can understand "greatest governor ever" can be considered appropriate
        for b-day cards, but aren't there an awful lot of these kinds of
        comments?
2005/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40053 Activity:moderate
10/12   Bush: "Miers is qualified because she's an evangelical Christian!"
        Huh?  Since when is the Supreme Court our council of Mullahs?
        \_ Wah?  URL please.
           \_ http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6K760J.html
              \_ What you said and what that article said are not the same.
                 I don't like Miers either but you don't need to make stuff up
                 about her.  It doesn't promote your point.
                 \_ Bush essentially said that part of the reason she is
                    qualified is that she's an evangelical.  This is serious
                    business and borderline unconstitutional (see the
                    Establishment clause re: religious litmus tests for
                    holding office).  I didn't make up jack shit about Miers.
                    \_ "Essentially said..." is not the same a making a direct
                       quote.  I saw nothing new in the article.  I was
                       looking for that shocking quote.  Silly me, it's the
                       motd.
                       \_ "I would remind you that extremism in the defense
                          of libety is no vice.  And let me remind you also
                          that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
                          virtue."
                          \_ Lying isn't what they were talking about when
                             they said that.
                             \_ An original constructionist!  I am more of a
                                living document fan myself.  In moderation,
                                of course.
                                \_ Funny.  Thanks for the laugh.
                    \_ He's using that to pacify rabid pro-lifers, saying
                       she won't expand (and may overturn) Roe vs. Wade.
                       Unfortunately, most conservatives aren't one-issue
                       people, and we'd rather have someone who will interpret
                       the Constitution according to principles we agree with,
                       irrespective of any one issue. -emarkp
                       \_ True, she must oppose abortion, gay marriage, and
                          support "under God" in the pledge. That's three!
        \_ if you want to bash Dubya, hyperbole / exaggeration is not required
           \_ Perhaps, but invention is easier than truth.
              \_ "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." -Dubya (March 17, 2003)
                 \_ Well, I personally aim to be more fair and honest than
                    GWB.  Perhaps it's unreasonable for me to expect the same
                    of the OP.
                    \_ you're saying op is less fair / honest than Dubya?
                       \_ ! (op > GWB) != op < GWB
                          \_ okay, then let's put an equals sign in there too.
                             \_ It's not *me* saying it.  It's the OP saying
                                it when he posted the GWB quote (or whoever
                                it is who poasted the quote) after I accused
                                him of invention.
2005/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40050 Activity:nil
10/11   King Aragorn against Bush behavior
        http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/003486.html
        \_ Yawn.
        \_ On the Daily Show he didn't say anything political...just
           hocked his new movie "History of Violence" and pulled some
           rubber animals out of his coffee.
        \_ I prefer to think of him as the hero of "Hidalgo".
           \_ I thought the horse was the hero. Or are you making some
              coy comparisons that I don't really need to think about?
              \_ No, Hidalgo was the title character.  The man was the hero (if
                 there was one in that stinker).  My point is that LotR is the
                 only good thing I've seen from him, and I prefer not to sully
                 that with stupid comments from the actor.
                 \_ Actually, I always think of him as Weps from Crimson Tide.
2005/10/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40032 Activity:nil
10/9    Bush loves it bald (warning: sound):
        http://bushlovesitbald.ytmnd.com
2005/10/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40013 Activity:nil
10/7    Another conservative thinker hammers the Miers nomination:
        http://csua.org/u/dnr
        And important point he makes that I haven't seen before:
        "This, say her advocates: We are now at war, and therefore the great
        issue of our time is the powers of the president, under Article II, to
        wage war. For four years Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace
        decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough
        constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war
        powers.
        "Perhaps. We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to
        the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years
        -- crucial years in the war on terrorism -- she will have to recuse
        herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because
        she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The
        Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the
        laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much."
        \_ While Miers' nomination seems weak, it's stronger than this
           argument.  -tom
           \_ Oh, you actually support the Miers nomination?  Can you tell us
              all why?
              \_ Did I say that?  -tom
                \_ not tom: The only good thing about the nomination is that
                   we don't know for sure if she's as bad as Thomas/Scalia.
                   Would I rather have an incompetent reasonable person or
                   a competent frothing loony? Tough call!
                   \_ Thomas didn't have any more experience than Miers
                      when he was nominated, so he's an incompetent frothing
                      loony.  -tom
                        \_ Yes I was referring more to Scalia in that sense
                   \_ And her supporters are trying to soothe us conservatives
                      by saying, "Really!  She's a religious preson!"  Which
                      makes me wonder if Bush is trying to put someone in who
                      will overturn Roe vs. Wade but doesn't care about
                      anything else.  I'd rather have someone who interprets
                      the Constitution with an Originalist eye. -emarkp
                      \_ good, that means get rid of hand guns. :p
                      \_ Funny, I've been thinking it was the opposite. The
                         republicans like to talk about "protecting the
                         unborn" to keep their religious base mobilized, but
                         the political strategists are smart enough to know
                         that actually overturning Roe would be political
                         suicide. Hence the relatively moderate (at least
                         compared to what liberals like me feared) nominees.
                         \_ I view Miers as the Ham Sandwich choice, akin to
                            the grand jury indictment rule. The way the GOP
                            is these days, Bush could have nominated a ham
                            sandwich and gotten it in. Sure, it's cronyism.
                            Yes, it's the victory of the mediocre. But, really,
                            maybe one or two Republicans might vote against
                            her or perhaps abstain from voting since all the
                            rest will vote for her. Given 55 Republican
                            Senators, it's a done deal.
2005/10/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:40011 Activity:nil
10/7    Al Gore on why Television (news) sucks.  Aside from a few petty
        digs at his enemies, and some mistaken historical facts,
        (protests invented in the 60s?) I basically agree with him.
        http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2IU703.html
        \_ Gore is a smart guy, but the electorate decided they didn't like
           sighing so we got W instead.
           \_ This has what to do with the link?
        \_ Watch the News Hour.
        \_ Thanks, this is great reading.
2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40006 Activity:nil
10/6    Bush approval rating down to 37%
        http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
        Will the Rove and Libby indictments get him into the 20s?
        \_ What can I say. Bush has inspired an entire generation of young
           Americans to a whole new level of mediocrity.
           \_ Maybe its not related, but I have noticed many more people on
              television have been using poor english and/or idiotic southern
              accents.  Perhaps since our president is such an idiot, it
              makes it "ok" for other tv personalities to be idiots too.
                -mrauser
              \_ being an idiot lets people recuse themselves of blame
        \_ Nope. At least 30% of the people will believe it's not Bush's fault.
           True believers.
        \_ Not a big surprise.  The Miers nomination is alienating his core.
           For me it's the last straw.
           \_ Does that mean you're among his core?  How is this the "last
              straw" for you rightwing drool monkies?  Haven't you gotten
              plenty of reactionary behavior out of him already?
              \_ This is borderline schadenfreude. As a liberal, I think
                 we need to fix this guy's mess, not gloat about it.
                 \_ And "we" can't even begin that while people continue to
                    back the party that rubberstamps him (and is in power).
                    If we're going to fix his mess, we have to keep showing
                    people what a FUCKUP he is.  And THEY have to start talking
                    to their R congresspeople (as well as the D's who vote
                    for shit like bankruptcy reform).
                    \_ I enjoy every SNL and Daily Show satire of Bush as
                       the next person. But that's all in good humor. I
                       also have a lot of friends who are R but they are,
                       for the most part, moderate. I don't think calling
                       for the most part, moderete. I don't think calling
                       them drool monkies is a good way to get them on my
                       side and making them realize what a screw up Bush
                       is.
                       \_ I wasn't drool monkey guy.  Sorry.  Didn't notice
                          that portion of the guy's comment.
                       \_ I wasn't drool monkey guy.  Sorry.
                    \_ You've got it backwards.  Bush rubberstamps bills from
                       congress.
              \_ He is only doing two things well: keep on the job in Iraq, and
                 cut taxes/keep them low.  He's dropping the ball on his
                 nominations, cutting spending, vetoing anything (George Will's
                 excellent example was McCain-Feingold), controlling the US
                 border, etc.
        \_ There is a limit to how low it can go, since both Democrats and
           Republicans contain a core of true believers who will always support
           their leader, unless he starts biting off the heads of puppies
           on live tv, because the "other guy" would always be so much worse.
           "Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor but Kerry would be
            spending twice as much, etc."
           \_ Our guy only bites off puppy heads! The other guy would be
              clubing baby seal!
              clubing baby seals!
           \_ Nixon bottomed out at 27%.
              \_ Kinda amazing, isn't it? It was pretty much obvious he'd
                 abused the government to allay his own fears and 27% of the
                 US was pretty okay with that. But then again, Reagan sold
                 arms to the "enemy" and was still hugely popular. Ah, Amurica!
                 arms to the "enemy" and was still hugely popular. Ah,
                 Amurica!
                 \_ Komrade, it is speeled AmeriKKKa.
2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40005 Activity:nil
10/6   Bush:  "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally
       the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments
       in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from
       Spain to Indonesia." Replace a few words and you get the original
       Bush/neocon plan for spreading democracy in the Middle East. Neat trick!
        \_ Have you ever heard of the psychological term "projection"?
           90% of what comes out of that guys mouth is explained by it.
        \_ He and his gang of cronies may be a bunch of lying, incompetent
           fuckwits, but you need to seriously consider looking up the term
           "empire".  Or maybe that's one of your few words... -John
2005/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39996 Activity:low
10/6    "Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in
        voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops
        may use against terrorism suspects ..."
        http://csua.org/u/dn2 (Wash Post)
        \- anybody know the list of senators voting against defining the
           limits? i see powell spoke up too.
           \_ http://csua.org/u/dn4 [senate.gov]
        \_ how about just abide by Geneva Convention and allow International
           Redcross inspect the suspects?  we don't need new law here.
           \_ Then why is the White House opposing it?
              \_ because White House want to use 'all means necessary'
                 to extract information from those so called 'terrorist.'
                 \_ ^want^needs^
                    \_ want, not need.  everyone can say they 'need' the
                       information.  And if you put things to perspective,
                       Nazi Germany was a much more real threat to US
                       security then than so-called terrorist to US today.
                       \_ You misunderstand. I'm saying that the CinC
                          must have the option of using any and all
                          means, including torture, first strike, &c,
                          that he deems are necessary to defend the
                          republic.
              \_ All government bodies object to restraint on their power.
           \_ The geneva convention doesn't apply to non-state actors
              who refuse to abide by its rules. It also doesn't apply
              to the type of conflict we are involved in.
              NOTE: There may be other reasons to avoid torture (ie. it
              is not effective).
              \_ The Geneva Convention very explicitly applies to anyone
                 whose status is unknown.  -tom
                 \_ Tom is correct on this, the anon parrot quoting White House
                    talking points is wrong. -ausman
              \_ The fun part is that nearly everyone detained by the military
                 in Iraq is by definition an "unlawful combatant." Heck, if
                 the military were able to operate legally within the US,
                 it would be the same unless they they are wearing some form
                 of ID signifying them as members of an opposition armed force.
                 \_ Such form of ID would be called a uniform, as required by
                    the Geneva Convention in order for someone to be covered.
                    \_ Once again, you are wrong.
                       "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons,
                       having committed a belligerent act and having
                       fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
                       any of the categories enumerated in Article 4,
                       such persons shall enjoy the protection of the
                       present Convention until such time as their
                       status has been determined by a competent
                       tribunal."  (Geneva Convention Article 5).  -tom
                       \_ It is you who are wrong. Given that you
                          agree that Covention 3 governs, start w/
                          Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 states that the Convention
                          Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 which states that the
                          Convention
                          "shall apply to all cases of declared war
                           or of any other armed conflight which may
                           arise between to or more of the High Contr-
                           acting Parties"
                          Clearly this provision does not apply to
                          terrorist who are not "High Contracting
                          Parties."  Unless you can show me where
                          AQ, &c. signed on to the convention.
                          Perhaps you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2
                          cl 3:
                          "although one of the Powers in the conflict
                           may not be a party to the present Convention,
                           the Powers who are parties thereto shall
                           remain bound by it in there mutual relations."
                          Clearly this provision does not apply to terrorist
                          who are not "High Contracting Parties."  Perhaps
                       you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2 cl 3:
                       "although one of the Powers in the conflict may
                        not be a party to the present Convention, the
                        Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
                        bound by it in there mutual relations."
                          This contemplates organized state action, not
                          decentralized terrorist action.  But even
                          assuming that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause,
                          and that we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we
                          find that
                          (1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part
                              of the armed forces of a Party in conflict
                              b/c they aren't part of the armed forces
                              of any country.
                       disorganized terrorist action.  But even assuming
                       that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause, and that
                       we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we find that
                       (1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part of
                           the armed forces of a Party in conflict b/c
                           they aren't part of any armed forces.
                          (2) does not apply b/c at least requirment (b)
                              is not met
                          (3) does not apply b/c they are not members of
                              the regular armed forces
                          (4) does not apply b/c they do not accompany
                              armed force in any manner of speaking
                          (5) does not apply b/c the Party in conflict
                              has no crews, masters, pilots, &c.
                          (6) does not apply b/c they do not respect
                              the laws and customs of war
                          Having dispensed w/ that, lets us look to B,
                          Having dispensed w/ that, let us look to B,
                          where we find that this provison doesn't apply
                          either.
                          There are two major problems w/ the solace
                          you find in Art 5, first there should be some
                          doubt of which there is none (see above).
                          Second, the protection only lasts until a
                          competent tribunal - such as a US military
                          tribunal - makes a determination re Art 4
                          status. Once the tribunal makes a determin-
                          ation that the person does not fall w/in
                          Art 4, the protection afforded by the conv-
                          ention ends.
                          NOTE: This does not imply that I believe
                                that torture should be used, only
                                that there is no legal barrier to
                                its use against non-citizen non-
                                state enemy combatants.
                                that my understanding is that
                                there is no legal barrier to its
                                use against non-citizen enemy
                                its use against non-citizen enemy
                                combatants not formally associated
                                with any state and not held w/in
                                the jurisdiction of a US dist ct
                                (if the person is w/in the jx of
                                a US dist ct habeas and 8th amend.
                                relief may be available - hamdi
                                does not answer that question re
                                non-citizens).
                                \_ So someone who is a Pakistani
                                   or Iraqi citizen, who is
                                   detained...
                                with any state.
                                (it is an open question whether
                                habeas relief is available in
                                such a case).
                                a US dist ct habeas relief maybe
                                available - hamdi does not answer
                                that question re non-citizens).
                                \_ So someone who is a Pakistani or Iraqi
                                   citizen, who is detained
                                \_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.
                                   Is the Geneva Convention legally
                                   binding under U.S. law anyway?
                                   I.e. supposing that it could be
                                   shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
                                   directly responsible for an order
                                   that was in clear violation, is
                                   there any actual legal way to
                                   convict him of some crime?
                                   I would guess that for people in
                                   uniform this would be covered in
                                   the UCMJ, but what about civilians?
                                   \_ The Covention is not self
                                      executing (it cannot be
                                      executing (ie cannot be
                                      enforced directly in US
                                      cts). Part 6, Art 129
                                      executing. Part 6, Art 129
                                      states that
                                      "[t]he High Contracting Parties
                                       undertake to enact any legi-
                                       slation necessary to provide
                                       penal sanctions for persons
                                       committing, or ordering to
                                       be committed"
                                      breaches of of the Convention.
                                      In order for Rummy to be puni-
                                      shed, he would have to be con-
                                      victed under any applicable
                                      fed law executed to enforce
                                      the Convention. This is assu-
                                      ming that Bush would not use
                                      his pardon pwr under US Const
                                      Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
                                      victed under the applicable
                                      fed law. This is assuming that
                                      Bush didn't use his pardon pwr
                                      under Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
                                      under US Const Art 2 Sec 2 cl
                                      1.
                                      The preferable method to deal
                                      with something like this would
                                      be to impeach him pursuant to
                                      US Const Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil
                                      officer") b/c the Pres. pardon
                                      pwr does not apply to impeach-
                                      ment ("except in cases of
                                      impeachment").
                                      ment.
                                      One completely useless alt. is
                                      to pursue an action in the ICJ.
                                      \_ "to enact any legislation
                                          necessary..." Right, but
                                         does such legislation exist
                                      \_ "to enact any legislation necessary..."
                                         Right, but does such legislation exist
                                         on the U.S. lawbooks?
                                         \_ I believe (but am not
                                            100% certain) that fed
                                            laws re torture, &c.
                                            exist that cover these
                                            violations - note that
                                            new laws specific to
                                            the Convention may not
                                            be needed if adequate
                                            legislation already
                                            exists.
                       either.  Perhaps you find solace in Art 5 cl 2
                       "should any doubt arise as to whether persons
                        having committed a belligerent act and having
                        fallen into the hands of the enemy belong to
                        any of the categories enumerated in Art 4,
                        such persons shall enjoy the protections of
                        the present Convention"
                       Note that this is conditioned on the status of
                       such persons being "determined by a competent
                       tribunal." Even if you can prove that there is
                       some doubt, there is no reason to 2d guess the
                       determination of a US military tribunal re
                       whether someone falls w/in Art 4.
                                with any state.
                                \_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.  Is the
                                   Geneva Convention legally binding under
                                   U.S. law anyway?  I.e. supposing that
                                   it could be shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
                                   directly responsible for an order that
                                   was in clear violation, is there any actual
                                   legal way to convict him of some crime?
                                   I would guess that for people in uniform
                                   this would be covered in the UCMJ, but
                                   what about civilians?
                                       In order for Rummy to be pun-
                                       ished, he would have to be
                                       convicted under the applicable
                                       fed law.
                                      Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil officer")
                                      b/c the Pres. pardon pwr does
                                      not apply to impeachment.
                                      ment.
                                            violations.
        \_ did they regulate that interrogators should only ask suspects
           nicely, using words like 'Please' and 'thank you', and house them
           only in 5-star hotel equivalent living conditions?
           \_ No, but they did declare the squallor of your apartment a
              violation of the Geneva Convention.
2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39960 Activity:nil
10/3    http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899
        National Review contributor and former Dubya speechwriter:
        "I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White
        House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over
        the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking.
        ... In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was
        distinguished by the intensity of her zeal:  She once told me that the
        president was the most brilliant man she had ever met ..."
        \_ When did Justice Kennedy pee on this guy? - danh
        \_ And that quote is the scariest part -- it should scare both
           conservatives and liberals ... We can disagree on whether
           or not Bush's policies are good or bad for the nation but who
           here thinks Bush is "brilliant"?  I would agree that Karl Rove is
           brilliant, but Bush?
           \_ He could be brilliantly evil pretending to be dumb because,
              apparently, many Americans equate being dumb to being a good old
              regular honest guy. "Wow, he's a dumb ass cowboy from Texas! I'm
              a dumb ass cowboy from Texas! He's just like one of us. He must
              be down-to-earth honest! I'm voting for him in November." Either
              that or he's just plain dumb and it serves him the same purpose.
                \_ Bush is not dumb, but he's a mile away from brilliant.
                   \_ Only a mile? I think you give him too much credit.
        \_ Bush surrounds himself with good people like Rove.
           That's what's good about Bush.
                   \_ Only a mile? I think you give him too much credit.
        \_ speaking of brilliant, Jimmy Carter was very intelligent
           president and look what he did.
           \_ What did he do?
           \_ Why can't we have both brilliant and charismatic?
                             \- you can but you also get bimbos for free.
              \_ Thomas Jefferson would be the one and only president
                 who qualified under that standard.
                 \_ Clinton was both brilliant and charismatic.
2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39959 Activity:nil
10/3    Freepers HATE on Miers.  I think she may have my full support!
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495585/posts
        \_  So the man hated by the left, and slowly abandonned by the center
            finally loses the support of the far right.  It almost makes you
            fell sorry for the stupid little fuck.
                \_ I'd feel sorry for him if I wasn't living in the country
                   he's running.
                   he's running^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfucking up.
2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39950 Activity:nil
10/3    Harriet Miers - what a disgrace when you have candidates such as
        Janice Rogers Brown or Owen.  Souter all over again.           -jblack
        \_ The Bush administration is mostly about cronyism.  --PeterM
        \_ Any other historical examples of a president nominating a judge
           based entirely on that judge's loyalty to the president?
        \_ I guess I'm a little behind on all this.  I thought we were
           supposed to hate Brown and Owen?  And isn't this someone Harry Reid
           wanted?  --confused
           \_ Define "we".  OP is probably a conservative.  And I agree with
              him. -emarkp
              \_ Now I'm *really* confused.  --*really* confused
                 \_ There were known judges who rule on the Constitution the
                    way conservatives think it should be done.  Bush wimped out
                    and didn't nominate them, favoring a woman who has no
                    judicial record.  This given the fact that Bush has
                    majorities in the Senate and House and conservatives have
                    won the last several election cycles.  If he can't nominate
                    a known conservative (say, like Scalia), then when can one
                    be nominated?  Especially given the fact that Ginsberg was
                    chief counsel on the ACLU when she was confirmed. -emarkp
                    \_ Maybe even BushCo worries about turning this country
                       into a polluted banana republic theocracy.
                       \_ Non-sequitur.  If Ginsburg can sit on the bench, Bush
                          should be able to nominate someone as conservative as
                          she is liberal. -emarkp
                          \_ Counter-non-sequitor. It amazes me that Clarence
                             Thomas sits on the Supreme Court.
                             \_ Thomas is Black.  Ginsburg is a woman.  What
                                does competence or philosophy have to do with
                                their presence on the Supreme Court?
                             \_ Glad to hear it.  Bush should have nominated
                                another justice like Thomas or Scalia.
                          \_ Republicans control basically every branch of
                             government, so why isn't Bush nominating a
                             frothing reactionary like Thomas or Scalia?
                             \_ Because he is doing very poorly in the polls
                                and does not want to pick another visible
                                fight. See, polls do matter, no matter how
                                some people want you to believe they do not.
2005/9/30-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39932 Activity:nil
9/29    http://csua.org/u/dki
        John Roberts sworn in to the Supreme Court.  Now Bush gets to
        nominate another ultra-conservative leave-it-to-beaver style nominee.
        Yay for us. -mrauser
        \- considering the number of Rs who voted for RBGINESBERG, i think
           it's hard to oppose the nomination of ROLBERTS CJ.
        \_ I have yet to see any concrete reasons for opposing the nomination
           of Roberts to the USSC. cf. Earl Warren who oversaw the japanese
           internment. (I'm assuming that you weren't opposed to the Warren
           ct).
           \- earl warren was also a stripper.
              \_ huh?
                 \- You're so naive.
                    \_ Mr. Beeblebrox, sir, you're so weird you should be in
                       movies.
        \_ I saw nothing wrong with the guy. He is decent, conservative and
           obviously brilliant. He is about the best you can hope for
           in a Republican. -ausman
2005/9/29-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39929 Activity:nil
9/29    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29cnd-court.html
        Libby allows Judith Miller to testify, reporter released after 3-month
        jail stint, to appear before grand jury tomorrow
        \_ doh, she received a full release last year!  More Jayson Blair
           news from the nytimes.
           \_ Guess it took 3 months in jail before Libby could tell her, hey,
              I really said you could talk, and that was a year ago!
              \_ I guess those conjugal visits from Bolton scared her straight.
        \_ DeLay indicted, now you will see Libby and Rove. A good week for\
           the reality based community.
        \_ DeLay indicted, now you will see Libby and Rove. A good week for
           the reality based community.
        \_ Did dubya said something like whoever leaked the info shall resign
           from the post.  I am waiting for Dick Cheney's resignation...
2005/9/28 [Transportation/Airplane, Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39916 Activity:nil
9/28    oh my, Pres. Bush while flying over oil Rigs..
        "It's like Atlantis down there..."
2005/9/28-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39914 Activity:nil
9/28    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-27-fishback-abuse_x.htm
        "Army Capt. Ian Fishback said he tried for more than a year to get his
        commanding officers to pay attention to reports of widespread abuses of
        Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops. But it was only after Fishback, 26, a
        West Point graduate, spoke to Human Rights Watch and several members of
        Congress that military investigators began to listen ...
        Fishback said his interest in reporting the abuses was sparked by
        congressional testimony ... Rumsfeld said that U.S. troops in Iraq and
        Afghanistan follow rules in the Geneva Conventions barring prisoner
        abuse ..."
        \_ Yeah, we should use harsh language instead. It works great against
           IEDs, hijacked airplanes, and suicide bombers.
           \_ Prisoner abuse has worked against IEDs, hijacked airplanes, and
              suicide bombers? Please elaborate. Your insanity will be pleasant
              to read.
              \_ works just about as well as your ability to detect sarcasm.
                 \_ So, what, you were using some kind of double-sarcasm? You
                    meant that the sarcastic suggestion that we should use
                    harsh language in some way pointed out the ineffective
                    nature of prisoner abuse? This is positively Byzantine!
2005/9/28-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39913 Activity:nil
9/28    http://csua.org/u/djq (andrewsullivan.com)
        Re CPT Fishback
        "[Rumsfeld said:] 'Either break him or destroy him, and do it quickly.'
        ... The scapegoating of retarded underlings like Lynndie England is an
        attempt to deflect real responsibility for the new pro-torture policies
        that go all the way to the White House."
2005/9/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39897 Activity:nil
9/27    Rumsfeld: Mr. President, yesterday 3 Brazilian soldiers
                  were killed.
        Pres:     That's terrible. [ long pause ] Exactly how
                  many is a brazillion?
2005/9/27-29 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Ilyas, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39888 Activity:low
9/27    Where is ilyas? Motd's been quiet lately without his drivels. Good.
        \_ He has an email address.  Mail him if you want to know.  Motd would
           be a lot better without anonymous trolls. -emarkp
           \_ You seem to be annoyed at anon trolls. Good. FUCK YOU. -anon
        \_ ilyas declared the motd beneath him and left in a huff.
           \_ When exactly?
              \_ Did you see the TASER DUEL thread?  It upset him deeply.
                 I think he's still biting his pillow somewhere.
                 \- It was a GUN DUEL. But John did not agree. There were no
                    takers for the TASERS.
                 \_ No, it has nothing to do with the TASER DUEL thread.
                    It's more like he asserted something stupid and is
                    too embarrased to admit anything so he aaron'ed himself.
                    FYI: Aaron was a pro Bush War zealot who wrote prolific
                    arguments for the war in 2003. A year later in the midst
                    of all the anti-war movements he decided to nuked the
                    entire wall archive, and with it, evidence of his
                    pro Bush War rhetorics. Aaron has not logged in since
                    the incident.
                    \_ ilyas's reasons for leaving weren't quite as obvious as
                       aaron's.  As the kchang link shows below, ilyas's last
                       motd thread was about pinning blame for the Katrina
                       response on state and local government.  After John told
                       him he could be less of a "sanctimonious fuckwit", ilyas
                       re-iterated his point, and then said, "Anyways, I think
                       I am done with the motd. It's finally turned into wall."
                       (John replied to this by clarifying that ilyas was
                       painting an incomplete picture by blaming only state/
                       local government, when all levels of government were at
                       fault.)
                       I also agree that the GUN DUEL fake post apparently
                       occurred after ilyas declared his intention to leave
                       motd, but perhaps cemented things.
                             \- Smells like ... VICTORY.
                       \_ I'm surprised he didn't do that earlier to be honest.
                          The problem with the motd is its resident population
                          of idiots, weirdos, and generally unpleasant humans.
                          Who make fake signed posts and form little fan/hate
                          clubs. Unlike other public forums the motd prevents
                          squishing these prokaryotes.
                          \_ Why would you?  Crazy people are funny.  -John
              \_ http://csua.com/?entry=39490
                 \_ It's amazing that CSUA motd has become so big that
                    there's an entire external website dedicated to
                    archiving its contents. My company's motd is just a
                    warning message saying that you will go to jail if
                    you steal company secrets.
        \_ It's clear to me that ilyas generates trolls, and talking about
           ilyas generates even more trolls.
                    \_ Like this?
                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                >>>                 NOTICE TO ALL USERS                     <<<
                >>>                                                         <<<
                >>> This system is the property of YerMom, Inc. It is for   <<<
                >>> authorized use only. Users (authorized or unauthorized) <<<
                >>> have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy.    <<<
                >>>                                                         <<<
                >>> Any or all uses of this system and all files on this    <<<
                >>> system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, <<<
                >>> audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized site,   <<<
                >>> operations and law enforcement personnel, as well as    <<<
                >>> authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic   <<<
                >>> and foreign. By using this system, the user consents    <<<
                >>> to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying,   <<<
                >>> auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion  <<<
                >>> of authorized site or operations personnel.             <<<
                >>>                                                         <<<
                >>> Unauthorized or improper use of this system may result  <<<
                >>> in administrative disciplinary action and civil and/or  <<<
                >>> criminal penalties. By continuing to use this system    <<<
                >>> you indicate your awareness of and consent to these     <<<
                >>> terms and conditions of use.                            <<<
                >>>                                                         <<<
                >>> LOG OFF IMMEDIATELY if you do not agree to the          <<<
                >>> conditions stated in this warning.                      <<<
                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
          \_ And how may trolls are generated talking about talking about ilyas
                generating even more trolls
          \_ And how may trolls are generated talking about talking about
             ilyas generating even more trolls
             \_ ilyas has generated a new category of troll, the meta-troll
2005/9/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39887 Activity:moderate
9/27    What do failed and humiliated politicians do? Do they sit at home
        and eat papas y drink beers and watch TV all day? Is that what
        Gray David and Al Gore are doing now? It's been a while since
        I've heard from these two losers. I wonder if they go through
        therapy or something.                   -bored and curious troll
        \_ Don't they go on the paid-speech circuit?
        \_ Al Gore saves people out of hurricane damaged areas on his own
           dime.
           \_ Yeah but how much coverage did he get on the media? Loser.
              \_ Erm, his withheld his name from the project so it wouldn't
                 turn into a political football.  he's a better man than all
                 of us.
                 \_ the MOTD needs to be Closed Captioned for the Humor
                    Impaired.
                    \_ No, MOTD "humorists" need to learn how to be "funny"
                       \_ You need to be able to detect sarcasm, whether or
                          not it's funny.
              \_ Well it's not really fair, he can't grab firefighters away
                 from their pamphletting jobs to walk around for the cameras
                 so it looks like he's doing something useful.
        \_ Al Gore has been giving speeches at the Commonwealth Club and
           the like. He is well loved by the DailyKos crowd. I have not
           heard one whit from Grey Davis. Let's hope he is fly fishing
           somewhere.
        \_ ALGOR taught some classes at UCLA and he serves on Apple's
           Board of Directors. Not sure what Gray is doing - probably
           enjoying all the money he got from the Enron.
           \_ I think Gray Davis is practicing law here in LA.
              \- i think many become influence peddlers of some kind ...
                 either as registered lobbists or as law firm partners.
                 i think some teach briefly at places like KSG but i doubt
                 those are long term careers.
2005/9/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39872 Activity:moderate
9/26    So, Katrina, Rita, what is the verdict?   I remember someone here
        on soda saying that federal government shouldn't get involved in
        hurrican relief.  I would like to hear your opinion on Bush's
        vast mobilization of federal resources *BEFORE* the Rita hits.
        Do you still believe that federal government should be hands off and
        let the state and local officials do their thing? and why.
        \_ I'm tired of this thread. Why don't you email jblack directly?
           And why are you obsessed with proving that you're right and
           they're wrong? A real conservative sticks to his guns and
           never flip-flops his position. In another word, a real
           conservative never admits anything wrong.
           \_ Apparently niether do real liberals.  That's why we call then
              "far"-left/right.  (Or extremists)
              "far"-left/right.  (Or extremists)                -jrleek
              \_ Hello, Mr. Conservative.
              \_ No, a real liberal flip-flops (changes his position) all
                 the time to gain the most advantageous views.
                 \_ A real liberal is reasonable to changing his mind
                    in the face of new evidence, but I don't call that
                    flip-flopping, I call it intelligence.
                    \_ Go Kerry the Master of Flip-Flopping!
                    \_ but every time a new opinion appears?
                       \_ Are you stupid or just stupid?
                    \_ Intelligent flipping.
                       \_ Intelligent flipping is a baseless myth. It's really
                          just the evolution of an opinion.
        \_ I am still waiting for answers.  I am not trying to embarass
           anyone, just curious on what is other point of view. -op
           \_ Complete government fuck-up all around, brought out the worst in
              "normal" people, those responsible should be sacked, shot and
              shot again, is that what you were looking for?  -John
        \_ Rita and Katrina prove one thing: the government is inefficient.
           Throwing more money at the government is not going to solve
           the problem. Look at the late 1800s. The fire department was
           privatized and they only had to put out fires for paying
           customers, and the end result was less idling firemen playing
           cards and more PROFITS. Let me ask you this. Today, except for
           the USPS which is not even funded by tax payers, which government
           agencies profit?
           \_ ...and lots of burned down cities, don't forget that.
              \_ Incomplete argument--burned down cities = economic output
                 dip = lower economic performance = impact on pocketbook of
                 those hiring private fire depts. = no more $$ to hire private
                 fire depts. = their houses burned down.  So does this mean
                 that funding a fire department is an example of Keynesian
                 economics?  -John
                 \_ What happens while your neighbor's house is on fire and
                    they aren't home?  Do you call your fire department (and
                    foot the bill)? Call around to try to determine which
                    fire department your neighbor has?  What happens when a
                    fire spreads from one building to another, such as from
                    a "paid up" warehouse to the apartment complex full of
                    poor families (likely not all paid up)?  -meyers
                    \_ I think you sort of missed my point, meyers.  -John
                    \_ (tongue in cheek since this is all silly) Presumably the
                       apartment complex or home owner's association would
                       charge a fire-fighting fee so you and your neighbor
                       would be on the same fire figther's network.  Then of
                       course there is the problem of who to call when you
                       see the apartment or house in the next neighborhood
                       on fire so we should really all band together to cut
                       costs and have a city wide fighter fighting company and
                       just charge a fee for it to reduce costs but of course
                       then another city upwind might be on fire and your
                       city directly borders theirs so really we should just
                       have a county wide fire department to better spread the
                       cost and since we all need it equally, hey let's just
                       have a 1/2 cent tax on all sales to fund it since an
                       individual share is to hard to calculate.
                       \_ Sounds like a tax to me.  -John
2005/9/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:39867 Activity:nil
9/25    Armed dolphins let loose by Katrina (not a joke)
        http://csua.org/u/di5 (UK Observer)
        \_ "Oh-oh. Sharks! The assassins of the sea! Oooh.  You're not sharks.
           You're dolphins.  The clowns of the sea."
           \_ Alcohol and night swimming.  Is there a better combination?
        \_ Snorky ... talk ... man ...
2005/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39848 Activity:moderate
9/24    What is the process for having a President declared mentally
        incompetent and removed from office?
        http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/0902.shtml
        \_ Haven't you learned anything? You can only be removed from
           office if you got a blow job from an intern. And even that
           isn't a sure bet.
        \_ Warning warning ultra left radical liberal rant alert!
           After watching this trash I need to cleanse myself by
           watching 5 hours of the O'Reilley show.
           \_ http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426
              Bush has apparently fallen off the wagon.
              \_ And after this news was reported, sales of Jim Beam Bourbon
                 Whiskey shot up by as much as 200%
        \_ You start by eradicating 51% of the mentally incompetent voters.
           \_ You mean eradicate all registered democrats? great idea.
        \_ You found it!  It's the smoking gun!  This fact filled article
           will surely be his downfall!  Congratulations!  This it it!
        \_ The "procedure" is given in Sec 4 of the 25 amd:
           "Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers
            of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress
            may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the
            Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
            written declaration that the President is unable to discharge
            the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall
            immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting
            President."
           Ask yourself, would you prefer Pres. Cheney to Pres. Bush?
           \_ "Poor guy, he blacked out and hit the ground and he was out for
              four seconds. Fortunately, those were the same four seconds that
              Dick Cheney was conscious yesterday." --David Letterman
           \_ I bet half the people here don't even know who the Senate Pro
              Tempore is.
           \_ Actually, I would. Cheney at least appears to be competent.
              \_ The man couldn't even cover up or spin his former company
                 getting no-bid defense contracts. How competent can he be?
2005/9/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39846 Activity:nil
9/23    Huh, I just heard on Coast-to-Coast AM that hurricane Katrina was
        caused by the Japanese Mafia.  Who woulda thought?
        \_ weatherwars.info.  Totally awesome.
2005/9/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:39842 Activity:low
9/23    German flasher flashed at an off-duty female police. Germany RULES!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050923/od_nm/germany_flasher_dc
        \_ In other countries, crazy lunatics who pose a threat to society
           are thrown in jail. In this country, they're rewarded with
        \_ In other countries, left-wing nuts who pose a threat to society
           are thrown in jail. During the dot-coms, they're rewarded with
           nuclear launch codes and the most powerful military in the world.
           Thank goodness they lost 2 elections in a row. GOD BLESS!!!
           \_ You're mistaken. Bush thought he could get intern hummers out
              of it, then Cheney said he'd only qualify if he had a second
              term. Now Bush pissed because all of the interns are males with
              two-day stubble. He hates stubble.
2005/9/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39832 Activity:nil
9/22    National Hurricane Center's image of Rita's "wind distribution":
        http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at3+shtml/023809.shtml?swath?large
        \_ Damn, Florida's getting fucked.
           \_ Florida???
2005/9/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39822 Activity:nil
9/22    More details on the Crawford Ranch:
        http://eyeball.sabotage.org/prez-eyeball.htm
        \_ BBC Map shows the hurricane is going directly to Crawford TX:
           link:tinyurl.com/ah5nv
2005/9/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39799 Activity:nil
9/21    Man, this is just fucked.  Amateur porn site offering free access to
        soldiers in exchange for photos of "fresh kills."
        http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/09/21/ntfu/index.html
        \_ Why is it fucked up? At least in Vietnam the soldiers had plenty
           of poon tang to satisfy their urges. In Iraq the soldiers feel
           bored and depressed. They need their poon tang.
           \_ Obviously you've never served.
           \_ Oh, they are meeting lots of local beauties according to my
              family that was there. The problem is that sometimes these
              girls have dads/brothers who are part of the insurgency. Is
              it worth getting killed for some poon tang?
           \_ You don't see anything fucked up about the proximity of graphic
              shots of a person's head destroyed by a 50 caliber machine gun
              and ads for a mother-daughter sex movie?  Ooooookaaaaay...
              \_ Yeah it's fucked up.  It should be brother-sister sex movie.
           \_ Maybe DoD could ship over some eager young republican girlies
              as comfort women.  -John
                \_ Finally a way for the Bush twins to serve their country,
                   and I'll bet they would excel at the task.
                   \_ Go for the Bushes' bushes!
                   \_ Isn't it hard to get booze & coke down there?  -John
2005/9/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Travel/Nola] UID:39794 Activity:nil
9/21    They still refuse to leave New Orleans
        http://csua.org/u/dgh
        "Only one person showed up at the convention center early Wednesday to
        catch a bus out"
2005/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39788 Activity:high
9/21    UNLEASH THE CHIANG
        http://tinyurl.com/al8c3
        \_ That's CHANG, without the I. There is a ***big*** difference you
           fucking ignorant shit.
           \_ Of course there's a difference.  danh has a sense of humour and
              you don't.
           \_ I intentionally spelled it Chiang.  Apparently Jeb's dad
              used to chant 'UNLEASH CHIANG' during horseshoe competitions,
              it's sort of a family in joke, 'unleash chang' was the slogan
              of people who wanted the US to back Chiang Kai-Shek's nationalists
              to invade the chinese mainland and drive out the communists.
           \_ you are the ignorant shit....
2005/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39779 Activity:moderate
9/20    http://tinyurl.com/bk4or (Yahoo news)
        Diversity (women, blacks, etc) changes the way justices see the
        world. Please don't delete this jblack. I already know what you think
        \_ never have deleted a thread, thanks.
           \_ I, on the other hand, have. Do I get freeper cookies?
        \_ I have never deleted a thread.
2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39778 Activity:nil
9/20    Able Danger, if true, is the biggest story of the year.
        Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist
        More collective ass covering by Washington elite....
        http://csua.org/u/dg7                           -jblack
        \_ OF COURSE!  HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!  CLINTON PROBABLY WAS
           CRANK CALLING NORAD ON SEP 11 AS WELL!!1
        \_ I agree insofar as "why bury it if it's that harmless/irrelevant/
           in the past".  Weird.  Anyway, Karl Rove (a political strategist)
           supervising Katrina reconstruction is the biggest story of the
           year. -moderate/liberal
        \_ Yeah, Katrina is SO yesterday. But Able Danger will pale next to
           rumors that that Hillary likes the occasional dirty Sanchez.
        \_ Why didn't Bush do anything about the Able Danger information?
           I have actually decided that the 9/11 Commission was probably
           mostly a coverup. The Democrats covered Clinton's ass and the
           GOP covered Bush's and neither side wanted to rock the boat. -ausman
           \_ Did you read the 911 comission report?  I think there was the
              potential for plenty of boat rocking in the report, but that
              few people read it, and most people don't have the attention
              span to get worked up about it. I did read the 911CR, and I
              certainly felt there was plenty of blame placed on both Bush
              and Clinton there--people really just don't care or notice.
                \_ If it's a flash of a tit, people notice!
              \_ I read it selectively. Chapter 8 "The System Was
                 Bliking Red" is pretty damning, I have to admit. -ausman
2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39761 Activity:low
`9/20   Dubya is incompetent not racist
        http://csua.org/u/dfp (Wash Post columnist)
        \_ Maybe he is not, but that doesn't change the fact that his
           party leads racists. "...There was more than a little truth to
            this at one time. The GOP, after all, became a safe haven for
            Southern bigots who fled the Democratic Party in the civil rights
            era."
           \_ I'd also go with:  "Dubya's incompetence fucked poor blacks.
              He let them down." (my own words)
           \_ when push comes to shove, there's probably a lot more racists
              in america then people are willing to admit
              \_ "than", not "then", you stupid immigrant!
              \_ Fun story on NPR where they went with Astrodome refugees
                 offered 6 months free housing in Houston. Most rejected
                 one spot because there were too many Mexicans. They wanted
                 someplace where they felt "more comfortable."
                 http://thislife.org
                 \_ Are the ones rejecting the spot white?
                    \_ Nope.
           \_ The president who freed the slaves was a Republican.  The first
              African American Secretary of State is a Republican.  The second
              African American Secretary of State is a Republican.
              \_ And more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than
                 Democrats.
                 \_ These two comments are so abysmally stupid it makes me want
                    to cry.
                    \_ Care to elaborate?
        \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
        \_ I agree with that.  Bush/Republicans don't really care about your
           skin color as long as you're rich and/or powerful, preferably
           both.  If it happens to be that the poor people aren't white, then
           it just looks like racism when he screws them over.
           \_ That's just plain stupid.  Bush/Republicans /do/ care about you
              irrespective of color/income.  From the article: "in his first
              presidential campaign, I traveled with him and tried, as he might
              say, to look into his heart. Conveniently enough, he sometimes
              wears it on his sleeve -- never more so, as I discovered, than
              when he talks about poor kids and racial and ethnic minorities.
              His feelings for them -- especially for poor kids -- are
              genuine."  Of course, I'm no longer a Republican so I guess
              you're not talking about me, right? -emarkp
              \_ When did you shift and why?
              \_ When did you shit and why?
                \_ Bush/Republicans believe the best way to help the poor is
                   by making the rich richer.  This will grow the economy and
                   give everyone a job and then everyone will be happy.  They
                   screw the poor over not because they don't like the poor
                   but because this doesn't work.
                   \_ Sure it worked. It worked from the glorious days of
                      Reaganomics when the super tax cut for the super rich
                      shifted our economy into 6th gear and saw the housing
                      and economic boom we have never seen since the 50s and
                      ultimately caused the demise of the evil Soviet
                      Union. Why do you hate Reagan?
                      \_ "Yoda, why you gotta be a playa hatuh?"
                      \_ We'll see how an economy built on suburban sprawl
                         and financed by equity cash-out loans deals with the
                         end of the era of cheap energy.
                         \_ Reagan didn't cause the suburban sprawl and the
                            rising cost of energy. Why do you hate the man?
                \_ Recently I reregistered as "no party affiliation" because
                   the party system is as broken as unions.  Basically the R's
                   as a group are selling out the country instead of solving
                   problems.  Then again, so are the D's. -emarkp
                   \_ Join the Green Party. We recycle, buy hybrids, and
                      try to bike as often as we can. I just got a scooter
                      last year. It's really cool.
                      \_ you know scooter pollutes more than a car, right?
                      \_ The main problem I have with Greens is that they tend
                         to be very myopic and almost obsessively focused on
                         a dangerously narrow set of issues.  While I count
                         myself as an environmentalist, I think there's a much
                         bigger picture to be considered that doesn't jibe
                         very well with the narrow Green body politic.  -mice
                      \_ I agree with some of the goals of the Greens, but I
                         think too many are just nuts. -emarkp
                   \_ I used to be a Democrat and now I feel exactly the same
                      way you do. I hate both R and D. But there is nothing
                      else left.
                      \_ If all the decent rational people leave the two major
                         parties, only winguts are left to vote in both
                         major party primaries.  It's self-perpetuating.
                         It's important to pick a party and vote in its
                         primary *especially* if you hate where the parties
                         are going and want to see them go in different
                         directions.
                      \_ My goal of leaving the party was to remove a bias
                         based on a letter.  I want to work harder on focusing
                         on what people say and do rather than a letter next to
                         their names. -emarkp
2005/9/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39758 Activity:nil
9/19    Bush disapproval at record high of 58%, while 67% disapprove of his
        handling of Iraq.
        For the first time, more Americans say that the labels "honest and
        trustworthy" and "a strong and decisive leader" do NOT apply to Dubya.
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-09-19-poll.htm
        \_ 59% now say Iraq War a mistake. I wonder where all the warmongers
           on the motd went. -ausman
           \_ I think Aaron's in Bellvue.  -tom
           \_ jblack is still trying to convince us ignorant liberals
              that his view point is correct and we're stupid and wrong
              by pointing out facts and figures from well respected
              web sites like Free Republic, Fox News, taemag, etc.
              Emarkp on the other hand is a different story. To recap,
              towards the end of 2004 emarkp point out why the Iraq War
              has made US and the world safer, that it was the right
              decision, and that we should all support our brave and
              wise commander in chief. Lately though he has been pretty
              quiet, either because he is still waiting for the shining
              moment that will prove Bush was right all along, or he
              simply doesn't like interacting with people who have very
              different perspectives than he does.
              \_ False dichotomy. -emarkp
        \_ "Just your best guess, do you think George W. Bush has taken steps
           to help victims of Hurricane Katrina mostly because he sincerely
           cares about the victims, or mostly for political reasons?"
           56% say ...
        \_ you know what, though, he still gets what he wants.  And i am not
           sure he really cares about the polls now that he is on his
           second term.
           \_ yeah, if the senate or the house goes Demo majority in '06, then
              conservatives will have someone to blame again!
2005/9/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39753 Activity:nil
9/19    Flamebait:
        http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/09/19/tomo/story.jpg
        \_ I don't know, I think better flamebait would be, "Tom Tommorow
           is so funny!  Check this out!"
        \_ That was actually pretty funny compared to previous ones.
        \_ Bush disapproval rating at record high 58%
           http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/bush.poll/index.html
2005/9/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39730 Activity:nil
9/17    NO congressman misuses rescue resources:
        http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1123495&page=1
        \_ Look, Jefferson is Democrat and black.  This is a story for
           freerepublic, not motd.
           \_ Mmmm.. fuck you, troll.
           \_ Why does it matter which party he belongs to?
              \_ Or the color of his skin?
                 \_ Because anyone who criticizes anyone other than white
                    Republicans on the motd is ridiculed and/or harrassed.
                    \_ Yeah, I see lots of ridicule and harassment in
                       this thread.  -tom
                       \_ Right, and because it didn't happen in *this thread*
                          that means it's never happened and pp is a moron.
                    \_ Oh, I wouldn't say ridiculed and harrassed.  We just
                       have no interest in discussing the foibles of the good
                       guys.  We'd have pages of discussion if Jefferson were
                       a Republican.
                       \_ Horse shit.  If some Republican no one had ever
                          heard of did something marginally unethical,
                          it wouldn't even be posted to the MOTD.  If it
                          was Delay or Santorum, that's a different thing. -tom
                          \_ Horse shit yourself. If this was a Republican,
                             your panties would be in a bunch calling for his
                             resignation and you know it.
              \_ Ask UC administration why the color of someone's skin matters.
2005/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39721 Activity:nil
9/15    WTF?  Why is Karl Rove in charge of the reconstruction effort?
        http://tinyurl.com/9cfx2 (washingtonpost.com)
        \_ Because about 15 minutes after the levees broke, this became a
           politcal issue.  And Rove is a political master.  Oh, and screw
           Biloxi and other cities that have been wiped out--they don't have
           enough black people or media coverage.  The national parties are
           worthless and the media are complicit.
           \_ Part of it is to soften his image, most of it is to redistribute
              patronage. There is a LOT of money to be handed out and many of
              the suggestions put forth by Bush's speech are pro-business,
              less social engineering. New Orleans is the blank canvas which
              the economic conservatives will be allowed to paint upon.
              \_ OH MY FUCKING GOD.  Wasn't Iraq supposed to be the blank
                 canvas too?!  Do it the conservative way, fine, because there
                 doesn't seem to be any way to prevent it, but at least do
                 it competently.
                 \_ Just give lots of $$$ to Halliburton and forget about it!
                 \_ This will be a lot better. No insurgents, better
                    accountants to hide things, and they own the local
                    government.
2005/9/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39698 Activity:kinda low
9/15    Reuter's Dan Rather moment?                             -jblack
        Reuters Photo Is A Fraud? matches neither Bush's or Condi's
        handwriting.  Reuter's admits to photoshoping.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485300/posts?page=1,50
        \_ The fact is, according to Reuters -- and this has not
           been widely reported -- President Bush did indeed take a
           bathroom break after passing the note to Rice.
           http://csua.org/u/dee
        \_ I don't get it.  Why is it a big deal that someone had to use the
           bathroom in a long meeting and wanted his subordinate to break the
           meeting for some reasonable period of time so everyone could take
           care of basic human functions?  Why would such a note make someone
           look silly as someone says below?  Why would Reuters waste precious
           bits showing us such a note on a *news* wire?  Where's the news?
           It must be that nothing important is going on in the world... oh
           wait.
           \_ even the most powerful man in the world needs to pass a note for
              a bathroom break!
           \_ For the same reason they show Ashcroft with the seminude statue
              of Justice behind him, because it is humorous. Ye gods! Does
              Katrina mean the end of irony and humor AGAIN ala September 11?
        \_ As usual, the freeper comments are a bit over the top.
           http://csua.org/u/de9
        \_ You are mis-using "photoshoping", which implies that the photo was
           faked up.  Photoshop was used to adjust the exposure / white
           balance so that the words could clearly be seen.
        \_ Great freeper story
           \_ "Great" as in "totally wrong"?  Or "Great" as in "Showing them
              for the small minds they are"?
                \_ The latter.  It just shows you that any evidence is
                   immediately suspect by freepers if it doesn't show their
                   dear leaders in the best light possible.
        \_ I noticed it was sharpened/contrast-enhanced or whatever but I doubt
           it's a fake. It is possible though that the top of the note was
           written by Condi and Bush is replying, which would make Bush look
           less silly.
           \_ Possible, yes.  Likely, no.
              \_ indeed, isn't bush silly enough as it is?
        \_ I didn't see why it was newsworthy at all.  But I can't see a
           problem with adjusting the contrast etc. of a photo.  -emarkp
           \_ not newsworthy.  tabloid-worthy though!
              \_ This is like Tucker Carlson accusing John Stewart's comedy
                 show of being "partisan hackery".
        \_ Fake handwriting?  If you're talking about the upper part of the
           note, the capital "M" of "May" and the "th" of "think" along with
           the Reuters story are enough to convince me it's not faked.
           Both forms of capital "I" are also in the first URL.
           http://www.sheilalowe.com/images/gwbush.gif ('99 GW Bush memo)
           http://csua.org/u/ded (Reuters close-up)
           \_ What is facinating is the mishmash of upper and lower case
              letters along with the random cursive letters. The note lacks
              a Rovian consistancy that one expects from this president.
              \_ I go with the earlier freeper explanation of "he really had
                 to go"
                 \_ It'd be cool if the doctored photo was a freeper plant
                    to make the liberal evil media look mean.  -John
2005/9/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39684 Activity:low
9/14    Bush may need a bathroom break? Is this possible?
  http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050914/ids_photos_ts/r404176213.jpg
  http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050914/ids_photos_ts/r2587077477.jpg
        \_ This needs to be posted on freerepublic.  Now now now.
           \_ Okay, I found one:
              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484660/posts
        \_ Oh, I just assumed he went around with a urine bag in his
           pants.
           \_ No, Condi carries it for him, duh!
              \_ and drinks the contents to give herself strength.
                 \_ that's just damn weird
        \_ Here he is winking at the Chinese premier. Wtf?
           http://tinyurl.com/8ffma
           \_ Damn, we elected this guy to represent the greatest nation
              on earth?
              \_ We as in 51% of the pure bred white-trash Americans.
                 \_ Only 64% voted so 33% of white-trash Americans.
        \_ The world's most powerful man is requesting for a bathroom break??
        \_ As much as I like to see silly Bush stuff -- This is just reality
           for being the President.  Every move is watched, anytime you need
           to do something or go somewhere there are logistics involved.
           \_ Somehow it's disturbing that the SoS is being asked to fetch a
              chamber pot.  You'd think there'd be a protocol officer around.
                \_ That would look good on a resume "potty protocol officer
                   for President"
2005/9/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39681 Activity:nil
9/14    Q: Pres. Bush, what is your opinion of Roe v. Wade?
        A: I don't care how people got out of New Orleans.
        \_ Damn, I was just about to post that.
2005/9/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39670 Activity:nil
9/14    Tom Delay: There's simply no fat left to cut in federal budget.
        http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050914-120153-3878r.htm
        \_ Isn't this the guy who's pretty clearly been taking bribes?
           \_ Apparently he's decided to go into comedy. " Asked if that
              meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr.
              DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority
              we've pared it down pretty good.""
                \_ Yes, I'm sure his campaign donors are being rewarded
                   as "efficiently" as possible.
2005/9/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39668 Activity:nil
9/14    "The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from
        $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization
        of despair."
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers
2005/9/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39667 Activity:nil
9/14    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050913/od_nm/life_manure_dc
        Using shit as a source of renewable energy
        \_ Equipment that burns gas made from manure?  Why not just burn the
           manure directly?  It has been done in the wild for centuries.

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers
2005/9/13 [Recreation/Travel/Nola, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Science/Disaster] UID:39662 Activity:nil
9/13    New Orleans: A Green Genocide
        http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19418
        \_ This is posted by jblack
2005/9/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39660 Activity:nil
9/13    Finger pointing/FEMA thread below reminds me of the following line from
        Plan 9 From Outer Space:
        LT HARPER: "Your guess is as good as mine, Larry. But one thing's sure.
        Inspector Clay is dead...murdered...and somebody's responsible!"
        \_ I don't think there's any evidence of competence in any of the
           governmental parties involved.  But I am also not comfortable
           due to the lack of evidence to say that any one governmental party
           is less competent than any other.  I suspect any such claim at
           this point would be ideological rather than factual.
           \_ I think it's safe to say that all parties in all sectors south
              of the Mason/Dixon line are less than competent.  I used to
              feel bad about this "predjudice", but the older I get, the more
              evidence I see of it.  This clusterfuck would not have happened
              in Boston or Seattle not becuase there's a FEMA conspiracy
              to fuck New Orleans, but because the police and other emergency
              service workers in those places see themselves as public servants
              and not as the biggest gang in the jungle.  Ask yourself why
              the NYPD didn't act like the NOPD on 9/11.  Because of the
              leadership of New York?  Maybe a little, but mostly because
              northern culture is simply, objectively better.  Every single
              NYPD cop had to make a personal choice to put their city before
              their own life, and every single NOPD cop had to make a choice
              to turn into a fucking barbarian the day order started to
              collapse.  The fucking southern trash are right that the schism
              in American culture is about values, they just got it wrong who
              has the values.
              \_ 9/11 NYC was a much different event than Katrina/NO.  Using
                 the response of *some* NOPD in a wide spread disaster as a
                 sign of all southerners being trash vs. NYC in a devastating
                 but physically localised disaster as a sign of the superiority
                 of northerns is, at best, simply inappropriate.  You really
                 think people in NYC are going to "come together and help their
                 fellow man" when the shit hits the fan on a wide scale?  Most
                 of them watched it on TV from home the same as the rest of us.
                 When you start tossing phrases like "southern trash" around
                 as generally applicable to a hundred million people, you only
                 diminish the rest of your points.  Same thing with phrases
                 like "every single NOPD cop had to make a choice to turn into
                 a fucking barbarian".  So every single NOPD cop was looting,
                 raping, and murdering people?  I think not and no reasonable
                 person is claiming that anywhere.  I know people who were
                 there at the superdome as first responders with food, water,
                 medicine, etc.  It wasn't the NOPD shooting at them.  It
                 wasn't NOPD raping children and shooting random innocents.
                 It was "their fellow man".  The same "fellow man" you'd find
                 in any wide spread disaster because that's what some people
                 really are when there's no legal structure to hold them back.
              \_ This is cool.  -John
              \_ I wouldn't judge the entire South by New Orleans. For
                 instance, Florida seems to be able to handle these
                 calamities. The truth is that Louisiana is an extremely
                 poor state and that the people living in and running New
                 Orleans in particular are corrupt and incompetent. I know
                 someone who lived nearby on the Mississippi coast whose
                 house was flooded and the situation there never deteriorated
                 like it did in New Orleans. Of course, those were mostly
                 law-abiding white folks with at least enough money to
                 get the hell out of there - but even the people who
                 stayed came together as a community to help each other.
                 New Orleans is many times larger than those towns, much
                 poorer, and the people are far less educated. Even so, the
                 people who stayed do not represent the entire city. Most
                 people got the hell out of there. The poor, elderly, and
                 criminally-minded are what remained.
           \_ I don't think any reasonable person is heaving blame exclusively
              at any one person - the fact is that the whole system failed.
              My hope is that this failure will lead to a larger conversation
              about how to make government work better and more efficiently -
              but my fear is that politics as usual will guarantee lots of
              expensive pork for the few, lots of opportunistic politics,
              and very little change for the better.  It's also quite alarming
              that in the four years after 9/11, the government (at all levels)
              seems to have become *less* competent at handling disaster and
              catastrophe.  Contrast the four years after 9/11, the amount
              of money spent, and what was accomplished, with the four years
              after Pearl Harbor.
              \_ Look at the finger pointing discussion.  There was clearly
                 a desire to exonerate the LA governor and place the blame
                 at FEMA's feet.
              \_ I think all levels of the government, both federal and state,
                 failed.  Like I said, I don't see any sign of competence
                 anywhere.  But the finger pointing discussion below is a
                 clear example of an attempt to exonerate the LA governor and
                 to place the blame at the feet of FEMA.
                 \_ Yeah, but it's the motd.  I said *reasonable people*. ;)
                    I also believe that the failure is systemic, a failure of
                    the current approach to government at state and federal
                    levels - but that's a discussion for another time.
                 \_ You know, there is a difference between the culpability of
                    state and local authorities and FEMA, because FEMA has
                    *no other reason for existence* other than disaster
                    planning and recovery.  The governor of Louisiana
                    was not elected on the basis of her ability to
                    prepare for and recover from disasters, while everyone
                    involved with FEMA *should* be in their positions
                    because of their abilities in this specific area.  -tom
                    \- by making the "clusterfuck" sound really bad, the
                       region will get a lot of fast tracked money.
                       spreading around "10,000 dead" is probably worth
                       a couple of billion. that moron brownie will cost
                       teh federal govt a couple of more billion. it's
                       too bad he didnt commit suicide like the JAL supervisor
                       after a JAL crash. of course given a lot of this will
                       flow to halliburton, it's not like some of the executive
                       branch people will care ... $2000 for a displaced
                       person, $200,000 to Halliburton Carpet Cleaning Service.
2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39659 Activity:nil
9/13    Funny finger pointing.
        "The updated Louisiana death toll came as Gov. Kathleen Blanco lashed
        out at the federal government, accusing it of moving too slowly in
        recovering the bodies.  ......  FEMA spokesman David Passey said he did
        not understand what the governor was talking about because, he said,
        the state asked to take over body recovery last week."
        http://csua.org/u/ddj (Yahoo! News)
        Blanco must be suffering memory loss from the flooding.
        \_ http://csua.org/u/ddk (AP)
           "Federal Emergency Management Agency has slowed down the process by
           failing to sign a contract with the company hired to handle the
           removal of the bodies, Houston-based Kenyon International Emergency
           Services. ...
           Blanco said the state would sign a contract with Kenyon, even
           though the body recovery is the responsibility of FEMA, because
           'I could not bear to wait any longer.'"
           \_ Of course, this article does not answer the FEMA claim that
              "the state asked to take over body recovery *last week*
              [emphasis added]".
              \_ state asked, but FEMA didn't respond
                 \_ Reference please.
                    \_ FEMA originally hired Kenyon based on a verbal
                       agreement, and Kenyon started work.  FEMA couldn't work
                       out an acceptable contract.  Kenyon threatened to pull
                       out since they were doing free work until they had a
                       signed contract.
                       State stepped in and signed.  State will pay Kenyon,
                       and ask federal for reimbursement later.  Look up "body
                       recovery" on http://news.yahoo.com.
                       \_ That's essentially what the AP article above said.
                          Missing is any reference to the state asking to
                          take over body recovery last week.  Note that the
                          AP article is dated *today*, missing is what exchange
                          took place between FEMA and the state *last week*.
                          So I have to repeat my request for a reference to
                          substantiate your claim that "state asked, but
                          FEMA didn't respond".  Note also that your claim
                          is contrary to claim by presumably another poster
                          below.  So did the state ask?  Did FEMA say no?
                          Did FEMA not respond?  And of course, references for
                          your claims, please.
                          \_ I didn't claim that, I'm someone else.
                             it's consistent with order of events below.
                             Basically, the point is that FEMA guy did
                             not dispute key statements from Blanco.  By
                             not disputing them, FEMA guy implies that
                             Blanco's claims are true.  What FEMA guy actually
                             does it make distracting comments that add
                             FUD -- but once again, do not contradict Blanco's
                             claims.
                             Did you go to http://news.yahoo.com and do what I asked
                             though?
                             \_ Mea culpa.  With all of us posting anonymously,
                                it's hard to keep track of who made what claim.
                                Unfortunately, all I have now is one claim
                                by a FEMA guy, and contrary claims by anon
                                MOTD posters to the contrary.  As lacking in
                                crediblity a FEMA guy may be, I think the anon
                                MOTD posters are even more lacking.  In case
                                of searching for references on yahoo, it is
                                hardly my place to find evidence for you to
                                prove your point.
                                \_ It's the VERY FIRST LINK if you do what
                                   I ask.
                                   \_ Then it's surely not difficult for you
                                      to post a reference.
                                      \_ then it's surely not difficult for
                                         you to go to http://news.yahoo.com, type
                                         in "body recovery", and click on the
                                         first link
                                         \_ At this point I must conclude that
                                            your link must not say what you
                                            claim it does if you are so shy
                                            about posting it.  I repeat that
                                            it is hardly my place to dig up
                                            evidence for you to prove your
                                            point.
                                            \_ at this point I conclude that
                                               you are too fearful of being
                                               wrong or of reading
                                               countervailing facts that you
                                               don't want to follow the steps
                                               I outlined
              \_ (1) FEMA slow
                 (2) State asks for responsibility "last week"
                 (3) FEMA says our responsibility
                 (4) State says fine
                 (5) FEMA slow
                 (6) State signs contract anyway
                 \_ Great.  Please show reference for points 3 and 4.
                    \_ Great.  Please show reference that says it didn't
                       happen this way.  Note what FEMA guy said does not
                       dispute this sequence of events.
                       \_ Well, there is one assertion by FEMA that the state
                          asked for body recovery responsibilities with the
                          additional statement that "the collection of bodies
                          is not normally a FEMA responsibility", and there
                          is one assertion by you that FEMA denied that
                          request.  FEMA guy may lack credibility, but surely
                          an anonymous poster on MOTD is even more lacking.
                          \_ an anonymous poster like yourself?
                             \_ Fair enough.  However, I am not anonymously
                                countering a statement by an identified source.
                                My anonymous word may not be worth more than
                                other anonymous words on MOTD, but they're
                                surely worth less than the non-anonymous FEMA
                                guy.  But so are other sources based on MOTD
                                opinion, insofar as none of us are on the
                                scene and privy to internal government
                                communication.
                                \_ hey dude, merge better.
                             anyways, the FEMA guy saying it's "not normally
                             a FEMA responsibility" just adds FUD, because
                             FEMA actually initiated with the verbal agreement
                             with Kenyon.  As such, they would be expected
                             to follow through on the written contract, which
                             they tried to, but failed to negotiate.
                             In any case, what FEMA guy said does not
                             contradict Blanco's claims -- he's just adding
                             FUD.
                             \_ Still, all we have is one FEMA guy claiming
                                one thing, and you claiming that FEMA denied
                                the state's request.  Who are we to trust?
                                Surely you must have gotten FEMA's denial from
                                a source.  Care to share that source with us?
                                Or is it privileged communication from an
                                insider?  Or were you there at FEMA's denial
                                and witnessed the event?  I am at a loss how
                                else you could have known.
                                \_ whoever said "denied"?
                                   and, merge better please.
                                   \_ Quoting from above, "(2) State asks for
                                      responsibility "last week"[,] (3) FEMA
                                      says our responsibility".  I summarized
                                      point 3 by saying FEMA denied the state's
                                      claim.  So the question remains.  How
                                      did the MOTD poster know about (3)?  From
                                      a published source?  From a privileged
                                      source?  Or did he witness it personally?
                                      \_ != "denied"
                                         \_ OK.  That hardly changes anything.
                                            So how did the poster know about
                                            (3)?  Published source, privileged
                                            communication, or personal witness?
                                         I should write though, that (3) is
                                         better phrased as "FEMA already had
                                         a verbal agreement, so it seems what
                                         happened is that state was waiting
                                         for FEMA to finalize the written
                                         contract"
                                         \_ Well, you should have, since this
                                            is a substantively different claim
                                            than (3) above.  Your new claim
                                            completely avoids your early point
                                            that FEMA claimed responsiblity.
                                            And how does your new claim address
                                            FEMA's claim that the state asked
                                            to take over body recovery?
                                            \_ I never disputed the claim
                                               that state asked FEMA to take
                                               over body recovery.
                                               See step (2) above.
                                               I can agree that reasonable
                                               observers could say my original
                                               (3) and my revised (3) are
                                               substantively different.
                                               \_ So you agree with the FEMA
                                                  spokesman after all?  Great.
                                                  \_ I agree with the statement
                                                     that Blanco asked for
                                                     responsibility.
                                                     The new (3) disputes the
                                                     idea that Blanco had
                                                     "memory loss", but
                                                     instead portrays what
                                                     the FEMA guy said as
                                                     distracting FUD.
                                                     \_ I don't think there's
                                                        evidence proving either
                                                        FEMA incompetence or
                                                        just confusion over the
                                                        handover of
                                                        responsibility.  And I
                                                        would hate to defend
                                                        either FEMA or LA
                                                        without evidence.
                                                  BTW, thanks.  This has been
                                                  a very honest exchange.
                                                  \_ Never again will I
                                                     oversimplify something
                                                     that shouldn't be.
                                                     I'll probably break that
                                                     promise later ...
2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39655 Activity:nil
9/13    Non-partisan Congressional Research Service says that Blanco took all
        steps in a timely manner to secure federal assistance.
        http://www2.dccc.org/docs/conyersgaokatrina.pdf
        \_ From the last paragraph titled "Conclusions", "it would appear
           that the Governor did take the stgeps necessary to request
           emergency and major disaster declarations... In response to the
           Governor's requests, it appears that the President did take the
           steps necessary to trigger the availability of Stafford Act
           emergency and disaster assistance...".   Your summary, while
           correct, appears incomplete and misleading.  Nice try though.
           \_ There's been various assertions in the media that she didn't
              respond in a timely manner - hence the link.  Nice try, though.
              \_ Just as there have been various assertions here and in the
                 media that Dubya didn't.  You're still being misleading by
                 just mentioning the one and ignoring the other.
                 \_ Uh, no.  The reflection on Dubya is 1) that he nominated
                    incompetent cronies to head the responsible agencies, and
                    to a much lesser extent, 2) when those agencies were
                    floundering, rather than prod them to quicker action, he
                    went to McCain's birthday party.
2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39654 Activity:nil
9/13    go bush!
        http://community.webshots.com/photo/414846943/415162080JEfWnC
        http://community.webshots.com/photo/414846943/415161998ZseeBi
        http://community.webshots.com/photo/414846943/414762120hUjBZU
        http://community.webshots.com/photo/414846943/414903120yxipYR
        http://community.webshots.com/photo/418168700/418168700JOWorQ
        \_ Your point?
        \_ Yup, go for her bush!
           \_ Probably waxed.
              \_ Q: What are bushless bushes?
                 A: Jenna and Barbara, waxed.
2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39650 Activity:low
9/13    "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all
        levels of government, and to the extent the federal government didn't
        fully do its job right, I take responsibility" -Dubya
        \_ It finally took him how many years to own up to his problems?
        \_ Hell has frozen over.
           \_ Read carefully what Dubya said.  All he said was "I am not saying
              I did anything wrong myself.  But insofar as I am the executive
              head of the federal government, and the federal government
              screwed up, I will accept blame for that."  OTOH, the non-
              partisan Congressional Research Service report said Dubya did
              all he was supposed to do, so maybe he's not to blame.  Yeah, OK.
              \_ I agree with guy who said "Hell hath frozen over"
              \_ I agree with guy who said "Hell has frozen over"
        \_ Bush is becoming a very very bad conservative. As one, you
           should never, ever admit a mistake.
           \- i hardly think this is a "conversion on the road to biloxi"
              i think this is rove, not jebus.
           \_ Actually, in this political climate, nobody should admit
              mistakes, since their partisan enemies will attack them for
              anything.
                \_ "The people who don't want to play the blame game are
                    to blame"
2005/9/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39645 Activity:moderate
9/12    "The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael
        Brown, has resigned, two administration sources told CNN today."
        \_ Overheard in an elevator conversation between a white woman
           and a black woman in Los Angeles just 15 minutes ago:
           "Did you hear?  The head of FEMA resigned"
           "Huh?"
           "FEMA ... you know Michael Brown?"
           "?"
           "That guy fuckin' killed those people"
           "... Are you going to drop off that paperwork later?"
           "... Yeah ..."
           \_ Which begs the question: which woman said what?
              \_ Actually it *raises* the question you illiterate schmuck.
           \_ interesting report. so let me see guess how this plays out
              in your head. "black woman didn't know about FEMA. but her
              people are DYING! in fact, FEMA is KILLING THEM! why doens't
              she care? it's HER people. she's BLACK. those people dying are
              black! I'm asian. do they have no empathy?" i hope someone
              sends me a note when you die, so i can come piss on your grave.
2005/9/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39642 Activity:nil
9/12    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1103581,00.html
        "... aides and outside allies concede, is what many of them see as the
        President's increasing isolation. Bush's bubble has grown more hermetic
        in the second term, they say, with fewer people willing or able to
        bring him bad news--or tell him when he's wrong. Bush has never been
        adroit about this. ... The result is a kind of echo chamber in which
        good news can prevail over bad--even when there is a surfeit of
        evidence to the contrary."
        \_ There appears to be an eery similarity to the US and Russia right
           now ... Remember that sub that got stuck and the wife of one of
           the sailors inquired if they would be ok and the response was
           "This is Russia.  Pray!" ... And only until she blew the story in
           the media did they get saved ... See any parallels?
           \_ Oh yeah, that's the same thing alright. Esp with the
              SUBSAFE progarm and the DSRV the Navy has.
                \_ Doomed people until the media forces the government to get
                   off their collective asses?
           \_ ilyas to thread.
        \_ "You're doing a heck of a job, Georgie!"
2005/9/12-14 [Science/Disaster, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39639 Activity:nil
9/12    Maybe the Federal response wasn't as slow as we think:
        http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm
        \_ I don't trust the fact-checking ability of someone who writes that
           Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002.
           \_ Plus the levees broke on Monday, not Tuesday.
        \_ "We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like
           you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and
           waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree
           while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort
           were studying engineering."
           Yeah, I'm sure this "journalist" isn't trolling.  -tom
           \_ Man I wish there was some technology that allow us to fly in
              supplies and troops into places with no airstrips. I've seen
              things like that on some SciFi TV shows like MASH.
              \_ :-)
              \_ And why couldn't they find any choppers, I wonder?
                 \_ bush had em loaned out to his buddies?
2005/9/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39638 Activity:nil
9/12    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/site/newsweek
        "Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with
        disloyalty. After five years in office, he is surrounded largely by
        people who agree with him. ... When Hurricane Katrina struck, it
        appears there was no one to tell President Bush the plain truth:
        that the state and local governments had been overwhelmed, that the
        Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was not up to the job and
        that the military, the only institution with the resources to cope,
        couldn't act without a declaration from the president overriding all
        other authority."
        \_ link:tinyurl.com/cly9r [nyt] .  Yes, but in addition to that:
           "But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco
           would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration
           officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty
           combat forces before law and order had been re-established...
           'Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of
           the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the
           female governor of another party the command and control of her
           forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that
           she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that
           lawlessness was the inevitable result?' asked one senior
           administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks
           were confidential."
           \_ He didn't have to do anything pre-emptively.  They put in the
              request for federal help BEFORE the storm hit.
              \_ LA requested federal help, but the governor did not
                 relinquish control over the National Guard (and still hasn't,
                 last I checked), which Bush & co. believed "would have been
                 required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and
                 order had been re-established".  If you read carefully, it
                 would have been clear that the "pre-emptively" referred to
                 taking control of the National Guard.
           \_ Politics are more important than anything!
              \_ Apparently, since Blanco *still* would not relinquish of the
                 National Guard!
                 \_ And yet Bush & Co. didn't have the imagination to
                    federalize them without her permission ala the Kennedys.
                    All of that excutive power of the President and he can't
                    figure out how to use it.
                    \_ Yah.  I hate Bush but he should be declared King!
2005/9/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39634 Activity:kinda low
o9/12   Tom Delay to evacuee kids: "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind
        of fun?"
        http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/3346041
        \_ That's nice troll. Why don't I start posting some of race-baiting
           hate-filled comments Demos spout all the time that don't get
           reported? Why don't I quote it out of context as well.
           \_ What, like that John McCain has a black baby? Oh, wait, that
              was Republican race-baiting.
           \_ Indeed, why don't you?
        \_ What's wrong with what he said ... I'm sure to a lot of kids that's
           true, their perspective is vastly different.  The kids after WW2
           loved playing in the ruins, for example.
           \_ And it only cost them the occasional father.
                \_ There usually is a disconnect there that we don't have.
        \_ I thought that's the right way to lessen kids' pain.  For example,
           when my 1-yr old son trips and falls on the ground, if I rushed to
           him and comforted him and said things like "Does it hurt?  Are you
           alright?" he would start crying.  So now I changed to putting up a
           smile and say things like "Yeah, cool."  Then he won't cry and he'll
           get up by himself and go on.
2005/9/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39622 Activity:nil
9/10    http://tinyurl.com/c4xq2    Bush debates with Bush
2005/9/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Science/Space] UID:39621 Activity:kinda low
9/10    Military pilots reprimanded for saving lives:
         http://csua.org/u/dc8 (New York Times)
        \_ This story is fishy on two parts. Their motto
           belongs to Air Force Pararescue Jumpers, not Navy
           unit. And for those that have never served, their
           CO is technically correct. Orders above all else. For you
           "compassionate" civilians who dont understand black and white.
        \_ Err, the pilots weren't reprimanded.  They were mildly scolded by
           by their CO for not fulfilling their primary mission.  Only very
           late in the day did they seek out permission (which was granted)
           to abandon their primary mission.
           \_ "Kennel duty".  Sure.  -John
2005/9/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39618 Activity:nil
9/10    In the face of the Katrina disaster, Bush pulls out the big gun
        that worked really well in the past-- evoking memories of 911.
        In another news his rating to go up, news at 11.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4233266.stm
        \_ The Uprise Against Establishment movement will now fail. You
           lazy fuckers need to learn from the 60s and 70s. 68 especially.
           Overthrow Bush for a brighter tomorrow!!!
2005/9/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39616 Activity:nil 50%like:39405
9/10    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050910/pl_nm/contracts_dc
        Halliburton and many other Bushco's to rebuild New Orleans. Yay!
2005/9/10-12 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39613 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto
9/9     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4218536.stm
        Read the last comment by Paul, Atlanta, USA. Hey Justin Black,
        is that your best friend from high school?
        \_ Do you mean Zachery?
           \_ They took Paul out. BBC censors!!! It was written in the
              purest jblack style, with that "It's the poor people's fault
              because they're stupid and lazy and they deserve to die" tone.
              That, followed by something to the effect of "Go Bush!"
2005/9/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39612 Activity:nil
9/9     I don't understand... I thought Bush was padding Michael Brown's
        back & told him he did a good job, now he is sacking him so the blame
        won't reach to the President?
2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39611 Activity:nil
9/9     Bush is going to lead the Katrina inquiry. I'm sure that's going to
        turn out to be fair and balanced. Bring it on, mission accomplished,
        and God Bless.
2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39605 Activity:nil
9/9     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4228940.stm
        Yes! YES! Uncensored criticism to Bush and his cronies to be aired
        on US broadcast network. People, wake up, IT IS TIME to speak out,
        to protest and to fix the fabrics of our corrupt society. It is time
        to learn the truth, for it is truth that will liberate yourself from
        the shackles of the current policies and power structure. Come out
        with me. Come join Cindy Sheehan. Come join all the other brave
        citizen soldiers of truth and freedom who are about to create the
        biggest protest America has every seen. Come on yall big strong men,
        Uncle Sam needs your help again, he's got himself in a terrible jam,
        way down yonder in Iraq. So put down your books and protest. Light
        up your incense. Good sense, innocence, cripplin' and kind. Who
        cares what games we choose? Bushco has little to win, but nothing to
        lose. Beatniks and politics, nothing is new. A yardstick for lunatics,
        one point of view. Join me for harmony and understanding, sympathy and
        trust abounding, no more falsehoods or derisions, golden living dreams
        of visions. Come join me. Come join the revelation.
        \_ Nice troll, but it could use some editing.
        \_ Why do you hate America?
        \_ "He also claimed the US was not set up "to help the poor, the
            black people, the less well-off". How do they let this kind of
            crazy radical talk end up on the air? If I had my way, you'd
            all be shot!
2005/9/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39602 Activity:nil
9/9     Bush batting average calls for new coaches (think 0.333 is good?):
        http://tinyurl.com/a6a39
2017/10/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/18   
Results 1201 - 1350 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
.