Politics Domestic President Bush - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush:
Results 1351 - 1500 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2019/05/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2006/5/17-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43080 Activity:nil
5/16    Some interesting numbers at the end
        See:  what's your religion, are you liberal/conservative/moderate
        \_ Wait, if the early 80s was strongly Dem, why the fuck did Reagan
           win? Reagan is a charming guy but his policies totally suck.
           And look at Q909, "what was the last grade of school you completed"
           21% attended some college and 21% attended grad school, and 10%
           attended post-graduate. How can you have as many grad school as
           college when the % of people going to grad school is much less
           than college? And 21+21+10 or 52% of the people who did the poll
           have college degrees or higher. This is totally not representative
           of our redneck Jesus loving Americans that mostly voted for
           rednecks like themselves. The survey methodology is flawed.
2006/5/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43067 Activity:nil
5/15    Bush Administration has been spying on reporters phone calls:
2006/5/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43066 Activity:nil
5/15    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPu19jOcJF4 (from http://drudgereport.com)
        CNN confused that Dubya had already started his immigration speech and
        switches to his feed, when in fact Dubya was only rehearsing.  Or, the
        official story that an NBC guy told Dubya to start and someone else
        told him to stop.
        \_ What gets me about the whole address -- has Bush never been to Socal?
           \_ what about it?
2006/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43065 Activity:nil
5/15    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html
        "The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking
        reporters phone records in leak investigations."
        \_ No seeking needed anymore, just a quick NSA database query ...
           Does anyone honestly not believe the final destination for all these
           programs is a police state the PTB in communist East Germany could
           be proud of?
           \_ National security letters were only supposed to be used for
              terror suspects and spies.  The FBI does not need to consult a
              judge to obtain an NSL.  With the Patriot Act, NSLs may be issued
              for anyone, not just terror suspects and spies.  With the Patriot
              Act, NSLs may be issued by FBI field offices, not just FBI senior
              What can be obtained from an NSL?  Issued primarily to
              businesses (like phone companies, ISPs, and e-commerce sites)
              and government entities (like libraries), the entity is
              compelled to provide phone records, financial data, Internet
              access history, etc., although wiretaps are not included.
              The entity is also forbidden from disclosing the fact that you
              have been probed.
              So, if there were an investigation into the leak on CIA secret
              prisons in Europe, an FBI field office could issue an NSL to
              SBC to provide phone records on who the NY Times and Washington
              Post reporters have been talking to.  There is no explicit
              restriction on what the data can be used for, once obtained.
              In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing
              policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent
              U.S. citizens once an investigation closed, permitting entry into
              a permanent database.
                \_ My point was that with the new NSA domestic "keep track of
                   every call ever made" spying database, the extra step of
                   going to the phone company is no longer necessary. -pp
                   \_ I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding info.  fyi,
                      the total-information-awareness phone record dumps were
                      not via NSL or FISA -- it was just the NSA asking
                        \_ Yes they are all different mechanism, but there is
                           no denying that everything is moving towards more
                           surveillance and less court oversight.
2006/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43064 Activity:nil
5/15    http://www.nysun.com/article/32727
        "The story is a complete fabrication," the spokesman for Mr. Rove, Mark
        Corallo, told The New York Sun. "It is both malicious and disgraceful."
        [Rove reportedly served with an indictment]
2006/5/15-18 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43059 Activity:nil
5/15    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/15/britain.chavez
        Chavez says "capitalism is extreme individualism, which is using up
         the world's non-renewable energy reserves at an alarming pace...
         the fact that 90 percent of vehicles carry no more than one person
         is a stupid thing... Our planet will not put up with this... We're
         all in peril... Bush has committed genocide and should be
         imprisoned by an international criminal court."
        Many people in Berkeley, including me, agree with everything this
        dillusional crook has said up to this point, which is quite
        disturbing. Are we considered unpatriotic liberals who should be put
        into secret jails?
        \_ Almost everyone in Berkeley is a communist. Just look at their
           hippie shirts, tie die VW, bicycles, and stinking BO from a
           feeble attempt to save water and the environment.
        \_ Look up genocide, and yeah, individualism = bad.  -John
        \_ "A broken clock is right twice a day"
        \_ Messenger != the message.  No politician in their right mind and
           in a position of power in the US can get away with saying stuff
           like that, no matter if it's true or not.  He also said
           that the twin towers used more energy than "some African nations"
           which is an interesting statement, and might be true.  Anyone know?
           As for Bush being the "worst genocider" or whatever, that's clearly
           not true (Darfur?), although he's definitely in the top 3.
           \_ Definitely in the top 3?  Wow.  Do they even teach grade-school
              level history any more?  Clearly critical thinking skills are
              out the window.  You might be confused -- "genocide" != "politics
              I don't agree with".
           \_ Well the entire Venezuela consumes more energy than the twin
              towers, so we should send suicide hijackers to demolish it.
           \_ How has Bush committed genocide?  Or do you just not know
              what the work means?
                \_ Well killing thousands of people definitely helps, although
                   technically it's not genocide since Bush doesn't give a
                   shit what race/ethniticity they are, they are parked on his
                   shit what race/ethnicity they are, they are parked on his
                   \_ Uhm, I think the dictionary definition part of genocide
                      has more to do with it being "not genocide".
                   \_ Then why did he/you say it is genocide? It isn't.
        \_ Genocide's hard to prove in this case, but watch The Dimming Sun
           and, taking into account the US's refusal to sign Kyoto, say we won't
           end up being responsible for a lot of death and destruction.
        \_ There are no true enviromentalists. They are all hypocrites.
           The fact is you want to breed. And breed you will. Until you dig
           a hole in the ground and off yourself (no coffin allowed!) then
           you can't be a true enviromentalist. No recycling drives, hybrid
           cars and other delusional, half-hearted attempts will change this.
           The only way to 'save the earth' is to eliminate humanity.
           \_ You conclusion is, to put it mildly, pretty fucking stupid.  Work
              your troll skillz, young grasshopper.
              \_ How is it stupid? How is it wrong?
           \_ Unless you're living this life, your words are hollow. Kibbitzing
              on how people you don't like should live the lives you don't
              like is lame.
2006/5/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43044 Activity:nil
5/13    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml
        "Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff
        Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration
        officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will
        immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel
        publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources."
        \_ I like how the entire Republican party has been taking Bush's lead
           on the whole "never admit when you've done something wrong" thing,
           starting w/ the Dukester loudly proclaiming his innocence and
           heaping scorn on the partisan politics of those who would accuse him
           ...until the evidence was finally overwhelming.
        \_ Joshua Bolten, a white Jayson Blair?
           \_ Because what was important about Blair was he was black.  You
              know how it is, let those black folks think they are the same
              as whites and they will just stab you in the back.  What The
           \_ Um, isn't this about Jason Leopold, not Joshua Bolten?
2006/5/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43036 Activity:nil
5/12    Wash Post and ABC News conduct overnight poll showing 66% of those
        polled wouldn't mind if the NSA had a record of phone numbers they
        had called.  63% also say they feel it's acceptable (41% strongly so)
        for the NSA to collect phone records of tens of millions of Americans
        to investigate terrorism.  http://csua.org/u/fu4 (Wash Post)
        \_ In other news, Americans are idiots.  -tom
           \_ :)
        \_ You know, I don't mind the fact that the database has been
           collected.  I think it is a minimally invasive way to get intel
           on associates of suspected terrorists.  What bothers me is
           the high-handed unaccountable way Bush did it.  He didn't
           go for any judicial review, warrants, nothing.  Not feeling
           yourself bound by convention, not believing anything limits
           your power, those are characteristics of a tyrant.  --PeterM
        \_ In other news, only 29% still support the Chimposter:
           \_ sloppy reporting from Reuters et al.  Good+Excellent vs.
              Fair+Poor is not the same as Approve vs. Disapprove.
        \_ http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008453.php
           53 Percent believe that the NSA has gone too far.
2006/5/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43032 Activity:nil
5/11    http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000905.html
        Bush vs. Nixon.
2006/5/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43022 Activity:nil
5/11    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511/ap_on_go_co/murtha_interview_1
        Murtha predicts U.S. troops will be brought home by end-2007, and also
        predicts there will be a "tidal wave" in November with Dems gaining
        40-50 House seats, unless Dubya brings back more than half the troops
        before then.
2006/5/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43017 Activity:nil
5/11    http://csua.org/u/fti (wsj.com)
        Star conservative judge J. Michael Luttig gives up lifetime federal
        appeals court seat to become General Counsel for Boeing, partly because
        of disillusionment by the encroachment of politics on the judiciary
        sources say
        How to resign without ruining your career prospects:
        link:csua.org/u/ftn (timesdispatch.com)
        "[by phone] I've been on the court 15 years. It's a long time. This
        opportunity came up, as I said in my letter to the president, by
        serendipity and I thought about it a long time with my wife and we just
        decided that it was time for a change. [via letter] I want to express
        my heartfelt thanks to your father ..."
        \_ Maybe it's just true?
2006/5/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43016 Activity:nil
5/10    NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls
        http://csua.org/u/ftd (Yahoo! News)
        \_ Need the phone records for a terror suspect?  No need to present
           evidence to the phone company to get 'em -- you already got it!
           The last thing we need is a mushroom cloud over a major American
           \_ What, you're willing to trade any freedom, tolerate any
              oppression, just so that someone can't nuke a US city?  Guess
              what:  they'll still be able to nuke the city, but politicos
              will be able to use the information for personal purposes.
              Just look at the antics of the FBI under Hoover.
              \_ I like how Al Franken put it this morning:
                 "What President Bush doesn't realize is that the next guy in
                 office might not be as trustworthy as him ..."
                \_ he's right. it's gonna be Hillary.. we are all screwed
                   \_ Man, berkeley's standards seem to get lower every year.
                      \_ Seriously, pp doesn't even remember history from
                         8 years ago.
           \_ obTrollbait.
        \_ http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/105237.shtml?s=ic
           Carl Limbacher of http://newsmax.com says, "USA Today NSA Scoop Not News".
           Now tell me what's wrong with this article.
           \_ OMG!!!11! it's all CLINTON'S FAULT!!! WHY DIDN"T I THINK OF THAT?
              Fuck off and die.
           \_ I'm replying to myself, but key problems with the article are:
              (1) The Clinton-era program had FISA approval and focused on
                  international surveillance
              (2) The program under dispute is ALL domestic.
              (3) Qwest asked for a FISA review before turning over records,
                  but the NSA didn't want to ask FISA.
              (4) Dubya is trying very hard not to let this undergo judicial
                  scrutiny, perhaps not until a Democrat takes power, to
                  decide the issue of whether the "unitary executive" theory
                  enables Dubya to break laws as commander-in-chief in a time
                  of war ("interpret differently via signing statement")
                  \- have you read the standard article on signing statements?
                     i had not really heard of them until last year. these
                     seem crazy to me ... consdered in light of say
                     CLINTON v CITY OF NEW YORK. --psb
                     \_ yep.  the interesting aspect to me is the different
                        ways they've been keeping it from judicial review.
                        \- the new view of limited govt: no judicial review.
                                \_ We'll just limit the government part that
                                   keeps the other government part from
                                   becoming unlimited.
2006/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43005 Activity:nil
5/10    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629936/posts
        Freepers respect power.  Dubya has lost substantial amounts of it.
        \_ Bush is a "moderate" according to freepers.
2006/5/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43003 Activity:nil
5/10    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12721154
        Bush: Brother Jeb would be 'great president'
        \_ If you can't keep the White House in order, might as well keep it
           in the family.
        \_ Didn't he say something similar about Porter Goss? Michael Chertoff?
           Tom Ridge? Harriet Miers?
2019/05/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2006/5/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42992 Activity:nil
5/9     Froomkin admits error in saying Hayden was wrong about 4th Amendment
        http://csua.org/u/frw (Wash Post)
        He should have taken the motd approach:  Say probable cause applies to
        warrants, and you can search without a warrant as long as it's
        reasonable:  like when cops do a pat-down without a warrant, or when
        Dubya says so.
        \_ "So I guess it's conceivable that Hayden's view is not an
            out-and-out misinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment. But at the
            very least, it's certainly an activist way of looking at things."
           Calling this admitting error is not an out-and-out misinterpretation
           of it, but it's certainly a wishful way of looking at it.
           \_ my main beef was that Froomkin didn't get it right the first
              time.  instead he follows with a clarification and loses impact.
              i do acknowledge Froomkin didn't exactly fess up to a mistake.
              \- boy initially i thought you were talking about the law
                 prof [who works with EFF] MICHAEL FROOMKIN and it would
                 have been kinda interesting to see him back down. oh it looks
                 like that columnist maybe the BROTHER of MFROOMKIN.
2006/5/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Law/Court] UID:42968 Activity:nil
5/7     NIA Deputy Director General Michael Hayden: No probable cause mentioned
        in the 4th Amendment. Easily refuted.
        \_ Probable cause applies to warrants.
           You can search without a warrant, as long as it's reasonable, like
           when a police officer pats you down for weapons if he or she has a
           reasonable suspicion you might endanger them, orwhen  Dubya says so.
           reasonable suspicion you might endanger them, or when Dubya says so.
           \_ ...also called probable cause.
              \_ do your homework:  http://csua.org/u/fr5 (flexyourrights.org)
              \_ do your homework
                 http://csua.org/u/fr5 (flexyourrights.org)
                 http://csua.org/u/fr6 (findlaw.com)
                 "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the
                 circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or
                 that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search
                 for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and
                 dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether he has
                 probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the
                 absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
                 (a) Though the police must whenever practicable secure a
                 warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot
                 be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot
                 observations of the officer on the beat is required. ..."
                 This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a
                 'stop' and a 'frisk' amount to a mere 'minor inconvenience
                 and petty indignity,' which can properly be imposed upon
                 the [392 U.S. 1, 11] citizen in the interest of effective law
                 enforcement on the basis of a police officer's suspicion."
                 Can't blame you for not knowing, though, since it took a
                 Supreme Court challenge to resolve this ... in '68.
                 \_ "5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the
                    circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety
                    or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable
                    search for weapons of the person believed by him to be
                    armed and dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether
                    he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime
                    or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed."
                    Please to be pointing out where this applies to wiretaps.
                    \_ "when Dubya says so"
                       so, do you acknowledge you were wrong about "also called
                       probable cause"?
                       \_ Am more inclined to quibble endlessly with you about
                          whether said "probable cause" in this case is the
                          suspicious behavior of suspects, but suspect that
                          we're of more similar than dissimilar mind.
                          \_ eh, I've been kind of doing a Colbert thing, so
                             you're right about that part.
2006/5/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42967 Activity:nil

        By Doug McIntyre -
        Host, McIntyre in the Morning
        Talk Radio 790 KABC

        There's nothing harder in public life than admitting
        you're wrong. By the way, admitting you're wrong can be even tougher
        in private life. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or
        Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it's out
        there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it.

        So, I'm saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush.
        In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term
        President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also
        believe a case can be made that he's the worst President, period.

        If the Right Wing talk radio blowhards have turned against him,
        is impeachment really that far feched a possibility?
        \_ You obviously have been paying attention politics only as far
           as Clinton. The constituents of talk show hosts (left or right)
           are not the same as the members of Congress. Things move slower.
2006/5/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42952 Activity:nil
5/5     Bush-appointed CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigns (instead of
        taking the usual "more time with the family" retirement/job switch)
        \_ queueing jblack and conservatives on motd to support your
           people. Waiting for you guys to state something to the effect
           that Bush's problems are attributed to Clinton and liberalism.
        \_ Maybe there was something to those new Watergate rumors.
        \_ uh, really?
           \_ Is it the hookers or just the bribery?  Bush sure can pick 'em.
              \_ ob anal rapists
        \_ amazing all of the publicity Mary Mapes (some erudition for you -
           appointed by Berger with ties to Plame) has received.
           Vitiates sedition labels Dems receive.
2006/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42950 Activity:nil
5/5     Surprise, the establishment's propaganda IS effective
2006/5/3 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42924 Activity:nil
5/3     What GWB has to say about today's trial:
        "Our cause is right, and the outcome is certain:
         Justice will be served. Evil will not have the
         final say. This great Nation will prevail." -GWB
2006/5/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42902 Activity:nil
5/2     http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/02/hurricane.plan.ap
        Nagin to ship off and hand off problems to other people should
        Katrina happens again.
2006/5/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42870 Activity:nil
5/1     Colbert lambasts Bush on CSpan. FTW
        http://tinyurl.com/qkchv 1 of 3
        http://tinyurl.com/ercd8 2 of 3
        http://tinyurl.com/s7kyz 3 of 3
        \_ Very nice. Very funny. Thanks. BTW how do I capture the
           video as WMV or MPG?
           \_ Net Transport
           \_ Firefox VideoDownloader, don't know how well it works, someone
              just pointed me to it: <DEAD>addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2390<DEAD>
        \_ http://www.keepvid.com
2006/4/26-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42844 Activity:nil
4/26    The US has one of the lowest rates of inter-generational mobility
        (rags to riches) in the industrialized world.
        http://csua.org/u/fmw (yahoo news)
        \_ This is great news for George W. Bush and his friends.
2006/4/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42836 Activity:nil
4/26    Seven years ago today, Bush Sr. said:
        "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life,\
        I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray\
        the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in\
        my view, the most insidious of traitors."\
        -- former President George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999
        \_ Worse even than atheists?
2006/4/21-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42794 Activity:nil
4/21    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7955
        After watching this, wouldn't you support tactical nukes on Iranian
        nuclear sites, too?
        \_ Um, even if his "if" weren't such a friggin huge one, and (another
           big one) if there were such a thing as a "tactical nuke," no.
        \_ It's funny and scary at the same time.  She is SOOOO way off the
2006/4/21-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:42792 Activity:nil
4/21    That's some pretty awesome fox polling there...
        \_ Aww.  They didn't have "Religion/Christian Morals" as an option in
           the list of reasons to disapprove of the President.
2006/4/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42781 Activity:nil
4/18    Pres. Bush: "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best. And what's
        best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
        \_ DUBYA! DUBYA! DUBYA is the STANDARD!!! political troll
        \_ http://pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
        \_ http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com
2006/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42738 Activity:nil
4/12    The Revolt Against Rumsfeld, The officer corps is getting restless:
2006/4/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:42720 Activity:nil
4/6     Aww.. Trent Lott is tired of the Pork Busters, poor guy just
        really likes bacon!
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42707 Activity:high
4/6     http://nysun.com/timesleak.php
        Original New York Sun story on Bush involvement in leak.  Basically,
        according to Libby's grand jury testimony:
        (1) The NIE (the official joint judgment of all the intelligence
            agencies) disputed Joe Wilson's criticisms about Iraq uranium
        (2) Bush told Cheney to get the NIE information out.
        (3) Cheney told Libby this.
        (4) Libby asked Cheney's lawyer, David Addington.  The lawyer said
            Bush's permission to disclose "amounted to a declassification of
            the document"
        (5) Libby told Judy Miller, et al.
        Therefore, Libby never leaked classified information, because what he
        said became unclassified the moment Bush said to get it out.
        \_ But then later they claimed it was still classified, and they hadn't
           bothered to tell anyone else that they had declassified it.
        \_ I'm relieved, for a moment I thought that both Bush and Cheney had
           committed treason! Now I know better ... The [Vice] President has
           the authority to give aid and comfort to our enemies legally, since
           if they do it, it can't be illegal!
        \_ For those interested, backup on point 4 from 2003 -op
        \_ For those interested, backup on point 4
           For completeness, an article questioning the declassification
           powers of Dick Cheney -op
           http://csua.org/u/fgb (fas.org)
        \_ "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know
           Who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference
           during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person
           has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
           "I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the
           Justice Department will do a good job.
           I want to know the truth," the president continued.
           Leaks of classified information are bad things." -Dubya 2/2004
           Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth,"
           the president continued. Leaks of classified information are
           bad things." -Dubya 2/2004
           I guess it all means what is is, right?
           He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who
           leaked classified information."
           \_ See "became unclassified the moment Bush said to get it out".
              \_ Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
        \_ I should also note that the NIE was wrong about the vigorous attempt
           to obtain uranium (recall that the Duelfer report said that Saddam
           was trying his best to keep his programs dormant so he could escape
           sanctions, after which he would resuscitate the WMD programs as soon
           as people stopped looking), and Wilson's findings about the Niger
           forgeries were right, but didn't make it into the NIE for reasons I
           would say are due to a spectactular combination of incompetence and
           intent to get Saddam.  Cf. the delay of the investigation into the
           political use of Iraq intelligence that was promised after the '04
           election. -op
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42705 Activity:nil
4/6     Man tells Dubya he has never been more ashamed of the leadership of
        his country at North Carolina town hall
        (Notice the audience reaction)
        \_ What about the reaction are we supposed to notice?
           \_ doesn't it look a bit like Jerry Springer?
2006/4/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42689 Activity:low 70%like:42683
4/4     The new South Park episode (S10E2) is pretty cool. They portrayed
        http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3670346 (sltrib.com)
        Son of Arizona Senate president (Republican) accepts plea agreement
        that may net little jail time.  Charged with assault and kidnapping
        of eighteen 11- to 14-year-old boys -- by forcibly inserting
        broomsticks, mop handles, a flashlight, and a cane into their clothed
        anal crevices (the victims were wearing underwear, swimtrunks, or pants
        at the time) at summer camp.
        "The 18 boys were chosen to attend the weeklong student government
        leadership skills camp in Prescott because they were among the state's
        top student leaders."
        \_ I for one welcome our new Republican pedophile overlords!
        \_ 'The letter said Bennett was an honor student and active member of
           the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who plans to go on a
           mission in September.  "A felony conviction for assault will make
           his desire to complete his mission impossible," they wrote.'
           Oh noes!  This felony conviction for fucking up 11 to 14-year-old
           boys could get in the way of this young man's desires?  For shame!
           \_ Well you know, boys will be boys.
           \_ Scumbag lawyers.  I'm pretty sure that kid won't be gonig on a
              mission.  Indeed, that kind of thing may lead to excommunication.
              And that's a good thing. -emarkp
              \_ I don't think the "lawyers" deserve the most blame.  It is
                 most likely the Dubya-appointed GOP Arizona district attorney
                 doing a favor for the GOP Arizona Senate president.
                 \_ when did the POTUS appoint the DA of Arizona?
                    \_ I believe that may have been a supremely feeble attempt
                       at humour.
              \_ and so he'll join the ranks of those dirty atheists!
              \_ Okay, specifically, I think it's the Dubya-appointed GOP
                 Arizona district attorney doing a favor for the GOP Arizona
                 Senate president
                       I would also say the elected GOP Yavaipai County
                       Attorney also deserves more blame than the "lawyers".
                 and the elected GOP Yavaipai County Attorney
                 http://csua.org/u/ffw (azcentral.com)
              \_ Forgiveness: Good enough for Jesus, not good enough for LDS.
                 \_ You don't seem to understand.  Forgiveness entirely
                    possible.  But saying "oops, I'm sorry, can I go on a
                    mission now" doesn't cut it.  Note that Jesus didn't
                    forgive the woman taken in adultery. -emarkp
                    \_ Is excommunication revokable?
                       \_ Yes. -emarkp
        \_ Whoah, whoah whoah.  Umm the story I read had no "sodomizing"
           involved, merely bumping the rear ends of fully CLOTHED victims,
           more the kind of stupid hazing shit young boys will do than
           anything else.  Has the story changed?
           \_ I have read that every single Japanese schoolboy is obsessed
              with shoving his fingers up his male classmate's ass.
              I have seen video games about this.
              \_ That's right. Jamming a lot of people in a little area
                 make them gay. That's why you see more gay people in big
                 cities than say, rural Tennessee or South Carolina.
                 \_ So if the kids had had big butts, this wouldn't make them
                    gay? I'm confused now.
              \_ That's called Kancho.
           \_ Answering my own post: yes the story has changed ... this story
              is different from the version I read.
           \_ Thanks, I have updated the post. -op
2006/4/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Music] UID:42667 Activity:nil
4/4     "Bush was Right" music video
        \_ Seven outright falsehoods, and two misattributions. But, hey, sing
           it loud enough and it _must_ be true.
        \_ I like how the guitar goes "nah-nah-nah-n-nah nah!"
2006/4/4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42655 Activity:nil
4/4     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4866964.stm
        The Culture of Corruption making headlines. Any more on the list?
2006/4/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42634 Activity:nil 75%like:42632
4/3     Any idea why soda's SSH has been flaky the past few days?
        http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html    -jblack     http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html    -jblack
2006/4/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42627 Activity:nil
4/3     Mexican wealthy play American taxpayers for suckers
        \_ If only we'd annexed Mexico back after the Mexican-American War.
           \_ we'll be greeted with rose petals and open arms
              the illegal immigrant is the WMD today
              \_ You lead the way, pinche cabron Walker.
2006/4/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42618 Activity:nil
4/2     "The Bush administration's desire to turn more and more government
         responsibility over to houses of worship along with lots of tax
         dollars appears to be insatiable," Jeremy Leaming,
2006/4/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:42617 Activity:kinda low
4/2     I guess Russians are exporting those babys everywhere:
                                             \_ sic
        \_ I suspect American has something similar and it's been super
           secret about it.  Further, I don't think it's necessary to
           use such weapon on an oil tanker...
           \_ The target of such a weapon would be a US aircraft carrier,
              battleship, cruiser, or other high value, high PR target.
              The US doesn't need their own version.  What little fleet the
              Iranians have is no real threat without this.  The US needs a
              defense against such a weapon.  Imagine both the military and
              PR value of sinking a carrier or battleship?  The British lost
              a destroyer to the Argentines and it was a huge deal.
              \_ There's no mention of this being a hardened weapon. Unless
                 they have ECCM better than our ECM, these are virtually a non-
                 \_ original Russian version has no guidance whatsoever.  I
                    don't know what version does Iranian have.   --OP
                 \_ We have no idea if it is or isn't.  It could be completely
                    mechanical in which case ECM is useless.  If you were
                    designing a torpedo to kill large well defended American
                    Navy vessels would you leave it open to easy ECM death?
                    \_ Of course not, but I'm not the people who built this
                       torpedo. It sounds like they were told to emphasize the
                       speed, which leads me to think that they may have
                       neglected other parts.
                       \_ Exactly. Speed without accuracy using high tech
                          guidance system means nothing. The early Migs
                          flew higher and faster than the Phantom F4s but
                          the F4s had much better guidance system. For
                          every 10 Migs down there were only 1 F4 down.
                          \_ They may have emphasized speed because that was
                             the only special thing about it.  Nothing says
                             it can't still be accurate.  In WW2 purely
                             mechanical, unguided torps hit often enough to
                             be useful.  It may be shielded.  It may be wire
                             guided.  Since everything we do know comes from
                             Iranian PR, we really don't know anything except
                             what they claim.  Fighting against the US with
                             high tech is usually a bad idea for most countries
                             since they really can't out tech the US
                             sufficiently in enough fields to matter so the
                             smart thing would be to go the low-tech high-
                             powered high-reliability route.  Speculating is
                             still fun though.  As far as the mig vs phantom
                             thing goes, the American pilots were *very*
                             experienced and in Vietnam the numbers only
                             turned haevily in favor of the US after we
                             upgraded the fighter fleet and started putting
                             cannons and other close combat weapons on them
                             in addition to the flakey missile systems.
                 \_ There exist missiles that home in on the wake from
                    a ship.
        \_ This guy thinks they are dangerous: http://tinyurl.com/n4fw2
           \_ Ummm.. I don't know about the torpedo, but that dude is
              obviously a fruitcake.
              \_ Will he fit in a torpedo tube?
2006/4/2-4 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42620 Activity:low
4/2     You see 1/2 million blacks protest. You see 1/2 million latinos
        protest. How come you don't see 1/2 million whites protest?
        \_ For starter it's easier to find jobless blacks and latinos
           than whites. That's why you'll never see the Million Jew March.
           \_ Or maybe that's because there are a *lot* more of almost every
              other race than Jews in this country?  Of course you would know
              the reason for that is ZOG wants to limit the number of people
              They need to share power with so Jews breed when ZOG tells them
              to and who with.
              \_ Ey, watch it, shush.  You're telling them all the
                 secret stuff!  -john@zog.net
        \_ What are they going to protest? "Oh no, I'm not oppressed and
           priviliged!" Protests are for people who are or have been
           oppressed, like the latinos and the blacks. It's the same
           reason why you won't see 1/2 million chinese take the streets
           and protest.(Well, at least not in America.)
           \_ That mean old congress is going to take away their medicare
              benefits and they will have to learn to use the internet to
              order petmeds from canada in order to stay alive.
           \_ whites can protest in the form of union labor strikes.  though,
              that tends to be a heterogenous mix of races.
           \_ We'll call it "the Million Goth March!"
        \_ Most white-dominated countries, including the U.S., had well over
           500K people protesting before Bush and the PNAC crew railroaded us
           into Operation Clusterfuck.  -tom
           \_ You're wrong. American leadership is good both for America
              and for the world; and that such leadership requires military
              strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
              \_ Yeah, you said it: "commitment to moral principle".  Somehow
                 building a mountain of lies doesn't quite fit that, does it?
                 \_ Stop it! You're making jblack mad. Now he's going to
                    double his effort posting even more freeper URLs.
        \_ The Promise Keepers protest sure seemed pretty white to me.
2006/3/31 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42573 Activity:high 50%like:42576
3/31    Odd questions about Carroll's release:  http://csua.org/u/fdz
        (From Washington Post, with citations from NY Times)
        \_ Wow, a dupe only 2 posts above the original!
2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42566 Activity:nil
3/30    http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/03/index.html#009646
        Tewwowist killer Hillary rakes in big bucks fundraising in Bush country
2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Transportation/Airplane] UID:42551 Activity:nil 75%like:42538
3/29    Woman gets a ticket for having a W BUSH bumper sticker:
        http://csua.org/u/fdg (Atlanta Journal) (Reg required)
        \_ To be clear, she got a ticket for having a bumper sticker that
           read, "I'm tired of this BUSHSHIT."
                                    \_ BUSHIT
2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Travel] UID:42541 Activity:nil
3/29    http://www.skylofts.com/html/news.html
        Los Angeles to have its own Times Square
2006/3/30 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42538 Activity:nil 75%like:42551
3/29    Woman gets a ticket for having a W BUSH bumper sticker:
2006/3/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Media] UID:42456 Activity:moderate
3/27    Can someone post a link to the text of the Wall Street Journal's
        review of "V For Vendetta"?  Obviously I am not a WSJ Online
        subscriber.  Thank you.
        \_ please delete after you are done. :
        \_ Why did someone delete the review?  Thanks for posting it. -!op
           \_ Because it was stupid to post the content rather than a link
              in the motd.
           \_ It's not deleted, it's behind the paywall.
              \_ I mean someone posted it to the motd then it was gone from
                 the motd a few mins later.  Nevermind, I got to read it. I
                 hop the op did, too.  Thanks to whoever posted it.
        \_ stubborn and stupid person try 2:

V for Violent, Vapid:
Sci-Fi 'Vendetta' Celebrates
Love, Liberty -- and Terrorism

In "V For Vendetta," an action fantasy set in London in 2020, the
masked hero calls himself V, models himself on the 17th-century
political bomber Guy Fawkes, and says that words will always retain
their power. He certainly uses them with verve -- especially v-words,
as in his devotion to "vindicating the vigilant and the virtuous."
Eventually this literary veneer devolves into vexatious volleys of
cultural ventriloquism, or, if you will, a vichyssoise of vapid
verbiage. But images have power, too, and several sequences in this
film are powerful indeed, as in the apocalyptic fulfillment of the
Gunpowder Plot, Fawkes's failed attempt to blow up the Houses of
Parliament. "V for Vendetta" is a veritable gallery of forceful
images, and provocative notions, recycled from such sources as "The
Phantom of the Opera," "The Mark of Zorro," "1984" and "A Clockwork
              In "V For Vendetta," an action fantasy set in London in 2020,
           the masked hero calls himself V, models himself on the
           17th-century political bomber Guy Fawkes, and says that words
           will always retain their power. He certainly uses them with verve
           -- especially v-words, as in his devotion to "vindicating the
           vigilant and the virtuous."  Eventually this literary veneer
           devolves into vexatious volleys of cultural ventriloquism, or, if
           you will, a vichyssoise of vapid verbiage. But images have power,
           too, and several sequences in this film are powerful indeed, as
           in the apocalyptic fulfillment of the Gunpowder Plot, Fawkes's
           failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament. "V for
           Vendetta" is a veritable gallery of forceful images, and
           provocative notions, recycled from such sources as "The Phantom
           of the Opera," "The Mark of Zorro," "1984" and "A Clockwork
           Orange." It's also a sententious piece of pop pap that celebrates
terrorism as a necessary evil, and peddles anarchy in a user-friendly
package.  [Hugo Weaving]

The film was written by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski, the
brothers who created "The Matrix" trilogy; they based their screenplay
on the comic book series of the same name by Alan Moore and David
Lloyd. (The first-time director, James McTeigue, was assistant
director on all three "Matrix" productions.) For a while "V for
Vendetta" draws expertly, and extravagantly, on the primal power of
its pulp antecedent. The fancy language, the mysterious protagonist,
the pervasive sense of evil in an England tyrannized by steely
fascists and religious crackpots, it all promises to be great fun. And
so it is when the epigrammatic swashbuckler V, who's played by Hugo
Weaving (Agent Smith in "The Matrix") crosses paths with Natalie
Portman's Evey, a frightened little mouse who doesn't know what to
make of him -- "Are you like a crazy person?" she asks -- or when V,
like some latter-day Vaughan Williams with a vicious streak, conducts
his own explosive London symphony from a rooftop. (The film is also
being shown in IMAX. I haven't seen it in that format, but I'll bet it
           terrorism as a necessary evil, and peddles anarchy in a
           user-friendly package.  [Hugo Weaving]
              The film was written by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski,
           the brothers who created "The Matrix" trilogy; they based their
           screenplay on the comic book series of the same name by Alan
           Moore and David Lloyd. (The first-time director, James McTeigue,
           was assistant director on all three "Matrix" productions.) For a
           while "V for Vendetta" draws expertly, and extravagantly, on the
           primal power of its pulp antecedent. The fancy language, the
           mysterious protagonist, the pervasive sense of evil in an England
           tyrannized by steely fascists and religious crackpots, it all
           promises to be great fun. And so it is when the epigrammatic
           swashbuckler V, who's played by Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in "The
           Matrix") crosses paths with Natalie Portman's Evey, a frightened
           little mouse who doesn't know what to make of him -- "Are you
           like a crazy person?" she asks -- or when V, like some latter-day
           Vaughan Williams with a vicious streak, conducts his own
           explosive London symphony from a rooftop. (The film is also being
           shown in IMAX. I haven't seen it in that format, but I'll bet it
           looks impressive.)

At its entertaining best, "V for Vendetta" has the courage of its
borrowings, and conviction in its posturings. (What's not entertaining
is the smarmy tone of its potshots at an America in the throes, we are
told, of a civil war. "Here was a country that had everything," a TV
voice intones at one point, "and 20 years later it's the world's
biggest leper colony.") Some details of the musty English dystopia may
seem familiar to moviegoers old enough to remember Terry Gilliam's
"Brazil." Still, the movie is pitched shrewdly to young audiences,
what with its heroine, Evey, in constant jeopardy, and a hero who
turns out to be tortured, horribly mutilated -- Darth Vader with a
smirky if not quite smiley face -- and conflicted in the bargain,
since his ostensibly principled terrorism is tainted with a mad lust
for revenge. ("Do you really think blowing up Parliament will make
this a better place?" Evey asks him earnestly. The answer is yes, he
does.)  [V] Evey (played by Natalie Portman) is held prisoner in 'V
For Vendetta.'

Yet the film is beset by incoherence and implausibilities that are
perplexing, given the close relationship between the Wachowskis and
the director, Mr. McTeigue -- this is not one of those familiar cases,
it's safe to say, where the writers lost control of their material
when it went into production. Evey's background clearly makes her ripe
for radicalizing, but it's never clear who she's become, or what she's
up to. At work as a secretary for a TV network that resembles the BBC,
she's middle-class. Away from work she could pass for a Dickensian
shop girl. An older, rebellious man who works at the network stars in
              At its entertaining best, "V for Vendetta" has the courage of
           its borrowings, and conviction in its posturings. (What's not
           entertaining is the smarmy tone of its potshots at an America in
           the throes, we are told, of a civil war. "Here was a country that
           had everything," a TV voice intones at one point, "and 20 years
           later it's the world's biggest leper colony.") Some details of
           the musty English dystopia may seem familiar to moviegoers old
           enough to remember Terry Gilliam's "Brazil." Still, the movie is
           pitched shrewdly to young audiences, what with its heroine, Evey,
           in constant jeopardy, and a hero who turns out to be tortured,
           horribly mutilated -- Darth Vader with a smirky if not quite
           smiley face -- and conflicted in the bargain, since his
           ostensibly principled terrorism is tainted with a mad lust for
           revenge. ("Do you really think blowing up Parliament will make
           this a better place?" Evey asks him earnestly. The answer is yes,
           he does.)  [V] Evey (played by Natalie Portman) is held prisoner
           in 'V For Vendetta.'
              Yet the film is beset by incoherence and implausibilities that
           are perplexing, given the close relationship between the
           Wachowskis and the director, Mr. McTeigue -- this is not one of
           those familiar cases, it's safe to say, where the writers lost
           control of their material when it went into production. Evey's
           background clearly makes her ripe for radicalizing, but it's
           never clear who she's become, or what she's up to. At work as a
           secretary for a TV network that resembles the BBC, she's
           middle-class. Away from work she could pass for a Dickensian shop
           girl. An older, rebellious man who works at the network stars in
           a broadly comic TV show that electrifies the nation by making a
mockery of England's dictator, yet he's confident he won't be fired --
an inexplicable misjudgment on his part for what was obviously
seditious conduct.

V, the only character with sufficient magnetism to hold the narrative
together, drops out for an extended period while Evey endures a
hellish imprisonment that's contrived in more ways than one, and in
the end awfully silly. Natalie Portman, as skillful as she is
attractive, does have her moments -- it's affecting to see her hair
being shaved, like Joan of Arc -- but wide-eyed Evey whimpers
endlessly, and tediously, on her way to becoming a fearless woman
who's able to love. And speaking of love, things go blooey instead of
gooey whenever heroine and hero come close enough to touch; far from
being sensual, let alone erotic, the movie proves to be not much fun
at all.

But then fun isn't high on the agenda, crowded as it is with solemn
debates about the role of terrorism in the face of tyranny. The
movie's heart, a mechanical pump connected to a reservoir of
adrenalin, throbs for the smash finish in which the biggest bomb goes
off, and the Houses of Parliament come tumbling down, along with Big
Ben, a frequent casualty in disaster movies. "V for Vendetta" wasn't
meant to be a disaster movie, of course, and there's no reason to
think it will be a disaster, even though its original opening date of
November 5th -- Guy Fawkes Day -- had to be pushed forward after
real-life terrorists attacked London last July. These days filmmakers
who play with fire don't get burned, they get rich.
        \_ Why did someone delete the review?  Thanks for posting it. -!op
           \_ It's not deleted, it's behind the paywall.
              \_ I mean someone posted it to the motd then it was gone from
                 the motd a few mins later.  Nevermind, I got to read it. I
                 hop the op did, too.  Thanks to whoever posted it.
           mockery of England's dictator, yet he's confident he won't be
           fired -- an inexplicable misjudgment on his part for what was
           obviously seditious conduct.
              V, the only character with sufficient magnetism to hold the
           narrative together, drops out for an extended period while Evey
           endures a hellish imprisonment that's contrived in more ways than
           one, and in the end awfully silly. Natalie Portman, as skillful
           as she is attractive, does have her moments -- it's affecting to
           see her hair being shaved, like Joan of Arc -- but wide-eyed Evey
           whimpers endlessly, and tediously, on her way to becoming a
           fearless woman who's able to love. And speaking of love, things
           go blooey instead of gooey whenever heroine and hero come close
           enough to touch; far from being sensual, let alone erotic, the
           movie proves to be not much fun at all.
              But then fun isn't high on the agenda, crowded as it is with
           solemn debates about the role of terrorism in the face of
           tyranny. The movie's heart, a mechanical pump connected to a
           reservoir of adrenalin, throbs for the smash finish in which the
           biggest bomb goes off, and the Houses of Parliament come tumbling
           down, along with Big Ben, a frequent casualty in disaster
           movies. "V for Vendetta" wasn't meant to be a disaster movie, of
           course, and there's no reason to think it will be a disaster,
           even though its original opening date of November 5th -- Guy
           Fawkes Day -- had to be pushed forward after real-life terrorists
           attacked London last July. These days filmmakers who play with
           fire don't get burned, they get rich.
           [ reformatted - formatd ]
           \_ Placed in /tmp/VforVendetta.WSJ for posterity. --erikred
              \_ And if you put it on HTTP it'll be archived in Berkeley MOTD
                 forever! Yeah!
              \_ Btw, I found WSJ's dislike of "the [movie's] smarmy tone of
                 its potshots at an America in the throes... of a civil war"
                 to be laughable. What, it's okay to have a totalitarian
                 England but it's unforgivable to imply a failed USA?
                 \_ Agreed, but they are right when they say that the Evey
                    character is incomprehensible.  In the comic book she was a
                    teenage prostitute, but the story clearly had its rough
                    edges sanded off for mainstream appeal.
                    \_ plus the movie ending took out the entire reason for
                       her being in the comic, which was one of the most
                       powerful parts of the story.
                    \_ Reread the book: She was _not_ a teenage prostitute;
                       her one foray into prositution (out of desperation)
                       was the incident that led her to meet V. However, I do
                       agree that her straitened situation would have been
                       more evocative than what featured in the movie.
              \_ thanks for your help.  - stupid and stubborn wsj scrounger
2006/3/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42404 Activity:nil
3/23    Americans loathe liberal media:
        \_ Wow... Just... wow...
2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42392 Activity:very high
3/22    Leaders of the muslim faith
        "Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside
        Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces
        so there's nothing left."
        \_ Link?
         \_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188903,00.html
            \_ No, no, CREDIBLE link.
                \_ quotes are always credible regardless of source
                   \_ Au Contraire, Mon Frere!  The NYT is an excellent example
                      of a place that not only gets quotes wrong but gets the
                      most basic story points and often the entire story wrong.
                      Foxnews doesn't have nearly as poor a record of this as
                      the NYT but they're still just people.  However in this
                      case I don't find the quotes out of character with other
                      things we know.
                      \_ I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people
                         in this world would say that NYT is one of the most
                         respected news organizations in the world.  Only
                         right wing political freaks would dare to discredit
                         that. You want to say Fox News is more respected than
                         NYT?  Try passing that by the typical educated
                         \_ The pp didn't say it wasn't respected.  He
                            criticized their accuracy. cf the recent Saturday-
                            edition retraction about their identification of
                            "the man in the hood" in Abu Ghraib.
                         \_ This isn't an opinion poll world wide about news
                            quality.  It is a fact that the NYT has a really
                            poor track record for several years now (that we
                            know of).  Respect and opinion has nothing to do
                            with it.  You want to say that the NYT has a great
                            track record for fact checking?  Try passing that
                            by the typical educated American.  Call me whatever
                            names you'd like.  That doesn't change the facts.
                            When you're doing nwes and claim to be "all the
                            news thats fits to print" you damned well better
                            get it right, especially when you're doing hit
                            pieces.  Anything less leaves you open to valid
                            criticism for being a propaganda organ instead of
                            a news organisation. -pp
                            \_ So are you simply referring to the Jayson Blair
                               scandal?  Or do you take equal issue with their
                               blatant pimping of the Whitewater "story,"
                               their huge flubs on WMD reporting, and the
                               whole mess they've gotten themselves in over
                               Plamegate?  Or is inaccuracy in reporting only
                               bad when it's against conservatives?
                               \_ At what point did you decide what my politics
                                  are?  The fact is the NYT has a really shitty
                                  record re: accuracy in reporting the last
                                  several years.  I could be anything from
                                  ultra liberal to arch conservative and the
                                  facts would remain unchanged.  I am not a
                                  part of the facts.  I merely state the
                                  publicly known.  I note you haven't yet
                                  actually addressed my point which is that the
                                  NYT's accuracy is in the toilet.  Thanks.
                                  \_ It's pretty obvious that if you're
                                     criticizing the NYT over Fox News, we
                                     can safely assume where your political
                                     leanings are.  Fox News makes no attempt
                                     \_ No you can safely assume that I was
                                        on topic with the thread noting that
                                        the NYT has a bad track record for
                                        accuracy and that at least in this
                                        case, we have no reason not to believe
                                        the foxnews quotes were anything but
                                        genuine.  Anything more is just your
                                        personal bias coloring the situation.
                                        Not everyone here has a political axe
                                        to grind.  Some of us actually care
                                        about the truth and more to the point
                                        are sickened by hypocrites at places
                                        like the NYTimes.  At least fox doesn't
                                        pretend to be much more than op/ed
                                        with a wink to objective news.  Quite
                                        the contrary, anyone defending the
                                        integrity of the times is much more
                                        likely to be the one unable to see the
                                        truth.  The NYT has no integrity.  And
                                        while we're here, why would you assume
                                        that only a conservative would attack
                                        the NYT?  Could it be because the NYT
                                        has shown over and over that they can't
                                        report anything like objective truth
                                        without inserting their agenda?  Even
                                        if they were able to do so, they still
                                        continue to screw up like a bunch of
                                        Daily Cal quality amateurs pretending
                                        to be journalists.  When it is hard to
                                        tell the difference between the op/ed
                                        page and the news pages, all is lost.
                                        \_ In case, you've forgotten,
                                           journalism has always had its
                                           roots in placing checks on
                                           government.  "muckraking",
                                           "investigative journalism" are all
                                           aimed at bringing out the truth, and
                                           obviously our current president
                                           has a problem with the idea of truth
                                           and likes to bend it.
                                           And really...
                                           you dont think NYT was there
                                           covering Clinton and his scandals?
                                           \_ I'm ok with muckraking.  In fact,
                                              I love muckraking.  I can't
                                              stand hypocritical self
                                              righteous and *inaccurate*
                                              muckraking.  If the NYT got it
                                              right I'd be their biggest
                                              supporter and renew my daily sub.
                                              \_ What grievous errors did they
                                                 commit (and not correct) that
                                                 you just can't forgive?
                                                 I suspect "getting it right"
                                                 may mean "supplying the facts
                                                 I like".
                                                 \_ You'd suspect wrong.  They
                                                    'correct', sure, after
                                                    being busted by someone
                                                    else and dragging it out
                                                    and doing a page 18 mini
                                                    blurb hidden behind the
                                                    ad for shoe deodorant.
                                                    \_ You didn't answer
                                                       my question.  I continue
                                                       \_ Answered your
        question.  It is the fact that they never fess up to anything until
        someone else busts them on it and then the correction is grudging, duh.
        Suspect all you want, you have yet to do anything but attack my
        integrity when the NYT's is a matter of public record. This is the
        exact issue we're been discussing but on a micro level.  Instead of
        looking at the NYT's facts, you have decided you like the NYT's
        message so it's ok they're a bunch of wankers.  You don't like my
        pointing out their flaws so I become the one with flaws.  I'm sorry
        the NYTs has a long public track record of screwing up and only
        correcting or retracting after being forced into it (a la Dan and
        the "forged but accurate Bush papers") and you consider that ok.
        Where as you don't like the Fox op/ed slant on the world, therefore
        anything they say is automatically bad for you yet you are unable
        to provide an example of them screwing anything up.  It is your own
        suspicians and bias that colors the truth and prevents you from seeing
        the reality of the situation.  Go ahead and have another shot at my
        character without responding to my core point and then we can stop.
        I've tried to take you seriously but you refuse to respond in kind.
        \_ I asked you for examples.  You should be able to come up with
           at least one.  You haven't "pointed out flaws".  You've made a
           claim.  You haven't backed up that claim.
           \_ From Jason B. to WMD coverage to falsely identifying the Abu
              photo victim to the one they had a few days after that fuckup
              and a few others along the way.  I'm not going to prove the
              sky is blue, I don't have to but there's 3 specific and 1 more
              from a few days ago I can't recall the details of.  NYT = teh
              suk.  Thanks for the chat but I'm now really truly done here.
              I'm going to delete this whole thing later today to save
              precious bits if someone else doesn't first.
                                     to hide that they are a right wing
                                     organization and are headed by one of
                                     Bush's distant relatives, if I remember
                                     correctly.  NYT, and other news
                                     organizations like CNN, at least try to
                                     apply the traditional news models of
                                     being unbiased.  So if you want to talk
                                     about being a "propaganda organ", you're
                                     looking in the wrong direction.
                                     As for accuracy, NYT at least tries for
                                     it, and admits wrong when its news isn't.
                                     I have never seen Fox News do that,
                                     but that's prob because Fox News gives
                                     mostly opinion pieces anyway.
                   \_ "we cannot find security." GWB, SotU.
        \_ Hey, a real martyr in the Christian tradition.
        \_ I like how the cleric calling for the execution of the Christian,
           no matter if he's labelled "insane" or not, is labeled "a moderate".
           no matter if he's declared "insane" or not, is labeled "a moderate".
           What, you don't believe in OUR invisible all powerful deity? You
           must be insane!
           \_ This illustrates a point made in "The End of Faith", namely that
              religious moderates provide "cover" for religious extremism...
              even across faiths.  Do you think Bush is going to say "you
              shouldn't use religion/holy texts to guide your courts"?  Of
              course not.  But he should.
              \_ Which is why we'll never win the war against islamist
                 extremists as long as those fuckers are in the white house.
                 This global conflict centers on the two things this
                 administration is more incapable of speaking truthfully about
                 than anything: religion and oil.
                 \_ What's the truth about oil?
                        \_ That 1) the peak in production is imminent (might
                           be now, prob right around 2010, 2020 if we're
                           insanely lucky) and that 2) this fact is the main
                           driver behind our foreign policy, for example,
                           invading Iraq.
              \_ I'm actually reading the book right now.  It has some good
                 points but also long rambles about ethics.
2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42389 Activity:kinda low
3/22    I'm writing a word association program that parses motd text and
        links to other words. For example, if enough people write the
        following on motd:
        \_ crook
           \_ Nixon
                \_ Bush
        \_ katrina
           \_ disaster
                \_ incompetence
        then the program will "learn" and associate Bush with the words
        crook and katrina. It'll also loosely associate Bush with disaster.
        The more it learns, the more it'll understand how people on motd
        think. So go ahead and play the word association game. Only simple
        words (with nouns) are parsed. Anything more complex will be ignored.
        Results will be shown this summer.
        \_ This needs to be smart enough to draw these relationships from
           the regular motd posts, not these artificial one-word things.
           Nobody is really gonna be posting those except maybe yourself.
           \_ I beg to differ. Look at the responses we got from "Republican"
              \_ But that's an artificial troll for responses to a chosen
                 word. Real posts would illustrate more meaningful
                 relationships as well as offer much more data points.
        \_ look into Shannon's Information Theory
        \_ kchang
           \_ twink
              \_ points
           \_ excuse me I have nothing to do with this troll, why is my
              name here?
2006/3/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42383 Activity:high
3/22    George W. Bush
        \_ Katrina
           \_ Disaster
        \_ Enron
        \_ Iraq War
        \_ deficit
        \_ Lied
           \_ People Died
        \_ Clinton!
           \_ Monica!
              \_ Ken!
        \_ Hitler
           \_ Godwin
              \_ Quirk's exception
        \_ i'll george YOUR bush
2006/3/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:42357 Activity:nil
3/21    http://www.russforpresident.com
        \_ is this guy Jewish? Isn't that bad news?
           \_ so who is the anonymous poster?
           \_ Would it change anything?  It's already common knowledge in
              Azurbijan that Bush and Cheney are both Jews.
              \_ "Jagshemash...I support my government's decision to sue
                 this Jew."  -Borat
2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42334 Activity:high
3/20    How does it make you feel that most employed sodans; expecially
        married ones; make out nicely thanks to the Bush tax cuts. I know
        that it leaves me feeling very ambivalent since I know that the
        system is inherently unfair to average US citizens
        But I also know that, since BA is so over priced, I am just squeaking
        by financially . Having to feel grateful to Bush
        for extra $$ is a strange feeling indeed.
        \_ I dont know what you're smoking but I dont think most of the
           employed sodans are quite rich enough to really benefit from the
           Bush tax cuts.  For that we'd need to be inheriting over $10M
           from an estate, or have a large fraction of our income from
           \_ I agree. If your life is so fulfilling you'd stop using motd
              long time ago. There are so many other places that you can
              get better entertainment, information, therapy, and others
              things than motd. Motd is for losers like me.
        \_ Yeah, Bush has made me a lot of money in the last few years,
           and I feel kind of dirty about it too.  It's not like I'd be
           homeless without his tax cuts, though.  I'd vote for someone
           who would reverse them.
        \_ Are you kidding me? The middle class (especially upper middle
           class) is going to be paying the price of Bush's policies for
           a long time. When some other President (Democrat or Republican)
           has to raise taxes to pay for Bush's antics you won't feel too
           grateful. Bush has been very adept, too, at taking money from
           the blue states (e.g. SF Bay Area) and giving it to the red
           states (e.g. Louisiana, Texas). You are grateful for this?!
           \_ I think he's taken more of a passive approach to the rape
              of CA by Enron (e.g.).  But can you blame TX for CA being so
              dependent on oil?
              \_ So dependent?  Last I checked we were among the best in
                 the nation on energy conservation.  We're a big state, though.
                 I don't blame TX for our dependence.  I blame them for
           \_ Though purportedly CA's getting a big chunk of the war money
              by way of military purchases from many small engineering concerns.
              by way of military purchases from many small engineering
              \_ Maybe, but CA still sends more off to Washington DC than
                 comes back here.
        \_ I've got nothing against tax cuts but what we've got is not really
           a tax cut but rather tax postponement.  All that money you're
           "saving" now?  It's going to come out of your budget later, with
           interest.  --PM
        \_ "I know that the system is inherently unfair to average US citizens"
           So when did you stop beating your wife?
        \_ Mr. Squeaking By Financially: can you tell us a little bit about
           your life?  Like what kind of car you drive, how large your TV
           is, how old your newest home computer is, how much you pay per
           month for TV/internet etc?
           \_ SSN, Mother's Maiden Name, etc.
2006/3/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42313 Activity:moderate
3/18    Following his election (since he was appointed his first term), and
        feeling quite self-important, Bush commissions a postage stamp with
        his face on it, insisting it be of absolute top quality. The stamp
        is created, printed and distributed, and Bush is delighted. But after
        a few days, he begins receiving complaints that the stamp does not
        stick to the envelope.

        He summons those responsible and demands an inquiry. A committee is
        formed, and a few weeks later issue its conclusion:

        "There is nothing wrong with the quality of the stamps or the glue;
        the problem is that people are spitting on the wrong side."
        \_ Way too long for such a weak punch line.  The best one I've heard
           in a while was, "Well now at least *someone* in the White House
           has combat experience".  Not a gut buster, but short, to the point,
           your audience won't fall asleep before you get to the end, topical,
           and a bit mean without being so mean that everyone can't enjoy it.
                --motd humor nazi
           \_ Not to mention, dated; who licks postage stamps anymore?
              Plus postage stamps can't have images of live people.
              \_ Anyone using a small or large denomination stamp licks it.
           \_ Colin Powell had combat experience.
              \_ Didn't they run him out of the job?
        \_ In the related news, GWB is preparing to publish his autobiography.
           Those who pre-order the first 5,000 copies will receive a
           complementary set of crayons for free.
2006/3/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42290 Activity:kinda low
3/17    Conservatives use "starve the beast" logic when they want to cut taxes,
        But if they  really want to starve the beast, than, why raise the
        debt limit?
        \_ its pretty clear they just want to cut taxes, and keep spending up
          (just redirect it to Bechtel/Halliburton, and other 'contributors').
          This is perfectly in line with raising the debt limit.
        \_ That brings the per-capita federal debt to what, $30,000 per person.
           (note thats not per taxpayer)
        \_ They just used the fiscal conservative strategy to get elected,
           they don't actually believe it.
        \_ Duh, the strategy is to fuck it up so bad, that when the Dems assume
           power the economy will be all fucked up AND they'll have to raise
           taxes, which sets up the Republicans for the next election.
           \_ Sounds like what Clinton did to his successor.
              \_ You seem to be forgetting the gigantic surplus which seemed
                 to dissapear so quickly after 9/11.
                 \_ Yeah, you mean when the bubble popped.
                    \_ With the tech bubble, 9/11, and post-9/11 security
                       overhead as excuses, I can give tax cuts to my biggest
                       political donors and run horribly executed projects both
                       foreign and domestic, and I'm still completely covered
                       as far as my base is concerned!  Go dubya!
              \_ ^Clinton^Bush Sr.
                 \_ Maybe in your reality.  According to the National Bureau
                    of Economic Research, the Bush Sr. recession was from
                    7/1990 to 3/1991, so it ended way before the Clinton
                    presidency.  The Bush Jr. past recession was from 3/2001
                    to 11/2001, so it started right after the Clinton
                    presidency.  http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
                    presidency.  The Bush Jr. recession was from 3/2001 to
                    11/2001, so it started right after the Clinton presidency.
        \_ Because they're not conservatives.  They're Republicans.
        \_ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277
           Impostor : How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the
           Reagan Legacy
2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42268 Activity:nil
3/16    First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
        Then they fight you. Then you win. -M. Ghandi
        http://csua.org/u/f9q (Article by http://Talkingpoints.com editor)
        (NYT article on Bush impeachment)
        \_ Why impeachment is a bad idea:
           http://tinyurl.com/oahfm (hillnews.com)
        \_ Politics is local.  The number of incumbents who lose elections each
           term is trivial.  Ghandi had a much better chance with the British
           than the D do of retaking anything.  His was a moral issue and he
           was on the side of right against a people who think of themselves
           in those terms.  Ds and Rs are just politicians.  There is no great
           moral conflict.  The math is the math.  Don't hold your breath.
           \_ The War on Iraq is not a moral conflict? Don't kid yourself.
              \_ "Politics is local".  Iraq is far far far away.
                 \_ In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 61 percent said the Iraq
                    war would be a very important or the most important issue
                    in deciding their vote for Congress.
        \_ 'With "impeachment on the horizon," he wrote, "maybe, just maybe,
           conservatives would not stay at home after all."'
           Uh, how does that jibe with 36% approval rating?
        \_ A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe Bush is "out of
           touch," the poll found. When asked for a one-word description of
           Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by
           "good," "idiot" and "liar." In February 2005, the most frequent
           reply was "honest."
2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42266 Activity:moderate
3/16    honest question:
        People say Bush and his gangs are "Neo-Conservative."   Exactly
        what do they mean by that?  Another question.  Fiscal Disipline is
        usually one of supposely "conservative" value.  But by looking at
        records of Reagan, HW Bush, and GW Bush, it is not the case at all!
        How does that work?
        \_ It's a transparent attempt to make people think of "neo-nazi"
           \_ Bullshit.
        \_ Politicians are hypocrites and liars.  They give the voters what
           they want and lie about the consequences.
           \_ So astute - teach us more o' wise one.
        \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
           \_ thanks.  good link.  I guess my perception about neo-cons are
              also fiscal conservative is completely false.  On the other
              hand, it still doesn't explain why we support radical,
              dictatorship such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia :p
              \_ that's an easy one.  SA supplies a big chunk of our
                 oil.  A military quasi-dictatorship in Pakistan is
                 magnitudes better than the pro Western jihad
                 Islamic fundamentalist groups taking power.
                 \_ There are pro-West jihad Islamic fundamentalists?
        \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
                    \_ I actually met a guy like that.  He was pretty weird.
                 \_ What happened to install democracy world wide?
        \_ basically neocons believe in the preemptive strike
           \_ so are democrats who believe in preemptive strike also neocons?
           \_ Why can't they take this preemptive attitude and clean
              up city like Oakland? Arrest and execute those known
              fuckers and the city will be a much safer place.
              \_ weak weak weak troll.  your troll score: F!
              \_ gimme a modern dem who favors preemptive and i'll tell you
                 how neocon they are
                 \_ lieberman is a strong supporter of GWB's Iraq policy and
                    the principles behind it.
                    \_ ob he's a closet republican
                       \_ so anyone in favor of any GWB policy is really a
                          republican despite having been in the D party since
                          probably before you were born....  he's either with
                          us or against us!
                          \_ Do you know people are talking about a McCain-
                             Lieberman ticket?
                             \_ Do any of these people include John McCain or
                                Joe Lieberman?  I don't think I've seen either
                                one ever indicate that he was ready to
                                switch parties.  I find that scenario to be
                          \_ and dubya's lips continue to look for lieberman
                             for smooching
           \_ I am still waiting for a preemptive strike against N.Korea...
              or we actually get scared for their preemptive strike doctrine?
              \_ I'd start with Berkeley.
              \_ NK has 10,000 artillery pieces within range of SK's capitol.
                 Even if we could fly in and destroy all the nuke facilities
                 100% the retaliation strike is going to suck big time.  What
                 I find interesting is polls in SK that show young people from
                 the post Korean War era think the US should piss off and that
                 NK is a victim while the older folks are dreadfully afraid of
                 NK and want the US to stick around and even increase our
                 strength in SK.
                 \_ I see those crazy 'NK is misunderstood paradise
                    bullied by evil US' fuckers at protests in the bay area.
                 \_ I remember when I was still at Berkeley in the early 90s,
                    when 5 korean pastors came to the Bay Area to attend a
                    conference, and I took them on a trip to Yosemite.
                    The pastors mentioned to me they were very surprised
                    that Americans they met here were such nice people.
                    They say the Americans in SK were really arrogant.
                    \_ Most Americans in SK are either military or english
                       teachers.  The english teachers are often people
                       with no valuable skills except their ability to
                       speak their native language.  Not only that, but
                       Korea, for one reason or another, generally pulls
                       in the dregs of english teachers.  So, yeah, most
                       of the Americans I met in SK were jerks. -jrleek
                       \_ jrleek, you are just JEALOUS because those
                          "no valuable skills people who speaks their
                           native language" get laid easily.
                          \_ I know this is supposed to be a joke, but it
                             made me curious.  Do you think I'm Korean?
                       \_ I'm going to Korea to teach conversational English
                          and I have no special training.  What's the
                          fastest way to learn Korean?   Can you recommend
                          books, audio training kits, etc.?
                          \_ Korean is really freakin' hard, but if you
                             send me an email, I'll help however I can.  I
                             do have some suggestions for books, I didn't
                             really use audio kits, but I'm not even sure
                             how you'd get my favorite. -jrleek
              \_ we only go after ez ones, like Iraq ... we thought it was ez
2006/3/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42258 Activity:kinda low
3/15    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597017/posts
        Freepers respond to news regarding death threats to SCOTUS judges
        Ginsburg and O'Connor
        \_ And once again the conservatives on the motd are quiet.
           \_ of course they are. They're too busy reproducing more babies
              and home schooling their children so that they'd be exposed
              to the right teaching instead of libural's lefty edukashun.
           \_ Some of us cannot understand the motivations of the wakkos
              who would threaten the life of a judge, esp. a USSC justice.
              Only thugs and criminals would do this.
              BTW, I can't understand the whole thing about referring to
              foreign cases being bad: I mean CJ Marshall used to refer
              to KB/QB cases frequently.
              foreign cases being bad: CJ Marshall used to refer to KB/QB
              \_ I thought Justice Kennedy was Mr Foreign Case dude?
                 Unless that's in the Freeper page.  I don't equate
                 rational conservatives with freerepublic so
                 I'm not reading the URL, they all live in a trailer
                 park in the Salton Sea or some other horrible place
                 and need somewhere to vent.
                 rational conservatives with freerepublic so I'm not
                 reading the URL, they all live in a trailer park in
                 the Salton Sea or some other horrible place and need
                 somewhere to vent.
                 \_ O'Connor, Ginsburg and Kennedy have all written
                    opinions where they cite to foreign decisions that
                    are in accord on a particular issue. Against my
                    better judgment I read the URL and it had something
                    about citing foreign cases as on reason to kill
                    these justices.
2006/3/15-17 [ERROR, uid:42250, category id '18005#19.63' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42250 Activity:nil
3/15    Democratic Congressional Lead Among Registered Voters Largest Since
        '82 Midterm election
        Pew Research Poll puts Bush at 33% approval rating
2006/3/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42231 Activity:nil
3/14    New CBS poll with Bush at 34% breaks down party affilation this way:
        32% GOP
        32% Dems
        36% Ind
        So what's the new talking point?  For reference, the last poll had
        the "controversial" breakdown of:
        28% GOP
        40% Dems
        32% Ind
        \_ I believe the 32% / 32% numbers are unweighted (they asked about
           the same raw number of Dems and Republicans).
           However, all results have been weighted so that Dems represent
           34% and Republicans represent 29%, for the most recent CBS poll.
           As for the previous CBS poll, my guess is that the 28% / 40% numbers
           were also the raw number of people asked, and they again weighted to
           ~34% Dem / ~29% GOP, but they asked the same number of Dems and
           Republicans for the new poll to avoid that controversy.
           Or perhaps to have a new controversy of "Why did you weight the
           GOP votes down to 29% you motherfuckers?!"
           \_ The "controversy" was not weighted vs. unweighted.  It was
              stupidity vs. facts.
              \_ I just found the data for the older poll.
                 The weighting for that was 37% Dem / 28% GOP.
                 So that means they went from a split of 9% to 5% from the
                 old poll to the current one.
        \_ There have always been more Democrats than Republicans. The
           so-called controversy was just more GOP denying of reality
           slapping them in the face.
2006/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42215 Activity:nil
3/13    Gallup Poll has Bush at 36% approval rating.  Now where's the
        motd guy who tells us why this doesn't matter.
        \_ Hey, I'm still here.  And I still believe it could go to zero and
           wouldn't matter so why would 36% matter to me?  I've explained why
           it doesn't matter.  You've said why you think I'm wrong.  I
           disagree.  Whatever.
           \_ Do you believe that national policy changes only after
              elections?  -tom
              \_ I think the current administration won't change a single
                 thing based on any poll numbers.  Politics is fluid and thus
                 fantastically low poll numbers may have an effect on what
                 Congress does but overall, no in this case I don't think
                 the admin cares about poll numbers or will change anything
                 based on them.  When he rapes a goat on TV I'll be convinced
                 that the followup poll numbers will mean something.  Anyway,
                 his numbers *are* low but still not dramatically lower than
                 other modern presidents at various times during their terms.
                 \_ Bush's lack of popularity has already changed policy;
                    the Dubai deal goes through if his numbers are high, for
                    example.  His administration is more or less crippled
                    right now because he's so unpopular that none of the
                    Republicans want to get behind him.  -tom
                    \_ Dubai is pretty minor as policy issues go.  If he was
                       crippled, the troops would be on their way home right
                       now.  Dubai falls under the "fluidity of politics"
                       concept:  no one wins them all every time and this is
                       one of them.  He lost far more major things earlier
                       when his numbers were higher.  At this point I don't
                       think he has any other major policy initiatives left
                       that haven't either gone through or been shot down so
                       it doesn't really matter, IMO.  If this was a year into
                       his first term, then yeah totally crippled, absolutely
                       I would agree.  But not now.
                       \_ The point is, he can't make any major policy
                          initiatives, because everyone is running away from
                          him.  -tom
                          \_ I understand your point.  As a general concept
                             I don't disagree.  In this case, I do because
                             I don't think he has any initiatives left
2006/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42179 Activity:low
3/10    The Rove nixes the Dubai deal.  Who says he doesn't care about
        "CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports the
        announcement came about after the company's consultations with White
        House political strategist Karl Rove."
        \_ How about Dubai was already going to pull out, and they wanted
           Rove to manage the spin?
           I guess it could have been Rove decided that Dubai should pull
           out, Dubai said yes, and Rove also managed the spin.
        \_ How about Dubai was already going to pull out, and Rove managed
           the spin?  I guess it could have been Rove+Bush decided Dubai
           should pull out, Dubai said yes, and Rove also managed the spin.
           \_ First it's China's Unical deal.  Then, it's this.  Yes,
              protectionist economy!!!
              \_ Heh, I think you've just proven beyond a doubt that you
                 understand the terms you're trying to use. -3hp to you!
2006/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42147 Activity:nil
3/8     http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060303/ids_photos_wl/r1442414268.jpg
2006/3/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42146 Activity:nil
3/8     Criticize Bush and get paid vacation. What a good deal!
2006/3/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42142 Activity:nil
3/8     Bush: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060303/ids_photos_wl/r1442414268.jpg
        \_ Shrubbery: http://wondermill.com/img/shrubbery.jpg  -John
2006/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42139 Activity:nil
3/8     Stupid political trolls deleted. Bush=idiot. We're mostly liberal
        on motd anyways and we get the message already. Please take the
        same message to freeper and newsmax and similar trash sites. Thanks.
2006/3/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42137 Activity:low
3/8     http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/opinion/08wed1.html
        Surely the chicken farmer detained in Gitmo understands his noble
        sacrifice in this post-9/11 world.  Nothing is 100%, except our
        righteous determination to defend America.
        \_ Are there situations under which we should not defend our country?
           \_ Our will to defend our way of life will never flag.
              At times there is collateral damage, but that is the price we are
              willing to pay for Freedom.
              \_ Especially when the currency traded in is Iraqi blood...
              \_ I think Gregoire sells Freedom for $4.  -tom
                 \_ Freedom costs a buck 'o five.
        \_ I find it really sad that the Bush loyalists won't see how truly
           horrid this is.  They're giving him power heaped on power all under
           the safety net of trust.  He's repeatedly (and now blatantly)
           betrayed that trust, and they still vote to give him more unchecked
           \_ Who are these Bush loyalists?  He hasn't been up for election
              for  while.  You mean Congress?
           \_ Yeah, I've seen people arrested to talking out against Bush.
              I've seen people disappear as well. I know for a fact he
              controls the media. And you know he's personally profitting
              from all this - its cuz he didn't already have enough zeros
              after his name.
              \_ Yes! And Elvis and the Greys!  And the Bigfoot Army of God!
                 They're all in on it!
                 \_ Don't forget the Illuminati and the Knights Templar.
              \_ Free Michael and Cindy!
2006/3/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:42128 Activity:low
3/7     http://wonkette.com/politics/wonkette/our-boys-need-gossip-158687.php
        Interesting URL blocking for U.S. military forces based in Iraq.
        \_ Other articles point out that the blocking list is BS, the author
           just lined up a bunch of conservative sites that weren't blocked
           and liberal sites that were blocked.  There were plenty of liberal
           sites that were not blocked and conservative sites that were
           blocked as well.
           \_ other articles like ...?  do everyone a favor and post the URLs
              to http://wonkette.com too.
           \_ other articles like ...?
              \_ Sounds like they need better filtering technology.
                 There's this company in Mountain View that gives
                 its employees free food that can help them out.  Seriously
                 though, our soldiers should be spending more of their
                 time NOT GETTING KILLED than reading stupid ass blogs.
                 I am a big fan of COLBY BUZZELL.
                 \_ In a country where pr0n is illegal, believe me, the troops
                    NEED an uncensored Internet connection.
2006/3/7-9 [Recreation/Food, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Food/Alcohol] UID:42126 Activity:low
3/7     Dear balsalmic vinegar beef marinating guy. What kind of vinegar
        do you use? White? And what brand is good? Thanks.
        \_ I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess... balsamic.
           \_ The message above is obviously written by someone ignorant. There are
              many types. White distilled vinegar, rasbery balsamic vinegar, red
           \_ [80 col. please]
              wine balsamic vinegar (most common), olive vinegar, rice vinegar,
              so on so forth.
           \_ In fairness to the OP, there is such a thing as white balsamic
              vinegar.  But you ought to use the regular dark kind.  Quality
              it not *too* important, so just get something halfway decent.
              -- different balsamic marinating guy
              \_ Racist!
                 \_ Balsamic vinegar of color, then.
        \_ Stop giving me black medicine! ... I mean ... black vinegar.
2006/3/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:42125 Activity:nil
3/7     Heh, funny [sic] interpretation of Bush's recent South Asia trip
        http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060306.gif (direct)
2006/3/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42089 Activity:high
3/3     http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/cunningham.sentence.ap
        Take a bribe for $2 mil for only 10 years in prison. That's
        still over 2X the amount I make a year as an engineer and
        1.5X the amount average Harvard MBAs make. Moral of the story:
        it's ok to take a bribe as long as the amount is big enough,
        because it pays off.
        \_ You think being in prison, even a country club prison, for 10
           years is worth it?  I'll take my freedom thanks.  The price for
           freedom is way higher than 2x your salary.
                \_ Seriously. this douchebag op thinks prison can't be
                   any harder than a day away from his computer, and
                   actually doesn't realize how he'd likely die within
                   one week, literally, of prison life. people the likes
                   of us on the motd don't last long in prison.
                   \_ My old CS250 TA did a year in county lock-up.  It wasn't
                      fun, but he survived ok.  He's a really sweet guy too.
        \_ Did you read the article?  First off, it's all in gifts, it's
           not like they just handed him $2.4mil.  Two, he probably
           doesn't get to keep the stuff.  Three, he's old and in poor
           health.  I don't think I'd take $2mil to die in prison.
           \_ He's also probably going to face a big fine as well.  An earlier
              version of that article claimed $1.6M, but the current article
              on CNN doesn't say....
           \_ He's also probably going to face a big fine as well.  According
              to Yahoo News, he was ordered to pay $1.8M and return $1.85M
              in valuables.  I'm inclined to think that this contradicts the
              "Moral of the story" you've asserted, OP.
           \_ He doesn't get to keep it.  In fact, it's being auctioned off.
              He got 100 months, btw.  (8y4m)  In sheer dollar amounts, his
              is the largest set of bribes discovered in the history of the
              \_ I don't buy this crap about being the largest set of
                 bribes. Surely the money Bush or Cheney personally
                 gained from the Iraq war would make this seems like
                 pocket change.
                 \_ Perhaps they mean the largest in the sense of "the
                    largest where there's been a conviction".
                 \_ How much did they each make?
                 \_ I'm glad you think rich people conspire "illegal"
                    ways to get richer.
2006/3/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42083 Activity:high
3/2     Recent news articles show that income decreased for average
        Americans, +$1mil home sales surged by 24% from 2004 to 2005,
        home school trend is going up up and up, 2 newly appointed
        conservatives, Patriot Act nenewal, Fox News rating going up,
        Free Republic & National Review subscription going waaaay up, etc.
        It appears that conservatism is stronger than ever, despite all
        the distractions from Iraq, Katrina, Enron, Cheney. So I'm
        curious. Besides whining, what are you liberals gonna do
        about it?                                       -liberal troll
        \_ Buying remote land and the needed supplies to get off the grid.
        \_ I'm not sure that all the things you cite really add up to much
           besides trolling.
        \_ Is this graph going up or down?
           link:csua.org/u/f4y [alexa.com]
           \_ I wouldn't base anything on alexa's information
           Fox News continues to slide.
           Bush at 34% approval.
           I could go on, but I won't.
           \_ YOUR own little liberal world is the internet. But you're
              forgetting the sales of Bible and the CB radio (internet
              for the Red State folks who can't afford computers), both
              are going way up. Face it, conservatism and hickism are growing.
              \_ Off your meds again today?  Watch out for those black
                 \_ Hey!  That's someone else!
                    \_ Don't Black Helicopters pollute the air and require
                       oil subsidies and where people who shouldn't be allowed
                       to drive a big wheel tailgate in the right airlane get
                       Black Helicopter Driving licencses?  RAWR!!  HELICOPTER
                       CULTURE!!!  RAAAWWWRRRR!!!!1!!!one FUCK YOU!11!!!
                       \_ Nope. Sorry.  Not going to bite today. I am pretty
                          much at peace with the world.  If it makes you feel
                          any better, you can read my flying car rant from the
                          motd archives:
                          \_ I see you might have gotten the dosage correct
                             today.  My, my the wonders never cease....
                          much at peace with the world.
2006/3/3-5 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42082 Activity:nil
3/2     http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/02/real_estate/luxury_home_sales_soaring
        "... total sales of homes costing $1 million or more reached $55.9
        billion, up 24 percent, compared with $45.1 billion in 2004."
        Yeah the Bush economy is working!!! Go George W Bush!!!
2006/3/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42071 Activity:nil
3/2     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_re_us/helpful_babies
        Altruism start as early as 18 months.
        \_ then stops as early as 18 years when you become a conservative
           like GWB.
           \_ Haw haw haw!
              \_ I'm an independent, and if I understand the conservative
                 from an independent's perspective, they are:
                 *pro lower tax-- "I don't want to pay tax to fund programs
                        that I personally don't need, like welfare"
                 *pro family value-- "Who needs the government when you
                        can get support from your family"
                 *pro self-reliance-- "God helps those who help themselves"
                 *pro small government-- "If you help yourself you don't
                        need to leech off from the government"
                 *pro free market-- "success is measured by money and
                 I'm sorry my conservative friend, but none of the above
                 values stem from altruism. That's why I'll never vote
                 for a conservative candidate. I have similar gripes about
                 anal ass loving liberals but we can save that for another
                 \_ You got the previous poster wrong.  GWB is NOT a
                    conservative.  Just look at how the idiot is spending
                    money like a drunken sailor.  We'll be in debt for
                    generations thanks to GWB.  GWB, is, pure and simple,
                    a crony-rewarding dumbass frat-boy criminal who has
                    used the power and treasure of the US to conduct
                    personal and family vendettas, and enriched his
                    cronies in the process.
                    \_ In other words, unfortunately he's a typical
                       national-level politician.
                       \_ In other words, the people really don't want a
                          "real" conservative government.  Didn't we already
                          find this out in the Reagan years?
2006/3/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42061 Activity:nil
3/1     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm
        Brown was doing a good job all along. Next on Fox News at 11, the
        blame is now on the bureaucracy in the government, setup by the
        Clinton administration. Yes, it's the democrats' fault. God Bless.
2006/3/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42049 Activity:moderate
3/1     http://csua.org/u/f4e (AP via http://latimes.com)
        Watch Dubya participate via videoconference in FEMA briefing one day
        ahead of Katrina arrival.
        fyi, note that levy "breach" != levies being "topped"
        See "Nobody anticipated ..." below
        \_ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html
        \_ Face it, nothing is going to change the public opinion to the
           left. This includes oh so boring facts "made up" by liberal
           biased media. The only thing that'll change the mind of the
           overwhelmingly conservative dominated America is when Fox News
           shows footage of a whitehouse intern sucking GWB's dick.
           \_ or news aboot da Arabs buying our ports!
        \_ Ok. Whether it's Bush's fault or not is not relevant to the future
           of America. What's relevant is that most of the Red State folks
           believe that the New Orleans brought the disaster onto themselves
           by a series of mismanagement and corruption. The New Orleans are
           like the grasshoppers who partied at Mardi Gras while the
           ants (Red State people) worked hard because they're self-reliant
           and have moral and family values. Guess what? These Red State hicks
           are praising Bush for not wasting money on these New Orleans and
           welfare leeches who by the way are mostly colored negros that they
           despise of in the first place. And by 2008, there will be more
           conservatives bearing more conservative babies, and more aging
           folks opting for conservative politics, and even more young
           college kids opting for conservative politics. The university
           is now no longer a playground for the liberals. So you see, it
           doesn't matter what Bush does. Regardless of all the fuckups,
           what is clear in the future is that you'll see more and more car
           bumper stickers that say "Work harder. Millions of welfare
           recipients depend on you!" and "<Conservative Candidate> 2008"
           \_ Is that why Bush is at a 34% approval rating?
              \_ Yes, that's what happens when you poll 2x as many Democrats
                 as Republicans.  Go look at they poll data on that one then
                 wash the koolaid out of your mouth.
                 \_ Clearly, you're not a member of the reality-based
                    community.  Gallup had him at 39 a few weeks before
                    the latest shit hit the fan, Quinnipiac just polled him
                    at 36...but please, go on making tired kool-aid jokes.
                    \_ Seriously, go look at the poll data.  It was almost
                       2x D vs R.  Believe what you want.  I believe in facts.
                       Koolaid jokes are appropriate when the other person
                       doesn't bother to research the basis of their numbers.
                       \_ The poll was for "adults nationwide" not "registered
                          voters", and not "likely voters".  The weighted %s
                          are 37.4D 28.4R 34.2I. You'd be hard pressed to
                          refute these.  And 37.4 != 56.8.  Hell, even
                          unweighted, 40 != 53.  Your "facts" are broken.
                          \_ Hey nice of you to actually find them.  Now you
                             can do the reading comprehension part of this
                             where the word "almost" appeared in my statement
                             which is another way of saying, "your numbers are
                             so messed up it isn't even worth discussing". I
                             also note you chose to focus on the weighted
                             numbers but I'll give you a nickel's credit for
                             at least mentioning the raw numbers since we
                             have no idea how they weighted anything.  Next
                             time you post crappy poll numbers you can put
                             a "*" next to them and provide the raw data
                             instead of spewing random numbers that you think
                             support your partisanship.  Had you noted them
                             in the first place instead of tossing off your
                             cutesy one liner I wouldn't have said anything.
                             \_ The ratio of registered Democrats to
                                registered Republicans is 1.35:1.  -tom
                                \_ "registered" != "likely voters" or we'd
                                   not have a Republican controlled government.
                                   Registered voters is no more interesting
                                   than "adults nationwide".  If they don't
                                   vote, their political opinions don't
                             \_ That was my first post in the thread.  You've
                                challenged the credibility of the poll based
                                on its methodology without any evidence but
                                hand-waving.  You wanna call them crappy, fine,
                                but it's not a winning debate tactic.  What
                                would be a valid distribution in your mind?
                                Please show your work.
                                \_ applying near zero brain power to this I
                                   would say that a poll of people who are
                                   likely voters in upcoming elections based
                                   on previous voting patterns that closely
                                   matches the political demographics of the
                                   total likely voter population would be a
                                   good start for a poll.  i'm sorry if this
                                   is a difficult concept for you but very few
                                   polls even attempt to actually reflect what
                                   voters think or want about anything so
                                   spewing random numbers about what
                                   percentage of a skewed survey of "adults
                                   nationwide" is a stupid and useless
                                   information-free political act.  the poll
                                   in question in this thread is so slanted
                                   away from anything resembling a useful poll
                                   it isn't worth posting or discussing the
                                   'results'.  And I use that word very
                                   \_ If you want a "likely voters" poll, go
                                      find one.  Your claim, still unsupported,
                                      is that their methodology was bogus. You
                                      claim, also unsupported that the values
                                      are skewed.  Grow up, put up, or shut up.
                                      BTW, Fox just released theirs of
                                      Registered voters.  39/54 app/dis
                                      \_ I claim that a political poll that
                                         covers anything other than voters is
                                         useless junk produced solely for
                                         PR purposes.  If they don't vote,
                                         they don't matter.  See above for
                                         my comments on registered voters.
                                         Not interesting.  How hard is it to
                                         figure out that when I said "likely
                                         voters" I meant "people most likely
                                         to vote, thus having opinions that
                                         matter", not every asshat with a
                                         useless non-voting opinion?  Spewing
                                         at me that my claims are unsupported
                                         is ridiculous since my claims are so
                                         simple, even a motder could
                                         understand them.  Frankly, I don't
                                         care at all what the actual numbers
                                         would be in a real poll anyway.  GWB
                                         could be at 100 or at 0 and I wouldn't
                                         care, but the methodology in that poll
                                         is weak and then to spew it on the
                                         motd as if it has value is just
                                         \_ "don't vote" != "can't vote".  I'd
                                            agree with you if the president
                                            were up for election that a "likely
                                            voters" poll would be more useful.
                                            But non-voters have to live under
                                            this administration too.  And they
                                            can very well become voters.  To
                                            ignore their voice is stupid and
                                            \_ true but historically not the
                                               case.  over time the number of
                                               voters as a percentage of those
                                               eligible to register+vote has
                                               been slowly dropping over the
                                               years.  I agree that it would
                                               be nice if the opposite were
                                               true but it isn't the case.
                                               As far as elections and such
                                               go, I agree in general that
                                               doing a popularity poll on
                                               a second term President isn't
                                               useful but we're never that far
                                               from a mid-term or the start of
                                               the next general election cycle
                                               so I do believe that polls of
                                               likely voters carry some weight
                                               in regards to which way the
                                               country is going politically.
                                               \_ Why don't you get even
                                                  more pedantic and point out
                                                  that "likely voters" are
                                                  self-reported, so those
                                                  are meaningless too?  All
                                                  polls are worthless!  The
                                                  only useful information is
                                                  what some dipwad who hasn't
                                                  fashioned a survey in his
                                                  life says on the MOTD!  -tom
                                                  \_ thanks for contributing.
                                                     without you here, it just
                                                     wouldn't be the same.
                                                     glad to have you on board.
                                                     you're the best, nay! dare
                                                     i say, U r0xx0rz, tom!
                                                     if you have nothing to
                                                     say, say nothing.  you'll
                                                     look smarter.
                                                     \_ He's looking smarter
                                                        than you, and that
                                                        ain't saying much.
                                                        \_ Just coming down
                                                           to his level so he
                                                           can understand.
                                                           Anyone who uses
                                                           "dipwad" at his
        \_ Thank you. This further illustrates the fact that AP is yet
           another liberal mouth blabbering about nothing but non-sense.
        \_ At least he assured them that they were "fully prepared"
           \_ well, dubya said the federal govt was fully prepared to assist
              state govt, but it's doubtful whether that was true too
              my analysis is that pre-dubya, fema was in charge.  when dubya
              came in, he whacked fema and said the states are now in charge.
              he broke something and then expected someone else to fix it ...
              hmm, sounds like ... gimme some help here.
              \_ He didn't "whack" it.  He "privatized" it. THE FREE MARKET
                 FIXES EVERYTHING! Except that it doesn't.
                 \_ now there's a novel idea. pump all the money to the
                    government and let it do its job. Let me guess, you're
                    a socialist?
                 \_ people should put that enron movie in their netflix queue
2006/2/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42009 Activity:nil
2/25    Yeah, we could be making all this stuff up
2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42008 Activity:nil
2/25    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32829
        Bush To Iraqi Militants: "Please Stop Bringing It On"
        \_ you're only 22 months late with that link
2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42006 Activity:high
2/24    Only their bumper stickers remain, like cockroaches after a
        nuclear holocaust.
        http://csua.org/u/f3a (BBC)
        \_ Hi! I'm a lazy English journalist who doesn't know shit about America
           but wants to keep getting paid to tell whacky stories about whacky
           Americans!  There are a lot of important things that could be said
           by a real journalist about how fucked the Democratic party is right
           now, but this ain't it.  Thanks for wasting my time.
           \_ Anytime, humorless motd guy!
        \_ Hey, jblack, I found a great new site for white people like you
           and me: http://www.natall.com
           \_ Hey, idiot, the above was not posted by jblack.
              \_ That's right, it's posted by our other conservative
                 friend, jrleek the good Mormon.
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41996 Activity:high
2/24    http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf
        Income gap continues to widen.  Check out the huge difference
        between median and mean incomes and net worths.  Average (mean)
        family income dropped 2.3% from 2001-2004 after inflation adjustment.
        \_ So what is wrong with that? The rich got richer through
           Reagon's new tax cut initiatives in the 80s. Money trickled
           down to the poor, stimulating an economic boom never been
           seen in the history of US. Unfortunately the Clinton
           administration unfairly took credit for it all. Why do
           you hate rich people? Are you a communist?
           \_ if history is any guidance, the poor will eventually rise up
              and overthrow the rich.  Do you want that to happen?
           \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
              \_ the political slant of motd today is: ultra socialist
                 left. Why do you guys encourages lazy people to be even
                 lazier? A great man once said, self-reliance, lower tax,
                 free-market, family values, small government, and fiscal
                 rectitude will save America. The fact of the matter is,
                 commu-socialist programs don't work. Never has, never will.
                 \_ unfortunately the current administration is fiscally
                    irresponsible, corrupt, expanding government, cutting
                    taxes for the rich mainly and taking away assistance
                    for those who want to get an education.  Clinton was
                    the one who cut welfare and forced lazy people to
                    \_ Yeah that was in his agenda from the get-go, he
                       also secretly wrote the Contract With America.
                       \_ Was that before or after he invented the blowjob?
                       \_ congress can make a lot of noise.
                       \_ exactly.  congress can make a lot of noise.
                          but the president gets the job done.
                    get jobs.  And he kept government spending in check:
                    The average American is self reliant and not lazy,
                        \- in what countries are
                           people lazy "on average"?
                           \_ are you implying that peoples of different
                              countries all work equally hard?
                    yet his income has been falling.  As for good ole'
                    Christian family values, sorry, but lying, giving
                    money to Halliburton, torturing people, and
                    eagerness to go to war doesn't cut it.
                    eagerness to go to war don't cut it.
                 \_ The fact of the matter is, the average American are
                    some of the most hardworking and self reliant people
                    in the world, yet their income is falling.
           \_ Average income going down... why do you hate average people?
           PORSCHE!!!  FUK OFF COMMMIE!!!!!!11!!!!
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41989 Activity:nil
2/24    The Republicans running Congress won't take time to investigate record
        oil industry profits (which I think is a stupid thing to do anyhow),
        but they *will* investigate Citgo for offering discounted heating oil
        to the poor.  Good to know they are fighting hard for the little guy!
        \_ Why should Congress investigate any industry's profits?  Congress
           isn't a brilliant investigative arm of the government.  It's always
           just showmanship for the cameras.  Or baseball hearings... sheesh.
           \_ "Which I think is a stupid thing to do anyhow"
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41987 Activity:nil
2/24    Released today -- "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and
        Betrayed the Reagan Legacy"
        \_ Sigh.
           \_ Why sigh?  Anything that gets fiscal conservatives to not vote
              for another imposter like GWB is a good thing for the whole
              country, AFAIC.
           \_ All the guy seems to be saying according to the editorial
              reviewers is that GWB isn't a real conservative and doesn't
              act like one.  We all knew that Republican != conservative for
              a while now.  No real news here.
2006/2/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41959 Activity:moderate
2/22    Can anyone tell me why Bush wants to outsource the ports to
        a company from another country? What's the reason behind it?
        What is the advantage for doing so?
        \_ sounds more to me like that the ports are already outsourced by
           foreign counteries.  This was a case of one foreign company selling
           out to a company HQ'd in a country that had a few folks unhappy
           \- i dont think this is really a hands on personal decision.
              it was a cmte decison by Committee on Foreign Investment in
              the US. i suppose it is possible BUSH let them know what he
              wanted, but i dunno if that has really been established.
              this is controversial because the country is arab, not foreign.
              foreign companies were already involved running other parts
              of the ports/martine infrastructure.
              \_ His threatened veto of any bar to it belies the "not hands on"
                 \- well that's after the fact. that can be construed as
                    backing the cmte rather than desiring a particular
                    outcome. perhaps a legitmate case of defending executive
                    \_ Yes, it's after the fact.  But that, combined with them
                       bypassing the required 45 day investigation period
                       suggests a concerted effort that would depend on an
                       executive branch "understanding".  Yes, this is
                       conjecture, but it runs along their standard MO.
        \_ UAE only supplied two 9/11 hijackers, so they only get ports.
           Saudi Arabia sent 15 hijackers, so they get Abrams tanks, F-15s,
           and quality time with Dubya. http://csua.org/u/f22 (whitehouse.gov)
           \_ Their banks also provided money to the hijackers and stopped any
              investigation to follow the money trail through UAE.  There are a
              lot of conservatives like me upset about this.
              \_ Ok, Mr. Responsible Conservative Guy, so which GOP candidate
                 are you planning on backing for '08?  Just curious.
                 \_ Anybody but Bush!
                    \_ Do you mean Jeb?
                 \_ I don't see any '08 candidates of any party worth looking
                    at twice. -Mr. RCG
                    \_ Reasonable, informed, people should always vote, and
                       shold always care.  Even if you're a "lesser evil"
                       voter, shouldn't you care that they get someone who
                       can beat the other party?  Of if you really hate them,
                       you should pick a Dem to support.  Reasonable,
                       non-partisan people ignoring party primaries is how you
                       end up with assholes like George Bush being a major
                       party candidate.   I will forever regret not registering
                       as a Republican in 2000 so that I could vote against
                       that bastard twice.
                       \_ I'm sure that would have made a difference.  Anyway,
                          I think you're missing the above person's point
                          which is this is early 06 and the election isn't
                          until late '08.  We don't even know who is running
                          so how could anyone have an intelligent opinion?
                 \_ If Colin Powell could be convinced to run, I would vote
                    for him. My 2d choice would be McCain. I voted for him
                    in the 2000 primary. If the GOP runs some neocon nutcase
                    and the Democrats run someone reasonable like Lieberman
                    or Clark, I'd probably vote Democrat for the first time
                    in my life. -gopvoter
                    \_ You don't want someone more moderate and not in the
                       pocket of the insurance industry like Senator Clinton?
                       \_ I'm pretty much center of the road, so I could
                          bring myself to vote for a moderate democrat,
                          esp. considering that a moderate democrat prob.
                          would not have expanded the fed gov as much as
                          BUSHCO has.
                          Re Sen. Clinton: I don't think I can vote for her
                          b/c I think her whole moderate stance is a just a
                          PR stunt and that she would go left if elected. I
                          am also just too closed minded to think that a woman
                          could lead troops into battle a la President Wash-
                          ington [except perhaps Princess Leia :-)]. I know
                          that no modern President has had to or could effect-
                          ively do this (except maybe Ike), but it is still a
                          factor in my voting. -gopvoter
                          \_ Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that they
                             both are leading identical countries, with
                             identical armies so that the only difference is
                             leadership, and imagine a war with Thatcher
                             leading one side and George W. Bush leading the
                             other.  I'm not saying Clinton could be a good
                             commander in chief, but it would be hard to be
                             worse at that particular job than the lazy, lying
                             ex-cheerleader AWOL know-nothing who presently has
                             the job.
                             \_ As much as I love Maggie, the guys on the Brit
                                destroyer the Argentinians sunk might
                                disagree with you.
                             \_ I understand on a rational level that some
                                women can perform the duties of CiC better
                                that most of the men who have held that
                                position. That isn't the problem for me.
                                I still have this vision of the President
                                as a man who, if necessary, can walk on to
                                the battle field and defend this nation w/
                                his life. I just can't bring my self to see
                                this as the proper sort of thing for a
                                \_ Looks like you'd better start pushing
                                   for a Jesse Ventura presidential bid.
                                   \_ I prefer Ahnuld, but The Body would
                                      be okay w/ me.
                                \_ "When two tribes go to war..."
                                \- and BUSH and CHENEY fit your vision of
                                   a CiC who can walk on to the battle
                                   field [sic] and defend this nation with
                                   his life? wow, you have quite an
                                   imagination. --motd vet for truth
                                   \_ Bush2 does not fit my vision of a
                                      proper president (I voted for McCain
                                      in the 2000 primary and would have
                                      liked the Democrats to have nominated
                                      Clark in 2004). Furthermore, I said
                                      that fitness as the CiC was one factor
                                      in my voting. Between two male candi-
                                      dates, this factor is not dispositive.
                                      It only really affects my decision to
                                      vote for a woman for the presidency.
                                      I'd rather abstain than vote for a
                                      woman candidate b/c I can't get over
                                      the feeling that women are not fit
                                      to be the CiC.
        \_ Aren't these guys heavy Carlyle Group investors?
        \_ I thought they aren't actually running the ports just leasing some
           terminals ...
           \- hola fyi ucb dept political science prof steve weber will
              be talking about this on the radio at 9pm on thr.
        \_ Polls don't matter, I read it on the motd.
2006/2/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41944 Activity:moderate
2/21    Haha.  Dubya says he'll veto any bill which would block the UAE port
        deal, and says he expects people to explain why it should be blocked.
        The people who want it blocked says Dubya should explain why the deal
        should go through.
        The same thing happened with Social Security.  Dubya said critics need
        to propose an alternate plan.  Critics said it's up to you to come up
        with a good plan.  Then it died.
        \_ If he did veto, it would be his first.
           \_ George Bush got his SSI stuff written into the new federal
              budget anyway.  Doom!
              \_ CW is that the budget bill is DOA.
                 \_ CW?
        \_ Yeah, I'd just love to hear how putting a middle-eastern company
           in charge of our ports is "making America safer"
           \_ You must not question the King!
           \_ racist
              \_ Nothing racial about it.  The UAE's banks funded terrorist
                 groups who attacked us.  The company that is buying the ports
                 is run by the UAE.  Why does Bush hate America's ports?
                 \_ How do you feel about profiling airplane passengers?
                    \_ Disregarding the State vs. Individual distinction you
                       fail to make in this non-sequitur, profiling doesn't
                       work.  How would you feel if North Korea bought United
                       \_ The government of North Korea is hostile to the US.
                          The government of UAE is an ally.
                          The government of UAE is not.
                          \_ Hmm... One says "We don't like you!" The other
                             says "no, we won't help you track down the people
                             who attacked you, nor will we change the channels
                             they used through us."  Which is more hostile?
                             Or is that just "the cost of doing business?" aka
                             the Saudi Arabia argument.
                             \_ The UAE passed anti-money laundering law and
                                imposed monitoring procedures on charities.
                                Can it do more?  Sure, but the "characteristics
                                that make it an ideal place for legitimate
                                business also attract militants and others
                                with suspect motives."  Is friendly relation
                                with the US a suicide pact?  I guess you want
                                it to be.
        \_ You know the funny thing is, I really hate Dubya, but I just
           can't get that excited about this. I think it is just politicians
           of every stripe grandstanding as usual.
           \_ At one level, I agree with you.  On the other hand, some elements
              of this budget have the potential to do real good and others
              have the potential to do real harm, so any political battle over
              this budget, no matter how petty, can have serious consequenses.
        \_ Where was the ourtrage when Hutchinson Wampoa (read Chicoms) took
           over the Panama Canal and Long Beach.
2006/2/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41932 Activity:nil
2/20    Just how *did* Bush win Ohio, anyway?
        \_ Swing voters thought if Kerry were elected there would be a better
           chance of mushroom clouds appearing in random American cities.
           \_ Not so much mushroom clouds, but more appeals to conservative
              voters. A good portion of the backlash is due to state scandals
              which have hit the Republicans hard.
2006/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41915 Activity:low
2/17    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4726300.stm
        Retirement at 85 and 50-year mortgage may be common by 2050.
        \_ In Japan it takes three generations to pay off a mortgage.
           \_ And in America, it takes one generation to pay off
              three mortgages. Just look at Bill gates, the Waltons,
              the Enron executives, and the Bush Dynasty.
              \_ And Soros and the Kennedy family and the Heinz
                 family and the....  What do billionaires have to do with
        \_ Yes, if pigs had wings, they may fly.
2006/2/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41895 Activity:nil
2/16    Winning the Race
2006/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41885 Activity:high
2/16    Conservatives argue for impeachment:
        QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an
        offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

        BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy atty general
        in the Reagan Admin: I think the answer requires at least in part
        considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath
        of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is
        totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a
        war-time President I can do anything I want . I don't need to consult
        any other branches . that is an impeachable offense. It's more
        dangerous than Clinton.s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our
        democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would
        set a precedent that . would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be
        used indefinitely for any future occupant.

        NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we.re going to be intellectually
        honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton
        was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
        \_ Congress seems to be agreeing with the necessity of the wiretaps.
           What's your point?
           \_ Both Congress and the American public are overrun by cowards
              who do not believe in freedom.  What's your point?
              \_ Welcome to a Democratic Republic.  It isn't perfect but it
                 is the best thing the planet has seen so far in governments.
                 If enough voters cared about this they'd speak with their
                 votes.  Since most people don't vote at all much less based
                 on issues like this, you would seem to have the minority
                 opinion on how important this really is.
                 \_ Fuck you, you patronizing fuckhead asshole.
                    \_ *laugh*  If you weren't such an idiot, then you
                       wouldn't find everyone so patronizing.  Pull the log
                       from your own eye before pointing to the splinter in
                       someone else's.  ;-)
                       \_ Fuck you.  I can keep this up all day.
                          \_ Exactly.  Now you have identified your problem.
                             \_ Stick it in your ass.
                                \_ You're such a cutie!  Muwah!
                                   \_  Come a little closer and say that, punk.
                                       Just see what happens.
           \_ Just about everyone agrees with the necessity of the wiretaps.
              It's the part about doing this without oversight that violates
              FISA and has people in an uproar.
              \_ The thing is, it's Congress' opinion that counts, not any
                 \_ Although I think it's unlikely that a GOP Congress will
                    impeach a sitting GOP President, there are still plenty
                    of conservative congress-people who agree with the
                    speakers above.
                    \_ And there are Democrats who agree that the process
                       should continue with congressional oversight.
                       \_ I really mean no offense, but I think you're
                          missing why this is an issue to begin with. The
                          wiretapping has never been the issue; the issue's
                          been that the wiretapping was going on without
                          oversight (specifically, Judicial, according to
                          FISA). If I misunderstand your confusion, I look
                          forward to your elaboration.
           \_ I do not understand the uproar about FISA. Let's say the
              Pres. does an illegal wire tap, but never uses the evid.
              against you in ct. How are you hurt (esp. if you never
              find out that your were wire tapped)? What exactly are
              you afraid of?
              \_ Well, let's say you're in the opposition party and the Pres.
                 uses wiretapping to spy on you and set his party's political
                 strategy. Ridiculous, you say. But if there's no oversight,
                 there's nothing to prevent people from doing this sort of
                 thing. Really, court is the least of your concerns.
                 \_ Or they could end up with 500+ of your FBI files... but
                    no one would ever do that.
                    \_ So what? The Pres. could easily get access to these
                       files if he really wanted it. I don't see how FISA
                       makes this any easier/harder for the Pres.
                       \_ FISA prevents the executive branch from violating
                          the constitutional right against illegal search and
                          seizure. The international calls go to domestic
                          lines, and potentially citizens, so FISA allows taps
                          for cases that have probable cause. What the
                          executive branch is doing ignores probable cause and
                          may be using tainted evidence to gain domestic
                          wiretaps. So if someone in the 300k list of people
                          listed as terrorists calls say Clinton's Senate
                          office and hangs up, that's a link. No oversight so
                          now the NSA tells the FBI says we have credible link,
                          tap all lines in that office, we'll review the
                          transcripts. There would be no probable cause to tap
                          the lines without the tainted no-FISA evidence.
                          \_ I'm specifically talking about the FBI files.
                             The wiretap provisions of FISA do not restrict
                             the Pres. access to FBI files.
                             I don't follow your argument. At some point the
                             gov needs to get a valid warrant, that means
                             the warrant needs to be based on independent
                             evid not on the tainted wiretap info.
                             Say the NSA fingers a suspect and tells the
                             FBI about it. The FBI can't get a warrant to
                             FBI about it based on a so-called illegal
                             wiretap. The FBI can't get a warrant to
                             wiretap the guy w/o a showing of probable
                             cause. This can't be based on tainted evid.
                             The FBI will have to est. independent evid
                             to support a showing of probable cause. This
                             is what their warrant will be based on. The
                             fact that they got a tip from the NSA is the
                             same as if they got an anon tip and invest-
                             cause. This warrant can't be based on tainted
                             evid. The FBI will have to est. independent
                             evid to support a showing of probable cause.
                             The fact that they got a tip from the NSA is
                             the same as if they got an anon tip and invest-
                             igated. There is no taint.
                             [ I say so-called illegal wiretap b/c I think
                               FISA is an unconstitutional limitation on
                               the Pres. constitutional duty to defend this
                               nation from her enemies. ]
                 \_ So why would you be discussing your important political
                    policies in cleartext? Why wouldn't you be using encry-
                    ption? I still don't understand. When I value my info
                    enough that I don't want a 3d party intercepting it, I
                    use encryption. If the opposition party doesn't value
                    the information enough to take measures to prevent it
                    disclosure, then it is their own fault if the info is
                    \_ We're talking about phone conversations, not email.
                       Also, why should the resources of the US be used for
                       political gain of one political party?
                       \_ There are secure phone sol'n for sensitve info.
                          Use that if you really care. If not, don't be
                          surprised if someone overhears your conversation
                          and uses it against you.
                          I'm not exactly sure why you are bothered that
                          one party might be abusing government resources
                          for political gain. Both parties do it. Its not
                          something that can be prevented.
        \_ Congress can decide to impeach on whatever they want. The
           Constitution is itself vauge about the terms of what constitutes
           a "high crime", so practically speaking as long as you have the
           political clout you can just trump up charges and start the
           impeachment process. You don't need peanut gallery commentators
           to argue for or against impeachment. Is GW going to be impeached
           during his term? Not likely unless the Dems can pull off some sort
           of electoral revolution during the midterm elections. Chances
           of GW getting impeached are probably one in a thousand if not
        \_ Just an aside, but Bubba would say, (a) under oath, he didn't lie
           about Monica, (b) in the public sphere, "sexual relations" didn't
           include oral sex, and (c) in his private life with Hillary and
           Chelsea, he lied like hell.
           Similarly, Dubya would say there's a loophole on spying on the
           American people (a) if one end of a call comes from outside the
           country, and (b) one of those individuals is suspected of al Qaeda
           activity (c) during a war on al Qaeda (Dubya interprets the
           Congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate
           force" in fighting al Qaeda as enabling his war powers against al
2006/2/15 [Science/Disaster, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41873 Activity:nil
2/15    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060215/cm_usatoday/relianceongovernmentstallsrebuilding
        In the era before the Great Society and Social Security,
        people were independent. Now, they're dependent leeches.
        Proof that the nigers in New Orleans are lazy and stupid.
2006/2/14-15 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41831 Activity:moderate
2/13    Rather than paying hotels and other expensive social programs
        that people always need, why doesn't the government simply give
        raw materials to the Katrina victims to build their own homes?
        Doing so will promote self-reliance, free-market, small
        government, and fiscal rectitude. I'm sick and tired of
        giving my tax dollars to lazy bums and immigrants.
        \_ That is what I don't understand neither.  We are dumping
           billions of dollars into this, can't we just divide those
           billions of dollars to the number of victims and ask them to
           relocate to somewhere else and prohibits flood zone to be developed?
           Each of the victims will have close to a million dollars for it,
           and I think that is good enough for most of them to get back on their
           and I think that is good enough for most of them to get back on
           their feet!
        \_ Your fucking "Do everything yourself" cowboy gunho Republican
           ideology doesn't work well for population that is either too
           sick, too old, and too young. Go fuck yourself.
           \_ It was a troll.  YHBT.  Go take a pill and relax.
        \- how about we given them weapons and transport to conquor
           another country.
        \_ how about they give supplies and a no-bid emergency reconstruction
           contract to Bechtel and Halliburton, and other politically
           connected contractors?
        \_ That will bypass the labor unions, good.  But then most residents
           don't have the skills to build a house that can survive a hurricane,
           let alone following all the local codes and regulations, bad.
           \_ Hell, I don't have the skills to build a house.
        \_ Why are we still building houses from scratch in NOLA?  Given the
           scale of the rebuilding and the government funding, they should
           just put up pre-fab houses that are pre-approved for hurricane
           conditions.  Pre-fab houses are cheaper and quicker to assemble,
           more environment friendly, and I am guessing less prone to cost
           inflation from corruption.
           \_ There's no such thing as a broken-dam safe house when you're
              down stream.  Anyway, why would we put any houses up in an
              area that is just going to get wiped out again anyway?
              \_ Agreed.  But given that we're putting up houses anyway,
                 why not do it in an efficient manner? -pp
                 \_ Because this isn't a command economy?
                    \_ Of course people can build whatever they wish.  But
                       the government can have separate application processes
                       for pre-fab and bespoke houses, and the process for
                       pre-approved, pre-inspected, pre-negotiated, pre-fab
                       houses can quite reasonably be simpler.
                       \_ Are you kidding me? Your solution is *more*
                          government 'processes'?
                          \_ Do you get whiplash when your knee jerks that
                             \_ Think about your 'solution' realistically.
                                \_ Oh, I do.  It's clear I'm too subtle for
                                \_ It's ok.  I understand you don't understand.
                                   \_ Bureaucracy never solved anything. Are
                                      you Chinese by any chance?
                                      \_ Again the knee jerk.  Now consider
                                         your previous question
                                         "why would we put any houses up?".
                                         Perhaps my solution is one that
                                         yields a favorable outcome whether
                                         it achieves its stated goal or not.
                                         \_ My last comment was "why would we".
                                            Anyway, to your question: because
                                            a solution that doesn't achieve
                                            its stated goal is a failure?  How
                                            about restating your goal to be,
                                            "create more government jobs and
                                            raise taxes"?  Then your solution
                                            and outcome would match.
2006/2/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41821 Activity:low
2/13    Trailers for Katrina survivors going to waste.  Our gov't dollars at
        work! http://csua.org/u/eyt
        \_ Are these the $60k a pop "trailers o' hope"?
           \_ More like $40k a pop.
        \_ A family member in Mississippi got one of these FEMA trailers.
           Their house is now in good enough condition to live in and
           yet the trailer still sits in the yard. No one has asked
           about picking it up or reassigning it and it's not clear what
           will happen to it. What a waste.
           \_ Hey, free trailer!  -John
              \_ Yes, thousands of empty trailers while people sleep in
                 the streets. This is sort of the opposite problem of
                 Soviet Russia.
                 \_ Mr. President, we must not allow...a trailer gap!  -John
2006/2/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41785 Activity:nil
2/9     http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/fema.brown.ap
        In letter from lawyer of ex-FEMA chief Michael Brown to Harriet Miers,
        Brown asks Dubya to scratch his back and he'll scratch his ...
        "Unless there is specific direction otherwise from the president,
        including an assurance the president will provide a legal defense to
        Mr. Brown if he refuses to testify as to these matters, Mr. Brown will
        testify if asked about particular communications"
        \_ Huh? How the hell did you read quid pro quo from that article?
           All the article is reporting is that Brown's lawyer notified the
           White House that he will advise his clien to testify before
           Congress unless he hears otherwise from his ex-boss. He isn't
           exactly being hauled into Congress to be indicted. If he is
           ordered by the POTUS to refuse to testify he'd of course be
           in violation of the Congressional subpoena, and of course his
           counsel would demand legal immunity from the subpoena. Heck,
           this isn't really even that newsworthy.
           \_ "if you don't give me a legal defense to not testify, all heck
              may break loose when I testify on friday and it's not my fault
              because you didn't say anything.  if you give me a legal defense
              to not disclose, then I won't, and good on you and me both."
              "how the hell" indeed.
              \_ Uhm, duh?  It sure as hell couldn't be, "Now that I'm no
                 longer an employee and I'm being called to tell people stuff
                 that you, my former employer, may not want the public to
                 know, you have the choice of letting me go say all that
                 stuff or you can pay for my defense because I'm sure as hell
                 not paying out of my pocket to cover your ass", could it?
                 But a conspiracy is much more interesting than self interest
                 and common sense.  Motd, carry on.
                 \_ yes, the self-interest is "don't blame me, I'm giving
                    you fair warning right now", which is also a common
                    sense interpretation.
2006/2/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41782 Activity:moderate
2/9     Pres. Bush reveals details of terrorist plot to run planes into
        US Bank Tower in LA, foiled in... 2002:
        "[T]the White House would not say whether the 2002 plot was thwarted
         as a result of the spying program."
        '"The plot was foiled in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation
         arrested a key al Qaeda operative," Mr. Bush said'
        ...the hell is he bothering to talk about this now?
        \_ Oh my god! West Coast is saved thanks to George Bush! He
           protects us from terrorists and 911 and all the evil guys
           who hate freedom. I'm definitely voting Republican again.
        ...the hell is he bothering to talk about this now?
           \_ Cause they only just got around to making up all the evidence.
        \_ His whole argument for the wiretapping is "trust me."  He's
           manufacturing "trust". "I", meaning a SE Asian nation, "am keeping
           you safe from the big bad bombers."
           http://tinyurl.com/badpc (customwire.ap.org)
           P.R., Pure and simple.
        \_ The peasants were starting to revolt
        \_ "In his remarks, Mr. Bush inadvertently referred to the
            [US Bank Tower] as 'Liberty Tower.'" hahahah
            \_ That means his wife was once a Liberty-ian. I thought they
               were against huge governments.
           \_ The US Bank Tower used to be called the Library Tower.
              \_ Does this make his wife an ex-Liberty-arian?
           \_ A news reader on KCBS radio made the same mistake last night.
        \_ why now?  well for political reasons, obviously, for one.  he's
           a politician.  they're all the same.  on the security side, you
           generally wouldn't talk about something like that right away because
           you'd want to have a chance to turn those people to get their
           buddies.  if you announce to the world you caught someone, their
           buddies immediately know, too, so your intel asset value just
           dropped to zero.  k?
           \_ The timing is still bizarre: too untimely to be useful,
              \_ very important GOPers have been saying the wiretapping
                 program has problems -- the subcommittee head overseeing
                 the NSA even recommended a full review.  oh look, al qaeda
                 is coming after L.A., and Dubya stopped it!  John Q. Citizen:
                 "It must be because of the Tewwowist Surveillance Program!"
                 \_ Even though he was very careful not to say so....
        \_ Dubya is a fucking moron.  He has a very low bar when it comes
           to scoring political points.
        \_ And where did they find the details?  Next to WMD in Iraq?
2006/2/8-10 [Science/Space, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41759 Activity:nil
2/8     This is INSANELY funny.  Or, it would be if it weren't so prevalent
        a pattern in Bushco
2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41758 Activity:nil
2/7     http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060207/cm_usatoday/corettascottkingbushforeverlinkedbysymbolism
        Bush and King linked forever. Forget Katrina,
        Bush DOES care about the blacks.
        \_ You're either being incomprehensibly sarcastic or amazingly tonedeaf
           \_ c'mon, op is just trolling, that's all there is to it.
              anyway, the column title is "Coretta Scott King, Bush forever
              linked by symbolism", and he writes, "And while others might not
              want to give the president credit for this gesture, I will,
              because I believe there are times when the symbolism of a
              person's actions ought to be taken seriously."  His previous
              column was http://tinyurl.com/8jzsz which was kind of stupid.
        \_ Is it so fucking hard to link back to the original USAToday
           article instead of pretending that it actually comes from Yahoo
           \_ He probably just read it on yahoo, but I would suggest that
              it should be common courtesy to mention which site the
              tinyurl link points to.
2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41742 Activity:nil
2/7     http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm
        Is this really what you apologists think is acceptable?
        \_ At this point, I think not having the backing of the White House
           when running for reelection (even as a Republican) is going to be
           a win in many areas.
2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41728 Activity:nil
2/6     Uh, so why is Gonzales not testifying under oath?
        \_ Because congressional Republicans have decided that castrating
           themselves at the altar of Bush is a fine way to run a country.
        \_ It's a crime to lie to Congress whether you're under oath or not.
           But not putting him under oath means no symbolic photo of him
           raising his right hand.  Propaganda war is everything.
        \_ U.S. Code, Statements http://tinyurl.com/7p7q6
           U.S. Code, Perjury http://tinyurl.com/9shkt (both http://cornell.edu)
           Okay, I am not a lawyer, someone pls figure out the diff.
           "I think what we did was legal." (but you actually think it wasn't)
           It turns out to be legal, but proof is found showing you didn't
           actually think it was legal (you knowingly lied about what you
             Perjury:  Yes.
             Materially false/fictitious/fraudulent/misrep statement:  No.
           Gonzales was not sworn in, so cannot be found guilty of perjury, but
           can be for false statements.  I am not a lawyer. -op
2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41719 Activity:kinda low
2/6     George Bush lies^H^H^H^H  misstates the truth again:
        Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way,
        any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap,
        it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed,
        by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
        talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important
        for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act,
        constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is
        necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
        -Dubya 4/20/05
        \_ I think he just misunderestimated the truth.
        \_ At that time it was a top secret operation.  Lying in to protect a
           state secret is legal, I'm pretty sure.
           \_ It was an _illegal_ top secret operation.  Lying to protect
              an illegal act was what forced Nixon to resign.
              \_ It was _illegal_?  Who says?
                 \_ Arlen Specter.
                 \_ Congressional Research Service.  Congress is finally
                    getting off their ass and starting oversight hearings,
                    but they've started them by NOT SWEARING IN THE AG...
                    \_ Starting hearings != determined was illegal.  Sorry.
        \_ mebbe he was only talking about domestic-to-domestic wiretapping
        \_ Everyday I wonder how George Bush can consider himself a Christian.
        \_ Everyday I wonder how George Bush considers himself a Christian.
           \_ I don't think the Bible discusses wire taps.  Was that in the
              Book Of NSA?
2006/2/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41709 Activity:nil
2/4     Dubya bloopers
        http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Funniest_Video_o.mov (same thing)
        \_ No way! Bush messing up in a bunch of speeches! I'm glad I saw
           this. I'm not voting for that idiot in 2008.
                \_ We're misunderestimating the average voter
2006/2/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41697 Activity:nil
2/3     Hasn't Rumsfeld proved himself to be incompetent? Or else a liar.
        Iraq costs > $440 bln
        White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey was pushed out of
        his job when he suggested in September 2002 that the Iraq war
        could cost as much as $265billion.
        Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put the figure at about $66
        billion, but told Congress that no one could be sure.
        "It's not knowable what a war or conflict like that is going
        to cost. You don't know if it's going to last two days or two
        weeks or two months. It's certainly not going to last two
        years, but it's going to cost money," Mr Rumsfeld said six
        months before the invasion in March 2003.
        \_ A year or so ago Rumsfeld's competence was questioned and he
        \_ A year or so ago Rumsfield's competance was questioned and he
           responded saying "he's too old to care anymore, he's tried to
           quit the job a few times but Bush won't let him".  I thought this
           was pretty funny but scary at the same time.
        \_ mebbe he was just thinking of "major combat operations"
        \_ hahah, hasn't time proven that Bush and company will
           say anything to get people to follow their lead.  I mean, come
           on, why in the world would our US president ever lie?  He's
           an outstanding president with outstanding morals.....
                \_ Well he has to be in order to bring honor and integrity
                   back to the White House.
2006/2/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41684 Activity:moderate
2/3     Rumsfeld self-Godwins.
        \_ Your abuse of the term "Godwin" isn't funny.
           \_ Not abuse at all.  He compared Chavez to Hitler.  Classic self
              \_ You misunderstand Godwin.
                 \_ Kids these days....
              \_ <DEAD>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law<DEAD>
                 \_ And from this point forward, there is no use debating
                    with Rumsfeld about Chavez' legitimacy. Yeah, that's a
                    \_ And you clearly are still misunderstanding Godwin.
                       \_ Since nothing in the wikipedia article would seem
                          to contraindicate the application of Godwin to
                          Rumsfeld's comparison, what the hell is your
                          problem?  Does Godwin only apply in your mind if
                          Rummy had brought it up on Usenet?
        \_ I don't care who's the president of Venezuela, as long as they
           produce more Alicia Machados.
        \_ Where did these people learn how to write?
           "He has accused President Bush of backing efforts to overthrow his
           leftist government, and specifically has charged that the United
           States supported a short-lived coup in 2002, fomented a devastating
           strike in 2004 and expelled some American missionaries from
           Venezuela for alleged links to the CIA."  Watch the subject shift.
           \_ Whew, and I thought you were going to slam them for something
              serious.  A mere subject shift in modern journalism which in a
              paragraph that is otherwise mostly correct isn't all that bad.
              (Drat, tried to get a subject shift in there but I couldn't
              fit one in.  I'll have to stick with a wide spread between
              subject and object).
           \_ wow, that's pretty bad.  subject changed from Bush / U.S. doing
              it to Chavez doing it at "expelled".
           \_ wow, that's pretty bad, though I haven't seen one in a while.
              subject changed from Bush / U.S. doing it to Chavez doing it
              at "expelled".
2006/2/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41683 Activity:nil
2/3     Watch Enron:  The Smartest Guys in the Room, also up for Best
        Docmentary.  Out on DVD / Netflix a couple weeks ago.
              \- it is worth seeing just for the "are you on crack" scene.
        \_ Why do you hate America?
           \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
           \_ Haliburton!
              \- it is worth seeing just for the "are you on crack" scene.
2006/2/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41680 Activity:nil
2/2     Democratic plot to embarrass honest and humble Dubya NASA appointee
        exposed:  http://tinyurl.com/9wb8b (Wash Post)
        \_ WTF?  How is FBI-led watchdog agency a democratic plot??? Please
           go back to Kansas and go tend to ur cows.
2006/2/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:41681 Activity:nil
2/2     http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1573959&page=2
        $1.3 BILLION dollars to buy FIVE Joint Strike Fighters.
        You've got to be shitting me right?
        \_ The Generals are always fighting the last war.
        \_ That's not that much for a new plane. It's probably 3000
           engineers working for 5 years or more to design and build that.
           If you want to be shocked look at the submarine - $2.5 billion and
           its not a new design, AFAIK. BTW, I just checked and the JSFs
           will cost about $50 million each when built in quantity.
           \_ Plus the fact that they will be sold to "allies" once
              production gets up to full speed.
        \_ Cheap.  If they're even half as good as the hype they're worth
           it.  The best war is the one you don't have to fight because the
           other guy doesn't bother showing up.  A sub for $2.5B isn't so
           bad either.  That's what?  2 days in Iraq?  What's a carrier cost
           these days?  Add that to the cost of the air craft on board, the
           support fleet of subs, DDs, CAs, etc, and see how much a fleet
           costs.  Policing the world isn't cheap.  Buying top notch planes
           is dirt cheap for what they do.
           is dirt cheap for what they do.
2006/2/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41664 Activity:low
2/2     Misstatement of the Union: The President burnishes the State of the
        Union through selective facts and strategic omissions.
        \_ This is the third http://Factcheck.org update I've received in a week.  The
           others are:
           "A DNC TV ad accuses Bush of breaking his word, but it strains some
           facts in the process."
           "A liberal group re-names itself and launches a $1-million ad
           campaign making dubious claims."
           \_ Please, stay on topic. People are spamming the motd with
              partisan pro-Republican bs about the SOTU, so here's a non-
              partisan evaluation of it.
              \_ And people are never spamming motd with partisan anti-
                 Republican bs?
                 \_ Irrelevant. Topic is SOTU. Come back when you have some-
                    thing to say about it.
                    \_ Irrelevant.  It's motd.  People post whatever,
                       wherever, they wish.
                       \_ True, but as a reader, I believe the first guy and
                          think the second is wasting air.  Other readers
                          by definition may think differently. -someone else
2006/2/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41651 Activity:nil
2/1     "This was one of the most important speeches of President Bush's
        term in office, and was very good. I was very glad to see him address
        Iraq and the heavy attack of Democrats. Great job of calling for
        bipartisanship, as the democrats try to drag the administration
        through the mud. Do they not realize how it makes America look?"
                                                 Jeff (Arnold, MD)
        \_ Who keeps posting the trolls?
        \_ Doesn't Bush realize how he makes America look?
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41648 Activity:nil
2/1     "I was so pleased that President Bush pushed partisan politics in
        Washington to the front of his agenda and addressed the issue at the
        beginning of his speech. Before we begin to discuss foreign policy
        and spreading democracy, the bickering on Capitol Hill needs to end.
        With an audience full of captive Democrats, hopefully some of them
        took the president's words to heart."  Kristin (Miami Lakes, FL)
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41646 Activity:nil
2/1     "As an Independent, I have to say Mr. Bush did a very good job
        addressing my questions. I was disappointed by the Democratic stances
        and feel they are out of touch with mainstream America. Democrats seem
        to want to damage this president, even if it damages the rest of
        the country."            Kim
2006/2/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41642 Activity:nil
2/1     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_competitiveness
        With 2/3 dollar going to companies that do research, I will ask
        again. What are some research stocks that would rise as a
        result of Bush's new initiatives? Again, I don't give a damn
        about good/bad Bush's policies, I just care about how this
        affects me as an investor. Thanks.
        \_ buy XOM, BP, CVX. The oil companies will all have to figure out how
           to make money if petroleum consumption decreases.
        \_ If you want to make money keep holding the oil companies. As
           supplies dwindle, profits will go through the roof. A much
           better investment than alternate energy research. Try: SU, CNQ.
        \_ CVX and COP are still very cheap.  Other oil stocks I own like
           PBR, SU, OXY have appreciated a lot already, but may be buys on
           dips.  SU is alternative fuel (canadian oil sands).  PBR is
           brazilian company with expertise on deep sea drilling, and has
           been aggressively and successfully adding to its reserves, but
           it is a little overpriced currently.  DESC is an alternative
           energy stock.  I rode it from 3 to 7 in like 3 months by pure
           luck, and it is now 10 plus.  The game may be a little late
           now, but who knows.
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41641 Activity:nil
2/1     "Thank you, Mr. President, for standing firm and resolute through
        all that's been thrown at you from natural disasters, to the worst
        tragedy our country has ever seen with 9/11, to fighting terrorism
        here and abroad, and through all the constant mean-spirited antics
        from the Democrats. One would think that by now the Democrats would
        start to realize that in order for our country to move ahead to get
        things done they need to step up to the plate. This is about America.
        Let's get to work. Great speech!"               Kathy (Maine)
        \_ Is this before or after we try Bush for War Crimes and Crimes
           against Humanity?
        \_ Kathy is a true patriot. Kathy should be the next president.
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41639 Activity:nil
2/1     "I can't believe the grade school behavior exhibited by the Democrats
        during the address this evening. Maybe they met in the playground
        beforehand to agree that they wouldn't be supporting the president
        by their stoicism. The Democrats seem to have forgotten that they
        were VOTED into the seats they were so firmly planted in with their
        smug, rueful smiles. Run for the presidency if you think you can do
        it better. The only message sent was that the Democrats wouldn't back
        the president in the most relaxed forum. How will they respond under
        pressure or disaster? It's about egos and posturing, not about
        listening and showing your voting citizens that you can rally around
        the leader for the good of the whole."   Judy (Winona, MN)
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41635 Activity:low
2/1     http://csua.org/u/ev6 (LA Times)
        "experts point out that the U.S. gets ... about 10% -- of its oil
        imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from
        Canada and Mexico -- and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them."
        http://csua.org/u/ep1 (doe.gov)
        Nov 2005 crude oil imports (barrels/day) published Jan 23, 2006
        - Percentage of total crude oil imports into U.S. -
        Middle East             ~ 22% (Saudi Arabia + Iraq + Kuwait)
        Canada+Mexico           ~ 35%
        Nigeria+Venezuela       ~ 22%
        Other countries contribute a maximum of ~ 7% each.
        These are ~ approximations because only the top 15 countries are
        listed (imports from other countries are assumed negligible).
        \_ Do you seriously think.... that if the Middle East stopped exporting
           oil....  that our prices would not increase?
        \_ it's a global market anyway.
        \_ So which one is correct?  10% or 22%?
           \_ Maybe it's 22% of the imports, 10% of all oil.
              \_ Then the article should read "about 10% -- of its oil from the
                 Middle East" instead of "about 10% -- of its oil imports from
                 the Middle East".
                 \_ I think you're expecting too much from the newspapers.
                    You're lucky if you get information that's correct to
                    the first order, and there's almost no chance they will
                    get anything subtle right.
                    \_ Agreed.  Newspapers are ok at the "what," not so great
                       at "how," and absolutely dismal at "why."  I imagine
                       historians have to pretty much discount any newspaper
                       account of an event as misinformation.  The only thing
                       you can say is that they're a damn sight better than
                       television news, which is dismal at pretty much
                       \_ I remind myself that these journalists probably
                          couldn't even handle high school calculus.  Then
                          I am not so annoyed or surprised by the quality
                          of their analysis.
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41632 Activity:nil
2/1     http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/387392p-328749c.html
        "Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a
        letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's
        office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been
        deleted contrary to White House policy."
        Can anyone say "18 1/2 minutes"
        \_ Please explain?
2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41627 Activity:nil
1/31    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183363,00.html
        Who says Bush is not popular?
        \_ I have this odd vision of FoxBots adding positive or negative
           weight to comments based on keyword combinations and then only
           publishing when the end product returns zero.
2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41624 Activity:nil
1/31    All Bush job growth due to government spending
        \_ First line: "Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal
           government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005."  Yeah,
           that number is kind of pulled out of someone's ass.
           \_ URL that contradicts that line?  You didn't even read the rest of
              it, did you?  It's mostly from the whitehouse and defense
              department's own jobs numbers.
              \_ It's a projection.  It's not a real number.
                 \_ Bush upped the ante on this number last night.  He called
                    it $880B.
           \_ Not according to the Congressional Budget Office.
              2001 Revenue = $1991.4B
              2004 Revenue = $1880.3B
              2005 Revenue = $2153.9B
              We can hope the rest of his data is more accurate.
              \_ I assume the article claims $870B in lost "potential"
                 revenues.  That is, the projected minus the actual.  Ignoring
                 of course any effect the cuts had (or didn't have) in spurring
                 the economy.
                 \_ Is that your bias speaking?  The quote is very specific.
                    "Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government
                    revenue..."  Even if the author did mean "potential"
                    earning, he is being extremely deceptive.  Again, one
                    can only wonder at the quality of his other "research".
        \_ That's a prime example of well-documented research.
2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41619 Activity:kinda low
1/31    Can someone please explain to a dumb oblivious foreigner like me
        the 411 on why Alito is bad for the nation?     -dumb foreigner
        \_ Most importantly, because he doesn't seem to believe it's his role
           to provide an actual check on executive (i.e. presidential) power.
        \_ Because he's a solid conservative vote replacing a swing voter in
           a lifetime appointment post.  Ideally the court would be 9 swing
           voters, but having it be a majority party-line-voters without any
           swings is bad for the nation.
           \_ So does this mean you were also against the nominations of
              Ginsburg or Breyer since they were also not swing-voters?
        \_ He doesn't believe in women's reproductive rights; he has expressed
           racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the rights'
           of individuals (vs. the govt).
           racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the
           rights' of individuals (vs. the govt).
           \_ Note how the above posts say nothing about the constitution.
                \_ Note how the above post begs the question: if individual
                   rights and the balance of powers have nothing to do with
                   the constitution, then what does?
                   \_ 1) It's "raises" the question.
                      2) Interpreting the constitution according to how it is
                         written (and prior rulings) strikes down laws that the
                         legislative and executive branches enact if they
                         violate the constitution.  That's not a check?
        \_ He has lied to congress in the past under oath in order to get
           a federal judgeship, and has admitted he did it because otherwise
           he would not have gotten confirmed.  Does that sound like someone
           fit to be the highest judge in the nation?
           \_ Cite?
        \_ he said in a job app that he interprets the Constitution to mean
           a right to abortion isn't covered.  when questioned about this, he
           said, that was his personal opinion, but not his legal
           interpretation of the Constitution.
           no, it was his opinion AND his legal interpretation -- it's clear
           as day in his job app.  he lies in your face.  someone who lies
           in your face should not be a supreme court justice.
              \_ (not pp) an E'ist article mentioned something about him
                 putting all his money in a Vanguard fund and stating that
                 he would declare it if he were ever confronted with a
                 case involving Vanguard, but forgetting to do so (then
                 informing after the fact.)  According to the article, there
                 was no effect on the case.  -John
                 \_ Did it say which case?  There was at least one case where
                    his decision was vacated.
           \_ http://www.factcheck.org/article367.html
              Monga v. Offenberg: Alito was part of a unanimous 3-judge
              rule in favor of Vanguard.  Alito also requested the case
              be reheard by a new panel, who also ruled in favor of
              Vanguard unanimously.  At that time, Alito owned several
              hundred K of Vanguard funds, but he said the funds were
              not an issue in the case and no conflict of interest.
              Johnston v. Smith Barney: Smith Barney was Alito's stock
              brokerage, but he had no financial interest in Smith Barney.
              Sister's law firm: no one really knows, and there's no record.
           \_ Of Alito, a Democratic staffer said, "It became clear to us
              early on that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes,
              but we think the guy is a man of honor."
              http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt]
           \_ If the above stories are what pp is talking about, this is
              about the most disingenuous statment I've read so far this
              year.  We need some sort of motd award for this kind of
              \_ He said under federal oath "I will not do x."  When
                 the chance to do x happened, he did x.  It doesn't matter
                 if it was a cut and dry case.  He presided on the case,
                 after saying, once again UNDER OATH, that he wouldn't ever
                 preside on a case concerning Vanguard.
                 \_ Keep working on those Vanguard issues.  Privately,
                    Democrats are blaming the emphasis on Vanguard and
                    other canards for their poor showing in Alito's
                    nomination.  http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt]
2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41610 Activity:moderate
1/27    Justice Stevens is 86.  Oh Fuck.
        \_ Don't worry, once #$%^ hits the fan, people will start voting
           Democratic again.  Right now, people are just complacent.
           \_ Ah yes, the D party isn't corrupt and incompetent
              like the R party. And only the D party cares about the
              environment, welfare, healthcare, minorities, and things
              that matter to the people. D=good, R=bad, and spread the
              word. I got your message. Thanks.
           \_ Shit hits the fan everyday.  We're not living in special times.
              Yesterday is like today is like tomorrow.
        \_ Yeah it sucks.  He has to hang in there and we can't have another
           whacko Repub Prez next term.  If he resigns or dies it's going to
           be an unpleasant 25-30 years.  For the President it's good news,
           just as we are facing the end of the empire, financial collapse
           and a severe energy crisis the Supreme court will be all set to
           give him all the power he wants.
           \- justice stevens is suppose to be in pretty good health.
              he's become by favorite justice. i think nobody talks about
              hime being a super genius or anything but i think from his
              long tenure he brings a lot of wisdom to his practical
              \_ People who agree with us a lot are always wise.  BTW, how
                 did Stevens vote on Kelo?
                     \- you know STEVENS wrote the KELO opinion, right?
                        you know also he after the fact said that he thought
                        new london was likely doing the wrong thing as a
                        matter of legislative policy in this case but they
                        did have the right to do so in this case based on
                        his reading of established practice [this was in a
                        speech after the opinion came down]. similarly
                        STEVENS ruled congress had the power to overrule
                        state pro-marijuana laws eventhough he personally
                        though maybe they should stay out of regulating
                        this at the national level. --#1 STEVENS FAN
                        \_ I'm quite aware of who STEVENS is and what STEVENS
                           has done.  It was a RHETORICAL question.  One should
                           know that RHETORICAL questions, even about STEVENS
                           are not intended to be EXPLICITLY answered, even
                           if STEVENS or KELO are the topic.  STEVENS wrote
                           a legal OPINION that the government has the right
                           to FUCK people out of their property and GIVE it
                           to some random fuck PRIVATE developer to build
                           GOLF courses on.  Are you or STEVENS big fans of
                           GOLF?  That was also a RHETORICAL question.
                             -- fuck STEVENS and his FANS
                           \_ USSC ruled it constitutional.  The local
                              government made the law.  Seriously, bitching
                              about the decision is stupid.  If you want to
                              change it, talk to your representative.  It will
                              take legislation to change it.
                              \_ Hmm, what did the USSC say about slavery?
                                 The Constitution as originally written was
                                 ok with it, so it must be ok!!  Yay!  Saying
                                 that because the USSC ruled in a particular
                                 way makes it right is what is stupid.  Blind
                                 allegiance to some politically appointed
                                 body is stupid.  Think for yourself.
                                 \_ Suck it.  You're complaining about Stevens
                                    doing his JOB.  I didn't say the SC ruling
                                    makes it "right".  In fact, Stevens made
                                    exactly that point.  So just fuck off.
                                    \_ By your 'logic' we should still have
                                       slavery and a bunch of other nastiness
                                       and no right to abortion.  "So just
                                       fuck off"?  If you can't back your
                                       words with reason and login, then go
                                       back to the play ground.  The 6th
                                       graders are waiting for you.
                                       \_ You don't read too good, do ya?
                                          The SC gives their reading of the
                                          law.  Stevens said he didn't like
                                          what they were doing, but the law
                                          as it stands makes it constitutional.
                                          That doesn't mean it can't and
                                          shouldn't be changed.  You'd have a
                                          hard time stretching Kelo to compare
                                          to slavery.  In fact, if you want
                                          to compare Kelo to Dred Scott, it
                                          took legislation to correct the
                                          legally right/morally wrong decision.
                                          And before you whine that it wasn't
                                          "legally right", take it up with the
                                          founders who defined the SC.
                                          \_ Thanks for the basic civics
                                             lesson.  Care to explain how the
                                             SC found the "right" to abortion
                                             in the C?  You can't.  And when
                                             it gets overturned who is going
                                             to bitch loudest about it?  The
                                             SC makes up tons of shit based on
                                             nothing.  Nothing required them
                                             to go with Kelo as they and in
                                             fact IMNSOH their reading of the
                                             law re: Kelo was flat out idiotic.
                                             They made a wrong call on Kelo.
                                             A later court is likely to do a
                                             100% about face on this dog of
                                             a ruling.  It has certainly
                                             happened before.  Why would that
                                             be if Constitutional interpretation
                                             were as black and white as you
                                             make it out to be?  It isn't black
                                             and white and your falling back on
                                             "Well the SC said so, so it must
                                             be a good ruling" is just silly.
                                             At least if it was a unanimous
                                             ruling you might have a leg to
                                             stand on with a point like that.
                                             The SC ruled for Bush in 2000.
                                             Was that a good ruling?  It was
                                             7:2 and 5:4 on two different
                                             issues both in Bush's favor.  All
                                             Hail The Absolute Wisdom Of The
                                             Supreme Court! Yay!
                                             \_ Hint: There's a reason I
                                                brought up SCOTT.  I never
                                                said KELO was "good".
                 \_ Christ.. You people and Kelo..  Get the fuck over it.
                    Federalists should be happy.  They granted local government
                    the permission to make their own choices about use of ED.
                    If you don't like what your local gov is doing, change it.
                    Personally, I don't like Kelo because ED should yield a
                    public commodity.  Being able to use it to help a private
                    interest secure land makes it just an easy way to lock in
                    an artificially low market rate.  But I suspect your
                    argument boils down to "gubmint wants to take mah land.."
                    \_ Who said I was a Federalist?  I think it sucks that
                       any two bit bribable mayor or local council can force
                       people from their land and give it to some private
                       developer.  What is so wrong about being opposed to
                       that?  Your "suspicians" are cheap personal smear at
                       best and not useful to a discussion on Kelo, the SC
                       or anything else.  If you want to know what my points
                       boil down to, you can read them and ask for
                       clarification without being an ass about it.
                       \_ "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
                    \_ Property rights are important, but why are property
                       rights and gun ownership rights the only ones worth
                       defending?  Alito will likely take them *all* away if
                       the executive wants it.
2006/1/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41582 Activity:moderate
1/28    Ask a Republican!
        http://csua.org/u/etk (mac.com)
        \_ I don't get it.  Who is this guy?  (The Bio doesn't really clear
           it up)
           \_ wow, dense aren't you. He's a comic, and pretty damn funny
              \_ Yeah, I guess I am.  So why does he have bits that specify
                 specific years and make it look like he really was some sort
                 of elected republican?
                 \_ He's a comedian who impersonates a republican elected
                    official answering questions in the manner of a
                    stereotypical republican. It's satire. -!pp
        \_ hilarious. thx.
           \_ uh, if you say so. Colbert Report is the same basic idea but
              actually funny sometimes
              \_ when you get too far out there, the unfunny that agrees
                 with your core beliefes becomes funny.  humor is relative.
                 relatives are humor.  :-)
2006/1/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41581 Activity:kinda low
1/28    "Actions Fail to Match Words in New Orleans --
        Four months from the next hurricane season, the Bush administration's
        promise to rebuild the Gulf Coast remains largely unfulfilled."
        http://tinyurl.com/aro3r (Wash Post)
        \_ Unfortunately, the politics make it impossible to have a real
           discussion on whether it is a good idea to rebuild New Orleans.
           \_ Why can't Dubya just say, "We love blacks, but we're not sure
              about rebuilding below sea level.  To show that I love blacks,
              I will ..."
              \_ Err... Politics?
              \_ What is there to rebuild?  The place is still below sea
                 level, the people who left have no reason to come back.
                 I don't see a point in *paying* them to come back.  NO will
                 be smaller than it was.  If there is a real reason for it
                 to grow, it will.  We don't pay people to move out to all
                 those little towns in the midwest that have been dying for
                 decades or build them free stuff.
                 \_ We also didn't destroy those towns through blatant
                    government incompetence.
                    \_ Who summoned the hurricane?  Is it always the
                       government's fault when something bad happens?
                       Do citizens have no responsibility for themselves?
                       I don't want to live in a Mommy State.  When Mommy
                       takes care of your needs She also gets to tell you
                       what to do.
                       \_ Control Weather is a 7th Level spell, no?  Maybe
                          the government is responsible.
                          \_ Some bald dude with sunglasses just explained to
                             me a couple days ago how rogue elements of the
                             former KGB and the Yakuza are controlling the
                             weather using technology developed by Nikola
                             Tesla which causes weather patterns to be square
                             instead of round, and which caused Katrina.
                             He said that the U.S. Government knows about it,
                             but is powerless to stop it.
                             \_ Whoa!  You met Picard on one of his time
                                travel episodes?  Did you get any trinkets or
                                his autograph?  That's so cool!
                          \_ Only Jerry Falwell has memorized the runes.  Or
                             is it Pat Robertson? One of those two can steer
                             hurricanes, I mix them up.
2006/1/28-29 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41578 Activity:high
1/27    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html
        "The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has
        tried to stop him from speaking out ... was particularly incensed that
        the directives ... had come through informal telephone conversations
        ... leaving no significant trails of documents. ... relayed the
        warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be 'dire consequences' if such
        statements continued ... 'The inference was that Hansen was disloyal.'
        ... many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years
        ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration
        officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is
        present or on the phone."
        "If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world
        will drift toward tragedy." -GW Bush (Sep 2, 2004)
        \_ oooh spoooookeeeey.... "informal telephone conversations" ....
           ... "no signnificant trails of documents" ....  "relayed the
           warning .... would be 'dire consequences'" .... "inference was
           that ... was disloyal" .... "and then only if a [agent representing
           the administration] is present" .......
           So has the NYT sunk to new journalistic lows or was it always this
           bad?  Wasn't there once a time when reporters actually went out
           and *investigated* allegations instead of writing single sourced
           propaganda like this?  I guess doing actual fact checking is
           *work*.  Maybe this is going on, maybe it isn't but we don't know
           from sensationalist junk like this.  Might as well read the Daily
           Cal.  Same quality and it's free.
           \_ What you are saying is completely false.
              \_ Uhm, yeah, you have totally convinced me with that well
                 supported statement.  If you have nothing to say, which
                 you don't, say nothing.  In the mean time, I'm going to go
                 find a Daily Cal so I can read something well researched
                 instead of the crap the NYT is spewing out.
                 \_ Most of your "points" are complete hokum.
                    \_ Most of your "points" are complete hokum.
                    \_ If you actually had a point or something to say, you
                       would have said so by now.  You're still hovering
                       around the "i no u r but wut am i?!" level.  The
                       Daily Cal quite most excellent even though it was
                       last week's Tuesday edition.  Very timely!  I look
                       forward to reading tomorrow's on Friday.
              \_ What you are saying is completely false.
        \_ Holy time travel, Batman.  Here's a Wapo story from 1/2005 about it.
           Does he like pop up once a year to talk about how he's been
           pressured not to talk?  Any bets on his story on 1/2007?
           \_ Anyone who ranks lower would be hesitant to come out
              for fear of losing their livelihood.
              \_ Absolutely.  Come January next year, I'm sure we'll once
                 again hear about how he was pressured to keep silent.
2006/1/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41570 Activity:nil
1/27    http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/economy/gdp/index.htm
        "Far less growth than forecasts in the fourth quarter, as economy
        manages only 1.1% annual rate gain."
        U.S. GDP growth (from preceding period)
                Q1      Q2      Q3      Q4
        2002    2.7     2.2     2.4     0.2
        2003    1.7     3.7     7.2     3.6
        2004    4.3     3.5     4.0     3.3
        2005    3.8     3.3     4.1     1.1
        "The preliminary estimate of fourth quarter 2005 GDP is inconsistent
        with the underlying strength of the U.S. economy ... I would not read
        too much into today's numbers.  They are somewhat anomalous, reflecting
        some special factors." -Treas Sec John Snow (Jan 27, 2006)
        (durable goods +9.3% Q3, -17.5% Q4 -- summer auto incentives)
        "However, investors seemed to welcome the seemingly negative report ...
        Investors may be betting that slower economic growth will mean the Fed
        can stop raising interest rates soon."
2006/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41567 Activity:moderate
1/27    Dubya's State of the Union is on Tuesday!  For those following Iran,
        here is a chronology of the most recent events:
        - Iran breaks seals, announces resumption of enrichment research
        - West condemns Iran, support move to Security Council
        - Iran condemns West, threatens full-scale enrichment upon referral
        - Russia/China upset, but don't support move to Security Council
        - Russia highlights enrichment in Russia
        - ... Days tick away to IAEA board meeting ...
        - Iran says Russian enrichment plan "positive"
        - West (including U.S.) fully endorses Russian enrichment plan
        - Iran says of Russian plan "capacity of the program not sufficient ...
          can be revised to be more complete"
        - Iran allows IAEA visits to Lavizan military site
        Thursday Dubya follies:
        "The Iranians have said, 'We want a weapon.'" -Dubya
        "... in the afternoon, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan,
        acknowledged that Mr. Bush had misspoken."
        \_ This last line can't be true.  They *never* admit they're wrong.
2006/1/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Finance/Investment] UID:41565 Activity:nil
1/27    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=1548547
        "The Department of Commerce report showed that the nation's economy
        grew at an anemic 1.1 percent -- the worst performance in three years."
        U.S. GDP growth (from preceding period)
                Q1      Q2      Q3      Q4
        2002    2.7     2.2     2.4     0.2
        2003    1.7     3.7     7.2     3.6
        2004    4.3     3.5     4.0     3.3
        2005    3.8     3.3     4.1     1.1
2006/1/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41556 Activity:nil
1/26    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11021093
        Gen. Hayden does not appear to understand "probable cause" is
        key feature of 4th Amendment.
        UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
        HAYDEN:  The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
        UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... the legal standard is probable cause.
        HAYDEN: Just to be very clear, and believe me, if there's any amendment
        to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are
        familiar with, it's the Fourth.  And it is a reasonableness standard
        in the Fourth Amendment.
        FYI, "probable cause" applies to warrants.  You can search without
        a warrant, only in very specific cases, like when a police officer pats
        you down for weapons because he or she has a reasonable suspicion that
        you might endanger him or her, or when Dubya says so.
        \_ The Gen. and the UM may be talking about two different parts
           of the 4th amend. Note that the 4th amend. provides protection
           against unreasonable searches if the search is conducted using
           a deficient warrant (See Mapp, 367 US 643; Leon 468 US 897).
           The deficient warrant, in most cases, was issued upon a showing
           of probable cause. UM is focusing on the std for the warrant,
           Gen. Hayden is focusing on the type of search.
           Re warrantless searches, the Terry stop rationale has been applied
           in many contexts including dog sniffs of lugguage, &c.
           The questions to ask (afaik) are:
           (1) did you get a warrant? - if no, then the evid. obtained
               pursuant to the search may not be used against the accused.
           (2) did you make a sufficient showing of probable cause when
               you got your warrant? - if no then the evid. obtained
               can't be used.
           (3) Even if you got a valid warrant, did the warrant you used
               cover what was searched or seized? - if no, then the search
               was unreasonable and the evid. can't be used
           (4) Even if the warrant covered what was searched or seized,
               was the warrant too broad? - if yes, then some of the evid.
               may be excluded [ I'm not 100% sure about this one, I haven't
               taken crim pro yet ]
2006/1/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41554 Activity:nil
1/26    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007536.php
        President of photo-shoot company (that does business almost exclusively
        with Republicans) identifies and deletes photo of Dubya and Abramoff
        from catalogs, citing it as a "business decision", within the last
        month.  (nothing illegal about that; and she did contribute $6K to
        Dubya/the GOP, so she not only is preventing her business from failing
        but also wants to do it)
        \_ Not sure why she bothered.  Almost every politico type ends up in
           a *lot* of pictures with various scummy people they later wish
           hadn't been taken.
2006/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41532 Activity:nil
1/26    Senator Train Wreck Coburn set to stir up the Senate
        Gingrich / Coburn in 2008!
2006/1/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41511 Activity:nil
1/24    Culture of life!
2006/1/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41505 Activity:high
1/24    [ Preserved b/c this thread is still active ]
        Domestic eavesdropping opponents have been using the misquote from
        Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security
        deserve neither".  http://csua.org/u/er9 [nyt]
        Now, this is a misquote, and the difference between the quote and
        the misquote is substantial and relevant to the debate.  However,
        I don't recall any popular media calling the protestors on the
        misquote.  Why is this?  Does the press not know the quote is wrong?
        Do they simply not care?
        \_ Isn't this entire thread an attempt to ignore the larger issue?
        \_ What I wanna know is, did "those who sacrifice freedom for safety
           deserve neither" motd guy participate in the rally, or it just
           some place like http://democraticunderground.com that's spreading the
           misquote?  (anyway, http://CNN.com says it's a "paraphrase")
           \_ Good for CNN.  "Paraphrase" is unfair to the substantial
              difference between the quote and the misquote, but that's
              still better than NYT and CBS, who just ignored the error
              \_ the substantiveness of the difference between the paraphrase
                 and the exact quote is debatable as well
                 \_ only if people who can't comprehend english are debating.
                    \_ not in my view
                       \_ Is f(g(x)) ~= f(x)?  Only for very few f() and g().
                       \_ you're entitled to your view even if it makes no
                          sense. welcome to america.
                          \_ but it does make sense, so ...
        \_ http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm
           (what Mr. Franklin actually said, and his mouth moves too)
        \_ http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605
           Actually is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
           a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
           That still seems pretty close to me.
           \_ IOW, the quote is silent on whether it's ok to give up liberty
              for non-temporary safety.  (And indeed much of government is a
              trade-off between liberty and safety.)  Now, did Bush buy
              temporary or non-temporary safety with the eavesdropping?
              Hence my claim that the difference is relevant to the debate.
              \_ Also, the quote is silent on whether we should enact Daylight
                 Saving Time, abandon the gold standard, or legalize gay
                 marriage. However, while it would be a stretch to say that
                 the quote proposed any of the latter, it's a reasonable
                 extrapolation to say that the quote discourages sacrificing
                 liberty for any kind of safety, especially in light of a lack
                 of any further written material by Franklin in opposition.
                 More to the point, however, what he's really saying is that
                 cowardly people who would compromise with tyrants should be
                 done away with. Or, in common parlance, snitches gots to
                 be capped.
                 \_ This is a childish distraction, not a real point.  He is
                    clearly talking about liberty and security, not any of
                    the red herrings you bring up.  You *may* be correct when
                    you say he was really talking about the larger issue of
                    compromising with tyrants (although I personally doubt it,
                    it isn't an unreasonable interpretation), but the rest of
                    your post about unrelated issues is useless.  Misquoting
                    the man to make some political point shows a great deal
                    of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.  Which of
                    those is worse is left to the reader to decide.
                 \_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserves
                 \_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserve
                    neither" equivalent to "People who trade dignity for a
                    long-term relationship deserves neither"?  Both statements
                    long-term relationship deserve neither"?  Both statements
                    may be true, but are they equivalent?  You do understand
                    2 true statements may still not be the same.
                    \_ My bringing up the admittedly ridiculous examples I did
                       was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of drawing
                       conclusions from omissions in the man's words. As the
                       quote says that giving up liberty for temporary safety
                       is not to be done, and since Franklin never followed
                       that up with a caveat or exception, it is reasonable to
                       draw the conclusion that he would have had a similar
                       distaste for giving up liberty for non-temporary safety.
                       \_ No.  Giving up liberty for non-temporary safety is
                          called government.
                          \_ You're assuming that the liberties that you
                             purport to have given up in exchange for safety
                             were actually in your possession to begin with.
                             \_ Ref state of nature, Locke, and the social
                       \_ If he never followed up with any further statements
                          on the subject we can only conclude he had nothing
                          more to say on the matter.  Anything else is jumping
                          to unfounded conclusions.  By your reasoning, the
                          opposite of your assumption could also be said and
                          it would be an equally unfounded conjecture.
                          \_ *shrug* Invent a time machine or consult a
                             medium and ask him yourself, then.
                             \_ Well, you are the one trying to impute extra
                                meaning to Franklin's quote.  We're saying
                                he said what he said, and reading anything
                                more into it would be unjustified.  If you
                                go back, this subthread started with "IOW,
                                the quote is silent on...".
                                more into it would be unjustified.  Looking
                                back, this subthread started with "IOW, the
                                quote is silent on..."
                             \_ ?  I'm saying we can't know.  I'm not making
                                any assumptions about what he meant.  We'll
                                never know unless there's some other written
                                document somewhere clarifying.  Why do you
                                think I'd need a time machine for anything?
                 \_ Is "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
                    payment of $5k for a year deserve neither" equivalent to
                    "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
                    payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve neither"?
                    payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve
                    \_ Your analogy assumes the quantification of the
                       unquantifiable. Or, as WSB put it, "There are no
                       honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative
                       merchandise... for quantitative merchandise."
                       \_ Which part is unquantifiable?  This PP's analogy
                          uses only quantifiables so you must mean the phrase
                          "temporary" from Franklin's quote is unquantifiable?
                          Or you mean "essential"?  Please explain.
                          \_ Comparing two quantities ($100K and $60K) is
                             easily done. Comparing two qualities (liberty
                             and safety) is not.
                             \_ Hmm, ok, then you disagree with Franklin?
                             \_ How about comparing 'safety' and 'little
                                temporary safety'?
           \_ The original quote also says "essential liberty." One may
              argue that essential liberty includes the liberty to
              communicate, but that liberty does not cover CLEARTEXT
              communications, ie the gov. can't (1) forbid you from using
              public-key encryption or (2) force you give them your private
              key, BUT they can listen to you conversation if you do it in
              the clear.
              \_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dans
              \_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dan
                 \_ Why? Communicating in cleartext is basically the
                    same as talking in public. One must assume that
                    as soon as the communications leaves the confines
                    of one's own home, it is available to everyone.
                    If you don't value the privacy of your communication
                    to the level necessary to take precautions against
                    eavesdropping, you have assumed the risk that the
                    your communications will be intercepted.
                    I'm only asking whether it is an ESSENTIAL liberty
                    to communicate in cleartext. I can accept that it
                    a nice to have liberty, but I cannot accept that
                    it is essential.
                        \_ Only recently has it been possible for ordinary
                           people to encrypt phone conversations.  Are you
                           saying that the government had the ability to tap
                           phone conversations for the last 100 years without
                           a warrant? Why would the courts disagreee with that?
                           \_ Many different ciphers/codes have existed as
                              long as phones have been around. Arguably OTP
                              has also existed since at least WW2. If you
                              value your privacy enough you should use the
                              state of the art cipher system for the era in
                              which you are living. Yes it slow, yes it is
                              inefficient and hampers communication, but
                              that is the price of secure communication.
                              It is not just the government that has had the
                              ability to tap and record phone conversations
                              for decades. Private industry has this ability
                              as well.
                              I am not arguing for an interpretation of search
                              under the 4th amend. I am arguing that cleartext
                              communication is not an essential liberty as
                              used by Franklin.
                              long as phones have been around. It is not
                              easy to have a two way conversation but it
                              is doable. If you value your security that
                              much, then the inconvenience is worth it.
                              NOTE: I am not arguing for an interpretation
                              of search under the 4th amend. I am arguing
                              that cleartext communication is not an essential
                              liberty w/in Franklin's use of that term.
                              In addition, my assertion also applies to all
                              forms of communication, including letters.
                              I think that the term essential in this context
                              would not cover the liberty to mail letter w/o
                              them being subject to review by the post office.
                              It is not an ESSENTIAL liberty that one have
                              the ability to send letters in the clear.
        \_ This quote is more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs to support
           things like right-to-own-machine-guns.  If the media doesn't point
           out the exact quote when it's used by Charlton Heston, is it an
           artifact of the right-wing media?  -tom
           \_ URL with Charlton Heston or nutjob, media, and the quote please.
              \_ not quite all your parameters, but close: -!tom
                 yes, I know it's not a misquote
                 here's Mr. Heston, and he doesn't misquote too
               \_ http://www.twelvearyannations.com/id28.htm
                  (Aryan Nations World Headquarters)  -tom
                  \_ Well, Aryan Nations isn't "libertarian nutjobs" or
                     Charleston Heston, and a self-promotional web site
                     isn't a popular media report.  Otherwise you're dead on.
                     \_ You're a moron in several different ways, but primarily
                        because it's not the newspaper's job to correct the
                        people it's quoting, except when it's editorializing.
                        When it's just a news story, you report what was
                        said, you don't say "Charleton Heston said that
                        those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither,
                        but the actual Benjamin Franklin quote is 'those who
                        would give up essential liberty for safety...'".
                        That's simply not the job of a reporter.
                        And if you want to split hairs between the Aryan
                        Nation and libertarian nutjobs (I really don't think
                        the difference is significant), you can find similar
                        misquotes at
                        and plenty of others.  -tom
                        \_ Your claim was specific.  You said "This quote is
                           more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs...".
                           Despite your rude bluster, you still have not
                           substantiated your claim.  2 tries, and you still
                           haven't found "libertarian nutjobs" who use
                           "this quote".  You also claimed Charlton Heston
                           misquoted Franklin.  Again, a specific claim, and
                           you have not backed that one up either.  OBTW, CNN
                           said the protestors "paraphrased" Franklin.
                           \_ Uh, so freerepublic doesn't count as
                              libertarian nutjobs?  -tom
                              \_ Absolutely not.  Nutjobs?  Yes.  Libertarian?
                                 No, no, no, no, no!  The freepers are a bunch
                                 of uneducated loud mouthed morons that all
                                 clear thinking people across the political
                                 spectrum wish would go away, but they are
                                 definitely not libertarians.  Please get the
                                 bare basics right before posting.
                                 \_ Geeze, you really are nitpicking.
                                    OK, how about
                                    (The Libertarian Enterprise)
                                    (Liberty For All)
                                    (Radley Balko, Cato Institute)
                                    Give it up, already.  -tom
                                    \_ That was my first post in this thread.
                                       My nit isn't your quoting, per se, it
                                       is your gross misclassification of the
                                       freepers which makes me think you've
                                       either never read what they have to say
                                       and are just repeating what you've been
                                       told or worse, you have read the
                                       freeper junk and can't see they aren't
                                       libertarians at all and thus have no
                                       idea what a libertarian is.  I really
                                       don't care what libertarians might have
                                       misquoted Franklin.  Not my game.
                                    \_ But Tom, where is "this quote" in any
                                       of your links?  You specifically said
                                       "this quote".
                                       \_ Search for "liberty for safety." -tom
                              \_ You specified a particular quote.  Also,
                                 while the freepers are certainly nutjobs, not
                                 even they'd tell you they are libertarians.
                                 Strike 3.
                     \_ 0 for 3 isn't bad.  it could've been worse.
                        \_ I don't know, he keeps trying.  Seems to be
                           going for a solid 0 for 10.
        \_ again, i think the real issue is not rather one should allow
           domestic eardropping or not.  The real issue is that as it is
           right now, no one really knows the scope of domestic spying,
           no check and balance is in place.  So, in case of wrongfully accused
           or that such program has being targeted for political purposes,
           no one can turn the case over.  It is all depend upon Bush Co
           to decide who is 'terrorist' or not.  Bush can easily use this
           mechanism to spy on Democrat Party Committee.  This is just like
                                \_ IC! DEMOCRAT__*IC*_ PARTY!  You scoundrel!
                                   You petty traitor!  You villain!  *IC*!
                                   Why are you and Karl Rove always torturing
                                   us with your vicious little RepubiKKKan
                                   smears on the motd and your official
                                   publications?!  *IC*!
                                   \_ Sounds like it's time to up the dosage
                                      *again*, man.  Or cut back..waaaaaay back
                                      on the caffeine.
           Watergate except it is now legal to do so.
           \_ This may be a case of it has always been legal to do so, not
              it is now legal to do so.  The situation is different from
              Watergate b/c the wiretaps in Watergate were conducted for
              purely domestic purposes.  Here the wiretaps are ostensibly
              conducted for foreign affairs purposes. The distinction may
              become impt, b/c the Pres. has far more power to act in
              foreign affairs than in domestic affairs.
              \_ regardless, there should be a check-n-balance mechanism
                 in place.
                 \_ Arguably the const. disagrees with you. The BoR may
                    not apply to executive power during a time of war,
                    when hostiles have been operating on American soil.
                    \_ So any President, on nothing more than their own
                       whim, can claim anyone is doing something
                       related to a "foreign" power, without any evidence
                       whatsover, and declare all Constitutional rights for
                       that person invalid? And no court or legislature
                       has any recourse? Is that your contention?
                       \_ There are limits to the executive power, BUT
                          those limits arguably only exist either (1)
                          during peacetime or (2) during wartime when
                          enemy forces are not operating on US soil.
                          This is clearly not peace time and this is
                          a wartime scenario where the enemy is engaged
                          in operations on US soil, therefore the BoR
                          may not apply.
                          \_ What events will signify the end of the war?
                             We defeated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and
                             occupy Iraq and have a puppet government in
                             Afghanistan... Aren't we on a never ending quest
                             to save my girlfriend now? I mean, when will the
                             "War on Terror" end, and if it isn't ending
                             anytime soon, doesn't that mean the President
                             will have expanded powers for decades?
                             \_ I find it interesting that the balance of
                                government branches issue is so important
                                yet does anyone here not understand that
                                the President has always had the ultimate
                                power since the mid 1900s?  Without anyone
                                else's say so they can start a nuclear war.
                                Is that ok?  If so, then why don't we trust
                                the office holder with lesser responsibilities
                                than all human life on the planet?  I'm not
                                arguing for/against, I just find the reasoning
                                that "super power over life and death with no
                                checks" is ok while "omg, they're going to
                                listen to me talk sexy to my gf!!!" is not.
                                \_ Just because the President was given one
                                   important power due to military neccesity
                                   doesn't mean that he has unlimited power
                                   to do anything.
                                   \_ Actually the Pres. does have unlimited
                                      power to do anything he wants in wartime
                                      IF habeas is suspended. [ I know that
                                      habeas hasn't been suspended, BUT if
                                      it were, the Pres. would have the power
                                      to do anything he deems necessary in
                                      order to protect the republic. ]
                             \_ The conditions that signify the end of the
                                war are clear in my post. The Pres. authority
                                to violate the BoR will end when there are
                                no longer any foreign hostiles engaged in
                                operations on US soil. Perhaps this will take
                                decades, perhaps it will take longer. I do
                                not know, but I feel that AQ et. al. pose
                                such a threat to civilization, that any and
                                all means must be used to vanquish them.
                                Re "saving my gf": I disagree, despite the
                                                   lack of domestic terrorism
                                                   since 9/11, there is no
                                                   proof that AQ et. al. are
                                                   no longer carrying out long
                                                   term operations w/in the US.
                                                   Until such proof is avail.
                                                   the emergency exists. Such
                                                   proof can be made available
                                                   by the worldwide destruction
                                                   of militant islam; thus we
                                                   do not have to rely on an
                                                   assertion of proof via the
                                                   executive branch.
                                \_ More people in the United States have been
                                   struck by lightning than died in domestic
                                   terrorist attacks in the last decade. I
                                   think you severely overreacting to a very
                                   minor threat and giving up our liberties
                                   because of a very minor problem. Your
                                   paranoia and fearfulness over a tiny
                                   problem are not worth tearing up the
                                   minor threat and are giving up our liberties
                                   because of your paranoia and media generated
                                   hype and fearfulness.
                                   \_ If you receive anal pleasure 100 times
                                      in a year, it's no big deal.  If you
                                      receive it 20 times in a morning, you
                                      might have problems.
2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41491 Activity:nil
1/23    Really, people...
        Is it incompetence or embezzlement?
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41486 Activity:moderate
1/23    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007276.php
        Who to believe?  Can you start tapping and then have 72 hours to get
        retroactive FISA approval (URL 1), or does the attorney general need
        probable cause before even beginning to tap (URL 2)?
        Note Gen. Hayden today went with URL 2.
        \_ But they wouldn't have even done #1
           \_ URL 2 says you can't do #1 without the attorney general
              establishing probable cause first.
              \_ URL 2 is disingenuous..  "We don't actually know how to fill
                 out a warrant application, so we shouldn't have to" is a
                 _stupid_ argument.
                 \_ The core of the argument is that Gen. Hayden went outside
                    of FISA to do "reasonable basis" wiretaps (calls going to /
                    coming from suspected Al Qaeda members / affiliates),
                    whereas FISA required "probable cause" (we have a credible
                    source or evidence obtained through other legal means that
                    person x has committed or is committing a criminal act)
                    required to even begin wiretapping.
                    Note that, if you go outside FISA, you need very little
                    other than some NSA person saying that one end of the call
                    may be coming from an Al Qaeda member / affiliate.
                    "reasonable basis" << "probable cause"
                    link:tinyurl.com/bkvuf (nytimes.com)
                    \_ Unfortunately there's that pesky little thing called
                       the constitution.
                    link:tinyurl.com/bkvuf (nytimes.com)
                       \_ Then you go back to:  They could do it outside of
                          FISA becuse the resolution passed by Congress gave
                          Dubya the power, and also through his role as
                          "unitary executive" (a power granted by the
                          Constitution according to Dubya's people).
                          \_ "could".  That's the claim.  The congressional
                             research service said they can't.
                             \_ Thanks for pointing that out.  Here's the URL:
                                http://tinyurl.com/9nosv (Wash Post)
        \_ [ I have not yet taken Crim Pro, but from what I understand ]
           The USSC has held that a wiretap is a search w/in the meaning
           of that term under the 4th amend. Thus a warrant to wiretap
           cannot issue w/o a showing of probable cause. The probable
           cause showing must relate to the time the search is INITIATED;
           evidence found after the search cannot generally be used to est.
           probable cause.
           The FISA procedures allow the AG to request the warrant upto 72
           hrs after the tap is started, BUT the AG must still prove that
           probable cause existed at the time the wiretap was initiated.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap - the relevant USSC
           \_ People need to start saing that Dubya is usurping "probable
              cause" for unreasonable searches in the 4th Amendment, and this
              will promptly throw out Dubya's "unitary executive" and
              Congressional authorization arguments.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap:
           The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power
           runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it
           doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of
           the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power.
           If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the
           Pres. will probably win this under either Curtis Wright or
           Youngstown. Curtis Wright "one voice" in foreign affairs is
           probably the better argument b/c in ever case the purpose of
           the wiretaps were to stop terrorism by international forces,
           which is a foreign affairs issue.
           \_ Well, if it goes to the Supreme Court, then I think that's it.
              4th Amendment, "probable cause", Dubya violated it, game set
              \_ I talked to my Con Law prof about this and the real problem
                 is getting standing to bring a 4th amend. claim. Unless the
                 AG screws up really badly, defendants will not have a factual
                 basis to claim that their 4th amend. rights were violated.
                 [ The ACLU has filed a suit saying that the named plaintiffs
                   were likely to be tapped, but this is probably not enough
                   to show actual harm necessary to get standing ]
                 \_ You can ask your prof what they think of this with respect
                    to the notion that you can't get plaintiffs with standing
                    because, by nature of the program, you can't find out if
                    your 4th amendment rights have been breached.
                    I.e., you can have unlimited secret wiretapping because you
                    can't find anyone who knows if they've been wiretapped.
                    Your prof can either say "Too bad" or "Perhaps SCOTUS will
                    recognize the Catch-22 and review the case".
                    \- some people are concerned about the standing issue
                       int eh case of the ACLU suit but theirs is not the
                       only suit. a law prof whose name i do not recall but
                       is possible from gerogetown is representing a muslim
                       professor who allegedly said some crazy stuff and was
                       was suspected to have phone conversations with various
                       unsavories located in AFGANISTAN was smacked down and
                       he should pretty clearly have standing, but he is not
                       a very sympathetic defendent ... that might end up
                       being a case where there would have been probably
                       cause but the govt just didnt bother with the
                       warrants. the BURGER court certain carved into
                       the exclusionary rule so that trend may continue.
                       remember the constitution says the govt cant do
                       warrantless searches but it doesnt mandate the
                       exclusionary rule ... the court could conceivably
                       have said "we will sanction the fellow who obtained
                       the tainted evidence" or the unjustly seearched
                       party has a right to sue the law enforcement body
                       that violated his 4th amd or 5th amd rights for
                       money damage rather than a right to suppress the
                       \- update: the other suit is being led by the center
                          for constitutional rights. their clients have a
                          pretty good case for standing but may be less
                          sympathetic ... e.g. have made anti-american
                          public statements etc. but their claim is also
                          that the lawyers of these people who are american
                          citizens were monitored. i have to go now.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap:
           The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power
           runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it
           doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of
           the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power.
           If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the
           Pres. will probably win this under either the Curtis Wright or
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41483 Activity:moderate
1/23    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html
        "The general said three NSA attorneys provided independent opinions
        that the [eavesdropping] program was legal."
        \_ Major shock: the NSA thinks it's OK to wiretap without a warrant.
           Good enough for me!  -tom
        \_ "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my
           professional judgment that we would have detected some of the
           9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have
           identified them as such ..." -Gen. Hayden
           but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless wiretapping?
              but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless
           \_ I think the daily show (or was it colbert report) put it best:
              we already had all the facts about the plans and identities of
              the 9/11 guys before 9/11.  The problem is that they were lost
              in a sea of too much intel.  How would collecting even more have
              solved that?
        \_ For a horizon of a few weeks, the President has essentially
           unlimited power during wartime, at which time he
           is expected to advise Congress of his actions.  Bush advised
           the Senate Intelligence committee about the wiretaps very early on.
           unlimited power during wartime, but is expected to ultimately advise
           Congress of his actions.  Bush advised the Senate Intelligence
           committee about the wiretaps very early on.
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41482 Activity:nil
1/23    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23208381.htm
        "President George W. Bush rejected charges his domestic eavesdropping
         program was illegal on Monday, while other administration officials
         said the war on terrorism has made the federal law on electronic
         surveillance outdated."
        So which is it? Is it against a law that the administration wants
        revised, or is it within the law (which would imply that the law is
        timely and supports the Pres.)?
        \_ Dubya said it's legal, from a resolution Congress passed.
           His people are also saying the power of the unitary executive
           also makes it legal.
           Gen. Hayden said that three NSA layers wrote independent opinions
           saying it was legal.
           \_ Uh, Dubya asked congress to include the US on the list of
              countries in the afghanistan resolution.  congress said no.
              he wanted it in the patriot act.  congress said no.  dubya
              said "fuck congress".
           \_ So if it's legal, why are his people saying the law is outdated?
              \_ I think it's because of "URL 2" indicated in new post above.
2006/1/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41468 Activity:high
1/21    Hillary was wrong, Bush not the worst President ever. Sixth worst?
        http://csua.org/u/eq4 (USA Today)
        \_ "Except for Katrina"?  Gee, except for losing a major city, bush
           ain't doing too bad.  (Not to mention how wrong that columnist is
           about education or health care, but that's another story.)
        \_ ...the hell has the founder of USA Today got to do with anything?
           \_ if he really is a serious thinker, I bet several well-informed
              e-mails will easily push him to recategorize Dubya to the worst
              in any case, if you think about it, his precise placement of
              dubya as "6th worst" does 2x damage compared to just agreeing
              with hillary.  it stimulates thought and resists categorization.
              \_ A fine point. Ranking him as 6th worst obfuscates the real
                 (and obvious) issue, which is that he's a fuck-up.
                 \_ I don't know about you, but 6th worst out of 43 is
                    still pretty pathetic.  And I don't know how you would
                    give any credence to someone who evaluates the worst
                    deficit ever as "reasonably well".  -John
        \_ USA Today: it's where I go first for quality news and opinion.
2006/1/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41451 Activity:high
1/20    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_go_ot/republicans_rove
        First there was the War on Terror, and now there's a War on
        Unpatriotic Liberal Dissents. Go Carl Rove!!!
        \_ You mean Not-unpatriotic-but-pre-9/11 And Profoundly Wrong Liberals
        \_ "But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant
            party . in this case, the Democrat Party . when its thinking
            becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an
            entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power
            becomes an end in itself rather than a mean to achieve the
            common goal...."
           It's a definite sign of insanity to not be able to see the irony in
           what you're saying.
           \_ Or even the circumstances in which you say something.  When was
              the last time the D Party was dominant?  '93?  Sounds like Rove
              is living in the pre-pre-9/11 world.
           \_ What's with the persistent mispronunciation of the "Democratic"
              party as the "Democrat" party by Republicans in official and
              press statements?  I see this so much it can't be coincidence.
              \_ No coincidence. The Rs excel at crafting the message, and
                 it doesn't serve their purposes to given the Democrats even
                 the appearance of the high ground.
                 \_ I was going to say it is all an evil republican conspiracy
                    to uhm some-er-other but I see the nut head brigade got
                    here first.  Thanks for killing my joke.
                    \_ "I deeply resent the way this administration makes me
                        feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist." Teresa
                        Nielsen Hayden
                        \_ Deep in the bowels of the Rovian Pit of Darkness,
                           "What new message shall we craft that will give us
                           the appearance of taking the high ground?  Ah ha!
                           I know!  We shall always refer the minority party
                           without their noble "ic" at the end of their name,
                           even in official literature!  Yes!  Muahahaha!"
                           Truly, this is one of the most dispicable yet
                           subtle attacks on our civil rights we have seen
                           up to now!  What next?  Will they sometimes use a
                           lower case "D" when next they write "democrat"?!
                           Egads!  They're unstoppable!  We're doooomed!
                           \_ LOL. No, not unstoppable or even clever. Just.
                              \_ You want the truth?  You can't handle the
                                 truth!  Ok, the truth is no one noticed any
                                 difference or cared.  Dropping the "ic" does
                                 not give or take away anything or give anyone
                                 the appearance of high ground or any other
                                 BS posted here on the topic.  The whole
                                 thing is just silly.  To claim it is some
                                 sort of conspiracy would be laughable if it
                                 weren't so bizarre.  Can anyone explain what
                                 benefit the DemocratIC party gets from the IC
                                 or they lose when the Republicans don't use
                                 the IC?  Is it like Samson's hair?
                                 \_ I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm
                                    saying it's a conscious decision. And
                                    while I agree with you that Joe Q Public
                                    isn't even going to notice it, Rove and
                                    party are still doing it. That's what makes
                                    it so petty.
                                    \_ What is this big "it" they are doing?
                                       Dropping the "ic".  Christ Oh Mighty!
                                       Big Fucking Deal!  Of all the things
                                       going on in the world we've wasted
                                       nearly 2 screens on "ic".  Totally
                                       fucking stupid.  Get over it.
                                       \_ I have. The pettiness of the GOP
                                          no longer surprises or occupies my
                                          thoughts any more than your posts.
                                          \_ You are bizarre.  You have yet to
                                             explain how having or not having
                                             "ic" helps or hurts anyone or is
                                             petty or anything else.  Freak.
        \_ "We need to learn from our successes," he said, "and from the
           failures of others."  Good god.  What arrogance.  I actually agree
           with many of the things he says about the democratic party.
           They're being reflexively contrary and really do seem petty and
           childish.  On the other hand, I disagree with almost everything he
           says about the republicans.
           \_ If the D's could get the rules committee to let them hold
              an actual hearing, if they could get any legislative items
              on the agenda, if they were allowed in to the conference
              committees, you might have a point about reflexive contrarians.
              They are currently watching medicare be destroyed and a war slowly
              being lost, and the only outlet they have is to say "look what
              they're doing.  get pissed about it. cuz we can't do shit unless
              you vote more of our team in."
              \_ Did you watch the Alito hearings?  They seem to be a one-topic
                 party, and that topic is abortion.
                 \_ Abortion and his unitary executive theories.  There are a
                    number of republican senators who have gone back on
                    promises to their constituents that they would not allow
                    a sc justice through without pledging to protect roe on
                    both roberts and alito.  D's are actually concerned about
                    it, as are a large majority of the population.  They're
                    not driving the discussion (another of their problems).
                    They're just trying to get a word in.
                 \_ It's the elephant in the room that the Rs don't want to
                    talk about.
                    \_ The murdered baby elephant!!!1!!11!
                       \_ have you seen Tom Yum Goong?
2006/1/19-21 [Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41446 Activity:nil
1/19    Original documents on the govt request and the Google lawyer's response
        You'll be proud of the latter (starts on page 5).
        You, too, can defend GOOG with a B.S. in Economics from Cal
        (as long as you graduate cum laude from Harvard law too ...)
        On the flip side, you can be a fully tenured professor at Cal and work
        for Dubya (ob John Yoo reference)
        \- stark used to traffic with then had a nasty breakup with
           a sloda user. --your black muslim gossipmonger
2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41438 Activity:nil
1/19    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561226/posts
        "Asked whether the president 'should have the power to authorize the
        NSA to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists
        without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in
        the U.S.?' - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes.
        ... Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for
        blowing the NSA's cover 'traitors,' while just 27 percent agreed with
        media claims that the leakers were 'whistleblowers.'"
        \_ those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.
           \_ misquote.
           \_ This is the year I finally break down and buy a gun.
              \_ Good luck if you live in SF...
                 \_ Where I'm moving, it's practically illegal to not own
                    a gun.  The apocalypse is coming, and I'm gonna be ready.
           \_ Americans don't mind sacrificing the freedom of "suspected
              terrorists", as long as they're not one or a close friend of one.
        \_ "...a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found...."
           Try harder, young freeper_troll.
2006/1/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41429 Activity:nil
1/18    A real Republican sticks to his guns. The following article proves
        that Michael Brown is a very bad Republican by admitting mistakes:
2006/1/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41424 Activity:moderate
1/18    "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as
         one of the worst that has ever governed our country."
        -Hillary Clinton (Jan 18, 2006)
        \_ I predict to you that Hillary Clinton will foolishly run for
           the president and fail, setting up for another four years of
           GOP incompetence that will go down in history as the worst
           platform that has ever controlled our country.
           \_ I predict that she will not even come in second in the primary.
           \_ President Hillary Clinton. Get used to saying it, because
              you will be saying it for eight long years.
              \_ Just because someone *really* wants power *really* badly
                 doesn't mean we should give it to them.  Quite the opposite.
                 It'll be interesting if she does run and some how gets
                 nominated for the (D) party.  She has never gone through the
                 journalist gauntlet.  Never been in a public debate of any
                 note.  Never really had to do any of the things experienced
                 politicians normally have to go through to get into the top
                 levels of politics.  No polish.  The (R) would have to find
                 a child raping axe murderer to lose to someone so poorly
                 prepared for a brutal Presidential bid.  I'm not sure why
                 you'd want a President who didn't earn it but whatever.
                 \_ As opposed to Dubya?  What would "we" need to do, have
                    millionaires give Hillary an oil company, a baseball
                    team, and a magazine to run into the ground first?  -tom
                    \_ What "we" are you talking about?  If the (D) party had
                       put up a human being instead of a self righteous "I'm
                       owed the Presidency" plank of wood, Bush would've been
                       crushed.  They put up the proverbial axe murdering
                       child rapist and lost.  Big deal.  Kerry was even
                       worse.  He only happened through Dean's "Yeaaarrrggh!"
                       fluke, and the idea that "Even though we think he's
                       an idiot we think he's got the creds to beat W so let's
                       nominate this guy we don't otherwise believe in".  He
                       was the only available candidate in 04 worse than Gore
                       was in 00.  Going back a bit we can see Dole was also
                       only running because "it was his turn" just like Gore
                       and he got crushed and rightly so.  Bush I was busted
                       on stage looking at his watch during a debate.  Clearly
                       not interested and out of touch.  Crushed.  Rightly so.
                       Attacking a former candidate or President doesn't make
                       Hillary a better candidate or more Presidential for the
                       \_ I realize that this puts me in a small minority, but
                          I genuinely liked and believed in Kerry.
                          \_ I'm not saying he had zero real supporters just
                             that the typical noise at the time (on the motd
                             and other places) was "We don't like him but we
                             think his war record can win enough middle ground
                             people to beat W".  Very cynical and not a very
                             good way to choose a candidate.
        \_ If we ever managed to uncover all of the backroom bullshit
           corporate and private selling out that's going on?  That might be
           true.  Will history reveal all that?  Probably not.
           \_ Why do you hate America?
           \_ Why do you think any of this is somehow a new thing?  You think
              politics was clean and money free until January 2001 when it
              suddenly all magically changed?  Status quo.
        \_ BUSHCO is worse than Nixon, Hover and Grant? WOW.
           \_ Nixon was embarassing.  Hoover probably was swamped by
              inexorable market forces.  Grant allowed all kinds of
              corruption and failed to win the Reconstruction, but those
              racist southern bastards were probably gonna do all that shit
              one way or another anyway.  BUSHCO has mushroomed our national
              debt and deficit in addition to discarding our civil rights,
              making "USA" synonymous with "torture", alienated most of
              our allies....  It'll take two generations to undo the damage
              BUSHCO has caused.
              \_ Well this is an improvement.  Weren't you saying last year
                 it would take "many" generations?  So things are better
                 now.  All we need to do now is stay the course.
                 \_ Because clearly motd consists of only two people, so
                 now.  All we need to do now is stay the course.
                    \_ Same phrasing.  Likely the same person.  And certainly
                       coming off the same DNC talking points memo either way.
                        \_ I never weighed in on BUSHco before.  I wrote the
                           above.  I read google news and don't watch much TV,
                           that is how my opinions are formed.  If I echo DNC,
                           then maybe the liberal media conspiracy is true,
                           OR maybe I came to my conclusion above independently.
              \_ Nixon was embarrassing? Do you even remember watergate? Nixon
                 ran roughshod over the constitution to cover the asses of his
                 campaign staffers, &c. He directed the intelligence services
                 to cover up these crimes.
                 In contrast, BUSHCO has been overtly working for the defense
                 of the REPUBLIC.  Even if this effort has enriched them pers-
                        \_ Plame?  Halliburton?  Misleading us about WMD?
                           \_ I'm not PP.  With that in mind:
                              Plame: stupid but not the first time someone in
                              government outted an agent.
                                \_ Not the last either for BushCO (see Khan)
                              Halliburton: what about it?
                              Misleading: this is so beaten to death.  Every
                              western government and spy agency in the world
                              believed it at the time.  Let the horse die.
                 onally, the primary focus has been on the safety and security
                 of Americans. Arguably they have used poor judgment in many
                 situations, but their motivation is not overly criminal as
                 Nixon's was.
                        \_ Blameworthy as Nixon was and non-criminal as this
                           administration is, BUSHCO has done more real harm
                           to our international image (torture, lies about WMD)
                           and to our long-term finances than Nixon did.
                           I stand by what I say:  Nixon was embarassing,
                           BUSHCO has done massive harm.
                           \_ I find it curious that people seem to think the
                              US had some sort of golden image around the
                              world pre-Bush.  The US not only had a history of
                              but an active and intentional policy throughout
                              the Cold War of supporting thugs, dictators and
                              drug dealers as long as they were OUR thugs.  I
                              don't see any change for the worse in terms of
                              how the US deals with the rest of the world.  At
                              least we now give lip service and sometimes
                              actually do something to push better ideals than
                              we have in the past.
                 \_ So says you. I suspect that when we really find out the
                    extent of the NSA wiretapping, it will turn out to be
                    much worse than anything Nixon did. Using the NSA to
                    spy on your political opponents, things like that...
                    And the Valerie Plame coverup is pretty criminal as well.
                    Not like the Watergate coverup, but pretty bad.
                 By most stds, the Grant admin was the epitome of poor mgmt.
                 His VP had accepted bribes (let's see some proof that Cheney
                 has been bribed), his brother-in law was taking bribes and
                 giving him bad advice, the Treasury Dept. was taking bribes,
                 the Sec. of War was taking bribes, &c. You are willing to
                 write this all off as southern bastards acting normally, but
                 you won't write off BUSHCO as southern bastards? Sounds like
                 a double std to me.
                 I noticed that you didn't include Hoover. Why? Perhaps the
                 Depression and his failure to deal w/ that were maybe just a
                 BIT worse than ANYTHING BUSHCO has done?
                 BTW, I completely left out any reference to the Alien and
                 Sedition acts, which were at least as bad as the Patriot Act.
        \_ Are people too young to remember living under Carter?
           \_ Much better to flush $2-$3 trillion down the toilet instead of
              spending it on switching on renewables.  God will provide more
              spending it on switching to renewables.  God will provide more
              magic oil!
              \_ Apparently, yes, you're too young to remember Carter.
                 \_ Nope, I'm not.  He may not have managed things well,
                    but he was the last President to tell the truth on
                    \_ You win this week's Motd Blue Ribbon For Understatement!
                       Carter "may not have managed things well, but...".  How
                       old were you when that loser gave the infamous "malaise
                       speech"?  How old during that little itty bitty
                       "Hostage Crisis" thing?  How badly were you hurt from
                       double digit inflation?  You may have been alive but
                       you don't remember.
                        \_ Get ready for more maliase, and this time the
                           energy crisis is a permanent one.
                           \_ Is this the Peak Oil thing again?  So if Carter
                              "told us the truth about energy" back in 76-80,
                              what did Reagan x2, Bush I, Clinton x2 do about
                              it differently that saves them from your scorn
                              yet Bush II is deserving of it?  Actually, since
                              we're here, what did Carter do about it?
                                \_ Carter put programs in place to start moving
                                   the nation away from oil dependency, which
                                   Reagan quickly abandoned.  Fortunately for
                                   Reagan, the oil bonanza that followed saved
                                   our asses.  That oil bonanza is rapidly
                                   fading ... Like I said, none of the
                                   Presidents after Carter dealt with the
                                   problem or admitted to it.  I blame all
                                   them for the position we are in.  However,
                                   Bush's wasteful spending is using money
                                   that could be used to get us out of the
                                   situation, that's all.  Hence the flushing
                                   of money down the toilet.
                                   \_ Ok, I looked this up.  Carter's plan was
                                      essentially: conserve/reduce usage, burn
                                      a lot of coal, insulate homes, create a
                                      strategic oil reserve, put solar on 2.5
                                      million homes by 1985.  Today: cars burn
                                      less gas, we tried to not burn coal until
                                      more recently when cleaner burning tech
                                      could be put in place, homes and all new
                                      construction are insulated, we have a
                                      strategic oil reserve.  I have no idea
                                      how many homes have solar but people can
                                      get it if they want to.  Which parts of
                                      the plan got ditched?
                                      I found several sources but it was all
                                      nicely summed up here:
                                      So, where were we?  Oh yes, Peak Oil and
                                      Carter's energy policy.  What about it?
                                      What did Carter do besides depress
                                      everyone and lead poorly?  Check out
                                      some of the quotes in this classic:
                                      Jimmy, where are you now?  We need you!
                                      Oh yeah, you're out there putting your
                                      stamp of approval on stolen elections in
                                      South America.
                                      \_ If the GOP hadn't gutted the Carter
                                         CAFE standards and written an exemption
                                         literally large enough to drive an
                                         SUV through, Americans would be using
                                         1/2 the gasoline we do today. Gasoline
                                         is 1/2 of our total energy consumption
                                         so we would be using 25% less oil.
                                         This is most of our imported oil.
                                         We would be in much better shape if
                                         we hadn't catered to the oil and
                                         car interests.
                                         \_ I gave you a detailed summary of
                                            his energy plan and 2 URLs straight
                                            from Carter's speeches which you
                                            couldn't bother to post in the
                                            first place so I looked it up for
                                            you.  Now you give more
                                            unreferenced noise and
                                            speculation.  Put up for shut up.
                                            If you're going to defend a useless
                                            wanker like Carter, you need to
                                            prove your statements.  I'm not
                                            doing any more of your research
                                            for you.
                                            [Actually, I lied.  I looked up
                                             CAFE and it predated Carter]
                                            So, Carter didn't even do CAFE.
                                            What did Carter do?
                                            \_ See above. He implemented
                                               stringent CAFE standards, just
                                               like I said. Do you really have
                                               this tough a problem with the
                                               English language?
                                               \_ Stringent is a relative
                                                  term.  Go find us the actual
                                                  standard and we can then
                                                  all decide how stringent
                                                  they are.  The concept
                                                  sure as hell wasn't his and
                                                  if his only claim to fame
                                                  in 4 years in office was to
                                                  pick highish CAFE numbers
                                                  in 1978 after being in office
                                                  ~2 years then we sure as hell
                                                  didn't need him.  Any random
                                                  beaurocrat could've picked a
        \_ "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been
           run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know that I'm
           talking about."
                \_ It's spin unless you include the second half of that
                   \_ The second half?
                        \ "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a
                           contrary view has had a chance to present
                           legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
                           \_ Gosh!  Imagine that!  When you have a government
                              system with 2 major parties, the party out of
                              power can't get their agenda through!  Shocking!
                              Were you equally upset about the 50 years the
                              Democrat party ran the show while Republicans
                              got sidelined?  Sheesh, read a civics book.
                              Hillary said a stupid thing and barely got
                              called on it.  This time.  All this idiocy will
                              come back later though.  Always does.
                                \_ Of course, but the media is "enraged" about
                                   the plantation bit, not the whining that
                                   the Democrats can't get their agenda
        \_ President Hillary Rodham Clinton. Get used to saying it
           because we will be saying it for eight long years.
                \_ Good news for Republicans ... Osama bin Laden is saying
                   new attacks are planned for the United States.  Voters
                   will be scared and vote in more right wingers promising
                   to take away our liberty for security!
                   \_ The rest of the Osama tape saying essentially, "we offer
                      you a truce to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq" which sure
                      sounds like weakness and surrender.  This is much more
                      likely to be played as "See?  We're winning, now we just
                      need to stay the course and finish them off" than "OMG!
                      We're going to get hit again eeeek!"  But, yes, anytime
                      Osama spews forth it is bad for the Democrat party.
                      \_ He's always offering compromises that sound
                         But of course if we meet offer #1 then immediately
                         there will be offer #2 until offer #n which is "the
                         whole world is a Muslim theocracy ruled by me"
                         \_ Of course.  I don't think it'll be portrayed like
                            that by either party or anyone in the media,
                            though.  Dealing with someone like Osama just isn't
                            an option.  So the discussion will be on what it
                            means that he said it.  I'm surprised he's still
                            alive, simply due to age, stress, and poor living
                            conditions but that's another story.  I don't
                            think he's in a position to negotiate anything
                            even if he was a reliable treaty partner and we
                            actually wanted to talk with him.
                      \_ It's "Democratic" party.  Not "Democrat" party.
                         \_ I have a term paper due in a few months.  Will you
                            spell check that for me, too?  Thanks!
                            \_ If you post it to MOTD, I'm sure we'd have a
                               blast editing your term paper for you.
                               \_ Holy crap!  This could be really entertaining!
                                  Why not let the motd collectively write
                                  your paper?
                                  \_ Meh, I've generally found that MOTD has
                                     the collective creativity of a kumquat.
                                     We're quite creative provided we have
                                     something to start working on, though....
2006/1/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41423 Activity:kinda low
1/18    Zogby: 52% of Americans agree that Bush should be impeached:
        \_ How does that jibe with the poll that said "americans don't care
           about presidential spying; they think it's making them safer"
           \_ urlP
              \_ #t
           \_ About as well as polls comparing "police should be able to
              arrest people" to "police should be able to arrest people
              without warrants or PC."
        \_ Amusing but not very interesting.   Classic push polling.  Yawn.
           \_ Please elaborate.
              \_ "If your spouse was cheating on you, would you be upset?"
                 "96% of spouses said yes to this question."
                 "Headline on motd: 96% of spouses are mad dog killers!  Beware
                  of married people!"
                  \_ President Bush has said that he has wiretapped American
                     citizens without the approval of a judge.  You're barking
                     up the wrong tree.
                     \_ What happened was illegal and impeachable if you think
                        Ohio was stolen in '04.  As usual, cooler heads will
                        prevail.  I do admit a small shock that you honestly
                        think his handlers would put him in front of a mic to
                        say he had committed an impeachable offense if it was
                        that simple and obvious.  I'm not the one barking.  I
                        find the whole thing silly.  His political enemies
                        have been talking impeachment for years, they bring it
                        up for each new 'scandal' hoping against hope this is
                        the one that sticks.  Anyway, if you think this is so
                        horrible, what do you think of Echelon which is/was a
                        much broader program that it is claimed scooped up data
                        in mass quantities on everyone not specific people
                        suspected of treasonous activities or terrorist ties?
                        Shouldn't Echelon's creation and use have triggered
                        the impeachment of the last few administrations?
                        \_ was the use of ECHELON for domestic surveillance
                           authorized by FISA?
                           also, pp probably meant to say "President Bush has
                           not denied that ..."
                           \_ Complicated question.  Echelon technically only
                              monitors global non-USA communication and
                              therefore does not require FISA authorization.
                              However, there are unsubstantiated allegations
                              that Echelon partner countries can monitor
                              communications inside the US without FISA
                              approval.  This is technically correct, however
                              there has been no proof that I know of this has
                              ever happened.  I imagine Echelon would also
                              pick up communication between US nationals who
                              are abroad, and I do not know if this would
                              require FISA approval.  I imagine in the
                              deliberate instance, FISA approval is required.
                              However, if US-to-US national communication
                              abroad is captured as part of the general Echelon
                              monitoring, I assume no prior FISA authorization
                              would be obtained.
                              \_ That is a truly amazing bit of intellectual
                                 dodging.  So you're not ok with tapping the
                                 NSA tapping specific targets suspected of
                                 terrorism ties after 9/11, but you're ok with
                                 using Echelon or other systems to tap
                                 American citizens in bulk as long as the
                                 tapping is done by a foreign agency who
                                 then hands over the data to us (and we do
                                 the same so they can spy on their citizens)?
                                 Oh-tay!  Let's hear it for putting one's
                                 party and political agenda ahead of common
                                 sense and civil rights.  IMO, both are wrong,
                                 but Echelon is far worse and no one screamed
                                 about that.  IIRC, the NYT was actually doing
                                 op-eds defending Echelon at the time.  Sigh.
                                 \_ A lot of people have screamed about it.
                                    The crucial difference being that some
                                    abstract concept of listening stations, no
                                    matter how bad, does not ring the same
                                    alarm bells with Joe Schmo as "wiretaps".
                                    I've noticed a pretty strong rise in the
                                    number of people using PGP/SSL'ing web
                                    pages/whatever since the mid-1990s, that I
                                    wouldn't just ascribe to a general growth
                                    in security & privacy awareness--many whom
                                    I know do so out of principle, to "add
                                    entropy" in one colleague's words.  Doesn't
                                    make much difference, but it's a start.
                                    And yes, it's wrong.  -John
                                    \_ Who was screaming for impeachment?
                                 \_ Bushco was not wire tapping just people
                                    suspected of terrorism. They were wire
                                    tapping everyone. That is the crucial
                                    \_ And this is different from Echelon
                                       how exactly?
                                       \_ Echelon spies on non-Americans,
                                          hence non-voters.
                    \_ Opinion piece from John Schmidt, AAG 1994 to 1997.
                       "President had legal authority to OK taps"
                           indicated in more or less words that ..."
        \_ it's 52% think "Congress should consider" impeachment not
           "Bush should be impeached", but anyways ...
           The key marker here is IF they added the phrase, U.S. citizens
           "suspected of terrorist activity", which is what Dubya would say
           he did, and then you'd have a much different result.
        \_ According to phone company execs, the NSA was basically wiretapping
           everyone, not just suspected terrorists, and running a massive
           data mining operation on it. When Americans find out that it is
           *their* phone calls that have been tapped, they will be pissed.
           \_ Again: this is different from Echelon how?  Americans already
              heard about Echelon and already assumed they were being
              tapped.  Nothing is going to come from this or any of the
              previous 50 "obviously rises to impeachable levels of offense"
              scandals coming off the DNC fax machine.
              \_ We'll see. You seem to very sure of your reading of the
                 public's attitude. After massive GOP losses in November,
                 let's see what Congress does. When it becomes clear that
                 the NSA was wiretapping the media, Congress, the judiciary
                 and the Kerry campaign, it might cause an uproar.
                 \_ I'm very sure of human nature.  People are what they are.
                    One thing the vast bulk of people never do is get overly
                    upset about anything for more than one news cycle.  People
                    care about their food and gas bills, their rent, who is in
                    the super bowl this year and how about that rain yesterday,
                    it was someithng, huh?  Elections are local.  Incumbents
                    almost never lose.  Nothing massive is going to happen.
                    Go have a beer and watch the superbowl with everyone else.
                    \_ Gas bills are way up and the Abramoff scandal could have
                       some real impact.  These things are far more real than
                       complexities concerning NSA spying.
2006/1/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:41422 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto
1/18    http://www.babybushtoys.com
        \_ Wow, that looks like an awful lot of work for jokes that are only
           "heh" level.
2006/1/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Recreation/Humor] UID:41416 Activity:kinda low
1/17    The Iraq Invasion as Zork I transcript
        \_ You went to the trouble to transcript that boring drivel?
                                      \_ transcribe
           \_ You have missed the humor and been eaten by a Grue.
              \_ It's not very humorous.  -tom
                 \_ It was worth a few chuckles.  It wasn't the super brilliant
                    "OMGROFLMAOWTFBBQ!!!!" that 90% of the ditto head "me too!"
                    commenters made it out to be but it had humor value.  You
                    didn't think "IT IS NOT THAT KIND OF SEAL" was funny?
                    \_ No.  -tom
                       \_ So what's out there that you do find funny?
                          \_ Clearly not this.
                             \_ Clearly.  I want to know what he does find
        \_ That was pretty funny, but it didn't need FILL SHOES.
           Probably lost some audience with that.
           \_ The truth hurts huh?
              \_ The weak trolls are out in force today.
              \_ nah, the FILL SHOES line was forced, albeit true
2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41407 Activity:nil
1/17    Yup, federalism is dead.
        \_ Can the feds still enforce anti-pot laws in CA? Then, no, not dead.
2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41404 Activity:kinda low
1/17    Ray Nagin: God is angry with america, and God wants New Orleans to be
        black.  Welcome to the Pat Robertson club.
        \_ Transcript of the speach:
           I don't see "God wants NO to be black."
           The "God did this" claim is stupid, as ever, but you're putting
           words in his mouth.
           \_ The Bayou Buzz link says "This city will be a majority African
              American city. Its the way God wants it to be."
           \_ "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way
               God wants it to be."
              \_ Majority Aftican American != black.  NO was "majority African
                 American" before.  Misquoting him as saying he wants NO to
                 be "black" is race-baiting
                 \_ No one said "all black"
                    \_ By misquoting/miscontexting, this is what is
                    \_ By misquoting/miscontexting, this is exactly what is
                       \_ I didn't get that.
                          \_ "majority black" vs. "black" doesn't strike you
                             as a distinction?
2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41401 Activity:kinda low
1/17    Iraq, the petrodollar, and the upcoming Iranian oil bourse ... This
        article ties it all together neatly:
        \_ Not to diminish the article's theses, but when I watch anime
           with an apocalyptic backstory, they always seem to invoke this
           style of storytelling.  Art - life - art?
                \_ We're running out of reasons for the Iraq invasion.  Since
                   "bringing democracy" to the Middle East means Hamas and
                   other pro-terror hardline Islamic being to run the show,
                   which is way worse (for the USA) than the repressive
                   regimes we currently support -- and every other reason
                   was just a lie or BS -- supporting the petrodollar seems
                   like a reasonable theory.
                   \_ Coherent yes, reasonable maybe, likely no, a contributing
                      factor, yes.
                      IMO the most likely explanation is, Part One, that 9/11
                      changed everything:  We now knew terrorists would blow up
                      a nuke in a U.S. city if they had one.
                      \_ See, 9/11 didn't _change_ that.  It might have changed
                         it for Bushco (i.e. woke them up), but we've known that
                         for decades.
                         \_ It is either disingenuous or ignorant to claim
                            that 9/11 caused the Bush administration to care
                            about invading Iraq.  See:
                            (letter to the Clinton administration, dated
                            1/26/1998, signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz,
                            Perle, on why we should invade Iraq).
                            After the election, the administration was clearly
                            building up for an invasion of Iraq; 9/11 actually
                            delayed their plans.
                            Their statement of principles:
                            "As the 20th century draws to a close, the
                            United States stands as the world's
                            preeminent power. Having led the West to
                            victory in the Cold War, America faces an
                            opportunity and a challenge: Does the
                            United States have the vision to build
                            upon the achievements of past decades?
                            Does the United States have the resolve to
                            shape a new century favorable to American
                            principles and interests?"
                            Invading Iraq is about showing the world that we
                            can do pretty much whatever we want, pretty much
                            whenever we want to.
                            \_ I agree completely.  Above, I was addressing the
                               distinct point of "terrorists would blow up..."
                         \_ Of course you knew, but how about for most
                            Americans?  How about, let's say:  a possibility
                            became a real concern after 9/11.
                            \_ I posit that it shouldn't need to be a "real
                               concern" for "most Americans".  It's something
                               that we pay the government to do for us.  That
                               whole "provide for the common defense" thing.
                               It's only a "real concern" because Bush
                               propogandized it after he FAILED his first
                               time around.
                               \_ ob blame Clinton for 9/11, but then we
                                  start getting off topic ...
                                  \_ ob read the 9/11 commission report, and
                                     look up project bojinka
                      Part Two, Dubya, boy genius, did not question the reports
                      that Saddam had WMDs.  That, combined with Saddam's
                      previous "misbehavior" -- deploying chemical weapons in
                      the Iran-Iraq war, invading Kuwait, trying to kill
                      Dubya's dad and other potential unsettled scores with the
                      U.S., killing/torturing Kurds like nobody's business, and
                      having two sons who would continue the tradition -- all
                      combined, led Dubya to make the call to invade Iraq.
                      That's the most likely theory, IMO.
                      (Then again, Dubya, master diplomat, didn't exactly get
                      the entire world on the same page, since he based his war
                      on "no doubt" Saddam had WMDs, and never showed damning
                      evidence to this effect.  You know he has them, you know
                      he does -- so why doesn't the evidence you provided show
                      this?) -moderate/liberal
2006/1/12-17 [Consumer/CellPhone, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41359 Activity:nil
1/12    Blogger buys Gen. Wesley Clark's phone records.
        \_ http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-privacy05.html
           Wider coverage.  It's pointed out that criminals could buy phone
           records of local cops to figure out who's snitching.  Bad mo-jo.
2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Computer/SW] UID:41323 Activity:nil
1/10    "I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and
        demanda debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our
        adversaries." -GW Bush (Jan 10, 2006)
        See, Dubya's speechwriters are clearly freepers.
2006/1/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41292 Activity:nil 80%like:41288 80%like:41289
1/7     Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping CNN?
        \_ http://tinyurl.com/dnbqq (Alternative Press Review)
           Looks like the Administration may have been wire tapping
           lots of media critics.
2006/1/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41291 Activity:nil
1/7     Nonpartisan Congressional Research Group concludes that
        Bush wiretapping was illegal:
        http://csua.org/u/ejh (WashPo)
2006/1/8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41289 Activity:nil 80%like:41288 80%like:41292
1/7     Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping the motd?
2006/1/8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41288 Activity:nil 80%like:41289 80%like:41292
1/7     Was Bush and the NSA wiretapping the media?
2006/1/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:41283 Activity:low
1/7     I was looking at Mine Safety and Health Administration statisics,
        and it seems reality is exactly the opposite of media portrayal from
        the last week.
        http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT10.HTM table titled
        "Coal Mine Safety and Health".  The fatal injury rate for miners has
        dropped from 2000 to 2004, from 0.0393 to 0.0273.  All injury rate
        has dropped also, from 6.64 in 2000 to 5.00 in 2004.  It is true that
        the percentage of citations and orders has dropped from 42% to 41%
        (from 2000 to 2004, and dipping to 38% in 2002).  However, the number
        of coal mines has dropped from 2000 to 2004, from 2124 mines to 2008.
        While the number of mines has decreased, the number of miners has
        slightly increased from 108.1K to 108.5K.  This is explained by the
        number of smaller mines that have closed (the number of small mines
        dropped from 571 in 2000 to 560 in 2004).  On-site inspection hours
        per mine has increased from 215.7 in 2000 to 219.2 in 2004.
        The lower citation rate may well be because larger mines are
        somewhat better run and therefore slightly less prone to citations.
        \_ I was the only one who reported that some Clinton-era official
           said that mine citations were "way down", and cited the LA Times.
           My bad -- I can't seem to find anything at all like this now on
           that site or others.  I will be more careful next time.
           Anyway, apart from my mistake, the media is reporting that
           citation penalty amounts are down along with criminal convictions.
           \_ According the the MSHA, penalty assessed (in $million) was
              18.4 in 1995, 12.0 in 2000, and 17.0 in 2004.  Bear in mind
              though that there were 2946 coal mines in 1995 and only 2008
              in 2004.  The amount penalty per mine actually went from
              $6.2K in 1995 to $8.5K in 2004.  The number of citations
              per mine also went from 27.9 in 1995 to 32.2 in 2004.  (I know
              citations != convictions, but unfortunately the MSHA site
              does not list convictions.)  It's deceptive to look at raw
              numbers, which did decrease from 1995 to 2004, because the
              number of mines dropped from 2946 to 2008 in the same period.
              The claims in the article you quoted are also deceptive in the
              same way, since the number of mines also decreased from 2001
              to 2004 (and the decrease in number of major fines is roughly
              similar to the decrease in the number of mines).  The other
              charges are somewhat difficult to answer since the article
              does not provide enough information (re penalty payment
              rate, for example, the article does not say what the non-Bush
              payment rate is).  As usual, I find the reporting to be sadly
              lacking and outright deceptive in this case.
        \_ http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002620.html
           \_ Accusations are cheap; show me some numbes.  From the MSHA, it
              looks like injury rate is down, fines are up, citations are up,
              and on-site inspection hours are up.  No one is arguing
              Sago is a well-run mine.  It is disheartening how low their fines
              have been.  But is that a recent thing, or have fines always been
              low?  According to the MSHA, the $ fine per mine has gone up
              since 1995 (from $6.2K to $8.5K in 2004).  What metric are you
              using to show that the industry is deteriorating or the regulatory
              body is doing a worse job?  I've listed mine and its source.
              Now please show us yours.  And hard numbers please; we're
              engineers here.
              \_ Nah, I don't have time to do the kind of research it would
                 require to prove this one way or another. One thing though,
                 did you pull out strip mines from your numbers? Strip
                 mines are much safer than shaft mines and most of the
                 newer mines are all strip mines.
2006/1/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41280 Activity:nil
1/6     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
        New economic numbers look rosey. Bush Confident About Economy
        for 2006.
2019/05/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 1351 - 1500 of 2024   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Bush: